The University Chancellor's Office (UKÄ) has unveiled its new guidance for higher education institution audits! Now, student unions and higher education institutions are facing new challenges and opportunities. The new guidance involves some change, with fewer assessment criteria and a simplified self-assessment process. What do these changes actually mean for student unions and how should we navigate this new landscape? The SFS Quality Committee (SQC) delves into UKÄ's new guidance and tries to explain the implications it may have for student unions.
The quality assurance system in Sweden is starting to take shape! This is something that pleases us in the SFS Quality Committee. It is worth remembering that it was a turbulent time before the current system came into place in 2017. The system at that time, The Swedish National Agency for Higher Education's quality evaluation system 2011–2014, was heavily criticized by SFS and other actors in the higher education sector. The criticism stemmed from the fact that the system did not focus on learning as a whole but primarily on the outcome of learning. The outcome-oriented perspective was reflected in the fact that the system took great care in reviewing students' independent work. There were certain programs where assessment of degree projects was not possible, for example in programs with little or no independent work, newly established programs, programs that award a two-year higher education degree, and programs that are being phased out.
The Löfven I government took the initiative to change the quality assurance system. On 17 March 2016, the government decided to give the Swedish University of Science and Technology (UKÄ) the task of further developing and implementing a new system for quality assurance of higher education. UKÄ's proposal was later adopted and has been applied during a review cycle from 2017 to 2022. The system is now better anchored in international guidelines for quality assurance, especially in The Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG) which is written jointly by ENQA, ESU, EUA and EURASHE*. The guidelines are then adopted by the European Ministers of Education.
Briefly about the University Chancellor's Office and the quality assurance system
The Swedish University of Applied Sciences (UKÄ) is a government agency under the government and has a number of different responsibilities within the higher education sector. In general, UKÄ has three different missions. First, the agency has a mission to review the quality of higher education and the institutions' systems for quality assurance of higher education and research. Secondly, UKÄ is responsible for following up and analyzing developments and trends within Swedish higher education. Within this, they are also responsible for reviewing the efficiency of the institutions' resource utilization and for official statistics in the higher education sector. Thirdly, UKÄ is also a supervisory authority for higher education. This means that they review whether the institutions comply with laws and regulations.
It is central that the higher education institutions and UKÄ have a joint responsibility for quality assurance of higher education in Sweden. Universities and colleges are responsible for the quality of their operations and this concerns both quality control and quality development. UKÄ's task is to ensure that the higher education institutions take this responsibility. The national system for quality assurance consists of four different types of reviews.
- Review of the quality assurance work of higher education institutions
UKÄ reviews the universities' internal quality assurance systems.
- Examination of degree permit
In order to be granted a degree permit, the planned education must meet the quality requirements set out in the Higher Education Act and the Higher Education Ordinance. UKÄ therefore assesses whether the applicant higher education institution has the necessary prerequisites for students to achieve the degree objectives for the education.
- Thematic evaluations
Thematic evaluations aim to contribute important knowledge and comparisons in areas that are important for the quality of higher education institutions' operations. They often concern one of the major portal values found at the beginning of the Higher Education Act.
- Educational evaluations
Educational evaluations focus on education and areas where the need for improvement and development is greatest and provides the most benefit.
Overview of UKÄ's four different reviews. Image: UKÄ.
The new system
Since 2022, UKÄ has been working to review the system and see if any changes should be made. It was determined relatively early on that no extensive system changes would be made, which was welcomed by the sector that had worked hard to get the current system up and running. Instead, UKÄ has decided on certain changes to the existing system and developed its working methods. SFS has been involved in the process through dialogue with the authority, participation in UKÄ's reference groups, and we have submitted our own input to the development through The quality assurance system after 2022 – SFS quality assurance position paper 2021 (Ref. P2-23/2021).
However, the new guidance for university audits involves a number of significant changes that will affect quality work at universities. How will these changes affect student unions? Let's go through all the changes and the implications for student unions.
A guide for both education and research
Previously, higher education institutions had separate guidelines for education and research. These are now merging into one. The idea is that this should simplify the process and make it more understandable. This should also be beneficial in establishing that education and research must go hand in hand. However, this also requires a more holistic view of quality work throughout the university's operations.
For student unions This consolidation means that a holistic view of both education and research at the university is needed. It is important that you as a student union get involved and ensure that the student perspective is well represented in both areas. We recommend working towards strong communication between student representatives in both education and research to ensure that student voices are heard to the same extent. We are also aware that students sometimes do not have the same natural insight into the research part of the university's operations. Here too, we recommend dialogue with doctoral student representatives, teacher representatives and other staff to gain a greater understanding. It can also be beneficial to see how other universities and student unions have done, for example an university that is similar to your own.
