ENQA 10th Anniversary Publication

8/12/2019 ENQA 10th Anniversary Publication

1/28


2/28


3/28

1

ENQA:

10 years (20002010)A decade of European co-operationin quality assurance in higher education

1 0 TH ANNI VERSARY

PUBLICATION


4/28

2

isbn978-952-5539-47-9isbn978-952-5539-48-6 (verkkojulkaisu)

The present report can be downloaded from the ENQA website athttp://www.enqa.eu/pubs.lasso

European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education 2010, Helsinki

Quotation allowed only with source reference.

Cover design and page layout: Eija Vierimaa

Edited by Fiona Crozier, Nathalie Costes, Paula Ranne and Maria Stalter

Helsinki, Finland 2010


5/28

3

Table of contents

Foreword

Achim Hopbach........................................................... 4

ENQA: 10 YEARS

THE HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF ENQA

From the first pilot projects to the founding of ENQA (19942000)

Dorte Kristoffersen.............................................. 5

A DECADE OF EUROPEAN QUALITY

ASSURANCE COOPERATION

ENQA 20002005: From the launch ofa professional network to the success in Bologna

of a new association

Christian Thune................................................. 9

From Bergen to the Register:A long and winding road

Peter Williams ...................................................16

Toward the European quality assurancedimension: Fostering the participation ofENQA members

Bruno Curvale.................................................. 20

CONCLUSIONS..................................................... 23


6/28

4

Foreword

The history of ENQA arises in the late 1990s when thefirst formal procedures for quality assurance begun tostabilise on a national level. As a result of the EuropeanPilot Projects in the field of external quality assuranceduring the nineties, participants felt the need forfurther exchange of information and experience in arelatively new field in order to provide an opportunityfor mutual learning. From these first steps, ENQAhas developed from a discussion forum of few qualityassurance enthusiasts into a network of a slowly butsteadily growing number of agencies in Europe, andfrom a network into an elaborated association with awide membership across Bologna signatory countriesin Europe with a firm political role.

For this Anniversary publication, on behalf of theENQA Board, I am very pleased to present addresses

from four persons who engaged themselves duringthe past years, and thus made the most significantcontribution to the development of ENQA. Theauthors of this publication, Dorte Kristoffersen whowas already a member of the steering group of theEuropean Pilot Projects , and the first three Chairmenand Presidents Christian Thune, Peter Williams andBruno Curvale, bring their individual views to thehistory and present position of ENQA. Hopefully,these anecdotes give the reader an interesting journeyto some major steps in the development of externalquality assurance in Europe during the past decade.I would like to thank the authors for contributing tothis publication, which is published to celebrate theaccomplishments in the quality assurance of Europeanhigher education from the early 1990s until 2010.

Achim Hopbach,

President

European Associationfor Quality Assurancein Higher Education(ENQA)


7/28

5

From the f irst pilot projects to thefounding of ENQA (19942000)

The European Commission was also interested inthe discussions about the future of quality assurance,as it saw benefit in introducing a European dimensionto quality assurance at an early stage as a means tohelp promote and achieve the European mobilityobjectives. The Commissions interest led to theestablishment of a small expert group comprisingrepresentatives of ministries of higher education and ofthe agencies that existed at the time. This situation ledto the initiative to conduct a number of pilot projectsin quality assurance, the European Pilot Projects.

European Pilot ProjectsThe decision to conduct the European Pilot Projectsin the field of quality assurance was formally takenby the European Council of Ministers under theDutch presidency in 1991. The starting point for thePilot Projects was a survey initiated by the EuropeanCommission, Directorate General XXII: Education,Training and Youth (the Commission) of the qualityassurance mechanisms already in place in themember states. The survey proved that only a few ofthe member states had introduced formal external

quality assurance arrangements. The Commissionwas therefore invited to consider the possibilityof organising a number of pilot projects in qualityassurance. On the advice of the expert group, the

Dorte

Kristoffersen

IntroductionAt the beginning of the 1990s, the quality assurancelandscape in higher education in Europe lookedvery different from that of today. There were newlyestablished external quality assurance agencies ina handful of countries, i.e. Denmark, France, theNetherlands and the UK. Other countries werecontemplating the establishment of agencies, suchas Sweden and Spain, and others were conductingpilot projects as a preparation for a future agency, forexample Finland and Norway.

The introduction of formal procedures for qualityassurance at the national level was driven by thegeneral development of higher education in Europe.Traditionally, elite systems of higher education wererapidly undergoing a development towards masssystems of higher education, and in parallel, the needarose to ensure that quality was still upheld underthe changed circumstances. Another reason for theinterest in quality assurance was the desire of theEuropean member states to increase student mobilitythrough the Erasmus exchange programmes. If studyabroad was to be recognised as equivalent to study

in the home country, governments wanted assurancethat the courses studied in other countries were of anequivalent and appropriate quality.

ENQA: 10 YEARS

THE HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF ENQA


8/28

6

Commission proposed to review the teaching andlearning in selected disciplines using a commonapproach to the evaluations. The Education Committeeof the Council approved the proposal in 1994.

According to the European Report (1995), whichreported the final outcomes of the pilot projects, their

purposes were to:Enhance awareness of the need for evaluation in1.higher education in Europe;Enrich existing national evaluation procedures;2.Further the transfer of experience; and3.Impart a European dimension to evaluation.4.

The projects, which were funded by the Commission,were conducted under the enthusiastic leadershipof Ms. Angeliki (Kiki) Verli-Wallace from DGXXII.In addition, a number of advisory and operationalcommittees were established to help the Commissioncarry the responsibility for the projects and to ensure

an appropriate European dimension in the projectimplementation.

An advisory group comprising two members fromeach participating state assisted the Commission inmaking decisions on the organisation of the projectand in formulating follow-up plans for the projects.A management group was established to assist theCommission in the practical management of theprojects, including the preparation of the evaluationapproach. The group consisted of the four countrieswith established quality assurance agencies (see

introduction) and a representative from Germany,Portugal and Norway respectively1. The managementgroup delegated the operational responsibility for theprojects to a Secretariat2shared between the DanishCentre for Evaluation of Higher Education and theFrench Comit National dEvaluation.

In each member state, National Committees wereset up to assume the responsibility for the projectsat the national level, such as selecting those highereducation institutions which would participate, andreflecting and reporting on the outcomes of theprojects. Last, but not least, a European Committeewas established comprising the chairpersons andsecretaries of the national committees. The EuropeanCommittee held the important responsibility forreporting on the final outcomes of the Europeanprojects. The projects included 17 countries, i.e. the 15member states at the time, and Norway and Iceland,and a total of 46 institutions.

