1 Introduction
Western Europe has long served as a cornerstone of the global academic model for tertiary education, a status attributed to its early commitment to institutionalising the study and production of science. Scholar Philip Altbach notes that this foundational approach has shaped a paradigm widely adopted around the world (Altbach, 1991).
One key to the success of cross-border and intergovernmental agreements in tertiary education – most notably the Bologna Process – is their ability to provide frameworks that foster unity through harmonised standards. These frameworks support cooperation, trust, and mobility among institutions while respecting and preserving each country’s unique cultural identity. Rather than erasing diversity, the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) and the European Union (EU) have established a solid foundation for collaboration that celebrates Europe’s rich mosaic of languages, traditions, and educational philosophies. This celebration of diversity not only enhances internal cohesion but also strengthens Europe’s position and influence on the global educational stage.
Since the policies and tools of the EHEA and the EU reach out to both Western and Eastern Europe and have been tackled in a previous chapter, in this chapter, the authors aim to explore the main trends and challenges associated with quality assurance (QA) in Western European countries, while simultaneously reflecting on the rich diversity that characterises the region. This diversity arises from a complex tapestry of historical contexts, cultural backgrounds, and socio-economic conditions that influence educational policies and practices across nations.
The structure of this chapter is as follows: it begins with a section on methodology, followed by an overview of the tertiary education landscape in Western Europe. Subsequent sections will analyse trends in both external and internal QA, culminating in overarching conclusions that will reflect on the implications of diversity in shaping QA practices. Throughout the chapter, case
2 Methodology
This chapter adopts a multi-method approach that aligns with the methodology established for the Global Study. The study employs a combination of baseline data, literature review, surveys, focus groups, and case studies. Except for the baseline data, which refers to all tertiary education, the focus of our analysis is specifically on higher education.
The literature review serves as a foundational component, drawing on key studies conducted during the analysed period from 2020 to 2024. While these studies cover the entire EHEA, their data and conclusions are relevant for Western Europe, providing context for the Global Study’s findings. The most relevant complementary studies include:
- –Reports from the QA-FIT project (Quality Assurance Fit for the Future, 2022–2024): These include ‘Quality assurance fit for the future’ (EUA, 2023), which analysed 260 responses from higher education institutions; ‘External quality assurance in the EHEA’, which examined 76 responses from external QA agencies across 45 countries (Cirlan & Gover, 2024); “Quality Assurance Fit for the Future – Students’ perspective”, which explored perspectives from 31 National student unions (Onita et al., 2023), and ‘Quality assurance and internationalisation’ (Biaggi et al., 2024).
- –EUA Survey on Trends in Higher Education (2024) ‘European higher education institutions in times of transition’ (Gaebel et al., 2024), which gathered 489 responses across 46 EHEA systems.
- –2024 Bologna Process Implementation Report, which provides both quantitative and qualitative narrative about the higher education landscape and implementation of the Bologna Process commitments across the EHEA member states (European Commission et al., 2024).
In addition to the literature review, standardised surveys were developed specifically for this study and distributed to higher education institutions (HEI s) and external quality assurance providers (EQAP s) across all targeted regions. Conducted between September 2023 and January 2024, these surveys aimed to gather quantitative data reflecting the diversity of QA approaches. Among EQAP s in Western Europe, 32 respondents from 15 countries resulted in
To complement the survey data, three focus groups were conducted in September 2024, facilitating deeper discussions around the findings. Two focus groups included representatives from HEI s, totalling 19 participants from 10 countries, while the third was for EQAP representatives, comprising 13 participants from 11 countries.
In addition, the chapter integrates case studies which provide a deeper insight into some key issues, while also illustrating the diversity of approaches within Western Europe. These case examples are presented in boxes throughout this chapter.
3 An Overview of Western Europe
3.1 Baseline Data
Western Europe, as defined for this study, comprises a list of 25 countries (see Appendix 11A, Table 11A.1) with a total population of c.432 million inhabitants, the smallest being the Holy See, with 496 persons, and the largest being Germany with more than 80 million. Nine of the Western European countries have a population of fewer than 1 million. Considering that one third of Western Europe countries can be considered as ‘small’ both in terms of population and in terms of higher education sector, this chapter includes a section specifically showcasing how these countries deal with quality assurance (see Box 11.1).
Western Europe countries are fairly diverse also in the percentage of the population with higher education, ranging from 29% in Italy to 63% in Ireland (see Table 11A.1). Over the past decade and compared to the previous Global Study (Lynch & Kelo, 2020, p. 323), more than half of the countries in the EHEA have experienced increases in both student populations and enrolment rates. Most of these are in Western Europe, while Eastern Europe has seen declines (European Commission, 2024, p. 23). Looking ahead, declining birth rates suggest that there will eventually be a fall in student numbers, although over the next five years HEI s anticipate a particular growth in the number of international students, non-degree learners, and mature learners (EUA, 2024, p. 55).
Public spending on higher education averaged 1% of GDP in 2020, though levels vary significantly, with Scandinavian countries allocating the most (European Commission et al., 2024, p. 49), while other countries have a higher proportion of private funding in higher education. This balance between public and private
To understand the development and position of quality assurance in Western Europe, it is important to note that all Western European countries except Monaco are part of the EHEA (i.e., signatories to the Bologna Process). As such, there is a significant degree of harmonisation across the region due to implementation of tools that are covered by the Bologna Process key commitments. These include the Lisbon Recognition Convention, National Qualification Frameworks and the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the EHEA (the ESG). Eight Western European countries – Andorra, Finland, France, Holy See, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom – have also ratified the UNESCO Global Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education, indicating a further step towards facilitating global mobility and recognition of academic credentials.
For quality assurance specifically, the EHEA commitment is to have a nationwide QA system in which all HEI s undergo regular external QA by an EQAR registered EQAP that has demonstrated compliance with the ESG. Data from the European Register for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (EQAR) show that 19 out of 25 countries are fully aligned with this commitment.
Countries fully aligned with ESG (Source: European Register for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (EQAR))1
External Quality Assurance in Small Western European States (Lisa Cruz Lackner; Isaac Galobardes Reyes)
The external quality assurance (EQA) landscape in small Western European states reflects a distinct blend of regional integration and localised adaptation, shaped by resource limitations and the maturity levels of their higher education systems. In many of these states, EQA practices align closely with EHEA standards while leveraging partnerships with larger QA agencies from neighbouring countries to address gaps in local infrastructure and expertise because the small size of their higher education systems means that it would not be efficient or cost-effective to set up a national independent EQAP.
A prevailing trend in these states is the adoption of collaborative EQA frameworks. For example, countries like Liechtenstein and Luxembourg rely on QA bodies from Switzerland and the Netherlands, respectively, for institutional evaluations, ensuring high standards without duplicating infrastructure. This highlights a practical approach, allowing these states to achieve compliance with the ESG through established regional bodies.
Conversely, Malta and Iceland have national agencies that conduct both institutional and programmatic evaluations.
Malta is an important hub of higher education with three self-accrediting institutions and 107 independent/private institutions. The Malta Further & Higher Education Authority develops a wide range of activities, including programme accreditation, audits, validation of non-formal and informal learning, policy and research, etc. The self-accrediting status reflects a significant level of institutional autonomy and trust, allowing for agile programme development within national QA oversight.
In Andorra, its national agency AQUA conducts both institutional and programmatic evaluations, demonstrating flexibility and seeking alignment with the ESG and INQAAHE’s International Standards and Guidelines, which supports broader regional and international recognition. The QA agencies of Cyprus (CYQAA) and the Holy See (AVEPRO) stand out as the only agencies among small Western European states that hold ENQA membership [demonstrating compliance with the ESG], underscoring their robust commitment to European quality assurance frameworks and standards. The latter, though relatively small, also demonstrates a uniquely global responsibility in its remit as it is tasked with overseeing the quality of numerous Catholic higher education institutions worldwide.
A foundational concept of the EHEA is to facilitate and enhance international cooperation, exchange of knowledge, and mobility of staff and students. Cross-border education includes credit and degree mobility, as well as programme and provider mobility, either independently (e.g., franchise programmes, branch campuses) or collaboratively (e.g., joint programmes, binational universities) (Knight & McNamara, 2017). In parallel, EU policies foster collaborative design (e.g., joint programmes, universities alliances).
In 2009, a target was set by higher education ministers that 20% of graduates in the EHEA should experience mobility by 2020. This target has not been met, as the overall weighted average for the EHEA stands at 8.8%. Nevertheless, mobility at Master and PhD levels has grown, aided by the common three cycle degree system, which eases recognition procedures.
Small education systems, like San Marino, Andorra and Luxemburg, show a very high outward mobility rates, while Austria, Switzerland have high inward mobility rates (EC, 2024).2
The UK is a leader in both inward mobility of students – 26% of its two million students in 2021–2022 were from abroad3 – and transnational education (TNE), with 162 universities delivering programmes to 510,835 students in over 225 countries in 2020–2021.4
Internationalisation in the sense of internationalisation abroad has been criticised as elitist, benefiting a limited group (de Wit, 2018). Institutions now emphasise internationalisation at home, prioritising curriculum internationalisation (65%) and virtual internationalisation (58%) (Rumbley & Hoekstra-Selten, 2024), although it should be noted that the Covid-19 pandemic was also a specific driver in the increase in virtual exchanges: EUA research indicated that 52% of institutions offer these in 2024, compared with 12% before the pandemic.
Moreover, political tensions around internationalisation are increasing (EUA, 2023, p. 57). Countries with strong internationalisation histories, such as Denmark and the Netherlands, are imposing new restrictions on teaching in foreign languages aimed to reduce international students, due to unintended consequences of internationalisation, including housing shortages and financial pressures as well as nationalist political trends. Others, like Ireland, actively support internationalisation policies and acknowledge the economic role of international education.5
Despite this, the EUA Trends report of 2024, showed that 82% of HEI s prioritise internationalisation (p. 83), although practical challenges such as affordability, credit mobility issues, and academic calendar mismatches were well recognised (p. 76). The report also highlighted European strategies, initiatives,
4 Trends in EQA
This section builds on the survey findings, literature review, focus groups discussions and case studies. It first provides an overview of the external QA landscape based on the survey findings and then explores trends in external QA through the lens of three key areas – efficiency, relevance, and transformation. Key issues were identified through the focus group, which was structured around three main themes:
- –Current key issues for EQAP s in terms of their development, external QA processes, and response to trends in higher education.
- –Approaches to enhancing the added value of external QA.
- –International dimensions of the EQAP’s work.
Insights from the focus groups are complemented by evidence from the literature review, offering a broader perspective on evolving QA practices in the region.
4.1 Overview and Context
Thirty-two EQAP s from 15 countries in Western Europe responded to the survey administered by INQAAHE for the Global Study. All respondents were ENQA members or affiliates,6 while 47% are also part of INQAAHE. 91% of the surveyed EQAP s undergo periodic external reviews to assess their compliance with the ESG. Those EQAP s in Western Europe that are not yet compliant with the ESG are actively working towards this.
