Precedents database
-
2.7 Complaints and appeals – AIC – Compliance (2023) appeals procedure
AIC
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 12/12/2023 Standard 2.7 Complaints and appeals Keywords appeals procedure Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “27. The Register Committee noted in its past decision that the chairperson of the agency’s board takes the final decision on the appeal and reviews the conclusions of the Appeals Committee. The Register Committee found this may affect the integrity of the appeals process. Additionally, the Register Committee found that higher education institutions do not have the possibility in case of institutional accreditation to appeal the report with AIC (only with ministry).
28. In the Substantive Change Report (of 2022-03-15), AIC elaborated further on the modalities for potential appeals against accreditation decisions regarding the Accreditation of foreign study programmes. The explanations, however, left open how such appeals would be considered.
29. In the review report the panel explained the possibility to appeal accreditation decisions made by the agency. The panel considers that the appeals procedure which has been developed, and the Appeals Committee which has been compiled in January 2022, brought the agency’s review procedures for Latvian higher education institutions in line with the standard.
30. The Register Committee considered the statement of the agency regarding the appeals and complaints procedures and noted that the amendments to the legislation were approved and an appeal procedure including independent appeals commission, has been set and is functioning. The Register Committee welcomes the progress made, but follows the panel’s concern on the lack of the transparency of external quality assurance system, due to a lack of written procedure for hearing complaints.
31. The Register Committee underscores the panel recommendations on the publication of the procedures to follow-up complaints concerning activities of the agency in Latvia and on the development of an appeals and complaints procedure for its accreditation procedure for foreign degrees.
32. Having considered the improvements by the agency, the Register Committee noted the need to further elaborate on the procedure for complaints. The Register Committee agrees on compliance for this standard.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.7 Complaints and appeals – ARACIS – Compliance (2023) Lack of transparency in the agency’s appeals processes, accessibility of Appeals Procedure
ARACIS
Application Renewal Review Targeted, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 12/12/2023 Standard 2.7 Complaints and appeals Keywords Lack of transparency in the agency’s appeals processes, accessibility of Appeals Procedure Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “11. In its past decision, the Register Committee raised a concern regarding the lack of transparency in the agency’s processes concerning the members nominated to act in the Appeals Committee. The Committee also noted at that time that the appeals procedure was not easily accessible on ARACIS’s website.
12. The Register Committee noted from the analysis of the panel that ARACIS has appointed a Permanent Appeals Commission for a four-year term and published the composition of the commission. The Committee also learned that as of October 2022, ARACIS has a new, integrated and simplified Appeals and Complaints procedure that can be easily retrieved from the website1.
13. The Committee welcomed the newly updated procedure, and while noting that the procedure is rather generic in what concerns handling of complains, that it satisfies the requirements of the standard.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.7 Complaints and appeals – CYQAA – Partial compliance (2024) appeals procedure, appeals committee
CYQAA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 04/04/2024 Standard 2.7 Complaints and appeals Keywords appeals procedure, appeals committee Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “7. In the decision on the for inclusion of CYQAA on the register (of 2019-11- 05), the Register Committee raised concerns regarding the shortcomings of the appeal procedure regarding the independence of the processes and the lack of clearly defined and formal complaints procedure.
8. From the external review report, the Register Committee learned that the Complains Policy is well established and higher education institutions have already used the possibility to submit a complaint (18 until the time of the external review).
9. The Register Committee further learned that CYQAA has revised its Appeals Procedure and now sets Advisory Committee of Experts (ACE) - groups of experts that examine and give opinion on the grounds for appeals to CYQAA’s Council. Despite the updated policy, the Council still holds the powers to make the final decision whether there are grounds for an appeal and can dismiss or uphold the appeal.
10. Furthermore, the Committee noted that the current Appeal Procedure is not entirely clear as it may suggest that an ACE is appointed for each appeal that is allowed for consideration by the Council, whereas in practice it is set only when the Council proposes to reject an appeal and needs advice from external experts.
11. The Register Committee welcomed (changes made related to the complaints procedure) and found the earlier concerns related to the complaints procedure addressed. The Committee, however, found that CYQAA is yet to demonstrate an independent functioning of the Appeals Procedure, where the final decision is not with CYQAA’s Council. Having in mind the shortcomings related to the Appeals Procedure, the Register Committee concurred with the panel conclusion that CYQAA only partially complies with ESG 2.7.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – ANQA – Partial compliance (2022) Student involvement in decision making bodies
ANQA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 25/10/2022 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords Student involvement in decision making bodies Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “ANQA involves students in the review panels, but not in the body
responsible for making decisions on accreditation (i.e. the Accreditation
Council). The Committee highlighted the panel’s recommendation and
found it necessary that the agency improves the involvement of students in
the decision-making process.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – AQAS – Partial compliance (2022) Involvement of stakeholders in governing bodies; Lack of clear policy for separation of EQA and consultancy activities and preventing conflict of interest
AQAS
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 14/03/2022 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords Involvement of stakeholders in governing bodies; Lack of clear policy for separation of EQA and consultancy activities and preventing conflict of interest Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The governing body (i.e. the Managing Board) of the agency does not involve other stakeholders than academics. The agency has not published any policy or statements in regards to the separation of its consultancy activities and preventing conflicts of interest.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – AI – Partial compliance (2021) Weak involvement of stakeholders in the governance of the agency
AI
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 15/10/2021 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords Weak involvement of stakeholders in the governance of the agency Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) Panel (28/09/2021)
RC decision Partial compliance “AI has no advisory or governing board, nor any other strategical decision making body (hence lacks stakeholder involvement in the governance of the agency).”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – PKA – Compliance (2019) clarification of external QA carried abroad
PKA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 19/06/2019 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords clarification of external QA carried abroad Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) Agency (21/05/2019)
RC decision Compliance “In its confirmation of eligibility, the Register Committee noted that PKA is expected to also address activities carried out by the agency abroad i.e. in Lithuania. As it was unclear on whether such activities were addressed in the external review of PKA, the Committee asked PKA for further clarifications. PKA explained that the external QA activities carried out in Lithuania only extended to one foreign branch of a Polish higher education institution and that the procedures and criteria used were identical with those applied in the case of national HE providers.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – NEAA – Partial compliance (2018) Stakeholder involvement in the governance and work of the agency
NEAA
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 13/06/2018 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords Stakeholder involvement in the governance and work of the agency Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “While the panel noted that a broader stakeholder involvement would require a change of the law on higher education and might have further implications for the overall functioning of the agency, the Register Committee underlined that the unbalanced composition of NEAA's governing bodies was already flagged as a matter requiring attention when NEAA was first admitted to the Register in 2009”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – NEAQA – Partial compliance (2018) Agency lacks explicit goals and objectives; limited stakeholder involvement i.e. consultations only where specific topics are addressed
NEAQA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 06/12/2018 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords Agency lacks explicit goals and objectives; limited stakeholder involvement i.e. consultations only where specific topics are addressed Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The Register Committee noted that while NEAQA’s strategy could provide a comprehensive framework for the agency's daily operations, the agency does not have in place mechanisms for effective forward planning and reviewing progress towards its objectives. Considering the involvement of stakeholders, the panel’s findings show that, since its last review, NEAQA has improved the engagement with employer representatives in its quality assurance activities. However, stakeholder involvement is still limited in agency's work given that neither students nor employers are involved in NEAQA’s governance.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – EAEVE – Compliance (2018) Involvement of students in agency’s decision making
EAEVE
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 13/06/2018 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords Involvement of students in agency’s decision making Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) Panel (02/06/2018)
RC decision Compliance “The Register Committee understood that the reference to “consultative services” in the report in fact referred to so-called “consultative visitations”. These are, however, not consultancy activities, but a step in EAEVE's external quality assurance scheme. […] The Register Committee underlined the panel’s suggestion that EAEVE should involve students in the ECOVE and the appeals panels, even though students do not request membership at the moment.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – AI – Partial compliance (2016) Stakeholder involvement
AI
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 03/12/2016 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords Stakeholder involvement Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The Register Committee flagged in its decision of inclusion the effectiveness of the Accreditation Institution’s activities to engage with its stakeholders.The Committee noted that the involvement of stakeholders is generally ensured trough consultations by the Ministry and the Accreditation Council (Review Report, p. 29), while AI’s only formalised form of stakeholder involvement is related to the thematic analysis of reports. The Committee concurred with the panel’s conclusion that AI should further develop stakeholder involvement in its governance and work in order to meet the agency’s objectives of enhancement and further development of quality assurance.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – AQ Austria – Compliance (2024) Clarity in activities and services; Conflicts of interest
AQ Austria
Application Renewal Review Targeted, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 02/07/2024 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords Clarity in activities and services; Conflicts of interest Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “10. While the Register Committee was able to follow panel’s conclusion that AQ Austria is compliant with the standard, it highlighted the panel’s recommendation that the agency should enhance the clarity on its ESG aligned activities and consultancy services for the public and add explanation on avoiding conflicts of interest on their website.
