Database of Precedents

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	05/11/2019
Standard	2.6 Reporting
Keywords	Publication of reports
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“In the last review of the agency the Register Committee flagged for attention the publication of reports for evaluation of study programmes and monitoring reports of study programmes, which then were only communicated to the interested party.The review panel found that Unibasq published all reports, except for the ex-ante accreditation reports on programmes that have not been successful.In its additional representation Unibasq confirmed that it does not publish reports for the from ex-ante accreditation, arguing that it would be confusingfor readers to find information on a study programme that will never exist. Unibasq did not express any intention to change this practice in future.The Register Committee underlined that all reports should be published as required by the standard. The Committee underlined that even if a study programme will not be offered it can be of interest for the public to know which concepts were denied accreditation and why. In particular, such information is important if the same programme applies for accreditation by another agency, which needs to be able to find out that it was earlier denied accreditation by another agency.As the flag was largely, but not fully, addressed the Register Committee did not concur with the review panel’s conclusion of compliance, but concluded that Unibasq still complies only partially with ESG 2.6”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	05/11/2019
Standard	2.7 Complaints and appeals
Keywords	unclear process for handling complaints
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“In order to improve the appeals procedure, the former Ethics Committee became the Ethics and Guarantees Committee, which was composed of members who play an active role within the agency. The review panel noted that the composition of the Committee was limiting its independence. The Register Committee underlined the recommendation of the panel that the Ethics and Guarantees Committee be composed of members who are independent from the agency and the Basque higher education system. In its additional representation, Unibasq stated that the composition of the Committee had been changed. The new Ethics and Guarantees Code, which was approved by Unibasq’s Governing Council, established that the Committee is now composed of experts from outside the Basque University System, who moreover cannot be part of any other Unibasq body or committee. The Register Committee was able to see the new composition on Unibasq’s website. Furthermore, while the panel confirmed that Unibasq has developed a clear appeals processes, it referred to “a more general procedure for the reception and handling of complaints and suggestion”, but did not analyse that in detail. In its additional representation, Unibasq did not comment further on the complaints procedure. Given the unclear process for handling complaints, the Register Committee remained unable to concur with the review panel’s conclusion of compliance, but concluded that Unibasq complies only partially with ESG 2.7.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	05/11/2019
Standard	3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance
Keywords	Clasification of Titulos propios
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Agency (20/05/2019)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The Register Committee sought and received clarification regarding the evaluation of “títulos propios”. Unibasq clarified that these activities were not listed in its application for renewal of registration because Unibasq “realized that it was more a consultancy activity as Unibasq just provides an external expert report” and thus did not consider them as activities within the scope of ESG.In support of its classification, Unibasq stated that it acted only as a subcontractor to the UPV/EHU and had no own responsibility for the review process or the outcomes. The Register Committee also noted that Unibasq does not provide “accreditation” of ‘títulos propios”, contrary to what was published by UPV/EHU. Unibasq, however, stated on its website that it “will evaluate and certificate” those degrees.Unibasq further noted that the misunderstandings were caused by a discrepancy between the internal regulations of the UPV/EHU and the public information on their website, stating that some programmes are accredited by Unibasq.Having considered Unibasq's response, the Register Committee accepted that the evaluation of “títulos propios” may be classified as consultancy service performed by Unibasq to UPV/EHU. The Register Committee further considered how Unibasq ensured a clear distinction from its external quality assurance activities within the scope of the ESG (see EQAR Policy on the Use and Interpretation of the ESG, standard 3.1 and Annex 5). The Committee noted that such a clear distinction was particularly crucial in this case, given that the terminology and the characteristic of the activity caused an actual risk of confusion with ESG activities.The Register Committee concluded that the presentation on Unibasq's website was misleading and did not ensure clarity as to the different nature of these evaluations; it thus considered that Unibasq did not comply with the standard.In its additional representation, Unibasq stated that it held specific meetings with the UPV/EHU, sent a formal letter regarding this issue and elaborated a new agreement with the UPV/EHU, which was approved by Unibasq’s Governing Council. As stated in the agreement, the evaluations of “Títulos propios” are consultancy activities which cannot be represented as ”Accredited, validated or reviewed by Unibasq”. In addition, Unibasq removed from its website the information that could have been misleading about “títulos propios” previously. The Committee, however, noted that UPV/EHU continues to refer to an “external report” by Unibasq in its advertisement of “títulos propios”.The Register Committee welcomed Unibasq's steps that were taken to clarifythe status of this activity and to avoid further misinterpretations. At the sametime, the Register Committee considered that it cannot be fully determined at this stage whether the new communication is fully clear to all stakeholders and avoids any misrepresentation; this should thus be analysedin the next external review of Unibasq.The Register Committee remained unable to concur with the panel's conclusion of compliance but concluded that Unibasq now complies partially with standard 3.1”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	05/11/2019
