Mission report of Activity: 4.1a Update on Bologna Context

EU Short Term Expert Mission Report 

1. Basic Information

Component and Activity:

Component: 4. Standards and Guidelines for QA in HE

Activity: 4.1a Update on Bologna Context

Name of the Experts: Ms Helka Kekäläinen, Head of Unit, FINEEC

Ms Heli Mattisen, Director of EKKA

Dates of the Mission: 25-29 January 2016

Contractor: Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC) /

   Estonian Quality Agency for Higher and Vocational Education (EKKA)

2. Relevant Background Information/State of Affairs

Azerbaijan started to implement the Bologna Process in 2005. In the Action Plan on the Implementation of the National Strategy for the Development of Education in the Republic of Azerbaijan (2013), the Ministry of Education (MoE) has set ambitious strategic objectives for the upcoming years. These extend from creating content of competency-based personality-oriented education to creation of a legislative framework for granting administrative, academic, financial and organizational autonomy to educational institutions in 2018-2020. The interviews with the MoE representatives indicated that there is also a plan to establish a new, independent evaluation agency within the next half a year. A draft has already been prepared and submitted to the Cabinet of Ministers.

Despite of some good examples, the interviews in the earlier missions have shown that general understanding of the fundamentals of internal QA systems and how it can serve HEIs institutional management is still at a very early stage in Azerbaijani higher education institutions.

On 15-16 December 2015, the first 2-day training of the Activity 4.1a was organised at Baku State University by STEs Kirsi Hiltunen and Helka Kekäläinen. The training consisted of introductory presentations and consequent discussions as well as a workshop. In the workshop, the participants conducted a self-evaluation on the ESG Standard 1.2 (Design and approval of programmes) and on the Standard 1.7 (Information management). In addition, these themes were discussed in small groups and good practices were shared.

3. Objectives and Tasks of the Mission

The overall aim of the Component 4 is to develop Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in higher education in Azerbaijan in line with the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance (ESG) and test them with three higher education institutions. The objective of the Activity 4.1a is to train and update BC experts on the EHEA context, the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance (ESG) as well as on EHEA trends and practice.

The second training of Activity 4.1a was targeted again for future QA experts, university staff and MoE staff. The aim was to give examples of good practice from Estonia, to share challenges that the Estonian system had faced and overcome, and to have a workshop in which the participants would apply the ESG Standards 1.3 (Student-centered learning, teaching and assessment) and 1.5 (Teaching Staff) into Azerbaijani higher education.

4. Time Schedule of the Mission

5. Achievement of the Expected Results

On 26-27 January, a 2-day training was organised in the form of introductory presentations by STEs and consequent discussions as well as a workshop at the Azerbaijani Language University. Consecutive interpretation was organised by the RTA’s office. The training and the workshop offered participants an opportunity to share experiences and good practices, too. Introductory presentations included “Quality Assurance of Higher Education in Estonia: Programme Approach” and “What is high quality education made of? Centres of Excellence in University Education in Finland”.

In the workshop, the participants conducted a self-evaluation on the ESG Standard 1.3 (Student-centered learning, teaching and assessment) and on the Standard 1.5 (Teaching Staff). In addition, these themes were discussed in small groups and good practices were shared. Discussions of the workshop were lively and intensive. The participants were given a written assignment with three questions to be answered: What are the benefits of programme accreditation based on ESG in Azerbaijani context? What are the benefits of institutional accreditation based on ESG in Azerbaijani context? What is your preference at the moment and why? The assignment is expected to be send by e-mail to RTA Reijo Aholainen by 1 February 5 PM.

The training gathered approximately 35 participants from several universities and MoE. Participants represented various actors of universities: university management, professors, teachers, administrative staff and staff responsible for quality assurance in their institutions.

On 28 January, a workshop on Estonian experience in establishing external QA agency was organised at the Ministry of Education. The discussion on Azerbaijani challenges was lively. STEs provided examples from the Estonian and Finnish QA system.

6. Unexpected Results

The STEs did not recognize any unexpected results.

7. Issues Left Open After the Mission

No issues were left open regarding the tasks of the mission.

8. Recommendations for Future Missions

Completion of the written assignment could be used as an entrance requirement for the last part of the training to be held in 23-24 February 2016.

9. Conclusions and General Remarks Concerning the Project

The number of the participants and their commitment to the training has been a very positive sign of the potential to develop the Azerbaijani higher education. Training provided a good platform for sharing experiences and disseminating good practices. However, there is still a need for the support in gaining deeper understanding and practical implementation of QA systems in Azerbaijani higher education institutions as well as in understanding the importance of involving students and external stakeholders in the quality work.

Mission report of Activity: 4.1a Update on Bologna Context

EU Short Term Expert Mission Report 

1. Basic Information

Component and Activity:

Component: 4. Standards and Guidelines for QA in HE

Activity: 4.1a Update on Bologna Context

Name of the Expert:

Ms Kirsi Hiltunen, Counsellor of Evaluation, FINEEC

Ms Helka Kekäläinen, Head of Unit, FINEEC

Dates of the Mission: 14-18 December 2015

Contractor: Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC) /

   Estonian Quality Agency for Higher and Vocational Education (EKKA)

2. Relevant Background Information/State of Affairs

Azerbaijan started to implement the Bologna Process in 2005. In the Action Plan on the Implementation of the National Strategy for the Development of Education in the Republic of Azerbaijan (2013), the Ministry of Education (MoE) has set ambitious strategic objectives for the upcoming years. These extend from creating content of competency-based personality-oriented education to creation of a legislative framework for granting administrative, academic, financial and organizational autonomy to educational institutions in 2018-2020. The interviews with the MoE representatives indicated that there is also a plan to establish a new, independent evaluation agency within the next half a year. A draft has already been prepared and submitted to the Cabinet of Ministers.

Despite of some good examples, the interviews in the earlier missions have shown that general understanding of the fundamentals of internal QA systems and how it can serve HEIs institutional management is still at a very early stage in Azerbaijani higher education institutions. It seems that the following standards and guidelines mentioned in the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG, 2015) are still not covered in the internal QA systems: policy for quality assurance, student-centred learning, teaching and assessment, information management for the effective management of their programmes and other activities and public information about their activities to society.

3. Objectives and Tasks of the Mission

The aim of the Component 4 is to develop Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in higher education in Azerbaijan in line with the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance and test them with three higher education institutions. The objective of the Mission (Activity 4.1a) is to train and update BC experts on the EHEA context, the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance (ESG) as well as on EHEA trends and practice. The training was targeted for future QA experts, university staff, students, working life representatives and MoE staff. The aim was to give examples of good practice from Finland, to share challenges that the Finnish system had faced and overcome, and to include a workshop in which the participants would apply the ESG into Azerbaijani higher education,

4. Time Schedule of the Mission

5. Achievement of the Expected Results

On 15-16 December, a 2-day training was organised in the form of introductory presentations by STEs and consequent discussions as well as a workshop at Baku State University. Consecutive interpretation was organised by the RTA’s office. The training and the workshop offered participants an opportunity to share experiences and good practices, too. Introductory presentations included an introduction to the project and to the Bologna process and the European Higher Education Area, examples and good practices from Finland in enhancing the quality of education, an introduction to the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ESG), as well as an introduction to student and stakeholder participation in QA of education.

In the workshop, the participants conducted a self-evaluation on the ESG Standard 1.2 (Design and approval of programmes) and on the Standard 1.7 (Information management). In addition, these themes were discussed in small groups and good practices were shared. Discussions of the workshop were lively and intensive.

The training gathered approximately 40 participants from several universities and MoE. Participants represented various actors of universities: university management, professors, teachers, administrative staff and staff responsible for quality assurance in their institutions. During the training, it became evident that institutions do not have autonomy in the design and establishment of study programmes. Furthermore, students and other stakeholders do not seem to be involved in the design of programmes. It was also brought up by some participants that ECTS are not implemented in a systematic way and that understanding and implementation of learning outcomes in the curriculum design is at a very early phase. However, some institutions do cooperation with international world-class universities and use these institutions as benchmarks. In general, there still seems to be need for improvement regarding the collection and utilization of key performance indicators, utilization of information regarding students’ satisfaction with their programmes and collection and utilization of information regarding career paths of graduates.                         

During the training, benefits and experiences of accreditation conducted in Azerbaijan were also discussed. Participants seemed to be satisfied with accreditations and recommendations they provide to the institutions.

On 17 December, a workshop on ESG adaptation in Azerbaijani higher education and on a roadmap for Institutional Arrangements was organised at the Ministry of Education. The discussion on the new ESG and especially Parts 2 and 3 was lively. STEs provided examples from the Finnish QA system

6. Unexpected Results

The STEs did not recognize any unexpected results.

7. Issues Left Open After the Mission

No issues were left open regarding the tasks of the mission.

8. Recommendations for Future Missions

There is a need for hands-on exercise in general concepts and implementation of QA. Participants also expressed a wish for hands-on exercise in formulating learning outcomes at different levels in relation to learning, teaching and assessment. It would also be important to involve BC students and other stakeholders in the further missions and trainings of the project.

9. Conclusions and General Remarks Concerning the Project

There is a great potential in Azerbaijani higher education institutions for implementing the ESG. However, there seems to be great differences with regard to the level of understanding of QA at higher education institutions. Training provided a good platform for sharing experiences and disseminating good practices. There is a need for the support in gaining deeper understanding and practical implementation of QA systems in Azerbaijani higher education institutions as well as in understanding the importance of involving students and external stakeholders in the quality work.