A coherent self-assessment
Higher education institutions no longer need to write two separate self-evaluations for education and research. This consolidation should contribute to a more unified and focused reflection on quality work, similar to what we discussed above.
For student unions We urge you to make sure you are involved in the work on the self-evaluation. Your insight and experience are invaluable in ensuring that the student perspective is included in a meaningful way in both parts that are studied. Work to gain access to drafts of the self-evaluation and contribute feedback and perspectives from the students. We would like to point out that the guidance does not explicitly state that student unions should participate in writing the self-evaluation, which means that the student union itself must take the initiative if the invitation does not come from the higher education institution.
Greater space and responsibility
Higher education institutions will now have greater freedom to describe their quality work. This gives them the opportunity to highlight unique strengths and methods, but also places higher demands on transparency and accountability.
For student unions It is important to remember that with greater freedom comes greater responsibility. Be prepared to carefully review and reflect on how the institution describes its quality work. Be proactive and suggest improvements where needed. Remember that you have a unique insight into the students' experience of the quality work at the institution.
Information meetings replace startups
An important step in the review process is the start of the review. Instead of having start-ups, UKÄ will now have digital information meetings with the higher education institutions. UKÄ will now arrange open digital information meetings for the higher education institutions and the student and doctoral unions. Before an higher education institution begins its review process, it is assumed that they have participated in one of these meetings. The information meeting aims to provide general information about the structure and content of the review process. This can be seen as an attempt to create a more inclusive and collaborative review process that should not be as burdensome for the higher education institutions and student unions.
For student unions We recommend using these information meetings to build stronger relationships with universities, UKÄ and other stakeholders. Make sure you are well prepared by reading up beforehand and try to establish clear goals for what you want to achieve during the meetings. It is a good opportunity to ask questions if there is anything that you feel is unclear.
Significantly fewer assessment criteria
Here we can see one of the biggest changes and one that is likely to cause a big reaction. The new guidance has been slimmed down from 30 to 16 assessment criteria. UKÄ has expressed that they are striving for greater clarity and less overlap in the higher education institutions' self-assessments and descriptions of quality assurance work.
For student unions It is important to be vigilant and ensure that the quality of the review does not deteriorate despite fewer assessment criteria. There is a risk that certain topics that the old review aimed at will disappear or not receive as much attention. This is something that SFS through SQC has consistently pointed out during UKÄ's development work, but without success. It is important to engage in discussions about which assessment criteria and how much care the higher education institution takes and to ensure that the student perspective is taken into account in this process. It is also crucial to have a discussion about the different concepts in the assessment criteria and how you view it at the higher education institution. Finally, we also want to highlight assessment criterion 5 during education, Student support, learning resources and infrastructureWhen SQC studied student submissions from the previous round, several student unions had challenges defining the meaning of the assessment criteria and had failed to discuss the issue at a system level. We therefore urge a broad discussion within the student union and with the university about what the assessment criteria mean.
The assessment areas disappear
This can be seen as a crucial step away from a more subject-oriented review, which can encourage a more holistic assessment. There may be advantages to removing the assessment areas. SQC has noted that the assessment areas in several cases overlapped and addressed similar issues. We have also noted that some student unions have had challenges in formulating their positions within the framework of the assessment areas in the student submission for the HEIs. Given that the assessment grounds are so much fewer, we are cautiously positive about removing the assessment areas. However, there is a risk, as with the assessment grounds, that some issues will not receive as much consideration, for example student influence.
For student unions This can mean increased flexibility but also uncertainty about what will be prioritized in the review. Be active in the dialogue with the institution about the review process to ensure that important areas for students are not overlooked. Student influence should be considered in particular as it no longer has its own assessment area.
Greater focus on quality culture
UKÄ has an ambition that the changes will lead to a greater focus on cultural issues. Instead of only looking at systems and procedures, the review will now place greater emphasis on how the higher education institutions actually work systematically with quality. Here we come to a tricky concept, namely “quality culture”. What is it and how do higher education institutions work with it? It can vary and does not always need to be documented but can be part of everyday working methods or attitudes.
For student unions This is an opportunity for you to influence the quality culture at your institution. We recommend that you work to ensure that your institution has a positive and inclusive quality culture that puts the needs and experiences of students at the center. Make sure that you are an active and constructive partner in this work. Once again, we would like to point out that student unions are in a unique position to drive change that benefits students.
