Accreditation Practices in the Netherlands

1. Accreditation Practices in the Netherlands dr. Kees Boersma (fk.boersma@fsw.vu.nl) Faculty of Social Sciences, VU University Amsterdam • Introduction • Higher Education System in the Netherlands • Higher Education Management: an historical overview • Accreditation in action: institutions, rules and protocols • Personal experience: self evaluation of CuCON • Conclusion and discussion

2. Higher Education System in the Netherlands Demographics of the Netherlands: ~ 16,500,000 total population Three types of HE institutions: • 14 public universities (Ba/Ma levels) including three technical universities, one agricultural university and the Open University. About 195,000 students; 2) about 50 HBO’s Polytechnics (Ba levels). About 360,000 students; 3) specialized universities, including one private business university (Nijenroode) and several theological universities.

3. HE accreditation practices in the Netherlands • Increasingly important; • Increasingly complex; • Increasingly managerial and bureaucratic.

4. Features of HE management Major considerations and consequences until mid ‘80s Academic freedom and autonomy. Academic matters exclusively domain of professionals. mid ’80s – 1997 More financial decision-making authority for universities coincides with budget cuts, more distinct organisational profiles. De Moor (1995) committee. Autonomy was exchanged for faculty accountability. Slightly increased managerial influences, but the influence of central government on universities is still very limited. 1997 – 2002 Introduction of MUB in 1997: formalisation of the increasingly managerial conditions. Bologna agreement (1998): a single European system of quality assessment. Stronger hierarchy and institutional leadership. The dean possesses substantial hierarchical power, the head of schools as well. 2002 and beyond System of compulsory accreditation Registration of results and publication of league tables. NVAO (2003) and CROHO. Heavy administrative burden from quality assessment systems. Stronger central decision-making at university and faculty level. Increased bureaucracy and com- petition in order to obtain accreditation. HE: an historical overview Source: Van Gestel and Teelken

5. Institutions, rules and protocols: accreditation in action The Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture & Science is only the legislator of the accreditation of research and education. Education: • all programmes (curricula) must be accredited by the independent (2003) Netherlands Flanders Accreditation Organization (NVAO); • the Quality Assurance Netherlands Universities (QANU) is authorized by NVAO to offer universities external assessments; • all recognized programmes are registered in the Central Register of Higher Education Programmes (CROHO). Fixed period of validity: 6 years.

6. Institutions, rules and protocols: accreditation in action Accreditation of education in three steps: • Self evaluation (by the faculty and the departments) of the curriculum with regards to the quality of: the goals, the programme, the instructors, the means, the quality control system, the results; • External assessment (committee with independent members/peers with site-visit) (score: scale: 1-4); • Decision positive: accreditation by NVAO.

7. Assessment (visitation) of Research • The guiding principle behind the assessments is the Standard Evaluation Protocil 2003-2009 (SEP). This protocol has been developed by VSNU, NWO and KNAW on the basis of the 2001 report ‘Kwaliteit verplicht’ [Compulsory quality]. • The Standard Evaluation Protocol is based on the following two principles: • Every six years there will be an external assessment by an international assessment committee (peer review committee) • Every three years there will be a self-evaluation, one preceding the external assessment and one mid-term review.

8. Institutions, rules and protocols: accreditation in action The aim of the Standard Evaluation Protocol is: • to improve the quality of research; • to improve research management and direction; • to report to the upper managerial levels, government and society (score: 1-5). The university/faculty board is responsible for the assessment. Again: the Quality Assurance Netherlands Universities (QANU) offers universities external assessments of research programmes, and advice on ways of improving internal quality assurance.

9. The nameQANU: QANU (pronounced kanu) is an Accadian word akin to the Sumerian word Gi, meaning reed, measuring rod or staff. The English word cane is derived from it, as are the words cannon and canon (via Latin and Greek). A likeness of the Sumerian measuring rod is preserved in a statue of Gudea, king of Lagash (2141-2122 BC), which was found in Telloh (Iraq). The Sumerians have long been credited with the invention of writing, though no certainty exists on this point. In any case, they played an important role in the development of the cuneiform script. The qanu is also a Mesopotamian unit of length, equal to about 10 feet (just over 3 metres).

10. Selfevaluation of CuCON • Department Culture, Organization and Management (COM); • Research programme Cultural Change in Organizational Networks (CuCON); • Evaluation/assessment in 2007.

11. My own position in the formal organization Faculty Board 1) dean, 2) research and 3) educational coordinator, 4) personnel officer ADMINISTRA- TION, ICT, ETC. STUDENTS COMMITTEE, ETC. CULTURE, ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT • department head, • Research manager • Manager education FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES: 7 departments

12. Main tasks of the research manager • The content of the research: execution of the research programme (CuCON) together with about 15 researchers; • The rules of the research: reports, quality and quantity control; • The means: research budget and (external) funding; • The research culture (managing by walking around): organization of conferences and workshops to stimulate critical thinking, open and externally oriented research activities, stimulate the academic climate.

13. Self evaluation of CuCON The research quality of the faculty and that of each of the 7 departments will be evaluated by an external (peer) committee (site-visit) in November this year. The research manager is responsible for the self evaluation report. Following the SEP protocol the following elements have paid attention to: • content of the research; • leadership; • internal and external validation; • input/output ratio; • SWOT analysis.

14. Conclusion Accreditation practices in the Netherlands: • Quality of research and education is increasingly important (Bologna, competition, transparency, etc.). The quality has been improved after the implementation of the accreditation process; • Increasing (NPM) managerialism and bureaucratic rules (also for other public institutes) is a disadvantage; • Educationtendency is: back to the disciplines; • Research tendency is: (measurable) output is the norm; • Still: relatively great individual freedom of choice in education and research.

15. Discussion Education: • Accreditation of the institute/faculty instead of each programme individually; • Diversity and ‘Buildung’ is important: ‘the market’ should not be the norm. Research: • Discipline-specific norms for output (e.g. anthropology is not chemistry); • Outcome and process is important (development and impact of research). Integration of the three functions of the university (Birnbaum) are important to consider for accreditation practices: research, education and community support.