QUALITY ASSURANCE AS AN EUROPEAN CHALLENGE

8/7/2019 QUALITY ASSURANCE AS AN EUROPEAN CHALLENGE

1/16

sinergie rapporti di ricerca n. 9/2000

QUALITY ASSURANCE AS AN EUROPEANCHALLENGE

Quality assurance in higher education after theBologna declaration, with an emphasis on follow-up

procedures

Jacob P. Scheele*

Abstract

Many West European countries now have a formal, in most cases national system for

quality assurance in higher education. The link between assessment and quality management

as it is being used in TQM-models is formed by the follow-up of these (external) assessments.

The author will present a comparative study of almost all EU member states. He will

particularly point out the follow-up arrangements. The study, which resulted in the book To

be Continued..., Follow-up on Quality Assurance in Higher Education, was undertaken on

behalf of the Dutch Inspectorate of Higher Education.

The author will also reflect on quality assurance as a major theme in governmental

steering in higher education and he will focus on the European dimension of quality assurance

in higher education.

1. Introduction

On the 19th of June 1999 the European Ministers of Education signed in Bologna

a Joint Declaration. The Ministers stated that they want to ensure that the European

higher education system acquires a world-wide degree of attraction equal to our

extraordinary cultural and scientific traditions. To that they hoped to reach the

following objectives:

- adoption of a higher education system based on two main cycles: undergraduate

and graduate;

- adoption of a system of comparable degrees (implementation of a Diploma

Supplement);

* Inspector of Higher Education, The Netherlands

e-mail: [email protected]

This article reflects the personal vision of the author.


2/16

QUALITY ASSURANCE AS AN EUROPEAN CHALLENGE458

- establishment of a creditsystem (like ECTS);

- promotion of mobility;

- promotion of the necessary European dimension in higher education;

- promotion of European co-operation in quality assurance1 with a view to develop

comparable criteria and methodologies.

In this paper, I will reflect on the issue of quality assurance in higher education in

Europe particularly the follow-up procedures. The basis of this article is the

contribution Johan van Bruggen, Don Westerheijden and I have written in the book

To be Continued ...., Follow-up of Quality Assurance in Higher Education.

2. Quality Concepts in Higher Education

2.1 A Broader Quality Concept

Quality is a multi-dimensional concept; it is dynamic and expresses itself in

continuous innovation. Clearly, in an ideal situation pro-active universities2

themselves develop systems for internal quality management with an external

assessment of the relevant parameters of quality. Parameters of quality are, for

example:

- the fitness of higher education objectives and aims in each study programme for

students who will live in a dynamic, more and more professional and flexible

world;

- the fitness of the programme content with a the state of the art view in the

underlying areas of knowledge (disciplines) and with a view on environmental

changes;

- the results of higher education in terms of standards for graduates knowledge,

skills and attitudes;

- facilities, organisation of the programmes, etc.

1 I will use the glossary of terms of the Phare Report on quality assurance in higher

education.

- Quality assurance is used as an all embracing term to include all policies,

processes and actions through which the quality of higher education is

maintained and developed;

- Evaluation is a systematic, critical analysis of the quality of some object. In

this case the object is higher education;

- Quality assessment is synonymous to evaluation, particular if there is an

external element;

- Quality audit is an evaluation of an institutions processes for quality

assurance.2 The term university is used for all institutions for higher ed ucation.


3/16

JACOB P. SCHEELE 459

As the higher education scope is rapidly changing, there is also a need for a

broader scope of higher education quality assurance. The development of mass

higher education leads to a need for innovation acceleration in content, in teaching

processes, and for a better interface with industry and society. This, in turn, must

lead to quality assurance systems that not only focus on the, above mentioned,traditional quality parameters, but also on the innovation capacity and on actual,

continuous innovations at all levels of the institution. Programme and course

innovations, in this view, should result from the institutions assessment of its

environmental changes.

2.2. Quality Eras

We have seen in the previous decades a change in the quality concept. David

Garvin distinguishes four major quality eras and concludes that there is a major

alteration in primary concern, view, emphasis, methods, responsibility, orientation

and approach.

identifyingcharacteristics

Inspection(pre 1930s)

Statisticalquality control

(1930s-1950s)

Qualityassurance

(l950s1980s)

Strategicquality

management

(1980s -1990s)

primary

concern

detection control coordination strategic

impact

view on quality a problem to be

solved

a problem to be

solved

a problem to be

attacked

proactively

a competitive

opportunity

emphasis product unifor

mity

product unifor

mity with

reduced

inspection

production

chain

contribution of

all groups

market and con

sumer needs

methods gauging andmeasurement

Statisticaltools& techniques

programs andsystems

strategicplanning,

goalsetting,

mobilizing

organization

responsibility

for quality

inspection

departement

Manufacturing

& engineering

departements

all departments

although top-

management is

peripherally

involved

everyonewith

top-

management

exercising

strong leader

ship

orientation and

approach

inpects in

quality

controls in

quality

builds in

quality

manages in

quality


4/16


Tab. 1: The Bur Quality Eras

Garvins vision is quite interesting but, unfortunately, not complete yet. It doesnt

make a distinction between university roles and governmental roles. I will reflect on

this in the third section. But first I want to point out some consequences of thebroader higher education quality concept.

2.3 Consequences of the Broader Quality Concept

The institutions capacity for proactive behaviour and continuous innovation

should be assessed regularly in quality assurance systems. The capacity for

proactive behaviour and innovation can be specified in measures of the quality of

the strategic plans, in measures of the quality of the strategical plan development,

but also in an assessment of organised links with the environment (research,

industry, alumni, etc.).

This broader quality assurance scope leads to three consequences:

- First, quality assurance is a continuous process with longer (strategic plans) and

shorter (specific measures, adaptations) cycles. The various time perspectives

are relevant in this respect.

- A second important consequence is that societyrepresented by the

governmenthas to have the guarantee that both aspects (traditional quality

parameters and pro-active behaviour measures) are developed and assessed.

- A third consequence is that quality assurance systems should focus on all levels

aspects.

Quality assurance, unlike its importance, is just a part of the higher education

system as a whole. The shift in quality assurance is being caused by a change of

steering concepts in higher education.

3. Steering Concepts in Higher Education

In higher education several steering concepts occur. To illustrate this I would like

to use Burton Clarks triangle. He distinguishes between three main models in higher

education: the state-oriented model; the institution-oriented model and the market-

oriented model.

State oriented


5/16


Fig. 1: B. Clark triangle

Of course there is a difference in position of the national higher education

systems in Europe, but it is interesting to analyze the changes in positions and

especially the direction of this change.

Fig. 2: The chenges in positions in B. Clark triangle

In Europe there is a clear tendency towards an increasing role of the higher

education institutions; universities are becoming more autonomous:

- to supervize their abilities

- to decide themselves what they are going to teach and research

- to select their own staff

- to set their own budget.

There is also more emphasis on market orientation: contract research andcontract education. The market influences also qualifications especially in higher

professional education. But in several countries there is a recent development of

increasing governmental steering: as the government wants value for money it

sets new demands, especially on quality assurance.

We have seen some consequences of the broader scope of quality assurance.

What does this mean for the university and for the government? Maassen pointed

out that it is crucial whether the basic policy model or steering model is oriented to

quality improvement or to accountability through its follow-up evaluations. This

determines the relationship between higher education institutions and the

government: steering by the market, or steering by the government.

In a market-oriented view on higher education, the institutions are responsible for

the results and the follow-up of quality assurance, without any governmental

intervention. In this view, the institution has full autonomy. Given the history in

Institution Market oriendet

State oriented

Institution Market oriented


6/16


Europe it is not likely that in higher education systems that are funded

predominantly by the government, such a market-oriented view will be realized.

Maassen and Van Vught distinguished two governmental steering models,

namely the model of rational planning and control (state control model) and the

model of self-regulation (state supervising model). They concluded that bothmodels exist in Europe, but also that there is a tendency towards the model of self-

regulation in Western Europe.

Of course, there is much variation among the countries, given the differences in

history, culture etc. But one thing is sure: the state control model does not function

well in Western Europe, because it starts from a perspective of an all-powerful

government, which does not apply in our present-day, complicated societies any

more. The government cannot dictate the behaviour of universities in mass higher

education systems. We see in Western European countries, therefore, a tendency for

a renewal of the relationship between government and universitieswhat In t Veld

called a more horizontal relationship. The government seeks agreement with the

universities on policy goals and implementation, while regulation (pre-scription of

educational standards) is diminished in favour of dialogue with the institutions.

