Programme Approval Process

This document sets out the criteria, approval mechanisms and processes that govern the approval of:  

• (i) new programmes of study (including those involving collaborative partnerships),  
• (ii) the re-approval of existing programmes of study and  
• (iii) approval of substantial revisions to an existing programme of study.  

These processes are part of the broader academic quality assurance and enhancement structure of the University. The document focuses, in the main, on the process of preparing and submitting proposals for new programmes of study that must undergo University approval (validation and accreditation). This document should be read in conjunction with the following: 

• Such Faculty-specific regulations and/or regulations in partner institutions, as may pertain with respect to programme approval. This is to ensure that all Faculty and partner institutions’ regulations and procedures are followed. 

• The University schedule of meetings as well as schedules of relevant Faculty meetings. 

   

2.1 New Programme Approval  

As a University and Designated Awarding Body, DCU is responsible for the accreditation of its own programmes and awards, which are, in turn, fully aligned with the National Framework for Qualifications.  When the University wishes to facilitate the establishment of new programmes, it uses procedures referred to as validation and accreditation. 

Validation and accreditation are important aspects of DCU’s quality assurance.  The University is committed to ensuring, on the one hand, that all new programme proposals have a clear strategic focus and are fully aligned to the University’s strategic plan and component strategic plans and, on the other, that programme proposers have at their disposal a set of procedures designed to maintain the highest possible quality in terms of the preparation of proposals. The processes of validation and accreditation ensure, inter alia, that: 

• each proposal meets the requirements of Academic Council for the relevant award, and the standards and learning outcomes set are appropriate to that award, 
• individuals and groups are facilitated in creating new programmes of study within the University and/or in partnership with other institutions or organisations as appropriate,  

• necessary human, financial and physical resources are available. 

   

2.2 Revision of Existing Programmes  

Where changes to programmes are made which do not require validation and accreditation, different procedures are followed. These are outlined on the Programme Approval webpage under the ‘Revised Academic Offerings’ section. Please refer to the schedule of types of changes in the ‘Revised Academic Offerings’ form, and the associated required actions. 

2.3 Re-accreditation  

In some cases, the outcome of the review of a programme within the University may involve a recommendation that it be re-accredited. Where such a need arises, standard accreditation procedures are normally followed. In certain circumstances, the procedures may be carried out electronically. A recommendation on the desirability, or otherwise, of electronic accreditation may be made by the Faculty Teaching and Learning Committee or Education Committee to the Office of the Vice-President Academic Affairs (Registrar). The final decision rests with the Vice President Academic Affairs (Registrar). 

A need for re-accreditation may also arise on the basis of recommendations from an external professional accrediting organisation (often following a review visit) and/or significant changes which such an organisation may make to its requirements in terms of recognising the programme.  

It should be noted, however, that re-accreditations, especially electronic reaccreditations, are relatively rare.  

3.1 Academic Secretariat, OVPAA 

The Academic Secretariat is responsible for the coordination of the University approval processes with respect to new and existing programmes of study.   

It is advisable that the Academic Secretariat is contacted at an early stage in programme design/re-design so to ensure the appropriate approval mechanisms are being applied and to discuss likely timelines involved in the following process:

• approval within Faculty/Faculties 
• due diligence and the establishment of an MOU/MOA, where appropriate, in consultation with the Office of the Executive Director of Engagement 
• validation and approval of validation recommendations by Academic Council  
• accreditation and approval of accreditation by Academic Council  
• finalisation of accreditation documentation to take account of the recommendations of the Accreditation Board
• preparation for launch 

3.2 Importance of timing  

It is essential that documentation be submitted in a timely manner; failure to take into account the need for this may result in a programme not gaining approval, and therefore not being offered, within the schedule originally envisaged by the proposers.  It is necessary, therefore, to take cognisance of the University’s schedule of meetings and the schedules of relevant Faculty meetings. Early planning is of particular importance for programmes which are intended for offer through the CAO, those which involve partner institutions (collaborative programmes) and those which may require a foreshortened approval process due to the requirements of a particular funding call.  

