IAU Paris May 2007 1

2nd IAU Global Meeting of Associations IAU/CPU

The role of associations in enhancing quality of higher education at home and

abroad

Richard Lewis

31 May - 1 June 2007, Paris, France

IAU Paris May 2007 2

Components of the QA debate

Elements of Convergence

Elements of Divergence

QA and Accreditation

QA for measurement or QA for enhancement?

How should Associations of Universities interact with QA?

IAU Paris May 2007 3

Elements of Convergence – pretty universal

External Quality Assurance almost universal

• Based on 4 stage model – self-evaluation, peer review, site visit, publication of report or simply the decision

• Most EQAs say that they are concerned with Quality Enhancement as well as QA for Accountability

• Greater emphasis on outputs rather than inputs

IAU Paris May 2007 4

Elements of Convergence – mainly related to developed systems

• More explicit statements of “expectations” – qualification frameworks, Tuning educational structures in Europe"

• Greater pressure to report on student learning outcomes.

IAU Paris May 2007 5

Elements of Divergence

• Focus of External Quality Assurance – the institution, the programme or both (2005 INQAAHE survey) (18%, 13%, 69%)

• Accreditation or not (Accreditation 70%) but in practice probably not all that significant.

• Publication of full report or not (46%:54%)• Grading (11%) or not. NAAC India, grade

institutions on 9 point scale

IAU Paris May 2007 6

Publications – contrasting positions

“Reports should be published and should be written in a way which is clear and readily accessible to its intended readership”

(ENQA 2005)

In contrast practice in the United States is that

“In most cases, the Commission will not make reports public without the permission of the college or university.”

(HEC 2003)

IAU Paris May 2007 7

A Fundamental Divide?

To what extent do agencies (and systems) seek to encourage the creation of a Quality Culture and discourage the emergence (or the continuation) of a Compliance Culture?

IAU Paris May 2007 8

A Compliance Culture

exists when the all the effort is put into attempting to obtain a positive accreditation decision, or a good evaluation report from the external quality assurance body, rather than actually improving the quality of what is being done.

In such a situation departments (institutions) are encouraged to hide weaknesses rather than to demonstrate that they have identified them and are taking steps to overcome them

IAU Paris May 2007 9

A Quality Culture

occurs when

Quality assurance is built into the everyday life of the institution and is seen to be a shared responsibility of all members of the academic community, staff, both academic and administrative, and students

IAU Paris May 2007 10

The characteristics of a quality culture 1

• There is recognition on the part of staff and students of the need for a system that ensures accountability and strives to enhance quality.

• A quality culture places students at the centre.• That there is a shared ownership of quality within the

institution.• Leadership is inspirational rather than directorial and

leadership is provided by those at all levels of the institution – it is not thought to be the preserve of senior management.

• A quality culture depends on partnership and co-operation, the sharing of experience and team working.

IAU Paris May 2007 11

The characteristics of a quality culture 2

• Quality assurance should not be seen to be the preserve of senior management or of a specialist quality assurance unit.

• Wherever possible steps should be put in place to prevent actions which diminish quality from taking place rather than concentrating on mechanisms that will identify that things have gone wrong. Or, when that this is not possible, weakness should be identified quickly and remedial action initiated as soon as possible.

• External critical evaluation should be welcomed from a range of informed sources. When dealing with an external quality assurance or accreditation agency an institution that has adopted a quality culture will not seek to hide their weaknesses but will instead share with the agency the problems that it has identified and the steps that it is taking to overcome them.

IAU Paris May 2007 12

QA for measurement or enhancement?

Is there a conflict?Will institutions (departments) be more likely

to seek to enhance quality if they are being measured?

Is the answer culturally dependent?

IAU Paris May 2007 13

Some speculations on future convergence 1

• QA systems will themselves become more diverse (within themselves) to reflect the increasing diversity of higher education systems.

• There will, in many countries, be a move towards the “institutional audit” approach where the focus of the external review of the university will be how it assures itself of the quality of its courses. In turn this will mean that for more attention will be paid to models of internal quality assurance.

IAU Paris May 2007 14

Some speculations on future convergence 2

• Institutions will be allowed to choose their quality assurance body from an approved list (which is already the case in a number of countries) and that the list will include agencies based in overseas countries.

• That there will be a move away from the “big bang” site visit every five or six years to one of a less intensive but more continuous relationship between the agency and the institution. (A number of US regional accreditation agencies are already experimenting with such an approach).

IAU Paris May 2007 15

The Role of University Associations -Idealistic

Encourage Universities to be accountable to both the academic disciplinary communities and to the general community.

IAU Paris May 2007 16

The Role of University Associations -Pragmatic

“Act first to prevent worst”Herb Kells

IAU Paris May 2007 17

My thanks for your attention.