Menú Principal:
Documentos
VI ENOHE CONFERENCE: Londres 2008 (15 al 17 de Abril)
WORKSHOP nº 3: “Bologna without tears”
Pilar Abad-Garcia, University Ombudsman (UO)
(University of Valladolid, Spain)
How the University Ombudsman adds value to Bologna:
(human) Quality Assurance (hQA)
1. The meaning of the University Ombudsman in the ´Bologna´ context Nowadays, as we know, the European countries are immersed in a process of academic Convergence; i.e. in the process of building the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) as a realm of academic equity, transparency and mobility. This intrinsic “openness” could easily be threatened by academic abuse, and, therefore, the University Ombuds. (UO) from his internal, independent position, becomes in my view, a clear key-figure, a value-added one, especially as regards two aspects:
a. As a cooperator in the processes of Quality Assurance (QA) and Q Culture project, which should not forget the human factor in institutions of higher education
b. As a potential fosterer of the spirit of European identity among University members and staff
Both ideas are present in the Magna Charta Universitatum (1988) and the Bologna Declaration (1999) which insist on ethical, democratic and educational values, as well as on principles of European citizenship necessary to the social articulation of the EU, a relevant part of which is the EHEA (Michavila: 2006).
Also, both ideas inspire the 2007 “London Communiqué”(1) where we can read, on one hand: “…. Building on our rich and diverse European cultural heritage, we are developing an EHEA based on institutional autonomy, academic freedom, equal opportunities and democratic principles that will facilitate mobility ….etc”, and, on the other: “…We agree to continue to work together in partnership, assisting one another in our efforts and promoting the exchange of good practice.” (p.1.1.3)
All these ideas and values are perfectly comparable to those close to the University Ombuds.´s Institution, its nature and mission, in complex and demanding social institutions like Universities, often agitated by personal, teaching or research problems.
Indeed, other European documents by the European University Ass(2) (EUA) and the European Network for QA(3) (ENQA), show their awareness of the need for cooperation with other implied agents in the process of promoting “quality culture” within Higher Education Institutions(4). However, none of them affirms openly yet that one of those other agents might be the University Ombudsman and figures of a similar type.
2. The University Ombuds. as a link in the process of (human) Quality Assurance (hQA) Proposals for Quality Assurance (QA) often focus on ONE major aspect of quality in Higher Education: the seminal academic. Yet, alongside this one, there are other no less relevant aspects which, in my view as UO, should also be considered in the processes of QA. I mean those concerned with ethical teaching and research values, ie. those concerned with academic integrity, in short, with aspects of human quality in higher education institutions. Let us remember the Glasgow Declaration (2005): “…Universities share a commitment to the social ….. and the ethical dimensions of higher education and research…”(p.2)
Carelessness about these aspects is often a source of conflict and complaint (of “tears” as our title says) which will probably increase in trans-national scope once the EHEA is a full European reality.
Interest regarding this side of the question becomes increasingly evident.
As some of you may already know, there is a project on “academic malpractice”in the making. In February 2005, the Board of the Magna Charta Observatory and the ESIB Executive Board published an interesting booklet entitled Statement of Concern(5) which offers some observations on malpractice, both at institutional and individual levels.
Also, in September 2007, a Conference was held in Bologna on the management of academic integrity(6) and academic malpractice at Universities.
From the first part of this project, as has been said (Barblan: 2007) it became evident that “…. Codes of deontology …. are not sufficient to rid universities from academic malpractice….” , as well as that: “….. institutions as much as individuals are responsible ….. that is why the conditions of integrity must be managed inside the institution for the prestige and authority of the university
…”(7)
Besides, in April 2007, the Deputy Secretary General of the EUA (Andrée Sursock) stated a similar view: “….On QA issues the point of departure is a robust internal quality culture and not external processes…”(8), and emphasized the importance “…. Of a grass-root development of quality rather than a topdown approach…” (:7)
On the other hand, in September 2007, the First World Conference on Research Integrity was held in Lisbon(9), and other evaluation departments such as AASCB International, highly value the ethical side of requesting institutions.
Further developments will take place at the 20th anniversary of the Charta Magna in September 2008.
In this context, the figure of the UO becomes of prime importance. The UO is “inside his /her institution” and, as such, he/she might also be a valuable “link” in the long chain of QA and, more specifically, in the Q Culture project. The UO may be a part of that “…professional concentration of expertise at the grassroots…”(:8) for which A. Sursock claims with respect to the growing importance
of internal Q processes.
