University quality assurance is, however, an essential activity for improving the higher education system in its numerous dimensions. It is a slow but irreversible road towards systematisation and getting the processes right. The obstacles along the way are many and various. But the comparison between where we were 25 years ago and where we are now shows remarkable progress. I would like to comment on a couple of issues by way of example: raising awareness of the importance of this issue among teaching staff and institutional accreditations.
Today, the introduction of the vocabulary of quality assurance is a reality. Validations may perhaps go unnoticed by most teachers, but this is not the case for degree accreditations, where many professors participate in the different groups interviewed by the external review committees. This process, which has been repeated over the years, has helped raise awareness of the importance of university quality assurance among teaching staff. It has forced a reflection on the importance of the issue. The same is true for study councils and master’s degree coordinating committees. There is still a long way to go, of course, but let us not forget that 20 years ago the subject was largely unknown, whereas now, the degree of acceptance is quite remarkable.
The culture of quality has gradually taken hold. There are grounds for optimism.
A similar reflection may be made regarding institutions with institutional accreditations. Such accreditation can only be achieved through conviction in the subject and constant, well-executed work by the centres. The number of institutionally accredited centres in the Catalan higher education system will reach 57 in 2023 and future plans point to a rising trend, despite the partial setback of Royal Decree 822/2021. A whole range of indicators means we can look to the future with optimism.
I said at the beginning that the road is slow but irreversible. The editorials I referred to mentioned elements of Royal Decree 822 and the Organic Law on the University System (LOSU), which certainly do not contribute sufficiently to the progress we would like to see. For instance, these laws should have expressed greater trust in the agencies and their independence. The LOSU should have stated that the technical quality units (UTQ) are basic units, as are those of equality and service inspection. The UTQs have played a key role on the road to improvement over the last 20 years and do not deserve to be forgotten.
The autonomous community agencies would have preferred a different type of treatment in the LOSU. But we cannot change where we come from. Let us not forget that the previous university act, the Law on Universities (LOU), included the quality assessment of the “Autonomous Community assessment bodies”. The LOSU identifies us as “Autonomous Community assessment agencies registered on the European Quality Agencies Register (EQAR)”. The European route has proved decisive for progress.
I have taken the title of this article from Jordi Solé Tura’s Memòries. The evidence supports this. The future of university quality assurance should be viewed optimistically. The story continues.