7th QHE Seminar – Transforming Quality. Melbourne 2002
Paper to be presented at the 7th Quality in Higher Education International
Seminar,
Transforming Quality, RMIT, Melbourne, October 2002
The paper is as submitted by the author and has not been proof read or edited by the Seminar organisers
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Quality in Accounting Education: The Neglected Views of Academic
Accountants
Kim Watty
This research began in July 1998, motivated by a strong interest to identify and
describe what is meant by quality in higher education (HE) generally and more
specifically what quality in my discipline area of accounting was all about.
Four years down the track, I am able to interpret what quality represents for some of
the key stakeholders in HE and accounting education (AE), but I still do not know
how my peers, academic accountants, conceive quality. Identifying what constitutes
quality, in HE in the first instance, and accounting education more specifically is a
major focus of the PhD.
IDENTIFYING THE CONCEPT OF QUALITY IN HE
Quality is a concept, and like other concepts, for example; conflict, dissatisfaction,
guilt and forgiveness, are not always observable. In many instances, a concept is a key
term created for the purpose of communication and efficiency (de Vaus 95).
My primary conceptual research question is:
What does quality in accounting education mean to academic accountants?
This is not about what academic accountants conceive is happening around them in
the prevailing environment as other authors have investigated (Vidovich, 1998; Parker
and Jary, 1995; Trowler 1998; Newton, 2000). It is in terms of the meanings they
attach to quality as academic accountants. On this aspect the literature provides little,
1
7th QHE Seminar – Transforming Quality. Melbourne 2002
if any, comment. Whilst the education literature (Ramsden, 1996; Baird 1988;
Entwistle and Tait 1990 and many others) provides an educational perspective of what
constitutes quality in teaching and learning in higher education generally, other
authors including Cooper, 2001 and Booth et al 1999 have focussed on accounting
education and associated issues of quality, primarily from a student perspective. In
both the education and accounting education literature the views of academic
accountants with respect to quality is not (widely) reported. Percy and Salter (1976)
may be the exception.
A review of the HE literature discussing change in the sector, particularly in relation
to quality, reveals two general ways of thinking about the concept of quality.
1. Context-specific meaning (Trow, 1991; Baird, 1988; Fry 95, Nordvall and Braxton,
1996).
Quality is attached to a context and/or identifying the context where quality becomes
meaningful. For example, references to the quality of: assessment, student intake,
teaching and learning, program design, educational experience.
2. Stakeholder-specific meaning (Vroeijenstijn, 1992; Middlehurst 1992; Harvey and
Green 1993). Here quality is considered having regard to a variety of stakeholders
having an interest in higher education and each potentially thinking about quality in
different ways.
I have concluded that it is this second grouping of the literature that provides the most
comprehensive discussion about the concept of quality in HE, rather than the first
context-specific grouping. Much of the literature that has been reviewed and falls into
the first category fails to acknowledge the potential for key differences in stakeholder
group’s conceptions of quality. In addition, by highlighting the context specific nature
of quality any attempt to define or attach meaning to the term is ignored. An example
may clarify what I mean by context-specific approaches to defining quality.
Professional accreditation of accounting courses is determined in accordance with the
Guidelines for Joint Administration of Accreditation of Tertiary Courses by the
Professional Accounting Bodies (1996), issued by the two peak professional accounting
2
7th QHE Seminar – Transforming Quality. Melbourne 2002
bodies, CPA Australia and the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia.
Throughout the document, quality is referred to in a variety of contexts including:
quality of the education process, quality of the educational experience, quality of the
student intake, quality of accounting programmes, quality of instruction and quality
assurance policies and practices. In this approach, quality is presented as a goal of the
process. Here we assume it is ‘high’ quality that is being referred to by the profession,
as opposed to ‘good’ or ‘poor’ quality.
Having decided it is the stakeholder- specific branch (category 2) of the literature that
I will pursue in my research, it worth highlighting three key authors who have lead the
discussion in the literature about the concept of quality in higher education from a
stakeholder-specific perspective.
Vroeijenstijn (1991) in his evaluation of external quality assessment in higher
education, suggests; “It is a waste of time to try to define Quality”. A less dismissive
and seemingly more considered perspective is put forward by him later when he refers
to the fact that all parties have an interest in quality, but not everyone has the same idea
about it. Here the view is presented that quality is relative to stakeholders. This
stakeholder-relative perspective, which provides a different view to the context-relative
consideration of quality in higher education, is further developed by others.
Middlehurst (1992) suggests that most ideas about quality are value-related and
judgemental, and that it is the kind of education that becomes a matter of dispute
between various stakeholders in the HE sector. The author asks: Where should
legitimate authority for defining quality in higher education lie?
Harvey and Green (1993) focussed on the impact of different conceptions of quality
from various stakeholder groups as influencing assessments of quality, and the
importance of understanding these different conceptions to assist understanding their
preferences in relation to the quality issue. Second, Harvey and Green contend that ‘this
is not a different perspective on the same things but different perspectives on different
things with the same label’ (Harvey & Green 1993, p.10). Five categories or groupings
3
7th QHE Seminar – Transforming Quality. Melbourne 2002
that are discrete but interrelated ways of thinking about quality are defined. These
groupings are:

