Listening to stakeholders

Feedback from the audience traced and faithfully reproduced


Need for management and control of interfaces with stakeholders.

Priority to revitalize the quality cells of academic institutions.

Obtain material resources and human resources before initiating Quality procedures.

Academic freedom is a red line.

Provide the university administration beforehand with an ISO 9001-type approach.

Develop the evaluation culture.

Legislation must align with ES's sustainable development approach.

Provide relevant modules in quality for teachers.

The evaluation body should be seen as a tool of self-regulation.

Institutions must opt for a much more flexible status.

An academic institution must have a school project.

External evaluation should be generalized for public and private institutions.

The project must continue regardless of the institution's governance.

Expect great resistance.

Link State grants to evaluation results.

The fear of the rise of private institutions of quality.

Teachers spend less and less time in the school's life.

Evaluations must be made public.

It is necessary to go very gradually during the implementation of quality procedures.

Equity between regions must be effective.

No quality interlocutors available at the university level.

Improved internal and external quality.

The text legislating the proceeding has many shortcomings.

The results of numerous evaluations and diagnoses are not disseminated or interpreted.

Instance reports with search entities?

Reports of the instance with the quality managers?

Reports of the proceeding with the sectoral committees?


Texts legislating the instance = major constraint.

Involvement of all in the institution.

Do not deny the existing.

It requires the effective engagement of the upper sphere.

We must train teachers in Quality.

The LMD system is very poorly managed.

Painful decisions are inevitable.

Build relationships with high school and elementary school representatives.

Equity is a guarantor of Quality.

The institution must be perceived as a client.

Do not neglect the cultural and artistic disciplines.

The instance must be independent.

The fear of discrimination.

Establish the Information Watch.

Start with the administrative staff.

Relationships with upgrade committees, renovation, LMD ...?

Opt for EPST status for greater autonomy of institutions.

For quality cells, opt for young members.

Currently, total relaxation is a form of resistance.

Draw up a roadmap taking into account the current context.

Currently, there is a lack of external communication.


We must opt for universal standards especially for accreditation.

The instance is not independent which prohibits transparency and integrity.

The existing is mediocre.

Pessimism for the success of the instance in the current context.

The absence of traceability relating to previous evaluations, therefore no interest.

The regulatory texts of the proceeding are unclear.

The multiplication of committees is synonymous with failure.

The school project is an essential pre-requisite.

Support Quality cells.

Legislate the function of Quality Managers in each institution.

We must take ownership of Quality.

Have a Charter and commitment.

Seek international recognition

Involvement in Quality must remain voluntary and unpaid.

Clarify tasks and responsibilities in the Quality Group.

The Quality Manager must be competent and must have a direct link with the high sphere.

The Client must be the Societal.

Pay attention to relationships with private institutions and with national and international funders.

Institutions with dual supervision are often affected in terms of quality.

Should we deny previous diagnoses and opt for a new relevant diagnosis?

Relationship with the CTI?

The authority has no decision-making power.

Synthesis of the conclusions of the assistance workshop led by Mrs. Andrée Sursock and Mr. Eric Froment (Cité des Sciences - 18-19 / 04/2014)

Website (communication with interested parties)

Media Workshops (make known to the members of quality units of different institutions and different universities)

Traceability of previous evaluations (analysis of results and trends)

Foreign experience (literature)

Evaluation = priority (because of the mandatory and regulatory nature)

Client = public and private entities

= Institution and not university


- It is urgent to define a roadmap that outlines the strategy of the body. Clear and unambiguous goals must be set and clear progression


- There is a difference between evaluation and accreditation

- Evaluation = situate the institution's service against a repository (Quantify gaps, strengths, areas for improvement, recommendations)

- Accreditation = Factual Character = Compliant or Non-Compliant


- Internal evaluation = self-evaluation = it must be given an important consideration = Permanent involvement of quality cells. These cells must be revitalized.

However, avoid making their reports public. These reports should not be a tool for communicating with the public.


- External evaluation = to make public their reports but after a correct formalization and adapted by the instance

- The Board of the Proceeding = IEAQA Committee = all members


ATTENTION: The authority does not evaluate the policy and strategy of the political actors.


- The body evaluates the implementation of this policy.

- It's an operational instance.

- However, she can make recommendations and criticisms to the political actors.


- Involve the student as evaluated or as a member of the evaluation team = Relevant source to collect information

In addition, this involvement is one of the conditions required for mutual recognition between peers and to join the international bodies of quality assurance in higher education.


= former Leaderships (rector, director, dean, department head, laboratory manager ...)

- Member 1 = whatever his discipline (evaluation manager)

- Member 2 = Technical Evaluator (Specialist)

- Student (possibly)

- Training required for members of the evaluation team:

Evaluation techniques

Adopted standard

Report writing

Good practices

- The choice must relate to the following criteria:


Communication technique

Human qualities

Confidentiality undertaking and declaration of honor on the absence of conflicts of interest

When the student is engaged in the evaluation, he must be involved in a governance activity, non-unionized, honest and non-politicized

-Provide quickly a guide for:

the expert (tool for the exercise of the profession of the evaluator)

Establishment (client communication tool that integrates the entire assessment or accreditation process)

-Accreditation may relate to:

1 program

1 Establishing

2 at a time

The probable choice for Tunisia = to accredit a program because in the same establishment, there are important differences between the performances of the different programs

-The institution can provide support to the institution to be able to initiate its quality approach or to improve an initiative already initiated

-Choice of the repository

Adapted to the context of the country

With important cross-section

Incorporating a specific part in the disciplinary field

Reduce the number of repositories

Do not neglect some recently created regional standards

Do not forget the following criteria: societal (equity), employability and environmental protection

- Various recommendations

The evaluation must be non-penalizing. It must strengthen the role of the institution to avoid fragmentation. It must avoid the logic of classification

Internal evaluation should facilitate the conduct of the external evaluation

When mediating the Forum, avoid public discordance, listen without reacting too much and talk about the history,

Opt for a common repository with a generic that must prevail over the disciplinary

Do not organize the proceedings by disciplinary thematic and whatever the discipline, the instance must be collective

Overcoming resistances with points of support, seeking allies and seeking long-term logic

Start with a pilot to see if there are any imperfections in the practice of evaluation

- Some personal reflections presented in terms of the discussions and which were approved by the audience

The setting of objectives and priorities, the definition of tasks, responsibilities and authorities must comply with the regulatory requirements (texts 2008 and 2012).

The vision, mission, activities and objectives of the Mechanism would be defined as follows:


To be permanently involved in all activities related to quality assurance, evaluation and accreditation in higher education


Contribute effectively to improving the quality of teaching at the Tunisian university in collaboration with all interested parties (ministries, taxpayers, economic operators, students, institutions, sectoral committees, associations ...)


Services :



Advice, awareness, learning quality concept through workshops and seminars



Support and consolidate the concept of Quality Assurance at the Tunisian university via evaluation/accreditation / the adoption of standards/sensitization of decision-makers and stakeholders

Encourage institutions to become aware of the obvious interest of evaluation and accreditation through support, advice, information monitoring, availability of relevant reference documents, exchanges of expertise

Develop partnerships, networking with Arab, African and international counterparts to facilitate comparison and mutual recognition through the exchange of information, the exchange of experiences and the exchange of evaluators

Encourage studies and research on quality assurance in higher education through funding, a prize, the publication of a journal dedicated to quality assurance


The president of IEAQA

Pr Hamadi ATTIA