The ESG (and related Bologna Process tools, such as the European Approach for the Quality Assurance of Joint Programmes), are the primary reference when exploring trends and developments in external QA in the region. It is therefore no surprise that the ESG influence procedures in 90% of responding Western European EQAP s. National legislation is also highly influential (80%),
This strong influence of national legislation on EQAP s aligns with findings from Elken and Stensaker (2022), who, in an empirical study of six Western European EQAP s,7 observed that national authorities often expand the remit of quality assurance agencies, adding responsibilities beyond their core functions. Data from the Global Study survey also showed that around 44% of EQAP s in Western Europe have other regulatory functions tied to their primary jurisdiction. These may include working across different education levels (higher, vocational, further education), evaluating research output, collecting data, being responsible for the National Qualifications Framework, and functioning as the ENIC-NARIC (Cirlan & Gover, 2024, p. 7).
This contributes to the increasing diversification of EQAP s across Western Europe. Box 11.2 further illustrates the impact of national legislation on EQAP s’ evolving roles in Spain.
In most countries there are also other bodies or initiatives beyond EQAP s that contribute towards improving the quality of HEI s, including those that address research quality, international reputation, or excellence more generally. Two examples of excellence initiatives can be highlighted: The French Initiative d’Excellence (IDEX)14,15, and the German Excellence Strategy.16 Both share a common objective: strengthening global competitiveness by fostering research excellence in higher education. France’s initiative improved not only research but also governance and project management, while Germany’s had system-wide behavioural impacts (Yudkevich et al., 2023).
External Quality Assurance in Spain
Anna Prades, AQU Catalunya
The Spanish University System (SUE) has undergone a significant transformation in its public-private structure. In the 2000–2001 academic year, Spain had 66 universities (48 public, 18 private), with private institutions enrolling 7% of students. By 2022–2023, the number had risen to 89 universities (50 public, 39 private), with private university enrolment increasing to 24%.8
Higher education in Spain is decentralised, with competencies delegated to 17 Autonomous Communities (ACC s). Ten regions have their own EQAP s,
A distinctive feature of Spanish QA is the external assessment of teaching staff. Since the introduction of the Organic Law 6/2001 on Universities (LOU), individual staff accreditation has been mandatory for certain positions. Public universities can hire up to 49% non-civil servant teachers, provided they have been positively evaluated by ANECA or a regional agency, ensuring quality while allowing staffing flexibility. To compete for a full professor position, candidates require prior accreditation12; research productivity is a key criterion. Although this policy has led to an increase in research productivity,13 there is little research on its broader impact.
In addition, there is a regulatory framework to assess the quality of teaching, which emphasises the responsibility of the institutions. Each institution prepares its “Teaching Evaluation Manual”, which must be assessed by an EQAP. Teaching performance evaluations by EQAP s can also lead to individual financial incentives.
Beyond higher education legislation and policies at various levels, the most common external factors outside the higher education sector influencing
External factors influencing operations in the last 3–5 years
4.2 Jurisdiction, Function and Scope
The majority of Western European EQAP s operate within a specific national jurisdiction, though more than half also conduct international or cross-border quality assurance (CBQA) procedures. Data from this Global Study show that this makes Western Europe the region with the highest percentage of EQAP s involved in cross-border activities. Two distinct forms of CBQA can be identified: one where an EQAP is primarily operating in a specific country but offers some services to HEI s in other countries (both within and outside the EHEA), and another where an EQAP has no national ties and primarily operates internationally.
Another dimension of international activities of EQAP s is the accreditation of joint programmes. Although the European Approach for QA of Joint Programmes has been an EHEA-approved tool since 2015, there has been renewed
Jurisdictions in which the EQAP performs external evaluation procedures (multiple responses allowed)
Most of the EQAP s responding to the Global Study survey provide general external QA to any recognised HEI or programme (89%), while 36% conduct QA specific to certain disciplines or professions.
Another dimension of EQAP activity is the level at which the external QA is provided – for institutions, programmes (degrees), or short courses.
Over the past 10–15 years, there has been a trend towards institutional-level external QA. In practice, most national systems combine both approaches, with programme level external QA required for specific circumstances, such as for new programmes, regulated professions, private institutions, or where institutional-level accreditation has not been achieved (Cirlan & Gover, 2024, p. 10).
Stakeholder involvement is a fundamental principle of the ESG. Therefore, it is no surprise that all surveyed EQAP s in Western Europe engage external experts in their review processes, with 80% selecting experts from their own databases, and 20% relying on nominations from HEI s. Involving students in external QA activities is also required by the ESG and is a key feature of QA
Scope of EQAP’s operations (multiple responses allowed)
4.3 Funding
On average, 62% of EQAP s’ funding comes from government allocations, with additional income from external review services (21%) and membership fees (10%). This is lower than the 91% of agencies reported in the 2020 INQAAHE Global Study (Lynch & Kelo, 2020, p. 327), although this finding might also be due to differences in the survey sample, which is more representative in the current study. Overall, the distribution of funding sources, the difference compared with 2020, and information gathered through the focus groups point to an increased diversification in the income streams and business models of EQAP s in Western Europe.
Funding is generally reported by surveyed EQAP s to be sufficient to support external reviews and the development of associated policies and procedures. The same sentiment was expressed in the 2020 INQAAHE Global Study (p. 327). However, 40% of EQAP s now report financial constraints that limit their ability to conduct additional relevant studies and focus group participants
Composition of external evaluation teams in Western Europe
Percentage of funding received by your EQAP from the following sources
My EQAP has sufficient financial resources to efficiently implement the following functions
Promotion of the TE core values (When developing QA policies, procedures, standards and guidelines for your external evaluations)
Transparency is almost universally considered a core value, followed by accountability, autonomy, and equity. Although inclusion is the least cited core value, it still resonates with over 50% of surveyed agencies, underscoring its growing importance. The focus on transparency aligns with the emphasis placed on public information provision in the ESG, e.g., through publication of external review reports and publicly accessible policies, methodologies and criteria.
4.5 Efficiency of External QA
Efficiency of activities is a prominent concern for many EQAP s, driven by financial and workload pressures. This concern was raised by many participants of the focus group. Many EQAP s face reduced income due to cuts in national funding, lower revenue from review fees due to the shift to institutional accreditation, or limited funds for institutions to engage in voluntary external QA procedures. According to data collected for the QA-FIT study, 50% of surveyed agencies across the EHEA cited heavy workload for EQAP staff as a challenging aspect, while 41% mentioned the challenge of ensuring the financial sustainability of the EQAP (Cirlan & Gover, 2024, p. 22). These financial constraints are compounded by growing expectations for QA agencies to
Two key strands of action taken by EQAP s to address this were identified in the focus group discussions: The first relates to resource management and, the second, to the simplification of external QA processes.
When reporting on recent changes at their EQAP, several agencies participating in the focus group noted that a reflection on and sometimes changes to an agency’s structure had taken place. This was usually to ensure that the structure remained fit-for-purpose in the context of changes including budget cuts, reorganisation of services provided and changed working approaches, including increased use of digital tools. Digital tools are of particular interest given the rapid recent development and availability of artificial intelligence (AI) tools. Recent work by ENQA has identified that several EQAP s are exploring the use of AI to support their work, often through more efficient analysis and presentation of data, and identification of trends and themes emerging from external QA reports. However, EQAP s are hesitant about the resource, privacy and ethical implications of extensive use of AI tools and are therefore approaching its use with caution, particularly when exploring its use directly in external QA procedures. Recruitment, training and retention policies were also discussed during the focus group in light of the changed competences needed for present day EQAP staff (including digital and international skills) and changed work and career patterns, driven in part by the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic.
The other identifiable main approach for agencies to improve efficiency is the simplification of external QA processes. All agencies participating in the focus group agreed that managing workload both for the agency and for HEI s was paramount. Simplification contributes to this while also seeking to reduce the bureaucratic burden and avoid QA fatigue, goals which are also prominent for improving the added value of external QA. Data from the QA-FIT study showed that 14% of EQAP s would like to simplify their processes, making it the most cited wish for the future (Cirlan & Gover, 2024 p. 14). Different elements of simplification include improving the synergies between different external QA processes (for example in France, Hcéres is seeking to better align its processes for the QA of institutions, programmes and research units and it has introduced shorter and more targeted final reports in order to convey the key messages to readers more effectively and efficiently); enhancing use of digital tools (for example, online site visits, interoperability between data collection systems); and reflecting on the sustainability of external QA models.
Ensuring the added value of external QA was cited by most focus group participants as being a key issue for them. With many agencies operating for over 20 years, many HEI s have already been through multiple cycles of external QA, achieving a high level of maturity and public trust (this is however not without exception, for example, AQUA (Andorra) is a younger EQAP). This pushes EQAP s to explore approaches that continue to provide relevant and helpful results for institutions, reducing evaluation fatigue and bureaucratic burden while still maintaining a sufficient level of accountability. This issue was also cited as a challenge by 57% of EQAP s responding to the QA-FIT survey, making it the second most selected challenge, after the need to respond to rapid changes in higher education (Cirlan & Gover, 2024, p. 22). Box 11.3 shows how institutional audits in Norway acknowledge the maturity of higher education institutions concerning their growing knowledge and experience with internal QA over the past two decades, with a stronger emphasis on enhancement-led reviews. To increase the relevance of their work, some EQAP s interviewed in the focus group are exploring tailored and thematic approaches to focus on specific topics or aspects of quality assurance, though these approaches require significant time and resources, since they require specific profiles of experts. Activities outside formal external QA procedures were also mentioned as elements that improve the relevance of agencies’ work to the broader sector, such as provision of research, analysis and expertise, although such initiatives are also resource-intense and therefore not viable or sustainable for some EQAP s.
Several EQAP s in the focus group (including NVAO (the Netherlands), AQUA (Andorra) and AQ Austria), mentioned shifting from an oversight role to one focused on collaboration with HEI s. This aligns with the trends towards enhancement-led approaches to external QA and is also evident in the convening role that EQAP s can play within their sector, for example by organising events and workshops and profiling as an expert body, as well as providing guidance to HEI s on newly emerging issues, such as the use of AI in learning, teaching and assessment. It was however noted that the diversification of EQAP s’ activities can bring up questions of conflict of interest with the accreditation function, and that this separation needs to be carefully managed.
Finally, relevance is also linked to how agencies address different models and types of education provision, e.g., vocational education, online education, short learning units (currently frequently characterised as micro-credentials) and private and alternative education providers. While some systems use differentiated approaches, with different procedures and criteria for each (sometimes under the remit of another organisation), others take a more integrated approach. The higher education landscape in which the EQAP operates is an
Internal and External QA in Norwegian Higher Education: A Brief Outlook on Current Trends and Developments
Philippe Emanuel Friedrich
As in other ESG-compliant countries, Norwegian HEI s are tasked with ensuring and enhancing the quality of their educational programmes through their IQA systems. The design and practical implementation of these systems are regularly reviewed by an external body, specifically the Norwegian Agency for Quality Assurance in Education (NOKUT).
