1 Introduction
Building upon the first Global Trends study on “The Arab States: Quality Assurance Trends in Higher Education” (2020), which investigated and analysed quality assurance developments, both internal and external, in terms of relevance, efficiency and trust in the Arab world (Karakhanyan, Aboul-Ela, Alsindi, Alhamad, Badrawi, 2020), this second study aims to explore trends in internal and external quality assurance (QA) of higher education (HE) focusing on efficiency, relevance, and transformative power. This chapter focuses on the trends, opportunities and challenges posed by national, regional and international QA initiatives in the Arab States. It begins by outlining the scope of the study, which encompasses all 22 Arabic-speaking countries employing a mixed-method approach, such as the utilisation of the baseline data on the HE and QA landscape in the region, literature reviews, surveys, and focus group discussions to gather data from a diverse array of stakeholders, including educators, policymakers, and QA bodies. This methodology enabled a comprehensive understanding of the current state of QA in the Arab States, contributing to the body of knowledge in QA regionally and globally.
The subsequent sections delve into the specific evaluation processes and tools used to assess QA mechanisms, providing insights into the various frameworks and standards employed by HE institutions (HEI s) and QA bodies. Findings highlight the types of institutions involved in quality assurance, the engagement of stakeholders, and the recognition of QA bodies by international organisations. In addition to presenting key findings, the chapter discusses the efficiency, relevance, and transformative potential of QA systems in the region. It emphasises the need for an enhanced and meaningful collaboration among stakeholders to address existing challenges and to promote continuous enhancement of education offers.
1.1
The Arab region comprises 22 countries distributed across two continents encompassing three important regions: North Africa, the Middle East, and the Mashreq (Map 7.1).
- –African countries (10): Algeria, Comoros, Djibouti, Libya, Egypt, Mauritania, Morocco, Somalia, Sudan, and Tunisia. North African nations prioritise aligning higher education with labour market needs, blending historical practices with modern QA reforms.
- –Middle Eastern countries, comprising of 7 Arabian Gulf Countries: Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates; and Yemen. These countries prioritize international partnerships and have established QA systems that are heavily influenced by American and European models, as well as global best practices.
- –Mashreq countries (5): Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, and Iraq have diverse educational backgrounds. Palestine and Iraq have robust QA frameworks while Lebanon and Syria face instability that challenges QA efforts. Evaluation and Quality Assurance is the key in maintaining educational standards.
The Arab region’s HE landscape includes various internal and external QA mechanisms aimed at enhancing higher education. The 1st study on Global Trends in Higher Education Quality Assurance revealed as of 2018, national EQAB s were established in 12 countries (United Arab Emirates (e.g., CAA, 2000; ADEK, 2005, KHDA, 2006), Sudan (EVAC, 2003), Saudi Arabia (NCAAA, 2004), Egypt (NAQAAE, 2006), Jordan (AQACHEI, 2007), Bahrain (BQA, 2008), Oman (OAAA, 2010), Libya (NCQAAETI, 2010), Kuwait (NBAQ, 2010), Palestine (AQAC, 2013),
Two blocks of countries emerge from this study: i) GCC countries (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and UAE) with strong investments and sophisticated QA agencies; ii) other Arab countries that also make good efforts to enhance their QA systems. While most countries are advancing towards national agencies, persistent challenges include difficulties in establishing QA bodies due to limited expertise and funding; lack of meaningful collaborative agreements among QA bodies for best practice sharing; absence of the regional framework of QA and qualification recognition, absence of mobility frameworks for students and staff across Arab HEI s and decision-making bottlenecks from funding dependencies on ministries.
Internal Quality Assurance (IQA) landscape covers approximately 2,244 HEI s across the Arab world. African countries total the highest number (1570) of HEI s, the Middle East region counts 493 HEI s and the Mashreq 181 HEI s. The average ratio of existing EQAP s to the total number of HEI s is around 1 EQAP/150 HEI s which is a real challenge to ensure a fair coverage across the whole Arab world. Table 7.1 illustrates the distribution of EQAP s and HEI s by type (public, private, and cross-border) across the region. The Middle East is the most endowed region in terms of EQAP s (national and professional) including 12 (46%) EQAP s compared to the North African 8 (31%) and Mashreq 6 (23%).
Distribution of different types of HEI s and EQAP s in the Arab States
| Arab regions | Public | Private | Cross-Border | Total | EQAP s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| African | 817 | 645 | 61 | 1523 | 8 (31%) |
| Middle East | 255 | 207 | 78 | 540 | 12 (46%) |
| Mashreq | 76 | 90 | 15 | 181 | 6 (23%) |
| Total | 1148 | 942 | 154 | 2244 | 26 (100%) |
| Percentage (%) | 51% | 42% | 7% | 100% |
1.2
Arab countries have established multiple networks of regional organisations to enhance quality assurance, align and promote collaboration among their higher education systems (Jafar & Knight, 2020). Founded in 1964, the Association of Arab Universities (AArU) aims to improve university quality, facilitate student and staff mobility, and foster joint research. The Arab League’s Educational, Cultural, and Scientific Organisation (ALECSO) established in 1975, supports various educational aspects in the Arab States. In 2007, two additional organisations were created: the Arab Network for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ANQAHE) and the Arab Organisation for Quality Assurance in Education (AROQA). While their missions are complementary, each organisation promotes distinct intervention area in promoting QA in HEI s. ANQAHE facilitates the exchange of information and good practices in QA across Arab countries, strengthening relationships between QA bodies. AROQA enhances higher education quality in the region through awareness, capacity building, and accreditation services. ANQAHE network includes seventeen (17) EQAP s corresponding to 77% of country membership.
In 2014, 22 Arab states adopted a Regional Strategy for Science, Technology, and Innovation (STI) to boost collaboration among public, private, and higher education sectors (UNESCO, 2014). Financial support for R&D increased from 0.3% to 3% of GDP, with more private sector investment. This led to the creation of an online Arab observatory by UNESCO and ALECSO, showcasing research projects, university inventories, and digital theses, facilitating virtual conferences (UNESCO, 2015). A 2021 UNESCO assessment revealed that all Arab states have implemented STI policies, with 59% developing explicit policies. In the Middle East, Oman established the Research Council in 2005 to support research aligned with national priorities. Saudi Arabia has more than a hundred PhD programmes, while only 19% of Lebanese universities offer doctoral studies per Decree 10068 of 2013. In Maghreb countries, most universities established research laboratories, doctoral schools, and programmes leading to PhD graduates.
1.3 Developments in Regional and National Qualifications Frameworks
In 2012, ANQAHE developed the Arab Qualifications Framework (AQF) to guide the development of the National Qualifications Frameworks (NQF) for the Arab nations (Alsindi, 2020) and serve as a reference to compare qualifications nationally, regionally, and internationally (TAICEP, 2022). It classifies 7 levels spanning from level 4 (Entry to Higher Education) to level 10 (Doctorate Degree). It proposes three categories of learning outcomes: knowledge, skills, and competence. However, learning outcomes level descriptors are limited to
1.4 Key Directives Driving the Regional Development and Recognition of Qualifications
In 2022, the UAE Ministry of Education issued a policy for Credit-Bearing Micro Credentials (CBMC s) crediting (credentialing) candidate skills, knowledge and experience built up through formal, informal, and non-formal learning (NQC, 2022). Emirati universities such as United Arab Emirates University (UAEU) and the University of Dubai have committed themselves to this pathway and are offering micro-masters as formal master’s degree programmes. They were considered at Level 9 for master’s in the QF-Emirates of knowledge and competencies but shifted to Level 7 in the newly adopted NQF in 2024, which is aligned with eight levels of the European Qualifications Framework. Oman NQF’s objectives support the recognition of learning awarded through the achievement of small sets of learning outcomes, such as skills courses, micro-credentials, or part-qualifications (OAAA, 2023).
In terms of Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL), referring to non-formal and informal learning, only two countries (Oman and UAE) have adopted relevant policies allowing learners to get credits and benefits for further education or promotion. In the UAE, a national policy to advance the implementation of RPL is being developed across all sectors of education and training in order to meet the needs of all stakeholders, including employers, licensed education and training providers, quality assurance bodies, and the individual learners as the main beneficiaries of the process.
1.5 Use of AI-Driven Tools in the Arab States HE
The adoption of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in higher education across the 22 Arab States, spanning North Africa (e.g., Egypt, Algeria, Morocco), the Middle East (e.g., Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, UAE), and the Mashreq (e.g., Jordan, Lebanon), began in the early 2010s, driven by regional modernisation initiatives and global technological advancements. Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030, launched in 2016, spurred early AI integration, with King Saud University implementing AI-driven analytics for personalised learning by 2018 (Alghamdi & Alotaibi, 2023).
External Quality Assurance (EQA) in the Arab States began incorporating AI in the late 2010s to standardise evaluations and align with international benchmarks, with GCC countries leading and others catching up. Saudi Arabia’s National Center for Academic Accreditation and Evaluation (NCAAA) started piloting AI for institutional assessments in 2019, inspired by global frameworks (Alghamdi & Alotaibi, 2023). Oman’s Authority for Academic Accreditation and Quality Assurance of Education (OAAAQA) adopted AI for program evaluations in 2022, though technological gaps persist (Al-Balushi et al., 2024). In Egypt, the National Authority for Quality Assurance and Accreditation of Education currently uses AI to analyse institutional data, facing data privacy concerns (Hassan & Mostafa, 2024). Challenges include ethical issues like algorithm transparency and the digital divide in countries like Palestine and
2 Methodology
2.1 The Scope of the Study
The study covers 22 Arabic-speaking countries, initially grouped into three regions but was later divided into two communication groups based on language: nine French-speaking and thirteen Anglophone nations. Temporal scope ranges from 2000 (1st EQAP established) to present. The thematic focus encompasses all QA aspects, emphasising key players such as higher education systems, QA providers, and institutions.
2.2 Evaluation Processes and Tools
A mixed-method approach was utilised, combining qualitative and quantitative data collection techniques; these are explained as follows:
2.2.1 Desk Review and Literature Analysis
A comprehensive desk review was conducted to gather data and analyse literature on IQA departments in HEI s and EQAP s. This review includes:
- –Literature search: pertinent studies, official websites, and previous evaluation reports were collected, resulting in over one hundred files, with more than 40 relevant documents selected for reference.
- –Websites of all 22 Arab ministries of HE, EQA agencies, and international accreditation bodies to obtain information on quality assurance and accreditation activities, including standards and number of accredited institutions and programmes.
- –Baseline data were collected to understand the landscape, including the number and types of HEI s – public, private, and cross-border – using appropriate software. However, the number of National EQAP s, NQF s and QA frameworks proved challenging to determine due to limited accurate sources of information, websites and inconsistencies among sources and documents.
2.2.2 Surveys and Focus-Group Discussions
Out of the 22 Arab states involved in this 2nd study, surveys were distributed to HEI s and existing EQAP s of all countries. Responses were received from HEI s and EQAP s of 19 countries only. HEI s were more cooperative informing
Some countries (Lebanon, Egypt, Oman, Yemen, Tunisia, Mauritania and Libya) were fully active in the study having their HEI s and EQAP s responding to surveys whereas other countries contribution was limited to HEI s. Triangulation was used by integrating both quantitative and qualitative data, a comprehensive understanding of the QA landscape was achieved, enabling cross-validation of findings.