Some other thoughts about the changes
It is clear that UKÄ's changed approach aims to reduce bureaucracy and encourage higher education institutions to take greater responsibility for their own quality work. It is also clear that UKÄ wants to see a greater focus on the actual quality culture rather than just systems and procedures. As always when changes occur, there are both opportunities and risks. The big question is how well student unions will adapt to and utilize these changes to the benefit of students and quality work in general. It will be exciting to see and as central actors in higher education, student unions now have an important role to play in shaping the future of higher education and quality assurance systems.
With the introduction of the new system for university reviews, special challenges also arise for student representatives within the assessment group. It is absolutely crucial that these representatives have access to the same conditions and resources as other members in order to be able to do a good job. It is in everyone's interest that student representatives feel well equipped, as they bring a unique and invaluable perspective to the table, namely the student perspective. To ensure that student representatives are well prepared for their task, SQC will work proactively to develop special support functions. Our goal is to give these representatives all the support they need to be able to successfully contribute to the work of the assessment group and thereby also to the quality work in higher education in Sweden.
SQC would also like to express our disappointment that UKÄ did not choose to change the grades for the reviews in the way we suggested. We believe that an adjustment to the grading could lead to a clearer and more fair picture of an institution's quality work. It could also serve as a further incentive for institutions to continuously improve and develop their work in quality assurance and that the evaluations could have been concentrated where they are needed most.
SFS's proposal for a grading system in SFS quality assurance position paper 2021.
Another aspect is that we believe there is room for improvement when it comes to the appendix in the guidance that is specifically aimed at student unions. The current material, although informative, does not feel completely exhaustive. Therefore, we see the need for this support material to be developed and updated so that it more concretely helps student unions understand and navigate through the new review process. We at SQC have strong confidence in UKÄ and are aware that they are working to develop support for student unions. It is particularly important to provide support and information to those student unions whose universities are first in line in the upcoming evaluation cycle. For these unions, it is crucial to quickly and effectively familiarize themselves with the new process and understand their role and responsibilities.
Finally, we would like to comment on the place of doctoral students and undergraduates in the research section of the guidance. When we reviewed the new guidance, we noted an important exception, namely that doctoral students are not explicitly mentioned in the research section. The guidance states that “Quality assurance work engages management and employees as well as external stakeholders when appropriate, and supports the quality culture and strategic work at all levels of the organization”. We know that doctoral students sometimes experience a strange balance between being a student and an employee, and that doctoral students are not always included in the college. We therefore assume that the higher education institutions and UKÄ include doctoral students in the concept of “employee” and that students are also included in the development of research.
Finally, SQC would like to express our dissatisfaction that the input that SFS made in 2021 through SFS quality assurance position paper 2021 has not been taken into account in UKÄ's development work and instead the views of the higher education institutions through the Swedish University Association (SUHF) have been allowed to permeate the agenda. We believe it is regrettable that the student perspective has not had an impact.
SFS's future work
SFS’s commitment to the quality assurance system is deeply rooted and will continue to be a central part of the quality committee’s activities. With UKÄ’s new guidance for reviews in mind, we see it as more important than ever to provide our members with the support and knowledge needed to successfully navigate the system. Firstly, SQC will actively highlight and discuss these changes in the Network for Education Managers. This will be a platform where we can together share experiences, insights and best practices for working with higher education institution reviews.
Furthermore, we are aware that these changes may pose challenges for student unions. Therefore, SFS will develop specific support functions for student unions that are now about to participate in the university reviews. We want to ensure that each student union feels ready and equipped to make its best contribution to the university review.
Finally, as part of our ongoing work to improve the quality of higher education, we will publish our analysis and conclusions of the student submissions collected during the last round of university reviews. This will give us all a deeper understanding of how the student perspective has been integrated into the review so far and where we can make efforts to further strengthen the student voice in the future. We look forward to continuing the work for even better quality in higher education together with the student unions, UKÄ and the universities. Regardless of how the system has evolved, we are convinced that the student perspective is crucial and we will fight for it to be at the centre.
*The European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA), European Students' Union (ESU), The European University Association (EUA) and the European Association of Institutions in Higher Education (EURASHE).
The blog post is written by SFS Quality Committee, SQC, which works with issues related to quality in higher education. For 2023/24, the committee consists of students Tilda Jalakas, Linus Holmström, Camilla Åsberg and Jacob Färnert.