The Swedish Higher Education Authority approved the quality assurance processes for education at KI

In a follow-up review of KI's Quality Assurance Processes carried out by The Swedish Higher Education Authority (Universitetskanslersämbetet, UKÄ) during spring 2022, KI's Quality Assurance Processes has been fully approved.

In 2019/2020 UKÄ reviewed the Quality Assurance Processes at KI and gave the overall judgement “approved quality assurance processes with reservations”. The reservations were motivated by the assessment that three assessment criteria where not fully met - or not fully argued for – according to the documentation handed in for the review. In total 19 assessment criteria were assessed.

Assessment criteria1.1: The Higher Education Institution's (HEI) quality system is designed to ensure the quality of the programmes and is connected to the overarching goals and strategies, which HEI has established for its educational offerings.

Assessment: Most processes are in place and well-functioning, but KI lacks a process for periodic reviews of the education.

Action implemented: KI has developed and implemented a process, including steering documents, for periodic program evaluation that includes a self-evaluation and a review performed by an external collegial expert panel. All programs are divided into eight groups according to level and type of exam. Every year 1-2 groups will undergo an external review in a cycle of six years. The first four programs are under review during the spring of 2022.

Assessment criteria 1.5: HEI ensures that the results and conclusions generated by the quality system are systematically put to use in the strategic governance, quality work and development of the quality system.

Assessment: KI does not clearly argue for how results and conclusions from internal follow up processes are considered in the planning and the strategic governance of the development of the education or in the development of the systematic quality assurance work.

Action implemented: KI has developed processes, including steering documents, to assure feedback to the institutions and programmes reviewed from follow-ups and evaluations by the management and the external panels. An existing process of ongoing monitoring has been developed further including an annual follow up report of the quality, quality work and identified areas of improvement as well as a plan with activities for quality improvement. The status of KI:s quality assurance system, i.e. steering documents, processes, organization and responsibilities for the systematic quality work undergoes an internal review and areas are identified and reported annually to the Faculty board and actions for further development are discussed.

Assessment criteria 4.1: HEI uses procedures and processes to ensure that gender equality is systematically incorporated into the content, design and implementation of the courses and programmes.

Assessment: KI does not clearly argue for how gender equality are integrated in a systematic and consistent way in the education.

Action implemented: The systematic process for the integration of gender equality in all KI education has been developed including action plans and actions within the areas of equal rights, gender equality and widening participation in education.

After a follow-up review during April-June 2022 UKÄ has given the overall assessment “Approved Quality Assurance Processes”.

About UKÄ's review

The review of HEIs’ quality assurance processes is one of four components in the national system for quality assurance of higher education.

The reviews verify that HEI's ensure that the courses and programmes at all levels comply with applicable laws, ordinances, and the ESG. The reviews focus on how well the HEI's quality assurance processes, including follow-up, measures and feedback procedures, help to systematically ensure and enhance the quality of the courses and programmes at all levels. The reviews also contribute to improving the HEI's quality since the assessors in their reports highlight both identified good examples, and areas in need of improvement.

Content reviewer: