- Email: [email protected]
International Accreditation in Higher Education
International Accreditation in Higher Education A Stella and D Woodhouse, Australian Universities Quality Agency, Melbourne, VIC, Australia ã 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction Over the last 20 years, many countries have created quality assurance (QA) bodies to assist, check, or regulate their higher education institutions (HEIs). These bodies exercise their QA responsibility through various modes and methods that essentially fall under one of the three basic approaches – accreditation, assessment, and quality audit. Of these modes and their combinations, accreditation is the most widely used term in many countries around the world and many QA bodies have some form of accreditation practices. Accreditation being the predominant mode of QA, the term accreditation is used in the following pages to denote all forms of QA. A recent phenomenon in accreditation is that institutions are looking beyond their national borders, and they voluntarily undergo multiple accreditation processes from QA bodies in different countries. What can a foreign accrediting body offer that is not provided by an institution’s local agency? The answer lies in addressing the emerging challenges and changes in the higher education (HE) sector. The HE sector in many countries is changing dramatically characterized by increasing international operations of HEIs, demand for value for money from the various stakeholders, increasing academic and professional mobility across national borders, demand for recognition of qualifications, and growth of regional and global trade initiatives. These are the new rationales that drive international engagement and put pressure on HEIs to take an international approach to accreditation.
Changing Rationales of International Engagement Internationalization has now come to be defined in very broad terms. From an initial focus on bringing international students to the domestic campus, it has expanded to include the international engagement of HEIs through collaboration in curriculum development, teaching, research, and outreach. There are two dimensions to the international engagement of HEIs. Institutions may integrate an international or intercultural aspect into the teaching and research in their domestic campus and encourage international students and staff to join the domestic campus; this is called internationalization at home. HEIs may cross national borders to offer their services in other countries and that is internationalization
abroad. Both these aspects of international engagement are increasing rapidly and this affects various stakeholders in different ways. Stakeholders such as governments and the public who once emphasized accountability and quality improvement in the national context now extend their attention to the international operations of the HE sector. Furthermore, the drivers of internationalization have changed. Until recently, cultural, educational, and mutual understanding motives were the common historical basis of internationalization policies for HE. For one or more of these reasons, every country finances staff and students to study or research abroad, via university bursary schemes, bilateral or multilateral agreements, and policies to promote mobility. These rationales and the attendant policies are still present today, but they have been complemented by new trends and rationales. Although mutual understanding and international cooperation in teaching and research rank high on many countries’ internationalization agenda, economic and revenue-generation rationales have become much more important recently and have sometimes become primary (OECD/Norway, 2003). The economic rationales have made the international clientele scrutinize the value for money spent on study. To be able to remain competitive, especially in the overseas marketing of the programs, HEIs are under pressure to affirm their quality in an internationally comparable way. In parallel, mobility of students and staff has grown considerably. Regional and global trade agreements are encouraging the movement of professionals across national borders. One of the most important consequences of this development is the demand for academic and professional recognition of qualifications. Discussions on the World Trade Organisation’s (WTO) general agreement on trade in services (GATS) have already identified problems in recognition of qualifications as an indirect barrier to liberalizing trade; as countries join GATS, issues related to recognition issues are gaining greater momentum, and HEIs look for ways to enhance the portability of the qualifications they offer. Closely related to the recognition of qualifications is the issue of accreditation. Credential evaluators, recognition bodies, employers, and professional bodies show interest in determining the quality of an institution, program, or qualification, and they are inclined to take account of the quality of the institution in their decision making. Many of the problems in this context are around determining whether a program or institution awarding a certain qualification meets certain threshold levels of
533
534
Higher Education – Tertiary Education in a Globalized World
quality. This attention to levels of quality and standards exerts pressure on HEIs to assure the quality of their services to clientele spread across national borders. In recent years, there have also been criticisms about the quality of internationalization itself. The QA arrangements and academic oversight an institution has for its domestic offerings may be robust, but it may not be possible to generalize that to the international activities because of variations in academic oversight and coordination. This situation has resulted in severe criticism, especially of the marketing of offshore programs in receiving countries. To address this, HEIs take a strategic approach to their planning and development; today, internationalization and assurance of its quality are given an institutionwide systemic and strategic attention. Thus, the interplay between various internal and external pressures has resulted in HEIs exploring strategic approaches to their QA processes with an international orientation. This has triggered developments in three major streams and they are outlined in this section. First, HEIs have opted for multiple accreditation and international accreditation. Second, associations of HEIs have started approaching QA issues that cross national borders through codes of practices and agreements. Third, QA agencies and their networks have expanded their scope and approach to QA in response to the internationalized HE sector.
HEIs in the Internationalized Landscape National QA bodies often focus on assuring the quality of programs offered in their respective countries by their domestic institutions. In such systems, HEIs active in international engagement realize that they have outgrown their national contexts, including their national QA systems. Acknowledging that the national QA systems are not yet ready to serve the cause of international engagement of the order the HEIs need, many HEIs have opted for QA strategies that go beyond the national approaches. Of the various factors that have motivated HEIs to take an international approach to QA issues, the demand for academic and professional recognition of qualifications ranks very high. Often the recognition of qualifications across borders is complicated by the lack of transparent national criteria for quality and standards. Even in Europe, which is known for student mobility programs such as European region action scheme for the mobility of university students (ERASMUS), supported by the network of information centers and recognition bodies, incomplete recognition for the credits earned in study abroad and delay in getting the recognition was a problem till recently. The situation has been improved by the wider introduction of the European credit transfer scheme and the Bologna process. However, in other parts of the world,
the recognition of qualifications beyond national borders is not very encouraging and the impact that national QA systems can have to address this issue is still weak. To get past the limitations of national QA systems in this respect, some HEIs opt for certification by international organizations such as the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) for their quality management systems. ISO 9001 is an international standard which relates to the achievement of quality in an organization. Although some institutions find it helpful to use ISO 9001 to demonstrate their quality in an internationally comparable way, there is a general criticism that ISO standards originate from the manufacturing context and are not therefore well matched to the educational sphere. Few HEIs find the effort required to achieve full ISO 9001 certification provides adequate returns, although many institutions have ISO 9001 for part of their operations, usually administrative areas. More commonly, HEIs attempt to overcome the barriers to recognition of qualifications by undergoing QA processes of organizations that operate internationally. Often, one HEI undergoes multiple reviews or accreditations. This is particularly found in professional areas of studies where student and staff mobility is high. The European Foundation for Management Development (EFMD) under its European Quality Improvement System (EQUIS), the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB), and the Association of MBAs (AMBA) are professional associations that accept international applications for their accreditation process in business studies.
Associations and Networks of Higher Education Institutions In addition to such direct methods for addressing academic and professional recognition of qualifications, institutions also assure themselves and others of their quality by adherence to codes of practice and guidelines established by associations and networks of HEIs. Codes of practice are common at the national level and for the most part they are statements of principles related to moral imperatives in international engagement. The code of practice and guidelines for Australian universities on provision of education to international students by the Australian vice-chancellors committee; the code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in HE: collaborative provision, QAA, UK; principles of good practice for educational programs for non-US nationals by the council for HE accreditation; and the code of ethical practice in international education developed by the Canadian Bureau for International Education are a few examples. Making a commitment to adhere to codes of practice serves as a generic type of QA and it can work well in mature HE systems. If the code is framed as a guideline
International Accreditation in Higher Education
rather than as a policy, it may not be possible to have a system in place to monitor and assess compliance. Instead, such a code appeals to the ethics and conscience of the institutions and the staff who are involved in international engagement and it tries to develop a set of values and principles to guide the process. In addition, associations and networks of HEIs have initiated projects on quality that cut across national borders. The institutional evaluation program (IEP) initiated by the European University Association (EUA; formerly CRE) is an example that has a focus on quality management. In 1994, EUA launched the individualized education plan (IEP) for its member universities to assess their strengths and weaknesses in quality management. The review is based on a self-evaluation and external peer review conducted by senior international institution leaders. So far, over 150 universities in Europe and worldwide have participated in the evaluation. EUA reports that the major benefits derived are an increased strategic capacity and strengthened internal quality culture – two essential attributes for dealing with current and future challenges in HE. Since 2001, EUA has also carried out sector-wide evaluations to identify and make recommendations on the systemic challenges and the common issues shared by all institutions in a given sector. Other examples include the projects and benchmarking initiatives of the association of commonwealth universities on issues that are common to universities across national borders; the task force on accreditation established by the international association of university presidents; and a working group on accreditation set up by the confederation of European rector’s conferences. As internationalization becomes more widely understood and the process of internationalization matures, it is increasingly important that institutions of HE address the issues of quality assessment and assurance of the international aspects of their operations. This realization galvanized international and intergovernmental bodies with an interest in HE to pay attention to the international aspects of HEIs. For example, the OECD program on institutional management in higher education (IMHE) has taken a close interest in the international dimension of HE over a number of years. Since 1994, it has led an activity focussing on a cross-country analysis of institutional level strategies, the internationalization quality review process (IQRP). IQRP aims to help individual institutions of HE to assess and enhance the quality of their international dimension according to their own stated aims and objectives. Several organizations of HEIs have produced position papers and declarations on issues related to quality in cross-border education, triggered by the GATS debate. They too serve as guidelines in shaping the international approach of the HEIs toward QA. Examples are the Accra Declaration on GATS and the Internationalisation of
535
Higher Education in Africa (2004) by the Association of African Universities; and the document Sharing Quality Higher Education Across Borders: A Statement on Behalf of Higher Education Institutions Worldwide (2005) jointly prepared by the International Association Of Universities, the Association Of Universities and Colleges of Canada, the American Council on Education, and Council for Higher Education Accreditation.
Response of the Quality Assurance Agencies As HEIs collaborate with their counterparts across borders, it is but natural that they expect the quality assurance agencies to follow a similar approach and collaborate with QA agencies across borders. If QA agencies do not develop this capacity to cooperate with their counterparts, the serviceability of QA agencies to HEIs and the effectiveness of QA services will be seriously limited. While looking at the way the QA agencies have responded to the international engagement of HEIs, it is necessary to see the general QA developments as well as the developments specific to professional areas of studies where the professional bodies and professional accreditors do the gate keeping and act as QA bodies in their areas of specialization. Professional bodies are a type of quality agency, using many of the common methods, although their authority is confined to one discipline area. Professional Bodies and Their Networks Attention to the mobility of professionals has given a fillip to professional accrediting associations, whose members want international collaboration between associations in order to achieve international recognition of their professional qualifications. Systems of licensure, certification, and accreditation are emerging to support professional mobility. This gives rise to international definitions of quality of education in professional areas of studies. Professional organizations, accrediting bodies, and certification and licensure bodies are interested in developing mutually acceptable standards in cooperation with their counterparts in other countries and are considering mutual recognition (MR) agreements. There are instances of professional bodies accepting international applications and recognition agreements among a group of countries with mutually acceptable standards. The way the accreditation board for engineering and technology (ABET), a federation of the US professional engineering societies, expanded its scope is an interesting example. As the demand for engineering mobility has increased, the assessment of the quality of education in engineering programs at institutions outside US has become increasingly important. To meet these needs, ABET has become
536
Higher Education – Tertiary Education in a Globalized World
involved internationally through mutual recognition agreements, program evaluations, educational consultancy visits, assistance in developing accreditation systems in other countries, and in the accreditation of engineering programs outside US. The Washington Accord that developed out of this international approach of ABET is a successful example of a mutual recognition agreement. It is an agreement between the bodies responsible for accrediting professional engineering programs in each of the signatory countries. It recognizes the substantial equivalence of programs accredited by those bodies, and recommends that graduates of accredited programs in any of the signatory countries be recognized by the other countries as having met the academic requirements for entry to the practice of engineering. As of May 2007, there are ten signatories to this accord with four more in the provisional list. The procedures underpinning this accord include circulation and consideration of any revisions made by any one of the associations to its procedures, and intermittent attendance at accreditation events by teams of representatives of the other members of the accord. It is to be noted that these agreements are between Englishspeaking countries or countries that are willing to operate in English for this purpose. Despite the wide attention to this accord, it has not spawned many copies. Professions more tightly controlled by law or statute find the mutual recognition task more difficult. However, some progress is being made in a number of other areas. In architecture, the international union of architects (UIA) has developed the UIA Accord on Recommended International Standards of Professionalism in Architectural Practice and nine related accord policy guidelines. It is the first time the profession of architecture has adopted a global standard. Further, an international charter for architectural teaching was agreed in 1996, and work on this has resulted in the UNESCO–UIA validation system for architectural education. The International Federation of Nurse Anaesthetists (IFNA) has been working on this for a number of years, and IFNA is the first international nursing or medical organization to have developed international standards and guidelines for education, practice, and ethics. The International Council of Nurses and IFNA have started addressing the concept of international accreditation, but it will be several years before it is fully implemented. There are also some bilateral MR agreements of more limited extent. The actions of the professional associations in this area overlap with the regional and global trade initiatives and consequently with the GATS requirements. Although professional associations are themselves quality agencies, they do not commonly contribute to the design and development of the wider QA framework. On the other hand, general purpose QA agencies often engage in the QA developments of the professional sector. Most regional accreditors in US, QAA (UK), New Zealand
Universities Academic Audit Unit NZUAAU (New Zealand), and Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA) (Australia) collaborate with professional associations to varying degrees, from two-way information sharing, to collaborative review events. General QA Developments Just as HEIs are internationalizing, so is QA itself. Similar to the HEIs offering their services across borders, some QA agencies extend their service to international clientele or HE sectors across borders. One reason is the need for capacity development in QA in some countries. The second reason is the unsustainability of a dedicated QA system in some situations such as small island nations. It might be more practicable for these countries to approach another reliable QA agency(ies) for QA services. Auditing of the universities of Mauritius and the South Pacific, the latter covering 12 small island nations, by the QA agencies of neighboring countries, is an example. Another example is the accreditation carried out by the regional accreditors of the US for overseas non-US institutions. The current volume of this activity is low, but is increasing. The networks of QA agencies have made a significant impact in creating awareness among the QA agencies on common issues related to QA of international activities. There is a growing acknowledgment by quality agencies that they should whenever possible recognize each others’ decisions, and that if possible this recognition should be mutual between the agencies. Two agencies that are both operating at the internationally accepted level of competence may recognize each other’s judgments about the institutions in their jurisdiction, and jointly provide assurance to governments, employers, students, and other institutions about the quality and standing of the institutions and their qualifications. The International Network of Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE) has discussed the mutual recognition of QA decisions among its members. The Asia-Pacific Quality Network (APQN) runs a project on mutual recognition and has a target of all its full members recognizing each others’ judgments by 2010. The European Association for Quality Assurance (ENQA) has also been active in pilot projects on mutual recognition. The European Consortium for Accreditation, which is a sub-network of ENQA, and whose members are those agencies in Europe whose main evaluation activity is program accreditation, have committed themselves to develop a system for mutually recognizing each other’s accreditation decisions. ENQA has also committed itself to developing a European register of QA agencies, and agency compliance with the European standards for external QA agencies will be one criterion for placement in the register. This register has the potential to facilitate mutual recognition developments.
International Accreditation in Higher Education
MR depends on the trust and confidence QA agencies can have in each other’s QA decision making. In recent years, the networks of QA agencies have paid attention to the question: what is a good QA system? Discussions addressing this question have resulted in the description of features that can be expected of ideal QA systems, and in the identification of ways in which QA systems may attain these characteristics. Notable developments include the INQAAHE guidelines of good practice (GGP), and standards and guidelines for quality assurance in the European HE area (ESG), 2005. In addition to the networks of QA agencies, pointers and guidelines have also been developed by intergovernmental bodies such as UNESCO and OECD, drawn up by various stakeholders as well as experts in the field.
Role of Intergovernmental Bodies Intergovernmental bodies such as UNESCO and OECD have also contributed to these developments. UNESCO regional conventions on recognition of qualifications are a notable example. UNESCO Conventions are legal agreements between countries to recognize academic qualifications issued by other countries that have ratified the same agreement. A number of recognition tools such as a diploma supplement and the code of good practice in the provision of transnational education (adopted by the Lisbon recognition convention committee) have been developed in the framework of the UNESCO Conventions. It was the Lisbon convention that established an explicit link between QA and the recognition of qualifications. Specifically, the diploma supplement, designed to facilitate international recognition of qualifications is required to show the QA regime under which the qualification was awarded. Unfortunately, it continues to be difficult to give effect to this link, and QA agencies and recognition bodies tend to operate in different spheres. UNESCO–OECD guidelines on quality provision in cross-border HE (2005) propose good practices that can assist countries in assessing the quality and relevance of HE provided across borders and to protect students and other stakeholders in HE from low-quality HE provision.
Issues for the Future Capacity Development Traditionally, the national QA systems were not oriented to cover the international engagement of the HEIs. As the international engagement of HEIs increases, the expectation that national QA agencies be able to expand their scope is emerging as an imperative for all countries irrespective of the stage of development of their HE systems.
