External Evaluation, Accreditation and Audit
This domain covers the processes by which an outside body judges quality. EAQE items test whether you can choose the right instrument for a purpose, describe a defensible peer-review process, and predict what a panel can and cannot conclude from the evidence it gathers.
Core rules
- Distinguish the instruments. Accreditation grants, conditions or refuses a status against published standards, usually for a fixed period. Audit checks whether an institution's own processes and criteria are being followed and are effective. Evaluation/assessment forms a judgement against external standards, often with a graded scale. Inspection is more directive and compliance-oriented. Choosing wrongly changes the entire evidence base.
- Peer review. Panels of academic peers, students and often employers or practitioners; selection by independence and competence; declared conflicts of interest; a chair who manages process rather than supplying the verdict personally.
- Fit-for-purpose methodology (ESG 2.2). The method must match the purpose: the same visit design cannot serve accountability, improvement and thematic analysis equally.
- Process sequence. Terms of reference → criteria and judgement scale published → self-evaluation submitted → desk review → site visit (interviews, document sampling, observation) → preliminary findings → factual accuracy check / right of reply → report and decision → follow-up.
- Verification, not transcription. Panels test self-evaluation claims by sampling evidence and interviewing different groups separately to detect divergence between policy and practice.
- Outcomes and consequences (ESG 2.5). Criteria for outcomes must be explicit: what leads to conditions, what to a follow-up review, what to withdrawal. Reporting (2.6) must be clear, accessible and published.
Worked example
A university asks whether it should undergo ISO 9001 certification or programme accreditation for a new engineering degree. Reasoning: the purposes differ. ISO 9001 would test the QMS's conformity to a generic standard and yields a certificate; it would not judge whether the curriculum meets engineering expectations or whether graduates achieve intended learning outcomes. Programme accreditation judges the programme against discipline-appropriate standards, examines learning outcomes and assessment, involves academic peers, and yields a time-limited status with conditions. If the goal is recognition and public confidence in the programme, accreditation is the instrument; ISO certification may complement it for process consistency. State the purpose first, then the instrument - not the reverse.
Traps that cost marks
- Using "audit", "accreditation" and "inspection" interchangeably.
- Accepting the self-evaluation report without sampling evidence to test it.
- Interviewing only senior managers and concluding that practice is uniform.
- Panels that write recommendations but omit the criterion and evidence on which each finding rests.
- Forgetting appeals/complaints routes (ESG 2.7) and the factual-accuracy step; both protect fairness.
- Confusing peer review with benchmarking - one judges against standards, the other compares.