Trend Analysis Report
2019-2021
by Don McLean
MusiQuE
October 2022
Trend Analysis Report 2019-2021 by Don McLean
2
About the Author
Don McLean is Professor Emeritus of Music Theory and Musicology at University
of Toronto (UofT). He was awarded the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee
Medal through the Canada Council in 2012 for his “exploration of the changing
context of music in the academy and society, and innovations in infrastructure
development and interdisciplinary teaching and research”. He served as Dean of
the University’s Faculty of Music from January 1, 2011 through June 30, 2021. Prior to
his return to UofT he taught at McGill University from 1988–2010 and served as the
Dean of its Schulich School of Music from 2001–2010.
As a research scholar, Prof. McLean is engaged in four areas: (1) Schenkerian theory
and analysis, with focus on motive and hierarchy across repertoire domains, (2)
music of the New Viennese School, with focus on Berg, (3) the emotional impact
of music on listeners, with focus on how structural features engender emotional
response, and (4) higher education in music in an evolving global context, with
focus on interdisciplinary research, infrastructure development, digital media,
and curricular reform. He is a frequent international keynote and conference
speaker for professional and general audiences.
Trained in piano performance and pedagogy, coaching and accompanying,
conducting and composition, musicology and music theory, Prof. McLean is a
three-time graduate of the University of Toronto and a two-time graduate of the
Royal Conservatory of Music, and taught for both institutions from 1978–1989. His
masters/doctoral graduate work and subsequent research has been funded by
the Canada Council, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of
Canada, and the Connaught Foundation, and he was one of the rst recipients of
the American Musicological Society (AMS) 50 doctoral awards. He received a UofT
SAC/APUS campus-wide teaching award in 1983. He completed a professional
computer coding certicate in full-stack web development in 2022. His former
graduate students now hold prestigious academic positions at major Canadian
and international institutions, some moving on to success in other professional
elds.
Professor McLean served as co-opted Council Member for the Associate Member
(non-EU) Institutions of the Association of European Conservatories (AEC) from
2013–2016 and is a Peer Reviewer for MusiQuE. He has participated in over 40
programme, institutional, and curriculum review processes in Canada and
around the world.
AuthorAbbreviations ForewordContact Context SummaryKey TrendsRemarks Analysis Report
Table of Contents
Foreword
A. Overview and Executive Summary of Key Trends
Key Trends: brief descriptions and recommendations
B. MusiQuE Trend Analysis Report 2022
1. MusiQuE at a glance and the Trends Analysis in context
MusiQuE
Trends Analysis
MusiQuE’s services and approach
MusiQuE Standards (8 Domains, 17 Standards)
Compliance Levels
2. Trends Analysis by Standards
Summary overview of compliance levels for each MusiQuE standard
3. Key Trends: detailed discussion and recommendations
0. The Pandemic: its impact, institutional responses, and future implications
1. The state of Quality Enhancement (QE), Quality Assurance (QA), and
related organizational and communications issues
2. Diversity and Diversication: the changing global environment
3. Students: student-centredness—engagement, feedback, support
4. Curriculum: continuing & evolving issues
5. Staff and resources: professional development, space & technology
4. Concluding Remarks
List of Abbreviations
Contact
4
5
6
9
9
9
9
11
15
16
17
19
32
32
33
34
35
36
37
39
42
43
Trend Analysis Report 2019-2021 by Don McLean
AuthorAbbreviations ForewordContact Context SummaryAnalysis ReportKey TrendsRemarks
4
Foreword
As a European quality assurance agency dedicated to the specic sector of music
education, MusiQuE – Music Quality Enhancement (MusiQuE) is a reference for higher
music education in Europe and beyond, its services being sought by many higher
music education institutions.
MusiQuE is a member of ENQA (European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher
Education) and it has been registered in EQAR (European Quality Assurance Register for
Higher Education) since 2016. As such, MusiQuE is enabled to conduct formally recognized
accreditation procedures across Europe, and publishes the reports of its trained MusiQuE
Peer Review Teams on DEQAR (Database of External Quality Assurance Results). Through
their in-depth exploration of the reality of institutions, and the programmes they deliver,
these reports provide valuable evidence for a better understanding of the higher music
education sector.
True to its mission to strengthen the music education sector, MusiQuE regularly
produces a trend analysis based on the ndings collected in these review reports
over a period of two or three years. As with previous analyses, the Trend Analysis
Report herein «cannot be taken as a comprehensive survey of the sector» (McLean,
p.16, below). However, it is a work that integrates the most recent developments and
challenges that European higher music education institutions have dealt with between
2019 and 2021 inclusively, thus offering the sector rich insights. This analysis is all the more
valuable to the sector currently, as it recovers, like all other economic, cultural and social
sectors, from two years of global health crisis and it is consequently facing an extended
economic crisis.
MusiQuE commissioned Don McLean, a highly qualied expert, to write the current
edition of the Trend Analysis Report. Don is exceptionally positioned to conduct such an
in-depth analysis. Given his extraordinary expertise as a musicologist and researcher,
and his experience as an academic leader and evaluator, Don was able to convey,
from a cross-Atlantic viewpoint, an enriched and manifold perspective over the key
areas that are worth further attention and targeted intervention from and across the
sector.
The MusiQuE Board and Ofce thank him warmly for his dedication to this mission, and
for the truly remarkable document he provided to MusiQuE.
I therefore hope that, in turn, you will discover this analysis with the same enthusiasm as
we, its rst readers, experienced.
On behalf of the MusiQuE Board,
Jacques Moreau,
Chair of the Board
Trend Analysis Report 2019-2021 by Don McLean
AuthorAbbreviations ForewordContact Context SummaryAnalysis ReportKey TrendsRemarks
5
A. Overview and Executive Summary of Key Trends
This trends analysis report surveys twenty four reports stemming from twenty different
procedures undertaken by MusiQuE from 2019 through 2021. The goal, as commissioned,
is to identify trends in the higher education music education sector, both in relation to
challenges faced by institutions and successes. The analysis endeavours to identify
good and/or innovative practices that can be shared with other institutions and to
ag issues that could benet from further support and/or intervention from national
or regional decision-making institutions, some of which might subsequently form the
basis for recommendations to the Association of European Conservatoires (AEC), the
European Union (EU), or other higher-education and government quality assurance (QA)
agencies.
Section A of the report, to achieve some standalone potential, provides introductory
remarks on MusiQuE and the role of Trends Analysis reports (for MusiQuE and the EU).
Table 1 provides a chronological list of the reviews. General comments are made on
the different types of reviews, including consultative visits, benchmarking exercises,
and regular quality enhancement (QE) or accreditation reviews at programme or
institutional level. Although the consultative visits (CV) and benchmarking exercises (BM)
lie outside the scope of the regular analysis — their contents considered condential to
the institutions that commissioned them — a few general remarks on their value and
focus are offered, particularly since they overlap with signicant trends.
Section B of the report provides the requisite summary overview of ‘how the
performance of institutions and programmes has been assessed by the Review
Teams for each MusiQuE standard.’ A compressed summary of the MusiQuE
standards is presented along with descriptions of the four Compliance Levels
available to the review teams. Table 2 provides a synoptic overview of the evolving
state of compliance by mapping the 16 QE reviews of Table 1 onto the 17 MusiQuE
standards, colour-coding the compliance levels assigned by the review teams.
Used as a pivot, this setup allows each standard to be addressed on a simple
statistical basis (captured in a series of pie-charts). The charts are followed by
a selection of observations from comments in the reviews. These charts and
comments summarize many key points found in the QE reviews examined.
However, a more synthetic approach is needed to capture Key Trends that cut
across and move beyond the litany of standards. More detailed discussion of
these trends is provided in Section B.3 below. The Key Trends are listed briey here
together with related recommendations.
Trend Analysis Report 2019-2021 by Don McLean
AuthorAbbreviations ForewordContact Context SummaryAnalysis ReportKey TrendsRemarks
6
Key Trends
0. The Pandemic: impact, institutional responses, future implications
1. The State of QE/QA and related organizational & communications issues
2. Diversity and diversication: the changing global environment
3. Students: student-centredness—engagement, feedback, support
4. Curriculum: continuing & evolving issues
5. Staff and resources: professional development, space & technology
Key Trends: brief descriptions and recommendations
0. The Pandemic: its impact, institutional responses, and future implications
The global COVID-19 pandemic (from March 2020 onwards) has had profound impact
on higher education, the arts, and society as a whole. It is ‘ground zero’ and ‘trend zero’.
Its broader health and socioeconomic realities have been devastating. Its impact on
the MusiQuE review process and wider implications for the sector are discussed further
in Section B.3.
Recommendation: that MusiQuE work with other higher education agencies and arts
organizations to make the pandemic — its impact and institutional responses — the
subject of data-informed critical analysis, and that various pathways are considered to
share information and best practices forward across the network.
1. The state of Quality Enhancement (QE), Quality Assurance (QA), and related
organizational and communications issues
MusiQuE and the review teams are to be commended for their focus on QE, working with
the reviewees in the manner of ‘critical friends’ in conducting the reviews and writing their
reports. There is now widespread recognition and realization of the value of articulating
institutional (and programme) mission and vision (standard 1), the main challenges
remaining the need to develop implementations and roadmaps to ensure success.
The ultimate goal is to embed QE and mandated QA exercises within the institutional
fabric of an IQC (Internal Quality Culture). The challenges of achieving a strong IQC are
often associated with concerns about the effectiveness of internal communications
(standard 6.1) and the appropriateness of the local organizational structure to ensure
clear decision-making processes (standard 6.2). (See Section B.3 for details.)