It is very important to be aware that engagement in due diligence with respect to a proposed external partner organisation must be undertaken before, rather than at the same time as, the validation process. Consideration may also need to be given to the possibility that a derogation from Marks and Standards (where required to meet the requirements of external bodies) may be needed and, if so, that a request will have to be submitted, in due course, to the University Standards Committee.  

3.3  Consultation within the School and Faculty  

A validation proposal may be submitted to the Education Committee (EC) only after it has gone through the appropriate discussion and consultation in the relevant School(s) and the appropriate approval procedures in the relevant Faculty or Faculties. The Head(s) of School must be satisfied that all relevant consultation takes place at School level. Advice on approval procedures within a Faculty should be sought from the Faculty Office and the Associate Dean for Teaching and Learning.  

3.4  Collaboration with an external organisation (collaborative programmes)  

Where it is proposed to offer a programme in partnership with an external organisation, reference must be made, as appropriate, to the University’s policy on due diligence and the procedures for drawing up Memoranda of Understanding and related documentation. It is vital that engagement in due diligence be undertaken before, rather than at same time as, the validation process. For further information on the development of collaborative programmes see the Collaborative Provision webpage.

3.5  Consultation with other relevant offices 

Timely consultation must also take place, as appropriate, with relevant offices, which may include those listed below (the list is not exhaustive): 

• Registry, with particular reference to application and admissions processes and timelines, the submission deadlines for academic structure information and liaison between the Registry and school guidance counsellors, where relevant.  
• Finance and Fees Office  
• DCU Studio and the Teaching Enhancement Unit 
• Office of the Chief Operating Officer, in relation to space requirements.  
• Communications and Marketing and in particular, Student Recruitment  
• International Office  
• Student Support and Development (including the Careers Service) 
• INTRA Office 
• Heads of Schools from which service teaching will be requested  Partner organisations in which it is proposed that students will spend time (e.g. on study abroad or clinical placements) 
• ISS 
• Library 

4.1 Validation Criteria 

Validation is the process that involves the EC in assessing new programme proposals with a view to ascertaining both their relationship to strategy and their likely viability.  EC will assess a proposal on a number of criteria including: 

• evidence of alignment with the University strategic plan and its component strategies 
• evidence of alignment with the strategic plans of the relevant Faculty/Faculties and School(s), as outlined in the validation proposal 
• evidence of a place for the proposed programme within higher education in Ireland generally, taking into account programmes offered in other institutions 
• evidence of the likely demand for the proposed programme, and the likelihood of achieving the appropriate student intake
• coherence of the statement of programme purpose and underpinning educational philosophy 
• appropriateness of the programme learning outcomes, and coherence of their relationship to the purpose and educational philosophy 
• reasonableness of the estimate of the resources needed to offer the programme 
• reasonableness of the proposed launch date 
• appropriateness of the proposed development team 
• appropriateness of the proposed members of the Accreditation Board in light of the regulations for the appointment of such members 

4.2 Validation Approval Mechanism and Process: 

Overview Figure 4.1 below provides an overview of the validation process and approval mechanism. Further detail on each stage is included in subsequent sections.   It is important to note that, where a proposal involves a partner institution (i.e. a collaborative proposal), there are additional procedures and approval mechanisms to be followed. Therefore, it is vital that the programme proposer liaises with the OVPAA, External Affairs, and relevant Faculty colleagues before progressing to validation.  Further information on collaborative proposals can be found of the Collaborative Provision webpage.   

4.3 Faculty approval of proposal 

Validation proposals may be submitted for approval to EC once they have completed the approval process (including approval in relation to financial matters) within the relevant Faculty/Faculties.  Information on Faculty approval processes is available from Faculty Offices.  The programme proposers are welcome to submit a draft of the programme proposal to the Secretary of EC in advance with a request for advice on issues such as whether or not all of the necessary areas have been adequately covered in the document. 

4.4 Submission of proposal to Education Committee  

Once approved, the proposal is submitted to the Secretary of EC in electronic format (see section 4.7 for further information on completing the validation paperwork).  There are ten EC meetings in each academic year and validation proposals may be considered at any of these (see section 3 for further information on timing).  The submission dates of EC meetings can be viewed online. 