11. For the remaining standards, the Register Committee was able to concur with the review panel's analysis and conclusion without further comments.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – GAC – Partial compliance (2022) strategy not reflecting agency's central role, lack of broad discussions with stakeholders
GAC
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 25/10/2022 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords strategy not reflecting agency's central role, lack of broad discussions with stakeholders Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) Panel (05/10/2022)
RC decision Partial compliance “16. The panel considered that the lack of involvement of stakeholders beyond those individuals who are members of the agency bodies themselves might lead to a lack of critical distance. The panel thus saw a need for more and broader stakeholder feedback, and recommended more regular dialogues with stakeholder organisations on strategic and policy matters.
17. The panel further considered that GAC's strategic planning did not sufficiently reflect its central, pivotal role in the accreditation system (see also the comments under ESG 2.2 above). The panel saw a strong need for a broader discussion with agencies and all stakeholders on GAC’s role in the system and its strategy. In particular in view of the upcoming revision of the
Specimen Decree, the panel found such a discussion was urgent to define a strategy that describes clearly the role GAC plans to assume in the system and its mid-term priorities.
18. While the Register Committee appreciates that GAC has begun to plan a strategy process (see statement on the report), it considered that the panel's analysis under this standard points to important issues in GAC's governance and engagement with stakeholders; these are particularly important in light of GAC's pivotal role in the German system.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – ASIIN – Compliance (2021) stakeholder representation within the governance and separation of EQA within and outside the scope of the ESG
ASIIN
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ASHE Decision of 15/10/2021 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords stakeholder representation within the governance and separation of EQA within and outside the scope of the ESG Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “In its last decision, the Register Committee noted that ASIIN continued to use the term evaluation for type 2 evaluations against the panel’s recommendation, and thus the separation between activities within the scope of the ESG and those that are carried out as type-2 evaluations remained unclear. In its review report the panel considered that the difference made by ASIIN in various documents between type 1 evaluation and type 2 evaluation sufficiently differentiated between accreditation and consultancy. The panel further noted that ASIIN had a policy not to conduct accreditation for those institutions/ programmes at which consultancy activities were carried out, and that this was adhered to in practice (p.31). The Committee therefore concluded that this shortcoming has been addressed. The Register Committee noted that ASIIN’s Board of Directors consists exclusively of representatives of member organisations/institutions of ASIIN. The involvement of a diverse set of stakeholders (including students) in the governance of the agency is, however, ensured within the technical committees, Accreditation Commission and Certification Commission. Considering ASIIN’s expansion of its external QA activities to other areas the panel underlined that ASIIN should rethink its current structure and broaden its competences (p.16). The panel recommended a stronger involvement of the Board of Directors in the strategic direction of the agency and the monitoring of its strategic goals, while at the same time expanding its membership to also include external stakeholders (including a student member). The Committee underlined that recommendation of the panel.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – EQ-Arts – Compliance (2021) Separation of external QA and consultancy activities; possible conflicts between different types of reviews
EQ-Arts
Application Initial Review Focused, coordinated by ECA Decision of 18/03/2021 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords Separation of external QA and consultancy activities; possible conflicts between different types of reviews Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “16. [...] The report noted that it would be against EQ-Arts' principles to engage in paid consultancy work (p. 31), this was now explicitly ruled out in the Governance Framework.
17. The Register Committee considered that the issue has been addressed for consultancy in the classical meaning, i.e. paid services provided to institutions. The Committee therefore now concurred with the panel's conclusion that EQ-Arts complies with the standard.
18. The Register Committee nevertheless underlined that EQ-Arts needs to be mindful for all other current or future activities with individual higher education institutions – whether paid or unpaid – if they could be regarded as compromising its ability to make an independent assessment of that institution later on and, if so, to make adequate provisions to rule out carrying out a review of that institution.
19. In addition, the next external review of EQ-Arts should analyse whether any risk lies in the fact that the same higher education institutions might undergo an enhancement review first and request a formal assessment later, depending on whether such patterns occur in practice.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – FIBAA – Partial compliance (2022) student involvement in governance, lack of periodic and multi-annual Strategic Plan, a clear distinction between external quality assurance and its other fields of work
FIBAA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 07/02/2022 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords student involvement in governance, lack of periodic and multi-annual Strategic Plan, a clear distinction between external quality assurance and its other fields of work Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) Agency (24/04/2025)
RC decision Partial compliance “21. The panel found that in general stakeholders are involved in the work of the agency, but commented that there is no student representative on the Foundation Council and that FIBAA should consider broadening its stakeholders to include, for example, members of committees from outside of FIBAA’s circle of ‘customers’.
22. The panel also remarked that FIBAA does not have a periodic and multi-annual Strategic Plan but that the strategic goals are considered during the Council’s last meeting in the year. The review panel noted that the consideration of strategic matters takes place as and when necessary, but still in a highly informal process. The Committee concurs with the view of the panel that the current strategic planning process, should be further developed to ensure that it also considers the medium to long term future of the agency.
23. While the review panel confirmed that FIBAA has in place a strict separation between its consultancy services and external QA activities within the scope of the ESG, the Register Committee noted that this separation was not clear in the case of FIBAA’s Evaluation Procedures According to Individual Objectives (see also point 5 above).
24. The Committee underlined that agencies are expected to take appropriate precautions to prevent any conflicts of interest arising from the consultancy activities they carry out, as indicated in Annex 2 to the EQAR Policy on the Use and Interpretation of the ESG.
25. Considering the shortcomings of involving students in FIBAA’s governance and the lack of a comprehensive Strategic Plan and the separation of consultancy and external QA procedures, the Committee cannot follow the panel’s conclusion of (substantial) compliance but finds that FIBAA complies only partially with standard 3.1.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – THEQC – Partial compliance (2021) mentorship programme, participation of students, stakeholder consultation in the design of methodologies
THEQC
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 18/03/2021 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords mentorship programme, participation of students, stakeholder consultation in the design of methodologies Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) Agency (09/10/2020)
RC decision Partial compliance “ Considering the mentorship programme run by the agency, the Register Committee noted the panel's concerns related to the possible conflict of interest of such experts providing support to institutions.
Considering THEQC’ shifts towards institutional accreditation and the panels’ recommendation to ensure that any conflict of interest is avoided in this new activity, the Committee asked the agency whether it has kept or discontinued its mentorship programme.
The agency explained that the mentorship programme was a feature of the Institutional External Evaluation Programme (IEEP) and that THEQC continues to carry out evaluations for higher education institutions that have been newly established or have no graduate students. The agency added that it has launched a new call for mentors in 2020, and that those mentors are requested to declare possible interest when assigned to an institution, and to sign a Code of Ethics as well. The Committee further noted the panel’s concerns regarding the design of methodologies and other related documents, which are only discussed by the Council with no further consultation being carried out with THEQC’s stakeholders. The agency did not comment on this issue in its additional representation. The panel's analysis further shows that the participation of students is limited compared to that of other Council members, as no student was included in any of the Council’s commissions. In its additional representation, THEQC stated that students now actively participate in two additional committees.The Register Committee welcomed the clarification and steps taken to prevent conflict of interest in its mentorship programme and nomination of students in the agency’s governance. The Committee, however, underlined that the effectiveness of stakeholder involvement in the agency’s governance and work has yet to be fully reviewed in practice, in particular with regards to stakeholder consultation in the design of methodologies. The Committee therefore considered that THEQC complies only partially with ESG 3.1.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – ECTE – Partial compliance (2022) scope of the ESG, alternative providers, transparency of provider status, use of Bachelor and Master by alternative providers, need for clear distinction
ECTE
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ASIIN Decision of 28/06/2022 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords scope of the ESG, alternative providers, transparency of provider status, use of Bachelor and Master by alternative providers, need for clear distinction Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) Panel (24/04/2025)
RC decision Partial compliance “39. The ESG cover “higher education in its broadest sense, including that which is not part of a programme leading to a formal degree”. The ESG do not specifically limit what "higher education" means and explicitly include education that does not lead to a "formal degree".
40. The Register Committee therefore considers that the scope of the ESG needs to be determined by the quality and level of the education provided, not the legal status of the provider. That is, if an alternative provider offers learning opportunities with learning outcomes at higher education level, as defined by the QF-EHEA descriptors (see discussion under 2.1 above), the ESG can be considered applicable as a framework for the provider's quality assurance. [...]
42. In general, the ESG are underpinned by an expectation of utmost transparency; in turn, information that could be misleading, in particular for (potential) students, should be avoided. EQAR's Policy on the Use and Interpretation further specifies that the Register Committee should be guided by EQAR’s overall mission of ensuring transparency and trust when applying the standards.
43. Under ESG 3.1 it is expected that quality assurance agencies distinguish clearly and transparently between their external QA within the scope of the ESG and other activities. In line with the overall goal of transparency, the Register Committee applies the same principle to different types of accredited providers with a clearly different status and formal recognition; a lack of transparency about the status of different providers would bear the risk of confusing potential students as well as others, and might raise false expectations as to the status and recognition of credentials earned from those providers.
44. The guidelines to ESG 3.6 further reflect the expectation that an agency “establish the status and recognition of the institutions with which it conducts external quality assurance”. In view of the overarching goal of transparency, the Register Committee expects that agencies not only establish, but also make clear publicly the status of the different types of providers they work with.
45. In the interest of avoiding confusion and upholding the credibility of the education system, the Register Committee thus expects that the difference between formally recognised higher education institutions, awarding formally (nationally) recognised qualifications, and alternative providers must be absolutely clear for stakeholders and the general public.
46. The possible “dichotomy of national versus international, professional accreditation”, referred to by the panel in its clarification, cannot be a reason to accept unclarity or confusion about a provider's formal status. The Committee would consider it incompatible with the principles of the ESG if international, professional accreditation were to contribute to such unclarity or confusion. [...]
48. The Register Committee noted that a number of alternative providers accredited by ECTE used the terms “Bachelor” or “Master” for their education offer. The QF-EHEA employs these terms for officially recognised degrees. In the vast majority of EHEA jurisdictions, these terms are legally protected, similar to terms such as "university", "university college" or "higher education institution". Equally, in the public eye these terms are understood as implying formal recognition as a higher education institution.
49. The Register Committee therefore considers that the use of these terms by alternative providers is not acceptable unless it can be explicitly demonstrated that an alternative provider may legally use those terms.
50. ECTE's standards specified that “Programmes that are not recognized by national authorities should ensure that the qualification nomenclature that is used is appropriate and not in breach of protected terminology” (B.2.1, p. 27) and further that “If the qualification is not recognised by competent national authorities, this should be specified.” (B.5.1, p. 39)
51. It remained unclear to the Committee how stringently these provisions were verified or enforced in practice. In its response to the clarification request, the panel did not provide any further details. Given that the terms “Bachelor” and “Master” are typically legally protected, neither the fact that “ECTE's international experts from the field [...] are checking compliance with professional standards” (clarification by the panel) nor the fact that some of “ECTE’s members cannot or do not want to obtain a national recognition” (idem) give clear reassurance that the institutions in question use those terms legally.
52. The Register Committee considered that the unrestricted use by ECTE of the terms “Bachelor” and “Master” for alternative providers significantly reduced transparency and blurred, rather than clarified these providers' status. [...]
55. The fact that the majority of ECTE-accredited providers are alternative providers underpins the importance of ensuring that not only ECTE's own communication is clear, but also that ECTE ensures – through its respective standards and their stringent application – that the accredited providers themselves live up to the same level of clarity about their status.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – MusiQuE – Compliance (2020) conflict of interest in review processes
MusiQuE
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by NASM Decision of 02/11/2020 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords conflict of interest in review processes Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) Panel (24/10/2020)
RC decision Compliance “The Register Committee noted that MusiQuE has since its last review created a permanent student seat on its Board (as of November 2017). While the Register Committee welcomed this change, the Committee further underlined the review panel's recommendation on the need for a more diverse range of stakeholders to be involved in the governance and work of the agenc. The Register Committee sought clarification from the panel whether it had considered the risk that the critical friend reviews could have a supporting or consulting role, which could lead to the quality enhancement review issuing judgments on matters that MusiQuE's critical friends have assisted to develop or implement. The panel was asked how it satisfied itself that MusiQuE prevents such potential conflicts of interest.The panel explained that it considered the critical friend review as a first phase of the Quality Enhancement review. The panel argued that this process did not result in conflicts of interest as the MusiQuE processes were similar to other processes where institutions are required to follow-up on previous peer reviews and consider inputs from stakeholders”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – QANU – Compliance (2019) Separation of QA and consultancy activities
QANU
Application Renewal Review Focused, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 19/06/2019 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords Separation of QA and consultancy activities Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “The Register Committee noted that the agency put in place a policy regarding the separation of the agency’s consultancy and assessment activities which dictates that if a project coordinator is involved in providing consultancy services to a higher education institution, he/she is not allowed to act as a secretary in an assessment procedure for a period of at least five years. The panel further commented that QANU’s management have shown high awareness of of the need to avoid conflicts of interest and to ensure QANU’s independence in its activities. With regards to the stakeholder involvement in the governance and work of the agency, the panel found that QANU has formalised the involvement of students in the Board of the agency following its change in Statutes. While the Register Committee welcomed the involvement of students, the Committee further underlined the panel’s recommendation of ensuring a broader stakeholder involvement in the agency’s governing structure. In view of the changes introduced by the agency the Register Committee was able to follow the panel’s conclusion that QANU complies with ESG 3.1.”
Full decision: see agency register entry