Review of the higher education institutions' quality assurance work

The higher education institutions and UKÄ have a joint responsibility for ensuring that higher education is of high quality. Therefore, the higher education institutions' own internal work to ensure quality is obviously important and something that UKÄ examines.

All universities and colleges have their quality assurance work reviewed during the period 2017-2022.

The reviews

In the spring of 2018, the first round of reviews started at the following higher education institutions: University of Borås, Malmö University, Mälardalen University and the Jönköping University Foundation. A decision was made in March 2019.

In the autumn of 2018, the second round of reviews began at these universities: Ersta Sköndal Bräcke University, the Swedish National Defense College, the Swedish School of Gymnastics and Sports, the Red Cross University College, and Sophiahemmet University College. A decision was made in October 2019.

In the spring of 2019, the third round of reviews began at the following higher education institutions: Chalmers University of Technology, Stockholm School of Economics, Karolinska Institutet, Kungl. The University of Technology and the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Decisions are planned for March 2020.

In the autumn of 2019, the fourth round of reviews began at these universities: Beckman's design, KMH, KKH, Konstfack, SKH, Stockholm's music pedagogical institute. Decisions are planned for October, 2020.

How is the review done?

Basis for assessment

An independent group of assessors is based on these documents in their assessment:

• Self-assessment: The university writes a self-evaluation where they describe and motivate with concrete examples how their quality assurance work in a systematic way contributes to both quality assurance and quality development. The higher education institution must be based on UKÄ's assessment criteria.
• Student submission: The local student union is offered to submit a written document in which the union gives its view on the student influence in the university's work with quality assurance.
• Two site visits: At the first site visit, the assessors ask the remaining questions based on the higher education institution's self-assessment and identify which in - depth tracks to follow up. During the second site visit, the assessors examine how the university's quality work works in practice based on the selected specialization tracks.
• Immersion tracks: The assessment group studies the selected specialization tracks by following different quality assurance processes in different educational environments within the university. In this way, random samples are taken of how the quality work in practice contributes to the quality of the educations.
• Legal higher education supervision: The results of UKÄ's legal higher education supervision, which is carried out at all higher education institutions, form a basis. In the self-evaluation prior to the review of the quality assurance work, the higher education institution reports on the measures taken based on the results of the higher education institution supervision. The assessment group also uses the university supervision as a basis when choosing areas of specialization.
• Other documents: These can be statistics that shed light on the higher education institution in a national perspective, for example data that show how quickly students graduate or how quickly they get a job after completing their education. It can also be the basis for, for example, degree permit examinations or educational evaluations.
  

The work of the assessment group

The assessment group writes an opinion based on the assessment criteria, which becomes a basis for UKÄ's decision. We always send the preliminary opinion to the university to give it the opportunity to correct any factual errors before making a decision.

Judgment on a three-point scale

The overall assessment of the university's quality assurance work is given on a three-point scale.

1. Approved quality assurance work
   The university's quality assurance work is judged to be well described, well argued for and well functioning in practice. It is systematic and effective at all levels within the higher education institution, from management level to departmental level. All assessment areas are judged to be satisfactory.
   
2. Approved quality assurance work with reservations
   The university's quality assurance work is mainly judged to be well described, well argued for and well functioning in practice. The decision states which assessment areas are not satisfactory and need to be addressed.
3. Questioned quality assurance work
   The university's quality assurance work is judged to have several significant shortcomings in terms of how it is described, argued for and how it works in practice. The shortcomings are extensive and the assessment group's view is that the quality assurance work at the university as a whole should be re-examined.

Follow-up for everyone

Higher education institutions that receive approved quality assurance work are followed up through, for example, dialogue meetings, surveys and conferences. This is done to ensure quality even in a longer time perspective.

Institutions that receive a grade Approved quality assurance work with reservations is followed up in the assessment areas that have not been satisfactory. The university has two years to return with an account of the measures taken.

For the higher education institutions that have received the assessment of quality assurance work, a new complete review is made at the earliest after two years, in which all assessment areas are followed up.

Guidance

At the link below, you will find detailed guidance aimed at universities and colleges.

Guidance

Results

In the spring of 2019, the first four university examinations were completed. In the autumn of 2019, the other results were ready.

First results of the university reviews completed

Other results of the university reviews completed

Reflections and experiences after university reviews in round 1

After conducting four university reviews within the national quality assurance system, we have compiled our experiences and reflections based on the reviews.

Reflections and experiences after university reviews in round 1