7.2.3 Ethical Considerations and Limitations
Participants were informed about the study’s objectives and methodology, ensuring they understood their role and use of data. All data collected were anonymised to protect participant identities, and findings were reported in aggregate form to prevent identification of individual responses. The research was conducted with an awareness of cultural norms and sensitivities in different Arab countries, ensuring that discussions were respectful and appropriate. Several limitations impacted research findings:
- –Some countries lacked accessible documentation on QA practices in HEI s and national EQAP s, restricting the desk review’s scope.
- –Participant engagement securing participation from key stakeholders was challenging, especially in politically unstable regions, limiting qualitative insights.
- –
Small number of researchers may have limited depth of analysis and extensive fieldwork opportunities. - –Diversity in cultural attitudes and academic practice toward QA could have biased stakeholder responses.
The methodology provides a strong framework for investigating the QA landscape in the Arab HE systems, addressing limitations, offering valuable insights into current QA practices, promoting discussions on reform, encouraging collaborations among regional stakeholders, enhancing understanding of QA challenges and opportunities, raising awareness in the QA field, and, ultimately, contributing to education quality enhancement across the Arab countries.
3 Results/Findings
3.1 Description of the Typology of EQAP s in the Region
3.1.1 Experience in Years
The 2nd study outlines operational QA frameworks and efforts to align with regional and global standards, providing baseline data on public and national EQAP s, professional accrediting bodies, and NQF s. In addition to the 12 national EQAP s identified during the previous study, six EQAP s have been identified in Iraq (INCA, 2007), Algeria (CIAQES, 2010), Mauritania (AMAQES, 2021), Syria (NCQAA, 2012), Qatar (NCQAA, 2022), and Tunisia (ATEA, 2022), bringing the overall number of 18 national EQAP s in the Arab world in 18 countries corresponding to 82% of Arab nations with QA providers. 61% (11) of EQAP s are independent while 39% (7) are under the umbrella of their respective ministries. 68% (13) of EQAP s are combining QA/assessment/evaluation and accreditation while 32% deal with either QA or accreditation. The official date of creation of an EQAP is taken as reference to calculate the number years of experience of an EQAP. The average years of experience of all EQAP s was computed to be 14 years of experience.
3.1.2 Maturity in Terms of the Diversity of Stakeholders Engaged
The stakeholders are engaged in EQAP s’ functions are the government, employers/industry representatives, professional associations, public and private HEI s, invited experts, students, alumni, labour unions, and funding bodies. The extent of stakeholder engagement has been computed by averaging all stakeholder contributions for each function. Stakeholders tend to be more
In terms of engagement per nature of stakeholders, private HEI s seem to be more engaged (85%), followed by invited experts (77%), public HEI s (75%), and government (63%). Employers/Industry representatives and professional associations are equally involved at the extent of 44%. Students (27%), alumni (23%) and labour unions labour unions (17%) are the less engaged. Funding bodies are not engaged in EQAP s functions. Figure 7.2 illustrates the engagement of stakeholders involved in EQAP s’ functions.
Diversity of stakeholder engagement in EQAP activities
When it comes to making decisions on the adoption of EQA policies, procedures, criteria, and guidelines, the final decision is taken by council/commission established for decision-making on review procedures.
3.1.3
Arab EQAP s are fully recognised by their national regulator (100%) to be able to function in their respective jurisdiction. 80% of EQAP s are engaged in the regional QA networks. 40% of EQAP s are members of INQAAHE and the same number has membership with relevant professional associations. 80% are in the process of application for recognition out of which 40% with ISO standards, 30% with INQAAHE and 10% with relevant professional associations.
In terms of involvement, 70% of EQAP s are involved with INQAAHE, 50% with relevant professional associations and 40% with ISO standards as detailed in Table 7.2.
Current status of EQAP recognition
| Status of recognition of EQAP s by different (international) bodies | Not applicable/ No plans | In the process of application for recognition | Recognised |
|---|---|---|---|
| National regulator | 100% | ||
| Regional QA network | 20% | 80% | |
| INQAAHE | 20% | 30% | 40% |
| Relevant professional associations | 40% | 10% | 40% |
| ISO standards | 60% | 40% |
3.2 Typology of EQAP s
3.2.1 Jurisdiction
EQAP jurisdictions cover public, private and cross-border (CB) institutions within and beyond the country of EQAP legal incorporation. The percentage of CB external quality assurance procedures carried outside the country of EQAP s legal incorporation in the last 5 years is very low around 1.6% evenly split between institutional level (0.8%) and programme level (0.8%). It is a little bit higher (8.5%) for CB external quality assurance procedures within the country of legal corporation at 3.5% for institutional and 3.5% programme level separately and 1.5% for short learning programme level. The percentages for public (12.8%) and private (11.5%) institutions are very low covering institutional, programme, and short learning programme. In general, EQAP s external QA procedures carried outside the country are very low as shown in Table 7.3.
EQAP s external QA procedures carried outside the country of EQAP legal incorporation
| EQAP s’ coverage scope | Institutional level | Programme level | Short learning programme level | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Private | 6% | 6% | 2% | 13% |
| Public | 5% | 5% | 2% | 12% |
| CB (within the country) | 4% | 4% | 12% | 9% |
| CB (beyond the country) | 1% | 1% | 2% |
3.2.2 Programmes in Line with the UNESCO-ISCED Classification
Types of tertiary education institutions that offer programmes in line with the UNESCO-ISCED classification are those delivering levels spanning from level 4 to level 8. Majority of HEI s offer programmes at level 6: Bachelor (3, 4 years) (85%), followed by level 7: Master (or Bachelor of 5 years) (81%) and level 8: Doctoral (38%).