Recommendations: organizational and communications structures and their ongoing
impact on IQC would be a useful topic for best-practices discussion at sector level.
(Related to this is the ongoing trend towards institutional mergers — the main subject of
BM#1 — and their far-reaching implications for organizational change and stakeholder
challenges.) Also useful would be examples of best-practices in articulating missions
and goals that are distinctively inspiring and demonstrably operational.
Trend Analysis Report 2019-2021 by Don McLean
AuthorAbbreviations ForewordContact Context SummaryAnalysis ReportKey TrendsRemarks
7
2. Diversity and Diversication: the changing global environment
In the global context of diversity considerations, it is surprising that the word “diversity”
is (to date) entirely absent from the MusiQuE standards. (See Section B.3 for detailed
discussion.) The recent reports from MusiQuE also reect signicant diversication.
Reviews now regularly extend to institutions far beyond the EU and to disciplines other
than music: dance, theatre, visual arts. Thus, MusiQuE’s review activities have become
both more international and more interdisciplinary, reecting the emerging trend
towards interdisciplinary and collaborative work.
Recommendations: it is imperative that MusiQuE incorporate diversity expectations into
its compliance standards and institutional guidelines so that these issues may be ‘raised
to consciousness’ and appropriate actions can be taken across the sector. Further
opportunities would also be welcome to expand diversication through interdisciplinary
discussions, and reections on creative opportunities that can evolve within the ongoing
shift towards globalization.
3. Students: student-centredness—engagement, feedback, support
Over a period of several years (perhaps several decades at this point) there has been
a growing recognition of students’ position at (and as) the centre of the academy. A
signicant corollary of that trajectory is the expectation for increased engagement of
students in curricular and organizational (governance) matters. In many institutions
the detail and quality of evaluation feedback is still evolving, the connection between
Learning Outcome (LOs) and assessment needing to be more transparent for all
stakeholders. Expectations for more robust student services, including mental health
and well-being assistance and anti-harassment education, have become central.
Recommendations: More work linking LOs to assessment procedures needs to be done,
perhaps in the form of workshops focused on those issues. Best practices in engaging
students in governance need to continue to be shared. Institutions and sector support
organizations should recommend and implement training in harassment prevention
and unconscious bias across their communities. Institutions should prioritize health and
well-being for their students, staff, and faculty members by establishing policies and
procedures that provide paths of empathetic condential support, and by embedding
physical and mental health concerns within and beyond the curriculum.
4. Curriculum: continuing & evolving issues
The fundamental premise of QE means that curriculum issues — the educational
processes that ensure delivery of programmes, opportunities for international
experience, and assessment — are always continuing to evolve. Several rubrics continue
to emerge: artistic identity, independent critical thinking, artistic research and professional
Trend Analysis Report 2019-2021 by Don McLean
AuthorAbbreviations ForewordContact Context SummaryAnalysis ReportKey TrendsRemarks
8
outcomes, learning outcomes and clear links to assessment, interdepartmental,
interdisciplinary, interinstitutional, and international efforts.
Recommendations: There is very little new here. However, it seems, there is still a need
for ongoing best-practice discussions. MusiQuE should continue to support QE in these
curricular areas.
5. Staff and resources: professional development, space & technology
The need for additional professional development, supported by improved HR policies
and resource allocations, is central. Teaching staff still need greater encouragement
and support to develop their personal proles in practice-based artistic research
and pedagogical study. Staff mobility, through Erasmus and other agencies, is often
underutilized and opportunities for personal growth and institutional perspective
consequently missed. Part-time professional staff play a central role in reputation and
programme delivery for most institutions, and nding opportunities to engage them in
IQC and curricular discussions is a critical component of building community. The work
of support staff is highly valued and the need also to foster professional development
is noted. Most reviews react positively to the physical and technological facilities made
available to ensure program delivery as well as public prole, with advocacy support
proffered where needed. The pandemic required rapid deployment of additional IT and
Audio-Visual (AV) resources for online learning, which will need to be expanded and
maintained going forward.
Recommendations: professional development needs for academic and support
staff would prot from sharing of best-practice. Artistic research (including advanced
pedagogical study) should continue to be a central focus for ongoing development
across the sector. Space and IT/AV issues seldom mature for discussion at the sectoral
level, but keeping higher-level institutional and governmental agencies aware of what
excellence means, and what it can deliver, is a useful thing: making these topics the
subject of exchange and dialogue is advisable. The post-pandemic emerging hybrid of
in-person and remote/online activities should become a focus for thematic discussion,
both for its curricular and institutional resources implications and for its impact on
considerations of travel and climate change.
Trend Analysis Report 2019-2021 by Don McLean
AuthorAbbreviations ForewordContact SummaryAnalysis ReportContextKey TrendsRemarks
9
B. MusiQuE Trend Analysis Report 2022
1. MusiQuE at a glance and the Trends Analysis in context
MusiQuE
“MusiQuE is a recognised European independent accreditation and external evaluation
body for music, contributing to the continuous improvement of the quality of higher
music education across Europe and beyond. Its operations are underpinned by
independent, skilled and authoritative international peers. MusiQuE operates according
to the Standards and Guidelines for quality assurance in the European Higher
Education Area (ESG) and is registered on the European Quality Assurance Register
(EQAR). MusiQuE’s work is discipline-specic and aims to be characterized by exibility,
diversity, transparency and accountability in its treatment of quality enhancement in
music. Through its accreditation, quality enhancement and advisory services, MusiQuE
assists higher music education institutions, across Europe and further aeld, in their
enhancement of quality.”
—MusiQuE Strategy Paper 2020–2025, 2022.03.10, p.2
Trends Analysis
Internal Context: From MusiQuE’s 2019/2022.03.03 Internal Regulations: 11 Public
interaction, 11.1 Trend Analysis, p.62. “The most important public interaction in terms of
content is through the period[ic] analysis of trends carried out by MusiQuE. This trend
analysis is just one of the many elements that are put into the public domain through
the use of the MusiQuE website, newsletters and other modes of communication. Every
two years an individual well experienced in higher music education, and in quality
assurance activities within this sector, is commissioned to produce a trend analysis. This
analysis uses samples of MusiQuE review reports (all types of procedures) and focuses
on identifying trends in the recommendations expressed by the Review Teams and how
the performance of institutions and programmes has been assessed by these teams
for each MusiQuE standard.”
External Context: The MusiQuE trends analysis procedure is based on Standard 3.4 of
the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher
Education Area (ESGs): “Agencies should regularly publish reports that describe and
analyse the general ndings of their external quality assurance activities. […] A thorough
and careful analysis of this information will show developments, trends and areas of
good practice or persistent difculty.” (2015:3.4, p.23 available here).
The present document provides a “trends analysis” (as dened by the documents cited
above) based on general ndings of procedures conducted by MusiQuE between 2019
and 2021. [See Table 1 below].
Trend Analysis Report 2019-2021 by Don McLean
AuthorAbbreviations ForewordContact Context SummaryAnalysis ReportKey TrendsRemarks
10
# Report Institution Location Type of Review
1
2019.06.20
Kurmangazy Kazakh National
Conservatory (KKNC)
Almaty, KZ
Programme Accreditation
(follow-up procedure)
2
2019.10.30
Royal Conservatoire, Univer-
sity of the Arts (KC)
The Hague,
NL
Programme Accreditation BA
Dance (jointly with NVAO)
BM1
2019.11.20 Uniarts Helsinki Helsinki, FI Benchmarking
3
2019.12.16
Zürcher Hochschule der
Künste (ZHdK)
Zurich, CH
Programme QE BAM BAMM MA
MAperf (EQ-Arts)
4
2020.01.08
Yong Sieh Toh Conservatory
of Music (YST)
Singapore,
SG
Institutional QE
5
2020.05.11
Conservatorium Maastricht
(CM)
Maastricht,
NL
Programme Accreditation MM
(jointly with NVAO)
6
2020.05.12
Karol Lipinski Academy of
Music (KLAM)
Wroclaw, PL Institutional Accreditation
7
2020.05.20
College of Music, Mahidol
University (CoM)
Salaya, TH
Programme Accreditation MM
& MA
8
2020.06.03
Faculty of Music, University
of Arts
Belgrade, RS Institutional QE
9
2020.06.22
Haute École Spécialisée de
Suisse Occidentale
Geneva, CH
Programme QE BA BAMM
(HES-SO)
10
2020.06.30
Janacek Academy of Music
& Performing Arts (JAMU),
Faculty of Theatre
Brno, CZ
Institutional QE
(jointly with EQ-Arts)
11
2020.07.03 JAMU, Faculty of Music Brno, CZ Institutional QE
12
2020.09.11
Faculty of Music & Musicol-
ogy, Université Antonine
Beirut, LB
Programme Accreditation BA
& MA in Music & Musicology
BM2
2020.11.09 Orpheus Institute (OI) Ghent, BE Benchmarking
BM3
2020.12.01
International Opera Acad-
emy (IOA)
Ghent, BE Benchmarking
CV
2021.06.14
Jazeps Vitols Latvian Acad-
emy of Music (JVLMA)
Riga, LV
Consultative Visits (5 departmental
reports)
13
2021.07.08
Royal Conservatoire Ant-
werp, School of Arts (RCA)
Antwerp, BE Programme QE BA Dance
14
2021.07.16 Royal Academy of Fine Arts Antwerp, BE
Programme QE BA & MA Visual
Arts (jointly with EQ-Arts)
15
2021.11.26
College of Music, Mahidol
University (CoM)
Salaya, TH
Programme Accreditation DM
& PhD
16
2021.12.20
Royal Conservatoire, Univer-
sity of the Arts (KC)
The Hague,
NL
Programme MM & MSonology
(jointly with NVAO)
Table 1. List of MusiQuE Reviews 2019–2021
Table 1 provides a list of the MusiQuE Reviews covered in this trends analysis. The table
is ordered chronologically by report date (site visit dates, whether in person or online,
occur earlier), showing the relevant institution and geographical location, and the type
of review. The rst column (#) is only for ease of reference. It will be noted that additional
items are inserted chronologically between reports #2 and #3, and #12 and 13. These
insertions represent three Benchmarking Exercises (BM1, BM2, BM3) and a group of ve
Trend Analysis Report 2019-2021 by Don McLean
AuthorAbbreviations ForewordContact Context SummaryAnalysis ReportKey TrendsRemarks
11
departmental-level consultative visit reports (CV). BM and CV documents are considered
condential to the institutions that commission them and are therefore referenced only
in a general way in this analysis where their contents resonate with other trends. [See CV
and BM discussion below.] The sixteen remaining reports are labelled as “regular Quality
Enhancement (QE) reviews” even though their level of formality may vary: eleven of
those focus on particular programmes (#1, #2, #3, #5, #7, #9, #12, #13, #14, #15, #16) and
ve take place at the institutional level (#4, #6, #8, #10, #11). [See QE Reviews discussion
below.]
