Sector cools on QAA plans to use foreign reviewers

Consultation shows widespread resistance to regulator’s proposal

July 11, 2013

Source: Getty

Under scrutiny: QAA plans to use international reviewers have been shelved

The Quality Assurance Agency has dropped plans to use international reviewers on its institutional review teams after opposition from within the sector.

In a consultation on the QAA’s Higher Education Review method, which comes into effect in 2013-14, just over 40 per cent of respondents disagreed with the proposal to have academics from other university systems on inspection teams.

Several respondents suggested that overseas academics might not be familiar with the nuances of the UK higher education quality assurance processes, according to the report, Outcomes of QAA Consultation on Higher Education Review, published last month.

Others were worried about the training of international reviewers; the cost of using such reviewers was also mentioned.

There was slightly more support (68 per cent) for a pilot scheme using 20 international reviewers over the next two academic years, but many scholars were still opposed to their “premature” inclusion.

In its first handbook on the new method, the QAA has said that the proposed pilot will not proceed. Instead a small group of international academics will initially act as observers.

There was more support for the new “flexible, risk-based method” for reviews, which, the QAA handbook says, “applies the greatest scrutiny where it is most needed”.

It follows calls by David Willetts, the universities and science minister, for the regulator to reduce scrutiny of highly rated universities and concentrate its resources on higher-risk institutions.

Under the new review process, institutions will be asked to submit written evidence to the QAA that will determine the number of reviewers and duration needed for an institutional review – a process supported by 86 per cent of respondents.

While 85 per cent of respondents backed the idea of “high, medium and low-intensity reviews”, some raised concerns that institutions undergoing longer inspections might be wrongly perceived as a high-risk institution.

jack.grove@tsleducation.com

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 3 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
Register

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Most Commented

Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford will host a homeopathy conference next month

Charity says Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford is ‘naive’ to hire out its premises for event

women leapfrog. Vintage

Robert MacIntosh and Kevin O’Gorman offer advice on climbing the career ladder

Woman pulling blind down over an eye
Liz Morrish reflects on why she chose to tackle the failings of the neoliberal academy from the outside
White cliffs of Dover

From Australia to Singapore, David Matthews and John Elmes weigh the pros and cons of likely destinations

Michael Parkin illustration (9 March 2017)

Cramming study into the shortest possible time will impoverish the student experience and drive an even greater wedge between research-enabled permanent staff and the growing underclass of flexible teaching staff, says Tom Cutterham