Context-sensitive quality assurance in USR-driven capstone design courses: a multiple-case study of industry- and culture-driven fields

Purpose This study aims to examine how quality assurance (QA) logics interact with university social responsibility (USR)-driven capstone design courses operating in contrasting field contexts. It addresses the challenge of evaluating practice-based, community-engaged programmes within audit-oriented QA regimes that privilege standardised, positivist indicators. Design/methodology/approach Drawing on two longitudinal capstone projects in Taiwan (an industry-driven project in an indigenous mountainous community and a culture-driven project in a rural agricultural township), the research uses a qualitative multiple-case study design. Using thematic analysis of course documents, student reports, field observations and stakeholder interviews, this study compares how field conditions and driving logics shape the rhythm of design thinking and the forms of quality evidence that can be generated. Findings The analysis identifies two distinctive operational patterns: a linear convergence mode in the industry-driven case and a recursive divergence mode in the culture-driven case. These contrasting rhythms lead to markedly different QA profiles: the industry-driven case produces traceable outputs aligned with conventional performance indicators (e.g., branded products, market responses), whereas the culture-driven case yields more diffuse but deeper process evidence (e.g., participation trajectories, shifts in local identity and patterns of community engagement). Applying uniform QA expectations to such heterogeneous USR capstone courses risks misrecognising educational value and undermining contextually appropriate pedagogy. Originality/value Building on participatory and developmental QA literature, this study empirically articulates the mechanism linking field heterogeneity to pedagogical rhythm, and subsequently to quality evidence profiles. Rather than merely advocating for context-sensitivity, it operationalises how QA frameworks can accommodate plural evidence portfolios while supporting accountability in capstone design education.