For level 4: 13% of post-secondary non tertiary (general or vocational) tertiary education institutions are in line with the UNESCO-ISCED levels, and level 5: 17% of short cycle tertiary (general or vocational). 27% of HEI s also offer short learning programmes/micro-credentials (Figure 7.3).
Tertiary education institutions under the purview of UNESCO-ISCED
3.2.3 Funding
EQAP s receive funding from different sources, with income from government being the main one (72%), followed by external review services (15%), and subscription/membership fee from HEI s (6%). Neither donations nor grants were mentioned as available/potential sources of income.
3.2.4 Legal Status of EQAP s
Four types of legal status of the institutions are identified: government bodies (27%), private with public functions (17%), private for profit (17%), and public (independent from government yet subsidised by public funds/taxes) (13%).
3.2.5
Standards used by EQAP s are as follows: (a) standards developed as a single set of criteria to cover all types of reviews, (b) standard “core” applicable to all types of reviews with add-on modules, and (c) purpose-built/tailor-made/custom-made standards to cover all types of reviews.
Option (a) “standards developed as a single set of criteria apply to all” is used for undergraduate level programmes at the extent of 100% and master level programmes (100%). then in the last paragraph use this: The two other options (b) standard “core” applicable to all types of reviews with add-on modules and (c) purpose-built/tailor-made/custom-made standards to cover all types of reviews) are equally used for undergraduate level programmes at the extent of 90% and master level programmes (90%).
3.3 Nature of External Evaluations
3.3.1 Types of HEI s under EQAP Purview
The types of HEI s under EQAP s purview are different in terms of students registered and staff. The number of students of responding institutions is categorised depending on the number of students per institution. 33% of HEI s have their number of students in the range [1001–5000], 23% for the range [5001–10000], 16% each for range [10001–30000] and more than 30000. For
Number of students and FTE Faculty/academic staff of responding institutions
| Number of students | Percentage % | FTE of Faculty/ Academic staff | Percentage % |
|---|---|---|---|
| < 500 | 5% | < 100 | 28% |
| [501–1000] | 8% | [101–500] | 43% |
| [1001–5000] | 33% | [501–1000] | 13% |
| [5001–10000] | 23% | [1001–3000] | 10% |
| [10001–30000] | 16% | > 3000 | 7% |
| > 30000 | 16% | ||
| Total | ~100% | Total | ~100% |
Public HEI s lead with 1,148 institutions (51%), followed by private institutions with 942 (42%), and cross-border institutions (CBI s) counting 161 (7%). Most CB campuses are predominantly located in the Middle East with 78 institutions (51%), followed by Africa with 61 (39%), and the Mashreq with 15 (10%).
3.3.2 Typical Steps in the External Evaluation Process
The final decision on external review outcomes conducted by EQAP s is not uniform but depends on EQAP s. In half of the cases, it is made by the Council/Commission established for decision-making on review procedures (50%). For 20% of EQAP s, it is the EQAP Governing Board who takes the final decision. The final decision is left to the EQAP Executive Director in 10% of EQAP s. Table 7.5 highlights the final decision making during the evaluation process.
Final decision on external review outcomes conducted by EQAP
| Body that makes the final decision on the adoption of EQA policies, procedures, criteria, and guidelines | Number | % |
|---|---|---|
| Council/Commission established for decision-making on review procedures | 5 | 50% |
| EQAP Governing Board | 2 | 20% |
| Government | 2 | 20% |
| EQAP Executive Director | 1 | 10% |
3.3.3 Type of QA Bodies That Evaluate HEI s
In the case of accreditation of HEI s, three main bodies are frequently involved in the evaluation. The following bodies have evaluated HEI s at different extents:
- –National quality assurance body corresponding to 53%
- –National regulator/accreditor 49%
- –International accreditor 46%
3.3.4 Engaging External Experts
A typical external evaluation conducted by EQAP s consists of preparatory activities and actions involving EQAP’s staff, external experts and applicants.
Most (90%) of EQAP s relevant preparatory activities and actions of which: (i) decision-making by the designated body, (ii) desk-review by external review panel, (iii) follow up actions, (iv) site-visit by external review panel, (v) technical review by the EQAP designated staff, and (vi) technical review by the EQAP external review panel, are conducted by EQAP s staff and external reviewers with a low contribution of 10% by the applicants. However, the self-assessment is the responsibility of the applicant.
Following the self-assessment done by the applicant that ends by the submission of a comprehensive report, several steps are taken during the evaluation: technical review by the EQAP external reviewer panel, technical review by the EQAP designated staff, site-visit by external review panel, follow up actions, desk-review by external review panel, and decision-making by the designated body. Most of required steps in the external review process are performed at the extent of 90% by EQAP s’ external experts and only 10% is performed by the applicant while the self-assessment is fully conducted (100%) by the applicant.
3.3.5 Composition of External Evaluation Teams
The composition of external review teams is illustrated in Figure 7.5. The composition of an external evaluation team is not standard and includes
Composition of external evaluation teams
Domains covered EQAP s system of institutions
International experts: Prior to inclusion in a review panel, all EQAP s offer orientation/induction sessions for external reviewers (100%). Some of them conduct specialized trainings for each review panel (60%) and other activities (15%).