537
Surveys conducted by networks such as APQN, CINDA (in Latin America), AAU (in Africa), and INQAAHE have indicated that there is a need for capacity development in quality-related issues of the international activities. Similar results have been highlighted in the surveys conducted among the APEC economies as well as in the reports produced by UNESCO on mapping the QA systems in different regions. Consequently, many capacitydevelopment initiatives are in progress, supported by national governments and intergovernmental and international bodies such as the World Bank and the UNESCO. In spite of attention to capacity development, unequal stages of development will continue to be a problem in the future. Till the capacity of the national QA systems to adequately cover the international engagement of their HEIs is raised, HEIs might be burdened with multiple and international accreditation to facilitate recognition of their qualifications across national borders. Lack of Convergence among Diversity Policies and practices of QA of the international activities of the HEIs vary even among countries of similar type, especially regarding internationalization abroad. QA agencies take various approaches to assuring the quality of this cross-border education. For example, in the UK, the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) from time to time convenes a panel to visit a group of overseas operations of the British HEIs in one country or region. In Australia, AUQA’s audits address the transnational operations of the university sector institution by institution. The regional accreditors of the US carry out visits to any operation that is established more than 40 miles from the institution’s main campus, including across borders. If there is such a variation among the three major exporters, one can understand how difficult it would be in other situations to look for a common framework. Now QA agencies have realized that they need to ensure convergence toward some common framework and some QA agencies have taken initiatives to map the common framework. Developments in Europe through the Bologna process have the potential to facilitate this convergence, but how much convergence can be achieved in the QA of international activities in the near future is a big question. Lack of Dialog and Cooperation among Quality Assurance Agencies There is a need for strengthened dialog among QA agencies at two levels. First, communication among the QA agencies of major sending countries needs to improve. There are many instances where an institution of the receiving country that has partnership with HEIs from different countries is burdened with the QA regime of a number of those countries, embracing a number of separate reporting requirements and review visits. This could
538
Higher Education – Tertiary Education in a Globalized World
be avoided if QA agencies of the major sending countries can establish an appropriate mechanism to work collaboratively. Collaboration is emerging, but it will take many years for the cooperation to materialize in ways that will reduce the QA overload of institutions. Second, the dialog between the QA agencies of the sending and receiving countries is very weak. Differences in the capacity of the QA systems to consider international activities itself may be a barrier to facilitate a meaningful dialog among the QA agencies. Lack of capacity, diversity in practices, and absence of a productive dialog among QA agencies lead to mistrust and stereotypic understandings about the QA of international activities. That perception is gradually changing in some countries due to the evidence that international engagement in HE can respond to human and social development needs, provide new opportunities, and increase the possibilities for improving workforce skills if managed appropriately. Teacher-education programs offered in Africa, when there was shortage of trained teachers, with the support of the Commonwealth of Learning through open and distance learning, is an example and India had an active role in this. Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Korea, China, Maldives, and Indonesia are examples of countries in the Asia-Pacific that have benefited from cross-border educational services. Today, countries have realized that there are ways to protect the interests of both the sending and receiving countries and they see cooperation as the best way to do that. As the quantity of international activity grows, and generates corresponding QA attention, there is a danger of too much QA for international operations. In the long term, this might be a threat to innovation and creative learning models and promote a compliance culture, as HEIs have to undergo multiple QA regimes leading to overload of QA. This realization has resulted in many pilot initiatives for cooperation among QA agencies and their networks. Regional initiatives with political will such as the Bologna process and the Brisbane Communique´ are likely (eventually) to make a significant impact on these initiatives.
(and indeed are working) on the mechanisms for assuring quality across boundaries and for collaborating with other national QA agencies. Networks of QA agencies are playing a central role here, in capacity-building for their member agencies, and advocating the development and use of good practice. Ensuring some convergence among diverse QA policies and practices, and strengthening cooperation among QA agencies, emerge as issues for the future. Until these developments take hold, there will be a mismatch between what the HEIs need in terms of international QA and what the various QA bodies are able to provide. The current widespread attention to these needs gives cause for optimism that a better alignment will gradually be achieved. See also: The Bologna Process in European Higher Education; UNESCO’s Role in the Development of Higher Education in a Globalized World.
Bibliography OECD/Norway (2003). Papers Presented at the Forum on ‘Trade in Educational Services’, 3–4 November 2003, Norway.
Further Reading Campbell, C. and Van der Wende, M. C. (2000). International initiatives and trends in quality assurance for European higher education: Exploratory trend report. ENQA Occasional Paper, Helsinki. Larsen, K. and Momii, K. (eds.) (2004). Quality and Recognition in Higher Education: The Cross-Border Challenge. Paris: OECD. OECD (1999). Quality and Internationalisation in Higher Education. Paris: Institutional Management in Higher Education (IMHE). Stella, A. (2006). Accreditation of higher education in the Asia-Pacific: What is at stake? In Sanyal, B. (ed.) Higher Education in the World 2007. Barcelona: GUNI. Stella, A. and Woodhouse, D. (2007). International dimensions of quality assurance in higher education. Paper Presented in the INQAAHE Bi-Annual Conference on ‘Quality Assurance: Coming of Age – Lessons from the Past and Strategies for the Future’, 2–5 April 2007, Toronto, ON.
Relevant Websites Conclusion There are massive changes in the international engagement of institutions, both in nature and in quantity. This poses challenges for the institutions as they operate in different cultures and their students cross national boundaries. Maintaining high quality of these activities is the responsibility of the institutions (QA of internationalization) and also of the QA agencies (internationalization of QA). However, most QA agencies were established with national authority and national remits. They must work
http://www.abet.org – Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET). http://www.apqn.org – Asia-Pacific Quality Network (APQN). http://www.mbaworld.com – Association of MBA (AMBA). http://www.aacsb.edu – Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB). http://www.auqa.edu.au – Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA). http://www.avcc.edu.au – Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee (AVCC). http://www.coneau.edu.ar – Comisio´n Nacional de Evaluacio´n y Acreditacio´n Universitaria (CONEAU). http://www.chea.org – Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA).
International Accreditation in Higher Education http://www.enqa.eu – European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA). http://www.eca.consortium.net – European Consortium for Accreditation (ECA). http://www.efmd.be – European Foundation for Management Development (EFMD). http://www.eua.be – European University Association (EUA). http://www.iau.org – International Astronomical Union (IAU). http://www.icn.ch – International Council of Nurses (ICN). http://www.ifna-int.org – International Federation of Nurse Anesthetists (IFNA).
539
http://www.inqaahe.org – International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE). http://www.iso.org – International Organization for Standardization (ISO). http://www.aau.ac.nz – New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit (NZUAAU). http://www.qaa.ac.uk – Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA). http://www.unesco.org – United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). http://www.washingtonaccord.org – Washington Accord.