1 The members of the management group were: Jim Donaldson, SHEFC, UK,Karl O. Jordell, SLS Oslo University, Norway, Dorte Kristoffersen, The Centre forEvaluation of HE, Denmark, Marie-Odile Ottenwaelter, Comit NationaldEvaluation, France, Klaus Schnitzer, Hochschul Informations System,

Germany, Antonio Simoes Lopes, Universidade Tecnica de Lisboa, Portugal,Andre Sta ropoli, Comite Nat ional dEva luation, France , Christ ian Thune,The Centre for Evaluation of HE, Denmark and Ton Vroeijenstijn, VSNU,the Netherlands.

2 Comite National dEvaluation: Andre Staropoli, Marie-Odile Ottenwaelter,Andree Surs ock & Nisa Balourd. The Evaluation Centre for HE: Christ ianThune, Dorte Kristoffersen, Stina Vrang Elias.

The organisation of the project to a large extentrepresents a first example of cooperation in qualityassurance among the relevant stakeholders at theEuropean level.

The project approach rested on the principles thatwere common to the four countries with established

quality assurance systems at the time. The principleswere:Autonomy and independence both from governmentand from higher education institutions in termsof procedures and methods concerning qualityevaluation;Self assessmentExternal assessment by a peer review group and sitevisitsPublication of an evaluation report.

These principles later came to constitute the backboneof the European Council Recommendation of 24

September 1998 on European cooperation in qualityassurance in higher education. Furthermore, I am surethat readers and users of the Standards and Guidelines

for Quality Assurance in the European Higher EducationArea(ESG)3would agree that these basic principlesare still being followed today, and they permeate thephilosophy underpinning the ESG.

The principles were presented in operationalGuidelines for Participating Institutions(theGuidelines). There were other aspects related to theoperationalisation of the common evaluation approach

that were subject to more discussion in the planning ofthe projects than the principles above. Some of theseaspects include classroom observation, inclusion of apeer from another country on the peer panels, and useof the members of the management group to conductthe training of the peers to be involved in the project.

These discussions about the finer details of theGuidelines led to the conclusion that each participatingstate could adapt the evaluation approach to thelocal context. In other words, at an early stage ofthe development of the external quality assuranceapproach, it became apparent that there are contextualfactors related to national education systems, notleast their legislation, that will have an impact on theorganisation of the approach to quality assurance.This is a conclusion that most stakeholders in highereducation still agree on today.

The projects were concluded at a conference heldin December 1995 in the Canary Islands during theSpanish Presidency. In these exotic surroundings, theparticipants, i.e. institutions, national authorities andnational experts, strongly and unanimously expressedthe view that the main benefit of the projects was the

exchange of information, and therefore recommendedbuilding on the momentum by creating a network

3 Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher EducationArea, European Association for Qua lity Assurance in Higher Education, 2009,Helsinki, 3rd edition: http://www.enqa.eu/pubs_esg.lasso


9/28

7

that would allow continuous exchange of informationand transfer of experience and methodologicaldevelopments. The concluding section of theEuropeanReport(p. 40) lists the following mechanisms throughwhich it was anticipated that these goals could beachieved:

An exchange of professionals in the evaluation field who would be invited to spend a length of time inanother countrys evaluation

A reciprocal use of European experts that would befacilitated by the development of national databasesthat would include areas of expertise and languageskills

An exchange of information at the European levelwhich could include databases of national evaluations,catalogues of European evaluation programmes, theorganisation of conferences and seminars, a newsletteror bulletin.

The Network could also initiate experimental projectsat the European level.

The outcomes of the pilot projects were the first butdecisive steps towards the establishment of a networkfor quality assurance at the European level not only interms of the expression of the need for a network butalso in terms of the future activities of the network.

Next stepsAfter the finalisation of the pilot projects, initiativeswere taken at several levels and involving various

stakeholders to ensure that the projects were dulyfollowed-up. The quality assurance agencies in placein Europe at the time came together on numerousoccasions after the pilot projects to discuss theirinvolvement in the implementation of the network,and through these initiatives confirmed theircommitment to the idea. The European Commissionworked in cooperation with the advisory groupof experts to discuss and formulate a possibleorganisational structure and operational objectives forthe network. These discussions led to the decision towork towards the establishment of a formal networkin quality assurance, and that an application to seekfinancial support from the European Commissionshould be prepared. That such an application waslikely to succeed was backed by the support from theeducational committee of the European Commissionand the preparation by the Commission of theRecommendation of 24 September 1998 on Europeancooperation in quality assurance in higher education.

ENQA became a reality in 2000. What happenedbetween 1998 and 2000? The main reason whythe pace of developments slowed down was the

discussion of membership. The first proposal for theorganisational structure suggested that the networkwas about quality assurance and thus for qualityassurance agencies. Due to the emerging structures

of agencies, the ministries of education were involvedin quality assurance activities at a practical level ina number of European countries. Therefore, thisproposal was met with opposition among somegovernments. Furthermore, there was a discussionamong the potential quality assurance agencies about

how to deal with the federal states in Europe, suchas Germany and Spain, and the fact that the numberof members could for that reason extend far beyondthe number of European member states. It was seenas a potential risk that the network would grow toan extent where cooperation and exchange couldbe hampered because of size. The involvement ofministries of education in the Network had the biggestimpact on the developments. Due to the disagreementamong governments on this point, the decision hadto be taken to the European Council. However, theproblems were resolved and it was decided to include

both ministries of education and all national qualityassurance bodies, i.e. including those operating at stateor regional level as members of the European Networkfor Quality Assurance: ENQA.

The strengths of ENQA were very much the supportfrom all parties and the agreement, backed by a clearvision formulated through the pilot projects, of theneed for closer cooperation as a means of sharingexperiences and practices.

Concluding remarks

However, even before ENQA was formally established,other events, such as the Sorbonne (1998) andBologna (1999) Declarations, would soon have animpact on the direction of the young network. Theintroduction of the European Higher Education Areawas to have a considerable influence on the role ofquality assurance in Europe. ENQA as a network, inits own right and through its members, was thereforesoon to have an extended role beyond that of a loosenetwork responsible for the sharing of informationand experience among its members, which were thegenerators of its establishment.

References:European Commission: Directorate General XXII:Education, Training and Youth, Socrates: EuropeanPilot Project for Evaluating Quality in HigherEducation. The European Report, November 1995.European Commission: Directorate General XXII:Education, Training and Youth, Socrates, EuropeanPilot Projects for Evaluating Quality in HigherEducation. Guidelines for Participating Institutions,1994.