In addition, the European University Association (EUA) in its Graz Conference(10), proclaimed a series of objectives, two of which, in my opinion, have a lot to do with the UO Institution:
Both objectives seem to attest to the novelty, agility and nearness of University Ombudsmen´s Offices. The latter avoid excessive delay in obtaining solutions to problems and have a capacity of immediate intervention, “on site”/ “on the spot”, as we could say. This proximity may also favour proactive approaches to those problems. As the old saying goes: “A stitch in time saves nine”…..
3. The UO and the academic values: ethics and science The Institution of the UO offers “from within” a considerable potential to foster
and safeguard “good practice” in universities and other institutions of higher education. It also works proactively in favour of the implementation and consolidation of both teaching and research values.
With regard to these aspects, there is an increasing international interest. There have been implemented anti-fraud Offices in Europe and, above all, in the US(11), alert to expose scientific abuse.
Also, in 2005, the European Commission issued a Recommendation on the “European Charter for Researchers” and on a “Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers”. This Recommendation emphasized “ethical principles” for researchers (45) as well as the figure of an “…impartial (ombudsman-type)person to deal with complaints/appeals of researchers, including those concerning conflicts between supervisor(s) and early-stage researchers…” (56)
It is relevant to pay attention to these facts within our increasingly globalised and “commercial” universities where the urge for “hunting” students, researchworkers and resources sometimes shows a somewhat outrageous “management” of research activity (Haller: 2006)(12)
Finally, we must also bear in mind the new phenomenon in Europe, that of university globalization, as a fact which demands special attention to human and ethical values given its intrinsic ethnical and cultural diversity.
4. The UO and the concern for (human)QA (hQA)
In short, in my view, the UO can contribute decisively to the process of Human QA in the Bologna context taking into account the essential nature of the UO figure, namely:
- His/her basis on the Latin idea of auctoritas
- His/her impartiality, confidentiality and independence
- His/her internal position in higher education Institutions
- His/her awareness that he (she) works with human beings, the first and foremost asset of Universities; then with problems
- His/her capacity and ability to solve conflicts in an informal, nonlegal way
- His/her activity, comparable to that of social workers within a very specialized community to which the UO renders “direct” and “indirect” service (Picton: 2007)
- His/her complex role as “mediator” between parties in dispute
- His/her role as “educator”, able to create awareness of desirable human attributes
- His/her contribution to foster teaching and research integrity, as well as proactive values of: coexistence (respect and tolerance with diversity), good practice and European citizenship awareness (mobility)
- His/her potential contribution to the “quality culture” project, by means of cooperating, from within, with quality Departments or Agencies and so virtually becoming, for the latter, a new indicator in the quality process. This possibility would imply the evaluation of U Ombuds.´s Offices (Cras: 2006).
CONCLUSION
By way of conclusion, let me sum up the major goals of the U.Ombudsman´s Institution:
1. The defence of university members´ rights
2. The contribution to the QA processes by means of emphasizing the human side of them (hQA)
Let us not forget that human capital development is one of the main assets in higher education institutions.
Last but not least, it is my conviction that the UO, from his /her specific position, is specially entitled to help in building this Bologna “without tears” that gathers us here today and which will employ our efforts for the next few years.
April 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Towards the European Higher Education Area (EHEA): responding to challenges in a globalised world. (18 May, 2007)
2 TRENDS IV (2004-05)
3 Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area ( 2005)
5 Note.- The first two sections discuss the universities´ need to be alert if they do not want to lead their members into easy or fake achievements. The 3rd section sums up the results obtained on academic malpractice in several European countries.
6 The Management of Integrity: Universities and Academic Malpractice (September, 2007)
7 A. Barblan, M. Daxner & V. Ivosevic. 2007 Academic Malpractice.Threats and Temptations. Bologna, Bononia UP (:9)
8 A. Sursock: Quality Assurance: Strengthening Europe´s Universities (April 2007) (:6)
9 “….as an opportunity to discuss strategies for harmonising research misconduct policies and fostering responsible conduct in research …” (SCIENCE POLICY BRIEFING, December 2007 (:3)
10 “Quality Assurance” (2003); “Quality Culture Project: 2002-2006”
11 http://ori.dhhs.gov/ (Office of Research Integrity)
12 Let us remember the Glasgow Declaration (2005) again: “….. Universities welcome the adoption of the “European Charter for Researchers/ Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers” and emphasise their key role in the enhancement of research careers in Europe….” (p.4)
REFERENCES
Sub-Menú: