EQAR staging
Menu
Register
Register
Registered agencies
Registered agencies
Former entries
Decisions
Decisions
Open applications
Precedents database
Withdrawn applications
Criteria for inclusion
Analysis of Decisions
Application process
Application process
Guide for Applicants and Registered Agencies
Verification of eligibility
Application Forms and Documents
Checklist
Fees
Reporting and renewal
Complaints
Complaints
Complaints form
Database
Database
Search
Search
CB reports
EA reports
By institution
By report
Frequent Questions
User Survey
DEQAR project
DEQAR project
News
Knowledge base
Knowledge base
Country information
ESG
Official documents
Official documents
Archived Versions
In-house reports
Presentations
External QA activities
Cross Border Quality Assurance
Cross Border Quality Assurance
Background
Key considerations
Map: System Openness
Cross-border QA activities
Joint programmes
Joint programmes
Background
Definitions
Application
Agreed Standards
Agreed Procedure
National implementation
Projects
Projects
DEQAR
EQUIP
RIQAA
Accreditation mills
FAQ
News
News
Newsletter archive
About
About
Introduction
Mission
EQAR Structure
EQAR Structure
Members
General Assembly
President
Executive Board
Register Committee
Appeals Committee
Secretariat
Bologna Process
E4 Group
Register
Register
Registered agencies
Former entries
Decisions
Open applications
Precedents database
Withdrawn applications
Criteria for inclusion
Analysis of Decisions
Application process
Guide for Applicants and Registered Agencies
Verification of eligibility
Application Forms and Documents
Checklist
Fees
Reporting and renewal
Complaints
Complaints form
Database
Database
Search
CB reports
EA reports
By institution
By report
Frequent Questions
User Survey
DEQAR project
News
Knowledge base
Knowledge base
Country information
ESG
Official documents
Archived Versions
In-house reports
Presentations
External QA activities
Cross Border Quality Assurance
Background
Key considerations
Map: System Openness
Cross-border QA activities
Joint programmes
Background
Definitions
Application
Agreed Standards
Agreed Procedure
National implementation
Projects
DEQAR
EQUIP
RIQAA
Final Conference
Seminar for QAAs
Accreditation mills
FAQ
News
News
Newsletter archive
About
About
Introduction
Mission
EQAR Structure
Members
Becoming a Governmental Member
General Assembly
President
Executive Board
Register Committee
Appeals Committee
Secretariat
Bologna Process
E4 Group
Survey test
eqar.eu
Survey test
Survey test
test test test 123 456 789 test test test
Step
1
of
4
25%
I am filling out this survey as a current/former:
*
external review panel member
coordinator of an external review
EQAR-registered QA agency representative
other (only if none of the above apply)
If multiple options apply, choose the most recent status, or one that best applies in filling in the survey.
If other, please specify your experience in working with QA:
*
If other, please specify if your current position and organisation:
*
In what capacity(-ies) did you act in your last review panel?:
*
Chair of the review panel
Academic representative
Student representative
QA agency representative
Secretary of the review panel
None of the above, I was just a member of the panel
In how many external QA reviews against ESG 2015 have you been involved so far?:
*
In one QA agency review
In up to three QA agency reviews
In more than three QA agency reviews
In preparing for the external review have you consulted (one or some) of the following?
*
Register Committee's Previous Decisions (for registered agencies))
Substantive Change Report Decisions (for registered agencies)
Agency's reports in DEQAR (if applicable)
EQAR's Database of Precedents (after 2022)
EQAR's documentation (EQAR's Policy on Targeted Reviews, Guide for Agencies, U&I, EQAR's Procedures for Application etc.)
None of the above
In preparing for an external review, how often have you consulted EQAR's Policy on the Use and Interpretation of the ESG?
*
Frequently
Occasionally
Rarely
Not at all
ESG Part 2: Standards and guidelines for external quality assurance
ESG 2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance
Standard
: External quality assurance should address the effectiveness of the internal quality assurance described in Part 1 of the ESG.
Interpretation of ESG 2.1:
*
In line with the principles of the ESG, higher education institutions themselves bear the main responsibility for the quality of their higher education provision and its assurance. Institutions are thus responsible for implementing the processes described in Part 1 of the ESG internally.
