Expert knowledge in public
Revision of the Norwegian national Bachelor in Nursing
Ingrid TorsteinsonBergen Deaconess University College, Haraldsplass
ENQUA workshopOslo, Norway
Febr. 15th 2008
Three reports from 2005 to 2008
• 2005, Phase 1- the first report with two main requirements
• 2007, Phase 2 -requirements related to the program of study (curriculum)
• 2008, Phase 3 -requirements related to the competence of academic staff ( conclusions in June)
BA in Nursing- the first national revision of a programme of study
2005 • 31 BA in Nursing programs including 27 University colleges
were evaluated
• 1 of 31 was re-accredited
• The whole sector was effected by the joint conclusion; - For all institutions - a limit of 2 years to achieve 20% of the
academic staff to have senior lecturer/ professorial status
- In addition for 16 of 30 – In 1 year verify that the curriculum is based on research and developmental work
Challenges for the department as a consequence of the report
• Several practical and economical consequences had to be solved
• Strategic plans with milestones for how to meet the requirements
• Increasing the competence of the academic staff; - Who and how?
• The curriculum; –project work including all academic staff. Strong focus on literature. Further training for academic staff in evidence based practice
Did the report contribute to any important aspects of knowledge?
• The BA in Nursing program consists of 50% practical training.
- Different views of knowledge is of importance in a health profession study program;
evidence based, as well as experience based knowledge
• The report;- The practical training is given very limited focus
throughout the report
- An obvious direction for one view of knowledge through a very strong focus on evidence based knowledge.
Are there any differences in the reports of 2005 and 2007?
• ”Reports should be published and should be written in a style which is clear and readily accessible to its intended readership.” (ESG)
• 2005- Partly short formulated conclusions with lack of reasons
- Formulations with possibility for interpretation
Are there any differences in the reports of 2005 and 2007?
• 2007- This report is more clearly formulated.
- Gives the committee's interpretation of ” the study programme must be based on research and developmental work”
- Gives a reason for the conclusions
Some considerations for the public report
• Clear and ”simple ” formulations is of vital importance
• Is there a need for interpretation of central concepts?
• Given reasons for the conclusions
• Consider placement of the conclusion; - in the introduction, or at the end of the report?
Phase 1-Did the report have any influence?
• For the institution?
• For the department?
• For the students?
• For the public in general?
Do the reports have any authority?
• A negative decision will lead to the loss of accreditation; - the Agency for Quality assurance in Education have
sanction opportunities through the standards and criteria
• Requirements related to research and competence have had a very strong influence on the BA in Nursing program of study