Developing an international quality assessment framework for library education

Developing an international quality assessment framework
Berney-Edwards, S., Brooker, J., and O’Brien, K.
1 Introduction
The American Library Association (ALA), Australian Library and Information Association
(ALIA) and Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professional (CILIP) are the
lead bodies for the library and information professions in the USA, Australia and the UK.
Each has a role in assuring the quality of LIS education and between them have a wealth
of experience in developing and delivering accreditation.
This paper considers the challenges and opportunities in developing an international
framework with the aim of achieving better parity between accreditation standards
employed by Library Associations, promoting best practice and delivering greater work
mobility for students.
But the Higher Education context is complex and trying to achieve an international
accreditation scheme will be challenging. In reality, it is likely that it would be most
appropriate to consider standards, guidelines and best practice which might
compliment similar IFLA guidelines with the goal that this will infer a level of
equivalency.
2 Accreditation schemes
2.1 American Library Association
ALA operates a standards-based program self-assessment with regular verification
externally through peer review.
2.1.1 Scope of accreditation
ALA accredits Master’s programs of library and information studies in the US, Puerto
Rico, and Canada.
2.1.2 Assessment model
ALA has developed a robust set of standards that require use of an assessment system;
and ALA provides process, policies, and procedural guidelinesi.
Programs submit the self-study which is used by the accreditation external review panel
appointed by the ALA Committee on Accreditation (COA). The COA use site-visits as an
essential part of its assessment process, to verify the assertions made in the self-study.
The standards are grouped under the following headings:
I. Systematic Planning
II. Curriculum
III. Faculty
IV. Students
V. Administration, Finance and Resources

Within the ALA standards there is an emphasis on student learning outcomes
assessment (the extent to which student learning objectives are being met), the
analysis, and the decisions that follow from that analysis. The following graphic is used
as guidance to programs.
(Carey, 2011) ii
2.1.3 Role of competency frameworks
Standard II.4 expects universities to demonstrate that the design of general and
specialized curricula takes into account the statements of knowledge and competencies
developed by relevant professional organizations.
As well as ALA core competencies, universities have the flexibility to reference any of
the relevant core competency statements developed by allied professional associations
or ALA divisions.
2.1.4 Role of employers
Employers are integrally involved as program advisors. In standard I.1 It is expected
that the program’s mission and goals, administrative and educational, are pursued, and
its program objectives achieved, through implementation of an ongoing, broad-based,
systematic planning process that involves the constituencies that the program seeks to
serve.
2.1.5 Role of the market/industry in determining the quality of LIS education
Practitioner employers comprise half of each review body, each external review panel
and the ALA Committee on Accreditation.
2.2 Australian Library and Information Association
The Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA) establishes and maintains
standards for entry into the library and information profession in Australia.
Identify Student
Learning
Outcomes
Develop Measures
of Learning
Outcomes
Assess Learning
Outcomes
Organizeand
Interpret Results
of Assessments
Use Results to
Improve Student
Learning

ALIA’s course accreditation program fosters excellence in the provision of education for
the Australian library and information services sector and aims to ensure that all
students undertaking an ALIA accredited course experience a quality program, with an
appropriate curriculum delivered effectively and supported by the required resources.
Vocational Education- Library Technician qualification- Diploma of Library and
Information Services
Higher Education –Associate Librarian or Information Specialist qualification- Bachelor,
Graduate Diploma and Masters of Library and Information Science
It is worth noting that ‘Associate’ in Australia has a different meaning to ‘Associate’ in
USA. In Australia it indicates University qualified.
The ALIA course accreditation process for an Institution is through documentation and
may include a panel site visit for reaccrediting institutions and must include a panel site
visit for first time accrediting institutions. A fee is applicable for site visits. Ongoing
compliance requires attendance at an ALIA Library biennial Educators’ meeting or
annual LT meeting by at least one member of the teaching staff, and satisfactory
completion of an Annual Course Return (ACR) review. ALIA reaccreditation of an
accredited course at the end of the period of accreditation (usually five years) offers the
choice of a Red (free) process, no panel visit or a Gold (fee applicable) process including
a panel site visit. Interim accreditation for course changes within an accreditation period
requires completion of an ‘Application to amend an ALIA Accredited Course’ and is by
documentation only.
Courses may be offered in a variety of delivery modes but it is expected that all students
will have the opportunity to attain the same learning and development outcomes from
the course, regardless of whether delivery is online, distance learning, face-to-face or a
combination of all of these.
In accrediting courses ALIA takes into consideration:
 Graduate outcomes
 Employer engagement
 Resourcing
 Staff experience and qualifications
 Design of the course and its relationship to the ALIA core knowledge skills and
attributes statement
 Student feedback
 Quality assurance mechanisms
 Educators’ engagement with the profession
 Work placement opportunities for students.

