Assessment of the degree programmes in Public Administration at Leiden University

Transcription

1 Assessment of the degree programmes in Public Administration at Leiden University QANU & EAPAA / Public Administration, Leiden University / March 2011 / Q252

2 Quality Assurance Netherlands Universities (QANU) Catharijnesingel 56 P.O Box RA Utrecht The Netherlands Phone: +31 (0) Fax: +31 (0) Internet: European Association for Public Administration Accreditation (EAPAA) P.O. Box AE Enschede The Netherlands Phone: +31 (0) Fax: +31 (0) Internet: QANU/EAPAA 2 QANU & EAPAA / Public Administration, Leiden University

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Part I: General Part 5 1. About this report 7 2. Task and composition of the assessment committee 7 3. Working method of the assessment committee Domain-specific requirements Public Administration, Public Governance, and Governance and Organization (PAGO) Programmes, Part II: Programme Report Report on the bachelor s programme Public Administration and the master s programme Public Administration at Leiden University 21 Appendices 63 Appendix A: Curricula vitae of the members of the assessment committee 65 Appendix B: Composition of the assessment committtee per site visit 69 Appendix C: Programme of the site visit to Leiden University 71 Appendix D: Joint QANU-EAPAA assessment framework 73 Appendix E: List of materials studied by the committee during the site visit 79 QANU & EAPAA / Public Administration, Leiden University 3

4 4 QANU & EAPAA / Public Administration, Leiden University

5 PART I: GENERAL PART QANU & EAPAA / Public Administration, Leiden University 5

6 6 QANU & EAPAA / Public Administration, Leiden University

7 1. About this report In this document, the Public Administration 2010 assessment committee reports its findings. The report consists of two parts: a general part and a programme report. The assessment committee assessed fifteen degree programmes offered by seven universities in the Netherlands. Its findings are laid down in separate reports for the various universities. The assessment was jointly organized and conducted by QANU (Quality Assurance Netherlands Universities) and EAPAA (the European Association for Public Administration Accreditation). The purpose of the co-operation between QANU and EAPAA was to enable programmes to apply for accreditation both at national level and at European level. The general part, which is the same in every report produced by the assessment committee, summarizes the tasks, the composition, the documentation and the working methods used by the committee. This part of the report also contains the domain-specific requirements for Public Administration, Public Governance and Governance and Organization Programmes that were used by the assessment committee. The programme report describes the evaluation and assessment of the programmes offered by a specific university. The programme part is structured in accordance with the accreditation criteria of the NVAO (the Accreditation Organization of the Netherlands and Flanders) and EAPAA. 2. Task and composition of the assessment committee 2.1. The task of the assessment committee The task of the Public Administration 2010 assessment committee was to evaluate and assess fifteen degree programmes at seven universities in the Netherlands on the basis of an assessment framework which incorporates the accreditation criteria defined by the NVAO (the Accreditation Organization of the Netherlands and Flanders) and EAPAA (the European Association for Public Administration Accreditation). The assessment committee was expected to assess relevant aspects of quality of the programmes involved on the basis of information provided by the faculties and programmes in self-evaluation reports and of the outcomes of discussions held with representatives of various target groups during the site visits. The assessment committee has been requested to assess the following programmes (including the Dutch name when applicable, the modes of study and the CROHO registration number): Utrecht University Bachelor s programme Public Administration and Organization Science (Bestuurs- en organisatiewetenschap, full time, 50007) Master s programme Public Administration and Organization Science (Bestuurs- en organisatiewetenschap, full time and dual, 60446) Tilburg University Bachelor s programme Public Administration (Bestuurskunde, full time, 56627) Master s programme Public Administration (Bestuurskunde, full time, 66627) QANU & EAPAA / Public Administration, Leiden University 7

8 Leiden University Bachelor s programme Public Administration (Bestuurskunde, full time, 56627) Master s programme Public Administration (full time, 60020) Radboud University Nijmegen Bachelor s programme Public Administration (Bestuurskunde, full time, 56627) Master s programme Public Administration (Bestuurskunde, full time, 66627) Erasmus University Rotterdam Bachelor s programme Public Administration (Bestuurskunde, full time, 56627) Master s programme Public Administration (full time, 60020) VU University Amsterdam Bachelor s programme Public Administration and Organization Science (Bestuurs- en organisatiewetenschap, full time, 50007) Master s programme Public Administration (Bestuurskunde, full time and part time, 66627) University of Twente Bachelor s programme Public Administration (Bestuurskunde, full time, 56627) Master s programme Public Administration (full time, 60020) Master s programme European Studies (full time, 69303) 2.2. The composition of the assessment committee The assessment committee consisted of four chairs and twelve members. The site visits were conducted by a chair and four additional committee members. The list below contains the names of all members of the assessment committee and specifies in which assessments each of them participated. Appendix A lists short curricula vitae of the committee members. Chairs: prof. dr. C. (Christoph) Reichard, emeritus professor of Public Management, Universität Potsdam (DE), for the assessment of the programmes of Leiden University, Radboud University Nijmegen, VU University Amsterdam and the University of Twente; prof. dr. J.J. (Jaap) Boonstra, professor of Organizational Change and Learning at the University of Amsterdam, professor of Organizational Dynamics at Esade Business School in Barcelona, for the assessment of the programmes of Utrecht University; prof. dr. J.A. (Hans) de Bruijn, professor of Public Administration at Delft University of Technology, for the assessment of the programmes of Tilburg University; prof. dr. H. (Harald) Sætren, professor of Administration and Organization Theory, Universitetet i Bergen (NO), for the assessment of the programmes of Erasmus University Rotterdam. Members: prof. dr. J. (Juraj) Nemeç, professor of Public Finance, Univerzita Mateja Bela (SK), for the assessment of the programmes of Utrecht University, Tilburg University, Leiden University, Radboud University Nijmegen and Erasmus University Rotterdam; 8 QANU & EAPAA / Public Administration, Leiden University

9 prof. dr. J. (John) Loughlin, professor of European Politics at Cardiff University (UK), as of 1 October 2010 Fellow and Affiliate Lecturer in Politics at St Edmund's College, Cambridge University (UK), for the assessment of the programmes of Utrecht University and Tilburg University; prof. dr. T. (Tony) Bovaird, professor of Public Management and Policy, University of Birmingham (UK), for the assessment of the programmes of Leiden University and Radboud University Nijmegen; prof. dr. H. (Harald) Sætren, professor of Administration and Organization Theory, Universitetet i Bergen (NO), for the assessment of the programmes of VU University Amsterdam; prof. dr. M. (Michael) Hill, emeritus professor of Social Policy, University of Newcastle upon Tyne (UK) and visiting professor at Queen Mary College, University of London (UK), for the assessment of the programmes of Erasmus University Rotterdam, VU University Amsterdam and the University of Twente; prof. dr. M. (Mirko) Vintar, professor of Informatics in public administration and e- government, Univerza v Ljubljani (SI), for the assessment of the programmes of the University of Twente; mr. drs. A.J. (Arthur) Modderkolk, former director of the Province Noord-Brabant, former secretary of De Open Ankh foundation, for the assessment of the programmes of Utrecht University, Radboud University Nijmegen and the University of Twente; dr. A.A.M. (Louis) Meuleman, secretary/director of The Advisory Council for Research on Ppatial Planning, Nature and the Environment (RMNO), for the assessment of the programmes of Tilburg University and Leiden University; dr. C.J.M. (Kees) Breed, Secretary of the Council for Public Administration and the Council for Financial Relations, for the assessment of the programmes of Erasmus University Rotterdam; drs. H. (Henk) Nijhof, party chairman Groen Links, for the assessment of the programmes of VU University Amsterdam; T. (Tom) Degen, student Public Administration at Leiden University, for the assessment of the programmes of Utrecht University, Tilburg University, Erasmus University Rotterdam and VU University Amsterdam; J. (Janneke) van der Heijden, student Public Administration at Tilburg University, for the assessment of the programmes of Leiden University, Radboud University Nijmegen and the University of Twente. Given the large number of degree programmes to be assessed and the short period during which the site visits were planned, QANU and EAPAA decided at an early stage to work with a pool of committee members. For each site visit, QANU and EAPAA selected a committee from this pool. Several factors were taken into consideration for the composition of the committees, including the independence of the committee members, any potential conflicts of interest, the availability of the committee members, and their content-related expertise. Appendix B contains a list of the composition of the committee at the various site visits. Drs. S. (Sietze) Looijenga, QANU staff member, acted as overall project coordinator of the assessment of the Public Administration programmes. He also served as secretary for the site visit at Tilburg University. Secretary for the site visit at Utrecht University, Radboud University Nijmegen and the University of Twente was drs. L.C. (Linda) te Marvelde, QANU staff member. Secretary for the site visit at Leiden University was drs. R.L. (Reinout) van Brakel, advisor at PWC, on secondment at QANU for this purpose. Secretary for the site visit at Erasmus University Rotterdam was drs. J. (José) van Zwieten, advisor at PWC and on QANU & EAPAA / Public Administration, Leiden University 9

10 secondment at QANU. Secretary for the site visit at VU University Amsterdam was drs. R.L. (Renate) Prenen, self-employed advisor. As required by the protocols used by QANU and EAPAA, all members of the assessment committee signed a declaration of independence to establish that they were in a position to judge independently, without any bias, personal preference or personal interest, and that their judgement would be made without undue influence from the institutes or the programmes to be assessed or other stakeholders. The secretaries of the assessment committee signed a declaration of independence as well. 3. Working method of the assessment committee 3.1. General preparations for the assessment In the autumn of 2009, the representatives of the programmes in Public Administration and Organization Science decided that they would use the upcoming assessment of their programmes for a dual purpose: to obtain accreditation both from the NVAO, the Accreditation Organization of the Netherlands and Flanders, and from EAPAA, the European Association for Public Administration Accreditation. They invited Theo van der Krogt, secretary-general of EAPAA, and Sietze Looijenga, deputy director of QANU, to develop a proposal for the assessment to achieve this purpose. Theo van der Krogt and Sietze Looijenga developed an assessment framework which combined the requirements of the NVAO and EAPAA. They used the NVAO s framework for existing degree programmes as a starting point and added standards and criteria for aspects of the programmes which are covered by EAPAA s assessment framework, but which do not play a role in the NVAO s framework. The joint assessment framework consists of six themes and 26 standards, five of which refer to requirements imposed by EAPAA exclusively. The joint assessment framework has been formally approved both by the NVAO and EAPAA. It served as the starting point for the process of self-evaluation conducted by the programmes that were assessed. The self-evaluation reports all follow the structure laid down in the assessment framework. The representatives of the programmes in Public Administration and Organization Science produced a domain-specific framework of reference which was formally approved by EAPAA. The assessment committee used this domain-specific framework as the contentrelated starting point of its assessment. QANU and EAPAA agreed on dividing the task of composing the assessment committee. EAPAA approached experts in the field of public administration and organization sciences from its own network on the basis of a proposal from the participating programmes, while QANU contacted potential student members and representatives of the professional field. Because the site visits were planned in a rather limited period of time, it was not possible to establish a committee which had the same composition at every site visit. Similarly, it was not possible to appoint one secretary who supported the committee during each site visit. Sietze Looijenga, overall project coordinator, was present at all site visits to prepare committee members for their task and to enhance the continuity and consistency of the committee s assessment. 10 QANU & EAPAA / Public Administration, Leiden University

11 3.2. Preparations for the site visits Linda te Marvelde, staff member of QANU, checked the self-evaluation reports of the programmes to ensure that they could serve as a starting point for the assessment. She established that all reports fulfilled the relevant criteria of relevance and completeness. QANU s secretariat distributed the self-evaluation reports and the additional information among the appropriate committee members. The committee members were asked to phrase their remarks, comments and questions regarding the self-evaluation report and the additional documents prior to the site visit. In addition to the self-evaluation reports, the members of the committee who participated in a specific site visit read two theses for each programme. In addition, committee members studied additional theses during the site visit. The secretary of the committee selected the theses from the list in the self-evaluation report, making sure that the theses to be distributed represented the full range of marks assigned. The members of the committee received QANU s checklist for the assessment of theses to ensure that their assessments were comparable and took the relevant aspects into account. The committee members paid particular attention to the scientific level and quality of the theses, to the accuracy and transparency of the assessment and to the assessment procedure used. Before each site visit, Sietze Looijenga (and, in most cases, Linda te Marvelde) had a meeting with representatives of the programmes to be assessed to discuss and agree on the programme for the site visit and various practical arrangements. The programme was the same for all site visits, with one exception. In the case of the University of Twente, which offers the master s programme European Studies next to the regular master s programme in Public Administration, the committee had an additional interview with students of this particular master s programme. In all cases, the programme included an office hour. Both staff members and students were informed about this opportunity to speak to the committee confidentially at least one week before the site visit The site visits Every site visit started with a preparatory committee meeting, in which the committee members discussed the self-evaluation report, the additional documentation and the bachelor s and master s theses they had received prior to the site visit. The committee also discussed and agreed on the questions and issues to be raised in the interviews with representatives of the programmes and various groups of stakeholders. In every case, the committee conducted interviews with the board of the faculty which is responsible for the programmes, the management of the programmes (programme director or coordinator, chair of department or institute et cetera), students, lecturers, graduates, representatives of the professional field, members of the Education Committee and the Board of Examiners, and the study advisor(s). In addition, the members of the committee studied additional materials made available by the programmes, including learning materials, written exams, assignments and other assessments, minutes of meetings of the Education Committee and the Board of Examiners, and it explored the electronic learning environment provided by the programmes. After the last interview with the board of the faculty offering the programmes, the committee held another internal meeting, in which it discussed its findings, phrased its conclusions and gave its assessment of the themes and standards making up the assessment framework. Finally, the chairman of the committee presented the committee s preliminary findings. QANU & EAPAA / Public Administration, Leiden University 11

12 3.4. After the site visits After each site visit, the secretary of the committee produced a draft version of the report about the programmes which had been assessed and presented it to the members of the committee who had participated in the site visit. The secretary processed all the corrections, remarks and suggestions for improvement provided by the committee members and thus produced the first final draft report. QANU s secretariat sent this draft report to the institution and the faculty offering the programmes, inviting them to check the report for factual errors, inaccuracies and inconsistencies. The secretary forwarded the comments and suggestions provided by the institution and/or faculty to the chairman of the committee, and, if necessary, to the other committee members as well. The (chairman of the) committee decided whether the comments and suggestions were incorporated in the report or ignored. On the basis of the committee s decisions, the secretary compiled the final version of the programme report Assessment of the themes and standards As agreed beforehand by all parties involved, including EAPAA, the assessments for the themes and standards of the joint QANU-EAPAA framework followed the criteria and guidelines laid down in the NVAO s accreditation framework for existing degree programmes. This means that the committee assessed the standards on a four-point scale (unsatisfactory, satisfactory, good, excellent), while it used a two-point scale (unsatisfactory, satisfactory) for the themes. In accordance with the formal framework, the committee interpreted the scale for the standards in the following way: unsatisfactory: the programme does not meet the requirements for basic or generic quality; satisfactory: the programme meets the requirements for basic or generic quality; good: the programme exceeds the requirements for basic or generic quality; excellent: the programme exceeds the requirements for basic or generic quality by far and is a clear example of (international) best practice. The committee used satisfactory as its default score for the standards. 12 QANU & EAPAA / Public Administration, Leiden University

13 4. Domain-specific requirements Public Administration, Public Governance, and Governance and Organization (PAGO) Programmes, 2010 Introduction The study of public administration has developed and expanded into a broad interdisciplinary body of knowledge, which tackles a variety of themes and practices on public administration, governance and organization (PAGO). The academic community in the Netherlands acknowledges that throughout the years this field has widened and now includes not only public administration but also governance and organization. This entails a diversity of approaches on the one hand, but on the other, the conviction that these approaches are connected and interrelated and worthwhile to keep together. Programmes may share basic components, but also may differ to express their specialisation in this broadened field. This parallels developments in the profession. Alumni are increasingly challenged in a wide variety of fields that put varying demands regarding professional knowledge, skills and attitudes. In this frame of reference we will address this field as the PAGO-field: including public administration, public governance, and governance and organization. In this domain-specific frame of reference we start with a brief summary regarding the development of the PAGO-field and argue that the broadening of the field is due to various exogenous and endogenous changes. Accordingly we will outline the programme principles of PAGO-studies as well as related learning outcomes. Developments The societal impact of processes like globalization, individualization and ICT has altered the nature of public problems. Issues like risk and security, environment and ecology, economics and welfare, and nationality and culture are high on the societal and political agenda. The impact of such problems has consequences for the abilities of (national) governments. It challenges them to reach beyond traditional approaches. This has led to manifold changes in political and administrative landscapes. New expectations and demands are expressed towards politics and administration, including moral standards. New criteria for performance have emerged that aim at value for money, new businesslike concepts of management, and reformed public service delivery. There have been new interpretations of democracy and accountability, and of relations between state, civil society and the market. Government and public administration not only changed its own practices, it also changed its relationship with society. Public administration thus moved towards governance, i.e. dealing with public problems through dispersed networks of organizations and actors, including social institutions, non-governmental organizations (NGO s), and private companies. Government and public policy are still relevant, but new outlooks and mechanisms are designed and used to make things work. These developments have also changed the field of study of PA. Scholars started to use new concepts to understand developments, broadening categories such as governmentgovernance, and crossing boundaries between the public and private world. These concepts include focused attention to issues like interdependence, ambiguity, networks, contextuality, governance, and the role of institutions, trust and integrity. These developments invited researchers to cross disciplinary borders and take aboard theories, concepts, methods and ideas, from organization studies (structure, culture, management, strategy, networks, et cetera) as well as other bodies of knowledge (new fields within economics, political science and QANU & EAPAA / Public Administration, Leiden University 13

14 sociology, communication theory, ethics and philosophy, geography, international relations and law, et cetera). Another issue that needs to be highlighted is that the study of Public Administration in the Netherlands includes several fields that elsewhere are situated in political science. The PAGO-studies not only focus on classical PA issues, but also on public organization and management issues, as well as on subfields like public policy, policy making, public governance, public culture and ethics. Scholars of these issues are part of the broad PA community, in research as well as in educational programmes. Resulting Fields of Study This PAGO-community consists of three fields of study. The first embodies the classical features of the discipline, concentrating on politics, administration and the public sector. Public administration often started within the context of (departments of) politics and/or law, with an emphasis on the study of government and bureaucracy as well as public policymaking and implementation. The second emerged through the fact that public interests and public problems are increasingly tackled by a multitude of public and private actors. It broadened the scope of study to include nongovernmental actors, as part of the often complex public-private, multiactor networks that deal with collective and public interests. The third field focuses on questions of governance and organization that surpass the traditional public-private boundaries. It includes the study of private actors in social contexts. This orientation links the worlds of business administration and public administration and pays attention to what we know about management, strategy and behaviour in corporations. This approach can be labelled as governance and organization. PAGO today is a broad multi- and interdisciplinary field of science. The classical core disciplines of political science, law, sociology and economics are important, and there is an increasing involvement of disciplines that focus on organization, culture, and communication. Also, challenging new interchanges with bodies of knowledge in (for example) social and organizational psychology, planning studies and geography, philosophy and ethics and history have demonstrated added value. The PAGO-community acknowledges that there are different views regarding object and focus of the field of study. For instance: is PAGO about knowledge by description, explanation and prediction, or is evaluation and improvement the prime goal? Or, how do we relate to and communicate with practitioners in public (and private) administration, governance and organization? Rather than excluding certain views, the PAGO-community welcomes a variety in approaches, ideas and outlook. This variety is also visible in the PAGOprogrammes. Defining programme principles PAGO-programmes are academic programmes aiming at the development of academic knowledge, skills and attitude in students that are relevant for understanding public administration, governance and organization. They pay particular attention to social and political contexts and developments, relevant (interdisciplinary) bodies of knowledge, aim at developing research capacities, and contribute to working professionally in public and private domains. In this frame of reference we have listed elements that are to be seen as building blocks for academic programmes. As far as knowledge is concerned, contemporary 14 QANU & EAPAA / Public Administration, Leiden University

15 programmes encompass various disciplinary views supporting the PAGO-domain, and various sorts of domain-specific knowledge. As far as skills are concerned, they encompass skills for applying and reflecting on scientific methods and approaches, integrating knowledge and skills for working in public domains/organizations. As far as attitude is concerned, it encompasses critical stances and moral stature. Each of these subfields is briefly elaborated in order to circumscribe specific learning outcomes at Bachelor and Master levels (see next paragraph). Knowledge Knowledge of society and changing contexts Activities in public domains influence, are influenced by, and interact with social systems and developments. On the one hand, they constrain public sectors, as they reproduce values, traditions and culture(s). On the other hand, they call for public action; (new) facts, events and problems, fuelled by new technologies, pose new challenges. PAGO-programmes enhance understandings of social structures and behaviours, societal trends and changes. This calls for an awareness of political, sociological, cultural, historical, philosophical, ethical, economic and judicial contexts. Knowledge of political and administrative systems The organization, processes and activities in public domains are shaped by and within political systems. PAGO-programmes should devote attention to the institutions, structure, organization and activities of such political systems, at different levels (local, regional, national, transnational). PAGO-programmes encompass political and social theories, including those regarding legitimacy and the democratic design and functioning of organizations in public domains. They also pay attention to the application of these theories in everyday practice. Knowledge of (public) policy, decision making and implementation Governance for societal problems includes many insights derived from various bodies of knowledge, ranging from high-level decision-making to everyday service delivery. PAGOprogrammes address both classic and contemporary theories, methods and techniques of policy-making, management, decision-making, and their implementation in everyday practice. Knowledge of organizations and organizing principles Public domains entail a variety of organizations, some organized as classical government bodies, some as between the public and private sectors, while others have been influenced by and/or have taken on the characteristics of private organizations. There is a growing awareness that policies and service delivery must be organized and require well-trained and motivated professionals. This leads to a more explicit emphasis on organizational studies. PAGO programmes entail knowledge of organizational concepts/perspectives on organizing, domains of managerial activities, insights in organizational change and management tools. Knowledge of governance and networks The powers and authorities to intervene have become less governmental and more distributed. Due to organizational fragmentation, the rise of network relations, and the spread of (normative) governance models e.g., joined up government, public-private partnerships, and corporate social responsibility (CSR) multiple parties have become active in dealing with public problems and representing public interests. PAGO-programmes pay attention to new relations and new governance regimes, having both theoretical and empirical consequences. QANU & EAPAA / Public Administration, Leiden University 15

