Different approaches to QA: Programs? Institutions? Marie-Odile Ottenwaelter Maria Jose Lemaitre Carol Bobby Marion Moser

Traditional view Frequent classification of QA approaches: – Program accreditation – Institutional accreditation Either / or choice Sequential developments  Both – an ideal solution for a comprehensive system?

Actual observed patterns Both a pproaches are not completely exclusive: Program accreditation always has some institutional implications Institutional accreditation is reflected in a concern with the quality of programs offered Comprehensive approaches are not frequent Countries tend to select one preferred approach Having both is too resource demanding

Program evaluation: advantages Places the quality issues closer to the basic actors in the field (internal: teachers, students, administrative staff; external: professional associations, employers) Makes it easier to identify problems and find solutions Makes it easier to disseminate information, involve stakeholders and raise commitment Makes it easier to benchmark with other equivalent units in the country or abroad (shared mindframe) Provides significant information to students and employers Promotes mobility and mutual recognition

Program evaluation: drawbacks Many issues are not addressable from the program point of view because they depend on institutional policies May lose the overall picture Does not encourage innovation (because of the lack of cross-cultural, cross-disciplinary approach) May become too self centered At the system level: – Too slow (takes years to cover all programs) – Too expensive – Requires too many specialized experts (difficult to find in small HE systems)

Institutional evaluation: advantages Provides an overall, comprehensive view of the institution Implies the commitment of the top leadership, and helps them define policies and make decisions Helps build up a shared identity of the institution Strengthens institutional autonomy and promotes its primary responsibility regarding quality Helps leaders to put quality as a main goal for institutional management Important for local, national and international reputation and for supporting fundraising or other development needs At the system level, it is less resource-demanding, it makes it possible to cover the whole HE system in a shorter period of time  helps develop a higher education policy at the national level

Institutional evaluation: drawbacks Tends to stay at the level of senior management, and not permeate the whole community Makes difficult to develop a quality culture Cannot address the more specific issues at the department or program level Does not provide sufficiently strong consumer protection Does not provide sufficiently specific information for students or employers Makes it harder for academic staff or students to recognize themselves in the overall picture Cultural context is more important  it makes it more difficult to engage foreign evaluators

Let us remember: Expected outcomes from evaluation processes Embed quality into the day to day life of HEIs Improve management and academic practices within HEIs Make change and innovation possible Improve the quality of life of all actors within HEIs Improve student opportunities for effective learning, entry to the labor market, national and international mobility (as students and professionals) Provide students and employers with effective information about HE provision Respond to social, institutional and personal needs, in a particular cultural context Do so in the most efficient possible way

Some alternatives to the either/or approach… Focus on selected programs – National priorities – Large enrolments – Security issues Develop national reviews Focus on alternative levels (departments, service units) Place external review responsibilities with the institution (make program review a component of institutional evaluation) Other?

The floor is yours: In your specific context (country, HE system, stage of development of QA processes…) With relation to your specific needs and expectationsDiscuss Innovative initiatives that have been/could be taken? Why?