Quality assurance of joint programmes

JP quality-related developments in the EHEA involved numerous efforts of key European HE stakeholders with vested interests in JPs to develop support structures, and guidelines for the development and management of such study programmes, including self-assessment activities, frameworks guiding an external evaluation, and the accreditation processes of such study programmes. To a large extent, these developments incorporated the experience of higher education providers with cross-border JPs and were based on best practice examples, therefore providing insights into emerging normative and cultural-cognitive elements driving the developments of quality practice in JPs. In this section I review documents produced by three key players: EMNEM in 2006 by EUA, Guidelines and Guide by JOIMAN and EMQA by DG EAC. Methodologies, guidelines and handbooks were developed and produced for higher education institutions regarding JP quality issues and its ‘practice’. In this study I treat quality definitions and activities outlined in the above documents as instantiations of quality praxis and map them out against the ESG in order to discern the emerging patterns of JP quality practice.

In early 2000, the European University Association (EUA) representing universities and national rectors’ conferences in European countries (currently 48 countries) engaged in the activities that would support HEIs to address and

possibly balance rising external demands for accountability and quality enhancement of education provisions (also identified in the ESG). The association initiated collaborative projects around the theme of quality culture in European universities including internal QA of JPs. In 2004, the EUA published the so called 10 Golden Rules for New Joint Master Programmes (Nickel, Zdebel and Westerheijden, 2009). Scholars noted that these rules brought “together the experience from the EUA pilot project and [made] empirically-based recommendations to HEIs which [were] considering developing joint degrees” (p.

33). Despite the fact that these rules had no legally binding force, researchers noted (ibid.) that they served HEIs as guidelines because of the authority of the actors responsible for them, and at that time they were among the most notable ones.

Some countries, e.g., Germany has adopted them in its Rectors’ Conference

“Recommendations on the Development of Double Degrees and Joint Degrees”

(Hochschulrektorenkonferenz (HRK), 2005). In 2006, drawing on the outcomes of 2003-2004 Joint Master’s Project, the EUA developed an approach to internal QA for joint Master programmes (EUA, 2006a). The EUA produced the European Masters New Evaluation Methodology (EMNEM) which included guidelines for quality enhancement in study programmes of collaborative, inter-institutional nature. The guidelines have been drafted with the primary aim of helping HEIs involved in developing and running JPs to enhance and further develop the quality of their projects (ibid). The Guidelines claim a generic approach to quality of JPs to avoid the prescriptive or normative position, promoting the interpretative approach where HEIs define what a successful programme could be, what quality would mean, and what indicators would need to be applied. At the same time the Guidelines defined some main principles, put forth certain assumptions and elements of JP programme, criteria for development and implementation of such collaborative programmes.

A specific nature of JPs is highlighted, with quality being constructed both as fitness-for- purpose and fitness-of-purpose⁸. There is an emphasis on shared understanding among HEIs regarding the concept and aim of the programme, common and agreed outcomes of the programme, and an integrated responsibility for QA processes. The Steering Committee responsible for the Guidelines had been convinced that the concern for quality “should underpin all aspects of programme”

(ibid, p. 7) as well as cycles of programme development and implementation, that is “its entire life” (ibid.). Continuous improvement, with a process-based and system-oriented approach towards quality in JPs, is promoted.

8 For most common quality concepts and their linkage to practice see Appendix B.

In the EMNEM guidelines QA is constructed as “a shared and integrated responsibility of the network as well as a responsibility to be taken by each participating institution” (p. 10). Quality practice integrates assessment, assurance and enhancement-driven activities. Assurance in EMNEM is linked with the overall implementation of the programme, whether set objectives and targets are being met / achieved. It is tied to the concept of fitness-for-purpose, i.e. whether the curriculum will achieve the stated objectives and/or teaching is suitable for programme objectives to be met. Assessment and evaluation activities are seen as ex post procedures for validating the concept of the programme and identifying its strengths and weaknesses. Enhancement-driven activities are follow-up mechanisms taken to eliminate weaknesses and errors and optimise processes. A more detailed overview of EMNEM, quality intentions and definitions, quality practice, its principles, criteria, and activities can be found in Table V-5.

Table V-5. European Masters new evaluation methodology guidelines for higher education institutions (EMNEM)

Guidelines for Quality Enhancement in European Joint Master Programmes 2006

EUA Intentions

- Assess, assure and enhance quality - Develop and enhance JPs

- Build an inter-institutional quality culture

- Reflect on the specific nature of JPs

- Reflect on the implications of - quality enhancement - Holistic and relational (all aspects, all cycles

of programme: aims, concept, implementation, monitoring)

- Process-oriented (linking the elements of quality cycle)

- Improvement-oriented

- The quality of the whole rather than the sum of its parts

- Context specific

- Successful programme (relevant quality indicators set by HEIs)

QA as an integrated responsibility of the network and a responsibility of each HEI

Quality practice (principles, criteria and activities) Principles and assumptions for quality programmes:

cooperation; coordination; commitment to quality; shared understanding (regarding the aim; concept of the programme; quality meaning and quality elements; programme’s strengths and weaknesses); effective governance; transparency of structures and decision-making processes; knowledge of partner institutions strengths; shared academic values; trust and respect for diversity; competence and capacity of programme providers to assess, assure and enhance quality; clear strategies and effective communication; trustworthy quality assurance processes and procedures.

Criteria and Activities (Assessment/Assurance/Enhancement):

- ‘ex-ante’ procedure for a sound ‘concept’ of the programme (ensuring a feasibility of programme concept for students and institutions)

- coherence and consistency of curricula - common and agreed outcomes;

- linking the elements of a quality cycle: (valid, explicit, adequate, plausible, and shared) objectives, (fitting) concept, (true) implementation, (candid) quality monitoring, (timely) improvement

- implementation, e.g., curriculum, admission policy will achieve the stated/set objectives; selected type of teaching suits to achieve set objectives (assurance) - ‘ex-post’ procedure for validating the concept on the basis of empirical information

and data, identifying programme’s strengths and weaknesses (assessment/evaluation) - quality management system (e.g., records, data, feedback (from students, teachers,

labour market), follow-up mechanisms for enhancement (e.g., eliminating weaknesses and errors, optimising processes)

Similarly to EUA’s project, the JOIMAN network comprising of fifteen European universities and three Erasmus Mundus national structures with representation of eleven EU countries, coordinated by the University of Bologna, set out to offer HE stakeholders management and administrative solutions related to the development and implementation of JPs. Among many other activities such as conferences, workshops, seminars, etc., the network has published guidelines and good practice reports such as “How to Manage Joint Study Programmes” (JOIMAN, 2011) and

“A Guide to Developing and Running Joint Programmes at Bachelor‘s and Master‘s level” (JOIMAN, 2012). As stated in the guidelines:

the prime objective of establishing joint programmes should be to improve the quality of the education and research the degree encompasses. The result of two or more institutions joining forces to offer a study programme should be a programme of higher academic standard than the institution would achieve separately. (JOIMAN, 2012, p. 5)

The JOIMAN guidelines emphasize the added value element of JPs. It is linked with a number of outcomes such as, for example, expanded internationalisation, improved educational and research collaboration, increased employability and so on. Both publications developed by JOIMAN members included sections on QA of JPs. QA is used as a defining term for quality- related issues and processes. For quality-related practices, academic and administrative aspects of the programme are distinguished. A coherent, jointly developed curriculum, elements of regular programme evaluation and assessment by major stakeholders, and joint QA procedures for joint elements of programmes are promoted. Similar to the EUA’s Guidelines, JOIMAN Guidelines differentiate between phases of programme development and implementation with the acknowledgment that different activities may need to be carried to address the developmental needs of a programme. It is the institution’s responsibility to have systems in place which ensure the success of collaborative programmes, help to predict the development of the programme, make adjustments and, if necessary, based on data to discontinue the programme.

JOIMAN guides offer specific advice regarding all major elements of the programme such as admission, curriculum, mobility, award certification, programme evaluation and follow-up. The guidelines note the importance of transparency via the means of information and communication, familiarity with partner institutions processes including QA, mutual recognition of coursework and common structures for programme development, e.g., committees, boards with representation of all partner institutions.

Table V-6. JOIMAN guidelines and good practices on how to manage joint study programmes⁹

Intentions - Success of the programme

- Smooth functioning of the programme - Maintaining a positive climate among

partner institutions

9 A section on quality assurance related issues

Quality practice

A regular discussion of the objectives of a JP and the ways to attain these Quality procedures and criteria related to:

1. Admission (clarity of information about the course and the selection procedure;

ensuring students’ expected level)

2. Curriculum (coherent and holistic programme of study (jointly developed), guidelines of student workload implemented, learning outcomes at programme, module and teaching units defined)

3. Mobility (guidelines (also before entering), individual counselling, info (website, brochures, flyers, timetables)

4. Awarding of certification (agreed within the consortium)

5. Evaluation and assessment (an effective, updated and comprehensive evaluation system; regular evaluation of academic activities and services; made by different stakeholders (students, academic staff, labour market)

6. Follow-up system (e.g., QA committee, a joint board, student evaluation and assessment)

- Cancel the programme, if necessary - Predict

• Information (such as course descriptions), familiarity with partner institution procedures for QA and local processes

• A coherent study programme

• A system and procedures for regular evaluation of the programme and its parts (jointly developed, students and teaching staff views):

- Typical course quality assurance procedures applied (as for any other courses at HEI)

- Approval/recognition of courses by all partner HEIS as part of the system - Joint QA procedures for joint processes (admission, diploma)

• A structure for development and QA (e.g., a programme board, steering committee, representation from all partner Is, functions and roles described in the initial agreement)

10 A section on quality assurance related issues from the template