Thune, Christian. The European System of QualityAssurance Dimensions of Harmonisation andDifferentiation.Higher Education Management,v10 n3, November 1998, pp. 925.


10/28


11/28


12/28

10

Kiki Verli chaired the meetings on behalf of theCommission in her usual energetic and forcefulmanner. Group members soon began to term themeetings Kikis classroom. The group initiallyshared a concern that the proposed network wouldbecome too dependent on the Commission andwould primarily function as its policy instrument.

However, the group demonstrated great andindependent commitment to the cause. Accordingly,on 10 September 2001, a second General Meetingwas presented with a number of working groupdocuments. A very elaborate structural model for thenetwork was proposed. According to this model, a corenetworkwould consist of representatives of authoritiesresponsible for quality assurance in the 15 memberstates and the 3 EEA countries (i.e. agencies andministries) and of representatives of the three rectorsorganisations; all in all, some forty persons would

meet about two times a year. A larger group would becomposed of more representatives of countries withmultiple agencies, as well as the associated countriesin Central and Eastern Europe. Finally, an outer circlewould involve professional associations, thematicnetworks, associations, networks of universities, socialpartners, and student associations.

The ambition reflected in this proposal to create avery broad and inclusive network led to a very livelydiscussion. The Chair, Kiki Verli, had to conclude thatthe General Meeting preferred a simpler structurewith two types of members: fee-paying members(quality assurance agencies and the three rectors/directors organisations) and non fee-paying members(ministries). The Conference accepted the offer fromthe Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council(FINHEEC) to host the Secretariat.

The first ENQA General Assembly could then takeplace on 2829 March 2000. The sixty participants,with a majority of ministerial representatives, agreedon the documents presented by the working group,including the broad objectives of the network thatmore or less quoted the Council Recommendation.

The General Assembly also approved the centraltheme of encouraging and developing the exchangeof information and experience, in particular on

methodological developments and examples of goodpractice all undertaken with due independence.

Concerning funding, it was confirmed that regularENQA activities should be funded by identicalmembership fees from agencies (but not fromgovernmental representatives), while the funding ofspecific activities should be funded through grant

applications, in particular through the EU Socratesprogramme.

Many good wishes were expressed at the launchconference. It is important to stress at this point that,during the following years, ENQA activities were toa large extent directed at fulfilling exactly its initialobjectives with regard to the Council Resolutionthrough newsletters, website, a long sequenceof training workshops and conferences, and thesponsorship and publication of thematic research.These were and should essentially remain the bread

and butter of ENQA activities. However, in thisaccount these activities must give priority to ENQAsroad into prominence in European quality assurancepolitics a road not exactly foreseen by its agencyfounders.

ENQA in the accelerating Bologna processAlready from the second half of 2000, therewas increasing activity among the key players inthe Bologna process, not least in relation to theCommissions initiated ideas on establishing some kindof overall European accreditation framework. Thepredecessor to the European University Association,the Association of European Universities (CRE), tookresponsibility for a major report on accreditation,which was discussed at conferences in Lisbonand Salamanca where the ENQA Steering Groupparticipated actively. The Steering Groups involvementin this process led to two important initiatives. Firstly,it drafted a position paper for the approaching Bolognaministerial meeting in Prague in May 2001. Basically,the paper presented ENQAs willingness to take anactive role in moving forward Bologna goals on quality

assurance. It also pointed out that the Europeanquality assurance dimension should be sufficientlycomprehensive to provide students and employers with


13/28

11

real consumer protection, but at the same time warnedabout the risk of new bureaucratic and costly Europeanconstructions with insufficient added value. The paperthen took a positive attitude in principle towardsaccreditation, in line with the CRE report, but wasalso very cautious about rushing a general Europeanframework for accreditation.

The Steering Groups second initiative was tocreate a stronger link with the organisations of highereducation and students. Accordingly, the leaders ofboth EUA and the National Unions of Students inEurope (ESIB) were invited to the ENQA GeneralAssembly in Brussels, in May 2001, to share theirviews on European quality assurance. The GA decidedto revise the regulations in order to include ESIB asa member along with EUA and EURASHE. A furtherdevelopment in the cooperation between EUA, ESIBand ENQA took place when the ENQA Steering Group

invited these organisations leaders to meet on 12September 2001 in Copenhagen in order to discussand agree on concrete next steps of cooperation. Themeeting resulted in four shared projects as the basis forcooperation. From then on, this was the E4 Group.

Follow-up on PragueThe Prague communiqu of 19 May 2001 provideda visible role for ENQA: Ministers called upon theuniversities and other higher education institutions,national agencies and the European Network for Quality

Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA), in cooperationwith corresponding bodies from countries which arenot members of ENQA, to collaborate in establishing acommon framework of reference and to disseminate bestpractice ().

Not surprisingly, for the following two years,the work of the ENQA Steering Group increasinglyfocused on the follow-up of the Prague meeting andthe preparations for the next Ministerial meeting inMay 2003 in Berlin. During this process, it becamemore and more evident that there was, among the keyplayers, a presumption that ENQA was already both

willing and able to assume the role as the leadingorganisation in European quality assurance.

In January 2003, on behalf of the Steering Group,I therefore sent a letter to all member organisationsasking for their views regarding the future role ofENQA in the European quality assurance framework.The challenge I presented was whether ENQAshould continue to assume its initial role as agreedin 2000 i.e. as a mutually supportive voluntary

membership body of independent European qualityassurance agencies, heterogeneous in nature,providing professional services to its members. Or, inaddition, should ENQA take upon itself a wider roleas a political actor? In that case, ENQA would havemandated authority from its members to functionas a political actor in the higher education qualityassurance landscape and to develop and recommendEurope-wide quality assurance policies and practices.

A sufficient majority of feedback from membersindicated that they indeed expected ENQA to

participate actively, both as a mutually supportivebody providing professional services and as a politicalactor in the European process, with a mandate to issuerecommendations. On this basis, the Steering Groupcould proceed on its political course, but of coursealways bearing in mind that ENQA was a network ofindependent opinions among its members.

The beginning of 2003 saw one more importantevent. In February 2003, ENQA convened a workshopin Sitges, with the theme: Taking our own medicine How to evaluate quality assurance agencies in order tocreate trust in their work and thereby in higher education.The workshop was very stimulating and inspiring,and I drew the workshop to a close by presentingthese conclusions: a quality assurance system foragencies should be developed based on definedcriteria; agencies internal quality assurance shouldinclude relevant stakeholders such as the evaluatedinstitutions, students and external experts; last, butnot least, quality assurance agencies should themselvesundergo an independent, external evaluation at, forinstance, five-year intervals. Thus, many monthsbefore the Bologna meeting in Berlin, ENQA was

basically on course towards systematic qualityassurance of the agencies themselves.


14/28


15/28

13

report back through the Follow-Up Group to Ministers in2005. Due account will be taken of the expertise of otherquality assurance associations and networks.

The next Ministerial meeting was scheduled totake place in May 2005 in Bergen, and the BolognaFollow-up Group (BFUG) asked ENQA to present itsreport by February 2005 at the latest. Thus, ENQA had

only one and a half years to achieve this important,but also very sensitive task by implementing all threedimensions of the ministers call.

The ENQA reform processParallel to the Berlin process, the Steering Group hadto work intensively on the reform process towardsreorganising ENQA as an association with new andsharper regulations, including membership criteria,and, not least, with substantially increased finances.In addition, higher membership fees would decrease

ENQAs dependence on EU funding. The results ofthe Steering Groups efforts were presented in June2004 at the General Assembly in Stockholm. Thekey points of the reform package were: the networkshould be turned into an association and have onlyquality assurance agencies as members. The provisionsfor membership should be strengthened accordingto the ongoing work on the Standards and Guidelines

for Quality Assurance in the European Higher EducationArea (ESG)1. In order to emphasise the independenceof agency members, the membership of Ministrieswould no longer be relevant. The name of the SteeringGroup should be changed to Board; the Chair wouldbecome President supported by two Vice Presidents.ENQA finances should be strengthened by substantialincreases in membership fees, so that, among otherthings, the Secretariat could increase its staff. EUA hadhad a seat on the Steering Group as an ENQA foundingmember, and ESIB had been member of the SteeringGroup since 2001. However, the creation of the E4Group as a forum for cooperation eliminated this needfor reserved seats for these two organisations on theBoard.

1 Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher EducationArea, European Association for Qua lity Assurance in H igher Education, 2009,Helsinki, 3rd edition: http://www.enqa.eu/pubs_esg.lasso

The Stockholm General Assembly broadly supportedthe Steering Groups proposal. However, there was aprolonged discussion about the formalities of closingdown the old ENQA and establishing the newassociation. It was concluded that final approval of thenew association should be deferred to an extraordinaryGeneral Assembly in November in Frankfurt. This

later event proved successful to the extent that, by theend of the year, all member agencies had signed theirapproval to the regulations of the new association.

The road from Berlin to BergenRepresentatives from ENQA member agencieswere invited by the Steering Group to join twoworking groups in October 2003: Working Group 1on standards for quality assurance agencies and anadequate peer review system, and Working Group 2on an agreed set of standards for higher education

institutions. I chaired Working Group 1, and PeterWilliams chaired Working Group 2. Eleven agencymember representatives served on the two workinggroups. At an early stage, I invited EUA, EURASHE,and ESIB to appoint members for the ENQA workinggroups. This invitation was based on the belief that,in this way, the necessary cooperation with thesethree organisations would have a very relevantbackground in a shared basic work process. However,the three other organisations preferred to set up theirown background groups. As a result, the essentialframework for cooperation became the E4 meetings.These meetings had their ups and downs, but wereafter all characterised by the serious commitmentsof the leadership of all four organisations towardsreaching shared positions up to the meeting ofMinisters in Bergen. Peter Williams and I also hadan obligation to present the progress and preliminaryresults of the ENQA and E4 processes at BFUGmeetings.

The other European networks (listed in order ofseniority), the Nordic Quality Assurance Networkin Higher Education, the Central and Eastern

European Network, and the European Consortiumof Accreditation, were in a sense all involved in thework process. Indeed, the selection of ENQA member


16/28

14

representatives for the two working groups ensuredthat all three sub-networks were de factorepresented.Moreover, on two occasions Peter Williams and Ialso had positive meetings with the leadership of thenetworks, including the leaders from the ENIC/NARICnetworks, and were thus able to secure their supportfor the process.

Nevertheless, by early autumn 2004, I sharedwith my close ENQA colleagues some pessimismtowards the possibility of meeting our February2005 deadline. The turning point came when theENQA extraordinary General Assembly in Novembersupported fully the draft reports of the two ENQAworking groups, including the framework for aEuropean register. Constructive meetings followedwithin the ENQA Board, with the E4 Group and theBoard of the Bologna Follow-up Group (BFUG) inlate November and early December 2004, and ENQA

succeeded in achieving a joint understanding of thereport structure, incorporating the two working groupreports into one report, as decided in Frankfurt.

Between Christmas Morning and New Years Eve,Peter Williams and I did a substantial final drafting,and, to an extent, re-editing of what is now calledthe Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance inEuropean Higher Education Area (ESG). In early January2005, the draft ENQA report could then be circulatedfor approval first to ENQA members and then to theE4. After further work in the ENQA Board, the E4Group and a final circulation among ENQA members,the ENQA report could be considered as agreed uponby ENQA members and European partners. It wasaccordingly submitted to the BFUG on 21 February2005. What was left, were two BFUG meetingswhere I succeeded, with the support of the EUA,EURASHE and ESIB, in convincing several ministerialsceptics that the proposed Register was not an undulybureaucratic prospect.

Success in Bergen and farewell to ENQAThe Bologna Ministers meeting in Bergen, on 1920

May 2005, resolved to adopt the standards andguidelines for quality assurance in the European HigherEducation Area as proposed by ENQA. The Ministers

also asked ENQA to develop the practicalities of theimplementation of the European register of qualityassurance agencies, the principle of which theyalso welcomed, with other stakeholders. ENQA wasfurther accepted as a new consultative member of theBologna process, thus equalising its position with itsE4 partners. This, then, then the happy ending to what

was, beyond any doubt, the most intense work periodof my professional life.

It had been my firm decision not to stand forre-election as ENQA President, even if, as I statedin the foreword to the ESG report, the Bergen resultwould be no more than a first step in what was likelyto be a long and possibly arduous route. Soon afterBergen, it became obvious that the implementationof the European Register would be a difficult process.The ENQA General Assembly on 2223 September2005 in Madrid was my farewell to ENQA leadership.

Many nice words were spoken on that occasion, butI, for one, knew that my efforts would not have beenpossible without the active and constructive supportfrom my colleagues in the ENQA Presidency, theBoard, the Secretariat and the ENQA members. It hadbeen my privilege to work with so many inspiring andhighly motivated colleagues.

I could then return to work full time as the head ofthe Danish Evaluation Institute with the comfortingthought that ENQA would have a very experiencedand committed President for the coming years.Indeed, Peter Williams had been persuaded to standfor election as my successor. Peter and I had beenworking closely together since 1999 and we both hadlearned the valuable lesson that the independence ofboth agencies and of their association is essential. Thesecond important lesson we had learned is that themain cornerstone of all the ENQA activities must beto serve its member agencies, and work on Europeanquality assurance issues on the basis of the securedmandates from its members.


