Accreditation

All Bachelor's and Master's (partial) degree programmes are accredited.
Combined degree programmes are considered accredited if both partial degree programmes have been positively assessed within the scope of accreditation procedures and their eligibility for accreditation has thus been established.
Newly developed (partial) degree programmes are accredited according to the concept accreditation procedure (see corresponding procedure description).

The aim of programme accreditation is to ensure that all newly established and existing Bachelor's and Master's degree programmes meet the criteria for programme accreditation. In this context, the university management may issue conditions and recommendations. In addition, other university-specific quality aspects can also be considered and discussed, on which the programme directors receive feedback.

The responsibility for reviewing fulfilment of the criteria is divided into three parts at the university. Both a faculty or subject, external reviewers and the areas of the central administration responsible for programme development assume review responsibility for certain aspects.

The quality management system of the University of Würzburg provides for a number of indirect audit moments of the faculties and subjects, which are guaranteed if the following requirements are implemented:

• Operation of the annual monitoring and the 8-year cycle,
• Implementation of the QM role and task concept and thus the organisation of participation (e.g. study subject commission, faculty council, students),
• Orientation towards consensually agreed specifications from the evaluation regulations, the process descriptions and various handouts or manuals (e.g. on qualification objectives, programme development, etc.),
• Teaching reporting in accordance with the templates provided for this purpose,
• Fitting courses into the time slot model,
• Transparent documentation of own procedures, e.g. on websites.

The task of the assessors in the subject audit is determined in particular by a question guide, which is arranged according to the criteria for programme accreditation. It is the task of the accompanying member of staff from Unit A.3 to organise the subject audit in such a way that all aspects of the guidelines are addressed in the report. If the assessors do not consider a criterion to be fulfilled, they must formulate a suitable condition. Suggestions as to how a criterion could be better fulfilled or other proposals for the further development of a degree programme can lead to recommendations. The expert report is used for internal accreditation.

Within the central administration, the departments involved in the development of degree programmes are responsible for auditing in accordance with their basic responsibilities.

• The staff unit for programme-related legal matters checks whether a degree programme complies with all legal requirements. The result of this review is then passed on to the further committees for programme development by the Commission for Studies and Teaching (KSuL) and the Senate.
• Unit A.1 Planning and Reporting examines whether a subject or faculty can afford a new degree programme in terms of teaching load. The results of this review are also used in particular to advise the university management on the strategic fit of a degree programme in the University of Würzburg's offering profile.
• Unit A.3 Quality Management, Organisational Development & Campus Management examines the non-statutory quality features of a degree programme and whether a degree programme can be mapped and managed electronically.

The Presidential Commission for Quality in Teaching and Learning (PfQ) collates the review processes and their substantiated results for internal accreditation. The documents for this are structured according to the criteria for programme accreditation. The members of PfQ thus have a complete overview of whether a degree programme meets all requirements for their consultation.

The PfQ has the option of adopting the conditions and recommendations proposed by the expert group and the central administration, changing the language or adding to them. If an accreditation criterion is not met, a condition must be imposed. Conditions cannot be imposed directly in relation to finances or positions. Information on how a criterion could be better fulfilled or other suggestions for the further development of a study programme can lead to recommendations.

Step 1 Provision of the documents

The PfQ receives the subject documentation, which includes the report of the subject audit, the audit documents of the central administration, the statement of the subject and the proposed conditions and/or recommendations, as well as a draft recommendation prepared by Unit A.3 for the university management two weeks before the meeting date.

Step 2 Consultation in the PfQ

Based on the information provided, the PfQ discusses whether the (partial) degree programme fulfils the criteria for programme accreditation. The requirements and recommendations are considered individually:

• Are the proposed requirements and recommendations set correctly or sensibly? Are they formulated clearly and comprehensibly?
• Is the appropriateness and coherence of the content of the requirements and recommendations recognisable?
• Does the PfQ wish to issue justified conditions or recommendations that were not proposed by the expert group or the central administration?
• Which approaches of the (partial) degree programme should be positively emphasised (good practice)?

At least one subject representative is invited to the meeting for the discussion. The subject representatives leave the meeting before the vote. They will be informed promptly about the outcome of the accreditation.

The PfQ votes on the recommended resolution, which may have been amended in the course of the discussion.

The possible decisions relating to individual (partial) degree programmes are as follows:

• Accreditation is granted without conditions and with/without recommendations.
• Accreditation is granted with conditions and with/without recommendations.
• Internal accreditation can generally be denied if a (partial) degree programme has significant deficiencies.

A majority of the votes cast is required for the vote. If possible, PfQ members who are excused from the meeting should transfer their voting rights to another member in advance.

PfQ members from the faculty (including secondary members) of the degree programme to be discussed may take part in the discussion as long as there is no appearance of bias. They leave the room before the vote and are readmitted to the meeting after the vote and informed of the result. PfQ members who are also the Dean of Studies of the relevant faculty do not take part in the vote under any circumstances. PfQ members who belong to another faculty may also be excluded from the discussion and vote if they declare themselves to be biased. PfQ members are obliged to inform the PfQ of any facts and circumstances that could give rise to the appearance of bias. In cases of doubt, the PfQ decides, excluding the member or members concerned, whether there are circumstances that could give rise to the appearance of bias.

Step 3 Decision of the university management

The PfQ chairperson - or, in the event of bias, the deputy chairperson - issues the accreditation on behalf of the university management on the basis of the PfQ's recommendation.

Accreditation is generally granted for eight years - even in the case of conditions. As a rule, conditions must be fulfilled within nine months. However, the period can be extended or shortened in justified cases.

If the chairperson wishes to deviate from the PfQ's recommendation, the deviation is discussed with the university management. The PfQ will be informed promptly of the result of such a consultation.

If a (partial) degree programme is not accredited despite a possible suspension of the procedure and extension of the deadline, the "Cancel degree programme" process is triggered.

Step 4 Follow-up

The PfQ chairperson sends the official accreditation decision via Department A.3 of the faculty (addressed to the dean, dean of studies, subject coordinator, programme coordinator and the student representatives on the Faculty Council). The letter is sent to the offices involved in the assessment process for information purposes. Department A.3 ensures that a (partial) degree programme is entered in WueStudy and in the Accreditation Council's database of accredited degree programmes and notifies the responsible state ministry of the accreditation.

Step 5 Fulfilment of conditions

A faculty or subject sends documents on the fulfilment of conditions via the Dean of Studies to Department A.3, which carries out an initial review and assessment. The PfQ discusses the fulfilment of the requirements and makes a recommendation to the university management. If a faculty does not fulfil the requirements, the university management decides to withdraw the accreditation of the (partial) degree programme based on the recommendation of the PfQ.

A newly developed degree programme is usually accredited before it is launched, unless a subject audit and accreditation are planned for the subject within the standard period of study for the new degree programme.

In this case, this is referred to as concept accreditation.

The accreditation period is based on that of the relevant subject cluster so that standardised deadlines are maintained and the overall university plan is adhered to.

Further details can be found in the procedure description for concept accreditation.