Thematic analyses – higher education

NOKUT’s thematic analyses provide essential insights that strengthen quality work in higher education. They support institutions’ development efforts, offer authorities a stronger knowledge base, and help improve NOKUT’s own processes. At the same time, they fulfil European quality assurance requirements and share methodological learning with sister organisations across Europe.

2026

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

    Main report


    Read the report (in Norwegian | pdf)


    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)

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

    Higher education institutions without self-accreditation authority


    Read the report (in Norwegian | pdf)


    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)