Standard	3.4 Thematic analysis
Keywords
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“In the previous review the panel found that Unibasq had yet to produce a system-wide analysis and there was a lack of sufficient resources which is why this standard was flagged.The panel recognised that Unibasq has made clear progress in this area in recent years. The reports that agency produces show a clear shift from the evaluation of the procedures to a genuine thematic analysis (see page 24 of the report).The Committee concluded that the flag has been addressed and concurred with the review panel’s conclusion that Unibasq complies with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	05/11/2019
Standard	3.5 Resources
Keywords
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“In the last review of the agency the Register Committee expressed concern regarding Unibasq’s capacity to ensure adequate resources for the increasing number of its activities.In the meantime, the agency has received additional funds which have allowed the agency to play a very active role in the international quality assurance community. The panel commended the agency for the achievements and the active role.The Register Committee considered that the flag was addressed and therefore concurred with the panel’s conclusion that Unibasq complies with ESG 3.5.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	05/11/2019
Standard	2.6 Reporting
Keywords	acessibility and user-friendliness of th website
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“In its initial application for inclusion the Register Committee flagged AQ Austria’s publication of external QA reviews, as at that time only a few reports have been published. In the 2019 external review of AQ Austria, the panel’s analysis show that the agency has since published in full all its accreditations and audits related to its activities in Austria and abroad. The panel further commented that AQ Austria’s website however needs to be further improved in terms of accessibility and user-friendliness and recommended that the agency develops a database of reports to make the results of its quality assurance activities more accessible to its stakeholders.While the Register Committee concluded that the agency has addressed its flag, the Committee further underlined the panel’s recommendation.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	05/11/2019
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	Independence of formal outcomes/link to the ministry
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“In its previous application, the Register Committee expressed concerns with regards to the possibility of the Austrian Ministry to dismiss a decision of accreditation by the agency and has therefore flagged AQ Austria’s independence of formal outcomes. In considering this matter the panel stated in its review report (2019) that the legal framework stipulates the independence of the Board of AQ Austria. While the responsible Minister can withheld the decision of the Board, this can be done only in case of unlawful acts and with “overarching political deliberations”. The Register Committee concluded that a change in accreditation of decisions can only happen in exceptional situations and therefore concluded that the flag has been satisfactorily addressed.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	05/11/2019
Standard	3.4 Thematic analysis
Keywords	Producing effective thematic analysis reports
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“At the time of its previous review in 2014, the Register Committee noted that AQ Austria was working on its first thematic analysis report on the development of quality assurance in Austria, and has not yet produced documentation to evidence substantial compliance. In its 2019 review report the panel’s findings show that the agency has since produced a number of reports focused on the results of QA processes and related issues in higher education. While the Register Committee underlined the recommendations of the panel for a further development of the thematic analysis, the Register Committee concluded that the flag has been satisfactorily addressed.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	05/11/2019
Standard	3.6 Internal quality assurance and professional conduct
Keywords	Efectiveness of internal QA
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“In its previous decision of inclusion, the Register Committee noted that the internal quality assurance system have been recently put in place, and therefore has flagged this matter for the next external review of the agency. According to the 2019 external review report of AQ Austria, the agency has clearly defined processes for all its activities and consolidated its work as a result of its internal quality assurance processes.The Register Committee therefore concluded that the flag has been addressed.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ECA
Decision of	19/06/2019
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	no student on a panel at a request of an individual HEI
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (19/11/2018)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“17. [...] students had not been involved in the panels for enhancement reviews previously.

