Database of Precedents
-
2.5 Criteria for outcomes – MFHEA – Partial compliance (2024) inconsistency in outcomes
MFHEA
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 11/10/2024 Standard 2.5 Criteria for outcomes Keywords inconsistency in outcomes Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “32. MFHEA has established a National Quality Assurance Framework (NQAF), which sets the parameters for external quality assurance in Malta. The Register Committee learned that at the time of the review, only the standards for the EQA Audit procedures mirrored the NQAF standards and that only for that procedure the criteria were clearly defined and ensure a consistent judgement of each standard.
33. The panel noted several inconsistencies regarding the rest of the MFHEA’s activities. For example, the NQAF standards for programme accreditation were not clearly referred to in the internal application form. Similar challenges were noted in the report for awarding university status to a provider; the report did not follow the application form where the NQAF standards were referred to.
34. Furthermore, the panel could not find further evidence that the agency had a clear approach which standards and procedure manuals are applied in its activities. The panel could not find consistency in the agency’s guidelines, standards and manuals. The panel was also unable to find guiding criteria for outcomes in order to ensure a consistent judgement for all types of providers and programme accreditation.
35. In its statement to the report, MFHEA informed that it addressed some of the panel’s recommendations in its revision of the Accreditation Manual for Higher Education Institutions; for the Committee, though, it was unclear what particular changes took place to address the shortcomings. The agency also explained that they will further address the shortcomings in the new
Programme Accreditation Manual in January 2025.
36. The Committee could follow the panel’s view and found that the agency did not have clear criteria for outcomes and that there is lack of consistency in their implementation for most of its procedures, as well as the lack of systemic approach to ensuring consistency in its decision making.
37. In its additional representation, MFHEA informed that the concerns raised by the Register Committee have been or will be addressed with the respective manuals for provider and programme accreditation procedures. Furthermore, MFHEA informed that at the given time, they are designing the guidelines for the Quality Assurance Committee and its peer reviewers to refine its criteria for outcomes.
38. The Register Committee noted the steps taken by MFHEA to formulate its criteria for outcomes for programme and provider accreditation procedures in a clear manner in its new manuals. The Register Committee, however, found it challenging to assess the practical implementation without a panel insight. The Committee also found that the new programme evaluation manual is yet to be adopted and implemented in practice. Following this, the Committee thus concurred with the panel’s conclusion that MFHEA complies partially with the standard.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.5 Criteria for outcomes – CTI – Compliance (2024) Lack of clear deliberation rules
CTI
Application Renewal Review Targeted, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 02/07/2024 Standard 2.5 Criteria for outcomes Keywords Lack of clear deliberation rules Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “7. In its last decision for renewal of registration (of 2019-11-05), the Register Committee found that CTI only partially fulfilled the requirements of the standard as the consistency in their decision making was not always assured - the Committee noted a lack of clear deliberation rules detailing the basis upon which specific decisions were made.
8. The Register Committee noted that CTI has introduced a new tool for ensuring consistency in its decision making – a deliberation table, used for synthesizing the panel assessments. Furthermore, the Committee understood from the analysis of the panel that the deliberation tables ensure consistency in the decision making process and make the review process more transparent.
9. Following the recent developments regarding the introduction of the new tool and its impact on consistency of the outcomes of CTI, the Register Committee was able to concur with the panel's conclusion, and found that now the agency complies with the standard.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.4 Peer-review experts – EQ-Arts – Compliance (2021) student involvement
EQ-Arts
Application Initial Review Focused, coordinated by ECA Decision of 18/03/2021 Standard 2.4 Peer-review experts Keywords student involvement Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “9. The review panel's report contained no analysis of the factors that led to that departure from EQ-Arts' own policies, but confirmed that all reviews since December 2018 have included students (8 reviews in 2019 and 1 in 2020); the panel further elaborated on EQ-Arts approach to recruiting and training experts.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.4 Peer-review experts – ECAQA – Partial compliance (2023) Lack of meaningful involvement of students in panels
ECAQA
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 03/03/2023 Standard 2.4 Peer-review experts Keywords Lack of meaningful involvement of students in panels Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “ECAQA involves a variety of stakeholders in the composition of panels, including students. The Committee learned that, in practice, the student reviewers were not always offered the training provided for the other panel members – such conditions made their involvement in some of the reviews nominal in the panel's view.The Register Committee found that despite the formal involvement, ECAQA's approach did not ensure meaningful participation of students in all review panels”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.4 Peer-review experts – ACQUIN – Partial compliance (2021) Strength of the training for reviewers
ACQUIN
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 13/12/2021 Standard 2.4 Peer-review experts Keywords Strength of the training for reviewers Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The training for experts relies mainly on sending materials to the experts and their self-
preparation and group briefings at the beginning of the review”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.4 Peer-review experts – ACPUA – Partial compliance (2021) Involvement of students in panels
ACPUA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 15/10/2021 Standard 2.4 Peer-review experts Keywords Involvement of students in panels Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The Register Committee learned that the absence of student
members in the panels in the two activities is due to the specificity of the
processes; the procedures focus on quantitative indicators on teaching
offering and the human, material and financial resources. The Committee, however, understood that the process goes beyond a
purely technical check of numbers, as it generally involves other experts also
making a qualitative assessment. The Committee could not agree with the
panel’s conclusion that the “student perspective could not add any value” in
those procedures and considered that the students’ views could offer an
important insight into the matters under observation in both activities”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.4 Peer-review experts – ACSUCYL – Compliance (2020) student involvement
ACSUCYL
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 22/06/2020 Standard 2.4 Peer-review experts Keywords student involvement Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) Panel (22/04/2025)
RC decision Compliance “The review panel noted that “when the nature of the assessment in question so requires, every effort is made to include non-academic experts [...] as well as students who are experienced in quality assessment in higher education“ (ERR, p. 39). As the Register Committee found the analysis unclear as to whether students are consistently involved in all ACSUCYL’s review panels, the Committee asked the panel for further clarifications. The panel explained that all evaluation procedures within the scope of the ESG include one student member. The panel further added that students are regarded as equal members of peer review expert panels.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.4 Peer-review experts – QQI – Compliance (2019) Panels composition
QQI
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 05/11/2019 Standard 2.4 Peer-review experts Keywords Panels composition Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “In its 2016 decision on QQI's Substantive Change Report, the Register Committee flagged for attention the composition of QQI expert panels.The Register Committee noted that some specific QQI processes do not use traditional expert panels, but are based on desk assessments or dialogues by QQI staff, followed by subsequent decisions where applicable. The Committee noted that the decision-making bodies include all perspectives that are otherwise required to be on a panel.The Committee further noted that wherever panels are deployed their composition complies with the standard. The Register Committee therefore concluded that the flag was addressed and concurred with the panel's conclusion that QQI complies with the standard.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.4 Peer-review experts – CTI – Compliance (2019) Involvement of students in panels.
CTI
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 05/11/2019 Standard 2.4 Peer-review experts Keywords Involvement of students in panels. Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “In its previous decision the Register Committee flagged CTI’s involvement of students in some of its review panels. The Register Committee noted that CTI works together with the French engineering students’ association, to ensures that CTI systematically nominates student experts in all its regular programme evaluations. The review panel also confirmed that in its CeQuInt evaluations, CTI’s panel include among its four experts also a student. ”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.4 Peer-review experts – NCEQE – Compliance (2019) Panels composition
NCEQE
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 19/06/2019 Standard 2.4 Peer-review experts Keywords Panels composition Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) Agency (06/06/2019)
RC decision Compliance “The review panel learned that in cases where expert panels are employed for follow-up and case-based monitoring procedures their composition is not clearly defined. The Register Committee therefore asked the agency for further clarifications. The agency explained (see letter of 06/06/2019)) that its guidebook on follow-up procedures define the composition of panels for both follow-up and case-based monitoring procedures. The agency stated that it ensured that a student representative is included in the composition of the expert panel for both procedures.The Register Committee therefore concurred with the panel’s judgment that NCEQE is compliant with ESG 2.4.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.4 Peer-review experts – Unibasq – Compliance (2019) Involvement of students in review committees
Unibasq
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 05/11/2019 Standard 2.4 Peer-review experts Keywords Involvement of students in review committees Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “In the previous review this standard was flagged due to the fact that the regular involvement of students on all review committees was yet to become practice.The Committee noted that steps have been taken in order to ensure regular involvement of students. Participation of students in evaluation procedures isguaranteed by the Basque Country Act 13/2012.The Register Committee therefore concluded that the flag has been addressed and concurred with the panel's conclusion that Unibasq (substantially) complies with the standard”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.4 Peer-review experts – NOKUT – Partial compliance (2018) student involvement in pilot procedures
NOKUT
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 06/12/2018 Standard 2.4 Peer-review experts Keywords student involvement in pilot procedures Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The Register Committee noted that there was no systematic inclusion of students in all expert groups for initial, paper-based accreditation as yet, but that the inclusion of students in these expert groups was currently piloted.[…] the Register Committee concluded that the flag has only been partially addressed so far, pending the pilot advancing to become a full regular part of the process.. The Committee further noted that there were no students included in the panel for the pilot on Combined Education and Research Evaluations, but appreciated that the panel was confident that students would be involved in case this activity became permanent.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.4 Peer-review experts – NEAA – Compliance (2018) Nomination of students in expert panels
NEAA
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 13/06/2018 Standard 2.4 Peer-review experts Keywords Nomination of students in expert panels Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) Panel (30/05/2018)
RC decision Compliance “The Register Committee, however, noted that there might remain a residual risk of influence as long as higher education institutions could de facto exercise a veto right in the nomination of students to the NEAA pool of experts. While not impeding the agency's compliance with the standard (nor with standard 3.3) the Register Committee consider that NEAA should be mindful of that issue (also in regard to operational independence under standard 3.3).”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.4 Peer-review experts – AI – Compliance (2016) Involvement of external experts
AI
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 03/12/2016 Standard 2.4 Peer-review experts Keywords Involvement of external experts Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “In its decision of inclusion Register Committee flagged the involvement of external experts in initial accreditation.The Register Committee noted that the accreditation panels of AI now include at least three members and consist of professional experts with higher education experience and a student for each procedure. ”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.4 Peer-review experts – AEQES – Compliance (2017) student involvement
AEQES
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 20/06/2017 Standard 2.4 Peer-review experts Keywords student involvement Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “The review panel confirmed that students are now engaged in all AEQES evaluation panels, as full members of the panels, except for follow-up evaluations.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.4 Peer-review experts – HAHE – Partial compliance (2023) Student involvement in panels
HAHE
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 03/03/2023 Standard 2.4 Peer-review experts Keywords Student involvement in panels Panel conclusion Non-compliance Clarification request(s) Agency (14/02/2023)
RC decision Partial compliance “Further efforts made by the
agency to engage students in the review panels - in particular
students have participated in the first reviews by the time the Register Committee analysed the application. While the panel’s
conclusion of non-compliance did reflect accurately the situation at the
February 2022’s site visit, the Committee concluded that the agency is now
partially compliant with the standard. The Committee, however, underlined
that further evidence of the actual involvement of the students in the panels
will be needed and has to be thoroughly analysed in the next review of HAHE”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.4 Peer-review experts – EVALAG – Compliance (2024) Training of experts
EVALAG
Application Renewal Review Targeted, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 02/07/2024 Standard 2.4 Peer-review experts Keywords Training of experts Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “13. The Register Committee understood that the panels involve students and other stakeholders on equal bases. Furthermore, the Committee learned that despite the regular (online) trainings offered by the agency, very few people have enrolled for this online trainings.
14. The Register Committee therefore followed the panel’s conclusion that the agency continues to comply with the standard. The Committee, however, shared the panel’s view that the agency should find ways into making training opportunities more attractive for the reviewers to attend.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.4 Peer-review experts – FIBAA – Partial compliance (2022) training of experts & pool of experts limited
FIBAA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 07/02/2022 Standard 2.4 Peer-review experts Keywords training of experts & pool of experts limited Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The panel noted that FIBAA uses several videos and Power Point presentations to provide training for the experts, but critically remarked that there is not a face-to-face training and no clear obligation for experts to undertake such a training (or supervision on it) prior to an accreditation or certification procedure. The training is done on a voluntary basis. The review panel also underlined that the training materials for the English-speaking experts may not be as comprehensive as those received by German-speaking experts.
In its analysis the review panel also noted that the number of international experts in the pool of experts to be rather limited given FIBAA’s international profile and that there is minimal rotation and renewal among the experts.
Considering the above mentioned shortcomings, the Register Committee cannot follow the panel’s conclusion on (substantially) compliant but finds that FIBAA complies only partially with ESG 2.4.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.4 Peer-review experts – ZEvA – Partial compliance (2022) monitoring expert training, experts trained by other agencies
ZEvA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 14/03/2022 Standard 2.4 Peer-review experts Keywords monitoring expert training, experts trained by other agencies Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “19. In addition,the review panel noted that the proportion of experts who take part in training had increased, but not sufficiently in the panel's view. The panel also considered that the process for recruitment and selection of experts was largely informal.
20. The Register Committee welcomed the newly introduced systematic monitoring of experts' training and prior experience, as explained in ZEvA's representation. The Committee agreed that ZEvA may of course rely on experts who were previously trained by other agencies operating in Germany.
21. At the same time, the Committee considered that 50% was not a very ambitious goal for the share of formally trained experts. Moreover, the Committee had some doubts whether prior experience should be considered entirely equal to a formal training.
22. While the Register Committee welcomed that the involvement of students was now ensured and that ZEvA is taking steps to enhance the formal training of experts, the Committee considered that the level of formal expert training remained weak to date. The Register Committee was therefore unable to concur with the panel, but considered that ZEvA only partially complies with the standard.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.4 Peer-review experts – PKA – Compliance (2024) students
PKA
Application Renewal Review Targeted, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 04/04/2024 Standard 2.4 Peer-review experts Keywords students Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “17. In its past decision, the Register Committee noted PKA’s intention to ensure students are part of the peer-review expert groups in the opinion-giving process and to contribute as equal partners.
18. In its 2023 review report, the panel noted improvements related to the wider engagement of different stakeholders’ groups. In the case of opinion-giving procedure, panels are now composed of members of relevant sections or experts appointed from the academic teachers expert group and a student.
19. The Register Committee thus concluded that the agency has addressed the issues raised in the previous report and therefore can follow the panel’s judgment of compliance.”
Full decision: see agency register entry