The Role of the competency frameworks is to provide the basis for course accreditation.
ALIA has a Core Knowledge, Skills and Attributes statement which is central to our
course accreditation process and a Foundation Statement that has been negotiated with
Associations in allied fields. ALIA also uses the the competencies identified in the IFLA
School Library Guidelines for the assessment of Teacher Librarian courses.
ALIA engages with employers through Institutional membership and Board
representation, Board committee secondments, Special interest Groups and Course
accreditation panels. Employers are regularly invited to have input in the review of our
Core Knowledge, Skills and attributes statement. Employer involvement is central to our
course accreditation process and the creation of employer reference committees for
each accredited course by our accredited institutions is a compulsory requirement for
ongoing accreditation, minutes from two Course Reference Committee meetings held
each year need to be included in the Annual Course Return sent to ALIA.
A compulsory component of ALIA Course accreditation is the Course reference
committee mentioned above and in addition employers support a compulsory work
placement program for every student undertaking an ALIA accredited course. The
market supports our accreditation process by the inclusion of eligibility for Associate or
Library Technician membership of ALIA as a key requirement in job selection criteria.
2.2.6 ALIA joint accreditation process with the Australian Society of Archivists and
Records and Information Management Professionals Australasia
While each sector – archives, libraries and records – has its own requirements, the
Associations recognise that there are foundation skills and knowledge which apply to all,
under the broader ‘information’ heading.
The associations have agreed to a joint approach to course accreditation, with the aim
of:
 Ensuring a high standard of practice among information professionals
 Providing guidance about current education requirements in a rapidly changing
 environment
 Encouraging consistency across professional qualifications
 Streamlining the course accreditation process for educators.
Courses are assessed against the Statement of foundation skills and knowledge for
Australian information professionals working in archives, libraries, records management
and related positions and the individual associations’ core statements of knowledge,
skills and attributes.
2.3 Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals
The new model for the Accreditation of Academic and Vocational Qualificationsiii was
introduced in May 2013. The model introduced five criteria which are used by an
appointed assessor to review the quality of provision. CILIP staff manage the review, but

not being involved in decision-making means that they are able to work more closely
with the Learning Provider at the submission stage.
Whilst retaining rigour, Accreditation is now a more streamlined and user-friendly
process with a clear focus on accrediting good quality learning experiences which will
benefit learners and prepare them for professional practice.
Whilst CILIP accredits at programme level, all modules that form part of that
programme carry accredited status. This enables learning providers to offer CILIP
accredited modules as CPD opportunities and learners to benefit from being able to pull
together not just learning credits but accredited modules which could be pulled
together into an accredited programme.
CILIP also assesses relevant standalone modules or modules which may be offered as
part of a programme which would not be accredited by CILIP (eg Palaeography, Latin
and Rare Books).
There are five assessment criteria, all of which must be met. They are:
1. The relevance of the programme to the Professional Knowledge and Skills Base
(PKSB)
2. The learning provider is providing a high quality learning experience for students
3. The learning provider engages with employers to ensure that programmes are
relevant to students
4. Staff are up to date with current professional practice
5. Students are encouraged to engage with CILIP
Applications are made using CILIP’s Virtual Learning Environment. This enables learning
providers to easily share information with the CILIP team as they begin to build their
submission, for CILIP to manage the application process and assessment, and for
visibility of the status of the application.
There is a clear timeline and timescale for Accreditation. The assessment process takes
no longer than 8 weeks from the time the application is submitted. All timescales are
agreed in advance as part of CILIP’s ongoing engagement with Learning Providers.
Applications are reviewed by one of a team of assessors. Managing assessments in this
way has provided a greater level of distinction between those making the decisions and
the team providing advice and guidance. There is no Accreditation Board to ratify
decisions. Instead, the assessor uses the assessment criteria and clear guidance to make
a decision and the new Professional Registration and Accreditation Board simply
maintain an overview of the process and assessment criteria. Assessors are brought
together for training, development and information sharing twice a year.
In turn, clearer guidance and advice from the CILIP Team about what is being assessed
has ensured that there is a reduced reliance in requiring further clarification and
evidence as part of the assessment process.