Programme proposers are not required to be in attendance at the meeting of EC.  However, if the EC decides that a proposal needs to be discussed with the proposers, such discussion will take place some days after the EC meeting at a meeting of the Education Committee Standing Committee (ECSC).  In these instances, the ECSC’s recommendations must be endorsed by the EC. 

4.5 Education Committee Standing Committee 

The Secretary of EC notifies the proposers of the exact time at which the proposal will be discussed and at which they should therefore make themselves available. The principal programme proposer should be accompanied to the ECSC meeting by one or two colleagues (the group may include, for example, the Head of School, the Associate Dean for Teaching and Learning or another staff member closely associated with the programme).  If a programme is proposed in partnership with an external organisation, a representative of this organisation may also attend.  The exact times and dates for the ECSC meetings are indicated in the University schedule of meetings, which can be viewed online.  

4.6 Decision by Education Committee/Education Committee Standing Committee 

The Secretary of EC/ECSC advises the principal programme proposer of the outcome of the meeting.  This outcome will normally be a recommendation either to approve (with or without a number of matters to be addressed) or not to approve the programme for development towards accreditation.   

If the EC/ECSC decides not to recommend approval, the Secretary of EC will let the programme proposers know this by e-mail following the meeting. Further action to be taken by the proposers will depend on the circumstances.  For example, in certain cases, they may be advised that the EC considers the programme as proposed not to be likely to be viable while, in others, they may be invited to submit a revised proposal to a future meeting of the EC. 

In the event of a recommendation to approve a proposal, the Secretary of EC drafts a validation report to be approved by the members of the EC/ECSC and then forwarded for approval to the next available meeting of Academic Council.  This report includes a statement of the recommendation to approve and a list of sub-recommendations, if any.  The Secretary of EC forwards this report to the principal programme proposer and other colleagues involved with the proposal.   

Normally, the sub-recommendations relate to matters that need to be addressed in the accreditation proposal.  However, on some occasions, EC may request that sub-recommendations are implemented in advance of accreditation.  If that is the case, the Secretary of EC arranges with the programme proposer for confirmation to be submitted to the EC, at an appropriate date. 

4.7 Decision by Academic Council 

Validation reports are normally for formal approval only and will be discussed only if a member of Council requests that this be done.  If there is a request for a discussion, the Secretary of Academic Council will notify the principal programme proposer of this.  In such instances, it should be ensured that there is someone present at Academic Council who can address any issues raised. If there is no discussion about the proposal, it will be formally approved by Academic Council.  If there is a discussion, various outcomes are possible: Council may approve, reject or amend the validation recommendations. In all cases, the decision (and recommendations, if any) of Council will be communicated to stakeholders by the Secretary of EC. 

In the event of rejection, Academic Council will advise on the appropriate next steps for the proposal.  

If approval is indicated by Academic Council, the programme proposers are in a position to prepare for accreditation.  It is understood that, for practical reasons, they may already have begun the preparations, following EC approval. 

Before a programme can proceed to accreditation, the Executive Dean of Faculty must confirm that all recommendations of the EC/ECSC, and any recommendations from AC have been implemented/addressed.  The form for signature can be found in Appendix B. 

4.8 Validation Proposal Documentation 

A standard validation is one in which the proposed taught award does not involve working with a proposed external partner or institution.  The AA1 validation form is used in such instances.  The form is available at: https://www.dcu.ie/ovpaa/Validation-and-Accreditation-ofProgrammes.shtml  

Where a proposed programme of study involves single or multiple partner institutions (i.e. a collaborative proposal) an alternative validation (AA) form is required.  These alternative forms contain much of the same information as the AA1 form, while also requiring additional information in regards to the proposed partner, the partnership context and the justification for partner involvement in the programme.   

Further information on collaborative provision, and the relevant AA forms, are available at:  https://www.dcu.ie/ovpaa/Collaborative-Provision.shtml 

The AA1 validation form should contain the following information.  Please note, the alternative AA forms will also require this information but also contain further sections relating specifically to the proposed collaborative arrangements.   

4.9 Accreditation Board Members 

At the point of validation, programme proposers are required to nominate the members of the Accreditation Board.  Accreditation Board meetings typically take place on Zoom and so experts may be identified from outside of Ireland. Those nominated must be approved by the EC as part of the validation process, using the form provided in Appendix C.  Where a subsequent change has to be made (e.g. where an approved individual becomes unavailable), the CV of the substitute (on the standard form) should be forwarded to the Secretary of EC, who will submit it electronically to the EC for consideration. 

In the selection of nominees to the Accreditation Board, account must be taken of the following:

• The principal programme proposer should ensure that there is appropriate professional distance between all nominated Board members and the University.  No individual employed by the University, or a student of the University, in the previous five years may be considered.  Nomination of individuals with a personal connection with the University should also be avoided, as appropriate.  Reference should be made to the University’s Conflict of Interest Policy and Guidelines 
• It should be ensured that the Board includes senior academic and professional experts as appropriate.  There should normally be a minimum of one individual of professorial rank. 
• It can be desirable, even necessary, for an individual to be appointed to a Board because they represents a professional accrediting body.  In no circumstances, however, should an individual be appointed who is a member of an organisation which has commissioned a programme. 
• Every effort should be made to ensure an appropriate gender balance and an appropriate balance between national and international expertise. 
• An Accreditation Board should include no more than one representative from any one institution. 
• Reciprocal arrangements between the University and other institutions should be avoided. 
• In no circumstances may a staff member from DCU act as a member of an Accreditation Board in a linked college, or vice versa.  Nor may a staff member of a linked college act as a member of an Accreditation Board in another linked college. 

The number of external experts who sit on an Accreditation Board should never be less than three and should normally not be more than five.  To allow for unforeseen events which might prevent an individual from attending a Board meeting as scheduled, it is recommended that a minimum of four be identified and invited. This ensures that, if one individual is prevented at short notice from attending, there will still be a minimum of three in attendance. 

If an expert indicates, within a reasonable time period before the Board meeting that they cannot now attend, there may be time for the approval of a substitute.  In certain cases, an individual may indicate that they cannot attend the Board meeting but would be willing to read the documentation and submit comments in advance.  This can be accommodated on occasion, though it is not recommended because it does not allow the individual to interact with the other members of the Board or the programme proposers.   

5.1 Accreditation Criteria 

Accreditation involves the submission of a detailed programme proposal to an Accreditation Board. The Accreditation Board includes a group of academic and, as appropriate, other professional experts from outside the University. The role of the Accreditation Board is to consider whether the programme meets the nationally and internationally accepted requirements for the award(s) to which it is designed to lead.   

Each accreditation proposal is assessed on a number of criteria, which include:  

• the likelihood that the proposed programme will meet the needs which the proposal indicates it is intended to meet  
• the appropriateness of the entry requirements and exit routes  
• the validity of the purpose and underpinning educational philosophy of the proposed programme  
• the linkage of the programme learning outcomes with the purpose and the underpinning educational philosophy  
• the consistency and coherence of the proposed modules in the context of the underpinning educational philosophy and the programme learning outcomes  
• the reasonableness of achieving the programme learning outcomes, in the time specified, by the majority of students  the appropriateness and mix of learning and assessment methodologies  
• the coherence between assessment methodologies, per module, and the module learning outcomes  
• the coherence of the group of skills and competencies that the student would be expected to have at the end of the programme  
• the appropriateness of the quality assurance procedures to be used in relation to the programme 
• the qualifications and experience of the programme team and the module coordinators.  

5.2 Accreditation Approval Mechanism and Process 

Accreditation is carried out by an Accreditation Board, composed of a number of external experts, a senior member of the University who acts as Chair, and a member of the Academic Secretariat who acts as Rapporteur.  Figure 5.1 below provides an overview of the accreditation process and approval mechanism.  Further details on each stage is included in subsequent sections. 

5.3 Arrangements for Accreditation Board meeting 

In enabling programme proposers to access the widest pool of external experts, and in keeping with the University’s commitment to sustainability, Accreditation Board meetings are typically held remotely, using Zoom. 

