What characterises good quality work in higher education?

NOKUT has analysed the experiences from the third round of periodic reviews of institutional quality assurance practices at Norwegian higher education institutions. The new main report provides an overall picture of common features, challenges and examples of good practice across the sector.

Published on March 17, 2026

The thematic analysis is based on 48 supervision reports from the period 2017–2024 and provides insights into how institutions work to ensure and further develop the quality of their educational provision.

What are periodic reviews?

NOKUTs supervision of universities’ and university colleges’ institutional quality assurance practices forms part of NOKUT’s periodic reviews of Norwegian higher education institutions. The purpose is to ensure that institutions work systematically to safeguard and develop the quality of their educational provision, contribute to learning, dialogue and quality development in the sector, and build trust in Norwegian higher education.

Provides an overview of recurring challenges

The report shows that institutions generally take quality work seriously, but that there are also recurring challenges across institutions. Four main challenges stand out.

– We see that quality work functions best when it is anchored in leadership and perceived as relevant to the academic communities. The report shows that it is not the systems themselves that are decisive, but how they are used in practice, says Hege Brodahl, Director of Department at NOKUT.

Firstly, the analysis shows that quality systems do not always function as effective management tools. Several institutions lack comprehensive systems or have quality systems that are only weakly linked to the institutions’ overall strategies and priorities.

Secondly, there are challenges related to ownership. Students, staff and external stakeholders are not always involved in quality work, and feedback is in some cases not followed up.

Thirdly, the report highlights challenges related to resources and documentation. Lack of time, competence and capacity makes it difficult to carry out systematic quality work, and much valuable work takes place informally without being documented.

Finally, the analysis shows weakness in how institutions work with quality over time. A lack of continuity, learning and strategic follow-up can make it difficult to ensure that experiences from quality work are systematically used in further development.

Many examples of good practice

At the same time, the report shows that there are many good examples of effective quality work in the sector. Institutions that succeed are characterised, among other things, by:

Quality systems adapted to the institution’s size and distinctive characteristics
Clear roles and responsibilities
Broad involvement of students and staff
Well-functioning feedback loops
A good balance between control and development

These institutions actively use their quality systems as tools for learning, governance and the further development of their educational provision.

A knowledge base for further development

The main report provides a knowledge base for institutions’ further quality work, for the authorities, and for NOKUT’s own continued development of periodic reviews. The findings also form the framework for two related reports: one focusing on university colleges without self-accreditation authority, and one exploring the use of AI in analytical work.

Read an abstract

Abstract

This report presents a thematic analysis of NOKUT’s third cycle of periodic follow-up of systematic quality assurance at Norwegian universities and university colleges covering the period 2017–2024. The analysis forms part of a set of three related analytical reports.

Report A, which constitutes the main report, draws together NOKUT’s experiences from the follow-up of quality assurance practices at the 48 higher education institutions that underwent a periodic review during this period. The report highlights recurring challenges, identifies areas where improvement is needed, and points to examples of good practice in institutions’ systematic quality work. Report B focuses specifically on institutions without self-accreditation authority and discusses a number of challenges that appear to be particularly relevant for this group. Report C has a methodological focus and examines the use of artificial intelligence in NOKUT’s analytical work, assessed in relation to more traditional, manual approaches.

The main report identifies four overarching challenges in institutions’ systematic quality assurance work.

First, a number of challenges relate to the design and implementation of internal quality assurance systems. These include the absence of sufficiently coherent systems, weak alignment between internal quality assurance systems and institutional strategies, and shortcomings in implementation and staff training. In several cases, there is also a need to simplify and update existing systems, while some institutions developed new systems shortly before external review.

Second, challenges are evident in relation to participation and ownership. Students, staff, and external stakeholders are not always adequately involved, and procedures for feedback and follow-up are often underdeveloped. Measures that are introduced are not consistently followed up, and there is a clear need to strengthen student participation and to systematise the use of student evaluations.

Third, higher education institutions face resource-related and documentation-related challenges. Quality assurance work is not always sufficiently documented or formalised, and there are gaps in competence and understanding of quality processes. Limited staffing and time further constrain this work, reinforcing the need for clearer and more consistent documentation practices.

Fourth, challenges arise in connection with arrangements for systematic monitoring of accreditation requirements and ongoing development. Many institutions lack well-established routines for periodic evaluation and systematic control. Lines of responsibility and reporting are sometimes unclear, and there is a need for clearer role definitions and more systematic training. The analysis also points to a need to strengthen strategic portfolio management, improve cooperation and information sharing with external actors, and further develop the learning environment and quality indicators. Across these areas, the balance between control and development remains a recurring issue.

The analysis also identifies a number of features that characterise well-functioning quality assurance practices. Effective systems tend to be holistic and appropriately scaled to the institution’s size, complexity, and organisational culture, and they are used actively in day-to-day work rather than primarily as formal structures.

Clear roles and a strong sense of ownership among both staff and students are also central. Well-defined responsibilities, when properly implemented, contribute to transparency and predictability across the organisation. Broad participation helps ensure that quality assurance work is perceived as relevant and that it leads to tangible improvements.

Furthermore, good practice is associated with genuine opportunities for participation and well-functioning feedback loops. When staff and students are actively involved in shaping and refining quality assurance systems, and when feedback is systematically followed up, quality processes are more likely to result in concrete adjustments and continuous improvement.

Finally, well-functioning quality assurance work is characterised by a balanced approach to control and development. Strategic anchoring helps ensure compliance with external requirements while also allowing scope for development and learning. In such cases, quality assurance is closely linked to institutional strategy and operationalised through indicators that are both assessable and meaningful.

Overall, the analysis offers insights that are relevant for higher education institutions, NOKUT, and other public authorities, and it highlights areas where further analysis and development may be warranted.

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

Read the report (in Norwegian | pdf)