Once an application has been submitted it is reviewed by the assessor and an initial
assessment completed. The initial assessment identifies any specific concerns which will
be passed to the applicant so they are aware of the topics for discussion at the
assessment visit.
All applicants receive a visit which will last for one day (though if there are a significant
number of programmes this may be extended to two). Applicants are told the result of
the application at the end of the visit and receive a written report a week after the visit.
The first assessment criterion requires learning providers to use a mapping tool to
demonstrate how programmes and modules map to the PKSB. The following table
identifies the minimum standards for awarding accreditation at each of the academic
levels.
Professional Expertise
Vocational programme: 50% in 4 of 8
Foundation degree programme: 50% in 6 of 8
Bachelors programme: 50% in 8 of 8
Postgraduate programme: 50% in 4 of 8
Doctorate programme: see below*
Generic Skills
Vocational programme: 50% in 2 of 4
Foundation degree programme: 50% in 2 of 4
Bachelors programme: 50% in 4 of 4
Postgraduate programme: 50% in 4 of 4
Ethics and Values
100% coverage in all areas for all programmes
Wider Library, Information
and Knowledge Sector
Context
Wider Organisational and
Environmental context
* Doctorate programmes must be directly relevant to the PKSB. Learning
Providers must demonstrate how they are grounded in a professional
expertise(s).
The learning provider must provide evidence of:
 Employer involvement in shaping programmes/modules
 Employers support/complement programme delivery
Employers are not specifically involved in the assessment process. The 2013 review
found that where assessment teams incorporated employers, assessors concentrated
on their particular sector, interests or requirements rather than looking at the overall
requirements to prepare students for professional practice.

2.3.6 Experience of accrediting international programmes
CILIP had previously accredited a programme taught in English in Cologne, however the
2013 review has made accreditation more accessible to the international community.
Since then, CILIP has accredited programmes in Dubai, Hong Kong, and Oman.
CILIP has found that the model of accreditation has been sufficiently flexible to accredit
programmes from different countries with different validation systems and
requirements in place. The PKSB has already demonstrated that it is international in
appeal and therefore learning providers are able to sufficiently map their programmes.
Learning providers are required to submit their application and evidence in English as
CILIP is unable to accept foreign language applications. However, this has not been a
problem so far.
The team have worked with learning providers to understand cultural differences to
ensure that the assessor and staff members are sensitive to different cultures.
The most significant challenge has been the additional costs of accreditation which have
to be passed onto the Learning Provider, however, those that have applied have done
so because they value the recognition CILIP Accreditation provides.
3 Analysis of the schemes
All three associations have a long tradition in accrediting LIS provision and many
similarities between the schemes can be found in the way they have set up their
assessment processes and in the key areas that they focus on to assess the relevance of
programmes particularly:
 Relevancy of course content to the profession
 Ensuring programmes respond to the needs of employers
 Quality of learning provision
 Teaching staff keep in touch with the profession
This, in itself, is a good starting point for considering an overarching international
framework as there is already a degree of commonality between programmes which
suggests that, if programmes have successfully been assessed by one accreditation
standard they would likely be successful if accredited by another professional body
ALIA and CILIP have developed wider schemes which assess a variety of different levels
of programme, whilst ALA’s accreditation scheme solely focuses on Masters level
provision. It is suggested that this reflects the differences in routes into the provision
and the learning of provision on offer in the three different countries as opposed to
organisational policy.
There are also differences in:
 Geographical scope
ALA and ALIA only accredit courses within their regions, whereas CILIP accredit
internationally.

 Relevancy of course to the LIS Profession
Whilst ALA and CILIP will accredit a wide range of courses that are relevant to
the profession, ALIA are currently running a joint scheme which enables them to
reach out further into the cultural, heritage and information sectors; accrediting
schemes in Records, Museums and Archives.
As already mentioned, there is a great deal of similarity between the assessment
models employed. A submission demonstrating how the university meets the standards
identified will then be followed up by a visit. Both ALA and ALIA use panels to visit the
learning provider whereas CILIP uses a single contracted assessor.
Competency frameworks are a key element of all three accreditation schemes. Both
ALIA and CILIP have developed a competency framework and institutions must be able
to demonstrate how their programmes respond to them. This is the same for ALA,
though in this scheme the institution has the flexibility to reference any relevant
competency frameworks for their programme (including ALA’s core competencies).
All associations believe that employers should be a key influence on the development
and delivery of courses. This is clearly evidenced in all three associations’ standards with
employers being involved in:
 Developing competency frameworks
 Development of learning programmes (course committees, engagement)
 Supporting programme delivery (presenting content, supporting work
placements)
Both ALA and ALIA specifically use employers as part of assessment panels. CILIP do not,
but ask the institution to demonstrate how they are using employers to ensure their
course content is relevant to students.
3.1.6 Commonality
It is interesting to note the level of similarity between the schemes. These areas of
commonality already begin to suggest some key areas which could be developed as part
of an international scheme. It is important to note that other associations and nations
undertake accreditation and, therefore, any future work should aimto assess all
accreditation schemes and the implications of each as this will have an impact on the
ease of developing an international scheme. For example, in Hungary the accreditation
process is defined by the government and delivered by an accreditation Board rather
than the Association of Hungarian Librarians.
4 Wider International Quality Assessment Landscape
The landscape is extremely complex and includes numerous international agreements at
government to government level and an extensive range of quality assessment
mechanisms. Both multilateral and bilateral agreements impact on how a qualification
assessment is recognised. National legislation and regulatory authorities also differ on

how and if they recognise qualifications and undertake education quality assurance
assessments. Recognition may even vary between states, provinces and regions within
nations. In many cases an assessment by a professional association offering a
credentialing evaluation service is considered advisory and will not guarantee credit for
a qualification for admission to an educational institution or recognition of certification
or registration in an occupation or acceptance by employers.
Attempts to clarify and codify solutions for international recognition of qualifications
are not new and have been instigated by international and national bodies for decades.
Agreements are regularly updated and reviewed in an attempt to keep up with the
increasing globalisation of economies and the mobility of workforces. International
arrangements include both broad free trade agreements such as the Trans Pacific
Partnership and the North American Free Trade Agreement and more specific
qualification only agreements such as the Lisbon Recognition Convention.
The Lisbon Recognition Conventioniv is an international agreement between 55
signatory states, jointly drafted by The Council of Europe, UNESCO, and Members States
of UNESCO's European and North America region. It has increasingly become a
foundation agreement and has also been ratified by the Council of Europe non-member
states Australia, Belarus, the Holy See, Israel, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and
New Zealand. Canada and the USA have signed but not ratified the Convention.
Other international agreements include:
 Regional Convention on the Recognition of Studies, Certificates, Diplomas,
Degrees and other Academic Qualifications in Higher Education in the African
States 1981 revised 2014v
 Convention on the Recognition of Studies, Diplomas and Degrees in Higher
Education in the Arab States 1978vi
 Asia-Pacific Regional Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications in Higher
Education 2011vii
 Regional Convention on the Recognition of Studies, Diplomas and Degrees in
Higher Education in Latin America and the Caribbean 1974 viii
 Convention on the Recognition of Studies, Diplomas and Degrees in Higher
Education in the Arab and European States Bordering on the Mediterranean
1976. ix
The range and spread of countries included in international agreements attests the
desire to support and define global workforce mobility. Most agreements focus on
higher education quality assurance mechanisms. For example the ‘Lisbon Recognition
Convention’ has also been important in supporting the Bologna Process: an ambitious
voluntary intergovernmental agreement between EU and non EU countries designed to
develop standards, procedures and guidelines for quality assurance of higher education
and create a peer review process of oversight for accreditation agencies and bodies.
The Bologna agreement is an example of an overarching quality assurance agreement
that relies on numerous mechanisms to undertake and support its aims. For example
the European Network of Information Centres in the European Region and National