Introduction Over the last 20 years, many countries have created quality assurance (QA) bodies to assist, check, or regulate their higher education institutions (HEIs). These bodies exercise their QA responsibility through various modes and methods that essentially fall under one of the three basic approaches – accreditation, assessment, and quality audit. Of these modes and their combinations, accreditation is the most widely used term in many countries around the world and many QA bodies have some form of accreditation practices. Accreditation being the predominant mode of QA, the term accreditation is used in the following pages to denote all forms of QA. A recent phenomenon in accreditation is that institutions are looking beyond their national borders, and they voluntarily undergo multiple accreditation processes from QA bodies in different countries. What can a foreign accrediting body offer that is not provided by an institution’s local agency? The answer lies in addressing the emerging challenges and changes in the higher education (HE) sector. The HE sector in many countries is changing dramatically characterized by increasing international operations of HEIs, demand for value for money from the various stakeholders, increasing academic and professional mobility across national borders, demand for recognition of qualifications, and growth of regional and global trade initiatives. These are the new rationales that drive international engagement and put pressure on HEIs to take an international approach to accreditation.
Changing Rationales of International Engagement Internationalization has now come to be defined in very broad terms. From an initial focus on bringing international students to the domestic campus, it has expanded to include the international engagement of HEIs through collaboration in curriculum development, teaching, research, and outreach. There are two dimensions to the international engagement of HEIs. Institutions may integrate an international or intercultural aspect into the teaching and research in their domestic campus and encourage international students and staff to join the domestic campus; this is called internationalization at home. HEIs may cross national borders to offer their services in other countries and that is internationalization
abroad. Both these aspects of international engagement are increasing rapidly and this affects various stakeholders in different ways. Stakeholders such as governments and the public who once emphasized accountability and quality improvement in the national context now extend their attention to the international operations of the HE sector. Furthermore, the drivers of internationalization have changed. Until recently, cultural, educational, and mutual understanding motives were the common historical basis of internationalization policies for HE. For one or more of these reasons, every country finances staff and students to study or research abroad, via university bursary schemes, bilateral or multilateral agreements, and policies to promote mobility. These rationales and the attendant policies are still present today, but they have been complemented by new trends and rationales. Although mutual understanding and international cooperation in teaching and research rank high on many countries’ internationalization agenda, economic and revenue-generation rationales have become much more important recently and have sometimes become primary (OECD/Norway, 2003). The economic rationales have made the international clientele scrutinize the value for money spent on study. To be able to remain competitive, especially in the overseas marketing of the programs, HEIs are under pressure to affirm their quality in an internationally comparable way. In parallel, mobility of students and staff has grown considerably. Regional and global trade agreements are encouraging the movement of professionals across national borders. One of the most important consequences of this development is the demand for academic and professional recognition of qualifications. Discussions on the World Trade Organisation’s (WTO) general agreement on trade in services (GATS) have already identified problems in recognition of qualifications as an indirect barrier to liberalizing trade; as countries join GATS, issues related to recognition issues are gaining greater momentum, and HEIs look for ways to enhance the portability of the qualifications they offer. Closely related to the recognition of qualifications is the issue of accreditation. Credential evaluators, recognition bodies, employers, and professional bodies show interest in determining the quality of an institution, program, or qualification, and they are inclined to take account of the quality of the institution in their decision making. Many of the problems in this context are around determining whether a program or institution awarding a certain qualification meets certain threshold levels of
533
534
Higher Education – Tertiary Education in a Globalized World
quality. This attention to levels of quality and standards exerts pressure on HEIs to assure the quality of their services to clientele spread across national borders. In recent years, there have also been criticisms about the quality of internationalization itself. The QA arrangements and academic oversight an institution has for its domestic offerings may be robust, but it may not be possible to generalize that to the international activities because of variations in academic oversight and coordination. This situation has resulted in severe criticism, especially of the marketing of offshore programs in receiving countries. To address this, HEIs take a strategic approach to their planning and development; today, internationalization and assurance of its quality are given an institutionwide systemic and strategic attention. Thus, the interplay between various internal and external pressures has resulted in HEIs exploring strategic approaches to their QA processes with an international orientation. This has triggered developments in three major streams and they are outlined in this section. First, HEIs have opted for multiple accreditation and international accreditation. Second, associations of HEIs have started approaching QA issues that cross national borders through codes of practices and agreements. Third, QA agencies and their networks have expanded their scope and approach to QA in response to the internationalized HE sector.
HEIs in the Internationalized Landscape National QA bodies often focus on assuring the quality of programs offered in their respective countries by their domestic institutions. In such systems, HEIs active in international engagement realize that they have outgrown their national contexts, including their national QA systems. Acknowledging that the national QA systems are not yet ready to serve the cause of international engagement of the order the HEIs need, many HEIs have opted for QA strategies that go beyond the national approaches. Of the various factors that have motivated HEIs to take an international approach to QA issues, the demand for academic and professional recognition of qualifications ranks very high. Often the recognition of qualifications across borders is complicated by the lack of transparent national criteria for quality and standards. Even in Europe, which is known for student mobility programs such as European region action scheme for the mobility of university students (ERASMUS), supported by the network of information centers and recognition bodies, incomplete recognition for the credits earned in study abroad and delay in getting the recognition was a problem till recently. The situation has been improved by the wider introduction of the European credit transfer scheme and the Bologna process. However, in other parts of the world,
the recognition of qualifications beyond national borders is not very encouraging and the impact that national QA systems can have to address this issue is still weak. To get past the limitations of national QA systems in this respect, some HEIs opt for certification by international organizations such as the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) for their quality management systems. ISO 9001 is an international standard which relates to the achievement of quality in an organization. Although some institutions find it helpful to use ISO 9001 to demonstrate their quality in an internationally comparable way, there is a general criticism that ISO standards originate from the manufacturing context and are not therefore well matched to the educational sphere. Few HEIs find the effort required to achieve full ISO 9001 certification provides adequate returns, although many institutions have ISO 9001 for part of their operations, usually administrative areas. More commonly, HEIs attempt to overcome the barriers to recognition of qualifications by undergoing QA processes of organizations that operate internationally. Often, one HEI undergoes multiple reviews or accreditations. This is particularly found in professional areas of studies where student and staff mobility is high. The European Foundation for Management Development (EFMD) under its European Quality Improvement System (EQUIS), the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB), and the Association of MBAs (AMBA) are professional associations that accept international applications for their accreditation process in business studies.
