The IAC/EADI accreditation procedure involves the following main steps and processes:
Pre-Accreditation Check and Nomination of the Peer Review Team
IAC/EADI evaluates whether the requesting programme is accreditable according to its standards, and then appoints a Peer Review Team for the study programs to be accredited. Reasonable consideration is being given to the recommendations of the requesting programme. The Peer Review Team is composed of at least 2 peer reviewers/experts, a secretary and a student or alumnus, upon decision by IAC/EADI. The members of a Peer Review Team for a particular accreditation request are selected from among the persons on the IAC/EADI Peer Reviewers Register maintained by the EADI secretariat. When national regulations ask for it, the composition of the Peer Review Team can be adapted by the Accreditation Council.
Drafting of Self-evaluation Report
The programme presents a self-evaluation report to the Accreditation Council in which it describes and appraises itself according to the IAC/EADI Accreditation Criteria. The self-evaluation report is evaluated by the Accreditation Council and the Peer Review Team and additional information, argumentation and/or clarifications can be requested.
Peer Review on Site Visit
The Peer Review Team visits the programme requesting accreditation to collect information as a basis for the decision by the Accreditation Council. During the visit the Peer Review Team has interviews with relevant actors/representatives of the programme to collect further information.
The EADI secretariat organises and facilitates the accreditation processes, in collaboration with the IAC/EADI secretary general.
Peer Review Report
The Peer Review Team writes a report about its findings and presents arguments for the decision on accreditation of the programme by the Accreditation Council. The programme then has the opportunity to react to the draft of the Peer Review Report.
Accreditation Decision Procedures
The Peer Review Report and the programme reaction to the draft of the Peer Review Report is sent by email to all members of IAC/EADI. One or two Accreditation Council members are asked to critically review the Peer Review Report and summary assessment report, and prepare possible questions for the Peer Review Team. The original self-evaluation is sent to these members.
The members of the Peer Review Team can be invited to be present during the discussion on the Peer Review Report for supplementary information. The discussion and decision during an Accreditation Council meeting are based on all material available. The criteria upon which the decision on accreditation is based, are formulated in the IAC/EADI Guide (available on request).
Scale of Judgements
Each criterion will be appraised by the Accreditation Council. The rating for each criterion is the weighted appraisal for the elements that together form the criteria as contained in the IAC/EADI Guide. Each criterion is scored on a five-point scale.
All appraisals must be based on facts from the Self-evaluation Report and/or the Peer Review Report, as well as other material the council may request.
For the accreditation of a programme the scores on all criteria should be adequate or higher. However, a poor-score on one criterion can be compensated by a good-score on a related criterion, according to the judgement of the Accreditation Council. In doing so the Council will balance considerations of substantial conformance with the criteria and its assessment of overall programme quality given the unique mission of that programme.
The final judgement of the EADI Accreditation Council on the accreditation can be:
- accreditation (for a period of 5 years, and without conditions),
- no accreditation (the programme does not fulfil the requirements for accreditation sufficiently), or
- conditional accreditation (for a limited period not more than 3 years and with specific conditions).
If conditional accreditation is granted, the Accreditation Council will determine the period for the conditional accreditation (maximum 3 years). Before the ending of this period a second review (that might be limited in scope) can be conducted, followed by a decision by the Accreditation Council with final judgement on the accreditation of the requesting programme.
The positive decision on accreditation is made public. With the written permission of the programme the peer review report may be made public.
Contact the IAC/EADI for any questions