3.3.6 EQAP Coverage of HE Providers
EQAP s cover all types of providers and conduct different types of assessments at the level of institutions, programmes, and short learning programmes. Three main institutional processes covered are: a) Governance of the institution as a whole (Boards, management and administration; Physical resources; Human resources; Student services; Information systems) at 87%; b) Bachelor programmes (81%), c) Master programmes (67%). Others: Doctoral (33%), e-learning modes (technologically enhanced learning, e.g., hybrid mode, digital means, simulators, virtual reality) (35%), Distance education including online education (programmes delivered in distance mode, including online) (26%), Diploma programmes (1-year degrees) (29%), Postgraduate programmes (1-year degrees) (27%); and Recognition of qualifications (32%). Short learning
EQAP’s independence in terms of performing relevant functions
3.4 Resources
3.4.1 Human and Financial Resources
EQAP s policies and procedures focusing on quality assurance of non-formal and informal education cover short learning programmes offered outside formal education (e.g., micro-credentials that end in assessment and award of a credential) and learning at a workplace proving they have enough human resources to cover short learning programmes. Human resources sufficiency and financial resources sufficiency are more or less balanced requiring more funding to meet EQAP s activities. Hence, EQAP s have the human and financial resources to function effectively and carry out relevant activities as detailed in Table 7.6.
EQAP s human and financial resources sufficient to implement the functions
| EQAP s relevant administrative activities | Human resources | Financial resources | |
|---|---|---|---|
| a) | develop policies and procedures for external reviews | 69% | 62% |
| b) | conduct external reviews | 62% | 69% |
| c) | carry out relevant studies (e.g., systemic/thematic reviews) | 62% | 46% |
| d) | continuously enhance its professional capacity through professional development opportunities | 46% | 46% |
| Average | 60% | 56% | |
3.4.2 Human Resources Composition
EQAP s’ human resources are composed of managerial staff (20.2%), administrative staff (35%), staff engaged in external review coordination (16%), staff engaged in developmental studies/research (21.5%), and other (7.2%). EQAP s
EQAP s human resources (FTE staff) composition
| Human resources | FTE | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Managerial | 148 | 20.2% |
| Administrative staff | 256 | 35.0% |
| Staff engaged in external review coordination | 117 | 16.0% |
| Staff engaged in developmental studies/research | 158 | 21.5% |
| Other | 53 | 7.2% |
3.5 Level of Independence
Three categories of independence are identified: (1) fully independent. (2) quasi-independent (under the guidance of the funder e.g., government or any other funding body) and (3) not independent at all as illustrated in Figure 7.7. EQAP s are mostly independent when dealing with setting up a panel of reviewers for a review procedure (12/1), production of an external review report (12/1), and performing the review (12/1). Independence starts to lessen when dealing with recruitment of external reviewers (11/2), final decision-making on procedural and quality matters (11/2), and the development of procedures (11/2). Independence is limited when it comes to publication of reports on external review results (10/2), development of standards (10/3), and even tighter when defining quality and related policies (8/5). In general, EQAP s are quasi-independent with the growing extent of oversight when dealing with policies and standards.
Engagement of internal and external stakeholders in IQA s activities
3.6 Stakeholder Engagement
Figure 7.8 illustrates the extent of engagement of internal and external stakeholders in IQA s activities.
IAQ s Membership concluded with international, regional and country networks
A comparative analysis of stakeholder engagement is conducted averaging the engagement for each category in the processes. The results of the analysis
3.7 Recognition
Qualification levels are covered by existing quality assurance policies and procedures. The extent to which the academic offer is aligned with national qualifications frameworks is as follows: for Bachelor programmes (55%), Master programmes (39%), Doctoral programmes (20%), short learning programmes/micro-credential (18%). The structures and instruments to ensure recognition of qualifications regionally and globally are National Qualifications Framework (80%), Register of credible credentials (30%) and National Information Centres (20%). Recognition at regional and international levels may be impeded due to these insufficiencies of structures promoting recognition in line with UNESCO regional and global conventions.
Two more NQF s were developed since the 1st study by the following countries: Qatar (2022) and Saudi Arabia (2023) bringing the total number of NQF s developed so far to 9 NQF s increasing the percentage from 27% to 36% of the countries, while other countries made reasonable progress in the development of NQF s recorded by several references:
- –Conventions on recognitions/National Information Centres/other mechanisms: Conventions established with structures to develop EQAP procedures
and ensure recognition are UN Global Convention on Recognition of Qualifications (National Information Centres on academic mobility and recognition) (20%), UN Regional Convention on Recognition of Qualifications (ENIC-NARIC guidelines) (20%), UNESCO/OECD guidelines on cross-border provisions (20%). - –Memberships with international and regional networks:
- –Associations (5): Association of Arab Universities (60%), International Association of Universities (22%), Association of African Universities (6%), European University Association (2%) and Association of QAA of the Islamic World (2%).
- –Networks (5): International Network for QA Agencies in Higher Education (10%), African Quality Assurance Network (5%), ASEAN University Network (2%), Francophone African Network of National QAA ((2%), and Pakistan Network for QA in Higher Education (1%).
- –Council (1): Council for Higher Education Accreditation (14%)
Networks are geographically spread as: International (3), African (3), Arab (2), Asian (2) and European (1). IQA s memberships with relevant networks and bodies are illustrated in Figure 7.9.
International references are used to develop EQAP s procedures
- –International references are used to develop EQAP s procedures: EQAP s procedures are fully aligned with national legislation (100%) and strategies (100%). However, EQAP s procedures are developed using international references such as INQAAHE guidelines (90%) and regional quality assurance framework (70%) (e.g., ESG, African Qualifications Framework (ACQF, 2022). Other references are also used to a lesser degree such as professional associations standards (30%), ISO/IWA standards (20%), UNESCO/OECD guidelines on cross-border provisions (20%), UN Regional Convention on Recognition of Qualifications (ENIC-NARIC guidelines) (20%), UN Global Convention on Recognition of Qualifications (National Information Centres on academic mobility) (20%) as illustrated in Figure 7.10.
Extent of external stakeholders’ engagement in IQA processes
3.8 Evaluation of Evaluators
EQAP s have been through external review by the following bodies: INQAAHE, international organisations (e.g., ISO) and regional or subject specific QA network (e.g., WFME). However, only one EQAP out of 10 is regularly revised by INQAAHE and four others have established and are ongoing external review with each of the 4 bodies as shown in Table 7.8.