MusiQuE’s services and approach
The different types of services offered by MusiQuE form a kind of arc: from informal to
formal, locally condential to publicly posted, limited scope to comprehensive overview,
moving obliquely from consultative visits reports to benchmarking exercises, through
programme and institutional quality enhancement reviews to accreditation processes
(for institutions, programmes, and joint-programmes).
The fundamental approach of MusiQuE is always oriented towards quality enhancement
(QE): critical, yet collegial, engagement with stakeholders with a view to the gradual and
continual improvement of artistic and educational experience and outcomes, and
the enhancement of the discipline as a whole. Supported by the MusiQuE ofce, the
process involves the coordination of international external expertise (in the spirit of the
‘supportive critical friend’), institutional leadership, staff and students, and administrative
support. More narrowly, although ‘quality control’ [QC] concerns sometimes arise in the
course of the reviews, these largely pertain to systems management (IT, admissions and
assessment data, etc.).
At the more formal end, MusiQuE serves as the quality assurance (QA) agent in various
requisite national and international reviews. These may involve bilateral collaborations
with national QA and accreditation agencies within the ESGs process. Among the
reviews covered in this trends analysis, those in the Netherlands (#2, #5, and #16) were
undertaken in conjunction with the Accreditation Organisation of the Netherlands and
Flanders (Nederlands-Vlammse Accreditatie Organisatie) [NVAO]). And one of the Swiss
institutions (#9) used its own quite extensive evaluation criteria (Critères d’Évaluation des
Filières d’Études HES-SO). In these cases, the MusiQuE ofce undertakes considerable
effort to map and coordinate the received national/institutional standards with the
MusiQuE standards. Reviews in disciplines other than music, specically in theatre (#10)
and visual arts (#14) — though not for dance (#2, #13) — as well as those for music
programmes embedded within a larger Swiss multidisciplinary arts institution (#3), were
done in collaboration with the EQ-Arts.
Trend Analysis Report 2019-2021 by Don McLean
AuthorAbbreviations ForewordContact Context SummaryAnalysis ReportKey TrendsRemarks
12
Consultative Visits [CV]. Different discipline-specic MusiQuE reviewers worked with ve
departments within the Jazep Vitols Latvian Academy of Music in Riga, LV: Voice; Jazz;
Music Performance and Instruments; Conducting, Composition and Music Theory; and
Choreography. The service was tailor-made to complement the institution’s internal QE
processes , and focused on the departmental level of programmes to bring a more
content-driven (less QA abstract) conversation to bear in reviewing their current state
and imagining future directions. This kind of service can be a prelude to, or an iteratively
embedded exercise within, regular QE reviews. The results of these consultative visits are
condential to the institution involved. Nonetheless, it may be valuable to note that these
conversations often broach many of the dialogues found throughout the network of
higher music education institutions and represented in the regular QE reviews.
Benchmarking Exercises [BM]. MusiQuE assisted in the coordination of three
Benchmarking Exercises during the period under analysis. MusiQuE’s website provides
information on its coordination of BMs, which lie outside the scope of ESGs. In each BM,
the principal institution and three comparator institutions respond to extensive and
detailed questionnaires. The resultant data is then gathered and analysed by MusiQuE
experts, with secretarial and administrative support, and (where possible) site visits to
the four institutions are set up. An analysis report concludes the process, the results
(including the questionnaire data) of which are shared with the participating institutions.
Although the contents of BM exercises are condential to the institutions, it is useful to
identify the purpose and focus of each. Indeed, each BM review centres, respectively, on
an important ‘key trend’ in the music higher education sector: mergers, artistic research,
and transitional professional training.
BM#1 principal institution: Uniarts Helsinki, FI; comparator institutions: Academy of Music
and Drama, University of Gothenburg (AMD); Bern University of the arts (BUA); Royal
Conservatoire of Scotland (RCS). The main purpose BM#1 was to consider the immediate
and longer-term impact of major organizational mergers on the participant institutions.
All are at different stages of evolution and with different institutional and national
contexts and many challenges, successes, and valuable collegial advice is shared,
notably also through a public seminar for this BM project. Nonetheless, the phenomenon
of institutionally and governmentally driven mergers is a key and ongoing trend in higher
education, and the sharing of expertise and experience extremely valuable in optimising
response and strategic action in a changing world.
BM#2 principal institution: Orpheus Institute (OI), Ghent, BE; comparator institutions
(sub-institutions/programmes): Doctoral School for Artistic Research (KWDS), University
of Music and Performing Arts (KUG), Graz, OS; Queensland Conservatorium Research
Centre (QCRC), Grifth University, Brisbane, AU; Research and Knowledge Exchange
Department (RKED), Royal Conservatoire of Scotland (RCS). The main purpose of BM#2
Trend Analysis Report 2019-2021 by Don McLean
AuthorAbbreviations ForewordContact Context SummaryAnalysis ReportKey TrendsRemarks
13
was to consider the design and delivery of artistic (practice-based) research in several
programme, department, and institutional contexts. The report summary comments
briey on institutional character and research prole, distinctive differences in size, and
international connections. Artistic research is key and ongoing trend in higher education
in music and the arts. Its place in the future development of the eld as well as its
presence in QE processes remains of critical importance.
BM#3 principal institution: International Opera Academy (IOA), Ghent, BE; comparator
institutions (programmes): School of Vocal Studies and Opera, Royal Northern College
of Music (RNCM), Manchester, UK; Department of Opera, Stockholm University of the Arts
(UniArts), Stockholm, SE; Stuttgart Opera Institute, University of Music and Performing Arts,
Stuttgart, DE. The main purpose of BM#3 was to consider the design and implementation
of professional opera training programmes. While the questionnaires used in BM
exercises carried out by MusiQuE are built on the basis of the MusiQuE Standards for
Programme Review, a notable addition from IOA was a chapter on “Safety, wellbeing
and prevention” which addresses some very important current issues of great student
and institutional concern. Although not the central element in the exercise, the section
identies a key trend in higher education in music and the arts, and, indeed, in society
as a whole.
Regular Quality Enhancement (QE) Reviews. The 16 ‘regular QE reviews’ shown in
Table 1 form the bulk of the more detailed trends analysis by MusiQuE standards,
below. Whether the reviews are programme-specic, institutional level, or directed
to accreditation, the report formats and review processes have become fairly
standard. Following a Self-Evaluation Report (SER) generated by the institution based
on MusiQuE’s Guidelines for Institutions, a review team of international experts (with
peer review guidelines, codes of conduct, and administrative support) reviews
the SER, makes a site visit to assess matters in situ and to engage in dialogue
with all available stakeholders (administration, faculty, students, support staff,
alumni, external professionals and community members), and writes a nal report
gauging compliance levels for each MusiQuE standard along with comments and
recommendations.
Once approved by the MusiQuE Board, the report is formally shared with the
institution and published on MusiQuE’s website and on the Database of External
Quality Assurance Results (DEQAR). The 16 QE reports form the main basis of the
trends analysis by standards below. They largely follow a typical format with framing
introduction and conclusion, and sections of commentary on each MusiQuE
standard. These sections will reference the SER, the site visit and discussions, assess
the levels of compliance with each standard, and provide comments on strengths
(including commendations of good practices) and recommendations/suggestions
for improvement. They are often complemented by numerous appendices that
Trend Analysis Report 2019-2021 by Don McLean
AuthorAbbreviations ForewordContact Context SummaryAnalysis ReportKey TrendsRemarks
14
supply an overview of the documents studied by the review team, the site visit
schedule, methodological details related to the procedure, etc. An appended
tabular overview of the MusiQuE standards and assessed levels of compliance with
comments provides a helpful summary, though it does not obviate the value of
much useful detail in the body of the review.
In order to set up the comparative trends analysis, a highly abbreviated recap of
MusiQuE Standards and Compliance Levels is warranted.
Trend Analysis Report 2019-2021 by Don McLean
AuthorAbbreviations ForewordContact Context SummaryAnalysis ReportKey TrendsRemarks
15
MusiQuE Standards (8 Domains, 17 Standards)
1: Institutional Mission, Vision and Context
The institutional mission and vision are clearly stated.
2: Educational Processes
2.1: The goals of the institution are achieved through the content and structure of the
study programmes and their methods of delivery
2.2: The institution offers a range of opportunities for students to gain an international
perspective.