Activity: 4.3 Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Azerbaijan

TWINNING AZERBAIJAN

Support to the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Azerbaijan for Further Adherence of the Higher Education System to the European Higher Education Area (AZ-ad-EHEA)

AZ/14/ENP/OT/31

EU Short Term Expert Mission Report 

1. Basic Information

Component and Activity:

Component: 4. Standards and Guidelines for QA in HE

Activity: 4.3 Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Azerbaijan

Name of the Expert: Ms Kirsi Hiltunen

Dates of the Mission: 23-27 May 2016

Contractor: Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC) /

   Estonian Quality Agency for Higher and Vocational Education (EKKA)

2. Relevant Background Information/State of Affairs

Azerbaijan joined the Bologna Process in 2005. International cooperation in quality assurance has been an essential element of the Bologna Process aiming to create a European Higher Education Area. A central tool in the work has been the publication Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (also known as ESG). The revised ESG 2015 were adopted by the Ministers responsible for higher education in the European Higher Education Area in May 2015. As a result of the participative revision the responsible bodies are confident that they reflect a consensus among all the organisations and ministries involved on how to take forward quality assurance in the European Higher Education Area and, as such, provide a firm basis for successful implementation.

The focus of the ESG is on quality assurance related to learning and teaching in higher education, including the learning environment and relevant links to research and innovation. In addition, institutions have policies and processes to ensure and improve the quality of their other activities, such as research and governance. At the heart of all quality assurance activities are the twin purposes of accountability and enhancement. Taken together, these create trust in the higher education institution’s performance. A successfully implemented quality assurance system will provide information to assure the higher education institution and the public of the quality of the institution’s activities (accountability) as well as provide advice and recommendations on how it might improve what it is doing (enhancement). Quality assurance and quality enhancement are thus inter-related. They can support the development of a quality culture that is embraced by all: from the students and academic staff to the institutional leadership and management.

The ESG may be used and implemented in different ways by different institutions, agencies and countries. The EHEA is characterised by its diversity of political systems, higher education systems, socio-cultural and educational traditions, languages, aspirations and expectations. In order to create the Azerbaijani understanding of the ESG the Twinning project and the Azerbaijani Ministry of Education invited a drafting group to work on a proposal. The drafting group consists of stakeholders from Azerbaijani universities, representatives from the Ministry of Education, students and experts from Finland and Estonia.

3. Objectives and Tasks of the Mission

The aim of the Component 4 is to develop Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in higher education in Azerbaijan in line with the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance and test them with three higher education institutions. The objective of Activity 4.3 is to assist BC stakeholders with the elaboration of a concrete proposal for the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Azerbaijan (AzSG). A Drafting Group was appointed by MoE in April 2016 to work on AzSG. The aim of the Mission was to formulate a proposal for AzSG to be discussed and developed further in a national seminar on 1 June 2016, and at the same time to draft a manual (incl. the description of the evaluation procedure, assessment areas and criteria) for the pilot evaluations that will take place in spring 2017. After the national seminar, the input of the seminar will be analysed and a decision will be made on the final proposal.

4. Time Schedule of the Mission

Drafting group members:

Ms. Elmira Ismayilova, Baku State University

Mr. Ruslan Mammadov, Ganja State University

Mr.  Anar Naghiyev, Azerbaijan University of Languages

Ms. Nargiz Mammadova, Azerbaijan University of Languages

Mr. Tofig Ahmadov, Ministry of Education

Mr. Afgan Abdullayev, Ministry of Education

Mr. Sohrab Isayev, Azerbaijan State University of Economics

Ms. Elmira Manafova, Ministry of Education, ANO

Mr. Elshan Nuriyev, Ministry of Education, ANO

Ms. Helka Kekäläinen, Finland

Ms. Kirsi Hiltunen, Finland

Ms. Heli Mattisen, Estonia

Guest experts: Mr Natig Ibrahimov, Mr Emin Emrullayev

5. Achievement of the Expected Results

The main result of the mission is the preliminary draft of the manual for pilot evaluations.

Based on ESG, taking into account the National Strategy for the Development of Education in the Republic of Azerbaijan, previous interviews and discussions with different stakeholders, the STE’s Kirsi Hiltunen, Helka Kekäläinen and Heli Mattisen prepared the first draft of the manual: overall framework and objectives, description of the evaluation process, composition and tasks of the panel, assessment criteria and possible outcomes as well as the proposal for assessment areas and criteria.

The drafting group had a 3-day-workshop in Quba. The process of pilot evaluations as well as the possible modifications for further evaluations were discussed and the purpose of the external quality assurance elaborated. Different interactive methods were used in order to facilitate the discussions and agree upon the focus areas for improvement and define the aim of pilot evaluations. Following areas for improvement were defined: strategic management and internal quality assurance;  development of learning outcome based study programmes in accordance with the needs of the economy and expectations of the society; student centered teaching and learning; assessment of achieved learning outcomes; research based teaching and learning; internationalization; academic ethics.

The aim of pilot evaluations was set: to support the strategic management of institutions, provide external feedback to the institutions’ own internal quality assurance procedures as well as to inform internal and external stakeholders of the compliance of the process and outcomes of teaching and learning to the ESG. The pilot evaluations will have the institutional approach with the focus on teaching and learning. The evaluation report will provide recommendations for institutions’ further developments.

3 working groups were asked to elaborate and present criteria for (2-3) assessment areas proposed by STE-s (mission statement and strategic planning; governance and administration; study programmes; teaching and learning; research and development; academic staff; students). As the result of discussions 2 assessment areas (mission statement and strategic planning and governance and administration) were merged and all criteria were discussed during the last session on May 27.

Based on the results of the discussions, the STE’s drafted a modified version of the manual for pilot evaluations and made agreed amendments to the structure and content of the assessment areas.

Parallel to the main activity the discussions with the Accreditation and Nostrification Office have been carried out. The people from the ANO are very much aware about the benefit the Twinning project might have for the launching the new external quality assurance system in Azerbaijan and are eager to be involved in all relevant activities.

6. Unexpected Results

The active participation of the newly founded Accreditation and Nostrification Office in the drafting process was a very positive unexpected result of the mission.

7. Issues Left Open After the Mission

There is some more work to be done in the drafting of AzSG. Project Leaders and the RTA office should agree on the circulation of the draft within in MoE and institutions after the draft is finalized.

8. Recommendations for Future Missions

The next missions of Component 4 will take place in 29.8.-2.9.2016 and 12.-16.9.2016. The draft of the AzSG should be discussed in detail with the pilot institutions: Azerbaijan State Pedagogical University, Azerbaijan State University of Economics and Azerbaijan Technical University. The timetable for the 3 trainings for fostering the self-evaluation capacity of the institutions should also be agreed, as well as, the contact persons for the pilot evaluations in the universities should be appointed.

9. Conclusions and General Remarks Concerning the Project

Component 4 is labor intensive and some additional missions might be needed in order to receive the mandatory results in the best possible way. This should be kept in mind when the savings are calculated in the project.

Activity: 4.3 Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Azerbaijan

EU Short Term Expert Mission Report 

Basic Information

Component and Activity:

Component: 4. Standards and Guidelines for QA in HE

Activity: 4.3 Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Azerbaijan

Name of the Experts: Ms Helka Kekäläinen, Ms Heli Mattisen

Dates of the Mission: 23-30 May 2016

Contractor: Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC) /

   Estonian Quality Agency for Higher and Vocational Education (EKKA)

2. Relevant Background Information/State of Affairs

Azerbaijan joined the Bologna Process in 2005. International cooperation in quality assurance has been an essential element of the Bologna Process aiming to create a European Higher Education Area. A central tool in the work has been the publication Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (also known as ESG). The revised ESG 2015 were adopted by the Ministers responsible for higher education in the European Higher Education Area in May 2015. As a result of the participative revision the responsible bodies are confident that they reflect a consensus among all the organisations and ministries involved on how to take forward quality assurance in the European Higher Education Area and, as such, provide a firm basis for successful implementation.

The focus of the ESG is on quality assurance related to learning and teaching in higher education, including the learning environment and relevant links to research and innovation. In addition, institutions have policies and processes to ensure and improve the quality of their other activities, such as research and governance. At the heart of all quality assurance activities are the twin purposes of accountability and enhancement. Taken together, these create trust in the higher education institution’s performance. A successfully implemented quality assurance system will provide information to assure the higher education institution and the public of the quality of the institution’s activities (accountability) as well as provide advice and recommendations on how it might improve what it is doing (enhancement). Quality assurance and quality enhancement are thus inter-related. They can support the development of a quality culture that is embraced by all: from the students and academic staff to the institutional leadership and management.

The ESG may be used and implemented in different ways by different institutions, agencies and countries. The EHEA is characterised by its diversity of political systems, higher education systems, socio-cultural and educational traditions, languages, aspirations and expectations. In order to create the Azerbaijani understanding of the ESG the Twinning project and the Azerbaijani Ministry of Education invited a drafting group to work on a proposal. The drafting group consists of stakeholders from Azerbaijani universities, representatives from the Ministry of Education, students and experts from Finland and Estonia.

3. Objectives and Tasks of the Mission

The aim of the Component 4 is to develop Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in higher education in Azerbaijan in line with the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance and test them with three higher education institutions. The objective of Activity 4.3 is to assist BC stakeholders with the elaboration of a concrete proposal for the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Azerbaijan (AzSG). A Drafting Group was appointed by MoE in April 2016 to work on AzSG. The aim of the Mission was to formulate a proposal for AzSG to be discussed with the Advisory Group in the seminar on 1 June 2016, and at the same time to draft a manual (incl. the description of the evaluation procedure, assessment areas and criteria) for the pilot evaluations that will take place in spring 2017. After the seminar, the input of the seminar will be analysed and the draft will be developed further.

4. Time Schedule of the Mission

Drafting group members:

Ms. Elmira Ismayilova, Baku State University

Mr. Ruslan Mammadov, Ganja State University

Mr.  Anar Naghiyev, Azerbaijan University of Languages

Ms. Nargiz Mammadova, Azerbaijan University of Languages

Mr. Tofig Ahmadov, Ministry of Education

Mr. Afgan Abdullayev, Ministry of Education

Mr. Sohrab Isayev, Azerbaijan State University of Economics

Ms. Elmira Manafova, Ministry of Education, ANO

Mr. Elshan Nuriyev, Ministry of Education, ANO

Ms. Helka Kekäläinen, Finland

Ms. Kirsi Hiltunen, Finland

Ms. Heli Mattisen, Estonia

Guest experts: Mr Natig Ibrahimov, Mr Emin Emrullayev

5. Achievement of the Expected Results

The main result of the mission is the preliminary draft of the manual for pilot evaluations.

Based on ESG, taking into account the National Strategy for the Development of Education in the Republic of Azerbaijan, previous interviews and discussions with different stakeholders, the STE’s Kirsi Hiltunen, Helka Kekäläinen and Heli Mattisen prepared the first draft of the manual: overall framework and objectives, description of the evaluation process, composition and tasks of the panel, assessment criteria and possible outcomes as well as the proposal for assessment areas and criteria.

The drafting group had a 3-day-workshop in Quba. The process of pilot evaluations as well as the possible modifications for further evaluations were discussed and the purpose of the external quality assurance elaborated. Different interactive methods were used in order to facilitate the discussions and agree upon the focus areas for improvement and define the aim of pilot evaluations. Following areas for improvement were defined: strategic management and internal quality assurance;  development of learning outcome based study programmes in accordance with the needs of the economy and expectations of the society; student centered teaching and learning; assessment of achieved learning outcomes; research based teaching and learning; internationalization; academic ethics.

The aim of pilot evaluations was set: to support the strategic management of institutions, provide external feedback to the institutions’ own internal quality assurance procedures as well as to inform internal and external stakeholders of the compliance of the process and outcomes of teaching and learning to the ESG. The pilot evaluations will have the institutional approach with the focus on teaching and learning. The evaluation report will provide recommendations for institutions’ further developments.

3 working groups were asked to elaborate and present criteria for (2-3) assessment areas proposed by STE-s (mission statement and strategic planning; governance and administration; study programmes; teaching and learning; research and development; academic staff; students). As the result of discussions 2 assessment areas (mission statement and strategic planning and governance and administration) were merged and all criteria were discussed during the last session on May 27.

Based on the results of the discussions, the STE’s drafted a modified version of the manual for pilot evaluations and made agreed amendments to the structure and content of the assessment areas.

The overall framework and objectives as well as the reviewed assessment areas were translated into Azerbaijan in order to provide written material for the discussion to the Advisory Group consisting of the vice rectors and other representatives of different higher education institutions as well as representatives of the Ministry of Education. The preliminary draft of AzSG was presented to the Advisory Group by the STE’s Helka Kekäläinen and Heli Mattisen and members of the Drafting Group, representatives of the MoE Tofig Ahmadov and Afgan Abdullayev.

The members of the Advisory Group disputed the complexity of the standards and the extensive number of the criteria. Concrete proposal were made for the improvement: to put more focus on internationalisation, withdraw the criteria for funding etc. The STE’s reminded the participants of the enhancement lead approach of the pilot evaluations and of the need to distinguish between different types of external evaluations. As the enhancement lead approach is new for the institutions in Azerbaijan there is a need for further seminars and trainings which will be provided to the pilot institutions in autumn 2016 (Technical University, Pedagogical University, University of Economy).

The Twinning Office will publish the preliminary draft of AzSG on the website of the project in order to get written feedback about the assessment areas and criteria. The feedback will be considered and the necessary amendments made by the STE’s.  At the end of August a seminar for pilot institutions and Advisory Group members will be organized where the updated version of the manual for pilot evaluations will be discussed and the evaluation criteria agreed.

Parallel to the main activity the discussions with the Accreditation and Nostrification Office have been carried out. The people from the ANO are very much aware about the benefit the Twinning project might have for the launching the new external quality assurance system in Azerbaijan and are eager to be involved in all relevant activities.

6. Unexpected Results

The active participation of the newly founded Accreditation and Nostrification Office in the drafting process was a very positive unexpected result of the mission.

7. Issues Left Open After the Mission

There is some more work to be done in the drafting of AzSG. Project Leaders and the RTA office should agree on the circulation of the draft within in MoE and institutions after the draft is finalized.

8. Recommendations for Future Missions

The next missions of Component 4 will take place in 29.8.-2.9.2016 and 12.-16.9.2016. The draft of the AzSG should be discussed in detail with the pilot institutions: Azerbaijan State Pedagogical University, Azerbaijan State University of Economics and Azerbaijan Technical University. The timetable for the 3 trainings for fostering the self-evaluation capacity of the institutions should also be agreed, as well as, the contact persons for the pilot evaluations in the universities should be appointed.

9. Conclusions and General Remarks Concerning the Project

Component 4 is labor intensive and some additional missions might be needed in order to receive the mandatory results in the best possible way. This should be kept in mind when the savings are calculated in the project.

Mission report of Activity 2.7 Communication Strategy

EU Short Term Expert Mission Report 

1. Basic Information

Component and Activity:

Component: 2. Coordination and Networking

Activity: 2.7 Communication Strategy

Name of the Expert: Ms Liia Lauri

Dates of the Mission: 13-17 June 2016

Contractor: Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC) /

   Estonian Quality Agency for Higher and Vocational Education (EKKA)

2. Relevant Background Information/State of Affairs

The EU-Azerbaijan Twinning Project “Support to the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Azerbaijan for Further Adherence of the Higher Education System to the European Higher Education Area” is signed between the European Union, represented by the Delegation of the European Union to the Republic of Azerbaijan on one hand and the Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC) and Estonian Higher Education Quality Agency (EKKA) on the other hand. The Final Recipient of the Action is the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Azerbaijan (MoE).

The overall objective of the project is to further develop Azerbaijan’s higher education system through integration in the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). The purpose is to increase the institutional capacities of the Ministry of Education and other key institutions of Azerbaijan for the development of Bologna related policies and the implementation of the EHEA objectives and reference tools.

The objective of the Project in Component 2 of Networking and Coordination and Activity 2.7 of Communication Strategy is to assist the Ministry of Education in preparing a public awareness and communication strategy for the issues pertinent to EHEA and Bologna. The purpose is to support MoE in establishing coordination, networking and communication mechanisms leading to improved capacity and awareness of issues pertinent to EHEA and Bologna Process. The Bologna Process is a collective effort of public authorities, universities, teachers, and students, together with stakeholder associations, employers, quality assurance agencies, international organisations, and institutions, including the European Commission, where effective coordination, communication and networking is crucial for successful implementation.

3. Objectives and Tasks of the Mission

Based on the Twinning Contract, the aim of the mission is to carry out the activities of Component: 2 Coordination and Networking. The objective of Activity 2.7: Communication Strategy is to assist in preparing a public awareness and communication strategy on Bologna / EHEA issues and its implementation. In this regard, the specific objectives are:

• Review of the current communication methods and practices on Bologna/EHEA issues in Azerbaijan;
• Twinning Workshop on best practices for the MoE and other target groups;
• Planning of the implementation timetable and evaluation practices.

4. Time Schedule of the Mission

5. Achievement of the Expected Results

5.1. General observations related to the coordination, communication and networking on EHEA and Bologna

Progress Review:

Although Azerbaijan signed Bologna agreement already in 2005, there is weak awareness of benefits of EHEA related issues among wider audience in the country. The knowledge on the recent developments of higher education system in Azerbaijan remains vague. The communication and networking concerning EHEA issues is rather fragmented among different departments in the MoE and various stakeholders. The people involved in the MoE and in the universities are very committed but the activities related to EHEA communication require better coordination and networking in order not to overburden people involved in implementing it. 

Recommendations for MoE:

The Communication Strategy with objectives, target groups, key messages, communication channels, and evaluation will support the MoE in coordination and networking with the universities and stakeholders to implement EHEA with coherent and consistent national approach. It was agreed in the meeting that in the framework of the Component 2 and Activity 2.7, a coherent and consistent Communication Strategy will be developed based on the Draft Communication Strategy developed during Mission 1 to enhance the coordination, networking and communication of MoE with universities and stakeholders.

5.2. Defining key steps and actions for developing a Communication Strategy on EHEA and Bologna

Progress Review:

The Workshop at MoE on 14.06 discussed the framework of Draft Communication Strategy on a stakeholder`s perspective defining and prioritizing appropriate communication channels, tools and activities. The possibilities to evaluate impact of communication concerning EHEA activities were also analysed.The workshop applied the participative approach by involving the participants into the development of the Communication Strategy. There was a good understanding of the needs of different target groups regarding EHEA and Bologna related issues. The ideas of the participants were presented and discussed. The expert analysed and summarised the input of the participants and integrated into the Communication Strategy.

Recommendations for MoE:

Following recommendations are made in the Communication Strategy to tackle the current problems of communication and networking:

• The level of priority for EHEA issues in the MoE should be raised in order to better communicate to the management of HEIs and make the developments in EHEA also the priority for HEIs.
• The mandate of existing group of Higher Education Reform experts should be clarified. The group could be the bases for coordination of regular information sharing on EHEA related activities and projects among larger group of stakeholders including HEIs, student organizations, educational NGOs and employers representatives.
• The coordination of organization of regular trainings that is provided concerning EHEA should be developed. People participating in the trainings could be expected to be valuable resource to share knowledge and experience in their “home” organizations.
• Better coordination of communication-related activities concerning EHEA developments in Azerbaijan inside the MoE is advised. It is recommended to collaborate closely with the MoE PR and Information Department to enhance the communication.

5.3. Finalizing the Communication Strategy

Progress Review:

The draft Communication Strategy served as the bases to workshops on 14.06 and 16.06 at MoE. The participants of the workshop formulated and prioritized concrete means to reach particular stakeholder group as well as the possibilities to measure the effectiveness of communication concerning EHEA. On the workshop on 16.06 the participants gave feedback to the Communication Strategy and agreed on the recommendations made.

Recommendations for MoE and the Project:

It is recommended to share the results of the project also to the universities in terms of experts’ recommendations, e.g. in Component 3. The EHEA website can publish some of the Project related documents.

The results of the mission in terms of the Communication Strategy with annexes about Stakeholders groups and Evaluation tools as well as the Workshop Presentations are annexed to this report.

6. Unexpected Results

The STEs did not recognize any unexpected results.

7. Issues Left Open After the Mission

No issues were left open regarding the tasks of the mission.

8. Recommendations for Future Missions

The future missions concerning Component: 2 Coordination and Networking should be informed about the objectives and activities of the Communication Strategy.

9. Conclusions and General Remarks Concerning the Project

Mission report of Activity: 3.3. Aligning HE Qualifications and Curricula - Developing Doctoral study programs

TWINNING AZERBAIJAN

Support to the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Azerbaijan for Further Adherence of the Higher Education System to the European Higher Education Area (AZ-ad-EHEA

AZ/14/ENP/OT/31

EU Short Term Expert Mission Report 

1. Basic Information

Component 3: Developing Azerbaijan Qualification Framework

Activity: 3.3. Aligning HE Qualifications and Curricula - Developing Doctoral study programs

Names of the Experts: Mr. Karl-Erik Michelsen, Mr. Mati Heidmets

Dates of the Mission: 27 June - 1 July 2016

Contractor: Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC) /

Estonian Quality Agency for Higher and Vocational Education (EKKA

2. Relevant Background Information/State of Affairs

Doctoral education in Azerbaijan has long history. First degrees were awarded in the 1920s. Currently doctoral studies are carried out in universities and in the Academy of Science which is an independent scientific institution with large number of research institutions. Higher education in Azerbaijan is organized in three-cycle structure: undergraduate, postgraduate and doctorate. This structure follows the Bologna protocol which Azerbaijan signed in 2005.

Doctoral education has been recognized as an important part of Azerbaijan domestic policy in the future. In 2009 the President of the Republic approved the program to reform the higher education system in Azerbaijan and the program was carried out during 2009-2013. The goal was to improve the educational content and teaching technologies to ensure that Azerbaijan is compatible with the European system of higher education. New academic programs and scientific and methodological guidelines were issued and the governance of universities and other higher education institutions was reformed.  

From statistical point of view, Azerbaijan has significant resources to conduct scientific resource. In 2014 there were 145 institutions and more than 33.000 educated scientist engaged in research. More than 2500 of them had received the highest academic degree, The Doctor of Science. In the same year more almost 12.000 professionals with PhD engaged in research in scientific institutions. Also the number of universities (53) is high compared to the size of population.  

The structure of the doctoral education is an adaptation from the Soviet era. There are two levels in the system; the first level (PhD studies) are organized by universities. Students can choose to be full-time, part-time and independent PhD candidates. The timeframe for PhD varies from 3 years up to 6 years. PhD thesis is defended in the university, but the diplomas are awarded by the Higher Attestation Commission that has the power to approve or disapprove the dissertation.

The second level of doctoral studies leads to the degree of Doctor of Science. It takes officially from 4 to five years to complete studies, but in real life the time spent in this level of doctoral studies is between 6 and 10 ten years. The defense of dissertation is managed by the Higher Attestation Commission and the process is described as slow, heavy and bureaucratic.   

Students who pass the doctoral education (either PhD or Doctor of Science) can continue career in academia or seek employment in private sector or administration. There are several reasons why students decide to seek degrees in higher education. PhD degree gives them better chance to advance in professional careers and ensures them higher salaries. Doctor of Science degree opens careers in academia where private research and teaching ambitions can be fulfilled.

As mentioned above, there has been several initiatives and projects to reform the higher education system in since the beginning of 2000. It may be that the gap between Azerbaijan and Europe has narrowed, but the differences are still significant and the system of higher education in Azerbaijan is not compatible with the European higher education area. This fact has been recognized and as the Nizami report (WP.1.2. report, January 2016) concludes, the system is outdated and requires immediate upgrades, improvements and changes.

3. Objectives and Tasks of the Mission

The objective of this mission was to analyse both the structure and function of doctoral education in Azerbaijan. Based on the analyses practical recommendations are given to improve the system.

The objectives take off from the commonly agreed goal to orient doctoral education in Azerbaijan towards the European system of higher education.

The other goal of doctoral education in Azerbaijan is to enhance the production of high level scientific and technological knowledge and to educate new generation of professional scientists and engineers.

4. Time Schedule of the Mission

5. Achievement of the Expected Results

The aim of this mission was to assist Azerbaijan authorities and relevant stakeholders to improve and reform the higher education and research system to be more in align with the European Union higher education area. This mission focused specially on PhD programs. Foreign experts were expected to gain during the mission:

- Good understanding of the current situation of the PhD education in Azerbaijan.

- To pinpoint mismatches and bottlenecks which slow down and hinder harmonization of the Azerbaijan PhD education and research system with European practices.

-  Provide a roadmap for reforms to future doctoral degree programs;

Problems/mismatches

We were able to locate several problems in the PhD programs and in the governance of the programs, which are foreign or even contradict the common practices in the European Higher Education area:

1. Structure of the programs and human resources:

• Two level doctoral degrees, PhD and Doctor of Sciences. This is a heritage from the Soviet era and non-existing in any European country.
• -PhD programs don’t use credit system that is based on points. Also doctoral studies are without clear curriculum structure.
• -Higher attestation commission has strong powers to control dissertation process and to provide diplomas;
• Immigration law requires that at least 80% of the university staff should have Azeri citizenship;
• Supervisors for PhD candidates must have Doctor of Science degree. This is outdated requirement, because about 70% of potential supervisors are older than 65 years;

2. Malfunction of system:

• Only about 10% of PhD students graduate in time. Fulltime students are required to finish studies in 3 years and part-time students in 4 years.
• There is a clear lack of research infrastructure and support services. There is no free access to electronic databases and foreign scientific journals.
• There is weak international component in the PhD studies. Students publish mostly in national language and very few participates in foreign exchange programs;
• Dissertations are written in the form of monograph instead of article-based dissertations.

3. In-efficient use of resources:

• Currently the higher education system and PhD – programs in Azerbaijan are too costly because there are two parallel systems co-existing. Academy of Sciences employes more than 11 000 staff members and additionally there are 53 universities and several research institution. This heterogenous system of research results in-efficient use of financial and human resources. Salaries are low and the status PhD studies are also suffering from low status. Universities and Academy of Science has difficulties in attractin best talents and brains.
• There are several governmental institutions that govern and micro manage universities. This creates overlapping actitivies that eat up scarce resources.

6. Unexpected Results

No unexpected results occurred.

7. Issues Left Open After the Mission

The purpose of the mission was fulfilled and no issues were left open at the end of the mission.

8. Recommendations for Future Missions

It is very important to maintain the momentum of change. Higher education systems are slow and institutes often resist radical and also conservative changes. There are plenty of hidden power structures which become vulnerable when reforms are introduced. Therefore, there should short, midterm and long term reforms taking place in parallel. Short term changes should be implemented quickly to achieve positive results that bring positive energy to the academic community. Midterm reforms are more fundamental and their progress should be monitored carefully. Long term changes result from successful short and midterm changes.

We recommend that international group of experts assists Azerbaijan authorities and professional conducting this very important process. In the near future is needed at least missions for quality assurance, evaluation of contents of doctoral programs and internationalization of science.

9. Conclusions and General Remarks Concerning the Project

As a general conclusion we state following: Higher education system in Azerbaijan has all necessary elements in place. There are enough institutions, enough educated and trained scientists and enough government agencies to govern the system. Although we don’t have exact information regarding funding the system, we assume that there is no serious lack of financial resources that would hinder the development of the system. All interviews emphasizes the will of scientists and also administrators to engage in major changes of the system. What is, therefore, needed is a strong political action that would push the reforms in action. We want to emphasize that no foreign model could be implemented face-value in Azerbaijan, but foreign models are useful instruments and tools when the system undergoes radical changes. We also received positive feedback when concrete examples were given from Estonia and Finland on how similar reforms have been made and how the process has been handled accordingly. Finally we want to emphasize that no time should be wasted, because scientific environment to day is challenged by fundamental changes in society, economy and environment. Hence, the capability to produce new knowledge is and will be tremendously valuable asset and it cannot be replaced by transfer of knowledge or any other means.

Experience from several countries indicates, that reforming Soviet-type higher education programs is possible. In Estonia during 1993-1996 the national Academy of Sciences was transformed into personal academy, all research institutes of Academy were merged to universities. This boosted the research capacity of universities and helped them to improve the quality of the PhD programs. It also rationalized the use of financial resources that lead to the rise of salaries of researchers. During the reforms a large variety of higher education institutions (more then 30) were merged into 4 public universities and 2 academies (arts and music) which are currently responsible for teaching and training PhD students in Estonia. They are autonomous scientific institutions with full powers to issue academic degrees.