Academic Recognition Information Centres in the European Union provide tools to
support these agreements.
Other tools include the development of qualification frameworks which support
international cooperation and understanding of qualification systems. Qualification
frameworks attempt to clarify terminology and describe equivalent competencies by
mapping and aligning learning outcomes which is especially valuable when comparing
qualifications across different languages. Examples include the European Qualifications
Frameworkx, Australian Qualifications Frameworkxi, and the New Zealand Qualifications
Frameworkxii.
Gatekeeping, policing and quality control are an important component of quality
assurance and the development of trust in qualifications. The mechanisms for
undertaking quality assurance supporting international agreements vary considerably
from nation to nation. Some countries rely mainly on government bodies to undertake
the policing role while others use a combination of credentialing and quality assurance
agencies, and or professional associations. Australia has the Tertiary Education Quality
standards Agency (a government funded independent national regulator overseeing
higher education institutions), the UK has the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher
education (monitoring and providing standards funded by the institutions) and the USA
has the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (an organisation which accredits a
range of accrediting organisations).
Accrediting organisations in turn have their own guiding quality assurance associations,
for example the International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher
Education, European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education, the Asia
Pacific Quality Network and the Arab Network for Quality Assurance in Higher
Education. Quality assurance agencies are usually non-governmental non-profit
organisations with the role of disseminating and facilitating best practice guidelines in
quality assurance. They also play an important role in reducing the prevalence of
‘accreditation mills’ or false accrediting agencies.
A supporting document in this process includes the UNESCO ‘Guidelines for quality
provision in cross border higher education’ xiiiparticularly the guidelines for professional
bodies:
... it is recommended that professional bodies responsible for professional
recognition:
(a) Develop information channels that are accessible both to national
and foreign holders of qualifications to assist them in gaining
professional recognition of their qualifications, and to employers
who need advice on the professional recognition of foreign
qualifications. Information should also be easily accessible to
current and potential students;
(b) Establish and maintain contacts between the professional bodies
of both sending and receiving countries, higher education
institutions/providers, quality assurance and accreditation bodies,

as well as academic recognition bodies to improve qualification
assessment methodologies;
(c) Establish, develop and implement assessment criteria and
procedures for comparing programmes and qualifications to
facilitate the recognition of qualifications and to accommodate
learning outcomes and competencies that are culturally
appropriate in addition to input and process requirements;
(d) Improve the accessibility at the international level of up-to-date,
accurate and comprehensive information on mutual recognition
agreements for the professions and encourage the development
of new agreements.
Another resource supporting quality assessment of relevance to professional
associations is the international standard ISO/IEC17024:2012 Conformity assessmentxiv
which ‘contains principles and requirements for a body certifying persons against
specific requirements’.
Within this complex landscape there appears to be a general consensus to work
towards ensuring that the procedures and criteria used in the assessment and
recognition of qualifications are transparent, coherent, reliable, fair and non-
discriminatory.
IFLA has a special role in fostering the development of quality LIS assessment. Within its
2016-2021 Strategic plan xvthe Building Strong Library Associations program supports
the development of international cooperation to further the role of LIS professional
bodies in creating a structure for developing an international quality assessment
framework.
4.1 Reciprocity
Within the International LIS community reciprocity agreements have developed as a
means of simplifying processes for LIS professional associations and the assessment of
an individual’s overseas qualifications. Some are based on recognising another LIS
professional association’s course accreditation process. ALIA currently has reciprocal
recognition agreements with CILIP and ALA.
The agreement between CILIP and ALIA enable holders of ALIA accredited qualifications
at post graduate level to seek Chartered membership of CILIP. Holders of graduate level
qualifications accredited by CILIP are eligible for ALIA Associate (librarian) membership.
ALA accepts an ALIA accredited master-level degree in library and information
management as equivalent to an ALA accredited master qualification. Holders of
Masters level qualifications accredited by ALA are eligible for ALIA Associate (librarian)
membership.
Another form of recognition can be based on association’s formal recognition of
individual member commitments to ongoing learning, for example between ALIA and
the Library and Information Association of New Zealand Aotearoa (LIANZA).

ALIA and LIANZA negotiated a Memorandum of Understanding that provides for
membership reciprocity between the professional category of ALIA Associate Certified
Professional AALIA (CP) and the Professional Registered Member category of LIANZA
(RLIANZA). This agreement also allows for recognition of cultural and language
knowledge differences and requirements.
5 Complexities of creating an international accreditation body
Whilst it is believed that the creation of an international accreditation body is
achievable, it would involve complexities including that a single accreditation scheme
delivered by an international body may not be recognised by education agencies in
some countries.
Other key challenges, opportunities and suggested approaches include:
 Multilingual processes and assessment and ensuring that assessors are
properly trained and vetted
Any international scheme would need to be multilingual. At the very least, IFLA
would need to use the seven recognised languages. However, this may pose a
challenge for some institutions wishing to be accredited as they would need to
translate all paperwork to be submitted for their application. To make
assessment more cost effective, it would make sense for assessors to be located
in the country of an institution wishing to be accredited. However, this will
require a significant amount of planning for the recruitment, vetting, training
and ongoing support of assessors.
 Recognising national/internal HE quality frameworks
Any international standard would have to recognise the regulatory frameworks
of each individual country if it is to remain relevant. In CILIP’s case, assessment
criteria simply call for the organisation to be able to demonstrate that they have
been validated through the relevant framework rather than a specific
framework.
 Recognising national skills and competency frameworks
If accreditation is to remain relevant for students, helping them to identify
programmes which will prepare them for professional practice, they must
respond to the relevant competency frameworks for that country.
 Understanding the different terminologies used in multiple education systems
Any international standard will need to make sense of the multiple terminologies
that are used across wide ranging interventional education systems. This will be
vital for any reciprocal agreements governing qualifications.
 Balancing investment with a cost-effective model for institutions
Delivering international accreditation is expensive. Whilst some institutions have
been interested in receiving accreditation from CILIP, the cost of sending an

assessor and member of staff over for the assessment has been prohibitive. In
any model where it is intended that a panel undertake the visit, this will be
further exacerbated.
6 Developing internationalaccreditation
Rather than developing an international accreditation scheme, it is suggested that an
overarching international framework for accrediting LIS education be created to
complement the IFLA Guidelines for Professional Library/Information Educational
Programsxvi.
Developed by key associations, the standard could provide a useful framework for:
 Ensuring that all students across the world that have undertaken a degree in LIS
are prepared for professional practice
 International reciprocity
 Licensing current models to other Library Associations
 Creation of national/regional schemes by other Library Associations
For those accrediting bodies that sign up to the standard, this could enable them to
offer a joint award; their own and a mark of IFLA accreditation. IFLA accreditation could
be developed as a standard which infers a level of reciprocity across the globe;
contributing to global mobility and the transferability of qualifications across borders.
6.1 Principles for the framework
In developing the framework, it is recommended that it should:
 Be student learning outcomes based
 Be robust yet flexible
 Enable regional and national differences
 Not adversely affect any part of the world
 Consider the role of competency frameworks
 Consider the importance and role of employers in developing learning provision
 Outline how the framework would deliver in relation to the reciprocity agenda
 Provide opportunities for mutual understanding among LIS educators
worldwide.xvii
6.2 Key issues which will need to be resolved
Before any scheme is further developed, a number of key questions need to be
answered and resolved to ensure that there is clarity about the role of the scheme and
how it will be developed. These include, but are not limited to the following:
 What is the purpose of the international scheme and what is the evidence base
for investing in the development of an international scheme?
o What is the value of an international accreditation scheme to the
student?
o Is the intention to ensure reciprocity across all qualifications so that any
accrediting body that works within the guidelines offers reciprocity of
accreditation status?
o Is the intention to deliver ease for Universities; creating a single
accreditation standard?

