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 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
Register

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Featured Jobs

Reader in Politics and Policy

St Marys University, Twickenham

Engineer

Cern

Professor of Anthropology

Maynooth University

Preceptor in Statistics

Harvard University

Postdoctoral Fellowship in Electrochemistry

Norwegian University Of Science & Technology -ntnu
See all jobs

Most Commented

Doctoral study can seem like a 24-7 endeavour, but don't ignore these other opportunities, advise Robert MacIntosh and Kevin O'Gorman

Matthew Brazier illustration (9 February 2017)

How do you defeat Nazis and liars? Focus on the people in earshot, says eminent Holocaust scholar Deborah Lipstadt

Improvement, performance, rankings, success

Phil Baty sets out why the World University Rankings are here to stay – and why that's a good thing

Laurel and Hardy sawing a plank of wood

Working with other academics can be tricky so follow some key rules, say Kevin O'Gorman and Robert MacIntosh

Warwick vice-chancellor Stuart Croft on why his university reluctantly joined the ‘flawed’ teaching excellence framework