EQAP s external periodic reviews conducted by external bodies
| External periodic reviews of EQAP by | Regional QA network (e.g., ENQA, APQN) | EQAP by country QA network (e.g., CHEA) | INQAAHE | International Organisation (e.g., ISO) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regularly revised for enhancement | 1 | |||
| Established and operational | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| In process of establishment | 2 | 1 | 2 | 4 |
| Not established | 6 | 8 | 7 | 5 |
Other EQAP s are either in the process of establishing or have not established an external review with the other bodies. The benefits of external review span from enhancement to regional and international recognition of EQA results.
3.9
3.9.1 Legitimacy
EQA legitimacy relies on the ultimate decision makers on EQA reviews (Council/Commission established for decision-making on review procedures, Executive
EQA legitimacy
| Ultimate decision-making body for EQAP operations | Council/Commission established for decision-making on review procedures | Executive director | Governing board | Government |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adoption of EQA policies, … | 5 | |||
| Staffing matters (lead/executive positions) | 5 | 3 | 5 | |
| Organisational matters | 6 | 5 | 2 | |
| Financial matters | 3 | 6 | 4 |
3.9.2 Efficiency
External expert panel members are engaged in HE IQA processes and are the key elements to the quality of QA procedures. Panel members are representatives from the government, industry and professional associations, international experts, faculty from other HEI s and others. While these stakeholders are actively involved in the design of new programmes, strategic planning, revision of programmes, and quality assurance measures, they are less involved in the administration of IQA measures at institutional level, approval of new programmes, monitoring of programmes and the resources.
Major activities requiring a large contribution of external experts are:
- –Design of new programmes involving all stakeholders: government representatives (46%), industry representatives (58%), professional associations (56%), international experts (34%), faculties from others HEI s (50%), and others (5%).
- –
Strategic planning: government representatives (45%), industry representatives (54%), professional associations (53%), international experts (40%), faculties from others HEI s (40%), and others (7%). - –Revision of programmes: government representatives (44%), industry representatives (32%), professional associations (32%), international experts (31%), faculties from others HEI s (41%), and others (13%).
The presence of external stakeholders is observed in all IQA activities except for the approval of new programmes which is relevant to the government’s representatives (64%). The extent of external stakeholders’ engagement in IQA processes is illustrated in Figure 7.11.
EQAP s have several standards to evaluate programmes
3.9.3 Accountability of HEI s
HEI s have defined, fully, or partially applied IQA policies and procedures. Although all policies and procedures are regularly reviewed, those relevant to academic activities and students learning are drawing more attention such as: teaching and learning environments (60%), students support services (58%), teaching and learning methodologies (58%), and student assessment (56%). Those related to the institution management such as information systems (MIS s) are covered in 55% of cases; IQA system, its organisation and management is at 55%; design, approval, monitoring and review of programmes (54%)
Regular review of policies and procedures as accountability mechanism
| Major parts of the policy on IQA and to what extent are they operationalised | Policies and procedures are | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| defined | fully applied | partially applied | regularly reviewed | |
| Teaching and learning environments | 6 | 20 | 12 | 60 |
| Students support services | 7.5 | 25 | 7.5 | 58 |
| Teaching and learning methodologies | 8 | 22 | 10 | 58 |
| Students’ assessment | 6 | 31 | 5 | 56 |
| Management Information Systems (MIS s) | 7 | 22 | 14 | 55 |
| IQA system, its organisation and management | 7 | 20 | 14 | 55 |
| Design, approval, monitoring and review of programmes | 8 | 22 | 12 | 54 |
| Research performance/productivity | 7 | 17 | 16 | 54 |
| Students’ admission, progression, recognition and certification diploma/award | 8 | 26 | 10 | 52 |
| Community engagement/service to society | 7 | 23 | 18 | 48 |
| Provision of public information | 8 | 18 | 24 | 46 |
3.9.4 Relevance
Figure 7.12 illustrates the extent of application of different standards by EQAP s to evaluate programmes. EQAP s developed different standards: (i) purpose-built/tailor-made/custom-made standards, (ii) standard “core” applicable to all types of reviews with add-on modules and (iii) single set of criteria to cover all types of reviews. The third one single set of criteria is used to cover all types of reviews for undergraduate (100%), master (100%), doctoral (80%), cross-border (50%), online blended (90%), formal short (30%), and non-formal short (20%) learning programmes. Purpose-built/tailor-made/custom-made standards are used to promote the recognition of internationally granted qualifications (50%) and scientific research (40%).
Major external factors that influenced operations through the last 5 years
In terms of relevance of the measurements, HEI s have policies and practices deployed to measure relevance of academic and research programmes. The main policies and practices largely deployed to measure relevance of programmes are equity of access to programmes, completion and success rate (80%), employability of the alumni (e.g., employment rate) (74%), response to
Concerning the policies and practices for measurement of research programmes, a lot of attention is given to support research activities for faculty and master students (opportunities to access to, and conduct research) (85%), scientific publication (79%), support to initiate, lead, or implement joint research projects (72%). In terms of transparency, HEI s always demonstrate it through the following processes: i) Publication of IQA policies and procedures (70%), ii) Publication of internal and external self-evaluation reports in full (46%) and iii) Publication of only major outcomes of internal/external self-evaluation (43%).
3.9.5 Transformative Power
When it comes to the impact of the quality assurance systems in the region, especially the main achievements in terms of systemic transformations, the following are the main achievements:
- –Revisions of HEI s’ policies and methodologies based on the outcomes of external reviews: Faculty teaching methodologies (88%), Research productivity (86%), and Design, approval, monitoring and review of programmes (84%) confirm the transformative power of QA provisions.