In order to assist Azerbaijan on this future path, we recommend following actions and reforms:

1. Training of high level researcher is currently done in too many institutions. Therefore, we find it necessary that doctoral programs should be concentrated in the large and well equipped universities that have passed rigorous quality assurance evaluations.
2. The two level PhD- degree program should be abolished and and replaced by one level PhD – degree that is compatible with the PhD programs in the European higher education area.
3. Dissertation work should evolve from monographs into article based dissertations. At least four peer-review articles + intellectually stimulating summary is needed to complete doctoral studies. Article based dissertation connects PhD students in the international scientific networks. In addition, objective peer review process validates dissertations and improves supervision.
4. Universities shold be given full autonomy in scientific matters. They are the place where scientific research is done in the future. This process requires quality assurance system that will evaluate scientific functions in the universities. Those institutions that pass the rigorous evaluation, should be granted rights to design and conduct programs that aim at BA, MA and also PhD degrees.
5. When the universities have achieved autonomy, there is no need for Higher attestation commission anymore.
6. Governance of higher education system should be changed to support and provide best possible infrastructure and environment for scientific research.

- Ministry of Education should cease to micro manage universities and adopt the role of science policy maker.

- Ministry of Education should take an active role in building networks and contracts with the European higher education area.

- Ministry of Education should provide funding for expensive and large-scale research infrastructure projects that will be used by all higher education institutions.

- The role of Academy of Science should be reconsidered. Reseearh institutions and researchers should be relocated into the universities where  the scientific research will be conducted in the future.

- Academy of Science should evolve to be a research funding agency, whose responsibiity is to design research programs and projects and to allocate research funding to the universities.

7. The scientific content of the doctoral programs should be re-design to assist PhD students to conduct high quality research. For instance, current mandatory course on philosophy should be replaced by courses that enhance skills in research design, methodology and writing a peer review article in English language.
8. Research infrastructure and environment should be improved by providing all PhD students and professional researhers a free access to electronic databases and foreign publications. In addition new laboratory and research facilities should be built and contracts with other countries signed to get access to national and transnational research infrastructure (for example CERN).
9. PhD students should have good and open access to international exchange programs and at least six months training abroad should be required from all students. In addition supervision of PhD studies should be given to domestic as well as international scientific experts.
10. To promote the internationalization of Doctoral programs there should be considerable investments in improving English language skills of students and staff. Additionally foreign experts need to be invite to serve as opponents and members of the defense panels. Efforts should be made to open doors for international PhD student exchange programs.

Recommendations on doctoral studies to the Ministry of Education of Azerbaijan

TWINNING AZERBAIJAN

Support to the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Azerbaijan for Further Adherence of the Higher Education System to the European Higher Education Area (AZ-ad-EHEA)

Annex to the Mission Report of Activity 3.3. (Aligning HE Qualifications and Curricula - Developing Doctoral study programs) 1. July 2016

Short Term Experts Mr. Karl-Erik Michelsen and Mr. Mati Heidmets

STE recommendations to the Ministry of Education and for future missions

STE recommendations to the Ministry of Education and for the project future missions

Objectives and Tasks of the Mission

The objective of this mission was to analyse both the structure and function of doctoral education in Azerbaijan. Based on the analyses practical recommendations are given to improve the system.

The objectives take off from the commonly agreed goal to orient doctoral education in Azerbaijan towards the European system of higher education.

The other goal of doctoral education in Azerbaijan is to enhance the production of high level scientific and technological knowledge and to educate new generation of professional scientists and engineers.

Relevant Background Information/State of Affairs

Doctoral education in Azerbaijan has long history. First degrees were awarded in the 1920s. Currently doctoral studies are carried out in universities and in the Academy of Science which is an independent scientific institution with large number of research institutions. Higher education in Azerbaijan is organized in three-cycle structure: undergraduate, postgraduate and doctorate. This structure follows the Bologna protocol which Azerbaijan signed in 2005.

Doctoral education has been recognized as an important part of Azerbaijan domestic policy in the future. In 2009 the President of the Republic approved the program to reform the higher education system in Azerbaijan and the program was carried out during 2009-2013. The goal was to improve the educational content and teaching technologies to ensure that Azerbaijan is compatible with the European system of higher education. New academic programs and scientific and methodological guidelines were issued and the governance of universities and other higher education institutions was reformed.   

From statistical point of view, Azerbaijan has significant resources to conduct scientific resource. In 2014 there were 145 institutions and more than 33.000 educated scientist engaged in research. More than 2500 of them had received the highest academic degree, The Doctor of Science. In the same year more almost 12.000 professionals with PhD engaged in research in scientific institutions. Also the number of universities (53) is high compared to the size of population.  

The structure of the doctoral education is an adaptation from the Soviet era. There are two levels in the system; the first level (PhD studies) are organized by universities. Students can choose to be full-time, part-time and independent PhD candidates. The timeframe for PhD varies from 3 years up to 6 years. PhD thesis is defended in the university, but the diplomas are awarded by the Higher Attestation Commission that has the power to approve or disapprove the dissertation.

The second level of doctoral studies leads to the degree of Doctor of Science. It takes officially from 4 to five years to complete studies, but in real life the time spent in this level of doctoral studies is between 6 and 10 ten years. The defense of dissertation is managed by the Higher Attestation Commission and the process is described as slow, heavy and bureaucratic.   

Students who pass the doctoral education (either PhD or Doctor of Science) can continue career in academia or seek employment in private sector or administration. There are several reasons why students decide to seek degrees in higher education. PhD degree gives them better chance to advance in professional careers and ensures them higher salaries. Doctor of Science degree opens careers in academia where private research and teaching ambitions can be fulfilled.

As mentioned above, there has been several initiatives and projects to reform the higher education system in since the beginning of 2000. It may be that the gap between Azerbaijan and Europe has narrowed, but the differences are still significant and the system of higher education in Azerbaijan is not compatible with the European higher education area. This fact has been recognized and as the Nizami report (WP.1.2. report, January 2016) concludes, the system is outdated and requires immediate upgrades, improvements and changes.

Conclusions and General Remarks

It is very important to maintain the momentum of change. Higher education systems are slow and institutes often resist radical and also conservative changes. There are plenty of hidden power structures which become vulnerable when reforms are introduced. Therefore, there should short, midterm and long term reforms taking place in parallel. Short term changes should be implemented quickly to achieve positive results that bring positive energy to the academic community. Midterm reforms are more fundamental and their progress should be monitored carefully. Long term changes result from successful short and midterm changes.

We recommend that international group of experts assists Azerbaijan authorities and professional conducting this very important process. In the near future is needed at least missions for quality assurance, evaluation of contents of doctoral programs and internationalization of science.

As a general conclusion we state following: Higher education system in Azerbaijan has all necessary elements in place. There are enough institutions, enough educated and trained scientists and enough government agencies to govern the system. Although we don’t have exact information regarding funding the system, we assume that there is no serious lack of financial resources that would hinder the development of the system. All interviews emphasize the will of scientists and also administrators to engage in major changes of the system. What is, therefore, needed is a strong political action that would push the reforms in action. We want to emphasize that no foreign model could be implemented face-value in Azerbaijan, but foreign models are useful instruments and tools when the system undergoes radical changes. We also received positive feedback when concrete examples were given from Estonia and Finland on how similar reforms have been made and how the process has been handled accordingly. Finally, we want to emphasize that no time should be wasted, because scientific environment to day is challenged by fundamental changes in society, economy and environment. Hence, the capability to produce new knowledge is and will be tremendously valuable asset and it cannot be replaced by transfer of knowledge or any other means.

Experience from several countries indicates, that reforming Soviet-type higher education programs is possible. In Estonia during 1993-1996 the national Academy of Sciences was transformed into personal academy, all research institutes of Academy were merged to universities. This boosted the research capacity of universities and helped them to improve the quality of the PhD programs. It also rationalized the use of financial resources that lead to the rise of salaries of researchers. During the reforms a large variety of higher education institutions (more then 30) were merged into 4 public universities and 2 academies (arts and music) which are currently responsible for teaching and training PhD students in Estonia. They are autonomous scientific institutions with full powers to issue academic degrees.

Recommendations

1. Training of high level researcher is currently done in too many institutions. Therefore, we find it necessary that doctoral programs should be concentrated in the large and well equipped universities that have passed rigorous quality assurance evaluations.
2. The two level PhD- degree program should be abolished and and replaced by one level PhD – degree that is compatible with the PhD programs in the European higher education area.
3. Dissertation work should evolve from monographs into article based dissertations. At least four peer-review articles + intellectually stimulating summary is needed to complete doctoral studies. Article based dissertation connects PhD students in the international scientific networks. In addition, objective peer review process validates dissertations and improves supervision.
4. Universities shold be given full autonomy in scientific matters. They are the place where scientific research is done in the future. This process requires quality assurance system that will evaluate scientific functions in the universities. Those institutions that pass the rigorous evaluation, should be granted rights to design and conduct programs that aim at BA, MA and also PhD degrees.
5. When the universities have achieved autonomy, there is no need for Higher attestation commission anymore.
6. Governance of higher education system should be changed to support and provide best possible infrastructure and environment for scientific research.

- Ministry of Education should cease to micro manage universities and adopt the role of science policy maker.

- Ministry of Education should take an active role in building networks and contracts with the European higher education area.

- Ministry of Education should provide funding for expensive and large-scale research infrastructure projects that will be used by all higher education institutions.

- The role of Academy of Science should be reconsidered. Reseearh institutions and researchers should be relocated into the universities where  the scientific research will be conducted in the future.

- Academy of Science should evolve to be a research funding agency, whose responsibiity is to design research programs and projects and to allocate research funding to the universities.

7. The scientific content of the doctoral programs should be re-design to assist PhD students to conduct high quality research. For instance, current mandatory course on philosophy should be replaced by courses that enhance skills in research design, methodology and writing a peer review article in English language.
8. Research infrastructure and environment should be improved by providing all PhD students and professional researhers a free access to electronic databases and foreign publications. In addition new laboratory and research facilities should be built and contracts with other countries signed to get access to national and transnational research infrastructure (for example CERN).
9. PhD students should have good and open access to international exchange programs and at least six months training abroad should be required from all students. In addition supervision of PhD studies should be given to domestic as well as international scientific experts.
10. To promote the internationalization of Doctoral programs there should be considerable investments in improving English language skills of students and staff. Additionally foreign experts need to be invite to serve as opponents and members of the defense panels. Efforts should be made to open doors for international PhD student exchange programs.

Mission report of Activity 2.3 Roadmap for Institutional Arrangements

EU Short Term Expert Mission Report 

1. Basic Information

Component and Activity:

Component: 2. Coordination and Networking

Activity: 2.3 Roadmap for Institutional Arrangements

Name of the Experts: Prof.  Kauko Hämäläinen

                   Director Rait Toompere

Dates of the Mission: 11-15 July 2016

Contractor: Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC) /

   Estonian Quality Agency for Higher and Vocational Education (EKKA)

2. Relevant Background Information/State of Affairs

3. Objectives and Tasks of the Mission

The objective of the activity  2.3 (Roadmap for institutional Arrangements) is to assess the present institutional set up within the MoE and in the related institution, based on comparison with best practices in similar administrative set up in EHEA, and recommend improvements for the overall institutional architecture.

In the first meeting with the Moe representatives and Reijo Aholainen the objective of the mission was defined to start to plan a platform for better communication with HEI´s, different stakeholders and MoE. The development and finalizing the planning of a platform will go on in the next two missions of experts.

During the first meeting Rait Toompere  presented, how services for HEI`s are organized in Estonia in the Archimedes Foundation. Kauko Hämäläinen presented the work of Finnish Education Evaluation Centre. The objective was to present different practices in both countries and analyze, which of them are potentially good practices to think about in Azerbaijan. The organizations in Estonia and Finland are very special in a way, that Archimedes is combining many kinds of student services and  evaluations and in Finland FINEEC has combined the evaluations of all levels of education (from kindergartens to higher education) to the same organization.

In the discussions with Reijo Aholainen the main objective of the mission is to organize seminars for Erasmus+ and EHEA experts and representatives of the HEI´s and MoE to present good practices from Finland and Estonia and to plan possibilities and means of networking in this area.

4. Time Schedule of the Mission

5. Achievement of the Expected Results

Seminars, a workshop and meetings with MoE experts was organized as planned.

6. Unexpected Results

Accreditation and recognition were not the main focus of our mission, but they are anyway important partners for HEI´s. We had possibility to visit the new Accreditation and Notrification Center. We told our experiences from Finland and Estonia, how we started to create evaluation and recognition functions. They have now six persons working full time for the unit. The final number at the beginning will be 12. From our experience it is a proper number of professionals to create and implement a well-functioning system. E.g FINHEEC started with six persons and it has been growing gradually and number of staff is about 10, who are working for HE.

ANO is using as starting point the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area. This is a procedure, which can be strongly supported. ANO has just started to develop their accreditation system, e.g. evaluation criteria’s and standards, training of evaluators, possible international cooperation.

The personnel of ANO is very willing to ask comments of their evaluation model, when it is ready and translated into English. This Twinning-project can be one good forum to help them finalize the evaluations manuals.

In the future there are many interesting questions for ANO to think about and solve:

- What is the role of accreditation in developing HE in AZ based on up-to-date evaluation information? What are the central problems HE system is meeting in society and are evaluations really concentrating in societally important and critical themes?

- Is accreditation alone enough to support MoE in decision-making or are other forms of evaluation needed?

- Which are the most effective ways to disseminate evaluation results?

- How ANO can support HEI`s in developing useful and effective quality management systems in HEI´s?

- How to combine internal and external evaluations?

- What kind of international cooperation and networking could be useful and possible?

7. Issues Left Open After the Mission

The following questions came out during the final discussion in the end of this Mission:

How students unions can work more effectively in networks to support higher education development? The project could bring good examples from Finland and Estonia to demonstrate good practices.

During the rest of the projects practical examples of support services organized jointly together with different HEIs could be demonstrated.

Who has responsibility to initiate new networks and what could be the first steps?

What MoE can do to improve the visibility in communication with HEIs? How to build a trust between MoE and universities?

During the mission we described good practices of networking. There have been also critical points in implementing them. In the following missions it can be interesting to describe them in order to try to avoid them.

8. Recommendations for Future Missions

This was the first mission in trying to develop communication and networking between universities, stakeholders and MoE. During this mission we informed experiences from Finland and Estonia in creating organizations for evaluations, international cooperation, recognitions and other relevant services connected to the Bologna process. Also the creation of platforms for cooperation was started. The structure and process how to proceed was planned.

Main findings 1: Need of a platform for networking

During the meeting with MoE representatives (13.07.2016), they stressed a need for more cooperation in different levels. There is insufficient communication, networking and coordination within and between the MoE, the HEIs and stakeholders. There is a need for enhancing coordination and networking.

Improving communication requires a platform, permanent coordinating structure between the MoE, the HEIs and stakeholders. Summing up the MoE representatives opinion there is a need for Azerbaijan model or models of networking with stakeholders in the field of higher education.

Recommendations for MoE: Composition of the platform is crucial. It is important to find out all stakeholders of the platform and to define their roles. Together with improving co-operation by a platform, probably there is also need for changes in university system e.g. joint study programmes or merging smaller institutions.  It can be difficult to coordinate and develop higher education institutions if they are under the different ministries.

 For proper functioning of the platform it`s necessary to compile co-operation agreement (covenant). Cooperation agreement should consist of following parts:

• Network Mission

Definition of the strategic need, formulation of the strategic goals and ways of achieving strategic goals.

• Platform Objectives and Activities

There should be clear composition of primary objectives and core activities (externally and internally).

Key results have exceptional importance and they should be carefully analysed.

The Agenda setting should be in compliance with the activities and expected results.

• Network Operations

Together with the composition of the cooperation platform, it is necessary to fix leadership, role and composition of the coordination group. It is a question of ownership and sustainable functioning of the platform. How the coordination group will be formed and how to strive for a balanced representation of network members should be solved transparently.

The first coordination group will be responsible for e.g. drafting the agenda, preparing meetings, keeping the process going on between meetings, alignment with the MoE, information procedures, external and internal communication processes and organising any reflection and follow up in general.

The Coordination Group establishes information flows and communication channels in order to build up and maintain the necessary transparency, participation and trust between network members.

Financing of the cooperation platform, representation, frequency and location are also important to decide.

Main findings 2: Rector´s conference

There are in AZ some examples of good practices of cooperation and networking of HEI`s to develop e.g. some special topics, like quality assurance systems, career centers and student mobility. Anyway more systematic networking between HEI´s could be useful for developing national higher education and separate HEI´s.

E.g. in Finland two rector´s conferences have been working very effectively, one for universities (15 members), one for universities for applied sciences (18 members). They promote higher education, research and arts by addressing far-reaching, university-related issues. The aim is to influence the Finnish higher education and research policy, and to promote the common interests of universities and closer cooperation between them. They are active also in international co-operation. They have actively established relationships with European affiliate and umbrella organisations. Also developing the European Higher Education Area is an example of international co-operation.

Recommendation

It could be good to develop one or more rector´s conferences in AZ. The number of them should be decided based on the needs of different kinds HEI´s. In practice it can be motivating for HEI´s if they implement their networks by themselves and also pay the expenses from their own budgets.  E.g. in Finland both conferences have 2-3 full time experts working for them.

The tasks of the conferences can be as follows (based on Finnish experiences):

• to influence and promote higher education policy in AZ
• to promote co-operation between universities and exerts influence on the international stage
• to provide universities with prerequisites for high-quality, work-oriented higher education as well as research, development and innovation.

So the conferences can have a role at national and institutional level. They can influence the development the higher education, it´s legislation and regulations, funding and intellectual resources. Members can be rectors of universities (actual members) and also representatives of university owners (supportive members).

Practical networking matters can be overseen by a board (or e.g. executive committee). In Finland it is comprised of the President and five other members, who are elected at the annual meeting. The President and other Board members serve a term of two years. Members convene at joint meetings held a few times each year. Board meetings are generally held once a month. It is common also to have working groups. In Finland there are working groups in Education, R&D, International Activities, Administration, Finance and Legislation. Various projects and seminars are also organized annually in Finland by the conferences.

Main findings 3: Regional cooperation

There are plenty of HEI´s in AZ compared to the number of population. Majority of them are in Baku. In some countries like Finland universities in a same region has started to merge with each other’s or move parts of institution to another structurally or functionally. It is also common that HEI´s create support systems and facilities together (e.g. libraries, ICT-services, student support services and even teaching facilities). Regional cooperation and merging has been a trend in many countries in Europe, Estonia and Denmark being as pioneers from 2005 and many other countries have followed like German, France and Finland.

Many HEI´s have also started to divide the programs they are teaching, so that there are not too many similar programs close each other’s in one region.  The idea is to concentrate teaching and research into bigger units to enhance the level of teaching and research. So both merging and autonomous institutions working in partnership are examples of trends in European HE.

In some countries universities have been developing cooperation and merging voluntarily, in some countries government has been backing to combine institutions and made the decision. One objective have been to create bigger universities with many study fields and disciplines together. Mergers are also a way of "streamlining" and reducing duplication.