17/28

15

European Quality Assurance

Forum, Budapest, 2008

Seminar on Quality Assurance

and e-Learning, Sigtuna, 2009

Photo: EUA

Photo: EQAR

Photo: Per Westman, NAHE

4th General Assembly

of EQAR, Madrid,2010


18/28

16

From Bergen to the Register:A long and winding road

on a national basis, while respecting the commonlyaccepted guidelines and criteria. We welcome theprinciple of a European register of quality assuranceagencies based on national review. We ask that thepracticalities of implementation be further developedby ENQA in cooperation with EUA, EURASHE andESIB with a report back to us through the Follow-upGroup.

Development of the RegisterThe Report to ministers contained not only the three-part standards and guidelines structure which hasnow become the best-known part of the ESG, includingthe model for peer review of quality assuranceagencies on a national basis but also the proposal for aEuropean register of quality assurance agencies basedon national review. The register proposal was closelylinked to Part 3 of the ESG, but immediately gaverise to a long and protracted discussion among the E4Group about the precise structure and function of sucha register.

There were two points of view: I wanted to followclosely the proposals in the Report, which would

have made the Register an inclusive (and voluntary)descriptive record, to which any agency could seekentry. Individual agencies would be allocated to

Peter Williams,President of ENQAfrom September 2005to September 2008

IntroductionMy period as President (September 2005 September2008) was dominated by the introduction of theStandards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in theEuropean Higher Education Area (ESG)1, and the linkeddevelopment of the European Quality AssuranceRegister (EQAR). Both these initiatives were, in turn,strongly associated with the emergent agenda of theBologna Process. But there were other importantmatters for the Board of ENQA to engage with,principally the criteria for membership and the wayapplications for membership would be dealt with.

Adoption of the 2005 ENQA Report to ministersThe history of the Report to ministers containing theESG has already been described by Christian Thune.I inherited the Report which had been adopted bythe ministers at their May 2005 meeting in Bergen.But the ministers adoption was not the end of thestory: in the Bergen Communiqu, ENQA and its E4partners were requested to do more. The ministerssaid We commit ourselves to introducing the proposedmodel for peer review of quality assurance agencies

1 Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher EducationArea, European Association for Qua lity Assurance in H igher Education, 2009,Helsinki, 3rd edition: http://www.enqa.eu/pubs_esg.lasso

A DECADE OF EUROPEAN QUALITY



19/28

17

various categories, depending on their characteristics.So, for example, there would be a category to coveragencies that had undergone independent peerreviews, another for non-European agencies andanother for agencies operating in more than onecountry. The costs of running the register would be

limited, since it would essentially be no more thana small published database, needing to be set upand then maintained, a job which ENQA willinglyvolunteered to undertake. The register was envisagedas no more, or less, than a useful source of reliableand objective information for anyone wanting to knowmore about quality assurance agencies operating inEurope.

The opposing opinion, held by the other three Es,was that inclusion in the register should be limited tothose agencies that could demonstrate that they werecompliant with the ESG through the peer review on

a national basis procedure. This vision of the registerwould turn it, in effect, into a European mechanismfor the accreditation of agencies and, as a result, wouldneed a much higher level of organisational formality,control and financial backing to establish its authority.The approach owed much to the EUAs earlierproposals for a regulatory framework for agencies,which had surfaced at a Bologna Follow-up Group(BFUG) meeting in Crete in 2003, discussion of whichhad excluded ENQA.

In the end, ENQA had to accept that an inclusive

register was not viable, since there would be no wayof keeping bogus accreditors off the list in theabsence of a veto mechanism, which would be hard tooperate, any applicant agency would be able to demandinclusion. Although I had considerable misgivingsabout the principle of an accreditation body of thesort now to be created, I was not initially undulyworried by it (except insofar as it offered little exceptduplication of effort and outcome, and significant extracost), since the criteria for inclusion in the registerand for Full membership of ENQA were identical compliance with the ESG evidenced through anindependent peer review. In consequence, I believedthat there would be no need for a separate andcomplex bureaucracy to be set up, as all Full membersof ENQA would automatically qualify for inclusionon the register. Thus, the register could be managedby ENQA, with decisions through an associated, butautonomous, register committee. Only agencies thatwere not members of ENQA would require a separatemechanism, and there were unlikely to be many ofthose. ENQA and the register could operate as distinctentities, but joined by their common criteria and a

shared administration. This confederal approachwould have another advantage it would be veryimprobable that differences of interpretation about

compliance with one or other of the criteria wouldarise. Were such differences ever to occur, of course,then it would throw into doubt the operations of bothorganisations, and reduce the status and authority ofthe ESG themselves.

To emphasise the importance of maintaining the

integrity of European quality assurance, I indicatedthat acceptance of a separate Register was conditionalon agreement that Full members of ENQA, havingalready undergone a rigorous external evaluationto demonstrate compliance with the ESG, wouldautomatically be included in the Register. This was,much to my regret, not acceptable to the other Es,but agreement was eventually reached that no agencyshould be required to submit to two reviews againstidentical criteria. Finally a compromise was reachedwhereby full membership of ENQA would be acceptedby the register committee as prima facie evidence of

compliance with the Registers requirements, althoughthe committee could not be bound to accept ENQAsdecision automatically.

Once agreement had been struck on these basics,albeit reluctantly on my part, the subsequent creationof the European Quality Assurance Register (EQAR)began. This was an equally labyrinthine process,because the need to set up a new legal entity inBelgium, with appropriate governance, managementand financial structures turned out to be very complexand time-consuming. Eventually, though, all was in

place and EQAR was registered as an Internationalorganisation in Brussels and formally came into beingin March 2008. I found myself in the ironic positionof having to sign into existence, and welcome, anorganisation whose value I was not convinced of andwhose cost I considered wasteful. But I accepted that itwas my duty, as the ENQA President, to do so.

ENQA and the RegisterAlthough EQAR has now been running for more thantwo years, at present it only includes 19 agencies onits list. ENQA has 44 Full members, of which 34 haveso far undergone the independent review required forthat status. The Bologna Follow-up Group (BFUG),which acts as a kind of sponsoring organisation,is overseeing a review of EQAR, at the request ofministers at their meeting in Leuven/Louvain-la-Neuvein 2009. It will be interesting to see how the Registersstakeholders view its achievements and value to date.

In my view, there are still two areas concerningEQAR that ENQA should particularly note: one isthat it may be used to further agendas that are notnecessarily in the best interests of European higher

education. Agencies that choose not to be on theRegister (or HE systems that are not subject to QA/accreditation by EQAR-registered agencies) may be


20/28

18

unfairly disadvantaged. Will the current voluntarystatus of inclusion on the Register eventuallybecome the norm, then an expectation and finally arequirement?

Secondly, there may come a point where theRegister is seen as more politically important than

ENQA. Its relationship to the European Commissionhas always been close, not least because of theCommissions financial support and its evident desireto loosen the links between national agencies andnational higher education systems, as demonstratedin its 2006 Recommendation on further Europeanco-operation in quality assurance in higher educationand agencies (and subsequent progress report). Oneresult of a world where quality assurance becamemore about politics than education might be thatfinancially-pressed agencies would choose to relinquishtheir ENQA membership in order to save themselves

the annual subscription. Were this to happen, wewould then quickly lose the benefits of a broadly-basedassociation offering its members shared experienceand technical know-how. Given that expertise inquality assurance is in generally short supply, it wouldbe sad if a listing in the Register were to be preferredto access to the developmental opportunity of ENQAmembership.

My fears that EQAR and ENQA could be movingtowards wasteful and unproductive competition mightneed a radical shift in ENQAs structure and function if

it is to be avoided. Instead of acting as a gatekeeper foragencies, ENQA could drop its rigorous membershipcriteria and leave the job of accreditation entirelyto the Register. This would allow ENQA to returnto its original function as a self-help professionalassociation, undertaking project, seminar and trainingactivities and free to offer criticism of Europeanpolicy on quality assurance. It could thus relinquishits responsibility for the time-consuming review ofagencies, which would be handed over to the Register.

Other activitiesWhile both the Standards and Guidelines for Quality

Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG)and the Register were pivotal in establishing ENQAsposition within the European higher educationpolitical landscape, they did not occupy all mytime as President. Much of the work of the Boardduring those three years was focused on devisingprocesses and procedures for scrutinising membershipapplications and review reports and for dealing withthe aftermath when agencies were refused entry. Giventhe small number of Board members (nine) and the

considerable workload involved, it was remarkable thata viable system could be created. It is a tribute to thecommitment and dedication of the Board members

that a credible set of arrangements was not only putinto place, but also operated successfully.

Of course, as we progressed, new challengesemerged. Compliance with the ESG was an easyphrase to say or write, but the reality was muchmore complex. The ESG had not been written with

compliance in mind quite the opposite. How was acriterion to be interpreted in the context of particularnational conditions? What did independent reallymean? Could we impose conditions on membershipconfirmation? These questions gave rise to many hoursof argument and consideration.

All this was bureaucratic work; little time remainedto move ENQA forward in the area of the developmentand improvement of quality assurance its basicraison dtre, after all. It was one of my great regretsthat I was not able to do more in that field of activityand there undoubtedly still remains much to be done

(and always will!). But a lot was nonetheless achievedthrough the programmes of workshops and seminarsthat continued to be held, and I must acknowledge thecontribution that the Secretariat in Helsinki made tothe management of the organisation. Applications forgrants, the logistics of conferences and meetings, andthe management of membership applications, all werehandled efficiently and well.

To summarise, my memories of being Presidentof ENQA are dominated by early morning flights toBrussels, frustrations and friendships, and cultural

manifestations of a sometimes unexpected nature inonce-distant countries. But above all, I remember aproject that was then, and remains now, important,worthwhile and centred on improving the experienceof the students of Europe and the whole Europeanhigher education community. Viva ENQA!


21/28

19

Seminar on Internal Quality

Assurance Enhancing

Quality Culture, London,

2010

Photo: QAA

Seminar on Internal

Quality Assurance

Enhancing Quality

Culture, London, 2010

Photo: Amanda Nelson, QAA


22/28

20

Toward the European quality assurancedimension: Fostering the participation ofENQA members

Register for Higher Education (EQAR) was in place.It was clear to me that after this second phase, theassociation would have to develop its own conceptsand projects further. I also hoped that it would havebeen a transition between a period characterised bythe rather inflexible relationship ENQA had with its E4partners (ESU, EUA, EURASHE), and another periodbased on a more open relationship between the fouractors, who would have clear respective responsibilitiesand deal firmly, in the spirit of collaboration, thenatural tensions between them.

Before explaining how I see my Presidency and whatI have tried to participate in, I need to look back brieflyto the past and describe the events that contributed toshaping my thinking about ENQA. Then, I will addresstwo topics that, except for the question of internalmanagement, were the focus points of my last year asPresident of the ENQA Board.

The years before my PresidencyAs a Board member since 2003, I was well awareof some of the conflicts and tensions that hadpunctuated the history of the Network, and later, of

the Association.Thanks to the pilot projects financed by the

European Commission and then the 1998 joint

Bruno Curvale,

President of ENQAfrom 2008 to 2009

PreambleI warmly thank ENQA, the Presidency and theBoard for giving me this opportunity to write aboutsomething which still means a lot to me, that is, mytime as an ENQA Board member and, of course, myshort time as President of the Association. I take thisopportunity to thank also all the colleagues in theassociation and in the secretariat with whom I hadthe privilege to work during the years I worked withENQA. I still value very much the objectives of ENQAand the inspiring atmosphere that comes from thecooperation between people devoted to better nationaland European higher education.

IntroductionI see my time as President of ENQA as the beginning ofa transition period between a first phase during whichENQA had to react mostly to situations like the 2003ministerial mandate for the development of Europeanstandards for higher education, or the negotiationsfor a European register of quality assurance agencies,and a newer phase during which ENQA will have todevelop its activities more independently. In 2009,

the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance inthe European Higher Education Area(ESG) were beingimplemented and the European Quality Assurance

A DECADE OF EUROPEAN Q UALITY



23/28

21

Recommendation of the EU Council and EUParliament, the emergence of an organisation devotedto the progress of quality assurance agencies was anew element in the landscape of higher education inEurope. That project was and still is ambitious: to builda credible and reliable European quality assurance

dimension, in addition to national level requirements.This double allegiance both national and European of most of the member agencies of ENQA is adimension that is far more present in ENQA than inthe other E4 organisations. I mention this, becausethe question of how to develop an ENQA vision wasone of my concerns. This double allegiance has to betaken into account when considering the goals andstrategy of the association. That is why it is importantto enhance the understanding of the agencies nationalcontexts when developing the ENQA policy.