Exception – Distinctive, embodied in excellence, passing a minimum set of
standards

Perfection - Zero defects, getting things right the first time (focus on process as
opposed to inputs and outputs)

Fitness for purpose – Relates quality to a purpose, defined by the provider

Value for money – A focus on efficiency and effectiveness, measuring outputs
against inputs. A populist notion of quality (government).

Transformation – A qualitative change; education is about doing something to
the student as opposed to something for the consumer: includes concepts of
enhancing and empowering: democratisation of the process, not just outcomes.
Key motivation for my PhD research in the following quotation from Harvey and
Green (1993):
“Looking at the criteria different interest groups use in judging quality
rather than starting with a single definition of quality might offer a
practical solution to a complex philosophical question. Not because it is
atheoretical, but because it recognizes and acknowledges the rights of
different interest groups to have different perspectives. On the other hand,
if we want to find a core criteria for assessing quality in HE it is essential
that we understand different conceptions of quality that inform the
preferences of stakeholders." (Harvey and Green, 1993, p. 29)
The categories used by Harvey and Green provide the basis for considering different
dimensions of quality in HE and developing the necessary indicators of quality which
can be used in this research. Stated another way, to move from my primary conceptual
research question (see p.1), which stated:
What does quality in accounting education mean to academic accountants?
there is a need to operationalise the conceptual question or statement. This can be
achieved by identifying the dimensions or characteristics of quality. It is anticipated
that the categories identified by Harvey and Green above will provide the framework
4
7th QHE Seminar – Transforming Quality. Melbourne 2002
for the dimensions of quality to be explored in this research. These dimensions or
characteristics may be thought of as the indicators of quality.
In summary, quality has been identified in the literature as a concept that, like other
concepts, is able to take on a number of disparate meanings. Vidovich (2001) for
example refers to “That chameleon quality: the multiple and contradictory discourses
of ‘quality’ policy in Australian higher education’ as the tile of her paper, where she
concludes that quality can be all things to all people, and that this is just the way
policy makers intend it to be.
However, for my research there is a requirement to be more specific about the
definition of quality or the definitions of various dimensions of quality. As a result of
my review of the literature, I have decided to use the 5 different ways of thinking about
quality presented by Harvey and Green (1993) as the basis of my definition of quality
or dimensions of quality to be explored. Whilst justifying my choice will be an
important part of the thesis, for the purpose of this paper there aretwo primary reasons
for this selection are: first, Harvey and Green are one the few authors writing about
quality in higher education that have discussed the issue in a coherent yet sufficiently
broad manner, indicative of and appropriate to their contention that a variety of
stakeholders hold a variety of conceptions about quality. And, second, the five
categories identified by Harvey and Green are the most widely cited concepts in the
literature post 1993. (A lot more needed here to justify selection. Won’t be too
difficult). To summarise, the framework provides a basis for future development of the
complex issues surrounding quality in higher education.
The data I gather from academic accountants will enable me to make some
judgements about how they perceive quality based on the dimensions presented by
Harvey and Green. In practice, the process of conceptual clarification continues as the
data is analysed (de Vaus 1995). The research for this PhD is both descriptive; What
is happening? and potentially explanatory Why is it happening. It is this second aspect
that might prove to be the most interesting. Stated another way, my focus is on
exploring what constitutes quality from the academic accountants perspective and
explaining why academic accountants think of quality in a particular way.
5
7th QHE Seminar – Transforming Quality. Melbourne 2002
Whilst other researchers have investigated the 2 questions that follow, further
consideration will be given to the value of gathering data for this current research to
inform the subsidiary research questions below.
2. How do academic accountants perceive quality is being defined and enacted around
them?
a) in their departments
b) in their faculties
c) in their universities
d) at the national level
Results can be compared with other studies that research change in the sector at the
individual academic level:

