Conclusions

1
Conclusions

• (Yours, not mine!)
• Fiona Crozier, QAA
• f.crozier_at_qaa.ac.uk

2
From the ESG

• Section 4 Future perspectives and challenges
• An EHEA with strong, autonomous and effective
  HEIs, a keen sense of the importance of Q S,
  good peer reviews, credible QAAs, an effective
  register and increased co-operation with other
  stakeholdersis now possible and the proposals
  contained in this report will go a long way
  towards making that vision a reality.

3
From Peter Williams presentation

• National and ENQA reviews must share a level of
  credibility and trustworthiness that will ensure
  that all the Boards decisions on membership are
  based on sound and reliable evidence and can show
  a high level of consistency of outcome.

4
Possible conclusions in the following areas

• Nationally organised/ENQA organised reviews
  ENQA/EQAR membership confusion/consistency?
• Documentation the ESG, Guidelines for National
  Reviews, Briefing pack forENQA co-ordinated
  reviews
• Process the self-evaluation process, provision
  of documentation, panel/site visit, reporting
• The ENQA/EQAR approval processes

5
Nationally organised/ENQA co-ordinated/ENQA-EQAR
relationship

• Confusion?
• Consistency? (Of interpretation/process/decision-m
  aking/re the ESG)

6
Documentation

• The ESG
• Interpretation but also translation (Rafa
  Llavori/Seamus Purseil/Thierry Malan)
  (Agency/panel/ENQA/EQAR(?)) Substantial
  compliance not rigid adherence
• In particular criterion 3.6 (independence)
  common understanding/national context but from
  ENQA/EQARs point of view, is there a bottom
  line? (Consistency)
• Agency approach (Seamus Purseil)/national
  glossary
• Need for reconsideration/review? Do they do the
  job?
• The Guidelinesand the Briefing pack

7
Process

• Self-evaluation process and provision of
  documentation (ANECA and AQU)
• Training for panel members what about training
  or briefing for agencies undergoing review?
  (Michael Kraft and Rafa Llavori)
• Use it to set out strengths and weaknesses
  (Seamus Purseil)
• Are the guidelines for the SED sufficient to
  produce a document that allows the agency to make
  its case and for the panel to do its job?

8
Process contd.

• Panel/site visit
• Composition of the panel (Peter Williams)
  language ability but also the differentiation of
  roles?
• Pre-meetings? With/without the agency present?
• Guidelines on documentation/number of meetings
  etc?

9
Process contd.

• Reporting
• Structure
• Purpose
• Balance between accountability and improvement

10
ENQA/EQAR approval processes

• Same need for clear process and criteria as for
  the SED and process of external review
• What do ENQA/EQAR need in order to fulfil their
  roles as consistent, credible and transparent
  decision-makers?

11
My own inconsistencies!

• All points need to be considered from the point
  of view of the Agency under review, the panel
  doing the reviewing and ENQA/EQAR who need to
  make a decision.

12
So

• Were aiming to improve
• the guidance, communication/transparency (were
  not just working with QAAs) and process in each
  of the three stages (self-evaluation/external
  evaluation/final approval or review by ENQA/EQAR)
• A big job? Or not really a problem? Have we been
  here before and had these conversations before?

13
In the words of Bob Dylan

• He said his name was Columbus
• And I just said GOOD LUCK.