o Is the intention to standardise accreditation standards?.
 How will the framework respond to national competency frameworks, validation
schemes and accreditation frameworks? If the framework is to require
referencing of the IFLA Guidelines for Professional Library/Information
Educational Programs, what is the relation between the guidelines and the
frameworks and how can we ensure that employers have a role in developing
the guidelines? It is interesting to note that the guidelines are heavily focussed
on professional expertise with little mention of the wider generic skills and
attributes that employers currently ask for and that are vital for the profession
to develop.
 How will the framework ensure compliance with reciprocity schemes?
 If the framework is to offer an IFLA award, this suggests that associations need
to be assessed to ensure that they meet the requirements of the framework so
that they can offer this award. Who will manage this and how will there be a
cost to Associations?
6.3 Developing the framework
As a first step, it is suggested that an international working group be convened to
discuss the issues identified in this paper. This should involve key professional bodies
currently delivering accreditation, students, employers and academics. The working
group should then:
 Commission and undertake research to assess allaccreditation schemes in place
to understand commonalities and any issues in creating an overarching scheme
 Commission research into the needs of students and employers in developing an
international accreditation scheme to ensure there is a clear evidence base for
investment
 Develop the principles and themes articulated in this and assess the level to
which the guidelines can be developed
 Develop the framework and, if it is clear that this should be created as an IFLA
Standard, submit for international Review
 Consider how this will be Implemented and the value communicated across the
globe to learning providers, students, employers and associations
7 Conclusion
This paper highlights the complexity of the wider environment for assessing the quality
of LIS education. It suggests that, rather than creating a single international
accreditation standard, there could be value in developing an over-arching framework
which could support global mobility, the transferability of qualifications, reciprocal
agreements and provide students with the assurance that their qualification will
prepare them professional practice in the global market for information skills, and
suggests steps that should be taken to develop the framework.

8 References
i Standards,process,policies,andprocedures(AP3),AmericanLibraryAssociation,2015.
http://www.ala.org/accreditedprograms/standards
ii Carey,J. O. OutcomesAssessment:LinkingLearning,Assessment,andProgram
Improvement,2011 ALA Annual Conference.
iii http://www.cilip.org.uk/products-services/accreditation-learning-providers
iv LisbonConvention Conventiononthe Recognitionof QualificationsconcerningHigher
Educationinthe EuropeanRegion, 1997 http://www.coe.int/fr/web/conventions/full-list/-
/conventions/treaty/165
v Regional Conventiononthe Recognitionof Studies,Certificates,Diplomas,Degreesand
otherAcademicQualificationsinHigherEducationinthe AfricanStates1981
http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-
URL_ID=13518&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
vi Conventiononthe Recognitionof Studies,DiplomasandDegreesinHigherEducationinthe
Arab States1978 http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-
vii Asia-PacificRegionalConventiononthe Recognitionof QualificationsinHigherEducation
2011 http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-
viii Regional Conventiononthe Recognitionof Studies,DiplomasandDegreesinHigher
EducationinLatin Americaandthe Caribbean1974 http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-
ix Conventiononthe Recognitionof Studies,DiplomasandDegreesinHigherEducationinthe
Arab andEuropeanStatesBorderingonthe Mediterranean 1976
http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-
x EuropeanQualificationsFramework https://ec.europa.eu/ploteus/content/descriptors-page
xi AustralianQualificationsFramework2ndedition2013 http://www.aqf.edu.au/wp-
content/uploads/2013/05/AQF-2nd-Edition-January-2013.pdf
xii NewZealandQualificationsframework http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/assets/Studying-in-
NZ/New-Zealand-Qualification-Framework/requirements-nzqf.pdf
xiii UNESCO GuidelinesforQualityProvisioninCross-borderHigherEducation
Paris,2005 http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001433/143349e.pdf
xiv ISO/IEC17024:2012 Conformityassessment - General requirementsforbodiesoperating
certificationof persons
http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=52993
xv IFLA StrategicPlan2016-2021 http://www.ifla.org/files/assets/hq/gb/strategic-plan/2016-
2021.pdf
xvi http://www.ifla.org/publications/guidelines-for-professional-libraryinformation-
educational-programs-2012
xvii Abdullahi,I;Kajberg,L.,andVirkus,S.(2006) A paperpresentedatthe ALA Annual
Conference inNewOrleansForumonInternationalLibraryEducation.Internationalization
of LISEducationin Europe and NorthAmerica,27.

Developing an international quality assessment framework for library education

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Developing an international quality assessment framework for library education

Similar to Developing an international quality assessment framework for library education (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Developing an international quality assessment framework for library education