16 Skills Research skills The role of knowledge in (public) policies and organizations is crucial for its effectiveness, especially for understanding the complexity of contexts, structures, outcomes and behaviours. PAGO-programmes include methods of quantitative and qualitative social-scientific research to analyse and also emphasise a clear understanding of contextual aspects. Integrative skills Public domains can be analysed from different angles; theories are grounded in various disciplines. The quality of research and capacities of civil servants and other functionaries in public domains depend on integrative skills, i.e. abilities to combine, integrate and apply different bodies of knowledge. PAGO-programmes devote attention to and provide opportunities to practice integrative skills. Cooperation and communication skills The functioning of the public domain largely depends on the skills of actors to exchange ideas, to negotiate when necessary, and to cooperate in constructive ways. Civil servants and other functionaries use a repertoire of skills and attitudes to communicate ideas to audiences of experts as well as laymen. Cooperation is at the heart of PAGO and includes a sense of responsibility and leadership. PAGO-programmes devote attention to and provide opportunities to practice cooperative and communicative skills. Attitude Critical stances PAGO programmes are academic programmes that not only facilitate cognitive learning and skill development, they also develop critical powers. Students are taught how to critically analyze arguments used by others, how to relate fashionable statements, e.g. by politicians, to more traditional as well as to scientific insights, and how to reflect upon political and normative implications of policy choices and organizational design. PAGO-programmes devote attention to the development of a constructive, critical attitude. Moral stature and professionalism The eloquence and credibility of PAGO has two features. First is its ability to approach societal problems in effective ways, but second is the degree to which government and governance principles serves as a moral compass. PAGO-programmes train students in this respect for occupying positions in governance regimes (public and private), they also train students in developing appropriate or professional conduct. This is a matter of guarding values, such as accountability and integrity, and of practicing values, such as entrepreneurship and innovation. Academic learning outcomes for PAGO studies The broad fields identified and circumscribed in the above are to be seen as programme criteria and, thus, as the building blocks of a programme. Each programme will emphasize a specific selection of these building blocks to impose specific learning outcomes on students. In the table below we list such learning outcomes. This is a generic list, both applicable for bachelor and master programmes. The difference between both studies is in the degree of complexity; in the level of analysis; and in the independence of the student. Here we follow the distinctions made in the so-called Dublin descriptors. In this system a distinction is made between first cycle learning for bachelors and second cycle learning for masters. First cycle learning involves an introduction 16 QANU & EAPAA / Public Administration, Leiden University

17 to the field of study. It aims at the acquisition and understanding of knowledge, ideas, methods and theories, elementary research activities, and basic skills regarding communication and learning competences. At second cycle learning we find a deeper understanding of knowledge; problem solving skills are developed for new and unexpected environments and broader contexts. Here students can apply knowledge in various environments. At the master level we also expect a well-developed level of autonomy regarding the direction and choices in a study. In generic bachelor PAGO-programmes most of the learning outcomes will apply that are listed below. Master programmes, however, usually have a much stronger thematic focus and may especially focus on a particular set of these learning outcomes that are best suited for that specialisation, but not covering all the learning outcomes listed below. We propose that the learning outcomes for the bachelor level, apply for the master level in the sense that students demonstrate that they are capable of: dealing with increased situational, theoretical and methodological complexity; demonstrating increased levels of autonomy and self-management; applying ideas, methods, theories in research and problem solving; mastering the complexity that is inherent to the field of specialisation. In the table below we have organized the learning outcomes according to the Dublin descriptors. We present the main components of the Dublin descriptors in italics, and accordingly the proposed learning outcomes. Knowledge and understanding 1 (Bachelor) [Is] supported by advanced text books [with] some aspects informed by knowledge at the forefront of their field of study 2 (Master) provides a basis or opportunity for originality in developing or applying ideas often in a research context (Basic) knowledge of (changing) societal contexts (Basic) knowledge and understanding of the distinctive nature of organization, policy making, management, service delivery and governance in PAGO domains (Basic) awareness of political traditions and politics (Basic) knowledge and understanding of the discipline, PAGO-paradigms, intellectual tradition, theories and approaches (Basic) knowledge and understanding of multi-actor and multi-level concepts A general (basic) understanding regarding the dynamics and processes of actors in public domains, how these processes influence society and vice versa Applying knowledge and understanding 1 (Bachelor) [through] devising and sustaining arguments 2 (Master) [through] problem solving abilities [applied] in new or unfamiliar environments within broader (or multidisciplinary) contexts (Basic) capacity to work at different levels of abstraction (Basic) skills in problem definition and problem solving in the PAGO domain (Basic) ability to distinguish normative preferences and empirical evidence (Basic) skills in combining, integrating and applying knowledge QANU & EAPAA / Public Administration, Leiden University 17