One objective has been to support the capacity of HEIs in becoming better in international comparisons. In Finland the government wanted to tackle different performance of  Finland's universities in international rankings, compared with the country's top ratings at school level in the Pisa test rankings. E.g. in Estonia mergers have been a way of coping with a demographic decline of young people

It is not guaranteed that merging is useful. Bigger universities can gain higher profiles and increase their reputations. One positive example in Finland is Aalto University, which has been going up 50 places in international rankings in a couple of years after merging two universities and part of a third university. Anyway mergers need a lot of time, positive attitude from the institutes and energy to be successful. Saving money should not be the main reason to merge because return on investment takes many years.

Recommendation

It could be good to think about closer cooperation between universities functioning in same areas in AZ. Functional co-operation can be easiest to implement (common ICT-services, libraries, student services etc.). The objectives can be same as described above.

Main finding 4: International cooperation and academic networks

In parallel with creating local and national cooperation platforms it`s useful to take part in international cooperation and academic networks. Academic life today is marked by cooperation of universities and stakeholders across borders and by the presence of higher education networks of various types and geographic context. Even more, networks are cooperating actively with each other. Cooperation in such a way is a new phenomenon of 21^st century and we have big variety of different, mainly non-governmental, international associations in the field of higher education. For example there are associations for universities like European University Association or Coimbra Group.

There are very many thematic networks like Association for Teacher Education in Europe or European Consortium of Innovative Universities. There are very active students networks as European Student`s Forum and European Student`s Union. There are higher education support structures as European Association for International Education (EAIE) and International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE). Academic Cooperation Association (ACA) connects institutions financing and promoting international cooperation in the field of higher education.

Recommendation

We recommend MoE to analyse Azerbaijan needs and situation in the field of international associations in higher education. If necessary MoE can support or recommend universities or students organisations to join some associations.

For example during the meeting in ANO (13.07.2016), ANO representatives expressed the need to have better cooperation with students and get more quality input from students side. Cooperation Azerbaijan student organisations with international student organisations could help to improve cooperation at home because international organisations have lot of experience and good practices in different fields.

9. Conclusions and General Remarks Concerning the Project

Testing the proposals for networking and platforms:

Open seminar on “Networking universities and cooperation with stakeholders” took place on Thursday, 14.07.2016 at 14-17 in the University of Oil and Industry.

Main objective of the seminar was to analyse the needs for cooperation and networking and to facilitate the preparation of a medium term work plan/roadmap for improving coordination and networking within and between Azerbaijan higher education institutions and with their stakeholders and the Ministry of education. The seminar was attended more than fifty participants from different universities.

The moderator of the seminar Mr. Sülhaddin Gozalov from Ministry of Education held an opening speech, where he stressed the need for deeper cooperation and gave some examples. Professor Kauko Hämälainen gave a presentation of “Networking between universities and cooperation with working life” and gave examples of good practices in Finland. Mr. Rait Toompere spoke about “Networking between universities and international cooperation”. He described how various is today international cooperation between higher education institutions and stakeholders. He described the four proposals mentioned in chapter 7 above and also a methodology how to establish cooperation platform.

After some spontaneous speeches from audience, questions for working groups were presented by the representative of the Ministry of Education, Mr. Sülhaddin Gozalov:

• Please think about Azerbaijani model for networking and cooperation with stakeholders
• What kind of problems may arise with the implementation of this model?
• What are the expectations from the MoE, HEIs and labor market?
• Is there any need for change in legislation?
• How university management shall be changed to make the above-mentioned model work?
• Is there a need for establishment of a new body? What kind of body it shall be?

There was brainstorming according questions in small groups to get ideas and visions from audience. Feedback was given from seven working groups. Feedback varied in content and details, but all working groups agreed, that networking is essential. Further efforts are needed to meet society challenges. Several speakers stressed a need for deeper and effective cooperation between universities and business life. There are many big national problems in HE, which could be tried to solve with better cooperation.

Even there was clear need for developing cooperation and networking, there were different opinions e.g. what should be the combination of rectors conferences. Some participants proposed that they should be based on disciplines or study fields, like medicine, technical studies and education. Also there can be big differences of the needs of small and poor universities and big and well-functioning institutes. Some people doubted, what can be the role of networking in a situation, when there are hard competition between universities.

Working groups gave written feedback from results of the discussions to the MoE representatives for further analyses. According to questions and open seminar results there is a need during the next missions to make next steps to achieve concrete results. During next visits the content and implementation of the platform should be planned together with local authorities.

At the beginning it can be best, that MoE is active in creating and starting new networks, otherwise nothing happens. During the next two mission it can be clarified, how this can happen in practice.

Mission report of Activity: 4.3 Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Azerbaijan

EU Short Term Expert Mission Report 

1. Basic Information

Component and Activity:

Component: 4. Standards and Guidelines for QA in HE

Activity: 4.3 Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Azerbaijan

Name of the Expert: Ms Helka Kekäläinen and Ms Heli Mattisen

Dates of the Mission: (31.8.) 1-2 September 2016

Contractor: Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC) /

   Estonian Quality Agency for Higher and Vocational Education (EKKA)

2. Relevant Background Information/State of Affairs

In order to create the Azerbaijani understanding of the European Standards and Guidelines for quality assurance in higher education, ESG the Twinning project and the Azerbaijani Ministry of Education invited a drafting group to work on a concrete proposal for the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Azerbaijan (AzSG) in April 2016. The drafting group consists of stakeholders from Azerbaijani universities, representatives from the Ministry of Education, students and experts from Finland and Estonia. Also the representatives of the newly founded Accreditation and Nostrification Office, ANO joined the 3-day drafting seminar that was held in Quba in May 2016.  The seminar was successful and resulted in first draft of Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance of Higher Education in Azerbaijan – Manual for Pilot Evaluations. During the summer, ANO had drafted their own version of Accreditation standards for higher education institutions.

3. Objectives and Tasks of the Mission

The task of the mission was to finalize the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance of Higher Education in Azerbaijan – Manual for Pilot Evaluations document in collaboration with the Quba drafting group and the representatives of the Accreditation and Nostrification Office, ANO. The working method was to compare the two standards and look for solution that would serve both the Twinning project objectives and ANO’s interest in testing their standards with international experts.    

4. Time Schedule of the Mission

5. Achievement of the Expected Results

The STEs finalized the draft of the Manual for Pilot Evaluations after the discussions with the Quba drafting group and ANO. The result will be circulated among the participant of the drafting and MoE representatives.

6. Unexpected Results

The STEs did not recognize any unexpected results.

7. Issues Left Open After the Mission

If any changes to the Pilot manual seem necessary after the circulation, the STEs have to deal with that via e-mail. 

8. Recommendations for Future Mission

The next missions of the Component 4 will take place in 26.-30.9.2016, 10.-14.10.2016 and 28.11.-2.12.2016. The STEs will support the self-evaluation process in the pilot universities (Azerbaijan State Pedagogical University, Azerbaijan State University of Economics and Azerbaijan Technical University). The Ministry of Education in collaboration with the Twinning office will send an official letter to the pilot institutions to remain them of the up-coming pilot evaluations and to ask to appoint a contact person for the process.

9. Conclusions and General Remarks Concerning the Project

Component 4 is labor intensive and some additional missions might be needed in order to receive the mandatory results in the best possible way. This should be kept in mind when the savings are calculated in the project.

Misison report of Activity 2.4 Steering and Coordinating

EU Short Term Expert Mission Report 

1. Basic Information

Component and Activity:

Component: 2. Coordination and Networking

Activity: 2.4 Steering and Coordinating

Name of the Expert: Mr Kauko Hämäläinen

                   Mr Rait Toompere

Dates of the Mission: 5-9 September 2016

Contractor: Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC) /

   Estonian Quality Agency for Higher and Vocational Education (EKKA)

2. Relevant Background Information/State of Affairs

This project is based on the recommendation from Activity 2.3, Roadmap for Institutional Arrangements.

3. Objectives and Tasks of the Mission

Continue the activity 2.3. preparation of a medium term work plan/roadmap for coordination and networking.

Support the preparation of ToR for steering, coordinating and training bodies and/or mechanisms.

4. Time Schedule of the Mission

5. Achievement of the Expected Results

Main objectives of the mission was to support the development of networking and cooperation between MoE, universities and stakeholders. The preparation of a roadmap and taking first steps in implementing parts of it was the focus of our work. The next version of the roadmap is in chapter 8.

Especially the planning of a rector´s conference got started. First version of regulations for rector´s conference was done already 1996, but nothing has happened to implement it. Now a new draft of regulations was discussed and also an implementation plan was developed.

Feedback of the study visit to Helsinki and Tallinn was very positive. Representatives of both MoE and HEIs´ (Vusala Gurbanova and Ragit Gasmov) reported main findings and reflections of their visit and both sides were very satisfied about what they have learned. They presented many ideas which they can bring to their own work in AZ, e.g. in quality assurance, role of students, use of feedback surveys, funding of universities and networking.

The third component of the week was the Open seminar, where about 40 participants took part. People came from MoE, HEIs and Student´s Union. Our recommendations were analysed in the seminar.

6. Unexpected Results

None.

7. Issues Left Open After the Mission

Look at our recommendations below.

8. Recommendations for Future Missions

Recommendation 1: Establishing a platform or platforms for better networking

There is a need for Azerbaijan model or models of networking with stakeholders in the field of higher education to develop the level of higher education. There is insufficient communication, networking and coordination within and between the MoE, the HEIs and stakeholders. Better coordination and networking could be helpful in enhancing HE.

Improving communication requires a platform, which could be a permanent coordinating structure between the MoE, the HEIs and stakeholders.

