Small university colleges face challenges in quality work

A thematic analysis from NOKUT shows that colleges without self-accreditation authority face challenges in the systematic work of ensuring and developing the quality of their educational programs.

Published on

The report is based on reviews of quality assurance practices at 16 colleges without institutional accreditation during the period 2017–2024 and is included as a sub-report in NOKUT’s thematic analysis of the third round of periodic follow-up of systematic quality assurance.

University colleges without self-accreditation authority

The university colleges included in the analysis are small institutions, often private and with a narrow study portfolio. Together, they account for roughly one third of the institutions in the Norwegian university and university college sector, but they have relatively few students and staff compared with the rest of the sector.

The report shows that this group of institutions has experienced significantly more challenges than others in meeting the requirements for systematic quality assurance.

– These university colleges occupy a special position in the sector. Small academic environments and limited capacity make quality assurance work more vulnerable, and we see this clearly reflected in the review processes, says Jon Lanestedt, Senior Adviser at NOKUT.

Two requirements stand out

The analysis shows particular challenges related to two key requirements.

First, there is the requirement to conduct periodic evaluations of study programmes. Several university colleges lack clear routines for such evaluations or have not yet begun implementing them in practice. In many cases, it is also unclear whether the evaluations are intended to function as a control mechanism, a development tool, or both.

Second, the report identifies shortcomings related to systematic verification that study programmes meet the applicable accreditation requirements. Thirteen out of sixteen university colleges did not meet this requirement at the time of the first decision. The shortcomings relate both to insufficient descriptions of procedures and to a lack of actual implementation of controls.

Organisational explanations

The report shows that these challenges are linked to institutional size and capacity. Small academic environments, few staff members, and limited resources make it difficult to establish and maintain systematic quality assurance processes. Several of the university colleges also have a background in the vocational school sector and relatively limited experience with higher education, which may affect both their familiarity with the regulatory framework and the organisation of systematic quality assurance work.

We also see that quality assurance work at several university colleges has a weak strategic foundation and, in some cases, is perceived more as an external requirement than as a tool for institutional development.

At the same time, the report emphasises that the challenges are not primarily about a lack of willingness, but rather about framework conditions and capacity. The findings raise questions about the prerequisites that must be in place for small institutions to carry out sustainable quality assurance work.

– The goal is for quality assurance to be something institutions actively use in the development of their study programmes. For that to happen, the work must be adapted both to the size of the institutions and to the resources they actually have, says Lanestedt.

  • Report B: Thematic analysis of NOKUT’s third cycle of periodic follow-up of systematic quality assurance

    Higher education institutions without self-accreditation authority

    Abstract

    This report analyses findings from the Norwegian Agency for Quality Assurance in Education’s (NOKUT) third cycle of periodic institutional reviews (2017–2024) of higher education institutions offering accredited study programmes without self-accreditation authority. The study covers 16 small institutions characterised by limited numbers of staff, students, and study programmes, together representing 54 programmes, approximately 5,000 students, and fewer than 400 employees. Still, in terms of institutional number, these institutions account for one third of Norway’s higher education sector in 2025, and the majority are privately owned, often with origins in the vocational education sector and a strong disciplinary or sectoral focus.

    The analysis examines the extent to which these institutions meet regulatory requirements for systematic quality assurance, with particular attention to periodic programme evaluations and continuous monitoring of compliance with accreditation standards. The findings show that 13 of the 16 institutions failed to meet the requirements for systematic control, while nine of these also did not fulfil the requirements for periodic evaluations.

    In contrast, institutions with self-accreditation authority demonstrated substantially fewer deficiencies. Drawing on official review reports, the study identifies recurring challenges among small institutions, including limited human and administrative resources, weak strategic integration of quality assurance systems, insufficient regulatory knowledge, low institutional maturity, and perceptions of quality assurance as an externally imposed obligation rather than an internal development tool. In addition, quality systems were often found to be disproportionate to institutional size and organisational capacity.

    The report concludes that, while institutional size alone does not determine educational quality, limited leadership capacity and small academic environments constrain the development of robust and sustainable quality assurance systems. These findings suggest the need for a broader discussion of the structural prerequisites for sustainable institutional development in higher education.

    Author(s): Jon Lanestedt, Philipp Emanuel Leivestad Friedrich

    Read the report (in Norwegian | pdf)

Share with others