Quality in Higher Education

ISSN: 1353-8322 (Print) 1470-1081 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cqhe20

The contribution of professional accreditation to

quality assurance in higher education

Cathal de Paor

To cite this article: Cathal de Paor (2016): The contribution of professional accreditation to
quality assurance in higher education, Quality in Higher Education

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2016.1263925

Published online: 14 Dec 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cqhe20

Download by: [University of Colorado at Boulder Libraries] Date: 16 December 2016, At: 00:27
Quality in Higher Education, 2016
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2016.1263925

The contribution of professional accreditation to quality

assurance in higher education
Cathal de Paor
Faculty of Education, Mary Immaculate College, Limerick, Ireland

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
This article examines the extent to which the professional accreditation Professional accreditation;
of professional higher education programmes can complement quality assurance;
other quality assurance endeavours being carried out. An analysis enhancement; higher
of a sample of professional accreditation reports for pharmacy education
education programmes in Ireland provides insight into the priorities
of the regulatory professional body with regard to preparation for the
profession. The results show that the reports address issues that are
of relevance for the higher education institutions’ provision of quality
programmes and for their quality assurance. The article also considers
the extent to which the reports hold institutions accountable against
the professional standards, while also acknowledging the professional
responsibility of institution staff. Catering for both of these logics is
necessary so that professional accreditation can contribute effectively
as a mechanism for quality assurance, including enhancement, in the
institution.

Introduction
Quality assurance in higher education requires access to various sources for monitoring and
managing the quality of the work at a programme and institutional level. One possible source
is the reports produced by external professional or regulatory bodies as part of the profes-
sional accreditation of programmes in professional higher education (Patil & Conder, 2007;
Bryant, 2013). The distinction between academic accreditation and professional accreditation
can be explained as follows:
Programmes may be accredited for their academic standing or they may be accredited to pro-
duce graduates with professional competence to practice; usually referred to as professional
accreditation. (Harvey, 2004, p. 6)
The purpose of the article is to analyse how the results of professional accreditation can
be useful for higher education quality assurance (both internal and external). It will therefore
examine what are the key priorities of professional bodies when assessing professional higher
education programmes as recorded in the final report. Such reports can provide useful
information on areas needing attention in the higher education institution’s own quality

CONTACT Cathal de Paor cathal.depaor@mic.ul.ie

© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2  C. DE PAOR

enhancement efforts. Knowing more about the priorities in professional accreditation can
also help institutions in focusing on areas needing greater attention.
One area in particular that has been identified as worthy of greater attention in quality
assurance is how it can serve both the interests of ensuring accountability, as well as
quality enhancement. This raises the importance of ensuring that quality assurance
activities can occupy a space between accountability and professional responsibility:
that is, holding the higher education institution accountable for what it is doing in
response to given professional standards, while also recognising the professionalism of
academic staff and doing everything to enable them to continue giving expression to
their own professional commitment in preparing the future members of the profession
in question.
Although based in Ireland, and on one professional area only (pharmacist education), it
is envisaged that the results will be relevant for the quality assurance of professional higher
education more generally and in other countries.

Literature review
The literature review examines both mechanisms of quality assurance (internal and external)
and how professional accreditation may support them. It explores the current policy context
in Ireland, with some brief references to policy elsewhere.

Quality assurance
At a basic level, quality assurance can be defined as, ‘the way in which an institution can
guarantee with confidence and certainty, that the standards and quality of its educational
provision are being maintained and assured’ (Irish Universities Quality Board, 2008, p. 4).
Three different approaches may be used in quality assurance systems: accreditation, assess-
ment and audit (Kis, 2005, p. 5).
Accreditation is the evaluation of whether an institution or programme meets a threshold
standard and qualifies for a certain status. Obtaining accreditation may have implications
for the higher education institution itself, as well as for the students. On the other hand,
quality assessment is an evaluation that makes graded judgements about quality, rather
than simply saying whether or not the institution or programme is of sufficient quality (Kis,
2005, p. 5). Finally, a quality audit is concerned with processes and procedures, checking the
extent to which these are carried out as intended.
Quality assurance can also be categorised according to whether it is internal or external,
with both sharing the same aim of maintaining and assuring standards of provision. Internal
quality assurance is carried out by the higher education institution itself, while external
quality assurance is undertaken by external agencies. These may be quality assurance agen-
cies, acting with authority from government, such as those affiliated to the European
Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA), an umbrella organisation
representing quality assurance organisations from the European Higher Education Area
(EHEA) member states. Both internal and external quality assurance are seen as complemen-
tary as illustrated in one of the standards presented in the quality assurance guidelines
produced by ENQA:
 QUALITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION  3

External quality assurance in its various forms can verify the effectiveness of institutions’ internal
quality assurance, act as a catalyst for improvement and offer the institution new perspectives.
It will also provide information to assure the institution and the public of the quality of the
institution’s activities. (ENQA, 2015, p. 15)
A key issue is the balance to be struck between accountability and quality improvement.
Quality assurance systems provide information to various stakeholders from an accounta-
bility point of view but they also need to be useful in enhancing quality rather than simply
ensuring compliance with bureaucratic requirements. The Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG) note that:
A successfully implemented quality assurance system will provide information to assure the
higher education institution and the public of the quality of the higher education institution’s
activities (accountability) as well as provide advice and recommendations on how it might
improve what it is doing (enhancement). Quality assurance and quality enhancement are thus
inter-related. (ENQA, ESG, 2015, p. 7)
Striking a greater balance between these two functions has led to calls from within the
quality assurance community for a greater emphasis on quality enhancement, as opposed
to the traditional form of quality assurance. However, an analysis of the roles and responsi-
bilities of affiliated members of ENQA reveals that agencies differ greatly in the extent to
which they encompass both (Gornitzka & Stensaker, 2014; Westerheijden et al., 2014). Some
agencies have extensive powers in determining the fate of a particular programme, while
some also include follow-up support, with the implementation of an improvement plan.
This kind of continuous activity helps promote a conception of quality assurance, as being,
‘not principally about individual external scrutiny events’ but rather, ‘about continuously
trying to do a better job’ (ENQA, 2009, p. 22). Given the focus of the current article, the next
two sections explore further how accreditation (both academic and professional) can con-
tribute to the quality assurance endeavour.

Accreditation
While accreditation may be understood in different ways by different stakeholders and in
different contexts (Frank et al., 2012), it is possible to present some general remarks.
Accreditation can be understood to refer to various kinds of validation carried out at an
institutional and programme level.
Institutional accreditation for higher education is usually conducted by a statutory agency
under the auspices of the ministry, or indeed by the ministry itself. In Ireland, Quality and
Qualifications Ireland (QQI) is a state agency established by statute in 2012 and is an amal-
gamation of four formerly separate bodies. These comprised two awards councils (at further
and higher education), as well as the Irish Universities Quality Board and the National
Qualifications Authority of Ireland.
QQI has responsibility for the external quality assurance of further and higher education
and training and is also responsible for the National Framework of Qualifications. It also
validates programmes and makes awards within the National Framework of Qualifications
for those providers of qualifications without their own awarding powers. The role of QQI is
therefore focused on the two areas of quality assurance and on qualifications services.
Institutional reviews take place in a seven-year review cycle, having the same five pur-
poses: to encourage a quality assurance culture and the enhancement of the student learning
4  C. DE PAOR

environment; provide feedback to institutions about institution-wide quality; improve public

confidence in the quality of institutions by promoting transparency and public awareness;
support systems-level improvement of the quality of higher education; encourage quality
by using evidence-based, objective methods and advice (QQI, 2016, p. 5).
The single model is based on five procedures: the publication of terms of reference; an
institutional self-evaluation report; an external assessment and site visit by a team of review-
ers; the publication of a review report including findings and recommendations; and a
­follow-up procedure to review actions taken. Each institution is asked to identify indicators
and benchmarks for quality relevant to their own mission and context. The overarching
standards against which review findings are compared are: the institution’s mission, strategy
and selected quality indicators and benchmarks; European and national standards for quality
and awards; QQI quality assurance guidelines and other relevant policies.
Institutional review identifies three key areas to inform the review: effectiveness, account-
ability and enhancement, based on the ESG (ENQA, 2015). In summary, it seeks to evaluate
the effectiveness of the institution-wide procedures; measure accountability against
European standards and QQI quality assurance guidelines; explore the enhancement of
quality in teaching, learning, research, in innovations in quality assurance, as well as in the
alignment to the institution’s mission and quality indicators (QQI, 2016). It therefore targets
effectiveness, accountability and enhancement.
Accreditation also takes place at the level of the programme, through programme vali-
dation. In Ireland, universities have the autonomy under the Universities Act (1997) to under-
take their own programme accreditation, while others such as Institutes of Technology may
do so on a delegated authority basis from QQI.
Higher education institutions providing pharmacy education in Ireland are all university-
sector providers. As such, they have responsibility for the quality assurance of their own
programmes, as is the case in Finland for example (Bejan et al., 2015) and the United Kingdom
(QAA, 2005). However, external review is considered as being, ‘interdependent on and inte-
grated with a wider range of QQI engagements with institutions, such as annual institutional
reports, annual dialogue meetings, monitoring and programme validation’ (QQI, 2016, p. 7).
It therefore indirectly supports the quality of provision at programme level. It also provides
an opportunity to evaluate the, ‘effectiveness of the internal quality assurance processes’, as
required by the ESG in Part 2 (dealing with external quality assurance) (ENQA, 2015, p. 18).
Programme review can also draw on the work of external examiners who are appointed
from other higher education institutions to moderate standards on an annual basis and who
can make recommendation on other aspects such as programme design.