To arrange a date for the meeting, the principal programme proposer must first contact the Academic Secretariat1.  In no circumstances should dates be arranged with the external experts, even tentatively, without prior consultation.  The approximate time period in which the meeting will take place depends on a number of factors, including the likely amount of time required by the programme proposers to prepare the accreditation proposal and the availability of those who must be present for the meeting.  These include: 

• Accreditation Board members including the Chair and Rapporteur 
• the principal programme proposer and others closely associated with the proposal, including the Dean/s of Faculty and Head/s of School 
• the module coordinators   

The Academic Secretariat agrees with the principal programme proposer a list of possible dates.  The principal programme proposer consults with all relevant parties, included the external experts, on the most suitable date. The slot will then be entered into the accreditation diary and all others will be erased.  

The principal programme proposer advised the Academic Secretariat on who will be in attendance at each session.  If it appears likely that it will be impossible for an individual to attend, a substitute should be identified who will be able to speak on the individual’s behalf. 

The Academic Secretariat identifies a senior member of the academic staff of the University to chair the meeting.  This person will usually be a Dean.  In no instance will a meeting be chaired by the Dean of Faculty from which the programme proposal has come.    

5.4 Completion and Submission of the Accreditation Proposal 

The accreditation proposal is a detailed document aimed at describing the proposed programme. It is much longer than the validation document, however, certain sections of the two documents can be the same or similar.  

A template for the accreditation proposal can be found on the Programme Approval webpage.  

Where recommendations have been made at validation stage, these must incorporated into the accreditation proposal.  In addition, the information in the accreditation proposal may sometimes need to be more details than in the validation documentation. 

The accreditation proposal consists of three main sections: 

• Section A: The description of the proposed programme (sections 1 to 9 below).  This section might run to 15-20 pages or approximately 6,000 to 8,000 words.
• Section B: The module descriptors (using the approved template in Course Builder) 
• Section C: The curricula vitae of the members of the programme team (using the template provided in Appendix E. 

In every instance where reference is made to a document which is available on line, the appropriate web link should be included.  A table of contents should be provided, including a list of all the modules and a list of all the members of the programme team, for whom curricula vitae are provided. An accreditation proposal should contain the following information: 

The final accreditation proposal must be submitted to the Academic Secretariat at least two weeks in advance of the date of the meeting. The documentation is only required in electronic format. Programme proposers are welcome to submit a draft of the accreditation proposal to the Academic Secretariat in advance with a request for advice on issues such as whether or not all of the necessary areas have been adequately covered in the document. 

Two weeks before the date of the meeting the Academic Secretariat sends an electronic copy of the accreditation proposal to each member of the Accreditation Board along with: 

• a covering letter 
• a guide to the accreditation process 
• a list of the members of the Accreditation Board 
• a timetable and details of the Zoom details
• information regarding fee payment 
• the validation recommendations approved by Academic Council, where relevant  

The timetable, zoom details and list of accreditation board members will be emailed to the programme proposers and other relevant colleagues.   

5.5 Meeting of the Accreditation Board 

Accreditation Board meetings are typically conducted via Zoom over a half day, usually with a 9:30 am or 13:30 pm start.  However, time zone considerations may necessitate a later or earlier start time. The indicative timetable for both a morning and afternoon accreditation board meeting is as follows: 

During the first private meeting of the Accreditation Board (session 1) the Accreditation Board members agree on the issues to be raised with the Senior Team during session 2.  The accreditation criteria (see 5.1) may be used to direct discussions.   

Session 3 is intended to allow detailed discussion of individual modules with the module coordinators.  If possible, the Dean(s) and Head(s) should be present at this point.  The principal programme proposer should in all cases be present at this point. 

During the second private meeting of the Accreditation Board (Session 4) the members agree if the programme has met the criteria (as per 5.1).  There are a number of options open to the Accreditation Board: 

• To recommend for accreditation 
• To recommendation for accreditation with recommendations 
• To recommend for accreditation with conditions 
• To recommend that the programme not be accredited 

It is important to note that in a small number of instances conditions may be included in the recommendation.  These are included where there are fundamental issues that need to be addressed before the accreditation report can be approved by Academic Council.  In such instances, confirmation that such issues have been addressed must be submitted to EC for approval. 

During the final meeting with the Senior Team (session 5) the Chair or Rapporteur of the Accreditation Board summarises the decision of the Accreditation Board and any recommendations made.   

5.6 Accreditation Report Approval 

Following the meeting, the Rapporteur will draft an accreditation report to be approved by the Accreditation Board and then forwarded for approval to the next available meeting of AC.  This report will include a summary of the programme proposal together with a statement of the recommendation and a list of any sub-recommendations.  Once the members of the Board have approved the report, the Rapporteur forwards it to the principal programme proposer and other relevant colleagues.   

Accreditation reports are placed in Section C of the agenda for AC, which means that they are normally for formal approval only and will be discussed only if a member of AC requests it. If there is a request for a discussion, the Secretary will notify the principal programme proposer of this.

 If there is to be a discussion about the proposal, it should be ensured that there is a person present at AC who can address any issues raised.  If there is a discussion, various outcomes are possible: AC may approve, reject or amend the accreditation recommendations.  In all cases, the decision (and recommendations, if any) will be communicated to stakeholders by the Secretary. 

If there is no discussion about the proposal, it will be formally approved by Academic Council.   

5.7 Finalisation of Accreditation Documentation 

In the event of a positive recommendation, the principal programme proposer must ensure that finalised documentation is lodged with the Academic Secretariat before the beginning of the next academic year (by a date agreed with the Academic Secretariat).  A copy should also be held by the relevant Faculty/Faculties. This finalised documentation consists of the following: 

1. The accreditation proposal, incorporating the accreditation recommendations, with all changes tracked. 
2. Confirmation that the module specifications have been updated in Course Builder as per the recommendations. 
3. The accreditation proposal with all changes accepted (clean copy). This document becomes the definitive accreditation document that describes the programme as it was accredited and should be used as the basis for future revisions.  
4. A copy of the accreditation report, as approved by Academic Council, with an indication under each recommendation of where and how it has been addressed.   

5.8 Advertising a Programme 

A programme should not be advertised before the EC has approved the validation proposal.  After this, and before the meeting of the Accreditation Board, the programme may be advertised as ‘subject to accreditation’.  Between the meeting of the Accreditation Board and approval of its recommendations by Academic Council, and if the recommendation of the Board is positive, the programme may be advertised as ‘subject to final approval’.   

5.9 Electronic re-Accreditation 

In certain exceptional circumstances, accreditation may be carried out electronically, i.e. by e-mail, without the necessity for the Board members to meet.  These circumstances may include the re-accreditation of a programme, after it has been running for some years, where the changes are relatively straightforward. 

Procedures for identifying the members of the Board are as 4.8 above except that, normally, (re)validation will be deemed not to be necessary so there will be no validation document. 

The principal programme proposer should discuss with the Academic Secretariat an approximate time period during which the accreditation takes place.  The principal programme proposer and the Academic Secretariat agree a number of key dates: 

• the date on which the accreditation proposal is to be submitted to the Academic Secretariat 
• the date by which responses are to be requested from the Board members (normally about three weeks from the date on which they get the proposal, though this can be extended to four if required) 
• the date by which the Secretary the Accreditation Board completes the accreditation report and agrees it with the Board members (normally about one week from receipt of responses from the members of the Board). 

The following is the list of agreed titles for undergraduate and taught postgraduate programmes: 

Undergraduate programmes 

• BA: Bachelor of Arts 
• BSc: Bachelor of Science 
• BBS: Bachelor of Business Studies 
• BEng: Bachelor of Engineering 
• BCL: Bachelor of Civil Law 
• BEd: Bachelor of Education 
• Certificate in… 
• Diploma in…. 

Taught Postgraduate Programmes:  

• LLM: Master of Laws 
• MA: Master of Arts 
• MBA: Master of Business Administration 
• MEd: Master of Education 
• MEng: Master of Engineering 
• MSc: Master of Science  
• PME: Professional Master of Education 
• Graduate Certificate in.. 
• Graduate Diploma in.. 
• Professional Diploma (e.g. Professional Diploma in Accounting)  
• Professional Certificate in.. 

Should the proposed title need to deviate from those listed above please provide a rationale for the selection of the proposed title. 

See p. 29 in the .pdf above

Form is available on the Accreditations webpage.

The following questions should be addressed in the accreditation proposal (see section 5.4 for further information). 

Form is available on the Accreditations webpage.