EUA’s Quality Culture Project

2002 - 2003

A Socrates-funded project

Project Background and Objectives

The Quality Culture Project had its origin in the EUA’s action plan 2001-2003 and Policy
position paper on quality 1. Both documents (i) emphasised that, in issues of quality
assurance, the point of departure must be the universities’ capacity for developing a robust
internal quality culture and (ii) stressed that this capacity was integrally linked to institutional
autonomy and public accountability.
The Quality Culture Project aimed at contributing to the development and embedding of a
systematic and coherent quality culture in universities as well as to the general goals of the
Bologna process through increased transparency and attractiveness of European higher
education.
Fifty institutions participated in this one-year project. They represented 29 countries that
covered the geographical span of EUA membership, a spectrum of institutional size, types,
“age”, organisational structures and cultures. They were grouped into six small networks
working on the following themes:
Research management Implementing Bologna
Teaching and Learning Student support services
International partnerships Decision-making structures and communication flow

Working method
The innovative and dynamic working method for this project is grounded in EUA’s philosophy.
As a pan-European association that represents a variety of institutions in a diversity of national
settings, EUA’s activities have demonstrated repeatedly the benefit of mutual learning in the
context of European diversity. Both the most and the least resourced institutions can and do
learn from one another in meaningful ways.
The project Guidelines are based on the combined methodology of two long-standing and inter-
linked EUA programmes, both using the SWOT as an analytical tool 2:
ƒ The Institutional Evaluation Programme examines the institutions’ capacity for change,
that is, their ability to develop and implement a strategic plan and the robustness of their
internal quality arrangements. In brief, the evaluations are set within a dynamic and context-
sensitive approach rather than focused on universal criteria and recipes.
ƒ The Management Seminar (co-sponsored with IMHE/OECD) uses small group work to
discuss, in a supportive environment, the participants’ specific leadership and management
issues.

Participants were invited to conduct a SWOT analysis of their institution and to develop action
plans based on these analyses. Every work phase was discussed (i) in each participating
university to ensure the widest engagement possible of the community and (ii) within the
networks to receive advice and to find inspiration from the activities of partner institutions. Thus,
the successive small network meetings, building on one another, generated good group
dynamics that were maintained through sustained email exchanges within and across networks.

1
Both approved by the EUA Council, September 2001, Dubrovnik
2
SWOT refers to an analysis of Strength, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats. For more details on
these programmes please consult the EUA web site: www.unige.ch/eua/activities
All networks have followed the EUA Guidelines for the project, and have praised their
constructiveness and the dynamic process that these initiated. One network report noted that
“the project could act effectively as a form of external review but with a developmental
enhancement focus rather than the negative implications associated with an externally imposed
system of audit”3.

Preliminary results
This project is in its final phase: each network is writing a report on its findings. Based on the
draft network reports, however, it is clear that the network discussions have been rich and
useful and that participating institutions have demonstrated great enthusiasm and commitment
to this project.
Networks identified the principles, goals and structures needed (e.g., the need to integrate
student support services) and gaps in university provision (e.g., for research, lack of central
research management office, database of research capacity, benchmarking, staff development,
internationalisation and communication among and within departments)
Preliminary conclusions point to the following issues:
ƒ As a multi-faceted concept, quality is difficult to define and must be contextualised.
ƒ Success factors for embedding effectively a quality culture include the centrality of
institutional governance and leadership (vs. management) and the importance of strategic
thinking. This implies that the central leadership must have the capacity to steer the
institution in order to ensure consistency of standards and avoid replication of activities and
services.
ƒ A definition of quality as excellence and the aspiration of demonstrating it on an international
level are associated with a higher degree of institutional autonomy. Less autonomous
institutions have a narrow international perspective that is confined to accreditation and lead
to a compliance-driven and less effective internal quality culture.
ƒ Institutions that demonstrate a more mature and effective internal quality culture (i.e., a less
bureaucratic approach, interest in improvement rather than in the mechanistic and
controlling aspects of quality monitoring) are those that enjoy a higher degree of autonomy.

Next steps
The project report will be published in EUA Thema series (autumn 2003). The networks have
expressed great enthusiasm and interest in continuing to work together. They will have the
opportunity to set up web-communities on the EUA web site in order to continue their work, with
the view of submitting in a year’s time short reports on the implementation of their action plans
and in two years another set of reports. They will also contribute to Phase II of this project
(currently being considered by the Socrates Programme) that will focus on the following themes:
ƒ Research management and academic career management
ƒ Implementing Bologna reforms
ƒ Student support services
ƒ Teaching and learning
ƒ Internal programme evaluations
ƒ Service to the community (industrial partnerships, public service activities, cultural activities,
etc)

If funded, an open call for Phase II will be circulated in autumn 2003.

3
Teaching and Learning Network Report