Three women, three similar fields of work, but three very different career paths: Simone Levionnois began as a nurse, went on to study veterinary medicine, and is now an Academic Quality Officer at the Vetsuisse Faculty of the University of Bern. The same role at the Faculty of Humanities Faculty is held by Judith Cormier in a job-share arrangement. She holds a master's degree in German studies and history, and later studied jazz saxophone. Isabel Perego completed her studies in political science and sociology with a focus on equal opportunities. She is now a research assistant for quality, equal opportunity, and the promotion of young talent at the Faculty of Law and says, “Equal opportunity and quality are very closely intertwined fields.” 

One thing is clear: working in quality assurance and development (QAD) was not the primary career goal for any of the three specialists, but it turned out to be an interesting role with many opportunities to shape things.  

«Our goal is transparency and a continuous improvement process,» explains Simone Levionnois. «We can learn a great deal from each other – there is no need to reinvent the wheel every time.»  

How well does the topic of quality assurance actually land with people outside the field? Does it make for good conversation at a social gathering? Judith Cormier reflects. «Quality isn't exactly a glamorous subject,» she admits, «but when I talk about the changes that QAD can bring about, people do start to listen.» One example: an evaluation at the Institute of History revealed that students were systematically delaying the submission of certain written assignments. This finding led to a revision of the plan of studies, and students must now complete a module before continuing their studies. «I find it satisfying to see how processes can be improved,» says Judith Cormier.

Added Value for Everyone Involved 

Things get really interesting when you explore why, in course evaluations at Cormier’s faculty, instructors are consistently rated much higher than their female colleagues. It’s important to note that the questionnaires students use to assess the quality of teaching are the same across the board—yet the ratings vary greatly. The three quality specialists agree on the reason for this: required courses are rated lower on average than elective courses. Now, the range of elective lectures and seminars in the humanities is broader than the options available at Vetsuisse or in the bachelor’s program at the Faculty of Law—a circumstance that skews the evaluations. 

The consequences of the evaluation, however, are the same across the board: the assessment has consequences if it is either very good or very poor. Faculty members with outstanding evaluations are awarded recognition for excellence in teaching (ALL), while those with inadequate evaluations are encouraged to pursue further training in teaching methods, for example through the professional development programs offered by the Learning and Development (LEAD) department. “The vast majority of faculty members take these evaluations very seriously,” emphasizes Isabel Perego, “the feedback loop works.” In short: This type of quality assurance adds value for everyone involved.

Context Matters 

Direct comparisons therefore do not always make sense when it comes to QSE—it depends on the context. This appears to be particularly true when evaluating research. Isabel Perego points out, for example, that international collaboration is less pronounced in the Faculty of Law due to the differences between legal systems. Consequently, for legal scholars, one criterion for assessing research quality—which is central elsewhere—is missing. 

Are there general differences in QSE between teaching and research? “I’ve noticed that evaluations in research are more sensitive than in teaching,” says Judith Cormier, “and even the selection of reviewers is a matter for university leadership.” This is hardly surprising, since strategic considerations also come into play when evaluating entire research areas or faculties. 

Every faculty may have its own particularities, but ultimately, faculty-level quality assurance is based everywhere on the same QSE guidelines. And Isabel Perego describes the role of the academic staff responsible for quality in this system as follows: “We are the bridge between the university administration and the faculties. In collaboration with the quality officers of the respective faculties, we integrate the university’s guidelines into the various on-site realities.” 

Accountability to Authorities and Society 

In fact, the “QSE Guidelines for Core University Tasks” apply to all areas of the University of Bern. Always in accordance with the maxim formulated therein: “As differentiated as academically necessary, as uniform and comparable as possible.” In doing so, it is important not least to take into account the “specific needs and traditions of the various disciplines,” as well as the “necessary comparability.” Quality assurance, as the guidelines make clear, serves not least to establish legitimacy: Among other things, the results of the evaluation make it possible “to demonstrate to students, the governing authorities, and society at large that the University of Bern is effectively and efficiently managing the further development of teaching and the promotion of early-career researchers.” 

The fact that the University of Bern is pulling together on QSE is also evident in the collaboration among quality assurance staff across the faculties, who meet several times a year to exchange experiences. “I find it very enriching to share best practices,” says Simone Levionnois. And Judith Cormier gets specific: “In discussions with colleagues from other faculties, we realized that our faculty must apply stricter criteria for recognizing outstanding teaching achievements to prevent an ‘inflation of awards.’” The exchange among colleagues, the three quality specialists explain, is not limited to formal meetings. While guidelines and the understanding of QSE may be the same across the entire university, questions inevitably arise when it comes to implementation at the grassroots level. A clarifying email can easily resolve such issues.