Institutional accreditation

In institutional accreditation, it is up to the education institutions themselves to set up the system that best ensures and develops the quality and relevance of their programmes. The focus of the accreditation is whether the education institutions' quality assurance is systematic and well-functioning in practice.
Last updated:

All higher education institutions follow the same model for institutional accreditation. The model gives the individual institution a free hand to organise its own quality assurance, as long as the system lives up to the criteria for quality and relevance laid down in the ministerial order. In relation to this, the system is expected to reflect the individual institution, be anchored at management level and support an inclusive quality culture.

This means that it is not enough only to fulfil the criteria on paper. The institution must also show that its system works in practice and ensures the quality and relevance of programmes before, during and after institutional accreditation.

In August 2019, the guidelines for the second round of institutional accreditation were published. It applies to those institutions that have achieved a positive institutional accreditation in the first round and therefore now move on to the second round.

In institutional accreditation, the institution must document its quality assurance system and work, on the basis of the criteria and their elaborations laid down in the ministerial order on accreditation. Six years after obtaining a positive accreditation, the institution must undergo a second round of institutional accreditation.

Which set of criteria the institution must meet in the accreditation depends on whether it is the first or second round of institutional accreditation it undergoes. In the first round, the institutional accreditations were completed on the basis of five criteria. The institutional accreditations in the second round follows a simplified model with three criteria.

In both rounds the institutional accreditation is based on a holistic assessment of the individual criteria and across the criteria.

Below you will find information on key stages and elements in the process of an institutional accreditation. More information about the process of an institutional accreditation can be found in the guidelines for the first round of institutional accreditation and the second round.

 

Accreditation panel

Simultaneous with the initial dialogue with the education institution, the Danish Accrediation Institution will form an accreditation panel of 4 to 6 members depending on the size and nature of the institution. The accreditation panel must include Danish and international members as well as a student from a comparable institution.

Collectively, the members of the accreditation panel must have experience with quality assurance at an institutional level as well as knowledge of the education sector and relevant labour market conditions. A chairperson is responsible for the assessments and work of the accreditation panel. The Danish Accreditation Institution provides secretariat services for the panel and writes the accreditation report.

 

Institution report
At the onset of the process, the institution prepares an institution report that consists of a system description and a self-assessment. In the first round, this is called a self-evaluation report. The purpose of the institution’s report is to lay the foundation for the accreditation panel’s first site visit.

 

Site visits
During an institutional accreditation, the panel will visit the education institution twice to meet with the management, teachers, students and other employees at the institution, when relevant. Based on the self-evaluation or institution report, the first visit gives the accreditation panel insight into the institution’s overall quality assurance policies and system.

Based on the first site visit, the accreditation panel will select the audit trails that are at the focal point of the second visit. Typically, this visit is of a bit longer duration and the focus is on giving the accreditation panel the information needed to assess hos the institution’s quality assurance work function in practice on the basis of the selected audit trails.

In most cases, the accreditation panel will only have one site visit for re-accreditations that corresponds to the nature and agenda of the second site visit.

 

Audit trails
The purpose of audit trails is to illustrate how your quality assurance lives up to the expectations within a specific area of the accreditation criteria. For instance, the focal point of an audit trail can be how the institution assures the knowledge base of specific provisions of programmes or how it identifies and follows up on issues regarding the quality and relevance of selected provisions of programmes based on data from key performance indicators or evaluations.

The scope of audit trails will vary from institution to institution. The smaller your institution, and the less diverse its provisions and its organisation of quality assurance, the smaller the scope of audit trails. Likewise, the numbers of audit trails range from 2 to 6 depending on the size and nature of the institution.

Institutional accreditation can have three different outcomes: positive, conditional positive, or refusal. The Accreditation Council makes decisions on accreditation on the basis of an accreditation report and a recommendation which is based on the accreditation panel’s analysis and assessment of the education institution’s quality assurance.

Below you can see the assessments forming the basis for the three decision categories. This will also give you an overview of the consequences the decision has for the education institution.

 

Decision Assessment Consequence
Positive With the exception of a few, clearly delimited problems, the quality assurance system is well-described, well-argued and well-functioning in practice. Opportunity to establish new programmes and new local provisions of programmes when these have been pre-qualified and approved, and to make adjustments to existing programmes.
Conditional Most of the quality assurance system is well-described, well-argued and reasonably well-functioning in practice.
In its decision, the Accreditation Council will point out less well-functioning areas that staff at the institution must subsequently follow up within a given time horizon.
All new programmes and local provisions of programmes must be externally accredited before they are established.
Refusal There are several significant shortcomings in the structure or function of the institution’s quality assurance system in practice. The education institution cannot establish new programmes or local provisions of programmes. Existing programmes must be accredited in accordance with a rota plan.

More information on institutional accreditation

You can read more about the criteria and their elaboration in the guide to institutional accreditation. Here, you can also read more about the process.