On the one hand, there is the allegiance to national

approaches and context, and on the other hand, thereis the dedication to build a European dimension inquality assurance in higher education. This tension,internal to the Network, was, in my opinion, one ofthe elements that made it complicated for ENQA tofind collective answers to the great challenges theEuropean quality assurance agencies were facingfrom the very beginning. Three challenges had a greatimpact: the creation of the European Consortiumfor Accreditation, the writing of the ESG, and thenegotiation about the establishment of EQAR. In each

case, we have learnt a lot about the inherent difficultyof working together, particularly in an internationalcontext.

As a consequence of this history, I started myPresidency with the idea that it would be valuable todevelop an internal dialogue for a greater coherenceand understanding within the Association. A secondline was to try to draw out all the consequences ofthe implementation of EQAR, and to develop ENQAscapacity to guarantee the quality and credibility of theexternal evaluations of the quality assurance agenciesapplying for ENQA membership or EQAR listing.

1. The development of ENQAs internal dialogueOn becoming an Association in 2004, ENQA decidedto go beyond the activities of the Network, which weremainly the exchange of experience, and to strengthenits participation to the building of the EuropeanHigher Education Area (EHEA). The idea was todevelop the capacity of ENQA as such, to influencethe course of events that were gradually shaping theEuropean Higher Education Area. The objective wasthen to define goals and actions lines.

The empowerment of the E4 Group during theseyears also showed that it was important not to relyon an insufficient number of people with regard

to institutional relations. Involving more people inthe cooperation between the E4 organisations wasa further objective, and not only because of theworkload which was undoubtedly rather heavy. In suchmatters, involving more people is necessary in orderto limit the effects of individual misunderstandings

and interpersonal conflicts. Supporting a broaderinvolvement of the Board members was important totake forward the policy thinking.

How to develop this collective thinking and tobase the Board members action on well designed andsupported action lines? I was convinced, like manyothers, through my participation in the writing ofthe ESG, and then in the negotiation that led to theestablishment of EQAR, that it was important for theBoard and Presidency to have more than one annualoccasion to consult the members about the directionthe Association should take. The General Assembly

mainly focused on administrative and legal matters,and there was a concern that it may not fully play itsrole with regard to the elaboration of ENQAs policy.

The preparation of the Leuven/Louvain-la-Neuveministerial meeting in 2009 was an opportunity seizedby the Board to develop internal dialogue. The ENQAposition paper was first drafted by the Board, and thencirculated to all members and associates/affiliatesfor consultation. The document reflects well thediversity of concerns in the Association. The internalconsultation also had a positive effect on clarifying

the relationship between ENQA and ECA. The twodifferent parts of the General Assembly, the Forum oncurrent issues followed by the statutory responsibilitiesof the GA, were another response to the need to givethe ENQA Board and Presidency a firm background totheir activities. But is that enough?

2. ENQA, promoter of quality in qualityassurance in higher educationQuality assurance in higher education is not a simplequestion, as we all know. It is clear that there area lot of expectations from numerous stakeholdershaving different interests. The goals assigned toquality assurance seem to be endless, and range fromthe steering of national higher education systemsto serving as information sources for students, and,of course, as improving tools for Higher EducationInstitution management. Quality assurance in highereducation has many definitions, as already stated inthe ESG: Quality assurance is a generic term in highereducation which lends itself to many interpretations:it is not possible to use one definition to cover allcircumstances. This question of assuring quality in

higher education is not a minor one. Looking at allthe difficult debates and misunderstandings that slowdown the implementation of tools designed to improve


24/28

22

trust in higher education at national and internationallevels, it is obvious that an association of qualityassurance agencies should assist in clarifying thisdomain of activities. Who else would be more relevant?On three occasions, we had to start thinking about thepurposes and quality of activities falling within the

province of quality assurance.

The implementation of the European QualityAssurance Register

The negotiation about the Register led ENQA to adopta rigorous approach to its membership requirements.In order to convince the E4 partners and allstakeholders that ENQA could maintain and managethe register, it was decided to make ENQA membershipa clear sign of quality with regard to the fulfilment ofthe ESG. The strategy did not work. The Register nowexists independently of ENQA, and time will tell what

the added value of the Register is to the developmentof the European quality assurance dimension. Moreimportantly, at the end of the negotiation, it wasclear that only one external evaluation valid forboth agencies applications to ENQA and EQAR wasnecessary. Consequently, the question was then tomake sure that the external evaluation of QA agencieswas fair, robust and trustworthy. ENQA took up thechallenge. The Board and the Secretariat worked hardto improve the guidelines for external reviews, to learnfrom experience and to develop appropriate training

for experts.

The emergence of rankingsOf course, rankings were not something new duringyears 20032009, but they were given more and moreattention because of the Shanghai ranking. The alreadydifficult debates about quality assurance in highereducation got even more complicated. Will rankingsreplace internal and external quality assurance asan impulse for progress and better quality in highereducation? Are they providing the clear and accurateinformation needed by stakeholders?

Interestingly, rankings can be counted amongstthe range of existing quality assurance tools. Theycan be used heuristically and can be applied in well-mastered professional approaches. However, they havepowerful side effects which can be problematic. Thedebates about rankings make it clear that, besides thecompetition issue, there is also a need for informationabout higher education which is not yet well coveredby quality assurance. This is certainly a question forENQA. The practitioners involved in quality assuranceshould participate in the debate about rankings.

Quality assurance in higher education is a difficultissue which constantly needs further explanation.What can be expected from it, and what does quality

mean in this field? My first speech as President ofENQA, at the end of the European Quality AssuranceForum in Budapest in 2009, was about this matter. Forspecialists, it is clear that there is no possible confusionbetween rankings and quality assurance even if thereare some links. But this is not the case for most of the

public and I still see good reasons for ENQA to developa means of educating the public and communicatingabout quality in higher education.

In conclusionI have tried here to explain my main preoccupations asthe President of ENQA. I will have certainly forgottento mention some notable occurences and there are, ofcourse, important questions that have no place in suchan exercise.

The fascinating I do think they are fascinating questions raised by quality assurance in higher

education at national, European and internationallevels deserve the attention of practitioners whoconfront quality assurance activities in reality on adaily basis. Because of this, agencies, stakeholdersand the European Higher Education Area needENQA. Its partners need it because talking aboutquality assurance and doing quality assurance are twodifferent things. Its members need ENQA because,through the exchange of experience and collaborativework, it gives opportunities for improvement. Finally,the European Higher Education Area needs ENQA,

because it is a place where agencies can learn how tobalance the tensions between national and Europeanrequirements.

As Board members, we had first to concentrate onmany administrative, but important, matters, andparticularly on the ENQA membership applicationswhich were very time consuming. I remember verywell, after a long meeting, the Boards dissatisfactionto see that some core questions remained unanswereddue to lack of time. I wish we had more time. It issomething in which I would have liked to see morechanges.