Professional accreditation
In addition, a separate process of accreditation is needed for certain programmes so that
graduates can gain access to the corresponding regulated professions. This process of pro-
fessional accreditation is carried out by the professional or regulatory bodies, thereby con-
stituting a kind of external evaluation. For example, Frank et al., (2012) examined the
professional accreditation of programmes in urban planning across three countries.
It is this kind of professional accreditation, within the area of pharmacy, that is of
interest in the present article; and specifically, the extent to which it may complement
 QUALITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION  5

other quality assurance activities in the higher education institution (internal and
­external). Pharmacy is a regulated profession and in Ireland, the statutory regulatory
body in question, the Pharmacy Society of Ireland (PSI), acts in the interests of the public
good while upholding the status of the profession through regulation. In working for the
public good, it also has functions related to the education of registered members,
­including continuing p ­ rofessional development.
An important issue relates to the interaction between regulation and promotion. Both
of these roles are related, given that regulation of the profession can be seen as a vital step
in safeguarding standards of practice, ensuring public confidence in the profession and
thereby promoting it. The Council of the PSI, has a non-pharmacist majority, appointed by
the Minister for Health, among its 21 members. There is a clear distinction between the work
of the PSI in maintaining and enhancing standards of pharmacy and the work of other
associations in maintaining and enhancing terms and conditions of employment. An exam-
ple of the latter is the Irish Pharmacy Union, described as a ‘professional body for community
pharmacists in Ireland, whose sole focus is on protecting, promoting and strengthening the
profession’ (IPU, n.d.).
Apart from PSI requirements, the education and training of pharmacy students in Ireland
is specified in EU legislation (Article 44 of Directive 2005/36/EC) and consists of a five-year
education and training programme. The programme in Ireland consists currently of a PSI-
accredited four-year degree, followed by a one-year internship, although the PSI has now
made progress towards moving to a fully integrated five-year Master’s degree (MPharm)
(PSI, 2014).
The review strategy used by the PSI involves the submission of documentation by the
higher education institution, a site visit by an accreditation panel and the preparation of a
final report for consideration by the Council of the PSI. A key part of the initial higher edu-
cation institution submission is a self-assessment, providing, ‘a concise commentary that
clearly sets out how the standards have been met’ (PSI, 2012b, p. 4). The PSI has made avail-
able a set of interim accreditation standards describing what is expected of the provider
and dealing with: 1. Pharmacy school and mission; 2. Leadership, organisation and govern-
ance; 3. Graduates; 4. Curriculum; 5. Teaching and learning strategy; 6. Assessment strategy;
7. Students; 8. Resources; 9. Quality assurance (PSI, 2012a).
It can be noted how a similar range of standards is provided in the ESG to guide the
internal quality assurance carried out by higher education institutions: policy for quality
assurance; design and approval of programmes; student-centred learning, teaching and
assessment; student admission, progression, recognition and certification; teaching staff;
learning resources and student support; information management; public information;
on-going monitoring and periodic review of programmes; cyclical external quality assurance
(ENQA, 2015).
The PSI standard for quality assurance requires that all processes and activities, ‘must be
clearly defined, documented, executed and controlled in accordance with a system of Quality
Management which assures and demonstrates consistency, reproducibility and transparency
of operations’ (PSI, 2012a, p. 13). This requires the provider to put in place: indicators of
performance to monitor compliance with the Accreditation Standards and ‘robust quality
assurance and enhancement systems’, to include ‘clear and systematic mechanisms to mon-
itor, review and evaluate all aspects of the education process’ (PSI, 2012a, p. 13).
6  C. DE PAOR