Recent trends and developments, such as digitalisation and increasing European and international collaboration, have influenced both internal and external QA processes in Norwegian higher education. Over the years, both HEI s and external agencies like NOKUT have gained significant experience and maturity in evaluating QA practices. Consequently, EQA in Norway is shifting towards more enhancement-oriented reviews, emphasising knowledge-sharing and benchmarking among institutions. This approach includes greater differentiation between various types of HEI s (e.g., universities versus specialised colleges) and a balanced application of a lighter touch or more in-depth reviews as needed. The goal is to provide increased flexibility in addressing the diverse needs of institutions and their unique profiles, avoiding a “one-size-fits-all” approach, and ensuring that external reviews give added value to the institutions.
Norway’s approach mirrors similar developments in other European higher education systems, such as those in Finland and in Flanders (Belgium), which are also moving towards more innovative and appreciative EQA practices. These approaches are expected to be more responsive to the current and future needs of HEI s within the EHEA, particularly in balancing national demands with increased European collaboration through initiatives like European University Alliances, and in accommodating different institutional cultures and quality assurance practices.
Continuing the trend noted in the 2020 INQAAHE Global Study, there is continuing evidence that EQAP s in Western Europe are increasingly shifting from compliance-focused models to enhancement-driven approaches, although it can be noted that for some agencies this has been the approach for a long time. The QA-FIT study showed that 70% of responding EQAP s identified enhancement as the main purpose of external QA, while 49% cited accountability. While part of this trend can be attributed to a desire to reduce or avoid evaluation fatigue and bureaucratic burden, it can also be linked to an increased focus on the transformative power of external QA to provide more than an accountability function. Achieving this is not easy and 50% of EQAP s responding to the survey for the QA-FIT study reported that one of their current challenges is ensuring that there is a balance between accountability and enhancement (Cirlan & Gover, 2024, p. 10).
EQAP s are adopting lighter-touch approaches that reflect more fundamentally the principle of institutional responsibility, encourage internal reflection at HEI s and may focus on specific topics or take a very holistic approach covering all institutional activity. Some EQAP s are also exploring risk-based approaches so they only step in when a specific (potential) problem is identified.
Additionally, many EQAP s are updating their criteria to address current trends like micro-credentials and the impact of AI. In some instances, this is a proactive approach, while in other cases it is reactive, to respond to issues that are of growing importance to HEI s. Participants in the focus group noted the need to differentiate between ‘hot topics’, which may be temporarily high on the agenda, and longer-term trends in higher education that need addressing strategically. The shift towards student-centred learning that has taken place over the past decade at least was cited as an example of a long-term trend that has become embedded in QA approaches. Here QA had an identifiably transformative role, as the inclusion of a standard on student-centred learning in the 2015 version of the ESG helped to mainstream an emerging trend at the time.
EQAP s are also exploring ways to better measure and communicate the impact of their work, though challenges persist in isolating the effects of QA from other factors, as well as the resources required for comprehensive impact studies. This aligns with findings from the 2020 INQAAHE Global Study, which noted that the impact of QA in Western Europe has not been widely measured (p. 334).
Cooperation plays a key role in fostering transformation. Firstly, sharing practices and experiences through networks has long been recognised as an important tool for enhancing the work of EQAP s. Associations and networks, such as ENQA, and the European Consortium of Accreditation in Higher
5 Trends in IQA
One of the principles for quality assurance of the ESG is that HEI s bear primary responsibility for the quality of their provision and its assurance. Given the high number of HEI s, their diversity in size and scope, and the differences in national frameworks which nonetheless steer IQA systems, means that the scope and approaches to IQA may vary significantly across institutions. This section sets out some of the dimensions of that diversity and highlights some trends and key issues for HEI s, discussed under the themes of efficiency, relevance and transformation. The data in this section triangulate findings from the survey, which due to the low response rate (37 HEI s, 2% response rate), should be considered qualitative in nature, along with insights from focus groups, and conclusions drawn from other relevant studies. The key themes explored during the focus groups were:
- –The role of IQA in addressing current global trends affecting higher education.
- –The added value QA brings to HEI s.
- –How the institution’s mission relates to key topics and how they should be integrated into QA.
- –The role of QA in HEI s’ international activities, including cross-border education and European Universities Alliances.
Finally, it should be noted that no HEI s in Western Europe were directly surveyed for the 2020 INQAAHE Global Study, making it impossible to draw any direct comparisons.
5.1 Efficiency
When discussing the efficiency of IQA in the focus groups, participants raised a number of key challenges. One key challenge was that of resources. Not just in absolute terms but also in terms of the increasing complexity of implementing IQA. Participants reported that their IQA systems were increasingly expected to address a broader range of institutional activities across multiple missions and goals, but with the same resources.
Information collected for the Global Study survey shows that the scope of IQA systems at HEI s varies. In terms of education delivery, Bachelor and
Aspects covered by the institutions’ IQAS
This aligns with data from the QA-FIT report about internal QA in the EHEA, which indicates that all institutional activities are covered to varying degrees. 90% of respondents indicated that teaching and learning, research and the social dimension are covered by internal QA at least to some extent, while the less covered activities were activities developed as part of the University Alliances, the use of learning analytics by higher education institutions and micro-credentials. The report also highlights that the coverage of research activities and the third mission by internal QA has increased over the last decade demonstrating the extension of IQA systems beyond learning and teaching activities (EUA, 2023, p. 9).
However, there is still significant divergence. According to the QA-FIT report, this is attributed to varying national guidelines for IQA systems, stating that “national QA agencies have become the primary guideline providers for all activities” (EUA, 2023, p. 9). In some cases, regulatory frameworks in other countries also play a role in order to meet requirements for implementing joint programmes.
Addressing the complexity of IQA systems can also be considered as a factor in centralising oversight of this work in an institutional level IQA unit.
The trend towards centralised approaches is echoed in the apparent high-level oversight of IQA systems. The QA-FIT report indicated that institutional leadership plays a central role: in 71% of the responding HEI s, the rector or vice-rector oversees QA issues (EUA, 2023, p. 8). This relates to the type of impact seen because of IQA systems, with strategic development being highlighted as a key area of impact, discussed further under the section on Transformation.
Data was another recurring theme in the focus groups. The need for reliable data to support operational and strategic decision-making was highlighted as important for the efficiency of the IQA system and the institution overall. Conversely, some participants pointed out that the overabundance of data has made decision-making more complex, whereas others highlighted the pressures to provide data to external bodies, including those running external QA or excellence evaluations, and raised concerns about the risk of excluding the qualitative component in such external processes.
5.2 Relevance
The ESG emphasise stakeholder involvement as being central to ensuring the relevance of IQA at institutions. The ESG state that quality assurance must consider the perspectives of and respond to the needs of students, stakeholders, and society.
Student involvement in IQA has long been recognised as a key challenge and work done by the European Students’ Union (ESU) highlights that this persists. Areas of particular concern include meaningful involvement in curriculum design and the extended perception that students are not seen as equal members of the academic community (Onita et al., 2023). Participants in the focus groups pointed out that IQA can help to ensure that students are central to teaching and learning developments. It was particularly highlighted that the changing student profile – due to the pandemic, widening participation, and an increase of students that work during their studies – requires increased flexibility in provision, including online and hybrid modalities. A key role for IQA was to ensure quality across diverse student experiences, adjusting to the
At the strategic level, QA is perceived as a tool to support higher education governance, aligning with institutional strategic plans. Therefore, relevance depends on what priorities are defined by the HEI s, their faculties and their departments and how the IQA system can respond to and support those. The need for agility or flexibility in IQA systems was highlighted by focus group participants as a key issue, with it being challenging to combine the long-term priorities set out in strategic plans with responsiveness to changes in the shorter term.
Survey responses gave an insight into the external factors influencing HEI operations over the past five years. The most prominent of these were economic and technological factors, and health and safety concerns, particularly due to Covid-19 (see Figure 11.9). This aligns with the same external factors identified as important by EQAP s.
Major important external factors that influenced operations through the last 5 years
As with discussions around the relevance of IQA, focus group participants concluded that the transformative impact of IQA is closely tied to institutional goals, with IQA serving as a governance tool for monitoring and achieving these. This aligns with the input from the Global Study survey. Respondents were asked to list three major transformations that took place in their institution due to IQA approaches, the following key themes were identified from the 24 open responses:
- –Strategic & Institutional Development: Strategic planning, goal-oriented strategy, institutional restructuring, strategic alignment, decision-making, risk management, accreditation, systematic assessment.
- –Quality Assurance & Continuous Improvement: QA implementation, procedural development, monitoring, self-evaluation, process standardisation, shared structures, improvement planning, continuous improvement.
- –Teaching, Learning & Curriculum Development: Curriculum revision, teaching reforms, competence development, programme review, teaching methodology revision, faculty training, researcher training, course evaluation.
- –Stakeholder Engagement & Quality Culture: Student engagement, university community involvement, stakeholder inclusion, surveys, evidence-based culture, quality culture, transparency.
Despite these achievements, survey respondents also identified areas for improvement within IQA systems in order to make them more relevant and impactful:
- –Process Simplification & Digital Transformation: Bureaucracy reduction, process standardisation, simplification of QA procedures, digitalisation, IT system improvements, common data management.
- –Stakeholder & Context-Responsive QA: Increased student participation, employer involvement, collaboration with external evaluators, flexibility in QA systems for different HEI s, adaptation to local/regional/national contexts, benchmarking with similar institutions, transparency, improving QA links to society.
- –Institutional & Faculty Support: Staff recognition, faculty professionalisation, incentives for quality work, more administrative resources, dedicated funding, autonomy for HEI s.
- –Evidence-Based QA & Quality Culture: Improving use of QA data, learning outcomes focus, data-driven quality metrics, strategic planning based on evidence, better student and employment data, evidence-based culture, decision-making based on indicators.
Further, aligning with issues of relevance, the work towards a quality culture, particularly through stakeholder engagement, was also cited as an important transformative element but one that is challenging to attain and maintain.
These align with the findings of the QA-FIT report on QA at HEI s, which found that 83% of institutions reported a positive impact from IQA, citing better data collection, enhanced decision-making, and stronger stakeholder cooperation as key improvements. Reported challenges included increased administrative workload and initial difficulties with implementing new or changed systems (EUA, 2023, p. 11).
Looking ahead, there are many changes in the higher education landscape that HEI s and their IQA systems will need to address. The EUA Trends report of 2024 (p. 84) identified three critical areas for the EHEA in the future:
- –Avoiding mission overload, as HEI s face growing pressure to perform across multiple areas.
- –Adapting educational offerings to shifts in student demographics and lifelong learning demands.
- –Developing strategic approaches to internationalisation.
Focus group participants supplemented these by mentioning key emerging topics of IQA as including the increasing use of artificial intelligence by students and staff in learning, teaching and assessment, and the need for curricula and learning pathways to address the focus on skills and employability.
6 Conclusions
Western Europe offers a compelling example of diversity within cohesion. The 25 countries in this region, ranging from microstates like Andorra to global education powerhouses such as the United Kingdom, illustrate a rich tapestry of higher education systems shaped by distinct historical, cultural and economic contexts. Despite differences in language, governance, and funding models, the region is unified by a commitment to quality, trust and collaboration in higher education. This collaboration is underpinned and steered primarily by the Bologna Process and the EU policies. These frameworks support cross-border cooperation and ensure alignment in areas like degree structures, recognition and quality assurance.
The QA landscape in Western Europe sees a number of factors that interact and overlap. Facilitating transformation and ensuring relevance go hand in hand as objectives in an environment that can be generally characterised by mature and well-established quality assurance approaches. Internal QA developments reflect a dynamic and context-sensitive approach, balancing institutional priorities with broader national and regional frameworks. It serves as a tool for institutional governance, aligning with strategic priorities while fostering a culture of quality through stakeholder collaboration, reflection, and innovation within institutions. There is also a move towards holistic approaches to internal QA structures covering all institutional missions and activities, which is both a prompt and a reaction to similar trends in external QA. However, challenges remain, such as overcoming organisational silos and ensuring data-driven insights are effectively utilised without losing sight of qualitative elements like the student experience.
Similarly, many EQAP s in Western Europe are mature organisations using well-established processes in complex but well-defined contexts. While this brings a certain stability to the work of EQAP and the HEI s in their jurisdiction, recent years have seen increased attention given to the need to maintain and demonstrate the added value of external QA in order to ensure that it is still a relevant and useful tool for HEI s and the education sector as a whole. The case studies presented through the chapter illustrate a notable differentiation in the remits of national or regional EQAP s; this diversification, in part due to the influence of national governments that use QA as a policy tool to steer higher education, is expanding (Elken & Stensaker, 2022). The use of external QA as a tool to further a broad range of European and national priorities is sometimes cited as an approach that enhances its relevance, for example by focusing on issues such as sustainability, social dimension, or values in higher education. However, this also carries the risk of diluting the core aims of QA and thereby weakening its impact. Higher education is promoting and responding to developments that have gathered pace in recent years, such as digitalisation in learning, teaching and assessment; increased focus on lifelong learning and flexible
Finally, many HEI s and EQAP s are dealing with financial pressures that either limit their activities or place pressure on staff to do more with less, prompting efficiency to be an important topic. For both internal and external QA, there is potential in better use of data and digital systems, while structural reorganisation and simplification of procedures are also being explored.
Looking ahead, the revision of the ESG, taking place in 2025–2026, will provide both an opportunity and a challenge for quality assurance in Western Europe. Calls for the ESG to provide more room for flexibility and innovation could result in a framework that allows for more efficient, responsive and context-sensitive approaches by HEI s and EQAP s. This would be in line with the general trend towards more enhancement-led approaches to quality assurance. However, despite the relative maturity, systems still need to maintain sufficient levels of accountability to ensure that there is continued trust and transparency within the region and across the EHEA, particularly in order to support international cooperation and recognition of qualifications. The ability of EQAP s and HEI s to balance accountability with enhancement and their openness to adaptation will determine their continued relevance and impact in a rapidly evolving landscape.
Notes
Countries shown in green are those in the EHEA where there is a nationwide QA system in which all HEI s undergo regular external quality assurance by an EQAR registered agency that has successfully demonstrated compliance with the ESG (July 2025). Countries in yellow have a fully functioning QA system but only some HEI s are subject to external QA by an EQAR registered agency. Countries in orange have a QA system in operation nationwide, but has not (yet) been fully aligned to the ESG https://www.eqar.eu/kb/country-information/
Inward mobility refers to students moving to a destination country for education, indicating that country’s attractiveness. Outward mobility refers to students leaving their home country to study abroad, reflecting efforts to gain international experience or potential weaknesses in the home country’s education system.
https://www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysis/students/whos-in-he, Data from 2022-23. The total number of HE enrolled students was of 2,937,155, from those, 663,355 were from non-EU countries, and 95,505 from EU.
Hackett, S., McAllister Wylie, D., & Saxil, S. (2025, January 22). Riding the nationalism wave requires a collective approach. University World News. https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20250122092837584
ENQA members are QA agencies in the EHEA that comply with the ESG. ENQA affiliates are other bodies with an interest in QA, including QA agencies that are not compliant with the ESG or are not otherwise eligible for ENQA membership. ESG compliance is demonstrated through an independent peer review process.
A3ES in Portugal, Evalag in Germany, FINEEC in Finland, NVAO in the Netherlands, QQI in Ireland, and UKÄ in Sweden.
Reference for 2000-01 data: Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia (2005). Datos y Cifras del Sistema Universitario Curso 2005/2006. Available at: https://www.universidades.gob.es/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Datos_y_Cifras_2005-2006.pdf; Reference for 2023-24: Ministerio de Universidades (2023). Datos y cifras del sistema universitario español. Publicación 2022-2023. Available at: https://www.universidades.gob.es/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/DyC_2023_web_v2.pdf
http://www.acsug.es/en/documentacion/publicacions/inserci%C3%B3n-laboral; https://www.aqu.cat/en/Studies
RD 1393/2007; RD 822/2021, article 25.2
Organic Law 2/2023, 22nd of March, of the University System, https://www.boe.es/eli/es/lo/2023/03/22/2/con
From 82K in 2012 to 112K in 2023. See https://indicadores.fecyt.es/#/produccion, consulted in January 2025.