Finally, I convey to the Presidency, the ENQABoard, the members and the Secretariat all my bestwishes in order for the association to play fully itsrole in the building of a coherent and trustworthyEuropean Higher Education Area during the next tenyears.


25/28

23

Conclusions

Louvain-la-Neuve (2009) and Budapest and Vienna(2010) can be characterised as major milestonesdetermining the direction of ENQAs developmentuntil the current days. It became apparent that thereis a demand for an actor in quality assurance thatwould systematically contribute to the formulationof European quality assurance procedures. In eachministerial conference, ENQA has been given amandate to develop quality assurance by differentmeans. In 2001, it was essential that ENQA wouldfully commit to the building of a European qualityassurance framework by 2010. When looking back intime, it can be concluded that the framework has beensuccessfully implemented, and that there now exists anacknowledged profession of quality assurance expertsand an established group of national quality assuranceagencies in most of the Bologna signatory countriesfollowing the same European procedures.

Without doubt, the 2003 Bologna ministerialconference in Berlin marked a significant milestonein the development of ENQA. ENQA, together withEUA, EURASHE and ESIB (now ESU) were mandatedto develop an agreed set of standards, procedures and

guidelines for quality assurance, as well as to worktowards an adequate peer review system for qualityassurance agencies. Today, they are commonly named

The decision of the European Council of Ministersto conduct the European Pilot Projects in the field ofquality assurance in 1991 initiated from a survey bythe European Commission stating that only a few ofthe member states had introduced formal externalquality assurance arrangements. Authors of the surveytherefore encouraged the Commission to organise anumber of pilot projects in quality assurance. As aresult, these pilot projects introduced the first, modestformulations of quality assurance principles whichwere translated into the Four-Stage-Model, providing afoundation for quality assurance in higher education,and establishing European cooperation in this area.During the development of these principles, activemembers of national authorities and experts amongothers saw a need to form a network for sharing ofinformation and experience among its members.These were the first steps of ENQA which was foundedas a network in 2000. The need for pan-Europeancooperation became even more prominent when theBologna Process proceeded and put quality in the focusof the development of the European higher educationarea.

Since the founding of the association, theministerial conferences of Prague (2001), Berlin(2003), Bergen (2005), London (2007), Leuven/

Achim Hopbach,

President

European Associationfor Quality Assurancein Higher Education(ENQA)


26/28

24

the E4 group. In the ministerial conference of 2005,ENQA, together with its E4 partners, presented the

Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in theEuropean Higher Education Area (ESG). The mainpurpose of these standards and guidelines was toguarantee professionally conducted quality assurance

procedures on a high quality level. Thanks to theapplication of the ESG in quality assurance systemsand processes in the 46 countries of the BolognaProcess, quality assurance in the EHEA, whilerespecting the principle of subsidiarity, is based ona common ground of shared values and principles,and is conducted in the specific European way ofprofessionally sound processes with the participationof all stakeholders. The peer review system, whichoriginates from an ENQA workshop in Sitges, nearBarcelona, in 2003, has developed into a systematic,cyclical review process of agencies which guarantees

professionalism and high level performance ofEuropean quality assurance agencies. In the 2005conference, ENQA was also accepted as a consultativemember in the Bologna Follow-up Group, thusstrengthening ENQAs role in the political decision-making process in Europe. The growing importance inthe political decision-making process required a moreformal structure of the network in order to organiseinternal decision making, and to be able to perform itsrole as a voice of European quality assurance agenciesin the political arena. As a consequence, ENQA was

transformed into an independent association in 2004.As the authors mention in their articles, the

founding of EQAR became a sort of a divide in ENQAsdevelopment. There were concerns about foundingsuch a register. However, a mandate to found theregister was given to the E4 group in 2005, andit began to operate in Brussels, Belgium, in 2007.Today, ENQA and EQAR function in a consensualand constructive manner, sharing similar standardsfor membership in ENQA and inclusion in EQAR.It is worth mentioning that a review report carriedout for ENQA membership purposes serves as bona

fideevidence for an agency to be listed in EQAR. Thecooperation in this aspect, as well as in all other levels,has worked efficiently between the two organisations.Sharing similar criteria, and thus being able to usethe same evidence material, has saved resources ofagencies and reviewers in arranging and carryingout reviews. It remains to be seen whether these twoorganisations will differentiate more clearly in theminds of the members of both organisations.

ENQAs contribution to the ministerial conferencesof 2009 was in a form of a position paper reconfirming

the main principles for quality assurance, emphasising,for instance, that the responsibility of qualityassurance lies within institutions and that further

implementation of the ESG remains as one of ENQAsmain tasks.

In 2010, ENQA published a statement on theEuropean Commissions Report on Progress in Quality

Assurance, pointing to the major achievements thatwere made in applying the ESG in different national

settings which forms a true European dimensionof quality assurance. Therefore, ENQA does notpromote the creation of a unified, pan-Europeanquality assurance regime. However, while respectingthe principles of diversity and subsidiarity, it doespromote the compatibility and comparability ofquality assurance processes that are based on commonprinciples.

In the ministerial conference of 2010, ENQApresented an ENQA report for the AnniversaryBologna ministerial meeting, emphasising areas ofquality assurance still to be tackled.

The contributions of the authors give a deep insightinto the development of quality assurance in Europeand a wider European higher education area, in bothmethodological and institutional terms. It becomesclear that when those quality enthusiasts met in thelate nineties, this was only the beginning of a long andongoing journey.

From 2010 and onwards, the major challenge, inmy view, is to strengthen the political role of ENQA. Itmust be ENQAs aim to be a main political actor withmaterial influence on decision-making processes at the

European level, and to deliver the core values of qualityassurance as enunciated in the ESG. Thus, ENQA aimsto be recognised as the core source of expertise andinformation in the field of quality assurance at theEuropean level.

The second main aim is to develop quality assuranceprocesses as core instruments for both enhancementand accountability purposes.

Thirdly, in order to reach these aims, ENQA needsto comprise quality assurance agencies from allcountries in the EHEA to be as inclusive as possible,and also needs the active involvement of all members.I hope to see ENQA to evolve as an active membershiporganisation providing knowledge, sharing ofbest practises and views among its members andpartners. I would like to see ENQA evolve into a peersupport community for European quality assuranceprofessionals. In reaching these aims, ENQA as thevoice of European quality assurance agencies willsubstantially contribute to the implementation of ourvision of a European higher education system that iscommitted to a culture of quality.


27/28

25


28/28

Date post:	03-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	sofia-farizano
View:	222 times
Download:	0 times

ENQA 10th Anniversary Publication

Documents