Such a focus on quality assurance, along with the various other standards, means that
professional accreditation examines aspects of the institution’s work also addressed in the
ESG. However, while it does constitute an additional source of information for the higher
education institution’s quality assurance effort, challenges with the use of professional
accreditation have been identified. These include the risk of standardisation and institutional
isomorphism (Augusti et al., 2008). Elsewhere, a report from EURASHE and the PHExcel
Consortium (Jørgensen et al., 2013) highlights the challenges faced by professional higher
education as it strives towards continuous improvement in response to the Bologna Process,
while also taking account of the requirements of professional accreditation. Professional
higher education can find itself in a state of tension between these two priorities, which,
while they can be complementary, are also capable of conflict. For example, the authors
noted that, ‘a blurred boundary exists between what constitutes excellence in purely aca-
demic terms and what represents this attribute from a professional perspective’ (Jørgensen
et al., 2013, p. 7).
The other tension, that is of particular interest in the current article, relates to how pro-
fessional accreditation can be a mechanism for both checking accountability and promoting
the professional responsibility of the pharmacist educators in the higher education institu-
tion. This involves holding the higher education institution accountable for compliance with
given professional standards, while also validating and valorising the professionalism of
higher education institution staff and their own professional commitment in the professional
preparation of the future members of the profession in question. Accountability obliges
higher education institutions to adhere to, and be accountable against, standards of quality
and other regulations and to make their work as explicit and transparent as possible.
Professional ‘responsibility’ by contrast assumes a different logic, highlighting the moral and
social responsibility of professionals: ‘a concept that to a larger degree relies on professional
integrity and values in dynamic interplay with the standards of his/her profession’ (Solbrekke
and Sugrue, 2014, p. 13).
The study examines a set of accreditation reports produced as part of the professional
accreditation for higher education institution programmes in Ireland in pharmacy education,
in order to consider the extent to which this kind of external evaluation could support internal
quality assurance in the twin areas of accountability and the professional responsibility of
higher education institution staff.

Methodology
The pharmacy programmes in question were offered by three different providers and aca-
demically accredited by the higher education institutions themselves.
The results are based on a convenience sample of three accreditation reports, chosen
from among the reports published by the regulatory body on its website. The decision to
limit the sample to three was for convenience reasons. Only three reports on undergraduate
pharmacy programmes have been published by the PSI to date, all in 2013. Pharmacist
education has undergone significant review in recent years and, from 2015, the five-year
pharmacist qualification consists of a PSI-accredited five-year fully integrated master’s degree
programme. This was a recommendation arising from the Pharmacy Education and
Accreditation Reviews (PEARs) report (Wilson and Langley, 2010), approved by the PSI in
2010.
 QUALITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION  7

The three programmes in the sample were already being delivered by higher education
institutions and were being submitted for re-accreditation based on the PSI’s Interim
Accreditation Standards for the level-8 Bachelor’s degree (PSI, 2012a)

1.  Four-year BSc degree in pharmacy (240 ECTS);

2.  Four-year BPharm degree (240 ECTS);
3.  Four-year BSc degree in pharmacy (240 ECTS).

All reports provide information on the context for the review, the composition of the
panel, a description of the programme, the judgment of the panel in relation to each of the
nine standards and commendations and recommendations. There is a slight difference in
the length of the reports if one considers the length of the sections dealing with the pro-
gramme, standards, conclusions, commendations and recommendations, the average num-
ber of pages being 5.5. The number of experts on each of the accreditation panels varied
from six to nine.
The data on which the study is based are drawn primarily from the judgements given in
relation to the quality assurance standard (one of a total of nine different standards as pre-
sented above), as well as those sections in the reports dealing with commendations and
recommendations. These sections were considered as being the most pertinent in helping
to gain an insight into what the accreditation panels prioritise when reviewing programmes.
They reveal how the panel may endorse and encourage a particular programme feature by
either referring to it within the commendations or recommendations. The PSI reports also
include a section entitled ‘Challenges’ that includes items that function as additional recom-
mendations. For example, one of the challenges listed for Programme 2 is ‘to initiate student
involvement in the degree development process’. Thus, it is clear that the panel would wish
to see this as part of the programme design process, even if it was not included as an explicit
recommendation. For the purposes of the analysis, therefore, these challenges are included
with the other recommendations.
The commendation and recommendations (including any challenges) were read and
analysed. Content analysis was undertaken in the initial analysis using a coding process,
codes being the labels attached to a phrase or other short sequence of the text. The coded
segments were then grouped into categories and these were sorted into a higher-level of
categorisation, referred to as themes. These themes were revised and developed following
further re-reading until three definitive themes emerged, which were thought to capture
the salient issues and priorities of the assessment panels:

1.  Programme content and design

2.  Teaching, learning and assessment
3.  Programme leadership and management.

The themes can be seen as corresponding respectively to: (1) the programme as pre-
scribed; (2) the actual processes of teaching, learning and assessment; (3) and overarching
issues (for example, programme leadership, management and resourcing). Overall, the
themes reflect the nine interim standards used by the PSI in its accreditation strategy but
organised in a different way.
One limitation in the methodology is the difficulty encountered in sorting certain items
(commendations or recommendations) neatly into just one of the three themes. Each of the
separate commendations or recommendations constitute an item and can be quite short
8  C. DE PAOR

(for example, ‘a committed and enthusiastic staff’) but may also run to two sentences and
contain more than one idea. A decision was taken to categorise each item only once based
on the first main idea conveyed, this being taken as representing the most important priority
that the panel wanted to communicate.
Although not representative of all professions, a study on professional accreditation in
pharmacy can be expected to raise issues that are likely to be encountered in the accredi-
tation of other professional programmes. Pharmacy programmes are similar to many other
professional programmes in that they includes an extensive placement. The professional
knowledge base also draws on a broad range of scientific knowledge, from the social sciences
to the physical sciences.