The tasks of the platform could be the following:

• To promote higher education policy and practice e.g.
  • Mobility and recognition
  • Graduate employability and labor market relevance
  • Learning outcomes
  • Intenal and external evaluations
  • Lifelong learning / professional development
  • Strenghtening involment of stakeholders
• To support structural changes, e.g. creating joint study programs and merging universities or programs

• To support the development of
  • (work-oriented) teaching,
  • high level and relevant research and
  • innovations

Roadmap how to proceed

The establishment of an electronic Newsletter could be the first step to create a platform. The tasks of a Newsletter can be:

• Improving communication and common uderstanding among the stakeholders
• Uniting into a single information platform all possible parties
• Collecting information in a way, that all participants could have a voice in a Newsletter
• Informing what is in focus at the national and international level
• Informing about financing possibilities
• Identifying the main needs in HE

Successful launch of the Newsletter helps in creating formalised platform(s).

Composition of the platform is crucial. It is important to find out all stakeholders of the platform and to define their roles. Together with improving co-operation by a platform, probably there is also need for changes in university system e.g. joint study programmes or merging smaller institutions.  It can be difficult to coordinate and develop higher education institutions if they are under the different ministries.

For proper functioning of the platform it`s necessary to compile co-operation agreement (covenant). Cooperation agreement should consist of following parts:

• Platform Mission

Definition of the strategic need, formulation of the strategic goals and ways of achieving strategic goals.

• Platform Objectives and Activities

There should be clear composition of primary objectives and core activities (externally and internally).

Key results have exceptional importance and they should be carefully analysed.

The Agenda setting should be in compliance with the activities and expected results.

• Platform Operations

Together with the composition of the cooperation platform, it is necessary to fix leadership, role and composition of the coordination group. It is a question of ownership and sustainable functioning of the platform. How the coordination group will be formed and how to strive for a balanced representation of network members should be solved transparently.

The first coordination group will be responsible for e.g. drafting the agenda, preparing meetings, keeping the process going on between meetings, alignment with the MoE, information procedures, external and internal communication processes and organising any reflection and follow up in general.

The Coordination Group establishes information flows and communication channels in order to build up and maintain the necessary transparency, participation and trust between network members.

Financing of the cooperation platform, representation, frequency and location are also important to decide.

Recommendation 2: Establishing Rector´s conference

Azerbaijan has examples of good practices of cooperation and networking of HEI`s to develop e.g. some special topics, like quality assurance systems, career centers and student mobility. Anyway more systematic networking between HEI´s could be useful for developing national higher education and separate HEI´s.

Rector´s conferences have been working very effectively in many countries. They promote higher education, research and arts by addressing far-reaching, university-related issues. The aim is normally to influence higher education and research policy, and to promote the common interests of universities and closer cooperation between them. They are active also in international co-operation. They have established relationships with European affiliate and umbrella organisations. Also developing the European Higher Education Area is an example of international co-operation. So summary of the tasks is:

• To promote common interests of universities
• To influence higher education and research policy
• To support international co-operation
• To develop the European Higher Education Area to meet European standardsDeclaration of quality (mutual recognition)
• Organizing study-related/scientific conferences, workshops and symposiums

Roadmap how to proceed

It could be good to develop one or more rector´s conferences in AZ. The number of them should be decided based on the needs of different kinds of HEIs. In practice it can be motivating for HEIs if they implement their networks by themselves and also pay the expenses from their own budgets.  E.g. in Finland both conferences have 2-3 full time experts working for them.

Examples of the tasks of the conferences in AZ can be as follows:

• To provide universities with prerequisites for high-quality, work-oriented higher education as well as research, development and innovation
• to influence and promote higher education policy in AZ
• to promote co-operation between universities
• to promote international cooperation
• to learn good practices from each others

So the conferences can have a role at national and institutional level. They can influence the development the higher education, it´s legislation and regulations, funding and intellectual resources.

Members can be rectors of universities or universities (actual members) and also representatives of university owners (supportive members). Rectors are normally representatives of universities in the meetings.

Network can start at voluntary basis with those who are willing to join and which are under MoE. Their rectors together with representatives from MoE can write the first regulations for it as well as strategy for next 2-4 years. Later they can accept more members.

Regulations should include at least the following topics:

• Purpose of cooperation
• Main functions
• Criteria for membership
• Funding
• Management bodies and structure
• Selection of chairman, vice-chairman, secretariat
• Regular meetings and possible working groups

At the beginning it could be good, if MoE can support new rector´s conferences economically, but later universities could pay a member fee and organize conferences, seminars etc. to collect the money needed for the budget of the networks. How much each member is paying can depend on the size of a university.

Practical networking matters can be overseen by a board (or e.g. executive committee). It can include e.g. the President / Chairman and five other members, who are elected at the annual meeting. The President and other Board members serve a term of two years. (One year can be too short for effective working). Members convene at joint meetings held a few times each year. Board meetings can be hold e.g. once a month or even more often, if something urgent must be prepared.

It is common also to have working groups. In Finland there are working groups in Education, R&D, International Activities, Administration, Finance and Legislation. Various projects and seminars are also organized annually in Finland by the conferences.

Recommendation 3: Regional cooperation

Regional cooperation and merging has been a trend in many countries in Europe, Estonia and Denmark being as pioneers from 2005. Many other countries have followed like German, France and Finland. In Finland the government wanted to tackle different performance of Finland's universities in international rankings, compared with the country's top ratings at school level in the Pisa test rankings. E.g. in Estonia mergers have been a way of coping with a demographic decline of young people.

Universities in a same region has started to merge with each other’s or move parts of institution to another structurally or functionally. It is also common that HEI´s create support systems and facilities together (e.g. libraries, ICT-services, student support services and even teaching facilities).

Many HEI´s have also started to divide the programs they are teaching, so that there are not too many similar programs close each other’s in one region.  The idea is to concentrate teaching and research into bigger units to enhance the level of teaching and research. So both merging and autonomous institutions working in partnership are examples of trends in European HE.

In some countries universities have been developing cooperation and merging voluntarily, in some countries government has been backing to combine institutions and made the decision. One objective have been to create bigger universities with many study fields and disciplines together. Mergers are also a way of "streamlining" and reducing duplication. One objective has been to support the capacity of HEIs in becoming better in international comparisons.

It is not guaranteed that merging is useful. Bigger universities can gain higher profiles and increase their reputations. One positive example in Finland is Aalto University, which has been going up 50 places in international rankings in a couple of years after merging two universities and part of a third university. Anyway mergers need a lot of time, positive attitude from the institutes and energy to be successful. Saving money should not be the main reason to merge because return on investment takes many years.

Roadmap how to proceed

It could be good to think about closer cooperation between universities functioning in same areas in AZ. Functional co-operation can be easiest to implement (common ICT-services, libraries, student services etc.). The objectives can be same as described above. Rector´s conference can be one forum to plan and implement local cooperation.

Recommendation 4: Increasing participation in international cooperation and academic networks

In parallel with creating local and national cooperation platforms it`s useful to take part in international cooperation and academic networks. Academic life today is marked by cooperation of universities and stakeholders across borders and by the presence of higher education networks of various types and geographic context. Even more, networks are cooperating actively with each other. Cooperation in such a way is a new phenomenon of 21^st century and we have big variety of different, mainly non-governmental, international associations in the field of higher education. For example there are associations for universities like European University Association or Coimbra Group.

There are very many thematic networks like Association for Teacher Education in Europe or European Consortium of Innovative Universities. There are very active students networks as European Student`s Forum and European Student`s Union. There are higher education support structures as European Association for International Education (EAIE) and International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE). Academic Cooperation Association (ACA) connects institutions financing and promoting international cooperation in the field of higher education.

Roadmap how to proceed

We recommend MoE to analyse Azerbaijan needs and situation in the field of international associations in higher education. If necessary MoE can support or recommend universities or students organisations to join some associations.

Student organisations need financial support to participate in international cooperation.

For example during the meeting in ANO (13.07.2016), ANO representatives expressed the need to have better cooperation with students and get more quality input from students side. Cooperation Azerbaijan student organisations with international student organisations could help to improve cooperation at home because international organisations have lot of experience and good practices in different fields.

MoE could also analyse marketing needs of Azerbaijan higher education and be up to date on activities what other countries are doing. Azerbaijan is very progressive country in its international presentation. You have organized many events of World and European importance. Higher education could be also very good reason to promote Azerbaijan as a good study destination together with rich culture, beautiful country and nice people.  It`s useful to join regularly EAIE and NAFSA events, what are the World biggest higher education fairs, to get good ideas, join international workshops and ensure large visibility of Azerbaijan higher education.

9. Conclusions and General Remarks Concerning the Project

Results from the Open seminar

In the Open seminar recommendations above was discussed. Mainly recommendations for a new newsletter and cteation a rectors´ conference was discussed. All participant agreed that it is important to develop both of them.  Time seems to be ripe and right to get started. General opinion seemed to be, that universities are stronger together than anole.

The following questions were raised:

• Who are representing universities, only rectors or also other professionals e.g. deans or directors of some units?
• Is participation voluntary or mandatory at the beginning?
• Where will the office be (in a university, in different building e.g.)
• Who decides the focus of the network?
• What can the legal status of the conference be?
• Can stakeholders from industry or from other stakeholder groups be partners in the conference?
• How the new network should be called (association, conference etc.)?

It is good now to go on planning the regulations together with representatives from HEIs. During our next visit the we could analyse and reflect the next version. A new rector´s conference could start in some form already at the beginning of next year. Also the planning of the newsletter could be started in MoE with the help of STEs of this Twinning project.

There were very positive cooperation between representatives from MoE, project organization and STEs. There were clear need to develop networking, especially recrtor´s conference and newsletter mentioned in 8.