Justus Grellmann

Mystery Box Experte für Deutschland

Letzte Aktualisierung: 4. July 2025

The
European Dimension of Quality Assurance

Report of
the Conference ‘Working on the European Dimension of Quality’ of the
Joint
Quality Initiative, Amsterdam 12–13.3.2002

Marijk van der Wende & Don
Westerheijden

Introduction

1.

The following text describes main issues that arose during the conference
‘Working on the European Dimension of Quality’, held in Amsterdam,
12-13.3.2002, organised by CHEPS on the initiative of the Ministries of
Education of the Netherlands and Flanders. The conference was attended by
over a hundred participants from most of the countries involved in the
Bologna process, representing ministries of education, quality assessment
and accreditation agencies, other buffer bodies, higher education
institutions and students.

Descriptors
of Bachelor and Master Programmes at Different Levels

2.

There is a widely-shared consensus that the ‘Dublin Descriptors’, defining
key outcomes for Bachelors and Masters programmes in general (paper Towards
shared descriptors for bachelors and Masters) are useful. They are
complementary to the outcomes of the Tuning project, which are being
developed at the level of areas of knowledge (‘disciplines’).

3.

From the discussions it appeared, however, that

• the
  ‘Dublin Descriptors’ need to be ‘tuned’, and
  
   
• the
  Tuning project outcomes are not to be taken as prescriptive. In that
  respect, it should be remembered that outcomes do not define curricula

4.

Gains from the Tuning project include that there is a broader than expected
consensus among European higher education institutions on descriptors of
their programmes, starting from outcomes rather than starting from
curriculum inputs and elements. At the same time, there is less than
expected diversity regarding length/credits of programmes

5.

Complementarity means a combination of generic elements (from the ‘Dublin
Descriptors’) and specific elements (from outcomes of the Tuning project).

6.

The approach to quality building on such a
combination of the ‘Dublin Descriptors’ and Tuning project outcomes apply to
‘traditional’ delivery of higher education as well as to transnational
education, distance education, etc.

7.

A discussion arose on the relative value of programme vs. institutional
approaches to quality assurance. Both are important, was the general view.
The ‘Dublin Descriptors’ as well as the Tuning project outcomes are directed
primarily at programme level approaches. Many, including expressly the
student representatives, gave programme level quality assessment the
priority for public policy, inter alia because this gives more direct
assurance of quality (‘consumer protection’). Institutional quality
assurance was mostly seen as a responsibility of autonomous, well-managed
higher education institutions, even though some participants voiced the
opinion that with ‘mass’ or ‘universal’ higher education, and in the
emerging network society, such coherent higher education institutions will
become ever rarer.

Questions:
What needs to be addressed in next steps?

8.

Capitalising on the broad consensus among the conference participants, next
steps could be proposed, during which the following issues will need to be
addressed.

Application
question

9.

What is the right balance between generic and specific for accreditation
frameworks and criteria?

10.

Cross-border quality assessment projects will play a role in the learning
process to develop a common understanding at a European level.

Ownership
and participation questions

11.

Who is involved in developing criteria for accreditation/quality assessment?

12..

Who is involved in updating criteria for accreditation/quality assessment?

13.

Who is involved in applying criteria in actual accreditation/quality
assessment?

14.

What are the implications of answers to the previous questions for
acceptance of consequences of

(non-)accreditation?

Implications for higher education institutions?

15.

They have to develop their ‘accreditation capacity’: how to elicit all
information necessary for different quality assessment or accreditation
agencies?

16.

How to maintain quality improvement?

17.

What is/should be their involvement in the current quality initiatives?
Involvement of the higher education institutions is needed on the one hand
in developing curricula responding to the frameworks as part of their
institutional autonomy, because frameworks couched in terms of outcomes do
not define curricula in terms of content and instructional design.

18.

An associated question of involvement regards the input higher education
institutions can give into frameworks or criteria defined or handled by
quality assessment agencies or accreditation agencies.

Transnational education

19.

The specific issue of quality assurance of transnational education,
especially in the form of collaborative frameworks (commonly known as
‘franchising’ arrangements, but actually broader than that) was introduced
into the JQI discussions at this conference.

20.

The main question in this respect is that of the balance between
responsibility for quality by ‘sender’ and by ‘receiver’. Participants
broadly agreed that the Code of Practice (Unesco/Council of Europe) with its
principle that both ‘sender’ and ‘receiver’ take responsibility is indeed a
good practice.