Results
The results draw primarily on the judgement of the panels in relation to the standard on
quality and on the commendations and recommendations. Both of these data sources were
deemed to provide the most direct insight into the priorities of the panels regarding quality.
However, it is noted that there were also some references to quality assurance in the judge-
ment given on other criteria. For example, the panel for Programme 3 considered that there
was, ‘insufficient control or quality assurance … to ensure a meaningful and equitable expe-
rience for all students on the programme’.

Quality standard
All three accreditation panels stated that the standard on quality was met. The word count
for the panel’s judgement for this standard varied from 63 words for Programme 1, to 207
words for Programme 2, to 313 words for Programme 3. The following is a brief account of
the issues raised in their judgements.
The text from Programme 1 referred to the work of the quality enhancement office in the
institution, the statutory institutional reviews and the internal rolling review carried out at
school level. The commentary made special mention of the use of student feedback on
modules taught, noting that, ‘the accreditation team was impressed by the presentation
and thorough analysis of student module feedback’.
The Programme 2 panel stated that the quality standard was met, subject to the higher
education institution informing the PSI of its implementation of a fitness to practise policy
within the next year. However, the management of quality assurance procedures was
deemed to be insufficiently robust and could benefit from a greater degree of implemen-
tation oversight. The school had devised a quality improvement plan to address issues that
came to light in the preparation of the self-evaluation. However, some elements of the
previous quality improvement plan had not been implemented. The team also noted that,
‘some aspects of the management of teaching were entrusted to individuals rather than
there being a school policy’.
The panel for Programme 3 referred to the institutional review conducted in 2009 as part
of the QQI seven-year cycle. That review recommended immediate recruitment to two vacant
chairs and the creation of a new chair in the practice of pharmacy, while noting that some
progress was being made in relation to this. The panel referred also to external examiner
reports and how these inform the process of on-going curriculum review. Similarly, student
 QUALITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION  9

feedback gathered by the Quality Office, student representatives, staff-student committee,

on-line and paper-based surveys are taken into account. The closing of the feedback loop
is monitored by the Quality Committee in its commitment to continuous quality enhance-
ment. Although a fitness to practise policy was in place the panel was concerned that senior
staff appeared unfamiliar with the implementation.

Commendations and recommendations

These results are now complemented by an analysis of the commendations and recommen-
dations in the professional accreditation reports.
There were three explicit references to quality assurance in the commendations and
recommendations. One recommendation for Programme 1 stated: ‘To develop a formal and
well-reasoned assessment and quality improvement strategy for any and all practice-based
learning experiences’. At the same time, one of the commendations for the same programme
referred to, ‘the assessment policy and quality assurance including student feedback’. The
Programme 2 report included the recommendation to, ‘To develop a sustained and system-
atic, quality assured placement programme’. None of the commendations for Programme 3
referred to quality assurance or enhancement.
However, an analysis of all commendation and recommendation items shows that the
range of issues addressed are relevant for quality assurance. A total of seventeen commen-
dations and nineteen recommendations were given in the reports. Issues relating to pro-
gramme leadership and management account for most of the items (67% of all items; nine
commendations and ten recommendations). Programme content and design occur in 22%
(three commendations and six recommendations), while issues relating to the actual pro-
cesses of teaching, learning and assessment receive the least amount of treatment (11%;
five commendations and three recommendations). Table 1 identifies the key categories or
issues occurring in the three reports for each of the three themes.
Issues addressed in the first theme, programme leadership and management, included:
academic regulations; partnership between the higher education institution and placement
settings; human and physical resources; commitment of staff and programme leadership;
institutional vision; and provision of exit routes. References to placement issues were fre-
quent, with all three providers being commended at least once for the quality of the place-
ment component. References to the research activities of staff and to resources were also
frequent. There were commendations for Programme 1 for the professionalism of higher
education institution staff: ‘strong collegiality and leadership’; ‘enthusiastic and motivated
staff’; ‘the value placed on scholarship of teaching and learning’. There was also a recom-
mendation that related to the professionalism of staff in a different way: ‘safeguarding the
well-being of staff “to avoid staff burnout”’. A commendation for having a committed and
enthusiastic staff was also recorded for Programmes 2 and 3.
Issues raised in the second theme, programme content and design, included: professional
knowledge; linking theory and practice; quality of learning outcomes; coherence and inte-
gration; links with related professions and continuing professional development. The reports
also contained items referring to professional knowledge particular to pharmacy. One exam-
ple is where the panel for Programme 3 recommends that ‘professionalism be inculcated
and assessed throughout the programme’ and that ‘greater opportunities for structured
patient contact’ be introduced. Programme integration and coherence was addressed in
10  C. DE PAOR