- –Revisions of IQA policies on “student admission, progression, recognition of qualifications, and certification/diploma awards” in 35% of cases based in programme level accreditation results.
- –Addressing shortcomings identified by external reviews, hence enhancement of quality assurance measures related to the learning environment and the institution as a whole.
3.9.6 Follow Up on Recommendations
The efficiency of QA provisions in HE is assessed through the extent to which recommendations of the periodic reviews feed into revision of institutional/departmental planning. The outcomes of this study revealed that 86% of recommendations are either fully (65%) followed up on, are only prioritised ones (10%) as per institution’s annual plans, or are treated separately (11%).
3.9.7 External Factors Influencing QA
The main external factors that influenced EQAP’s and HEI s IQA s’ operations throughout the last 5 years are of economic nature where both were HEI s were
3.9.8 Challenges Linked to Institutional Review by External QA Providers
In the last 5 years, the HEI s mention three major challenges linked to institutional reviews: lack of understanding of the specific context (51%), too time consuming with little cost-benefit ratio (23%), and irrelevant standards that do not fit the institutional profile (19%) (Table 7.11).
Challenges linked to institutional review by external QA providers
| Challenges | Frequency | % |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of understanding of the specific context | 48 | 51% |
| Too much time-consuming with a little cost-benefit ratio | 22 | 23% |
| Standards do not fit our profile | 18 | 19% |
| Not fit for purpose | 9 | 9% |
| Other | 25 | 26% |
Further challenges were identified as standards used by external QA providers being not fit for HEI s institutional reviews in 18 responses (19%) and for
3.9.9 Definition of Quality
85% of HEI s confirm existence of a quality policy while 13% do not have any. Quality is defined as excellence for HEI s in 62% of cases and 40% for EQAP s. Value for money finds its acknowledgement in 12% of HEI s responses, and 60% of EQAP s. Fitness for Purpose was mentioned in 40% of HEI s and 30% of EQAP s’ responses. Lastly, quality as transformation was mentioned in 36% of HEI s and 30% for EQAP s responses (Table 7.12).
Definition of quality
| Definition | IQA s’ institutions | EQAP s |
|---|---|---|
| Excellence | 62% | 40% |
| Fitness for purpose | 40% | 30% |
| Fitness of purpose | 36% | |
| Transformation | 36% | 30% |
| My institution defines quality its own way | 12% | |
| Value for money | 12% | 60% |
| My institution has no explicit definition of quality | 3% | |
| None of the above | 1% | 90% |
Given the significant and tangible differences in the way quality is perceived, interpreted, and defined by HEI s and QA providers, more efforts need to be invested in creating common understanding on diverse quality matters to ensure efficient, relevant, and transformative QA measures, hence enhanced impact.
3.9.10 Core Values
The study also looked at the extent to which HE systems defined core values of higher education and the extent to which QA systems measured those values in their processes. As demonstrated in Figure 7.14, integrity, inclusion, and accountability are overwhelmingly shared by 100% of HEI s.
However, explicit notions of values, vision, mission and strategic objectives of HEI s are not generally articulated in policies, procedures, and in publicly available documents or websites. Efforts have been made by the authors to identify common values published by HE systems, QA bodies, and institutions
4 Discussion
As the data demonstrate, the Arab States have been able to ensure some significant achievements when establishing quality assurance systems at HE level. In particular, the following are the notable ones:
- –Establishment of HE quality assurance systems: 18 Arab countries corresponding to (82%) have established 26 EQAP s, including 18 national QA and accreditation bodies and 8 professional bodies as compared to the 2020 study. In the last five years, 3 countries already have established professional accreditation bodies (Egypt (1), Iraq (2) and Saudi Arabia (3)). A total of 20 institutional and 20 programmatic accreditation standards have been developed for various fields.
- –Strengthening links between QA systems and Qualifications Frameworks: EQAP s and HE IQA s rely on the country legislation (100%) and strategies (100%) to develop policies and procedures which facilitate students’ qualifications recognition and avoid delays at national level. More efforts are on the way to establish mechanisms in line with the UN regional and global recognition conventions to promote qualifications recognition at regional and international levels.
- –Relevance of formal HE professional programmes: Several countries so far have adopted or developed their own programme accreditation standards
for engineering, training, health sciences, open education and distance learning and undergraduate and postgraduate programmes to ensure relevance of their programmes in line with the needs of their respective local markets. General Foundation Programme standards have been developed to ensure students are prepared to undertake HE studies. - –Stakeholders’ engagement: External and internal stakeholder engagement finds its due recognition in addressing shortcomings identified during external reviews. Efforts are joined to embed quality culture in the learning environment and the institution as a whole.
- –Follow up on recommendations promote systemic transformations: due to the follow up on external review recommendations some tangible changes have taken place: Faculty teaching methodologies (88%), Research productivity (86%) and Design, approval, monitoring and review of programmes (84%).
In parallel with the achievements, some challenges have also surfaced, providing firm foundations for further enhancement:
- –There is a lack of common understanding and coherence (inconsistency) in QA and National Qualification standards across the region, leading to confusion and inefficiency.
- –Economic conditions and rapid technological barriers pose significant challenges to the implementation and sustainability of QA practices.
- –The need to establish common frameworks of reference to enable accuracy and consistency in external reviews: the HE systems in the Arab States are clearly challenged by the lack of common understanding and agreement on the definitions on quality, quality assurance, as well as core values of HE. Further efforts are required to ensure accuracy of and consistency in evaluation measures, hence recognition of QA outcomes nationally, regionally, and beyond.