Vidovich (1998) – increased accountability (quality/QA focus)

Winter and Sarros
(2001)
–threatening (NPM,
managerialism,
surveillance, rewards)

Newton (2001)– intrusive, beauracratic, conformist (QA)

Trowler (1998) – (modular credit framework in the UK)

Stensaker (1997) – accountability leading to opportunity. Norwegian
research which takes a positive slant. (QA)
3. How are academics at the local level responding to changes and initiatives resulting
from their departments focus on quality?
Results can be compared with:

Trowler 1998:
Sinking:
discontent and accept the status quo
Swimming:
content and accept the status quo
Policy reconstruction: content and work around or change policy ME
Using coping strategies: discontent and work around or change policy.
6
7th QHE Seminar – Transforming Quality. Melbourne 2002

Vidovich (1998)
verbal objections (37%); outright refusal (33%); careless responses (21%) and
delaying tactics (9%).

Parker and Jary (1995) citing Merton (1968 still to read). Also cited by Trowler
(1998) Conformity; ritualism and retreatism.
IDENTIFYING THE KEY STAKEHOLDERS IN ACCOUNTING EDUCATION.
In an endeavour to identify stakeholders in higher education Parker and Jary (1995)
developed a three-layer model in their analysis of change in higher education in the
UK. The three levels (or layers) are labelled: National-structural (policy and structural
changes at the national level that affect all universities), Organisational (changes
internal to higher education – within universites) and Individual (actions motivation
and goals of the individual academic). Referred to as an ‘ordering tool’ by the authors
to assist their analysis of change, they also acknowledge that the model fails to
recognise the overlapping and two-way interactions that inevitably occur between
each level. However, the model is used by the authors to sort through the complex
issue of change in higher education and provides a framework for their argument that:
changes at the national-political level (National-structural) resulted in a university
environment (Organisational) where the power of university management was
increased and the autonomy and motivation of individual academics (Individuals) was
diminished (Parker and Jary, 1995). The three-layer change model was adapted by
Winter et al. (2001) as a model to assist situating responses from academics to higher
education reforms in Australian universities. Whilst the focus of their study is on the
quality of academic work life in a comprehensive University in Australia, their
analysis at the National-structural and Organisational levels assist their interpretation
of responses at their level or layer of focus- the Individual level.
Vidovich (1998) adopted a similar approach in her substantial study of Australia’s
higher education quality policy process between 1992 and 1995 adding an extra layer
to that used by Parker and Jary (1995). Data was collected at four levels of a policy
7
7th QHE Seminar – Transforming Quality. Melbourne 2002
trajectory used as the framework for her analysis. Referred to by Ball (1997) as a
‘genre of policy research in education’ and introduced into the literature by the same
author in 1994, the ‘policy trajectory’ approach provides a theoretical framework to
trace the development, formation and realisation of policy, from the perspective of
three different contexts. In this framework, the contexts are labelled: the context of
influence (macro level), where interest groups struggle over construction of policy
discourse; the context of policy text production (intermediate level), where text
represents policy, and the context of practice (micro level), where policy is subject to
interpretation and change.
At each layer of context, participants in higher education were represented. The macro
layer (National-structural) represented the Federal Minister for Education and the
Higher Education Council. The additional layer added by Vidovich was labelled the
intermediate level. At this level, members of the Council for Quality Assurance in
Higher Education (CQAHE) were represented. The CQAHE was established, by the
Federal government in 1992, to review the quality of all universities in Australia
during 1993–1995. The intermediate provided the bridge between the macro and
micro layers and a conduit through policy text at the macro level was reconstructed to
optimise its acceptability by universities. At the micro level, Vidovich subdivided the
classification into two. First, the micro level representing institutional managers
(Organisational), and then the mini-micro level representing grassroots academics
(Individual) - that is, academics clustered around disciplines in Schools or
Departments.
Each of the models by Parker and Jary (1995) Vidovich (1998) and Winter et al.
(2001), lend support to acknowledging the potential importance of the role of
government, their appointed quality agencies or bodies, universities and individual
academics in higher education. In addition, and specifically for this research,
unravelling each stakeholder groups’ meanings and perceptions of quality is the
challenge. A framework, adapted from the research of the three authors cited above
will be used in this research to assist the identification of the role of each of
stakeholder groups and is presented below (Diagram 1).
8
7th QHE Seminar – Transforming Quality. Melbourne 2002
Diagram 1. Four-layer framework for analysis of stakeholder views on quality in
higher education. (Adapted from Parker and Jary 1995; Vidovich 1998; Winter et al.
2001).
National-Structural Layer
 Commonwealth Government as stakeholder
National – Quality Assurance Layer
 AUQA as stakeholder
Organisational Layer
 Universities as stakeholders
Professional Layer
 Professions as stakeholders
Individual Layer
 Academics as stakeholders
9
7th QHE Seminar – Transforming Quality. Melbourne 2002
An important outcome of my first draft literature review has been the finding that the
other key stakeholders considered in my research; government, quality agency
(AUQA), universities and the accounting profession, appear to consider quality in
terms of fitness for purpose (where the purpose is defined by the provider) and/or
value for money. These conceptions ‘fit’ one, possibly two of the Harvey and Green
(1993) categories.
I will consider further the notion of how quality might be conceptualised ‘in isolation’
(perhaps at the government/AUQA/university level) compared with how it might be
considered ‘in situ’; that is at the professional level and academic accountant level.
The ‘in situ’ perspective is one where the concept is more closely related to the
discipline. The ‘in isolation’ perspective is a more generic view of quality in HE.
What I want to find is whether academic accountants in Australia think about quality
in accounting education in a manner consistent with these other key stakeholder
groups. Where conceptions of quality are the same or similar, a shared vision of what
constitutes quality in accounting education results. However, where there are
differences between and among stakeholders, there is potential for conflict in the role
of academic accountants.
ROLE THEORY
I am currently reviewing the role theory (conflict and ambiguity) literature, which
may provide the theoretical underpinnings for the data I collect and analyse. It is a
fascinating field, but I am still working to identify its usefulness to me. The discussion
that follows indicates my review of the theory to date.
Role conflict theory may assist me in determining the type of questions to ask. I am
looking at the meaning of quality coming from ‘role senders’ – government, AUQA,
universities, the profession AND identifying the meaning of quality from the ‘focal
persons’ perspective – the academic accountant. Where these meanings are different
conflict may arise and the role theory informs me of how to identify and measure
whether there is conflict…more to consider her, but I am interested in pursuing the
theory.
10
7th QHE Seminar – Transforming Quality. Melbourne 2002
The diagram below illustrates how role theory, in particular role conflict /ambiguity
may be used to identify questions, which will act as measures to be used in this
research.
Van Sell et al (1981) adapted from Kahn et al. 1964
Role Sender
Role
Expectation
Focal person
Sent Role
Organisational
Factors
(Variables)
Experience
Response
Personal
Factors
(Variables)
Interpersonal
Factors
(Variables)
Structure, Practices
Status, Needs, Values
Mode of communication
Role requirement
Education, Ability, Age
*Importance of Sender
Gender, Tenure
Mode of Interaction,
Level, Tasks
Feedback,
Participation
Profession
Faculty
Government
11
7th QHE Seminar – Transforming Quality. Melbourne 2002
A more thorough review of the role theory literature will assist me to decide the
appropriateness of it s application. However, if it ‘fits’ the theory assist to guide the
types of observations I am going to make, or stated another way, the nature of the
questions I am going to ask and the appropriate measures that I will be required to
use. Using an existing or modified questionnaire based on role theory also assist in
assuring the reliability and validity of the measures used.
Using role theory I can predict what might happen and there is evidence from the
literature of the existence of role conflict/ambiguity as a result of the changing HE
sector and researchers have identified the outcomes of this (see conceptual
proposition 3 above). My focus is change as a result of the quality agenda/goal in HE.
BUT I am less interested in predicting what might happen and more interested in the
WHAT is going on and using role conflict theory to explain the WHY
Having observed, reviewed the literature, discussed with other academics, attended
‘quality’ conferences etc. etc. I perceive a degree of conflict in the current
requirements of the role of accounting academics, and that which they see as their
current role – much of it resulting from changes associated with ‘improving quality’.
If this is the theory that is applicable, I would now like to test it, gathering data from
academic accountants and focussing on conflict as a result of differences in how
quality is defined by the role senders and the focal person.
12
7th QHE Seminar – Transforming Quality. Melbourne 2002
HOW ROLE THEORY MIGHT INFORM MY RESEARCH
Role Sender/s
4 identified
Expectations Role Sent
1. Government
2. Quality Agency
Focal Person
ACADEMIC
ACCOUNTANT
Experience
Response
3. University/Faculty/School
Type of institution;
Go8
ATN
Regional
Quality assurance mechanism
Characteristics of the
focal person
 Position
 Length of
service
 Teaching profile
 Research profile
 Professional
links
 Educational
background
 Discipline
expertise
 T&L Philosophy
(Saljo: levels 1-5)
4. Accounting Profession
Accreditation guidelines
13
7th QHE Seminar – Transforming Quality. Melbourne 2002
Findings from this research has the potential to inform the following:

Quality policy development at the National-structural layer

Activities and effectiveness of quality audits undertaken by Quality Agencies at
the National-QA layer

Quality policy development and implementation, particularly at the School
Department level in Universities – The Organisational layer

The Profession in relation to findings from academic accountants about what
quality means to them – Professional Layer

Academic accountants about how they and their peers perceive quality on a
number of fronts – The Individual Layer. (Also of interest to the profession)
FINAL COMMENTS
The question of whether academics have been ‘left out’ of quality conversations and
their views ignored is not surprisingly dependant upon the perceptions of those taking
part in the conversation. Perhaps fundamental differences in conceptions about quality
between key stakeholder groups has the potential to alienate academics from engaging
in discussions around quality in higher education. Whether these differences are real
or illusory is a finding that this research may resolve.
14
7th QHE Seminar – Transforming Quality. Melbourne 2002
Selected References
Abbott, P. (2000). Assuring academic standards and quality in higher education - The
UK experience. Twelfth International Conference on Assessing Quality in Higher
Education, Melbourne, Australia.
Baird, J. R. (1998). "Quality: what should make higher education 'higher'?" Higher
Education Research and Development 7(2).
Baker, C. R. (2001). "Whether there is an accounting profession? A commentary on
"whither (or wither) accounting education inn the new millennium" by
M.R.Mathews." Accounting Forum 25(4): 402-404.
Ball, C. (1985). What the hell is quality? Fitness for Purpose. Guildford, SRHE.
Ball, S. J. (1997). "Policy sociology and critical social research: a personal review of
recent education policy and policy research." British Educational Research Journal,
23(3): 257-274.
Becher, T. (1987). "Disciplinary Discourse." Studies in Higher Education, 12(3): 261274.
Becher, T. (1992). "Making audit acceptable: a colletial approach to quality
assurance." Higher Education quarterly 46(1): 47-65.
Becher, T. (1994). "Quality assurance and disciplinary differences." The Australian
Universities Review 37(1): 4-7.
Becher, T. (1999). "Quality in the professions." Studies in Higher Education 24(2):
225-235.
Buckmaster, N. (1999). "Associations between outcome measurement, accountability
and learning for non-profit organisations." International Journal of Public Sector
Management, 12(2): 186-197.
Campbell, T. I. and S. Slaughter (1999). "Faculty and administrators' attitudes toward
potential conflicts of interest, commitment, and equity in university-industry
relationships." The Journal of Higher Education 70(13).
Coaldrake, P. and L. Stedman (1999). Academic work in the twenty-first century.
Changing roles and policies. Australia, Department of Education, Training and Youth
Affairs-Higher Education Division.
Cooper, B. J. (2001). An investigation of the factors which impact on the approaches
to learning of accountancy degree students. School of Accounting and Law RMIT
Business. Melbourne, RMIT.
15
7th QHE Seminar – Transforming Quality. Melbourne 2002
de Vaus, D. A. (1995). Surveys in Social Research 4th Edition. Australia, Allen &
Unwin.
Dow, L. D. (2001). Strengthening quality assurance in Australian higher education.
Global Perspective on Quality in Higher Education. D. W. Dunkerly, . W.S.
Burlington, England, Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Erridge, A., R. Fee, et al. (1998). "Public sector quality: political project or legitimate
goal?" International Journal of Public Sector Management, 11(5): 341-353.
Ferris, J. M. (1992). "A contractual approach to higher education performance: with
an application to australia." Higher Education 24: 503-516.
Knight, P. T. and P. R. Trowler (2000). "Department-level cultures and the
improvement of learning and teaching." Studies in Higher Education 25(1): 69-83.
Marginson, S. (2000). "Rethinking academic work in the global era." Journal of
Higher Education 22(1): 23-35.
Marginson, S. and C. M. (2000). The enterprise university power, governance and
reinvention in australia,. United Kingdom, Cambridge Universiyt Press.
Mc Innes, C. (1996). "Change and diversity in the work patterns of Australian
academics." Higher Education Management 8(2): 105-116.
Mc Innes, C. P., . M; Anwyl,. J. (1995). "Australian academic's perspectives on
quality and accountability." Tertiary Education and Management 1(2): 131-139.
McInnes, C. (2000). "Changing academic work roles: the everyday realities
challenging quality in teaching." Quality in Higher Education, 6(2): 143-152.
McInnes, C., , Higher Education division, June. (1999). The Work Roles of
Academics in Australian Universities, Department of Education, Training and Youth
Affairs.
Middlehurst, R. (1992). "Quality: an organising principle for higher education?"
Higher Education Qarterly 46(1): 20-38.
Newton, J. (2000). "Feeding the beast or improving quality? Academics' perceptions
of quality assurance and quality monitoring." Quality in Higher Education 6(2).
Newton, J. (2000). Implementing an institution-wide learning and teaching strategy:
Managing change for quality improvement. New Millennium: Quality and
Innovations in Higher Education, Hong Kong.
Newton, J. (2001). Views from below: academics coping with quality. The End of
Quality? Sixth QHE Seminar in Association with EAIR and SRHE,, Birmingham
United Kingdon.
16
7th QHE Seminar – Transforming Quality. Melbourne 2002
Parker, L. and G. Gould (1999). "Changing public sector accountability: critiquing
new directions." Accounting Forum 23(2): 109-135.
Parker, L. G., . J.; Gray,. R. (1998). "Accounting and management research:
passwords from the gatekeepers." Accounting Auditing & Acountability Journal
11(4): 371-402.
Parker, M. J., . D. (1995). "The McUniversity: organization, management and
academic subjectivity." Organization: Ethical Values? 2(2): 319-338.
Pennington, D. (1991). "Australia's universities through the looking glass." Journal of
Tertiary Education Administration 13(2): 105-115.
Rizzo, J. R., R. J. House, et al. (1970). "Role conflict and ambiguity in complex
organizations." Administrative Science Quarterly: 150-163.
Sachs, J. (1994). "Strange yet compatible bedfellows: quality assurance and quality
improvement,." Australian Universities Review, 37(1): 22-25.
Trowler, P. R. (1998). Academics Responding to Change: New Higher Education
Frameworks and Academic Cultures,. Buckingham UK., The Society for Research
into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Vidovich, L. (1998). 'Quality' as Accountability in Australian Higher Education of the
1990s: A Policy Trajectory,. Perth, Murdoch University.
Vidovich, L. (2001). "That chameleon quality: the multiple and contradictory
discourses of 'quality' policy in Australian higher education." Discourse 22(2): ??
Vidovich, L. and P. Porter (1999). "Quality policy in Australian Higher Education of
the 1990's: university perspectives,." Journal of Education Policy, 14(6): 557-568.
Vroeijenstijn, T. (1992). External quality assessment, servant of two masters? The
Netherlands university perspective. Quality Assurance in Higher Education. A. Craft.
UK, The Falmer Press: 109-131.
Winter, R. P. Sarros, J. C. (2001). Corporate reforms to Australian universities: views
from the academic heartland, Monash University, Faculty of Business and
Economics: 1-20.
Winter, R. P. T., T.Sarros, . J. C. (2000). "Trouble at mill: quality of academic work
life issues within a comprehensive Australian University." Studies in Higher
Education 25(3): 279-294.
17