By the new Quality Code for Higher Education (2019), Ghent University greatly values external parties' input on its study programmes' education policy and quality assurance. Each study programme is expected to take several actions, that allows them to embed a wide-ranging external perspective in a structured manner. 

What Are Minimal Requirements? 

The entire set of actions undertaken by a study programme regarding the external perspective should meet the following three criteria:

1. Each study programme seeks a broad range of external stakeholders (minimally including the professional field, alums, and international peers) to review its content-related components – including (at the very least) its programme competencies (learning outcomes), curriculum, assessment and exit level.  
2. The Study Programme Committee will discuss the results of programme-specific surveys of the professional field, or of other structurally involved stakeholders, and of institutionally organised alum surveys, as they become available in the Education Monitor via UGI. These surveys form a starting point for self-reflection and analysis. 
3. The programme is to conduct a programme review. This entails that at least three international, independent, academic peers with a broad view of the programme, are asked to review programme content quality individually or in a panel. Such a programme review will occur once every six years (or in the context of a major curriculum revision). The focus of the programme review is to check whether or not programme competencies (learning outcomes), curriculum, assessment, and exit level are up to standard. 

Peers are preferably international authorities in the field. The Education and Programme Support Team (University Service for Education and Research) developed a template with target questions for international peers, which you will find below. Its use is optional. 

Independent peers are experts who are transparent on any existing collaboration ties with the study programme that is under review. They sign a declaration of impartiality and independence stating that they will conduct the programme review independently and objectively manner. An optional template is available. 

Suppose the Programme Committee has a thorough curriculum revision in mind. In that case, gathering feedback from international peers on the current curriculum or a draft of the new one might be interesting. We strongly advise conducting a programme review in the following two scenarios: when the curriculum revision affects the fundamental characteristics of the study programme or when the Institutional Programmes Committee handles the curriculum revision. 

 

The Professional Field and Alum Perspective vs. the Perspective of International Peers

The Quality Code for Higher Education identifies two stakeholder groups as mandatory sounding boards for reviewing study programmes' content-related components:

• the professional field, alums, employers' organisations;
• international peers/experts.

These stakeholder groups all carry different expertise and different perspectives:  

Regional vs. International

• professional field partners and (most) alums often represent locally/regionally embedded organisations and companies and thus offer local/regional perspectives;
• international peers, with various possible affiliations, offer an international perspective.

Perspective of the Professional Field vs. Academic Perspective

• professional field representatives/partners can introduce a job market point of view to the study programme. Among other things, they can provide information on graduates' employability and professional aptitude. 
• international peers can review a study programme's content from an academic perspective. 

Feedback vs. Programme Review

• study programmes are expected to gather feedback from the professional field and alums in a structural manner;
• study programmes are also expected to seek international peers for a thorough content-based programme review. Such international experts are well-placed to determine whether or not a programme's content meets international standards, and whether or not the programme is sufficiently evidence-based. 

Study programmes are asked to gather external input, reflect on it, and then decide whether to act. 

Gathering and reflecting on the input of (all the above types of) external parties is mandatory. However, well-substantiated arguments can be made as to why that input does not (immediately) result in changes to the study programme.  

Possible Actions to Take in the Context of the External Perspective: an Overview

There are various possibilities for embedding the external perspective in study programmes' (quality improvement) policy. The idea is for Programme Committees to select several actions that, taken together, meet the criteria mentioned above. 

Engaging the Professional Field or Alums

• establish a professional committee/advisory board;
• invite external members into existing bodies of consultation;
• use existing network events with the professional field to add a separate feedback moment;
• organise specific alum events or events with the professional field, and add a discussion relating to quality assurance;
• organise alum surveys or professional field surveys (@);
• organise surveys for other external parties involved in education (@);
• organise focus group sessions with recent graduates/alums (@);
• involve the professional field in the Master’s dissertation process;

Actions towards Realising an International Programme Review

• use international frameworks as a guideline for a curriculum revision or as a touchstone for an existing curriculum (@)
• have a selection of Master’s dissertations reviewed by international peers or include an external peer in the jury of each dissertation (@)
• survey incoming/outgoing students (@)
• pair a programme review to activities in the context of teaching staff mobility 
• pair a programme review to an international conference
• organise a meeting with international partner programmes to conduct a programme review (@)
• organise a working visit to an international partner programme to conduct a programme review
• pursue an international accreditation

The External Perspective and its Link with Ghent University's Strategic Education Objectives ‘Stakeholder Involvement’ and ‘Internationalisation’

Programmes can gain a lot by establishing links between the external perspective for quality assurance purposes and existing processes related to the Strategic Education Objectives mentioned above.  

Links with a Broader Stakeholder Policy

Stakeholder involvement (cf. the Education Monitor) implies that study programmes run processes and undertake actions through which internal and external stakeholders are systematically includes in education (policy) decisions. 

These processes and actions aimed at including external parties (professional field, alums, …) can have different end goals, for example:

• exchanging information;
• setting up a joint (research) project;
• installing or supervising learning processes (e.g., related to work placements, Community Service Learning)
• formulating advice for the Programme Committee;
• assessing the programme’s intented learning outcomes; 
• …

Many programmes already have ongoing processes that involve external parties in their education practice and/or policy-making. In a quality assurance context, these channels are also ideal to review essential content-related components (e.g., the curriculum) as well. 

If there is a need for a new or updated plan on stakeholder involvement in the study programme, this exercise should be approached systematically. The following steps might give some direction: 

1. determine the needs and roles of external stakeholders vis-à-vis the programme; 
2. determine the needs of the programme; 
3. analyse and select relevant stakeholders; 
4. make a well-considered choice of methodology (or a combination of methodologies) that will allow for a structured dialogue with external stakeholders; 
5. assess the policy plan, and revise it where necessary. 

Links with Internationalisation

Programmes can set up new actions or rely on (existing) internationalisation initiatives to achieve an international external perspective. Initiatives related to staff mobility and student mobility, offer various possibilities.   

Suitable international peers or partner programmes can also be identified within existing/known networks. Among the possibilities are:

• networks at the level of the programme, the faculty, or the institution;
• networks of similar international programmes;
• international research networks

There are various types of funding (some of which are competitive calls) for faculties to use for the programme review: 

Means	What can they be used for?
Organisational support (OS) in the context of Erasmus+ Budget for mobility outside of the Erasmus zone (the former "OIM")	For preparatory visits, welcoming activities, etc.
Staff mobility for teaching or for training in the context of Erasmus+ Budget for mobility outside of the Erasmus zone (the former "Birak-funds")	Primarily for the support of lecturers with a short-term teaching assignment at a partner institution. Via similar channels, financial support is also available for ATP staff to visit to partner institutions or participation in organised staff weeks.
Calls for co-operation in the context of ENLIGHT	For teaching- and research-related co-operation initiatives between two or more ENLIGHT universities
Calls for co-operation in the context of the 3i University Network	For teaching- and research-related co-operation initiatives with the universities of Lille and Kent
Ghent University's Regional Platforms offer opportunities for support	For specific types of co-operation between Ghent University and a partner institution in one of the countries/regions involved

 

The regulations governing budget expenditure also allow these funds to be used to improve the quality of collaboration with the institutions involved, provided that the Faculty Committee Internationalisation, and, if relevant, the University Service for Education and Research have approved this. 

 

Embedding the External Perspective: Specific Examples 

In the event that a Programme Committee has selected and initiated various actions to embed the external perspective, what can the whole of these actions eventually look like? What is “sufficient” to meet the three criteria? Three fictional examples: