External Review: a communications perspective

1,325 views

Published on

The presentation, delivered at the NAKVIS seminar in Ljubljana, looks at the role of the external reviewer in a review process, and offers advice for communicating with the review team, the institution being reviewed and the quality assurance agency.
The presentation is mainly focused on higher education quality reviews.

Published in: Education, Travel, Business
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,325
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
148
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
26
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

External Review: a communications perspective

  1. 1. External Review... a communications perspective NAKVIS SeminarAnthony F. Camilleri 24th November 2011 www.kic-malta.com
  2. 2. 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 www.kic-malta.com
  3. 3. A reviewer is a communicator UniversityReview Team Agency www.kic-malta.com
  4. 4. Communicating with your team www.kic-malta.com
  5. 5. What‘s in a name? review team a group of independent experts vs a unitary entity with its own mind www.kic-malta.com
  6. 6. 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 www.kic-malta.com
  7. 7. Requirements• Know your team • Know their profiles • Know their inputs• Discuss everything • Do not divide responsibility for thought • Form a consensus • Before • During • After www.kic-malta.com
  8. 8. Practical Actions• Leave sufficient time for meetings at each stage• Actively ask for team members‘ concerns• Ensure each team member gets equal say www.kic-malta.com
  9. 9. Communicating with the institution www.kic-malta.com
  10. 10. 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 www.kic-malta.com
  11. 11. Planning a Conversation• ‚Get to know each-other‘• General discussion of role in quality culture• Specific questions based on report• Clarify all doubts www.kic-malta.com
  12. 12. 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 www.kic-malta.com
  13. 13. Demand RESPECT• 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 www.kic-malta.com
  14. 14. Communicating with the agency www.kic-malta.com
  15. 15. „I dont know anything about art, but I know what I like― Gelett Burgess www.kic-malta.com
  16. 16. „I dont know anything about the standards, but I know quality when I see it― Unnamed reviewer www.kic-malta.com
  17. 17. Standards of Proof• Some credible evidence• Preponderance of evidence• Clear and convincing evidence• Beyond reasonable doubt www.kic-malta.com
  18. 18. In your Report• Be yourselfBad: The institution showed....Good: The review team saw / found /observed.... www.kic-malta.com
  19. 19. In your Report• Be specificGood: The institution showed....Better: The review team found multiple andconsistent examples of www.kic-malta.com
  20. 20. In your Report• Say what you knowBad: The institution lied....Good: The review team foundinconsistencies between evidence (x) andinterview (y) www.kic-malta.com
  21. 21. In your Report• Give your opinion (where relevant)Bad: The institution is... / or NOTHINGGood: We suspect, It seems likely that,Given the evidence available, etc... www.kic-malta.com
  22. 22. In your Report• Give your reasoningBad: There is no quality.Good: When we consider (X), (Y) and (Z),we find it impossible to say there is quality www.kic-malta.com
  23. 23. In your Report• Link Effect with CauseBad: Quality systems are in place, but thereis no evidence of iterative improvement.Good: Quality systems are not effective, dueto lack of iterative improvement procedures. www.kic-malta.com
  24. 24. In your Report• Be CLEARBad: The physical conditions of classrooms arein need of improvement.Good: Classrooms are in a dismal state – noheating, broken desks and no boards make itimpossible to learn www.kic-malta.com
  25. 25. 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 Under the following conditions:Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 Slovenia License Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (butYou are free: not in any way that suggests that they endorse• to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit you or your use of the work). the work Share Alike — If you alter, transform, or build• to Remix — to adapt the work upon this work, you may distribute the resulting www.kic-malta.com work only under the same or similar license to this one.

×