At the same time, ESG standard 2.1 has crucial importance as it specifies the quality dimensions that external quality assurance processes should be concerned with, i.e. validating that institutions have indeed implemented these process.
The quality dimensions described in ESG Part 1 are often also tackled by other monitoring processes (e.g. based on statistical data), implemented either by QA agencies themselves or other organisations. Where ESG-type quality assurance activities draw on findings from such other processes, this should be described in the external review report.
[new]1. It should be ensured that in the consideration of alternative providers offering full degrees at higher education level that aspects related to the use of higher education terminology and references to the level of the national qualifications framework for higher education and to the Framework for Qualifications of the European Higher Education Area are specifically addressed.
[new]2.The Register Committee expects that ESG Part 1 is addressed to the extent that is suitable for non-traditional forms of study programmes i.e., micro-credentials.
I found this interpretation:
clear, sufficient and reasonable
unclear, insufficient or unreasonable
Reports should at least address (ESG 2.1):
*
Do the agency’s evaluations, audits and accreditations address the effectiveness of internal QA processes?
Are standards 1.1 – 1.10 effectively translated into the agency’s evaluation/audit/accreditation criteria?.
How did the panel verify that the agency’s external QA processes address all the standards of ESG Part 1 in practice?
[new] How does the agency ensure the appropriate use of bachelor, master or doctoral education related terminology and the correct referencing to the level of the national qualifications framework for higher education and to the Framework for Qualifications of the European Higher Education Area in case of alternative providers ?
I found the reporting requirements
:
clear, sufficient and reasonable
unclear, insufficient or unreasonable
Please comment (ESG 2.1):
*
ESG 2.2 Designing methodologies fit for purpose
Standard
: External quality assurance should be defined and designed specifically to ensure its fitness to achieve the aims and objectives set for it, while taking into account relevant regulations. Stakeholders should be involved in its design and continuous improvement.
Interpretation of ESG 2.2:
*
3. If the agency works in different jurisdictions it should take into account the relevant regulations of the jurisdiction in which the reviewed institution is based.
[new]4. In considering the design of external QA processes, issues related to the inconsistent implementation of processes relate to the agency’s compliance with standard 2.3, while issues related to the inconsistent use of criteria relate to the compliance with standard 2.5. Concerns specifically relating to ESG 2.2 may be e.g., with the rigidity or unclarity of the external QA system, with the blurred boundaries between different EQA activities, lack of stakeholder involvement in the design of the QA system etc.
I found this interpretation:
clear, sufficient and reasonable
unclear, insufficient or unreasonable
Reports should at least address (ESG 2.2):
*
How does the agency develop, review and update its processes and criteria?
Are the methodologies fit for the purpose as set by the agency itself?
How are stakeholders involved in the design and continuous improvement?
For activities within a framework not determined by the agency itself (e.g. national legal framework, European quality label):
How does the agency satisfy itself that it can implement the set framework in compliance with the ESG?
How does the agency translate the set framework into specific processes and criteria
Are the methodologies fit for the purpose set by the framework?
How are stakeholders involved in the design and continuous improvement of those parts of the methodology under the agency’s control?
I found the reporting requirements
:
clear, sufficient and reasonable
unclear, insufficient or unreasonable
Please comment (ESG 2.2):*
*
ESG 2.3 Implementing processes
Standard
: External quality assurance processes should be reliable, useful, pre-defined, implemented consistently and published. They include:
a self-assessment or equivalent;
an external assessment normally including a site visit;
a report resulting from the external assessment;
a consistent follow-up.
Interpretation of ESG 2.3:
*
5. A “consistent follow-up” means that the agency should at least verify the implementation of any conditions imposed with or attached to its decisions
and follow-up on the implementation made
.
6. If a site visit is organised as a video conference or similar, it should be ensured that the expert group is in a position to validate the evidence provided by institutions and to carry out interviews of different stakeholders as it finds appropriate.
I found this interpretation:
clear, sufficient and reasonable
unclear, insufficient or unreasonable
Reports should at least address (ESG 2.3):
*
Are the agency’s external QA processes pre-defined and published?
Are the processes implemented consistently?
How are the key features in the standard implemented by the quality assurance agency in each of its activities?
If no site visits are used, how does the agency validate the evidence provided by institutions?
If responsibility for one or several element(s) of the process is assigned to another body, how do the agency and that other body interact in implementing the process?
[new](if the case) Is all the above ensured for the agency’s cross-border external QA activities?
I found the reporting requirements:
clear, sufficient and reasonable
unclear, insufficient or unreasonable
Please comment (ESG 2.3):
*
ESG 2.4 Peer-review experts
Standard
: External quality assurance should be carried out by groups of external experts that include (a) student member(s).
Interpretation of ESG 2.4:
*
7. In reviews across borders the agency should ensure that the groups include experts with sufficient knowledge of the higher education system where the review takes place.
[new] 8. The agency is expected to ensure that each reviewer is adequately trained prior to undertaking an external quality assurance procedure. Providing written briefings is not considered sufficient.
I found this interpretation:
clear, sufficient and reasonable
unclear, insufficient or unreasonable
Reports should at least address (ESG 2.4):
*
The agency should make use of a wide range of experts with different perspectives, including those of institutions, academics, students and employers / professional practitioners.
At least for reviews across border the agency should include experts from a variety of national origins.
The agency should ensure a consistent approach to the selection of experts as well as appropriate training or briefing of experts.
The agency needs to pay close attention to avoid conflicts of interest of experts, especially when the agency operates within small scientific or professional communities.
I found the reporting requirements:
clear, sufficient and reasonable
unclear, insufficient or unreasonable
Please comment (ESG 2.4):
*
ESG 2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Standard
: Any outcomes or judgements made as the result of external quality assurance should be based on explicit and published criteria that are applied consistently, irrespective of whether the process leads to a formal decision.
Interpretation of ESG 2.5 [new]:
*
9. The agency is expected to have implemented reliable consistency-ensuring mechanisms and processes.
10. The agency should ensure that its own mechanisms are implemented consistently and in all of its external QA processes.
I found this interpretation:
clear, sufficient and reasonable
unclear, insufficient or unreasonable
Reports should at least demonstrate (ESG 2.5):
*
How are the agency’s criteria for each of its activities published?
What methods does the agency employ to ensure consistency in the application of its criteria?
I found the reporting requirements:
clear, sufficient and reasonable
unclear, insufficient or unreasonable
Please comment (ESG 2.5):
*
ESG 2.6 Reporting
Standard
: Full reports by the experts should be published, clear and accessible to the academic community, external partners and other interested individuals. If the agency takes any formal decision based on the reports, the decision should be published together with the report.
Interpretation of ESG 2.6:
*
11. All reports should be published in full, including those that resulted in a negative decision or conclusion;
the publication of summary reports or a separate committee report (without the full expert report)
does not fulfil the requirement of the standard.
12. If decisions are taken by other bodies, the agency should facilitate access to those.
[new]13. Any outcomes or judgments resulting from an external QA report should be made available in a reliable documentation ensuring the transparency in the agency's decision-making. The mere publication of the date, and length of the accreditation period does not suffice.
14. Reports have to be published for all ESG-type evaluations of institutions or programmes, irrespective of whether they take place in the agency’s base country or elsewhere, within the EHEA or beyond.
15. The wording “by the experts” implies that the experts should have authority over the final report, irrespective of who actually writes it.
I found this interpretation:
clear, sufficient and reasonable
unclear, insufficient or unreasonable
Reports should at least address (ESG 2.6):
*
How are reports made accessible to the public for all types of reviews?
How does the agency ensure that its reports are clear and understandable to the general academic community, external partners and other interested individuals?
Whether decisions by the agency are published together with the report, if applicable?
I found the reporting requirements:
clear, sufficient and reasonable
unclear, insufficient or unreasonable
Please comment (ESG 2.6):
*
ESG 2.7 Complaints and appeals
Standard:
Complaints and appeals processes should be clearly defined as part of the design of external quality assurance processes and communicated to the institutions.
Interpretation of ESG 2.7:
*
16. The agency may have specific processes for complaints and appeals, or a single process that incorporates both. It is decisive that both appeals and complaints (as defined in the guidelines) can be made, irrespective of how these are called in the agency’s local language.
17. Agencies need to provide own, internal processes for complaints and appeals. It is not sufficient if a decision can only be appealed in a court of law.
18. It is in the nature of an appeal that it should be considered by another body than the one whose decision/report is appealed. If that is not the case, the appeals process is considered not effective.
19. The appeal instance’s power may be limited to referring a decision/report back for a new consideration, without being able to change the decision/report itself.
I found this interpretation:
clear, sufficient and reasonable
unclear, insufficient or unreasonable
Reports should at least address (ESG 2.7):
*
How does the agency handle concerns by institutions about the conduct of the process or those carrying it out (i.e. complaints as described in the guidelines)?
How can institutions question the formal outcome (e.g. report, decision, judgement, recommendation) of the process if they can demonstrate that the outcome is not based on sound evidence, that criteria have not been correctly applied or that the processes have not been consistently implemented (i.e. appeal as described in the guideline)?
Are the appeals and complaints process(es) easily accessible and clearly communicated to institutions?
[new] (if the case) Is all the above ensured for the agency’s cross-border external QA activities?
I found the reporting requirements:
clear, sufficient and reasonable
unclear, insufficient or unreasonable
Please comment (ESG 2.7):
*
ESG Part 3: Standards and guidelines for quality assurance agencies
ESG 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance
Standard
: Agencies should undertake external quality assurance activities as defined in Part 2 of the ESG on a regular basis. They should have clear and explicit goals and objectives that are part of their publicly available mission statement. These should translate into the daily work of the agency. Agencies should ensure the involvement of stakeholders in their governance and work.
Interpretation of ESG 3.1:
*
[new]20. Agencies make clear distinctions and ensure clear communication (e.g. on their website, in publications and external quality assurance reports) on their different fields of activity so as to ensure there is no risk of confusion in particular, between those activities within the scope of the ESG and other similar activities.
I found this interpretation:
clear, sufficient and reasonable
unclear, insufficient or unreasonable
Reports should at least address (ESG 3.1):
*
How do the agency’s goals and objectives translate into its daily activities?
How are the different stakeholders involved in the agency’s governance and work; does the panel consider the level of involvement sufficient?
How does the agency ensure a clear distinction between external quality assurance and its other fields of work, if applicable (i.e. clear communication and preventing conflict of interest? The Interpretation below and Annex 2 should be taken into account in that regard).
I found the reporting requirements:
clear, sufficient and reasonable
unclear, insufficient or unreasonable
Please comment (ESG 3.1):
*
ESG 3.3 Independence
Standard
: Agencies should be independent and act autonomously. They should have full responsibility for their operations and the outcomes of those operations without third party influence.
Interpretation of ESG 3.3:
*
[changes]22. Independence is considered at risk when one actor or stakeholder has a dominant role in the agency, e.g. the ability to decide on a majority of members in a governing body or on the agency’s operational structures and staff appointment, to unilaterally influence the agency’s decision-making, or to decide on the foundational acts of the agency.
[changes] 23. Including different stakeholders in the agency’s decision-making bodies safeguards the agency’s independence when it is ensured that no stakeholder can dominate over the others (multi-representational governance). In order to ensure that stakeholder involvement does not infringe on the agency’s independence, the respective individuals should not be appointed as organisational representatives but they are expected to serve in their personal capacity.
I found this interpretation:
clear, sufficient and reasonable
unclear, insufficient or unreasonable
Reports should at least address (ESG 3.3):
*
Organisational independence
: what are the provisions guaranteeing independence in official documentation, in particular as regards to how the agency’s governing bodies are nominated and appointed, and what are the rules and conditions for dismissing its members?
[new] Is the distribution of power among stakeholders in the governing of the agency fair and equitable?
Operational independence
: how independent is the agency in managing its own staff, in defining its own procedures and methodologies and in the recruitment, nomination and appointment of experts?
[new]Is there an over-reliance on one single actor in ensuring the operation of the agency?
Independence of formal outcomes
: how does the agency prevent undue influence of institutions, stakeholders or other actors on the findings, analysis, conclusions and recommendations?