For further elaboration on this, see ANVUR report (2030). Italy has 11 online universities which have doubled the number of programmes offered, compared with the 10% of increase of traditional universities (p. 25), and have seen a significant increase in student enrolment. In the 2021/22 academic year, 11.5% of all university students were enrolled in online universities, compared to just 2.5% in 2011/12. (p. 29).
Population figures were extracted from Eurostat, data from 2023 (consulted in 2024), except for UK (https://www.ons.gov.uk/), San Marino and Holy See which come from https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
Population with tertiary education 25-34 year-olds/55-64 year-olds, % in same age group, 2022 or latest available https://data.oecd.org/eduatt/population-with-tertiary-education.htm
References
Altbach, P. G., Wit, H., & Woldegiyorgis, A. A (2021). Public vs. private participation in higher education: realities and debates. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000380071
ANVUR. (2023). Rapporto sul sistema della formazione superiore e della ricerca 2023. Agenzia Nazionale di Valutazione del Sistema Universitario e della Ricerca. http://dx.doi.org/10.20367/9788832041040
European Commission. (2024, March 27). Proposal for a council recommendation on a European quality assurance and recognition system in higher education. COM(2024) 147 final, 2024/0079 (NLE). Brussels. https://education.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2024-03/Proposal%20for%20a%20Council%20Recommendation%20on%20a%20European%20Quality%20Assurance%20and%20Recognition%20System%20in%20Higher%20Education.pdf
Knight, J., & McNamara, J. (2017). Transnational education: A classification framework and data collection guidelines for international programme and provider mobility. British Council/DAAD, 2017. www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/tne_classification_framework-final.pdf.
Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG). (2015).
Yudkevich, M., Altbach P. G., Salmi, J. (Eds.). (2023). Academic star wars: Excellence initiatives in global perspective. The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/14601.001.0001
Baseline data on Western European countries
| Code | Country | EU country | EHEA | Number of EQAP s | Number of TEIS | NQF | Lisbon convention | Global convention | Populationa | Population with tertiary educationb |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AD | Andorra | No | Yes | 1 | 5 | No | Yes | Yes | 84,516 | |
| AT | Austria | Yes | Yes | 3 | 73 | Yes | Yes | No | 9,104,772 | 43.3 |
| BE | Belgium | Yes | Yes | 5 | 148 | Yes | Yes | No | 11,742,796 | 51.4 |
| CY | Cyprus | Yes | Yes | 1 | 26 | Yes | Yes | No | 920,701 | |
| DK | Denmark | Yes | Yes | 1 | 41 | Yes | Yes | No | 5,932,654 | 49 |
| FI | Finland | Yes | Yes | 1 | 38 | Yes | Yes | Yes | 5,563,970 | 40.8 |
| FR | France | Yes | Yes | 2 | 202 | Yes | Yes | Yes | 68,172,977 | 50.4 |
| DE | Germany | Yes | Yes | 10 | 399 | Yes | Yes | No | 84,358,845 | 37.3 |
| GR | Greece | Yes | Yes | 1 | 46 | Yes | Yes | No | 10,413,982 | 45.2 |
| VA | Holy See | No | Yes | 1 | 0 | Yes | Yes | Yes | 496 | |
| IS | Iceland | No | Yes | 1 | 7 | Yes | Yes | Yes | 38,7758 | 40.9 |
| IE | Ireland | Yes | Yes | 1 | 22 | Yes | Yes | No | 5,271,395 | 63.3 |
| IT | Italy | Yes | Yes | 2 | 207 | Yes | Yes | No | 58,997,201 | 29.2 |
| LI | Liechtenstein | No | Yes | 0 | 2 | Yes | Yes | No | 39,677 | |
| LU | Luxembourg | Yes | Yes | 1 | 3 | Yes | Yes | Yes | 660,809 | 60.0 |
| MT | Malta | Yes | Yes | 1 | 7 | Yes | Yes | No | 542,051 | |
| MC | Monaco | No | No | 0 | 0 | No | Yes | No | 39,050 | |
| NL | Netherlands | Yes | Yes | 4 | 56 | Yes | Yes | No | 17,811,291 | 56.4 |
| NO | Norway | No | Yes | 1 | 34 | Yes | Yes | Yes | 5,488,984 | 56.4 |
| PT | Portugal | Yes | Yes | 1 | 91 | Yes | Yes | No | 10,467,366 | 44.4 |
| SM | San Marino | No | Yes | 0 | 0 | No | Yes | Yes | 33,581 | |
| ES | Spain | Yes | Yes | 11 | 89 | Yes | Yes | No | 48,085,361 | 50.5 |
| SE | Sweden | Yes | Yes | 1 | 37 | Yes | Yes | Yes | 10,521,556 | 52.3 |
| CH | Switzerland | No | Yes | 2 | 37 | Yes | Yes | No | 8,815,385 | 51.3 |
| UK | United Kingdom | No | Yes | 5 | 256 | Yes | Yes | Yes | 68,265,209 | 57.7 |
| 57 | 1,823 | 431,722,383 |
Population figures were extracted from Eurostat, data from 2023 (consulted in 2024), except for UK (https://www.ons.gov.uk/), San Marino and Holy See which come from https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
Population with tertiary education 25-34 year-olds / 55-64 year-olds, % in same age group, 2022 or latest available https://data.oecd.org/eduatt/population-with-tertiary-education.htm (consulted in December 2024)