In this perspective, individual institutions or consortia of institutions are verywell capable to organise adequate processes of quality assurance. For reasons of

ownership in innovation, it is probably better that they do it themselves. However,

good quality seen in traditional parameters, combined with good quality in terms of

pro-active behaviour and innovative capacity, are so important for the wellbeing of

societynot only for the individual profit of studentsthat the government can

rightfully claim responsibility for monitoring and evaluation of quality assurance of

both aspects. Universities cannot bear this responsibility, as they are an interest

group involved in the process.

This view does not imply that the universities have to comply automatically with

governmental requirementsor rather, in a more horizontal relationship,

governmental requests. Governmental requests will be weighed in the light of the

self-regulating capacities of the universities. The government has to negotiate with

the universities about procedures and types of outcomes of external qualityassessment. The institutional arrangement can be such that external evaluation is a

institutional responsibility, but in that case, the government has a monitoring

function. A governmental agency (such as an Inspectorate) then could be in charge

evaluating the quality assurance-system: that is meta-evaluation.

Governmental agencies can realise this responsibility in various ways. One way

is to prescribe, or even better in line with a horizontal relationshipagree about

quality assurance procedures. Another way is to set up an agency that organises

quality assurance or that evaluates the quality assurance progress.

Anyway, the bottom line is that the public must be able to see that two things are

guaranteed by the government in co-operation with the institutions. First, there must

be a check by the government (or a governmental agency) in the double sense

described above; this means a certain type of meta-evaluation, including sufficient

checks on institutional window dressing. Because of this, the public can trust the

evaluation results including the value of the external experts judgement.


7/16


Second, the public must be able to trust that consequences are connected with

the quality judgements and the assessment results. These consequences may be

realized by institutions themselves. In that case, this bottom line means that public

reports of institutions about changes, actions, measures, results etc., are at hand and

are reliable. There must be a guarantee that the institution takes the assessmentoutcomes seriously and decides about the follow-up.

4. Quality Assurance in Europe

4.1 Improvement and Accountability

The functions of quality assurance systems will determine the system layout. In

the literature, several quality assurance functions are mentioned, but two functions

are dominant: improvement and accountability.

The elements that support improvement are:

- stress on self-assessment,

- peer-evaluation,- operational recommendations,

- no direct link of financial consequences to evaluation results.

The elements that support accountability are:

- public reports,

- independent experts,

- meta-evaluation,

- a follow up by the government or a governmental agency.

Universities are interested in particular in curricula improvement, while the

government typically is interested in accountability of the system, thus providing

evidence for taxpaye value for money.All over Europe internal quality assurance systems have been developed, some

of them based on Total Quality Management models (TQM) such as the European

Foundation Quality Management model. These systems aim to fulfil the quality

improvement goal.

But what about the second quality assurance function: accountability?

Research on this is rare. In the United States, Banta and associates refer to

experiences thatafter a decade of systematic assessmentstate and federal

decisionmakers tended to be disappointed about even the most extensive campus

assessment initiatives. This disappointment apparently was a consequence of the

universities and departments failure to account convincingly to decision-makers.

Inside the institutions and especially at the programme level, however, the situation

was different. Institutions and study programmes have especially reported student

learning and teaching related improvements. In other words: the improvement

function has been fulfilled, but not the accountability function. In Europe, research is


8/16


rare too. However, reports by CHEPS and others more or less confirm the

conclusions Banta drew for the USA.

Accordingly, the question is how both the improvement function and the

accountability function can be fulfilled.

4.2 Assessment, Audit & Accreditation

External quality assurance is defined as the action of an independent

organization to assess the quality of the university, or a programme of the university

or its intemal quality assurance. I would like to distinguish:

- institutional quality assessment: evaluation of the intemal conditions enabling

delivery of good quality programmes;

- programme assessment: evaluation of the content of the study-programme(s);

- quality audit: evaluation of the intemal quality assurance. The subject in this

evaluation is the university procedures to determine whether the provisions areadequate.

In Europe programme assessment is the dominant evaluation procedure: Austria,

Flanders, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands and Portugal do have programme

assessments, where as other countries have a mix of procedures: Finland, France,

Ireland, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Spain has only institutional

quality assessment. In the next section I will elaborate further on the arrangements in

the Western European countries.

In some countries of Eastern Europe (Poland, Hungary etc.) there are systems of

accreditation. Accreditation is the public statement about quality of education

provided by an agency that carries out an evaluation on the basis of previously

formulated standards. In the Programme Legislative Reform for Higher Education, the

Council of Europe made the following comparison between accreditation andassessment.

Accreditation Quality Assessment

judges possible Future Output (potential)

implies a Yes or No decision decisions, but

requirements come from outside the institution

based on Minimum Standards or Treshold

Comparison to like or Standards (financial

solvency, staff, types of programmes, facilities,

etc.

judges Past (or Present) Performance (achievement)

relative judgement, not necessarily suggestions for

improvement

requirements based on specificity of theinstitution or

field

based on Relative Standards (similar

institutions/international)

Judgement Based on Output (Having met or failed to


9/16


10/16


recommendations for improvement. Sometimes, they explicitly highlight examples of

good practice.

In this respect public reports are of vital interest for quality assurance in higher

education. An important recommendation by the expert group of the PHARE report

on quality assurance is: National quality agencies should ensure transparency in qualityassurance processes and this should include publication of the outcomes of evaluations;

higher education institutions should ensure transparency of internal quality assurance

processes and wide involvement in them by staff and students.

Making reports public influences the behaviour of universities and other parties

in the evaluation procedure in a desirable way. Because when everyone can be

informed about the quality of higher education and about differences in quality

between universities, universities will be encouraged to improve their education.

Recently, publications on quality of higher education especially for students

have appeared, like the Keuzegids in the Netherlands and the Warentest in Germany.

Remarkably, these publications are produced neither by higher education

establishments nor by the government.

Private publishers and newspapers make these publications. They include

information on quality of the various aspects of higher education from varioussources; sometimes rankings are added.

Undoubtedly, these public reports can have a stimulating effect on the university

internal operations; this is a stimulant for long-term use. Yet, it also indicates that

there has to be some external pressure on the institution to take quality assurance

seriously. In this opinion institutions have to make improvement plans, based on the

reports of external evaluation committees.

In only a few EU-member states improvement plans are subject to monitoring by

the govemment or a governmental agency. In the Netherlands, for example, the

Inspectorate for Higher Education has the task to monitor the improvement plans,

especially when there was sharp criticism in the external committees report. Two or

three years after publication of this report the Inspectorate evaluates the measures

taken by all study programmes that were subject of evaluation by the committee.

We see in the Netherlands that since this additional task of the Inspectorate hasbeen introduced, in 1993, various aspects of quality have been taken more seriously,

notably the quality of the educational objectives and the quality of the educational

process. This is a major benefit of the Dutch quality assurance system.

The public must also have the assurance that the government draws

consequences from evaluation outcomes. The public must know, especially, that in

case of insufficient quality the government takes measures such as of interim

management, obligatory improvement or even closing down of a study programme or

institution.

5. Trends in Follow-up of Quality Assurance

5.1 A General Trend


11/16


From the data available in the country reports in To be continued some

conclusions about effects and follow-up can be drawn. However, most of these

conclusions apply to groups of countries; they are not universal laws, butif they

are laws at allthey are only applicable in specified contexts.

Before going into trends in (groups of) Western European countries, a generaltrend can be noticed. For it appears that follow-up procedures tend to be developed

only after the introduction of evaluation procedures.

The exception to the rule is perhaps found in the Netherlands, although even

here it is questionable whether there really were well-developed views on follow-up

before introducing quality assurance on a national scale. However, even in this

country there is no grand design from the beginning, but one rather sees learning

by doing, or incremental adaptation of practices to changing insights and needs.

5.2 Trends in Policy Theories

First, the basic issue of quality assurance systems is the optimisation of both the

improvement and the accountability aims. All European countries seek and

temporarilyfind their own balance between these two aims.

Second, governments make elaborated formal regulations neither for follow-up ofquality assurance, nor for the quality assurance procedures themselves. It would

seem that the traditional way of higher education steering through regulations on

educational standards is rapidly diminishing. If quality assurance procedures or

criteria are regulated explicitly, the regulation is subject to agreement between the

government and the universities. One can understand then a call for more regulation

on the basic topics to safeguard the interests of universities against a malevolent

government. Clearly, on the rules of the game, the goals and objectives, agreement

between government and universities is necessary. With respect to the playing of

the game, the instruments and their implementation, there should be a clear

separation of responsibilities, tasks and means.

Third, the mode of steering higher education does not have major impact on the

broad principles governing the follow-up procedures. In all countries where formal

follow-up procedures exist, the universities themselves are primarily responsible,while the government in first instance has a monitoring function. From this point of

view, the discussion in some countries on benchmarking in higher education is very

interesting. In these discussions, a preliminary conclusion seems to be that in higher

education thinking in terms of stable benchmarks (standards) is not useful. However,

there could be a continuous process of setting benchmarks and of using a

benchmarking process by higher education institutions to learn about innovative

ways of education in other higher education institutions.

In the fourth place, in all European countries the demand for higher education

quality is proclaimed a matter of public interest. The focus of the government is not

only on the traditional quality parameters, but also on continuous innovation and

proactive behaviour. This leads to a dialogue between governments and universities.

In this more horizontal relationship it is interesting to see the rise of intermediary

bodies (sometimes closer to the higher education institutions such as quality

agencies, sometimes closer to the government such as Inspectorates) with both


12/16


accountability and improvement functions. The intermediary bodies have to inspire

and guide institutions in aspects concerning evaluation and quality, but they also

have to publish (annual) reports on the quality of quality assurance and on the

quality of higher education itself. Again, national balances between these two tasks

differ from one another.

5.3 Trends in Intended Effects

Intended effects in North Western Europe centre on teaching improvement

within the individual faculties. In other countries where the institutional level as such

is the prime evaluation focus, intended effects centre on organizational aspects.

However, this approach difference has not a major impact on the basic principles of

the follow-up procedures.

Second, the safeguards for the evaluation reports quality vary, but in most

countries, checklists with criteria and formats are developed nationally. In some

countries (Denmark, Lower Saxony, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United

Kingdom), official guidelines have been mentioned, set by the government or the

intermediary quality assurance agency. External evaluation reports are made public,but the improvement plans are as a rule confidential. However, in the Scandinavian

policy tradition, the latter too are treated as public documents.

5.4 Trends in Formal Follow-Up Procedures

Formally, only in Denmark, Flanders, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United

Kingdom programmes of improvement have been institutionalised to follow up on

external quality assurance. Other West European countries, however, also tend to

make provisions (legally or though policies of an intermediary body) to prescribe

them.

Second, monitoring of improvement realization based on external quality

assurance is rare. In the Netherlands, the Inspectorate for Higher Education monitors

improvements in its midterm review (two to three years after the external evaluation).It would be interesting to see in the coming years how the role of quality assurance

agencies in, e.g., Denmark, Sweden and the United Kingdom will develop with

respect to this issue.

Third, sanctions tend to be negativc more governmental money is nowhere

available for higher educationand indirect. Indirect sanctioning means that they

are applied only after negotiations between the higher education institution, and the

ministry or the evaluation agency.

Finally, some, albeit weak, positive sanctions can be found as well: in the United

Kingdom and in the Netherlands some public reports of the intermediary bodies

highlight good practices. Interestingly, in the United Kingdom such information is

used to be given by the HEQC, an umbrella organisation of the higher education

institutions, while in the Netherlands this is done by the Inspectorate.

5.5 Future Trends in Quality Assurance


13/16


An intriguing topic in the coming years will be the development of quality

assurance after completion of the first cycle. This stage has been reached in France,

the UK and in the Netherlands. In France, the situation can be summarised as

continuation with some shift in emphasis, like more attention to follow-up. In theNetherlands and in the United Kingdom there are ongoing discussions about the

way quality assurance should be organized after the first and second cycle.

Will it be based on the concept of reaching (academic) standards? The HBO-

Raad proposal, to start pilot accreditation projects in the Netherlands, seems to

support this idea. Some British ideas, based on the Dearing report, about more

stringent application of standards for greater transparency of the quality assurance

system would seem to be going in the same direction.

However, we also notice contradictory tendencies: more variety and even

fragmentation in higher education and in the quality assurance systems. Both

strands of developments and thoughts seem to point in the direction of shifting the

quality assurance balance in the direction of the accountability function.

As an indication of still a different trend, internationally ideas of continuously

adapting benchmarks emerge. The improvement function of quality assurance, inthat case, will be strengthened further. Whatever the final outcome of the

discussions in the UK, the Netherlands and other countries where new quality

assurance procedures are being developed, it would seem that an intermediary

outcome will be better articulation of the intended effects of the procedure.

6. The European dimension

In the Treaty of Maastricht the member states are the competent authorities on

higher education. But nevertheless the European Commission plays a role, and I

would argue an increasing role, not only because of mobility prograrnmes but in

particular due to the fact that the European Commission is entitled to set rules to

realize an open labour market and more specific to realize mobility of persons.In the seventies the Commission made Directives because some professions were

regulated and that wasblocking an open labour market within the European Union.

Directives were made for Medicine, Physical Therapy, Enginering and others. These

Directives caused homogeneous curricula in higher education in the given study

programmes. In 1989 a new Directive was being introduced: the Directive General

System. This Directive didnt cause uniformity of the curricula but, like the other

Directives reflected also the classical steering of the European Union: top-down

regulation.

I would like to compare it with a landscape of pyramides.


14/16


Fig. 3: A landscape of pyramides


15/16


The Member-States are the bottom-line of the pyramides. At the top

governmental representatives discuss and negotiate with the European Commission

what would be the necessary provisions for higher education. Given the tendency

towards more university autonomy and the more horizontal relationship between

state and universities this is a curious situation.Higher education is becoming increasingly diversified, at least at the level of

study programmes. Therefore, homogeneous quality assurance systems across

Europe are out of the question. It would be advisable to think of scenarios and to

elaborate benchmarks that can lead to diversity both within and across European

countries. However, some comparability of methods and flexible benchmarks used in

European countries could be of great use in enhancing the European dimension of

quality assurance systems in the member states.

Until now, the European dimension in higher education quality assurance is

limited, although in some especially smallercountries, usually foreign peers are

part of the external evaluation teams. Of course, the limited development of a

European dimension in quality assurance partly originates in the principle of

subsidiarity in European legislation. As national governments remain the largest or

only funder of (national) higher education systems, national arrangements foraccountability will be necessary also in the future.

However, the dynamics of higher education are not limited to national

boundaries. Universities cooperate with institutions of other countries. Therefore the

classical manner of steering in Europe is not only undesirable but also outdated. I

would like to illustrate that as follows:

Fig. 4: The levels in European higher education

In Europe we see all kinds of networks: universities have relations with

universities in other countries, sometimes in of ficial Euregion networks. If they

provide education in that country they are subject to the quality assurance system

of the given country. Universities also have relations with Departments of the

European Union, like DG XXII because of mobility programmes such as Socrates and


16/16


Leonardo, and also other departments of the European Union e.g. research

departments.

Co-operation of universities in Euregions or in Socrates networks may give

impulses to homogenize higher education across countries. But it may lead also to

more quality assurance fragmentation. In that situation evaluation procedures couldbe organized by the higher education institution networks themselves e.g., the

German Nordverbund or by an umbrella organization, such as the CRE.

I would argue that it is neither possible nor desirable to develop a single,

harmonized system for quality assurance in the European Union.

The reaction of the national governments could be twofold. First: they could limit

themselves to accepting certain external evaluators, provided that they were of

sufficient credibility. The quality assurance agencies check should cover

procedural aspects of their evaluation (meta-evaluation), as well as a transparent

follow-up system. For governments, as well as for the general public they represent,

this credibility check on the non-governmental quality assurance agencies would

then become of crucial importance. Another possibility is that national quality

assurance agencies will evaluate higher education provided by foreign universities.

This is already the case in the United Kingdom.Both scenarios fit into the Bologna Declaration. In both scenarios, then, a

European network of quality assurance experts would be of great interest to provide

national governments, agencies and universities with information about standards

for quality assurance methods and procedures . It will allow Europe to develop a

transparent, flexible and diversified system of quality assurance.

References

To be Continued...., Syntheses and Trends, Johan C. Van Bruggen, Jacob P.

Scheele & Don F. Westerheijden. In: To be Continued..., Follow-up of Quality

Assurance in Higher Education . Jacob P. Scheele, Peter A.M. Maassen and Don F.

Westerheijden (eds.). Elsevier/De Tijdstroom 1998

Evaluation of European Higher Education, A Status Report. Prepared for the EuropeanCommission DG XXII by the Centre for Quality Assurance and Evaluation of

Higher Education, Denmark in cooperation with Comite National dEvaluation,

France. September 1998.

Alternative Models of Governmental Steering in Higher Education, Peter A.M.

Maassen & Frans A. Van Vught. In: Comparative Policy Studies in Higher

Education, L. Goedegebuure & F. Van Vugt, Utrecht, Lemma 1994

Final Report and Project Recommendations. Phare Multi-Country Programme in

Higher Education, Quality in Higher Education, European Training Foundation,

November 1998.

Relations between State and Higher Education Institutions, In t Veld, Fussel &

Neave, Council of Europe Legislative Reform Programme, Kluwer Law International,

1996.

Documents

QUALITY ASSURANCE AS AN EUROPEAN CHALLENGE