Table 1. Key categories that emerged during the content analysis of the commendations and
­recommendations in the panel accreditation reports.
Theme
Programme leadership and
management
Programme content and design
Teaching, learning and assessment
Commendations
Working in partnership with
placement settings; commitment to
improvement; vision of staff;
commitment to student well-being;
investment in human and physical
resources; collegiality; leadership;
enthusiastic staff; vision for
interdisciplinary and interprofes-
sional learning and research
Balance and coherence; alignment
between content, aims and
outcomes; progression of learning
within programme
Varied assessment; emphasis on the
scholarship of teaching and
learning for HE staff
Recommendations
Collaboration with other units within
the institution; develop mecha-
nisms to quality assure placement;
attention to staff well-being;
attention to upcoming ‘fitness to
practice’ legislation; develop
student involvement in programme
planning; invest in resources
(human and physical)
Introduction of placement earlier and
on more systematic basis; improve
linkage and coherence within
programme; additional professional
knowledge; collaboration
opportunities with students from
other programmes; embed
commitment to lifelong learning
Develop assessment strategy;
consider assessment across
modules; provide more information
to students on assessment

just two items (one commendation and one recommendation). There were also references
to progression within the programmes, the development of critical reflection skills and
knowledge construction.
There were markedly fewer commendations and recommendations relating to the pro-
cesses of teaching, learning and assessment. The following kinds of issues were raised in the
items sorted into this theme: feedback to students on assignments; use of grade descriptors;
co-operative learning; range of assessment methods; online learning. For example, the panel
for Programme 3 recommended, ‘the extension of the use of OSCEs (Objective Structured
Clinical Examination) throughout the programme’.

Professional accreditation: contribution to quality assurance

This section focuses on the relevance of the results for the quality assurance of these specific
programmes in pharmacy but also for quality assurance more generally. In the second part
it focuses on the issue of balancing accountability and professional responsibility.
The analysis shows that the professional accreditation reports fulfil their primary function
in establishing the extent to which the programmes meet the nine standards required by
the regulatory body. The judgements in the three accreditation reports for the standard on
quality (the ninth standard in the list) give due attention to a range of quality assurance
issues such as compliance with legislation (for example, fitness to practice), monitoring and
use of data sources. The judgements are to the point, with one of the quality assurance
system, for example, being deemed to be ‘insufficiently robust’ and with some elements of
a previous improvement plan not yet implemented. These kinds of quality issues relate
primarily to accountability.
There were fewer direct references to quality assurance in the commendations and rec-
ommendations, although the issues raised were still relevant for quality more generally.
 QUALITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION  11

Issues included the student placement (timing of introduction and integration within pro-
gramme) and the integration of the students’ learning experience across the different pro-
gramme components and modules. Many of these issues appear in other generic reviews
of pharmacy education, for example, the management of the student placement and the
integration of theory and practice (Wilson & Langley, 2010).
The three reports also suggest a concern on the part of the panels to recognise and
validate the professional responsibility of higher education institution staff and to ensure
that their work was sufficiently recognised and appreciated. Acknowledging the enthusiasm
and commitment of staff in the commendations helps to balance the accountability logic.
For example, the report for Programme 1 commended the higher education institution for
the use of information sources such as student feedback and external examiner reports and
institutional reviews to inform ongoing improvement. There were also recommendations
calling for greater support for higher education institution staff, for example, avoiding staff
burnout, or providing sufficient resources. The panel for Programme 3 was categorical in
calling for ‘the increase in senior posts’ to support the programme, this being deemed ‘abso-
lutely mandatory’.
This attempt to cater for both accountability and professional responsibility can also be
discerned in an institutional review conducted in one of the higher education institutions
featured in this article (QQI, 2014). The institutional review provided six commendations and
five recommendations all dealing with issues similar to those addressed in the three profes-
sional accreditation reports. The commendations referred to: (1) leadership of the institution
in promoting a quality culture; (2) presence of a formal quality assurance and improvement
structure; (3) commitment to teaching and learning; (4) strong research activity; (5) moni-
toring research performance and strategy; (6) student welfare. The recommendations
referred to: (1) governance and trustees; (2) integration of quality assurance activities;
(3) focus of research and use of benchmarks (4) consistency in student placement; (5) student
confidence in securing internships. Noteworthy similarities with the professional accredita-
tion reports include the focus on research activities, the student placement and issues relat-
ing to leadership, governance and strategic issues. This illustrates how professional
accreditation reports focus on issues that are also of concern to the authors of institutional
reviews and therefore demonstrates the relevance of professional accreditation as a quality
assurance mechanism. The balance between accountability and professional responsibility
is also evident, for example, when the review highlights areas needing specific attention,
while at the same time commending staff commitment.
Striking a good balance between the traditional focus on accountability while also
empowering the higher education institution staff as professionals is likely to become more
important, as greater emphasis is placed on quality enhancement. The question therefore
arises as to whether more can be done to render professional accreditation more capable
of enhancing the professional responsibility of staff.
The nature of the commendations and recommendations may provide some directions
for development. Programme leadership and management issues received the greatest
attention, with less focus on teaching and learning. This might be as one expects, given that
the site visit may afford limited opportunities for the panel to observe the actual quality of
teaching. It also reflects the fact that the regulatory body is primarily concerned with grad-
uate competence and compliance with standards.
12  C. DE PAOR

Among the relatively fewer references to teaching and learning in the reports, most
involved commendations on some aspect of the work of staff. For example, one of the com-
mendations referred to, ‘the scholarship of teaching and learning’. However, it is worth con-
sidering if some illustration of how this scholarship was expressed and made tangible could
also be very helpful. Another way could be the use of a ‘good practice’ section in the report
drawing attention to staff professionalism in teaching. This would help address the finding
that the final report can often amount to a kind of anti-climax when it finally arrives at the
institution and can seem ‘cautious’ and ‘deflationary’ when compared to the discussions
during the site visit (Solbrekke & Sugrue, 2014). Such an acknowledgement would in turn
sharpen the focus in the quality of student learning.
Such a focus on learning is also a priority in institutional reviews. For example, in a recent
review of reviews, student learning was identified as a fundamental purpose for all QQI
institutional reviews: ‘the sustenance and enhancement of successful student learning as
the central and compelling purpose of higher education (i.e., to help students to do the best
they can in their studies)’ (QQI, 2016, p. 28). This shows an increasing concern in institutional
review for the actual processes of teaching and learning.

Conclusion
Higher education institutions are encouraged to use all sources of information to support
their quality assurance mechanisms (ENQA, 2015). Professional accreditation is seen as being
an arduous process and one that requires much investment on the part of higher education
institution staff. It is therefore important that the institution can benefit from the process in
as many ways possible.
The results show how professional accreditation can provide insight into the views of
important stakeholders in professional higher education, in this case, the regulatory body
for pharmacy. Professional accreditation holds the institution accountable against the pro-
fessional standards but also recommends areas that should be prioritised for further improve-
ment. For example, all panels prioritised the quality of the student placement. The results
also showed that the work of the assessment panels was geared primarily towards the pro-
gramme inputs and overarching issues related to governance and leadership. While certain
aspects of assessment received treatment (such as grade descriptors), there was less focus
on issues relating to the actual processes of teaching and learning.
A particular focus in the article was the extent to which professional accreditation strikes
a balance between accountability and professional responsibility. Although the chief func-
tion of the regulatory body in question was to check for compliance with regulation, there
were also obvious attempts to do this, without diminishing, but rather enhancing, the pro-
fessional responsibility of higher education institution staff. The use of commendations, in
particular those that reflect on the contribution of staff, can help in striking the optimum
balance between accountability against the set of standards, while empowering staff in their
own professionalism.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
 QUALITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION  13

References
Augusti, G., Freeston, I., Heitmann, G. & Martin, R.-P., 2008, ‘Accreditation and quality assurance of
engineering education in Europe: setting up a pan-European system’, in Beso, A., Bollaert, L., Curvale,
B., Toft Jensen, H., Harvey, L., Helle, E., Maguire, B., Mikkola, A. & Sursock, A. (Eds.) Implementing and
Using Quality Assurance: Strategy and practice. Available at: http://www.eua.be/publications/eua-
reports-studies-and-occasional-papers.aspx (accessed 24 September 2016).
Bejan, S., Janatuinen, T., Jurvelin, J., Klöpping, S., Malinen, H., Minke, B. & Vacareanu, R., 2015, ‘Quality
assurance and its impact from higher education institutions’ perspectives: methodological
approaches, experiences and expectations’, Quality in Higher Education, 21(3), pp. 343–71.
Bryant, M., 2013, ‘International accreditations as drivers of business school quality improvement’, Journal
of Teaching in International Business, 24(3–4), pp. 155–67.
European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA), 2009, ENQA Report on
Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (Brussels).
Available at: http://www.enqa.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/ESG_3edition-2.pdf (accessed 24
September 2016).
European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA), 2015, Standards and Guidelines
for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (Brussels, Belgium).
Frank, A., Kurth, D. & Mironowicz, I., 2012, ‘Accreditation and quality assurance for professional degree
programmes: comparing approaches in three European countries’, Quality in Higher Education, 18(1),
pp. 75–95.
Gornitzka, Å. & Stensaker, B., 2014, ‘The dynamics of European regulatory regimes in higher education –
challenged prerogatives and evolutionary change’, Policy and Society, 33(3), pp. 177–88.
Harvey, L., 2004, ‘The power of accreditation: views of academics’, in Di Nauta, P., Omar, A., Schade,
P.-L. & Scheele, J.P. (Eds.) Accreditation Models in Higher Education Experiences and Perspectives ENQA
Workshop Reports 3. Available at: http://www.enqa.eu/indirme/papers-and-reports/workshop-and-
seminar/ENQAmodels.pdf (accessed 24 September 2016).
Irish Pharmacy Union (IPU), n.d., Who We Are (Dublin, Irish Pharmacy Union). Available at: http://ipu.ie/
(accessed 24 September 2016).
Irish Universities Quality Board, 2008, ‘Student handbook – your right to quality in higher education’.
Available at: www.ucd.ie/t4cms/iuqbstudent_handbook.pdf (accessed 24 September 2016).
Jørgensen, M., Kristensen, R., Wipf, A. & Delplace, S., 2013, Quality Tools for Professional Higher Education
Review and Improvement (Brussels, PHExcel Consortium). Available at: http://www.eurashe.eu/library/
phexcel_quality-tools-for-phe-review-and-improvement_2014-pdf/ (accessed 24 September 2016).
Kis, V., 2005, Quality Assurance in Tertiary Education: Current practices in OECD countries and a literature
review on potential effect (Paris, OECD).
Patil, A. & Codner, G., 2007, ‘Accreditation of engineering education: review, observations and proposal
for global accreditation’, European Journal of Engineering Education, 32(6), pp. 639–51.
Pharmacy Society of Ireland (PSI), 2012a, Undergraduate Accreditation Standards (Dublin, Pharmacy
Society of Ireland). Available at: http://www.thepsi.ie/gns/education/accreditation/undergraduate­
standards.aspx (accessed 24 September 2016).
Pharmacy Society of Ireland (PSI), 2012b, Outline Accreditation Process for the Level 8 Bachelor
Degree (Dublin, Pharmacy Society of Ireland). Available at: http://www.thepsi.ie/gns/education/
accreditation/undergraduatestandards.aspx (accessed 24 September 2016).
Pharmacy Society of Ireland (PSI), 2014, Accreditation Standards for the Five-year Fully Integrated
Master’s Degree Programme in Pharmacy (Dublin, Pharmacy Society of Ireland). Available at:
http://www.thepsi.ie/gns/education/accreditation/integratedfiveyearprogrammestandards.
aspx (accessed 24 September 2016).
Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA), 2005, Quality Assurance in UK Higher Education:
A guide for international readers. Available at: http://www.qu.edu.qa/offices/vpcao/documents/
accreditation/UK_QA_in_higher_education.pdf (accessed 24 September 2016).
Quality and Qualifications Ireland (QQI), 2014, Institutional Review of Royal College of Surgeons. Available
at: http://www.qqi.ie/Pages/Royal%20College%20of%20Surgeons%20in%20Ireland%20-%20
Institutional%20Review,%202014.aspx (accessed 24 September 2016).
14  C. DE PAOR

Quality and Qualifications Ireland (QQI), 2016, Policy for Cyclical Review of Higher Education Institutions.
Available at: http://www.qqi.ie/Publications/Cyclical%20Review%20of%20Higher%20Education%20
Institutions.pdf (accessed 24 September 2016).
Solbrekke, T. & Sugrue, C., 2014, ‘Professional accreditation of initial teacher education programmes:
teacher educators’ strategies, between “accountability” and “professional responsibility”?’, Teaching
and Teacher Education, 37, pp. 11–20.
Westerheijden, D.F., Stensaker, B., Rosa, M.J. & Corbett, A., 2014, ‘Next generations, catwalks, random
walks and arms races: conceptualising the development of quality assurance schemes’, European
Journal of Education, 49(3), pp. 421–34.
Wilson, K. & Langley, C., 2010, Pharmacy Education and Accreditation Reviews (PEARs). Available at:
www.thepsi.ie/libraries/education/pears_project_report.sflb.ashx (accessed 24 September 2016).