External Review ... a communications perspective Anthony F. Camilleri NAKVIS Seminar 24th November 2011
What‘s in a Name? standards-based review
A reviewer is a communicator University Review Team Agency
Communicating with your team
What‘s in a name? review team a group of independent experts vs a unitary entity with its own mind
Inter-subjectivity • different subjective perceptions, taken from different viewpoints, give an objective view of reality • the quality basis of an external review • requires consensus consensus is not a diplomatic nicety but an essential pre-requisite of quality
Requirements • Know your team • Know their profiles • Know their inputs • Discuss everything • Do not divide responsibility for thought • Form a consensus • Before • During • After
Practical Actions • Leave sufficient time for meetings at each stage • Actively ask for team members‘ concerns • Ensure each team member gets equal say
Communicating with the institution
Communication starts with self-assessment! • This is not a one-way exercise! • Has the institution told you enough to allow a successful review? • What don‘t you understand, and who can answer your questions? • Be active in schedule-design
Planning a Conversation • ‚Get to know each-other‘ • General discussion of role in quality culture • Specific questions based on report • Clarify alldoubts
NEVER • get into conflict with your interviewee • confuse the interviewee with the institution • Issue judgments or opinions • leave the room with questions unanswered • breach confidentiality
You are not a court of law! Demand RESPECT • Self-assessment should be complete • All interviewees promised must attend – even if review schedule changes • All questions must be answered in full • Any and all documents should be provided • Logistical support should be provided
Communicating with the agency
„I don't know anything about art, but I know what I like“ Gelett Burgess
„I don't know anything about the standards, but I know quality when I see it“ Unnamed reviewer
Standards of Proof • Some credible evidence • Preponderance of evidence • Clear and convincing evidence • Beyond reasonable doubt
In your Report • Be yourself Bad: The institution showed.... Good: The review team saw / found / observed....
In your Report • Be specific Good: The institution showed.... Better: The review team found multiple and consistent examples of
In your Report • Say what you know Bad: The institution lied.... Good: The review team found inconsistencies between evidence (x) and interview (y)
In your Report • Give your opinion (where relevant) Bad: The institution is... / or NOTHING Good: We suspect, It seems likely that, Given the evidence available, etc...
In your Report • Give your reasoning Bad: There is no quality. Good: When we consider (X), (Y) and (Z), we find it impossible to say there is quality
In your Report • Link Effect with Cause Bad: Quality systems are in place, but there is no evidence of iterative improvement. Good: Quality systems are not effective, due to lack of iterative improvement procedures.
In your Report • Be CLEAR Bad: The physical conditions of classrooms are in need of improvement. Good: Classrooms are in a dismal state – no heating, broken desks and no boards make it impossible to learn
Hvala! Thank-you for your attention Questions? Anthony F. Camilleri (email@example.com) Presentation available from: http://www.slideshare.net/anthonycamilleri/ Released under a Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike3.0 Slovenia License You are free: • to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work • to Remix — to adapt the work Under the following conditions: Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). Share Alike — If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.