Peer review in institutional evaluation procedures

“Sharing thoughts and comments about implementation“

Bruno Curvale

Evaluation coordinator, CNÉ, FranceGraz, May 11/12

Presentation outline• Introduction• The CNÉ (Comité national d’évaluation)

– Organisation, role and goals, …

• Why peer review?– Rationales, perspectives, …

• Implementation at CNÉ– Practical difficulties, remediation, …

• Last words

Introduction• Prevalence of peer review

– A real European diversity– Academics vs technocrats?

• External quality control– Quality assessments– Quality audits of QA mechanisms– Quality of results– The acting role of transparency

• Supporting internal quality development

The CNÉ

• Origin• Goals and role• Organisation• Procedures

– Self-evaluation, external evaluation, public report, follow-up

• Future developments– Building a link between institutional evaluation and

programmes evaluation

Why using peer review?

• A political choice (rather than a technical one)

• Linked to a vision of HE (ethical dimension)

• Advantages

• Limits

• The peer and the expert

Implementation at CNÉ• What is a peer?

• Training OR issues building

• The individuals and the team

• Quality assurance mechanisms– Procedures

• Contract• Guide• Mission description

– Committee and permanent staff roles’

Last words

• Peer review: – a necessary condition – needs a robust support methodology

• The whole evaluation procedure must be transparent and open to criticism

• www.enqa.net

• www.cne-evaluation.fr