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 1
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 2
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 3
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 4
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 5
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 6
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 7
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 8
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 9
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 10
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 11
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 12
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 13
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 14
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 15
16. The Role of University Associations -
Pragmatic
“Act first to prevent worst”
Herb Kells
IAU Paris May 2007 16
