QAA criticised for keeping appeals outcomes secret

Geoffrey Alderman argues standards watchdog’s decision flies in face of its commitment to openness and transparency

February 6, 2014

Source: Kobal

Secretive: QAA’s decision criticised

The sector’s standards watchdog has been criticised for being secretive after it said it will no longer publish details of appeals against its judgements.

Under changes announced by the Quality Assurance Agency, no information will be disclosed about any individual higher education institution that lodges an appeal against a review team’s decision in case it causes “inadvertent reputational damage”. Neither will details of an appeal be made public once any repeat review has been completed, the QAA says.

The rule change, approved by the QAA board in December, comes after a successful appeal by the University of Southampton against critical findings in an institutional review carried out in 2012. Details of Southampton’s appeal are still expected to be published alongside the outcome of its repeat review, set for 2014-15.

“I do not see any reason why the public should not know details of these appeals,” said Geoffrey Alderman, professor of politics and history at the University of Buckingham and former head of the University of London’s academic council.

“I suspect it is to spare the QAA any embarrassment when its original decisions are overturned,” said Professor Alderman. “It does not sit well at all with the QAA’s apparent commitment to openness and transparency – why should there be this secrecy?” he added.

However, Douglas Blackstock, the QAA’s head of resources, said publishing information on appeals was unhelpful because “what is important is the confirmed judgement of the review team”.

“As well as the potential for inadvertent reputational damage to an institution that appeals, successfully or not, when this appeal is in the public domain, we are also concerned that publication could act as a deterrent to using the appeal process,” he said.

Professor Alderman has criticised other changes, including the removal of “perversity” of judgement as a reason to appeal a QAA decision, previously defined as an “unreasonable or disproportionate [conclusion] in the light of the available evidence”.

Institutions will instead have to appeal on grounds of procedural irregularity, such as reviewers failing to carry out agreed procedures, taking account of irrelevant information or exceeding their powers.

“A judgement can be perverse and go against the evidence,” said Professor Alderman. “Perversity is a term well-recognised in law courts and I don’t understand why it has been deleted,” he added.

The QAA has also made it clear that universities cannot object to individual appeal panel members on the grounds that they are from a different type of institution.

It pointed out that “type of institution” has never been a legitimate ground to reject a panel member – “conflict of interest” being the only reason. “The appeal panel is not re-running the review – it is considering whether it has been run properly or not,” Mr Blackstock said, adding that all panellists are experienced QAA reviewers.

However, Professor Alderman said research-intensive universities should be able to raise such objections. “It’s not a matter of being ‘snooty’, but peer review should be done by those from institutions with a broadly similar status and vision of higher education,” he said.

“It cuts both ways, too. A new university is different to a research-intensive, so you can see them objecting to someone working mainly in Oxbridge,” he added.

Times Higher Education free 30-day trial

You've reached your article limit

Register to continue

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 6 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments

Reader's comments (1)

As I understand it, QAA is contracted to the Funding Councils to provide the quality assessments required under the 1992 Further and Higher Education Acts. The Funding Councils are subject to statutory directions from Ministers. I agree with Geoffrey Alderman and to add to his views, I think Ministers should simply direct the Funding Councils to overrule QAA. I know QAA is funded by institutions and there is a clear conflict of interest if QAA is unable to publish details of specific appeals. Just a contribution to the debate - others will have different opinions no doubt!

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Featured Jobs

Most Commented

United Nations peace keeper

Understanding the unwritten rules of graduate study is vital if you want to get the most from your PhD supervision, say Kevin O'Gorman and Robert MacIntosh

David Parkins Christmas illustration (22 December 2016)

A Dickensian tale, set in today’s university

Eleanor Shakespeare illustration (5 January 2017)

Fixing problems in the academic job market by reducing the number of PhDs would homogenise the sector, argues Tom Cutterham

poi, circus

Kate Riegle van West had to battle to bring her circus life and her academic life together

Houses of Parliament, Westminster, government

There really is no need for the Higher Education and Research Bill, says Anne Sheppard