- –Challenges related to relevance of QA: There is a prevalent agreement related to the lack of international experts carrying out external reviews in the region who might lack understanding of the specific context. Too often the current QA measures are blamed for being too time consuming with little cost-benefit ratio. In many cases, complaints related to the standards applied by EQAP s in the external reviews of HEI s are defined as irrelevant to specific contexts and not fit for reviews either at institutional or programme levels. Last, but not least, current policies, procedures, and standards would benefit from enabling measurement of the core, i.e., relevance of programmes, including mechanisms ensuring smooth student learning journey and recognition of qualifications.
- –
Challenges with recognition of qualifications awarded by HEI s: HE systems have notable challenges related to qualifications recognition due to the following major issues. The study revealed the pace of NQF s’ development and operationalisation as slow, while NQF s have been highlighted as incoherent with the actual qualifications offered. Further, lack of a common regional framework of reference for qualifications caused existence of several, sometimes contradictory, scales operational in the region: ANQAHE scale [1–10] (50%) including AQF, ISCED scale [1–8] (40%) and unique scales [1–7] (10%) and [1–11] (10%). This hinders automatic degree recognition and negatively impacts mobility of students and graduates from the HEI s in the region. Last, but, not least, the QF s in operation do not make provisions for informal education, including micro-credentials and flexible learning pathways. This is further complicated by the lack of relevant QA tools for quality assurance of formal and non-formal short learning programs. - –Lack of independence: While EQAP s have full independence in setting up a panel of reviewers for a review procedure, production of an external review report and performing a review, independence in decision-making relevant to operations, financial, organisational and staffing matters and procedural and quality matters are still challenged. The lack of independence is predominantly due to the EQA’s dependence on government funding.
- –Stakeholder engagement: there is significant room in enhancing stakeholder engagement in QA activities – both internal and external. This is tangible especially in the case of student engagement in external review panels and engagement in the EQAP s and HE IQA s operations. With adequate capacity building to enable such kind of engagement, ownership and buy-in would be possible to ensure, leading to enhanced trust in the system.
5 Conclusions
For the last five years, the landscape of HE quality assurance in the Arab states has seen some expansion in terms of coverage of tertiary education provisions by external quality assurance providers. The HE landscape has seen increase in the number of HE providers established nationally and those of cross-border providers. The systems have also experienced developmental trends towards establishing structures necessary for promoting quality education for all, supported by robust mechanisms for qualifications recognition nationally, regionally, and internationally. These developments are not void of such external factors contributing to their success, particularly those related to economic conditions, technological advancements, and geopolitical situations, to name
As the study demonstrates, against the developmental trends, quality assurance systems – both external and internal – have been able to mobilise resources to establish and carry out reviews of policies, procedures, and standards to ensure TE systems are adequately equipped to offer best services to learners, while at the same time ensuring qualifications recognition and learner smooth mobility across the borders. When looking at the regional developments in terms of efficiency, relevance, and transformative power, some notable developments merit acknowledgement, whereas others are identified as further areas of enhancement. Challenges common for HE systems evolve around standardisation and harmonisation of NQF s, recognition of qualifications, lack of comparable accreditation standards, smooth mobility of faculty members, learners, and graduates within the region and internationally.
In terms of efficiency, given the nature of external QA reviews is mandatory in most of the countries where QA is a national policy, the majority of HEI s in those systems seem to be adequately covered. However, in many cases, due to the increasing competition, some HEI s end up having multiple overlapping external review procedures by national and international regulators, leading to accreditation fatigue, financial burden related to those reviews, and reduced return on investment. Other signals related to inefficiency of external reviews relates to internal quality assurance systems established both at the EQAP s levels and in HEI s. Regardless of the year of establishment of those organisations, the latter still lack a robust internal quality assurance leading to a genuine quality culture. The result is establishment of IQA units/systems, which are purely aimed at compliance with the externally stipulated standards rather than driving tangible enhancements at institutional and systemic levels.
Furthermore, the Arab region requires enhanced cooperation in QA to bolster efficiency and elevate educational standards across its diverse higher education systems. By fostering collaborative frameworks among universities, accreditation bodies, and governments, institutions can share best practices, develop standardized assessment criteria, and leverage collective resources. Such cooperation will not only enhance the independence and relevance of External Quality Assurance (EQA) processes but also strengthen IQA mechanisms. A focused emphasis on IQA is essential, as it directly impacts teaching and learning quality within institutions. By building a culture of continuous improvement and accountability through effective IQA practices, universities can better respond to the evolving needs of students and the labor market,
When it comes to relevance, there is a broad agreement that standards applied by diverse QA bodies – national and international – are aimed at improving the structure and procedures at institutional and programme levels, while leaving the core that matters – student learning – untouched. Challenges with relevance are reinforced by limited and meaningful engagement of the key stakeholders that matter – students, faculty, and industry representatives. While crucial, the role of those stakeholders becomes only meaningful with adequate preparation for the QA processes, including those related to decision making. Yet another challenge with relevance was identified as lack of tools to evaluate relevance of the programmes to the industry and country’s socio-economic needs. This is also challenged by current misalignments in terms of qualifications levels, systems supporting recognition of qualifications, and most, importantly, lack of robust links between QA and qualifications frameworks, with the former driving the latter.
Last, but not least, transformative power of QA is expressed through the capacity of QA systems – external and internal – to cause tangible changes at the level of student learning and their learning outcomes. It is also expressed at the level of faculty behaviour when it comes to alignment of teaching, learning, and assessment methodologies to current needs of the new generation learners. As the data demonstrate, the current QA systems are in need of meaningful and tangible revisions to integrate the recent technological advancements, and address student and faculty behaviour as the results of those trends. Once aligned with the country’s socio-economic needs and global megatrends (e.g., technology, sustainability agenda), those flexibly designed systems should be able to empower HE systems with transformative potentials.