... a communications perspective External Review ... a communications perspective Anthony F. Camilleri NAKVIS Seminar 24th November 2011

What‘s in a Name? Audit Expert-Review objective Subjective Precise standards Broad guidelines verifies account of client Interprets account of client standards-based review

A reviewer is a communicator University Agency Review Team

Communicating with your team

review team What‘s in a name? a group of independent experts vs a unitary entity with its own mind

Inter-subjectivity different subjective perceptions, taken from different viewpoints, give an objective view of reality the quality basis of an external review requires consensus consensus is not a diplomatic nicety but an essential pre-requisite of quality

Requirements Know your team Know their profiles Know their inputs Discuss everything Do not divide responsibility for thought Form a consensus Before During After

Practical Actions Leave sufficient time for meetings at each stage Actively ask for team members‘ concerns Ensure each team member gets equal say

Communicating with the institution

Communication starts with self-assessment! This is not a one-way exercise! Has the institution told you enough to allow a successful review? What don‘t you understand, and who can answer your questions? Be active in schedule-design

Planning a Conversation ‚Get to know each-other‘ General discussion of role in quality culture Specific questions based on report Clarify all doubts

NEVER get into conflict with your interviewee confuse the interviewee with the institution Issue judgments or opinions leave the room with questions unanswered breach confidentiality

Demand RESPECT You are not a court of law! Self-assessment should be complete All interviewees promised must attend – even if review schedule changes All questions must be answered in full Any and all documents should be provided Logistical support should be provided

Communicating with the agency

„I don't know anything about art, but I know what I like“ Gelett Burgess

„I don't know anything about the standards, but I know quality when I see it“ Unnamed reviewer

Standards of Proof Some credible evidence Preponderance of evidence Clear and convincing evidence Beyond reasonable doubt

In your Report Be yourself Bad: The institution showed.... Good: The review team saw / found / observed....

In your Report Be specific Good: The institution showed.... Better: The review team found multiple and consistent examples of

In your Report Say what you know Bad: The institution lied.... Good: The review team found inconsistencies between evidence (x) and interview (y)

In your Report Give your opinion (where relevant) Bad: The institution is... / or NOTHING Good: We suspect, It seems likely that, Given the evidence available, etc...

In your Report Give your reasoning Bad: There is no quality. Good: When we consider (X), (Y) and (Z), we find it impossible to say there is quality

In your Report Link Effect with Cause Bad: Quality systems are in place, but there is no evidence of iterative improvement. Good: Quality systems are not effective, due to lack of iterative improvement procedures.

In your Report Be CLEAR Bad: The physical conditions of classrooms are in need of improvement. Good: Classrooms are in a dismal state – no heating, broken desks and no boards make it impossible to learn

Anthony F. Camilleri (anthony@kic-malta.com) Hvala! Thank-you for your attention Questions? Anthony F. Camilleri (anthony@kic-malta.com) Presentation available from: http://www.slideshare.net/anthonycamilleri/ Released under a Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 Slovenia License Under the following conditions: Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). You are free: to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work Share Alike — If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one. to Remix — to adapt the work