2.3: Assessment methods are clearly dened and demonstrate achievement of
learning outcomes.
3: Student Proles
3.1: Clear admissions criteria exist, which establish artistic/academic suitability of
students.
3.2: The institution has mechanisms to formally monitor and review the progression,
achievement and subsequent employability of its students.
4: Teaching Staff
4.1: Members of the teaching staff are qualied for their role and are active as artist/
pedagogues/researchers.
4.2: There are sufcient qualied teaching staff to effectively deliver the programmes.
5: Facilities, Resources and Support
5.1: The institution has (partner institutions have) appropriate resources [space and
equipment] to support student learning and delivery of the programme.
5.2: The institution’s nancial resources (nancial resources of the partner institutions)
enable successful delivery of the study programmes.
5.3: The institution has sufcient qualied support staff.
6: Communication, Organisation and Decision-making
6.1: Effective mechanisms are in place for internal communication within the
institution.
6.2: The institution has an appropriate organisational structure and clear decision-
making processes.
7: Internal Quality Culture
The institution has a strong internal quality culture, supported by clear and effective
quality assurance and enhancement procedures.
8: Public Interaction
8.1: The institution engages within wider cultural, artistic and educational contexts
8.2: The institution actively promotes links with various sectors of the music and other
artistic professions
8.3 Information provided to the public about the institution is clear, consistent and
accurate.
Note: my italics highlight selected keyword(s) as an abbreviated mnemonic.
Trend Analysis Report 2019-2021 by Don McLean
AuthorAbbreviations ForewordContact Context SummaryAnalysis ReportKey TrendsRemarks
16
Compliance Levels
MusiQuE’s Internal Regulations (8.1.2, p.51) dene the compliance levels used by reviewers:
• Fully compliant (FC): A standard is fully compliant when the approaches, structures
or mechanisms relevant to that standard are fully implemented in a coherent and
consistent way
• Substantially compliant (SC): A standard is substantially compliant when the
standard is in place, while minor weaknesses have been observed but the manner of
implementation is most effective. In such cases Review Teams are asked to include a
recommendation as to how full compliance can be achieved.
• Partially compliant (PC): A standard is partially compliant when the standard
is in place, while signicant weaknesses have been observed or the manner of
implementation is not sufciently effective. In such cases Review Teams are asked to
include a recommendation as to how full compliance can be achieved or a condition.
• Not compliant (NC): A standard is not compliant when the approaches, structures
or mechanisms relevant to that standard are lacking or implemented inadequately. In
such cases Review Teams are asked to include a strong recommendation or a condition.
Note: ‘conditions’ are only formulated in accreditation reports. When conditions are
determined, a follow-up report will be undertaken to address issues raised. For example,
this is the purpose of the 2019 follow-up report (#1) on the Kurmangazy Kazakh National
Conservatory (KKNC). The original report 2017.07.14 granted accreditation to 1st cycle
programmes but conditional accreditation to 2nd and 3rd cycle programmes. The
follow-up determines that the three conditions — concerning artistic research policy,
AEC learning outcomes, overarching documentation with statistical data, programme
operations, etc. — had now largely been met, and aligns them with a review of the MusiQuE
standards (most now ‘fully compliant’) though with various further recommendations,
particularly in the areas of internationalization (exchanges and English language
competence, 2.2) and assessment of learning outcomes (written feedback and external
juries, 2.3), which standards were now deemed ‘substantially compliant’.
Trend Analysis Report 2019-2021 by Don McLean
AuthorAbbreviations ForewordContact Context SummaryAnalysis ReportKey TrendsRemarks
17
2. Trends Analysis by Standards
As was noted in Section A. above – Overview and Executive Summary of Key Trends, Table
2 provides a synoptic overview of the evolving state of compliance by mapping the 16
QE reviews of Table 1 onto the 17 MusiQuE standards, colour-coding the compliance
levels assigned by the review teams. Used as a pivot, this allows each standard to be
addressed on a simple statistical basis (captured in a series of pie-charts) as well as
through the synthesis of observations from comments in the reviews.
Standards
Reviews 1 2.1 2.2 2.3 3.1 3.2 4.1 4.2 5.1 5.2 5.3 6.1 6.2 7 8.1 8.2 8.3
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
#9
#10
#11
#12
#13
#14
#15
#16
Compliance Levels:
Fully Compliant
194 of 272 71%
Substantially Compliant
54 of 272 20%
Partly Compliant
24 of 272 9%
Not Compliant
24 of 272 0%
100
Table 2. Synoptic overview of standards / compliance levels
Trend Analysis Report 2019-2021 by Don McLean
AuthorAbbreviations ForewordContact Context SummaryAnalysis ReportKey TrendsRemarks
18
Table 2 supplies the reference number # (column 1) and the list of 16 regular QE
programme/institution reviews (column 2). The remaining columns show the heading
number of the 17 MusiQuE standards. A total of 272 boxes is available in the 16 x 17 grid. The
compliance levels are colour-coded as follows:
• Fully Compliant (FC): dark green,
• Substantially Compliant (SC): light green,
• Partially Compliant (PC): light brown, and
• Not Compliant (NC): red.
A cursory overview of the Table shows that the majority of ndings are FC (194 of 272
= 71%), followed by SC (54 of 272 = 20%), with relatively few PC (24 of 272 = 9%), and no
instances of NC ndings in these reports.
Overall, the high success in compliance reects the thorough preparation of the
institutions in assembling their Self-Evaluation Reports, and the QE-focused dialogue
and follow-up with the review teams. For the present purpose, the valuable aspect of
Table 2 is not who receives various assessments of compliance in which standards, but
how compliance evolves overall in the QE process: what the current state of different
standards (read by column) is in the opinions of the review teams, and what future
directions for enhancement should entail. A further caveat must recognize that the ‘set’
of reviews is itself an articial and arbitrary sample, merely the collection of MusiQuE
documents produced within the timeframe of this analysis. It does not, indeed cannot,
be taken as a comprehensive survey of the sector, beyond the level of snapshot.
The presentation of each standard, below, begins with a ‘pie-chart’ that captures its
relative levels of compliance. Findings of FC do not preclude additional (sometimes
quite extensive) comments from the review teams: ‘good-practices’ are identied and
commended, and further ideas for enhancements are offered. SC and PC ndings are
accompanied by more detailed analyses and recommendations for steps that would
need to be taken as follow-up to move to FC. To the extent that such information forms
‘trendlines’ of successes and challenges within the standards, some further comments
are made below.
Trend Analysis Report 2019-2021 by Don McLean
AuthorAbbreviations ForewordContact Context SummaryAnalysis ReportKey TrendsRemarks
19
Summary overview of compliance levels for each MusiQuE standard
S1: Institutional Mission, Vision and Context
The institutional mission and vision are clearly stated.
1: Mission, Vision, Context
FC 69%, SC 25%, PC 6%.
Standard 1 is the departure point and critical dening standard for QE. Most institutions
have now embraced strategic planning, and the articulation of mission, vision, and
goals for their distinctive context. It is still a difcult process, one that requires the
open engagement of all stakeholders to be successful. The importance of student-
centredness and the development of artistic identity remains key. As one student stated:
“We come to conservatories not just because we are good at something, but because
we want to become someone.” Where the overall vision is well-articulated, it permeates
the institution and the buy-in from most stakeholders is evident.
Recent use of MusiQuE’s less formal ‘critical friends’ procedures at the departmental
level, and their iteration and roll-up at programme and institutional levels is to be
highly recommended. In SC cases, reviewers emphasized the need to articulate clear,
achievable targets, and priorities. Institutions with very large international student
populations were also encouraged to expand their non-EU perspectives, a more general
globalization strategy also emerging on other fronts. In the PC situation, the problems
mostly arose from ‘version control’ issues, with the strategic plan still underdeveloped,
and the distinction between present state and future vision, including the capture of
internationalization ambitions, confusing. In all cases, reviewers made appropriate
suggestions for improvements in the context of ongoing QE.
Trend Analysis Report 2019-2021 by Don McLean
AuthorAbbreviations ForewordContact Context SummaryAnalysis ReportKey TrendsRemarks
20
S2: Educational Processes
2.1: The goals of the institution are achieved through the content and structure of the
study programmes and their methods of delivery
2.1: Programme Structure & Delivery
FC 50% and SC 50%
Reviewers are 50–50 in their assessment of this most central standard for programme
content and delivery. Standard 2.1 is probably the most varied and complex
consideration in the review process. The one-to-one relationship between
students and teachers remains a dening feature of higher education in the
arts. Yet, recommendations of balancing group work with individual lessons are
becoming normal, given their evident value for improved learning outcomes. An
important aspect of the shift to student-centred learning is the goal to develop
individual artistic identity, critical thinking, and professional opportunities.
Most institutions, being part of the MusiQuE process, are working with some form of the
AEC learning outcomes (LOs) to structure their programmes. Early adopters of the LO
process (going back to the Polifonia/Dublin Descriptors) are now often quite advanced
in their programme content and delivery, as well as its link to assessment procedures.
That said, one review team noted that the occasional tendency to over-document and
over-complicate LO descriptions can create a countereffect. In FC and also SC cases,
recommendations for improvements often focus on achieving better communications
among all stakeholders (students, teaching and support staff, administration) so that
full ‘buy-in’ to artistic and academic goals can occur.
Artistic research is very much a continuing central theme in higher education
discussions, although it tends to get rather short shrift as a (mere) component of
standard 2.1. Reviews conrm its importance by acknowledging best practice in some
institutions and encouraging more rened development of practice-based artistic, as
well as pedagogical, research. It is always a topic for discussion, though one still slow to
Trend Analysis Report 2019-2021 by Don McLean
AuthorAbbreviations ForewordContact Context SummaryAnalysis ReportKey TrendsRemarks
21
mature in some places. The impact of the pandemic on programme delivery has been
profound, the restrictions on in-person teaching and performance only partially offset
by the rapid deployment of upgraded online resources and creative workarounds for
ongoing engagement.
2.2: The institution offers a range of opportunities for students to gain an international
perspective.
2.2: International Perspective
FC 63%, SC 37%
International perspective remains a fundamental intention of the higher education
sector as a whole and, given its cultural implications, of the arts sector in particular.
Reviewers found 63% of the programmes/institutions FC. Several institutions were
commended for their focus on developing regional alliances by taking into account
geographical and culture opportunities. The importance of English language
competence, though sometimes overly worried, remains key to many wider
international experiences. For some SC cases, this is also a recurrent issue in admissions
expectations regarding language of instruction. Specic projects have developed
‘good practice’ by focusing on inclusivity across the institution and in the community.
Further opportunities to draw global perspectives from interactions among the many
international students enrolled in the programmes are encouraged. The pandemic
had an obvious deleterious effect on mobility. Workarounds necessitated investment
in various creative online and hybrid solutions. (Going forward, concerns about
sustainability are emerging. See B.4 – Concluding Remarks, below.)
Trend Analysis Report 2019-2021 by Don McLean
AuthorAbbreviations ForewordContact Context OverviewAnalysis ReportKey TrendsRemarks
22
2.3: Assessment methods are clearly dened and demonstrate achievement of learning
outcomes.
2.3: Assessment
FC 56%, SC 13%, PC 31%
Although over half of the reviews were deemed FC for standard 2.3, there remains a
need for continuous vigilance concerning assessment procedures. When things are
working well, the assessment methods, procedures, and criteria are precisely and
thoroughly described and documented, and students — as well as teachers — are well
informed about them. Several institutions are cited for their good practices in this regard.
The methods used are effective and appropriate when assessing the stated LOs. Self-
assessment as part of the portfolio approach is commended as a way to ensure that
students reect on the growth of their own artistic identity.
In other cases, inconsistencies in assessment procedures across and between programs
are noted. (See also, comments regarding handbooks and supervision in 3.2, below.)
In particular, thorough mapping of assessment criteria against intended LOs is often
lacking, which results in gaps (or duplications) in assessment coverage. In cases where
policies and procedures are not yet fully embedded in the programme/institutional
culture, the need for regular discussion of LOs and related assessment criteria among
stakeholders is emphasized. These exchanges may involve focus groups, surveys, etc.
Formalized written feedback, including reports from external examiners, is often lacking
and should be linked to assessment criteria and intended LOs.
Understandably, during the pandemic, all institutions needed to review their assessment
procedures and nd workarounds for evolving health restrictions.
Trend Analysis Report 2019-2021 by Don McLean
AuthorAbbreviations ForewordContact Context SummaryAnalysis ReportKey TrendsRemarks
23
S3: Student Proles
3.1: Clear admissions criteria exist, which establish artistic/academic suitability of
students.
3.1: Student Admission Criteria
FC 69%, SC 19%, PC 13%
Most admissions criteria are deemed FC by the review teams. The differences between
those institutions and programmes that are mostly national and those that are targeted
at international students can be signicant. The importance of student motivation as
well as achievement to-date in assessing qualication for admission to programmes
was commended. The signicant nancial differentials for domestic and foreign
students in some jurisdictions receive relatively little treatment from reviewers, mostly
as they are matters for advocacy with the relevant parent institutions and governments.
In SC and PC cases, reviews cite the need for more clarity of admission expectations for
different sub-programmes (performance, composition, education, etc.). Some incipient
reporting is done on plans to accommodate applicants with physical disabilities (an
important element in wider expectations for diversity). The impact of the pandemic on
admissions (3.1), student progress, and employability (3.2) has yet to be fully assessed.
Trend Analysis Report 2019-2021 by Don McLean
AuthorAbbreviations ForewordContact Context SummaryAnalysis ReportKey TrendsRemarks
24
3.2: The institution has mechanisms to formally monitor and review the progression,
achievement and subsequent employability of its students.
3.2: Student Monitoring Progression
FC 56%, SC 19%, PC 25%
Just over half of the institutions are deemed FC with this sometimes complex
and multifaceted standard. The expectations for monitoring students within the
programme are often met, but the data on end-of-programme achievement and
subsequent employability is often lacking. Alumni surveys are recommended where
they are not already in place.
Internships and community projects are suggested as ways of bridging the gap
between the academy and the profession.
These institutional habits and data processes are worth sharing at the sectoral level to
help develop best-practices.
Even in FC cases, the need for better (particularly upper-cycle) handbooks (e.g. student
study guidelines, teaching staff evaluation guidelines, etc.) and regular supervisory
contact was raised. And there are sometimes disparities between assessment quality
and procedures across various subdisciplines; e.g., academic vs performance, music
vs other specializations. (Some of this information pertains to 2.3 Assessment above,
even though it was reported by reviewers in relation to the way student progress is being
monitored across the programme(s).)
On the longitudinal end, one institution was commended for “creating a culture of caring
for the students and their professional progression, as well as keeping close contact
with alumni and acknowledging them as an important part of the [institutional] identity
and community.” On the other hand, there are still some cases where there remains
“signicant resistance to the use of metrics in QA” altogether.
Trend Analysis Report 2019-2021 by Don McLean
AuthorAbbreviations ForewordContact Context SummaryAnalysis ReportKey TrendsRemarks
25
S4: Teaching Staff
4.1: Members of the teaching staff are qualied for their role and are active as artist/
pedagogues/researchers.
4.1: Staff: Qualications
FC 63%, SC 37%
Most teaching staff members are eminently qualied for their roles and are active as
artists/pedagogues/researchers. Some institutions were commended for their deft
collaborations between external working artists and internal qualied teachers. In SC
cases, ongoing developments to improve peer dialogue around pedagogy and to
utilize resources from institutional education specialists were recommended. As well,
the need for greater English language competency was referenced in some institutions,
given its value in internationalization.
4.2: There are sufcient qualied teaching staff to effectively deliver the programmes.
4.2: Staff: Sufcient Numbers
FC 100%
Trend Analysis Report 2019-2021 by Don McLean
AuthorAbbreviations ForewordContact Context SummaryAnalysis ReportKey TrendsRemarks
26
Remarkably, all review teams found teaching staff numbers of sufcient quantity to
deliver the programmes. (Although such a nding of ‘sufciency’ is undisruptive to the
programme/institutional status quo, it is difcult to think that the need for more staff
in some strategic areas would not be a common concern for many organizations.)
Additional recommendations concerned the need for better gender equity, strategic
recruitment, and succession planning.
S5: Facilities, Resources and Support
5.1: The institution has (partner institutions have) appropriate resources [space and
equipment] to support student learning and delivery of the programme.
5.1: Resources (Facilities: space, IT, library)
FC 74%, SC 13%, PC 13%
In general, review teams nd the space and equipment resources adequate to the
quality delivery of programmes and therefore nd them FC. In the SC and PC cases,
shortfalls in studio space and/or scheduling problems are acknowledged. Some
major infrastructure renewals are pending, a fact noted optimistically by the reviewers.
A couple of newer institutions are commended for their extraordinary facilities. The
pandemic created immediate needs for upgrading IT and Audio-Video infrastructure in
many institutions, needs which are unlikely to diminish going forward.
Trend Analysis Report 2019-2021 by Don McLean
AuthorAbbreviations ForewordContact Context SummaryAnalysis ReportKey TrendsRemarks
27
5.2: The institution’s nancial resources (nancial resources of the partner institutions)
enable successful delivery of the study programmes.
5.2: Resources (Financial)
FC 88%, SC 6%, PC 6%
In general, review teams feel that nancial resources, though vastly different from one
institution to another, are adequate for the quality delivery of programmes, and therefore
nd them FC. SC and PC levels note systemic government underfunding and other
pressures on resources. Alternative, including philanthropic, sources are encouraged.
5.3: The institution has sufcient qualied support staff.
5.3: Resources (Support Staff)
FC 81%, SC 19%
Trend Analysis Report 2019-2021 by Don McLean
AuthorAbbreviations ForewordContact Context SummaryAnalysis ReportKey TrendsRemarks
28
Reviewers regularly praise support staff for being “committed, dedicated, efcient, and
engaged”. They are clearly one of the major assets of most institutions. A recurrent
recommendation for support staff was to increase opportunities for professional
development, including opportunities for increasing specialized skills.
In SC cases, the reviews acknowledge that “administrative support is already
stretched, and this has been exacerbated by COVID circumstances.” General
institutional nancial distress can also contribute to overburdening support staff
where they are too few in number.
S6: Communication, Organisation and Decision-making
6.1: Effective mechanisms are in place for internal communication within the institution.
6.1: Internal Communication
FC 69%, SC 19%, PC 13%
Most reviews nd internal communications FC with the standard. Some Quality Control
(QC) issues with respect to information and data keeping systems arose. In the SC
and PC cases, suggestions to develop a comprehensive information strategy, to
develop ethical guidelines for communications between students and teachers (with
appropriate protocols in place), and to establish activities (and spaces) for students to
meet and collaborate were most notable. The need to involve students in the evaluation
of teaching remains under development in some places. The pandemic highlighted
structural gaps in communications since institutions found their often informal in-
person habits compromised.
Trend Analysis Report 2019-2021 by Don McLean
AuthorAbbreviations ForewordContact Context SummaryAnalysis ReportKey TrendsRemarks
29
6.2: The institution has an appropriate organisational structure and clear decision-
making processes.
