Skip to content. | Skip to navigation

Home   Projects   Evaluation of the Nordic ENIC/NARIC offices

Evaluation of the Nordic ENIC/NARIC offices

The Nordic recognition agencies have conducted a mutual evaluation in order to gain better understanding of each other's work and promote quality improvement.

The evaluation project was carried out in the period 2003-2006.

Evaluation reports:

The purpose of the evaluation was to establish transparency and insight into the different offices' modes of work. In addition to creating transparency, the method applied was aimed at promoting measures for quality improvement in the recognition agencies. It is, therefore, an aspiration that this evaluation project will establish a basis for discussions on common standards and criteria for recognition.

The methodological approach was a peer review. For each evaluation an evaluation group was nominated, consisting of 5-6 directors and credential evaluators from the Nordic offices not under evaluation. Furthermore, an external expert contributed to each evaluation.

The first step in the evaluation was a self-study done by the office under review. The self-study report was drafted in correspondence with a self-study protocol. The protocol consisted of the following four main sections:

1) Background, purpose and ownership

2) Recognition method

3) Procedures for quality assurance of agency

4) Concluding analysis.

The evaluation group conducted a site visit to the office under review, on the basis of the self-study report. During the site visit the evaluation group met with management, staff and stakeholders and discussed issues concerning different aspects of the office under review, such as management, organisation, institutional context, quality assurance and recognition method.

An evaluation report was written based on an analysis of the self-study report, observations from the site visit and final reflections. The report was discussed with the office under review before publication. In this way, it was ensured that mistakes could be corrected and the evaluation group's conclusions refined.


See also: