Th&ma 2022-1

TH MA 1-22
and fundamental values. This is not a new argument. In the
American context, there is a long tradition of linking the
two. Judith Eaton, the president emeritus of the Council for
Higher Education Accreditation, a national coordinating
body for accreditation and quality assurance in the United
States, argues that:
‘Academic freedom, institutional autonomy and social responsibility
are built into the fabric of what quality assurance does
and its vision of quality. (…) We cannot have quality education
without academic freedom. We cannot have quality universities
without institutional autonomy. We cannot sustain the quality
of our value to students and society without full awareness and
commitment to social responsibility. We have built both internal
and external quality review on this edifice of values.’
So if quality in higher education and values are so intrinsically
linked, what role do fundamental values play in the
framework and practice of quality assurance in the EHEA?
To answer this question, I did a study together with the
Open Society University Network’s Global Observatory on
Academic Freedom for the Council of Europe. The aim was
to identify existing linkages between quality assurance regulation
and practice and fundamental values in the EHEA.
To achieve this, we did a de jure review of the national and
agency level regulations pertinent to quality assurance
and a de facto review of the agency level practices of the
50 quality assurance agencies registered in the European
Quality Assurance Register in the 49 EHEA member states.
The findings show that there are some existing explicit linkages
between quality assurance regulation and practice and
fundamental values in higher education.
At the national level, the de jure review assessed whether
relevant quality assurance regulatory provisions include references
to the four EHEA fundamental values. The analysis
showed that 1 in 3 EHEA member states directly refer to at
least one fundamental value in their national regulations
pertinent to quality assurance. If we zoom in on a specific
fundamental value, the number goes down to around 1 in
10 EHEA member states. No definitions of fundamental
In the American context,
there is a long tradition
of linking quality assurance
and fundamental values
Arguments in favour
are mostly normative,
arguments against
are mostly practical
values or measures to support respect for them or sanction
infringements were identified.
At the agency level, the de jure review showed a more promising
picture, with 27 quality assurance agencies making
some reference to fundamental values in their regulatory
provisions. Again, no definitions or measure for fundamental
values were identified in regulations. However, the de
facto analysis showed that quality assurance agencies have
some practices in place to safeguard fundamental values
in their quality assurance procedures: 11 out of the 17 agencies
who responded to our survey reported such practices,
mostly in relation to academic integrity.
Monitoring fundamental values
These findings show that while fundamental values might
be intrinsic to quality assurance regulations and practice,
they do not currently play a direct or central role in these
provisions either at the national or at the agency level in the
EHEA. The Bologna Process task force for monitoring fundamental
values is looking into the feasibility of strengthening
the role of quality assurance instruments in monitoring
fundamental values once common EHEA definitions and
indicators have been developed. For instance, through
a revised 3.0 version of the European Standards and
Guidelines for Quality Assurance (ESG) which all quality
assurance agencies registered in the European Quality
Assurance Register must substantially comply with.
There are good arguments for and against this move. Arguments
in favour are mostly normative, signalling a collective
responsibility for fundamental values and their significance
in quality education in the EHEA. Arguments against are
mostly practical, concerning the limited power that quality
assurance can have in overseeing compliance with and
enhancement of these values in a political environment that
is hostile. Also, the European Standards and Guidelines
are considered a major success of the Bologna Process,
and there is concern that expanding their scope will affect
their effectiveness and dilute their impact in ensuring consistent
and comparable quality standards. These concerns
74