6.2: Structure & Decision Making
FC 44%, SC 44%, PC 12%
Organizational Structure and its effect on internal communication and decision-making
processes is a critical factor in programme and institutional success. Review teams
found FC as often as SC, and many of the recommendations made are similar for both.
The need to ensure closure of feedback loops (to staff and students) on curriculum
discussions and changes is a recurrent concern. Allowing students a more formal role
in the organizational (and governance) structure also comes up regularly. In PC cases,
the need for clear standing agendas for departmental meetings and the opportunity to
highlight strategic issues was strongly recommended to build IQC. In addition, the need
to rethink organizational and decision-making processes was emphasized, particularly
in the face of ongoing integration into a larger institutional context.
Trend Analysis Report 2019-2021 by Don McLean
AuthorAbbreviations ForewordContact Context SummaryAnalysis ReportKey TrendsRemarks
30
S7: Internal Quality Culture
The institution has a strong internal quality culture, supported by clear and effective
quality assurance and enhancement procedures.
7: Internal Quality Culture (IQC)
FC 56%, SC 19%, PC 25%
Maintaining a strong yet exible Internal Quality Culture (IQC) is a difcult iterative task,
yet reviewers found slightly more than half of the programmes/institutions FC. The
recommendation to use more external experts to assist the process was commonly
suggested. In one FC case, the need to reduce excessive bureaucracy and paperwork
was noted. Several institutions were cited for their strong IQC ‘best-practice’, while one
particularly stands out for its self-critical mindset and embedded use of the ‘critical
friends’ (CF) approach at the departmental level. Opportunities for the ‘silos’ of CF
reviews to interact was a valuable suggestion.
PC and SC cases mostly note the need for better documentation (and internal
communication) concerning QA for specic programmes to ensure broader adoption
of QE measures. In addition, concerns about ‘inappropriate behaviours’ surfaced
the urgent need for policy development and action plans, as is noted in the detailed
discussion of Key Trends 2 and 3, below.
Trend Analysis Report 2019-2021 by Don McLean
AuthorAbbreviations ForewordContact Context SummaryAnalysis ReportKey TrendsRemarks
31
S8: Public Interaction
8.1: The institution engages within wider cultural, artistic and educational contexts.
8.1: Cultural, Artistic, Educational Contexts
FC 88%, SC 12%
Most institutions and programmes are clearly well-embedded in their local cultural,
artistic, and educational contexts. Many were cited for the quality of their public
interactions. It was remarkable that so many institutions found creative ways to keep
their public presence going during the pandemic, despite the shutdown of most public
events. SC issues pertained mostly to the desirability of having a more developed
outreach and pre-university educational policy to encourage domestic growth.
Trend Analysis Report 2019-2021 by Don McLean
AuthorAbbreviations ForewordContact Context SummaryReportAnalysisKey TrendsRemarks
32
8.2: The institution actively promotes links with various sectors of the music and other
artistic professions.
8.2: Links with Professions
FC 88%, SC 6%, PC 6%
Again, links with the profession are generally well-developed. Recommendations for
further improvements often centred on the value of developing more interdisciplinary
activities and internship programmes. In the SC and PC cases, the need to formalize
partnership agreements where these appear too casual was noted.
8.3 Information provided to the public about the institution is clear, consistent and
accurate.
8.3: Public Information
FC 100%
Trend Analysis Report 2019-2021 by Don McLean
AuthorAbbreviations ForewordContact Context SummaryReportAnalysisKey TrendsRemarks
33
One notes the 100% Full Compliance for this nal Standard, a testimony to the sector’s
universal recognition of the importance of public presence. Several institutions (#5,
#6, #14) were commended for their strong digital and social media presence. English
language presence is important to internationalization; some institutions (#4, #7) are
exemplary in this regard, some others challenged, in part due to deployment delays
given limited nancial and HR capacity for communications/IT resources (#10, #11).
Trend Analysis Report 2019-2021 by Don McLean
AuthorAbbreviations ForewordContact Context SummaryKey TrendsRemarks Analysis Report
34
3. Key Trends: detailed discussion and recommendations
0. The Pandemic: its impact, institutional responses, and future implications
The global COVID-19 pandemic (from March 2020 onwards) has had profound impact
on higher education, the arts, and society as a whole. It is ‘ground zero’ and ‘trend zero’. Its
broader health and socioeconomic realities have been devastating and its implications
for the sector, signicant. Fifteen of the twenty reports surveyed were issued during the
pandemic shutdown or just emerging from it (if, indeed, we are). More critically, due to
pandemic protocol restrictions, the last four reports (#13–#16 in Table 1), as well as the
consultative visits (CV) reports and two benchmarking exercises (BM#2–#3 in Table 1),
found the review teams unable to carry out in-person site visits (normally felt to be a
central component of the review process). MusiQuE and higher education institutions
in the arts have done an extraordinary job nding amazingly creative workarounds for
the delivery of services and programmes. Several reports, for example, cite rapid online
shifts, many involving extensive enhancements of IT and AV resources, a trend that will
not go away in future and that will have signicant ongoing curricular implications.
These efforts are a testimony to the resilience of our students, teaching faculty, and
support staff, and to their underlying commitment to teaching and learning, and to the
art form itself. Yet, some of the later reviews (given that they took place at the height of
the shutdowns) appear to report the pandemic as a mostly logistical challenge: ‘we
couldn’t do X, so we did Y’.
The reality, of course, is far more complex. Higher education has almost ‘missed out’
on half a student cohort over the two-plus-year timeframe of the pandemic, if not in
numbers then in altered teaching and learning experience. Studies are only just emerging
that assess the situational data (for example, in admissions and internationalization).
Notwithstanding the many laudable innovations discovered in response to restrictions,
the impact — particularly on mental health — has been enormous, much of it still to
be considered. Similarly, the ‘gap’ in much professional programming over the same
(two-seasons) period has had a deeply deleterious effect on society as a whole, and
has been deeply discouraging for both students and professionals. Moving forward, we
will need to shift from ‘resilience’ to ‘anti-fragility’, to become proactive in recognizing
ongoing challenges and creating new opportunities.
Recommendation: that MusiQuE work with other higher education agencies and arts
organizations to make the pandemic — its impact and institutional responses—the
subject of data-informed critical analysis, and that various pathways are considered to
share information and best practices forward across the network.
Trend Analysis Report 2019-2021 by Don McLean
AuthorAbbreviations ForewordContact Context SummaryAnalysis ReportKey TrendsRemarks
35
1. The state of Quality Enhancement (QE), Quality Assurance (QA), and related
organizational and communications issues
MusiQuE and the review teams are to be commended for their focus on QE, working with
the reviewees in the manner of ‘critical friends’ in conducting the reviews and writing their
reports. As noted previously, the arc of MusiQuE’s different services — from consultative
visits (CV) and benchmarking exercises (BM), to programme and institutional reviews
and accreditation procedures — shows a range of activities that often makes cross-
report comparisons difcult. As well, reviewers must meet the considerable challenge
of mapping the assessment criteria of other agencies (NVAO, HES-SO, EQ-Arts) onto the
MusiQuE standards, with impressive though predictably complicated results.
There is now widespread recognition and realization of the value of articulating
institutional (and programme) mission and vision (standard 1), the main challenges
remaining the need to develop ‘SMART’ implementations and roadmaps to ensure
success. (SMART is an acronym for Specic, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and
Time-Bound.) Also noted is the importance of dening a vision that embodies the
distinctive (including geographical and cultural) context of the programme/institution.
Given MusiQuE’s laudable goal of focusing on QE, one might expect that Critical Friend
Reviews would be preferred among ‘rst-time clients’. However, the iterative and lengthy
next steps involved in moving such processes to programme/institutional level QE can
seem daunting, particularly for institutions still at the early stages of QA. After all, the
ultimate goal is to embed QE and QA within the institutional fabric of an IQC (internal
quality culture), a situation acknowledged as fully compliant (with some reservations)
in just over half the reports (standard 7). A few institutions show ‘model’ IQCs, the
ongoing process perhaps most succinctly characterized by the Royal Conservatoire of
The Hague’s (#16) invocation of the ‘lemniscate of continuous improvement’ using the
innity symbol ∞ as a representation for continuous QE.
The challenges of achieving a strong IQC are often associated with concerns about the
effectiveness of internal communications (standard 6.1) and appropriateness of the
local organizational structure to ensure clear decision-making processes (standard
6.2). The QA processes can lack widespread engagement of all relevant stakeholders,
particularly the inclusion of students, but can also fail to secure the understanding of the
issues and positive participation of teaching faculty and support staff. Organizations
can sometimes be too top-down, and sometimes too bottom-up, and the reporting
structures too horizontal or too vertical.
Recommendations: organizational and communications structures and their ongoing
impact on IQC would be a useful topic for best-practices discussion at sector level.
(Related to this is the ongoing trend towards institutional mergers — the main subject of
BM#1 — and their far-reaching implications for organizational change and stakeholder
challenges.) Also useful would be examples of best-practices in articulating missions
and goals that are distinctively inspiring and demonstrably operational.
Trend Analysis Report 2019-2021 by Don McLean
AuthorAbbreviations ForewordContact Context SummaryAnalysis ReportKey TrendsRemarks
36
2. Diversity and Diversication: the changing global environment
In the global context of diversity considerations — from ‘me-too’ and Black Lives Matter
(and other racialized dialogues), to indigenous reconciliation and migration/immigration
crises, gender equity/diversity, disability inclusion, and so on — higher music education
institutions are also facing major upheaval and change. Given this situation, it is
surprising that the word “diversity” is entirely absent from the MusiQuE Standards
1
. When
the word does appear in the review documents, it mostly pertains to diversity of artistic
activities, musical styles, and pedagogical approaches (the last sometimes a codeword
for disagreements). And questions from reviewers about diversity and equity issues are
often met with surprise. The Swiss (#3 in Table 1) now incorporate diversity expectations
into assessment criteria — “the study programme takes account of societal changes
such as sustainability and diversity” — and into institution-level strategic plans for staff
recruitment. Across the arts higher-education sector, the large numbers of international
students at many institutions (from over 50 different countries, in one case) present
opportunities for showcasing diversity that are, so far, mostly underrealized.
In contrast, Singapore (#4 in Table 1) and Thailand (#7, #15 in Table 1) engage with “diverse
cultural and musical identities” as a matter of cultural and geographical norm, another
excellent opportunity for ‘outside-in’ inuence for the EU. In a similar way, Beirut (#12 in
Table 1) was commended for its conscious and successful efforts to bring together
Christian and Muslim communities. Beyond music, institutions in visual arts and dance
(and to a lesser extent theatre) have created exemplary high-prole projects that focus
on diversity and inclusion and suggest potential interdisciplinary opportunities.
The recent reports from MusiQuE also reect signicant diversication. Reviews now
regularly extend to institutions far beyond the EU: Kazakhstan (#1), Singapore (#4), Beirut
(#12), Thailand (#7, #15). Several reviews focus on EU institutions from the former Soviet bloc
(now at some distance in time): Poland (#6), Serbia (#8), Czech Republic (#10, #11). And
from EU-proximate Switzerland: Zurich (#3) and Geneva (#8). In addition, recent reviews
extend to disciplines other than music: dance (two QE reviews and one CV department
visit), theatre, visual arts. Thus, MusiQuE’s review activities have become both more
international and more interdisciplinary. Though such complexity can be challenging,
it is a very positive sign, not just as a tribute to growing condence in MusiQuE, but also
as a tremendous learning opportunity. The shift from colonialization to globalization is
inspiring, as is the resultant potential for ‘reverse-inuence’, where, for example, there is
much to admire and learn from the fresh and ambitious approaches to strategic vision,
curriculum design, geographical and cultural integration, and the often extraordinary
resources and facilities found in Singapore and Thailand.
1 MusiQuE Standards are currently being revised. An amended framework of assessment will be
published and implemented from 2023 onwards. The above observation on diversity refers to the
2015 rev. 2019 Standards used for the reviews conducted between 2019 and 2021 that constitute the
object of the present analysis.
Trend Analysis Report 2019-2021 by Don McLean
AuthorAbbreviations ForewordContact Context SummaryAnalysis ReportKey TrendsRemarks
37
Recommendations: it is imperative that MusiQuE incorporate diversity expectations into
its compliance standards and institutional guidelines so that these issues may be ‘raised
to consciousness’ and appropriate actions can be taken across the sector. Further
opportunities would also be welcome to expand diversication through interdisciplinary
discussions, and reections on creative opportunities that can evolve within the ongoing
shift towards globalization.
3. Students: student-centredness—engagement, feedback, support
Over a period of several years (perhaps several decades at this point) there has been
a growing recognition of students’ position at (and as) the centre of the academy.
This represents a fundamental shift away from the teacher’s role as iconic expert and
authoritarian arbiter of knowledge towards a role that develops a nuanced relationship
as coach/mentor and co-artistic explorer. A signicant corollary of that trajectory is the
expectation for increased engagement of students in curricular and organizational
matters. Building critical thinking, reective, independent artists is a process. Students
need to be engaged in curricular change so that they can take joint ownership of
Learning Outcomes (LOs) and assessment processes. Students should also have a well-
articulated role in governance, a situation still quite unevenly implemented across the
sector. While student voice is sometimes challenging, its presence is essential to the
development of an open institutional (and professional) community.
In many institutions the detail and quality of evaluation feedback is still evolving. Several
institutions are asked to revisit the connection between LOs and assessment, and to
make the link more transparent to all stakeholders (teachers as well as students). The
need for better written feedback and more formalized record keeping is regularly cited.
In contrast, one review team for dance (#13) commended “the assessment philosophy,
structure and practice detailed in the SER [Self-Evaluation Report]. It is a model of its
type, well-informed by current specialist educational practice, thoughtful and values-
driven”: clearly a good practice worth sharing. There are sometimes concerns about
equity, where the otherwise admirable individualized engagement between student
and teacher (or programme leader) can lead to the perception of unequal treatment.
In parallel, student representative roles in governance need to be determined by
transparent process, not, as is sometimes the case, doled out on the basis of academic
or artistic achievement.
Finally, expectations and needs for more robust student services and support are
growing rapidly. Some institutions need to expand and improve support for their many
international students. Health and well-being concerns, most notably mental health
issues, have grown signicantly in recent years, and their impact has become even more
evident during the disruptions of the pandemic. In-house and external referral services
need to be enhanced. Institutions are also at different stages of providing condential
Trend Analysis Report 2019-2021 by Don McLean
AuthorAbbreviations ForewordContact Context SummaryAnalysis ReportKey TrendsRemarks
38
counselling. Such support needs to be independent from (or at least additional to)
normal interface with the principal teacher, programme leader, or ‘education manager’.
This is particularly true where concerns about student safety, including sexual or other
forms of harassment, may be in question.
Recommendations: More work linking LOs to assessment procedures needs to be done,
perhaps in the form of workshops focused on those issues. Best practices in engaging
students in governance need to continue to be shared. Institutions and sector support
organizations should recommend and implement training in harassment prevention
and unconscious bias across their communities. Institutions should prioritize health and
well-being for their students, staff, and faculty members by establishing policies and
procedures that provide paths of empathetic condential support, and by embedding
physical and mental health concerns within and beyond the curriculum.
4. Curriculum: continuing & evolving issues
The fundamental premise of QE means that curriculum issues — the educational
processes that ensure delivery of programmes, opportunities for international experience,
and assessment — are always continuing to evolve. There is a lot of detail to consider.
A few issues are, however, recurrent, and trends can be identied. Many institutions are
now focusing on the development of students’ individual artistic identity, supported
by emphasis on the growth of independent critical thinking. Embedding artistic
research and professional outcomes throughout the programme of study is gradually
becoming normative. Expectations are of course different depending on the cycle level
of the programme. Capstone projects, professional internships, entrepreneurial efforts
are part of this trend. There remains, however, much work to be done on integrating
Learning Outcomes (LOs), based on the Polifonia/Dublin Descriptors and/or AEC Learning
Outcomes, into the curriculum, or, more specically, ensuring that staff and students
have inculcated LOs into their conscious teaching and learning activities. Study guides,
handbooks, assessment criteria, shared digital information, etc. (some more successful
than others) can go a long way to build clarity and consistency in this area.
A recurrent problem is the perceived relationship (or rather the gap) between LOs and
assessment. The need for better linkage, and for more formalized (including written)
feedback tools is still very much in the process of evolution, as is evident in a number of
reviews. Another recurrent theme is the need to ‘branch out’: student experience (and
staff guidance) is increasingly expected to be interdepartmental (breaking down silos),
interdisciplinary (connecting to other people and programmes), interinstitutional (using
project partnerships, Erasmus+, etc.), and international (gaining valuable perspective
and networks). The fact that these ‘inter’- efforts are often difcult to achieve does not
gainsay their importance as a key trend in curricular change. A related need to build
language competency and to make high quality communications available in English
Trend Analysis Report 2019-2021 by Don McLean
AuthorAbbreviations ForewordContact Context SummaryAnalysis ReportKey TrendsRemarks
39
is often cited in the reviews, particularly for their role in support of internationalization.
Programmes and institutions are both commended for this work and occasionally
advised to improve it.
Recommendations: There is very little new here. However, it seems, there is still a need for
ongoing best-practice discussions of LOs, assessment, artistic research, artistic identity,
professional outcomes, internships, entrepreneurship, and various ‘inter-’ experiences.
MusiQuE should continue to support QE in these curricular areas.
5. Staff and resources: professional development, space & technology
For the most part, the reviews are very well disposed to the topics of staff (both academic
& support) and resources (space & technology). However, there are a few ongoing
trends/concerns. The need for additional professional development, supported by
improved HR policies and resource allocations, is central. Teaching staff still need greater
encouragement and support to develop their personal proles in practice-based
artistic research [the main subject of BM#2] and pedagogical study. Understanding
what is expected from teaching staff in the changing conservatoire context is far
from uniform, and embedding QE in research into the IQC is an ongoing process. Staff
mobility, through Erasmus and other agencies, is often underutilized and opportunities
for personal growth and institutional perspective consequently missed.
Also noted as a need in the 2019 Trends Analysis, such opportunities were understandably
curtailed during the pandemic. The resultant restrictions necessitated the creation
of more opportunities for remote/online engagement, and a new-norm of hybrid in-
person and online has emerged, one that also addresses growing sensitivities to the
impact of travel on climate change, another strongly emerging thematic in arts and
higher education. Success in raising the individual and institutional prole of research
requires strategic leadership and the directed allocation (including reallocation) of
resources. Integrating professional development opportunities into the academy
also helps reduce the occasional problems of balance (and disjunction) between
research/artistic-professional and teaching activities. Part-time professional staff play
a central role in reputation and programme delivery for most institutions, and nding
opportunities to engage them in IQC and curricular discussions is a critical component
of building community.
Almost all reviews make a point of acknowledging the extraordinary work of support
staff who are (as in 2019) found to be “committed, dedicated, efcient and engaged”.
