1. Accreditation and quality assurance in Europe Prof. Dr. Dirk Van Damme

2. Bern, 29 April 2004Dirk Van Damme2 Overview The concept of accreditation Accreditation as merging of recognition and quality assurance Quality: shifting concepts and approaches Accreditation: the context and functions Accreditation: risks and questions

3. Bern, 29 April 2004Dirk Van Damme3 The concept of ‘accreditation’ ‘ad-credere’: giving credit, trust to someone, a service, … norms of quality, security, safeness, …  ’standards’ on the basis of independent and expert review public statement market access (trustworthiness) and transparency (standardisation)

4. Bern, 29 April 2004Dirk Van Damme4 The concept of ‘accreditation’ ‘Accreditation is a formal and public statement by an independent agency and on the basis of an external quality review, that specific, previously agreed standards are met by a programme or institution of higher education’ consequences: ‘approval’, ‘recognition’, funding, state recognition of qualifications, …

5. Bern, 29 April 2004Dirk Van Damme5 The concept of ‘accreditation’ components: formal and public statement of binary nature by competent authorities ‘ex post’ or ‘ex ante’ previously agreed standards (basic or excellence) after independent and expert quality review of programme or institution (or intermediate) restricted time validity

6. Bern, 29 April 2004Dirk Van Damme6 Accreditation: recognition x QA Recognition in (continental) Europe state recognition of institutions, programmes and qualifications ‘a priori’ decision by Parliament or Government input criteria: curriculum, qualified personnel, … state recognition of ‘effectus civilis’ of qualifications, also giving access to professions in public sector

7. Bern, 29 April 2004Dirk Van Damme7 Accreditation: recognition x QA Quality assurance new regulatory system emerging since the late eighties separate from recognition focus on improvement, but with increasing importance of accountability function

8. Bern, 29 April 2004Dirk Van Damme8 Accreditation: recognition x QA Quality assurance external drivers probably more powerful than internal ‘autonomous’ demand massification and concerns for a potential decline of standards diminishing confidence of stake-holders in traditional academic quality management increasing demand for more accountability public demand for transparency (ranking) pressures to increase cost-effectiveness

9. Bern, 29 April 2004Dirk Van Damme9 Accreditation: recognition x QA regulation time accreditation recognition quality assurance

10. Bern, 29 April 2004Dirk Van Damme10 Accreditation: recognition x QA DisciplineProgrammeInstitutionTheme Evaluation 6116 Accredi- tation 212057 Audit 1210144 Bench- marking 10014

11. Bern, 29 April 2004Dirk Van Damme11 Accreditation: recognition x QA still other forms of QA than accreditation there are still recognition systems that do not rely on QA but there is a growing interconnection and even merging of both regulatory systems in this process, also the concept of quality itself has changed

12. Bern, 29 April 2004Dirk Van Damme12 Quality: shifting concepts and approaches two dimensions: low – high absolute – externally/internally relative four approaches excellence standards fitness for purpose basic standards consumer satisfaction

13. Bern, 29 April 2004Dirk Van Damme13 high low internally relative basic standards excellence standards absolute fitness for purpose consumer satisfaction externally relative

14. Bern, 29 April 2004Dirk Van Damme14 Quality: shifting concepts and approaches Quality is a multi-dimensional concept Changing definitions Any particular definition of quality at a given time-space configuration is function of interaction of those four components Importance of social context

15. Bern, 29 April 2004Dirk Van Damme15 Accreditation: the context and functions Criticisms of first generation QA systems externally imposed, not embedded in real institutional ‘quality culture’; still high tolerance for low quality in institutions bureaucratic overload, impact on autonomy, cost methodological weaknesses: benchmarking, self- referential teams, window-dressing, insufficient critical nature, role of disciplines, etc. conservatism, ‘canonisation’ vs innovation

16. Bern, 29 April 2004Dirk Van Damme16 Changing environment provokes shift … from egalitarian massification to a more competitive higher education market from domestic focus to internationalisation and globalisation towards differentiation in institutions and delivery modes from meritocracy to lifelong learning, eroding the only left monopoly, degrees Accreditation: the context and functions

17. Bern, 29 April 2004Dirk Van Damme17 towards next generation of QA arrangements providing clear statements on an increasingly complex reality guaranteeing transparency and convergence in a more diversified and international environment broadening focus while keeping up same concept of ‘academic quality’ emphasizing external functions while stressing autonomy, self-regulation and inclusiveness Accreditation: the context and functions

18. Bern, 29 April 2004Dirk Van Damme18 accreditation is expected to address some of the needs and to fulfil following functions: guaranteeing that agreed standards are met more independent, clear, sharp, benchmarked quality statements strengthening international functions, transparent student information and accountability linking QA to recognition and other regulatory systems Accreditation: the context and functions

19. Bern, 29 April 2004Dirk Van Damme19 accreditation thus implies a shift in the triangle of power in HE towards market relations but, accreditation still may be seen as a regulatory system in the middle of the power triangle Accreditation: the context and functions

20. Bern, 29 April 2004Dirk Van Damme20 Accreditation (Intl) MarketAcademia State recognition accreditation quality assurance ranking

21. Bern, 29 April 2004Dirk Van Damme21 Accreditation: risks and questions Still continuing debate on accreditation do we need it in developed HE systems? fixed standards in a complex, diversifying, dynamic reality? rewarding mainstream and mediocrity; jeopardising improvement functions by stressing accountability? additional bureaucratic burden to institutions and academics, sign of distrust?