18 (Basic) insight into the scientific practice (Basic) capacity to select a suitable theoretical framework for a given empirical problem (Basic) skills in combining normative and empirical aspects (Basic) capacity to build arguments and reflect upon the arguments of others (Basic) awareness of relevant social, ethical, academic and practical issues Making judgments 1 (Bachelor) [involves] gathering and interpreting relevant data 2 (Master) [demonstrates] the ability to integrate knowledge and handle complexity, and formulate judgements with incomplete data (Basic) ability to formulate research questions on problems in the PAGO-domain (Basic) knowledge regarding research on social-scientific positions and thinking (Basic) training in and application of quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods social science research (Basic) abilities to collect data and to derive judgments thereof Communication 1 (Bachelor) [of] information, ideas, problems and solutions 2 (Master) [of] their conclusions and the underpinning knowledge and rationale (restricted scope) to specialist and non specialist audiences (monologue) (Basic) capacity to use argumentative skills effectively (Basic) capacity to function in multi- and interdisciplinary teams in several roles (Basic) capacity to function effectively in governance, organization, management, policy and advocacy settings (Basic) capacity to use communicative skills effectively in oral and written presentation Learning skills 1 (Bachelor) have developed those skills needed to study further with a high level of autonomy 2 (Master) study in a manner that may be largely self-directed or autonomous Learning attitude (Basic) capacity to reflect upon one s own conceptual and professional capacities and conduct 18 QANU & EAPAA / Public Administration, Leiden University

19 PART II: PROGRAMME REPORT QANU & EAPAA / Public Administration, Leiden University 19

20 20 QANU & EAPAA / Public Administration, Leiden University

21 1. Report on the bachelor s programme Public Administration and the master s programme Public Administration at Leiden University Administrative data Bachelor s programme Public Administration: Name of the programme: Public Administration CROHO number: Level: bachelor Orientation: academic Number of credits: 180 EC Degree: Bachelor of Science Mode(s) of study: full time Location(s): Leiden Expiration of accreditation: 30 July 2012 Master s programme Public Administration: Name of the programme: Public Administration CROHO number: Level: master Orientation: academic Number of credits: 60 EC Degree: Master of Science Mode(s) of study: full time Location(s): Leiden, Campus Den Haag Expiration of accreditation: 30 July 2012 The site visit of the assessment committee to the Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences of Leiden University took place on 27 and 28 September Structure and organization of the faculty The Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences provides five full-fledged degree programmes embodied as institutes: Anthropology, Educational Sciences, Political Science, Psychology, and Public Administration. The management of the faculty consists of a dean and three other members, including a student member. The dean chairs the Faculty Board. The Faculty Board exercises general management and is responsible for managing the faculty, which includes personnel, financial and other managerial tasks such as housing. The Faculty Board is accountable to the University Governing Board. The Faculty Board can set guidelines for the administration of the faculty institutes. The dean is responsible for the coordination and integration of the decision making of the faculty boards. The dean also works in the administration of the university as a whole and thus participates in the deans meetings together with the University Board. In addition to the Faculty Board, there is a Faculty Council consisting of 14 members. Students and personnel each elect half of the number of members. The Faculty Council advises the Board and has the right of approval in regard to labor relation issues. QANU & EAPAA / Public Administration, Leiden University 21

22 Both the bachelor s and master s programmes are provided by the Institute of Public Administration, which is part of the Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences at Leiden University and is embedded into Leiden University s Graduate School of Social and Behavioral Sciences. The Administrative Board (Instituutsbestuur) is in charge of the Institute of Public Administration and consists of a scientific director, who acts as chair and at most two other members. The chair is appointed from within the professors of the institute. The two other members are appointed from the staff; one of them is the Institute s educational director. The Board also includes a student member. The Board manages the workflow of the employees, and stimulates the connection between education and research in the field of Public Administration. The Scientific Director is responsible for the coordination and integration of the decision making of the Board as a whole is and in charge of personnel policy and research. The Administrative Board meets every two or three weeks. During these meetings, the office manager supports the operations of the Board. The scientific director regularly consults with the Dean and the other scientific directors of the faculty. The director of the bachelor s programme also participates in the Permanent Committee of the Directors of Education where he/she also represents the interests of the programme when needed. The master s programme Public Administration at Leiden University is offered at two locations: at Leiden (fulltime) and at the Campus Den Haag (fulltime, but taught in the evening). The goals and qualifications for the master s programme are the same at both locations, although the programme in The Hague offers a more limited range of specializations and is only taught in Dutch. In addition to the programmes described in this report, the Institute of Public Administration also offers a Public Administration Research Master s degree The assessment framework Aims and objectives Standard 1: Mission-based accreditation [EAPAA] The programme should state clearly its educational philosophy and mission and have an orderly process for developing appropriate strategies and objectives consistent with its mission, resources, and constituencies. From the mission a set of credible educational objectives should be formulated. Interpretations of the EAPAA standards of this accreditation must be justified in light of the programme s mission and objectives and success in fulfilling its mission Description The self-evaluation report contains a reflection on the historical background of the programme, the specific philosophy of the programme and the distinctive features of the mission and objectives. A substantive change in the organization of the programme resulted from the adoption by the University in 2006 of a uniform year schedule that replaced the trimester system with the semester system, with each semester consisting of two blocks of eight weeks in length. An important change was the reintroduction of the internship in the programme, in line with one of the recommendations of the previous assessment committee. From September 2009, 22 QANU & EAPAA / Public Administration, Leiden University

23 Leiden bachelor s students can complete electives in various disciplines (for example in law, political science, history and economics) as part of their programme. The Institute offers at the moment three minors: the minor Bestuurskunde: Overheid en Samenleving (Public Administration: State and Society), the interdisciplinary minor Law and Public Administration and the interdisciplinary minor Security. The Institute has defined the following mission: The Institute of Public Administration in Leiden offers internationally oriented research and academic training focusing on the core issues of public sector governance and public administration. The Institute has the dual ambition of offering an outstanding curriculum both nationally and internationally as well as becoming internationally recognized for its research in Public Administration. In terms of general goals the Institute defines its curriculum with a focus on the distinctive nature of government in the public sector, which can be characterized by principles of democracy, reliability and good government. Based on the mission statement and its core elements, the distinctive profile of the curriculum offered by the Institute of Public Administration at Leiden University is summarized as follows: Public Administration is an independent discipline emphasizing the classic themes of public administration, fitting the academic tradition of Leiden University; the programme has a clear international orientation, including, among other things, multilevel governance in Europe; the programme provides substantial room for reflection upon the academic study of Public Administration and its central themes; and the programme has close relations with the seat of government in The Hague, among others ways, through an institutionalized collaboration with The Hague Campus of Leiden University. The programme in Leiden aims to educate students to become scientifically trained public administration experts in a broad sense. The programme is academic, which means that it gives more emphasis to imparting critical and rigorous analytic and research skills than to the other knowledge and skills necessary for a public service career. The Institute of Public Administration focuses on classic or core themes of study. These include the functioning of various political-administrative systems both nationally and internationally, the relationship between politics and administration, the organization of the civil service, issues of ethics, and policy analysis. Special emphasis is placed on the importance of institutions for the functioning and reform of political-administrative processes. According to the self-evaluation report, the goals of the programme and the curriculum requirements have recently been reconstituted in light of both the Dublin descriptors and a report developed by a number of PAGO (public administration, governance, and organization) programmes in Dutch Universities entitled Domain Specific Frame of Reference for Public Administration, Public governance, and Organization (PAGO) Programmes. QANU & EAPAA / Public Administration, Leiden University 23

24 The self-evaluation report mentions that the Institute made some modest revisions as a result of this report. The resulting goals and academic objectives have been the goals and objectives for a number of years. The match between both existing and future staff capabilities and the curriculum has been taken into account in this revision as well. In a comprehensive study on the history of the University of Leiden, written by Willem Otterspeer, the essence of a university is described in various metaphors. The author uses the title Bastion of liberty for his book on Leiden University, and this to some extent reflects the atmosphere the committee encountered during its site-visit in its encounters with staff and students. Teacher autonomy both in the delivery and content of courses, and the freedom that students experience in choosing their course of study, is reflected in many of the documents and discussions. During the site-visit, members of staff further clarified the academic, classic and international orientation, as these are considered somewhat unique in comparison to other programmes in public administration, according to the self-evaluation report. The emphasis upon the academic study of Public Administration and its central themes is clearly visible: the programme provides substantial room for reflection, analytical and research skills. Staff explained that the emphasis on classic themes does not mean that recent developments and new forms of government and governance are undervalued or less important. The combination of current practices and views of the classic thinkers is sought throughout the curriculum. Assessment The mission statement is rather general. Although the mission statement is further clarified under the domain specific requirements, the relationship between the general mission statement, course objectives and intended learning outcomes is not very explicit. The international orientation is visible in various ways, although not directly by the number of international staff or students. In many courses, a comparative approach is used in which practices are compared to situations in other countries. With the exception of the track in The Hague, the primary language of instruction is English. This is another indication of the internationalized perspective of the Leiden programme. The process by which the mission statement and goals are evaluated, revised and accepted has not been discussed extensively. The committee accepts that the importance of a general mission statement is relatively modest, within an Institute that has had an established programme for many years. Bachelor s programme Public Administration: the committee assesses this standard as satisfactory. Master s programme Public Administration: the committee assesses this standard as satisfactory. Standard 2: Subject-/discipline-specific requirements [NVAO & EAPAA] The intended learning outcomes of the programme correspond with the requirements set by professional colleagues, both nationally and internationally and the relevant domain concerned (subject/discipline and/or professional practice). Description The Institute defines its curriculum for both the bachelor s and master s programme with a focus on the distinctive nature of government in the public sector, which can be characterized by principles of democracy, reliability and good government. The self-evaluation report presents 24 QANU & EAPAA / Public Administration, Leiden University