Fostering and Developing the Quality Culture at the University of Prishtina

1. Fostering and Developing the Quality Culture at the University of Prishtina Stakeholder - related Quality Culture June 2014, Croatia

2. Project consortium • The first project in grant holder’s role, many challenges: bureaucratic financial system and capacity building. Learn by doing… • Success indicators: specific partner roles and responsibilities, successful partnership history on joint QA projects. • Post- festum dilemmas: trade union and/or regional university in consortium would facilitate external stakeholders involvement.

3. Overall objective of the project The overall objective of the project was to foster and develop the Quality Culture at all levels such as: teaching, learning, research, administrative and student support services while taking into account perspectives of internal and external university stakeholders Quality Culture vs. Quality Assurance ?! Are we training for the race or racing for the train? • External stakeholders • Active role • x Formal presence and observation Fitness for purpose stakeholder-related quality enhancement Should university shape the society or society the university?

4. In project ACTIVELY participated Succeeded on getting on board the internal and external stakeholders

5. University of Prishtina • > 55 000 students, >1500 teaching staff ( full-time + part-time), >450 administrative staff. Annual budget approx. 28 mio Euro. • UP aim ( UP Statute, Article nr:6, university mission): Integration in to the European Higher Education Area and European Research Area. Implementing Bologna Process recommendations since 2001. • The biggest and oldest university in country. Quality management and metrics are the same for arts, engineering, medicine ?! Different sub-cultures to be considered. Comprehensive university. • Students representation (voting positions): Senate 7, Study Commission 2, Faculty Councils 2, Quality Assurance Committee 1. • Steering Committee: 4 (out of 9) external members, including the chair. Industrial Advisory Board in one faculty.

6. Quality Culture broadcasttowards stakeholders • Share of QA experiences with international peers/stakeholders. Challenge : Mobilising senior staff to participate on QA activities Let’s communicate about enhancement of ACTUAL quality culture. • Trigger a sense of ownership and responsibility towards QA processes We are Stakes and we are Holders but are not the only! • Not satisfactory number of students involved on QA activities Shift to student-centred approach. • Empower stakeholder-related Quality Culture: students, academic and administrative staff, alumni, potential employers and professional bodies. • Alumni engagement-a bridge between internal and external stakeholders. • Stakeholders willing to participate on QA activities covered by media.

7. Mobilization of internal capacity for change • Internal evaluation with external evaluators ( Ireland model) Accreditation ( Institutional and study program) obligatory by legislation. Faculties: We are always under the review... QA fatigue. • Project impact: Link of internal QA processes with external quality evaluation-accreditation. University and Agency discussed and harmonized the two sets of processes in order to avoid duplication of evaluations. • From self-enhancement to change- hear various stakeholder’s voices. Define roles and responsibilities. • Succeededon boosting a sense of ownership and responsibility towards self-assessment. • Not always succeeded on closing the feedback loops. • Domino-effect. Project outcomes replicated at other HEI in country.

8. Quality commitment vs. excellence • Step ahead on motivating internal stakeholders commitment vs. excellence by introducing the Quality Awards for Teaching; Research; Administrative Staff and Students. Missed: Gratitude to external stakeholders. • Challenge: Which are university main stakeholders? Which stakeholder is more powerful? Important? Stakeholder’s hierarchy. Dilemmas: Quality Award for Teaching to best teacher derived from student questionnaires or peer evaluation? • Let external stakeholders DECIDE about internal QA issues as Awards. Academics: Consultancy involvement ok, decision-making ? • Guidelines on evaluation procedures for Quality Awards have never been approved by respective academic body. Quality Excellence not an embedded part of institution Quality Culture? “acknowledgement that even the best ideas cannot always be imported into one’s own institution.” (Examining Quality Culture Part III, EUA Report 2012)

9. Stakeholder biased research agenda • Mission of UP- Research activities. Statute: “…publication on peer reviewed journals” No specification on publication quality indicators. • Opportunity: Internal stakeholders awareness raising for research standards. Embedding quality research in institution culture. Mission fulfillment. • Academic staff: Networking, recognition and support among disciplinary peers International community seeks for high quality research Employers are seeking for applied research for benefits of industry. Which stakeholder to listen? • Introduction of research standards reflecting perspectives of internal and external stakeholders. QA tools for research. Build a research database with publication. Comparative research potential of departments/faculties. • Research standards portfolio circulated to academic units of UP mobilizing staff through peer workshops to reflect Publish or perish!

10. Succeeded onTriggering a debate on university research agenda • Self-reflection: • What are the main quality metrics to measure the research? Ethics. • Quantity vs. Quality. Citations, h-index, impact factor, ISI journals vs. Scopus • Convergence of academic promotion criteria in different countries. • Comparison to research productivity of regional and European peer departments/universities. Discipline-oriented evaluation standards? • Commercializing university research agenda • Obstacles identified: • Divergence between university traditional research portfolio and industry research requirements • No entrepreneurial spirit. Reluctance to change. • Promotion depends on publication but not on research grants. Incentives. Failed: On gathering feedback from all departments and building the all inclusive research database Don’t expect immediate results you’re building a culture, not a machine. (Nygaard)

11. Stakeholders hands-on QA strategy Gather inputs: external stakeholder needs and requirements. Employers: The best indicator of quality is the employability and students’ performance on the job market after graduation • Challenge: Consensus on main stakeholders list Faculty vs. University stakeholders. • Stakeholders rank: Importance, Influence. • Building a mutual beneficiary relationships • Our experience: Bank sector the most responsive stakeholder Balance!

12. QA Strategy seeks external stakeholder involvement • Participation in consultancy bodies such as Industrial Advisory Boards. • Involvement in evaluation bodies such us Internships, on-job-trainings. • Exchange of information for issues at stake such us joint research projects, scholarships, joint events etc • Periodic feedback via questionnaires as study program evaluation, evaluation of university alumni on job performance, identification of study program gaps. • Active involvement in university life: guest lectures, Career Fair, donations. “The relationship between the labor market and the University is in need of development. However due to the burgeoning nature of the labor market in Kosovo at the present time, addressing its skill needs is the proverbial case of „chicken and egg‟. Developing a System of Quality Enhancement in a Post-Conflict University Environment – the Kosovo Experience “ (Ahma & Ibrani 2009) http://www.aic.lv/bolona/2010/Sem09-10/EUA_QUA_forum4/

13. Peer- to- peer interface internal stakeholders-external stakeholders • Voicing internal stakeholders QA experiences to international forums and vice versa. Moving from local level to international level. • Changing the roles of internal and external stakeholder- added value New opportunity for senior academic staff acting as member of external reviewer panel at international university. Obstacle: No experience-no interest! Motivating staff to take advantage of this opportunity. Offer appropriate trainings. • Nourish the Quality Culture at many levels! Study visits to partner universities of management, academic and administrative staff. Reflection on strategic planning and daily university life. Reinvent the wheel again or spread good principles and knowledge while respecting institution identities…

14. Students' role as 'participative' – as active and reflective – rather than 'directive' • Most UP study programs equip students with specific study field competencies. Labour market needs: + general competencies. How to survive after graduation? Advance student support services. • Foster students aspiration on their field of studies, their career development and their active participation in shaping university life. • Organize student-attractive trainings How to approach the labor market How to present yourself in a job interview The importance of internships during studies Workshop on CV writing • Organize events with focus on students career-development Prepare students on transition from university to labour market. >10 000 students attended

15. Equal opportunities for all internal stakeholders • Equal opportunities- Inclusive Quality Culture • Support services to all students and staff achieving their academic goals. • For the first time university gathered in the same discussing table all relevant stakeholders Ministries: Education, Health , Labour and Welfare, experts, students with disabilities and special needs • Obstacle: Lack of NECESSARY infrastructure for students to attend. • Event venue voiced essential student needs. • Alumni database : job opportunities, trainings, life-long learning opportunities, scholarships, networking for all regardless…. • Student database@ Career Centre: Registered students are kept informed about HE reforms, student’s role, trainings offered, job opportunities, volunteer work. They agreed to transfer their data on alumni database after graduation.

16. Link students with potential employers • Link internal stakeholders: students and staff with external stakeholders: public institutions, private national and international companies. • An opportunity: Career Fair • Win- win scenario. • University reputation in society. • Motivate students to volunteer on joint event organizations. Offer them more responsibility. Issue volunteer certificates. • Motivate business community by offering them promotion to society. Media coverage+ TV. Possibility of talking with best students. Internships. Network with other national and international companies. • Academic staff motivation link with industry. A sponsor for your project?

17. Thank for your attention!