We owe them all tremendous respect and gratitude. Several cases of overwork, due
to stafng shortfalls or multitasking challenges, are noted. Again the pandemic often
created additional burdens due to ‘working at home’ (or, as it might be more accurately
framed, ‘living at work’). Fostering the acquisition of specialized skills for support staff
through their own forms of professional development is highly recommended.
Trend Analysis Report 2019-2021 by Don McLean
AuthorAbbreviations ForewordContact Context SummaryAnalysis ReportKey TrendsRemarks
40
Most reviews react positively to the physical and technological facilities made available
to ensure program delivery as well as public prole. Space in academia, to paraphrase
Star Trek, really is ‘the nal frontier’. And space for advanced creative work is specialized
and expensive. A few institutions under review are clearly challenged by space and
nancial shortfalls (and sometimes Quality Control [QC] needs for systems/scheduling,
etc.). Advocacy support from the AEC and other agencies is important. In contrast, some
institutions have been fortunate enough to create extraordinary world-class facilities in
recent years, working with many levels of higher education, government, and sometimes
philanthropic support. The pandemic required rapid deployment of additional IT and
Audio-Visual [AV] resources for online learning. Maintaining the progress will be an
ongoing challenge, as expectations for internal as well as public presence through
digital and social media are not going away.
Recommendations: professional development needs for academic and support
staff would prot from sharing of best-practice. Artistic research as well as advanced
pedagogical study should continue to be a central focus for ongoing development
across the sector. Space and IT/AV issues seldom mature for discussion at the sectoral
level, but keeping higher-level institutional and governmental agencies aware of what
excellence means, and what it can deliver, is a useful thing: making these topics the
subject of exchange and dialogue is advisable. The post-pandemic emerging hybrid of
in-person and remote/online activities should become a focus for thematic discussion
and research, both for its curricular and institutional resources implications and for its
impact on considerations of travel and climate change.
Trend Analysis Report 2019-2021 by Don McLean
AuthorAbbreviations ForewordContact Context SummaryAnalysis ReportKey TrendsRemarks
41
4. Concluding Remarks
The intention, in these concluding remarks, is not to recapitulate the Key Trends identied
in sections A and B.3, even less so the Trends Analysis and pie charts detailed in section
B.2, but rather to highlight a few recurrent issues for further consideration (the main
points emphasized in italics).
The pandemic has had profound effect on higher education and the profession,
particularly in the performing arts. Its impact was immediate in the shutdowns around
March 2020, and is ongoing as we re-emerge to more ‘normal’ modes of activity in
teaching and learning as well as public presence. There is a need for longitudinal data
gathering and analysis to assess the range of the pandemic’s impact on the academy
and the profession, including acknowledgement of the reality that hybrid forms of online
and in-person activity, as well as expectations for high-quality audio-visual online and
social media presence, are part of the new norm.
MusiQuE’s emphasis on Quality Enhancement (QE) is laudable and its engagement
with institutional stakeholders generally creates a very collegial and positive experience
during the requisite and sometimes daunting processes of Quality Assurance (QA)
and accreditation. The information and guidelines MusiQuE provides to programmes
and institutions under review are valuable, indeed worthy of wider dissemination and
discussion outside the QE process. However, notwithstanding such preparatory support,
a number of persistent issues arise.
The review process is challenging for everyone and tends to reveal gaps in an institution’s
organizational structure and decision-making processes. The summary notes to chart
6.2, above, are indicative of the concerns and needs: closing feedback loops for staff
and students on curriculum reform, giving students a more formal role in governance,
providing clear standing agendas for institutional meetings, ensuring opportunities for
discussion of strategic issues with all stakeholders (staff, students, support staff, alumni,
administration, governors), rethinking the decision-making processes, etc. — all of these
directed towards the goal of greater transparency.
The need for MusiQuE and other QA agencies, and for higher-education organizations
alike, to make considerations of diversity central to their policy development and
actions plans is hugely important. Diversity questions must be incorporated into the
next round of Standards revision. Such needs are also connected to the diversication
of programmes, where expectations of decolonization and inclusive globalization have
become fundamental to strategic discourse and public action.
Interdisciplinary and collaborative work is becoming normative across Europe and
beyond. This is partly reected in the fact that MusiQuE has been commissioned
to conduct reviews in arts disciplines beyond music. Implications for programme
Trend Analysis Report 2019-2021 by Don McLean
AuthorAbbreviations ForewordContact Context SummaryKey TrendsRemarks Analysis Report
42
development, institutional organization, and the building of artistic identity are
signicant, and expect the embracing of wider pedagogical and professional
perspectives.
Within the academy, internationalization opportunities remain underutilized,
notably concerning staff mobility through Erasmus and other agencies. Remote
connections became requisite during the pandemic and hybrid solutions will
continue to be utilized going forward. This consideration also relates to emerging
concerns about sustainability — both as an artistic theme and a practical
consideration — including reection on the carbon footprint impact of extensive
travel on climate change.
Artistic research is here to stay. It remains a key status element in the academy,
reecting a central tenet in the professional prole of teaching faculty. It has
also become embedded in the academic and artistic development of students,
obviously so for doctoral studies, but increasingly so for all cycles. MusiQuE, as
well as higher education organizations in the arts, should continue to enhance
artistic research in both concept and practice.
Curriculum issues continuously evolve and the ongoing need for reection and
change is critical for the achievement of excellence and relevance in programmes
and institutional missions. Although most institutions, spurred in part by the review
process itself, now routinely embrace Learning Outcomes (LOs) in the design of
their programmes, these can exist at various levels of development and clarity.
In particular, the gap between LOs and assessment procedures is a recurrent
concern. In quite a few cases, the need for more formalized written feedback
is apparent. The sector would benet from more sharing of best practices and
sample curriculum (including assessment) packages to enhance overall quality,
while respecting disciplinary and institutional differences.
Student-centredness continues to evolve as an expectation of higher education
in the arts. Ongoing focus on artistic identity, critical thinking, creative outcomes,
social justice, and professional development, etc. is becoming ubiquitous. There
remains a lack of ‘exit data’ for graduates and alumni throughout the sector,
something which warrants deeper study and coordination, not least because it is
a critical component of sectoral advocacy with governments and other agencies.
In addition to these curriculum-based elements, the broader shift from older
authoritarian structures in arts training to more collaborative and mentoring
environments is a welcome though challenging trajectory. Expectations for more
formal feedback and for student engagement in governance are recurrent. The
pandemic and other evolving socio-economic dynamics have also heightened
Trend Analysis Report 2019-2021 by Don McLean
AuthorAbbreviations ForewordContact Context SummaryAnalysis ReportKey TrendsRemarks
43
the need for better support structures, particularly those that serve student
(physical and mental) health and well-being. Such concerns, which also extend
to teaching faculty and support staff, need to become embedded in the caring
mindset and day-to-day practice of progressive institutional cultures.
Finally, a note on changing organizational contexts. As governments seek greater
accountability and (presumed) bureaucratic efciency in many sectors, there
has been a tendency toward institutional mergers. (This is the main subtext of one
of the Benchmarking Exercises briey reviewed in this analysis, and a challenge
facing several other programmes and institutions.) Such mergers are a growing
trend and are unlikely to be rolled back in future, although they regularly morph
into different congurations over time. Anxiety about the effects these mergers
might have on institutional identity and quality outcomes could benet from
further data-informed analysis to maximize opportunities for positive change.
More fundamentally, sustaining artistic and academic excellence in the face of
organizational and societal upheaval is the core mission that must continue to
motivate us all in these challenging times.
Trend Analysis Report 2019-2021 by Don McLean
AuthorAbbreviations ForewordContact Context SummaryKey TrendsRemarks Analysis Report
44
List of Abbreviations
AEC
AV
BA
BAM
BAMM
BM
CV
DM
DEQAR
ENQA
EQAR
EQ-Arts
ESG
EU
FC
HES-SO
IQC
LOs
MA
MAperf
MM
MSonology
NC
NVAO
PC
PhD
QA
QC
QE
SC
SMART
Association of European Conservatories
Audio-Visual
Bachelor programme
Bachelor of Arts Music
Bachelor of Arts Music and Movement
Benchmarking Exercise
Consultative Visit
Doctor of Music
Database of External Quality Assurance Results
https://www.eqar.eu/qa-results/search/by-institution/
European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education
https://www.enqa.eu
European Quality Assurance Register
Enhancing Quality in the Arts (http://www.eq-arts.org)
European Standard and Guidelines (ESG2015)
https://www.enqa.eu/esg-standards-and-guidelines-for-quality-assurance-in-
the-european-higher-education-area/
European Union
Fully Compliant (compliance level)
Haute École Spécialisée de Suisse Occidental (Genève)
Internal Quality Culture
Learning Outcomes
Master of Arts
Master of Arts in Peformance
Master of Music
Master of Sonology
Not compliant (compliance level)
Nederlands-Vlammse Accreditatieorganisatie
(Accrediation Organisation of the Netherlands and Flanders)
https://www.nvao.net/en
Partially Compliant (compliance level)
Doctor of Philosophy
Quality Assurance
Quality Control
Quality Enhancement
Substantially Compliant (compliance level)
Specic, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-Bound
Trend Analysis Report 2019-2021 by Don McLean
AuthorAbbreviations ForewordContact Context SummaryKey TrendsRemarks Analysis Report
45
Contact
MusiQue
Music Quality Enhancement
Avenue des Celtes / Keltenlaan 20
1040 Etterbeek, Brussels
Belgium
Tel: + 32 2 737 16 76
General contact
info@musique-qe.eu
MusiQue website
https://musique - qe.eu/
Layout & Graphic Design © María Fornieles, 2022
