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