If (further) decisions are taken by other bodies on the basis of the agency’s outcomes, how is a clear and transparent distinction ensured between the agency’s report/recommendation and the decision(s) of such other bodies?
I found the reporting requirements:
clear, sufficient and reasonable
unclear, insufficient or unreasonable
Please comment (ESG 3.3):
*
ESG 3.4 Thematic analysis
Standard:
Agencies should regularly publish reports that describe and analyse the general findings of their external quality assurance activities.
Interpretation of ESG 3.4:
*
[new] 24.The agency is expected to show that the results of thematic analysis are useful and that such analysis is regularly carried out i.e., at least once in every review cycle. The thematic analysis may be carried out in collaboration with other actors or subcontracted to third parties.
I found this interpretation:
clear, sufficient and reasonable
unclear, insufficient or unreasonable
Reports should at least address (ESG 3.4):
*
Does the agency publish analyses that are based on and draw from the findings from its quality assurance activities?
How does the agency ensure that such analyses are conducted regularly?
I found the reporting requirements:
clear, sufficient and reasonable
unclear, insufficient or unreasonable
Please comment (ESG 3.4):
*
ESG 3.5 Resources
Standard
: Agencies should have adequate and appropriate resources, both human and financial, to carry out their work.
Should the standard include an interpretation of ESG 3.5?
*
yes
no
I do not know
Please provide an interpretation for ESG 3.5:
Reports should at least address (ESG 3.5):
*
Does the agency have sufficient financial and human resources to carry out its activities within the scope and in line with the ESG?
[new]Does the agency have sufficient control over managing its human and financial resources?
Are the resources sustainable for the foreseeable future?
I found the reporting requirements:
clear, sufficient and reasonable
unclear, insufficient or unreasonable
Please comment (ESG 3.5):
*
ESG 3.6 Internal quality assurance and professional conduct
Standard
: Agencies should have in place processes for internal quality assurance related to defining, assuring and enhancing the quality and integrity of their activities.
Interpretation of ESG 3.6:
*
25. The processes for internal quality assurance need to be formal and regular, and not just informal.
[new]26.The agency is expected to demonstrate that its internal quality assurance is effective, i.e. that it is successful in producing change in the agency’s policies and practices.
27. Integrity of an agency’s activities includes that it uses the EQAR and ESG “labels” only in connection with activities that are within the scope of the ESG and have been subject to an external review; [new]
Agencies do not make any statements that might create the impression that other activities are within the scope of the ESG or covered by their registration on EQAR.
Annex 2 should be taken into account in that regard.
28. Where agencies themselves only implement parts of the process and rely on input/preparatory work carried out by other agencies, they should ensure that such input/preparatory work is carried out in line with the ESG. For partners or subcontractors that are also EQAR-registered agencies it can be assumed that their external QA activity is ESG-compliant. In other cases the registered agency is expected to demonstrate how it assured itself of the partner’s compliance with the ESG.
29. The standard also implies that flags, instances of partial compliance and recommendations (raised in a previous external review by a panel or by the Register Committee) have been responded to appropriately.
I found this interpretation:
clear, sufficient and reasonable
unclear, insufficient or unreasonable
Reports should at least address (ESG 3.6):
*
How does the agency’s internal QA system guarantee the quality and integrity of its activities (e.g., code of conduct, declaration of no conflict of interest etc.), translated into the work performed by its review panels, different decision-making committees and councils, and any other internal bodies on whose reports/work it bases its final decisions?
How does the agency assure the quality and integrity of the work performed by partners, subcontractors or other agencies on whose reports/results it bases its decisions? (if the case)
How does the internal QA system foster continuous improvement within the agency?
I found the reporting requirements:
clear, sufficient and reasonable
unclear, insufficient or unreasonable
Please comment (ESG 3.6):
*
Would you find helpful to follow an information session/webinar on the Use and Interpretation of the ESG?
*
Yes
No
I do not know / prefer not to answer
If you wish to make any further comments or suggestions, please include them below:
Email: (optional)
Enter Email
Confirm Email
Please leave us your email if you would like to be contacted for any follow-up related to your input.
This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Read our
Agree
Cookie Policy