18. [...] The panel’s clarification confirmed that student involvement on panel’s was not yet a fully established practice across all reviews, but that students will be part of all future procedures.

20. [...] The Committee, however, noted that the December 2018 review of the Royal Academy of Fine Arts (KASK) in Ghent did not include a student panel member; with a note in the report that “contrary to EQ-Arts’ policy and practice, it was the decision and request of School of Art KASK that a student panel member was not included in this review process”.

21. The Register Committee concluded that EQ-Arts was apparently ready to make such exceptions, which are in contradiction to ESG standards. The Committee underlined that such exceptions are incompatible with the spirit of a predefined quality assurance process that is implemented consistently.

22. As EQ-Arts does not stringently implement its policy as regards student panel members, the Register Committee remained unable to concur with the panel’s conclusion, but considered that EQ-Arts only partially complies with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ECA
Decision of	19/06/2019
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	limited track record, issues in one specific case
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (19/11/2018)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“24. The Register Committee considered that there was a limited body of practical experience, even considering the track record built up under ELIA, as EQ-Arts has so far – as pointed out in the panel’s clarification – in its evaluations only “applied criteria in collaborative agreement with those of other bodies in all except the single enhancement carried out in 2017”. Moreover, EQ-Arts (and neither ELIA) has never made any formal assessment decisions itself.

25. The Committee noted the panel’s discussion of the one review carried out in Kazakhstan (see under ESG 3.3), which raised questions whether the agency had applied criteria in a consistent manner.

27. The Register Committee, however, concluded that EQ-Arts did not allay the concerns that stem from the review in Kazakhstan. Despite EQ-Arts' certainly larger track record of critical friend reviews, the review in Kazakhstan represents half of EQ-Arts’ total track record in terms of formal assessments.

28. Given the limited evidence for formal assessments and the fact that the review panel appeared to have had concerns in one out of the two formal assessments carried out so far, the Register Committee remained unable to concur with the panel’s conclusion, but considered that EQ-Arts only partially complies with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ECA
Decision of	19/06/2019
Standard	3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance
Keywords	Separation of external QA and consultancy activities
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (19/11/2018)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“33. The panel considered that it was “clear from EQ-Arts procedures and documentation, and confirmed during the site-visit – and, importantly, ‘ethos’ - [...] that those involved in any consultation activities cannot be involved in any assessment/ reviews nor in the making of any accreditation decisions nor involved in any related appeals procedures” (letter by the panel).

34. In its additional representation, EQ-Arts elaborated on the nature of its enhancement-oriented reviews and formal assessments, respectively. The Register Committee, however, underlined that the question related to the clear separation between consultancy activities, i.e. activities outside the scope of the ESG, and either of the two types of reviews (enhancement- oriented and formal assessment) offered by EQ-Arts. While it might be regarded more crucial for formal assessments, the Register Committee underlined that safeguards should be in place to avoid conflicts of interest in both types of reviews.

35. Having considered the panel's clarification and EQ-Arts' additional representation, the Committee remained unable to identify a specific provision in EQ-Arts’ suite of documents that rules out the possibility of reviewing an institution or programme that was previously consulted by EQ- Arts.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ECA
Decision of	19/06/2019
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	nomination of the Board members; limited track record
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (19/11/2018)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“38. The review panel found appropriate that "Potential Board members are identified / appointed by the Board not by public competition but [...] through informed ‘networking’".

39. Especially considering that there are no rules as to the Board’s composition otherwise (i.e. profiles or backgrounds of members to be appointed), the Register Committee considered that such an approach did not ensure sufficient transparency and did not provide a safeguard against one-sided third-party influence.

40. In its representation, EQ-Arts referred to the “skills audit” of its Board members and various documents that codify its independent status and that of its Board members. It further described how potential candidates are identified and appointed.

41. The Register Committee noted that EQ-Arts relies on the Board effectively recruiting its own successors, but without a public call. The Committee saw a risk in the fact that, due to the absence of any nominations by other bodies or a public competition, potentially suitable candidates cannot propose themselves unless contacted.

42. Bearing in mind the guideline to standard 3.1, i.e. “to ensure the meaningfulness of external quality assurance, it is important that institutions and the public trust agencies”, the Register Committee considers that the requirement of independence also implies a need for transparency and accountability.

43. The Register Committee underlined that most agencies ensure independence, transparency and accountability by receiving nominations to their Boards from different stakeholders. Such nomination rights exercised by different bodies constitute certain checks and balances, and prevent one single interest group from gaining full control.

44. The Register Committee considered that the absence of a nominations system paired with the informal approach to recruiting candidates did not ensure sufficient transparency and accountability to the agency’s sector.

46. The Register Committee had considered that, due to the small number of reviews carried out so far, the independence of EQ-Arts’ outcomes could only be demonstrated to some extent.

47. In its representation EQ-Arts reiterated its view that the number of reports should be considered sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the standards. The Register Committee accepted the argument considering the previous experience under the auspices of ELIA and the number of critical friend reviews that EQ-Arts carried out in addition to the formal assessments reviews; it considered that these indeed were sufficient to judge the independence of outcomes.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	03/04/2019
Standard	2.1 Consideration of internal quality assurance
Keywords	Addressing IQA
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“Register, the Committee flagged for consideration whether SQAA paid greater attention to higher education institutions' internal quality assurance systems. The Register Committee considered that the revisions of SQAA's standards and the shift to institutional accreditation addressed the flag.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	03/04/2019
Standard	2.3 Implementing processes
Keywords	Formal follow-up processes
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“The review panel considered there was a lack of a formal follow-up by SQAA to "touch base with HEIs” before the next cyclical re-evaluation/re-accreditation in case of unconditionally positive decisions. The Register Committee further took note of SQAA's response to the review report, setting out its approach to monitoring higher education institutions' internal quality assurance systems during the re-accreditation cycles.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	03/04/2019
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	clarity of the criteria for assessment
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (15/03/2019)
RC decision	Compliance

“Following the review panel's analysis that SQAA's criteria for assessment were not always clear and left room for interpretation, the Register Committee sought and received clarification from the panel on its conclusion as to the present standard. The Register Committee understood that SQAA's criteria were by and large perceived as clear, and that these remarks related to some – but not all or the majority of – criteria. It became clear that the panel's findings were more nuanced than the language might have suggested.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	03/04/2019
Standard	2.6 Reporting
Keywords	publication of negative reports
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“Review panel further noted that reports from initial accreditation procedures with a negative outcome are not published and rightly stated that the publication of all reports is required by the ESG, in order to ensure full transparency. While SQAA's statement on the report held that all “reports (with the positive and negative outcomes)” were now accessible, it was not clear whether SQAA officially changed its policy to that effect. The Committee was unable to verify whether reports on initial accreditation procedures with a negative outcome were now published.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	03/04/2019
Standard	3.3 Independence
Keywords	Operational independence
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (15/03/2019)
RC decision	Compliance

“The Register Committee obtained clarification from the panel concerning the remarks in the review report that the independence of the agency was not always fully understood by the Slovenian authorities, that “the Ministry might have interfered with the agency's work" and that “the private HEIs mentioned some cases of inconsistency and partiality” in SQAA's decisions. The Register Committee understood that the type of interference that had occurred (i.e. refusal to enter two accreditation decisions into the register maintained by the government) was now ruled out following changed responsibilities, with the register being under SQAA's control, thus strengthening the agency's independence. The Committee further noted that the panel found that the accusations by some private HEIs were not substantiated.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	03/04/2019
Standard	3.4 Thematic analysis
Keywords	Implementation of thematic analysis
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The Register Committee considered the panel's analysis as well as SQAA's statement on the panel report, referring to its recently published “methodology and procedure for drafting and disseminating system-wide and thematic analyses”. While the Committee welcomed the steps taken by SQAA to swiftly address the panel's recommendation, their actual implementation remains to be analysed within the next external review of SQAA.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	03/04/2019
Standard	3.5 Resources
Keywords	financial sustainability
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“When SQAA was admitted to the Register in 2013, the financial sustainability of the agency after the cease of the funding from the European Social Fund (ESF) was flagged for attention. The Register Committee welcomed that the flag was addressed, as already determined in its decision of 18 March 2016”

Full decision: see agency register entry