Associations and Networks of Higher Education Institutions In addition to such direct methods for addressing academic and professional recognition of qualifications, institutions also assure themselves and others of their quality by adherence to codes of practice and guidelines established by associations and networks of HEIs. Codes of practice are common at the national level and for the most part they are statements of principles related to moral imperatives in international engagement. The code of practice and guidelines for Australian universities on provision of education to international students by the Australian vice-chancellors committee; the code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in HE: collaborative provision, QAA, UK; principles of good practice for educational programs for non-US nationals by the council for HE accreditation; and the code of ethical practice in international education developed by the Canadian Bureau for International Education are a few examples. Making a commitment to adhere to codes of practice serves as a generic type of QA and it can work well in mature HE systems. If the code is framed as a guideline
International Accreditation in Higher Education
rather than as a policy, it may not be possible to have a system in place to monitor and assess compliance. Instead, such a code appeals to the ethics and conscience of the institutions and the staff who are involved in international engagement and it tries to develop a set of values and principles to guide the process. In addition, associations and networks of HEIs have initiated projects on quality that cut across national borders. The institutional evaluation program (IEP) initiated by the European University Association (EUA; formerly CRE) is an example that has a focus on quality management. In 1994, EUA launched the individualized education plan (IEP) for its member universities to assess their strengths and weaknesses in quality management. The review is based on a self-evaluation and external peer review conducted by senior international institution leaders. So far, over 150 universities in Europe and worldwide have participated in the evaluation. EUA reports that the major benefits derived are an increased strategic capacity and strengthened internal quality culture – two essential attributes for dealing with current and future challenges in HE. Since 2001, EUA has also carried out sector-wide evaluations to identify and make recommendations on the systemic challenges and the common issues shared by all institutions in a given sector. Other examples include the projects and benchmarking initiatives of the association of commonwealth universities on issues that are common to universities across national borders; the task force on accreditation established by the international association of university presidents; and a working group on accreditation set up by the confederation of European rector’s conferences. As internationalization becomes more widely understood and the process of internationalization matures, it is increasingly important that institutions of HE address the issues of quality assessment and assurance of the international aspects of their operations. This realization galvanized international and intergovernmental bodies with an interest in HE to pay attention to the international aspects of HEIs. For example, the OECD program on institutional management in higher education (IMHE) has taken a close interest in the international dimension of HE over a number of years. Since 1994, it has led an activity focussing on a cross-country analysis of institutional level strategies, the internationalization quality review process (IQRP). IQRP aims to help individual institutions of HE to assess and enhance the quality of their international dimension according to their own stated aims and objectives. Several organizations of HEIs have produced position papers and declarations on issues related to quality in cross-border education, triggered by the GATS debate. They too serve as guidelines in shaping the international approach of the HEIs toward QA. Examples are the Accra Declaration on GATS and the Internationalisation of
535
Higher Education in Africa (2004) by the Association of African Universities; and the document Sharing Quality Higher Education Across Borders: A Statement on Behalf of Higher Education Institutions Worldwide (2005) jointly prepared by the International Association Of Universities, the Association Of Universities and Colleges of Canada, the American Council on Education, and Council for Higher Education Accreditation.
Response of the Quality Assurance Agencies As HEIs collaborate with their counterparts across borders, it is but natural that they expect the quality assurance agencies to follow a similar approach and collaborate with QA agencies across borders. If QA agencies do not develop this capacity to cooperate with their counterparts, the serviceability of QA agencies to HEIs and the effectiveness of QA services will be seriously limited. While looking at the way the QA agencies have responded to the international engagement of HEIs, it is necessary to see the general QA developments as well as the developments specific to professional areas of studies where the professional bodies and professional accreditors do the gate keeping and act as QA bodies in their areas of specialization. Professional bodies are a type of quality agency, using many of the common methods, although their authority is confined to one discipline area. Professional Bodies and Their Networks Attention to the mobility of professionals has given a fillip to professional accrediting associations, whose members want international collaboration between associations in order to achieve international recognition of their professional qualifications. Systems of licensure, certification, and accreditation are emerging to support professional mobility. This gives rise to international definitions of quality of education in professional areas of studies. Professional organizations, accrediting bodies, and certification and licensure bodies are interested in developing mutually acceptable standards in cooperation with their counterparts in other countries and are considering mutual recognition (MR) agreements. There are instances of professional bodies accepting international applications and recognition agreements among a group of countries with mutually acceptable standards. The way the accreditation board for engineering and technology (ABET), a federation of the US professional engineering societies, expanded its scope is an interesting example. As the demand for engineering mobility has increased, the assessment of the quality of education in engineering programs at institutions outside US has become increasingly important. To meet these needs, ABET has become
536
Higher Education – Tertiary Education in a Globalized World
