1 The Quality Assurance Agency (the Agency) distinguishes between complaints and appeals. We regard a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction with services we provide or actions we have taken. Complaints are handled through Complaints from institutions: Procedures. Appeals are challenges to specific decisions, in specific circumstances, and are handled through Procedures on representations.
2 This document sets out the procedures for consideration of a representation made by an institution against reviewers’ judgements on the academic standards and the quality of learning opportunities following an academic review of a subject.
3 The procedures are available to an institution where either or both of the following conditions apply: the reviewers have judged the quality of learning opportunities to be ‘failing‘, or the reviewers have expressed ‘no confidence’ in the standards achieved. These are the only circumstances in which representations may be made against reviewers’ judgements.
4 If, on first review, the quality of the learning opportunities is judged to be ‘failing’ and/or the reviewers have ‘no confidence’ in the academic standards, the relevant funding body will consider the Agency report and make decisions on future action. This will normally result in a further review starting within 12 months.
Making a representation
5 Representations are made in writing by the head of the institution concerned. They are addressed to the Head of Corporate Affairs, QAA, Southgate House, Southgate Street, Gloucester GL1 1UB. Oral representations are not accepted. Receipt of a representation is acknowledged within three working days, and the Chairman of the Board and the Chairman of QAA Scotland (where appropriate) are informed.
6 An institution with provision judged by the reviewers to be ‘failing’ in the quality of learning opportunities, and/or provision in which the reviewers have ‘no confidence’ in the academic standards, will receive a draft review report for comment on matters of factual accuracy. Once those comments have been considered, the institution will receive a second draft report. Any representation should be made within one month of receipt of the second draft report, and should be based on that second draft.
7 The institution should set out in the representation the ways in which it considers the review to have been flawed. This will usually address the alleged deficiencies that led to the judgement of ‘failing’ in quality of learning opportunities or no confidence’ in academic standards achieved, or both, and explain the institution’s reasons for believing the judgement(s) to be wrong.
Consideration of a representation
8 Representations are considered by a sub-group of members of the Board of Directors or a sub-group of members of QAA Scotland, as appropriate (the sub-group). In the latter case, the membership of the sub-group will normally include at least one member who is also a member of the Board. The membership of a sub-group is determined on a case-by-case basis by the Chairman of the Board (acting jointly with the Chairman of QAA Scotland where appropriate). No member of a sub-group will have had any prior involvement in the review at issue. The institution is informed of the membership of a sub-group and has the opportunity to raise any concerns with the Chairman before the sub-group’s membership is confirmed. Once its work is completed, the sub-group reports to the full Board or to QAA Scotland as appropriate, with reasons and recommendations. In the latter case, QAA Scotland then makes its recommendation to the full Board.
9 Administrative and professional support to a sub-group is provided by Agency officers who have no operational involvement in academic reviews or any prior involvement in the particular review.
10 All parties will bear their own costs in dealing with a representation.
Brief for a sub-group
11 A sub-group will review the methodology and process used by the team and the conclusions it drew. In doing so, it will examine whether, in the light of the points made in the representation, the team’s judgements were reached reasonably and fairly. The sub-group has regard to:
a Procedure
The sub-group will consider whether the team acted within agreed procedures; whether it failed to carry out agreed procedures; whether it exceeded its powers. The sub-group will look to establish whether there were procedural failings that could call into question the legitimacy of the decisions reached and, if so, to assess the impact of those failings on the judgements made.
In a representation, institutions will sometimes wish to comment on the work of the review team or individual members of a team, or a member of the Agency’s staff. The roles and responsibilities of reviewers are addressed fully in their training programmes. Reviewers are made aware of what is expected of them both in the content of their work and in the way they carry it out. Preparing the reviewers to do their work effectively, professionally and with due courtesy and regard to the institution and its staff, is something the Agency takes seriously. In turn, the Agency expects that institutions will treat reviewers with the respect, courtesy and professionalism necessary for a successful review process. The Agency has adopted the following principles in relation to statements in a representation about named or clearly identifiable individuals:
- comments in a representation about the way teams and individuals have carried out their role are entirely legitimate. However, comments about a person, as distinct from the person’s conduct of her/his role and responsibilities, are not acceptable;
- any individual named or identifiable in a representation has the right to see the representation and has a right to respond;
- the individual(s) concerned will normally receive a written statement from the Agency of the response made by the Agency to those parts of the representation where reference is made to the named or identifiable individual(s);
- the Agency determines what action, if any, will be taken in response to statements made in a representation about an individual or team.
b Perversity
The sub-group will consider whether the team’s conclusions were unreasonable or disproportionate in the light of the available evidence. Reasonableness may be called into question if irrelevant matters are taken into account or relevant matters not taken into account. The sub-group will want to understand the impact of any apparent perversity on the overall judgements reached by the team. Disagreement about a judgement does not of itself indicate perversity.
c New material
The sub-group will consider whether there was material within the representation which, had it been made available to the team before the review had been completed, would have influenced the judgements of the team, and now causes the members of the team to review the conclusions they reached (the members of the review team are asked to report their views to the sub-group [see 12.c. below]). Any such material must have been in existence during the period of the review. The sub-group will wish to understand why such material was not made available to the team during the period of the review.
Advice to a sub-group
12 In order to assist a sub-group in its work, the Head of Corporate Affairs, acting on the sub-group’s behalf, seeks written advice for the sub-group, as follows:
a A reviewer with knowledge of the subject and expertise in the academic review process, but with no prior involvement in the particular review, will be asked to offer advice. The specific brief for the reviewer is determined by the particular review and representation under consideration. However, in broad terms, any such advice would focus on the identification of possible perversity of judgement, in relation to the aspect(s) that led to the ‘failing’ or ‘no confidence’ judgement, based on consideration of the same documents (paragraph 13 a, b and c below) as are available to the sub-group. The institution will be informed of the identity of the proposed reviewer and will have the opportunity to raise any concerns with the Head of Corporate Affairs.
b The review co-ordinator is asked to comment on any suggestion of procedural deficiency in the conduct of the review. The team, or individual members of a team, may also wish to respond to any matters in the representation that relate to the way in which they, individually or collectively, carried out their work.
c The members of the team are asked generally if they wish to comment on any matters raised in the representation. The members of the team are asked specifically if there is any material in the representation which, had it been made available to them before the review had been completed, would have influenced their judgements, and now causes them to review the conclusions they reached. The team's reasons for either being, or not being, influenced by material they had not previously seen, must be given. Any such material must have been in existence during the period of the review.
Documents for a sub-group
13 The documents considered by a sub-group are:
a the self-evaluation;
b the second draft of the review report (as defined in paragraph 6);
c the representation;
d the advice as described in paragraph 12.
Liaison with the institution
14 An institution making a representation is asked to nominate a contact person for liaison with the QAA. The QAA contact person will be the Head of Corporate Affairs, who will keep the institution informed of progress on a regular basis.
Recommendations to the Board/QAA Scotland from a sub-group
15 The sub-group will focus on the aspect or aspects that led to the 'failing' and/or 'no confidence' judgement(s).
16 A sub-group may recommend that the judgements be confirmed if it concludes that there was no evidence of major procedural deficiency or perversity of judgement, nor that there was material in the representation that existed during the period of the review and that would have led to the provision being approved had it been made available to the team before the review was completed.
17 A sub-group may recommend that the judgements be amended if there is clear advice from the review team that there is material in the representation which, had it been provided during the period of the review, would have led the team to conclude that the quality of learning opportunities and academic standards achieved should be approved. In making this recommendation a sub-group will wish to reassure the Board/QAA Scotland as to the reasons why the material was not made available during the period of the review, and the reasons why the team was positively influenced by it.
18 If the sub-group considers that there has been a deficiency of process such as to call the judgements into question, or that there is prima facie evidence of perversity of judgement, it invites the team to re-consider its position in the light of the sub-group’s findings. Taking account of the team’s response, the sub-group will recommend to the Board/QAA Scotland that the judgements be confirmed, or that they be amended, or that the review and judgements be set aside and a new review carried out by a new review team.
19 The Chairman of the Board (jointly with the Chairman of QAA Scotland where appropriate) will communicate the outcome of QAA Scotland’s/the Board’s consideration of a representation to the head of the institution, normally within three months of receipt of the representation, depending on the cycle of Board and QAA Scotland meetings.
20 If the outcome of the representation is that the aspects of the quality of learning opportunities are now all ‘approved’ or better, and that there is ‘confidence’ or ‘limited confidence’ in the academic standards achieved, the provision will be recorded overall as approved.
21 Once the representation procedure is completed, and any consequent amendments to the review report have been made, the report is published.
30 July 2003
Top
QAA updates
QAAtweets
QAAtube