External review of the University of the Faroe Islands

The Review Team has found that the University of the Faroe Islands is working well. Significant developments over the last three plus years mean that the University is playing its full part in progressing towards the long-standing objective of the Faroe Islands to enter the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) and become formally part of the ‘Bologna Process’

"This Report is the final outcome of an independent Review of the University of the Faroe Islands commissioned by the Faroese Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Culture in 2021, and conducted across two visits, in October 2021 and September 2022.

To ensure periodic review of the University is a statutory responsibility of the Ministry. This review has been conducted
by a team of external, international experts commissioned by the Ministry, according to an agreed brief (see the brief, which is Appendix One in the separate document containing all appendices to this report).

Readers are strongly advised to review the report of the process of ‘reflective analysis’ which the University community conducted during the period under scrutiny (see Appendix Two).

This document contains the collective reflection of the University upon its own progress and challenges, and is presented according to guidelines and headings specified by the Review Team prior to the main review visit in September 2022.

It is the view of the Review Team that the Reflective Analysis (henceforth RA) document – in its process of construction and in its outcomes – is the most important part of the Review Process, because of its wide ownership across the University community and the document’s prior recognition of many of the issues outlined in our own Report. The RA provided an internally authored ‘agenda’ for the remainder of this collaborative Review.

Throughout the Report, for ease of understanding of the relevance that our recommendations have for the aspirations of the Ministry and University to become part of the European Higher Education Area and the ‘Bologna Process’, we refer readers to the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in European Higher Education Area (henceforth the ESG).

For the avoidance of doubt, readers should be aware that the Review Team was not asked to provide resource statements for its Recommendations – thus, if the Recommendations included here are to be actioned, there will, of necessity, need to be a consideration of both cost and benefit.

This Report has been drafted by the Chair of the Review Team assisted by all of the Review Team members. In a spirit of collaboration and ‘enhancement’, it has further benefitted from the comments of staff from the Ministry and the Rector and staff of the University."

Professor (Emeritus) Malcolm Foley, Chair and Leader of the Review Team

Professor Edit Bugge, Reviewer
Dr Maria Elena D’Amelio, Reviewer
Ms Karla Neslíð, Student Reviewer.
Rector Miquel Nicolau, Reviewer
Dr Andreas Rasch-Christensen, Reviewer

See the full report here.

See the appendices to the main report here.

Summary version:

Executive summary

In the continuing pursuit of this objective, Review Team members stressed the importance of the Ministry’s and Government’s actions in the approaching years (about which we have specific recommendations to follow below). This includes the importance of demonstrating a continuing and appropriate separation between the Ministry and the University, in keeping with the spirit of the Magna Charta Universitatum, of which the University in 2020 became a signatory.

While the University is firmly on the right path, there are further steps to be taken in both Quality Assurance and Quality Enhancement, which we highlight in our main narrative, and about which we also make specific recommendations. We are confident that all of these steps were known to the University prior to our visits and that many of them are already in progress or about to be initiated. We urge all of those with a stake in the success of the University to continue to focus purposively upon these matters.

The Faculty of Education, on which the Review Team was asked to have a particular focus, has also been making very good progress in recent years, in terms of leadership and in terms of engagement with the wider University’s culture and practices. The curricula of the main Faculty of Education programmes (for teachers and pedagogues) are fundamentally sound, and their practicum parts are consistent with those offered across the Nordic region and more widely. We recommend that the further development of these programmes will best be supported by their being the first in the University to be subject to the new Periodic Review arrangements proposed in our recommendations for the University as a whole.

We believe that the Faculty has an important role to play, not only in the education of teachers and pedagogues, but also in delivering continuous professional development to existing, already qualified teachers and pedagogues at all levels and at all stages in their careers.

A complete list of all of the recommendations proposed by the Review Team follows on the next pages.

Full list of recommendations

Recommendations regarding quality assurance of educational programmes, and the path toward full Faroese membership of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) and the Bologna process, are as follows:

The University and the Ministry should take early action to further deepen their relationship through a sustained campaign designed to normalise EHEA/European Standards and Guidelines (ESG) behaviours and language among all stakeholders as well as with the wider Faroese public, via the media. Everyone involved should understand what is at stake and how the objective is to be achieved.
The Ministry should take the lead in promptly producing an appropriate National Qualifications Framework as a key element for both entering the EHEA and to support contemporary flexible and lifelong learning. We urge all of those involved to accelerate this work, possibly drawing upon frameworks and expertise already available across Europe.
Within the University, and in close dialogue with the Ministry, a process of Programme Validation that is fully documented using agreed templates and procedures should be developed (ESG 1.2). A reasonable expectation could be a common, new Programme Validation document expressing the societal need, the academic arguments, the pedagogic intent, and the resource implications of any newly proposed Programme. It should also clearly state the intended learning outcomes for students and the pathways that graduates can expect to follow upon completion – including international pathways. Additional resources to support Programme Validation should be discussed between the University and the Ministry.
Also, within the University, a system of Periodic Review of existing programmes should be developed (ESG 1.9). It is reasonable to expect all Programme Teams to be reflecting continuously upon their overall ‘product’. At the level of the individual course, staff teams will be making ongoing adjustments to student learning, based upon student feedback, current academic developments in the specific field, pedagogic developments, and resources available (ESG 1.3). Additional resources to support Periodic Review should be discussed between the University and the Ministry.
A comprehensive document which could be called a Regulatory Framework should be developed by the University (ESG 1.1 & 1.8). We would like to see a single document which consolidates all forms of regulation in one place where it can be accessible, understood and used by students and staff.

Recommendations regarding quality enhancement of educational programmes are as follows:

Efforts to secure a single, purpose-designed learning and ‘life’ campus in Tórshavn should be redoubled by all the stakeholders. This should be a campus designed around the student experience, accessibility, and academic excellence with an eye to the attraction of both Faroe Islanders and international students.
The University should develop a Learning and Teaching Development Plan and a Research and Enterprise Development Plan which are consistent with the institution’s’ mission, strategy, and values (ESG 1.3). We recommend that these Plans are management-led, but at the same time collaboratively developed through the governance mechanisms of the University, so as to be collectively owned and actioned.
We suggest consideration towards some further offering to secure Faroese distinctiveness and evident contribution to Faroese society, also recognising the language ecology of the University. Common modules studied by students across the institution could help ensure that distinctiveness, particularly, but not only, in the area of Faroese language and culture. We believe that this kind of approach to distinctiveness is welcomed within the EHEA framework. Also, the university should decide when, where and why teaching will be conducted in English.
An Inclusivity Plan (to include Gender Equality) should be produced by the University. The Plan should cover both students and staff. We consider that this Plan will be essential when the University goes forward into its EHEA objective but also that it would further demonstrate to the entire community that the University takes a leadership role in social change in the Faroes.
The University should further support outward and inward student mobility and the ‘international offer’. It would be a significant advantage for the University to provide a more visible, named person and/or role dedicated to this, to whom all students could gravitate for encouragement, and support. Linked to this, but also for the sake of local students, more viable and accessible student accommodation should be provided by the relevant agencies.
A Lifelong Learning Plan should be developed by the University and supported by the Ministry. Evident and easily accessible flexible learning paths should be developed.
The University should further progress with its work towards the development of a Doctoral School. This offers opportunities to further support the already clearly articulated idea of a ‘single’ University, that extends beyond Faculty boundaries.
Further measures should be taken to encourage and enable cross Faculty interactions for students and staff, and progress should be made towards a common university calendar. In addition, the University should develop and implement a transparent workload allocation model for teaching and research staff across the institution. Finally, the University should further strengthen public information available to Faroese society, which makes transparent University decisions and performance.

Recommendations specifically concerning quality assurance and quality enhancement at the Faculty of Education are as follows:

The main educational programmes delivered by the Faculty are fundamentally sound, and their practicum parts, are in their main respects consistent with those offered across the Nordic region and more widely. We recommend that the further development of the programmes will best be supported by their being the first in the University to be subject to the new Periodic Review arrangements proposed in our earlier recommendations – a process which should be the de facto 'deep dive' into the curricula.
The Faculty should be supported by the relevant stakeholders to become a leading contributor to a process of Continuous Professional Development for all existing teachers and pedagogues in the Faroes, possibly, but not only, through master’s level provision. The recently created Co-operation Councils for the teacher and pedagogue educations can be expected to play a strong part in this important initiative.
Given the great current need for education professionals in the Faroes, consideration needs to be given by key stakeholders to government financial support to students and to the current programme structures to enable wider access to education of pedagogues, especially, but also teachers, through part-time and flexible learning.
In the short-term, there should be a continuing focus on ensuring that appropriate course documentation is always available to all students in good time.
Weaknesses identified in the Reflective Analysis documents regarding feedback to students within the Faculty should be addressed urgently, and should also be a matter for formalisation in the programme review process that we recommend above.
The strengthening of research in the Faculty is welcome. It is important that there should be a focus upon how a generation of researchers and research-driven teachers can be developed and supported, which will generate and transmit knowledge over time.
The excellent course in pedagogy for higher education should be the basis for a more extended offer for teaching staff, perhaps initially focusing on online learning, and perhaps later leading to the award of a master’s level diploma. The University and the Ministry should collaborate to ensure the resourcing required.

Read the joint letter of response from Ministry and University to the International Review Team here.