involved internationally through mutual recognition agreements, program evaluations, educational consultancy visits, assistance in developing accreditation systems in other countries, and in the accreditation of engineering programs outside US. The Washington Accord that developed out of this international approach of ABET is a successful example of a mutual recognition agreement. It is an agreement between the bodies responsible for accrediting professional engineering programs in each of the signatory countries. It recognizes the substantial equivalence of programs accredited by those bodies, and recommends that graduates of accredited programs in any of the signatory countries be recognized by the other countries as having met the academic requirements for entry to the practice of engineering. As of May 2007, there are ten signatories to this accord with four more in the provisional list. The procedures underpinning this accord include circulation and consideration of any revisions made by any one of the associations to its procedures, and intermittent attendance at accreditation events by teams of representatives of the other members of the accord. It is to be noted that these agreements are between Englishspeaking countries or countries that are willing to operate in English for this purpose. Despite the wide attention to this accord, it has not spawned many copies. Professions more tightly controlled by law or statute find the mutual recognition task more difficult. However, some progress is being made in a number of other areas. In architecture, the international union of architects (UIA) has developed the UIA Accord on Recommended International Standards of Professionalism in Architectural Practice and nine related accord policy guidelines. It is the first time the profession of architecture has adopted a global standard. Further, an international charter for architectural teaching was agreed in 1996, and work on this has resulted in the UNESCO–UIA validation system for architectural education. The International Federation of Nurse Anaesthetists (IFNA) has been working on this for a number of years, and IFNA is the first international nursing or medical organization to have developed international standards and guidelines for education, practice, and ethics. The International Council of Nurses and IFNA have started addressing the concept of international accreditation, but it will be several years before it is fully implemented. There are also some bilateral MR agreements of more limited extent. The actions of the professional associations in this area overlap with the regional and global trade initiatives and consequently with the GATS requirements. Although professional associations are themselves quality agencies, they do not commonly contribute to the design and development of the wider QA framework. On the other hand, general purpose QA agencies often engage in the QA developments of the professional sector. Most regional accreditors in US, QAA (UK), New Zealand
Universities Academic Audit Unit NZUAAU (New Zealand), and Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA) (Australia) collaborate with professional associations to varying degrees, from two-way information sharing, to collaborative review events. General QA Developments Just as HEIs are internationalizing, so is QA itself. Similar to the HEIs offering their services across borders, some QA agencies extend their service to international clientele or HE sectors across borders. One reason is the need for capacity development in QA in some countries. The second reason is the unsustainability of a dedicated QA system in some situations such as small island nations. It might be more practicable for these countries to approach another reliable QA agency(ies) for QA services. Auditing of the universities of Mauritius and the South Pacific, the latter covering 12 small island nations, by the QA agencies of neighboring countries, is an example. Another example is the accreditation carried out by the regional accreditors of the US for overseas non-US institutions. The current volume of this activity is low, but is increasing. The networks of QA agencies have made a significant impact in creating awareness among the QA agencies on common issues related to QA of international activities. There is a growing acknowledgment by quality agencies that they should whenever possible recognize each others’ decisions, and that if possible this recognition should be mutual between the agencies. Two agencies that are both operating at the internationally accepted level of competence may recognize each other’s judgments about the institutions in their jurisdiction, and jointly provide assurance to governments, employers, students, and other institutions about the quality and standing of the institutions and their qualifications. The International Network of Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE) has discussed the mutual recognition of QA decisions among its members. The Asia-Pacific Quality Network (APQN) runs a project on mutual recognition and has a target of all its full members recognizing each others’ judgments by 2010. The European Association for Quality Assurance (ENQA) has also been active in pilot projects on mutual recognition. The European Consortium for Accreditation, which is a sub-network of ENQA, and whose members are those agencies in Europe whose main evaluation activity is program accreditation, have committed themselves to develop a system for mutually recognizing each other’s accreditation decisions. ENQA has also committed itself to developing a European register of QA agencies, and agency compliance with the European standards for external QA agencies will be one criterion for placement in the register. This register has the potential to facilitate mutual recognition developments.
International Accreditation in Higher Education
MR depends on the trust and confidence QA agencies can have in each other’s QA decision making. In recent years, the networks of QA agencies have paid attention to the question: what is a good QA system? Discussions addressing this question have resulted in the description of features that can be expected of ideal QA systems, and in the identification of ways in which QA systems may attain these characteristics. Notable developments include the INQAAHE guidelines of good practice (GGP), and standards and guidelines for quality assurance in the European HE area (ESG), 2005. In addition to the networks of QA agencies, pointers and guidelines have also been developed by intergovernmental bodies such as UNESCO and OECD, drawn up by various stakeholders as well as experts in the field.
Role of Intergovernmental Bodies Intergovernmental bodies such as UNESCO and OECD have also contributed to these developments. UNESCO regional conventions on recognition of qualifications are a notable example. UNESCO Conventions are legal agreements between countries to recognize academic qualifications issued by other countries that have ratified the same agreement. A number of recognition tools such as a diploma supplement and the code of good practice in the provision of transnational education (adopted by the Lisbon recognition convention committee) have been developed in the framework of the UNESCO Conventions. It was the Lisbon convention that established an explicit link between QA and the recognition of qualifications. Specifically, the diploma supplement, designed to facilitate international recognition of qualifications is required to show the QA regime under which the qualification was awarded. Unfortunately, it continues to be difficult to give effect to this link, and QA agencies and recognition bodies tend to operate in different spheres. UNESCO–OECD guidelines on quality provision in cross-border HE (2005) propose good practices that can assist countries in assessing the quality and relevance of HE provided across borders and to protect students and other stakeholders in HE from low-quality HE provision.
Issues for the Future Capacity Development Traditionally, the national QA systems were not oriented to cover the international engagement of the HEIs. As the international engagement of HEIs increases, the expectation that national QA agencies be able to expand their scope is emerging as an imperative for all countries irrespective of the stage of development of their HE systems.
537
Surveys conducted by networks such as APQN, CINDA (in Latin America), AAU (in Africa), and INQAAHE have indicated that there is a need for capacity development in quality-related issues of the international activities. Similar results have been highlighted in the surveys conducted among the APEC economies as well as in the reports produced by UNESCO on mapping the QA systems in different regions. Consequently, many capacitydevelopment initiatives are in progress, supported by national governments and intergovernmental and international bodies such as the World Bank and the UNESCO. In spite of attention to capacity development, unequal stages of development will continue to be a problem in the future. Till the capacity of the national QA systems to adequately cover the international engagement of their HEIs is raised, HEIs might be burdened with multiple and international accreditation to facilitate recognition of their qualifications across national borders. Lack of Convergence among Diversity Policies and practices of QA of the international activities of the HEIs vary even among countries of similar type, especially regarding internationalization abroad. QA agencies take various approaches to assuring the quality of this cross-border education. For example, in the UK, the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) from time to time convenes a panel to visit a group of overseas operations of the British HEIs in one country or region. In Australia, AUQA’s audits address the transnational operations of the university sector institution by institution. The regional accreditors of the US carry out visits to any operation that is established more than 40 miles from the institution’s main campus, including across borders. If there is such a variation among the three major exporters, one can understand how difficult it would be in other situations to look for a common framework. Now QA agencies have realized that they need to ensure convergence toward some common framework and some QA agencies have taken initiatives to map the common framework. Developments in Europe through the Bologna process have the potential to facilitate this convergence, but how much convergence can be achieved in the QA of international activities in the near future is a big question. Lack of Dialog and Cooperation among Quality Assurance Agencies There is a need for strengthened dialog among QA agencies at two levels. First, communication among the QA agencies of major sending countries needs to improve. There are many instances where an institution of the receiving country that has partnership with HEIs from different countries is burdened with the QA regime of a number of those countries, embracing a number of separate reporting requirements and review visits. This could
538
Higher Education – Tertiary Education in a Globalized World
be avoided if QA agencies of the major sending countries can establish an appropriate mechanism to work collaboratively. Collaboration is emerging, but it will take many years for the cooperation to materialize in ways that will reduce the QA overload of institutions. Second, the dialog between the QA agencies of the sending and receiving countries is very weak. Differences in the capacity of the QA systems to consider international activities itself may be a barrier to facilitate a meaningful dialog among the QA agencies. Lack of capacity, diversity in practices, and absence of a productive dialog among QA agencies lead to mistrust and stereotypic understandings about the QA of international activities. That perception is gradually changing in some countries due to the evidence that international engagement in HE can respond to human and social development needs, provide new opportunities, and increase the possibilities for improving workforce skills if managed appropriately. Teacher-education programs offered in Africa, when there was shortage of trained teachers, with the support of the Commonwealth of Learning through open and distance learning, is an example and India had an active role in this. Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Korea, China, Maldives, and Indonesia are examples of countries in the Asia-Pacific that have benefited from cross-border educational services. Today, countries have realized that there are ways to protect the interests of both the sending and receiving countries and they see cooperation as the best way to do that. As the quantity of international activity grows, and generates corresponding QA attention, there is a danger of too much QA for international operations. In the long term, this might be a threat to innovation and creative learning models and promote a compliance culture, as HEIs have to undergo multiple QA regimes leading to overload of QA. This realization has resulted in many pilot initiatives for cooperation among QA agencies and their networks. Regional initiatives with political will such as the Bologna process and the Brisbane Communique´ are likely (eventually) to make a significant impact on these initiatives.
(and indeed are working) on the mechanisms for assuring quality across boundaries and for collaborating with other national QA agencies. Networks of QA agencies are playing a central role here, in capacity-building for their member agencies, and advocating the development and use of good practice. Ensuring some convergence among diverse QA policies and practices, and strengthening cooperation among QA agencies, emerge as issues for the future. Until these developments take hold, there will be a mismatch between what the HEIs need in terms of international QA and what the various QA bodies are able to provide. The current widespread attention to these needs gives cause for optimism that a better alignment will gradually be achieved. See also: The Bologna Process in European Higher Education; UNESCO’s Role in the Development of Higher Education in a Globalized World.
Bibliography OECD/Norway (2003). Papers Presented at the Forum on ‘Trade in Educational Services’, 3–4 November 2003, Norway.
Further Reading Campbell, C. and Van der Wende, M. C. (2000). International initiatives and trends in quality assurance for European higher education: Exploratory trend report. ENQA Occasional Paper, Helsinki. Larsen, K. and Momii, K. (eds.) (2004). Quality and Recognition in Higher Education: The Cross-Border Challenge. Paris: OECD. OECD (1999). Quality and Internationalisation in Higher Education. Paris: Institutional Management in Higher Education (IMHE). Stella, A. (2006). Accreditation of higher education in the Asia-Pacific: What is at stake? In Sanyal, B. (ed.) Higher Education in the World 2007. Barcelona: GUNI. Stella, A. and Woodhouse, D. (2007). International dimensions of quality assurance in higher education. Paper Presented in the INQAAHE Bi-Annual Conference on ‘Quality Assurance: Coming of Age – Lessons from the Past and Strategies for the Future’, 2–5 April 2007, Toronto, ON.
Relevant Websites Conclusion There are massive changes in the international engagement of institutions, both in nature and in quantity. This poses challenges for the institutions as they operate in different cultures and their students cross national boundaries. Maintaining high quality of these activities is the responsibility of the institutions (QA of internationalization) and also of the QA agencies (internationalization of QA). However, most QA agencies were established with national authority and national remits. They must work
http://www.abet.org – Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET). http://www.apqn.org – Asia-Pacific Quality Network (APQN). http://www.mbaworld.com – Association of MBA (AMBA). http://www.aacsb.edu – Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB). http://www.auqa.edu.au – Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA). http://www.avcc.edu.au – Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee (AVCC). http://www.coneau.edu.ar – Comisio´n Nacional de Evaluacio´n y Acreditacio´n Universitaria (CONEAU). http://www.chea.org – Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA).
International Accreditation in Higher Education http://www.enqa.eu – European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA). http://www.eca.consortium.net – European Consortium for Accreditation (ECA). http://www.efmd.be – European Foundation for Management Development (EFMD). http://www.eua.be – European University Association (EUA). http://www.iau.org – International Astronomical Union (IAU). http://www.icn.ch – International Council of Nurses (ICN). http://www.ifna-int.org – International Federation of Nurse Anesthetists (IFNA).
539
http://www.inqaahe.org – International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE). http://www.iso.org – International Organization for Standardization (ISO). http://www.aau.ac.nz – New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit (NZUAAU). http://www.qaa.ac.uk – Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA). http://www.unesco.org – United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). http://www.washingtonaccord.org – Washington Accord.