Student members in quality assurance panels need status, training, and evidence
Updated May 12, 2026
Putting a student on a quality assurance panel can look impressive on paper and still add very little in practice. That is why Jens Jungblut and Bjørn Stensaker's Quality in Higher Education paper, "Extended collegiality? The role of students in external quality assurance panels in Europe", matters for universities trying to make student voice credible inside review and accreditation work. The study suggests that student involvement becomes much more useful when panel members are treated as more than symbolic representatives, and when institutions give them the standing and evidence needed to contribute properly.
Context and research question
Across Europe, student participation in external quality assurance is no longer unusual. In many systems it is a formal expectation, built into the standards that shape evaluations, accreditations, and audits. Even so, a basic practical question has remained underexplored: what role do students actually play once they are inside these panels? Are they mainly there to signal legitimacy, or do they become genuine contributors to judgements about quality?
Jungblut and Stensaker address that gap through a survey of students involved in European quality assurance processes. In the authors' public summary of the study, the respondents were drawn from the European Students' Union's Quality Assurance Student Experts Pool, a trained group regularly invited onto programme, institutional, and national review panels. Thirty-five students responded, out of a pool of 90, and most were not novices. On average they had more than four years of quality-assurance involvement, and more than 60 per cent had already taken part in four or more review processes. That makes the paper especially relevant for UK universities because it does not ask whether student involvement is desirable in principle. It asks what experienced student participation looks like in a professionalised quality setting.
Key findings
The clearest finding is that students do not experience one fixed role inside quality panels. The paper shows that they move between several roles rather than acting as one-dimensional delegates for "the student view".
"students perceive themselves as representatives, partners or even experts."
That matters because universities often recruit student members as if their job is simply to relay opinion. In practice, quality assurance work asks for something more demanding: interpreting evidence, weighing claims, asking critical questions, and helping a panel reach defensible judgements.
The study also suggests that student membership can become a form of extended collegiality rather than token inclusion. Students reported feeling respected and integrated into panel practices, which is more significant than it sounds. External review panels are usually formal, technical, and shaped by strong professional norms. If students can work credibly inside that environment, then student participation is not just a democratic extra. It can be part of how panels actually function. That fits closely with earlier evidence on why quality assurance is more credible when students can see and understand the process.
Experience and peer learning appear to matter a great deal. The authors' summary notes that students in the experts pool regularly share knowledge with one another, helping newer members build capability over time. In other words, expertise is not treated as something students either already have or do not have. It is developed through training, repeated participation, and exposure to real panel work. For universities, the implication is straightforward: if student members are expected to contribute at a high level, training and handover cannot be left informal.
The final nuance is that students were seen more readily as partners than as experts. There was no clear hierarchy between the roles, but the distinction still matters. Partnership language is now common across higher education, yet this paper hints that institutions may be quicker to welcome students into the room than to recognise them as contributors whose judgement can shape the work. For UK quality teams, that is the real challenge. Inviting students onto a panel is not the same as trusting them with evidence, deliberation, and influence.
Practical implications
For UK universities, the first implication is to treat student panel members as part of the review method, not just as part of the optics. That means briefing them properly on standards, evidence, and process, giving them time to prepare, and building a structured handover between outgoing and incoming student members. A student on a panel should not have to work out the rules of the game while the review is already underway. The benefit is stronger, more confident participation and a better-quality review.
Second, institutions should stop expecting a small number of student members to carry the whole representational burden alone. A panel member can bring important perspective, but they should not have to prove from memory whether a concern is isolated or widespread. Pair panel input with broader evidence from surveys, module comments, representative feedback, and the kinds of mixed systems highlighted in QAA's research on student representation practices. The benefit is a more defensible judgement about what students are actually experiencing across a programme or institution.
Third, universities should make the student role in quality assurance more visible to the wider student body. Students are more likely to trust review and accreditation processes when they understand who is involved, what evidence is considered, and what changed afterwards. That is one reason recent work on redesigning student voice systems matters. Visibility reduces the risk that quality assurance feels like something done behind closed doors, with student participation added only as a formal requirement. The benefit is stronger confidence that review systems are real, not ritual.
Finally, this paper points to a practical role for structured comment analysis. If student members are going to participate as serious contributors, they need access to evidence that is broader than a few anecdotes and more usable than a raw dump of comments. That is where Student Voice Analytics fits naturally: it helps institutions organise recurring themes across open-text feedback so panel members and quality teams can see where concerns about organisation, communication, support, or assessment are repeatedly appearing. Used alongside a student comment analysis governance checklist, that creates a clearer audit trail from student comment to review discussion to action. The takeaway is simple: stronger evidence makes stronger student participation possible.
FAQ
Q: How should a UK university prepare student members for a review or accreditation panel?
A: Start with a real preparation process, not a welcome email. Student members need a briefing on the review framework, the panel's remit, the evidence pack, and the kinds of judgement the panel is expected to make. A short pre-meeting, access to previous examples, and a structured debrief after the panel all help students contribute more confidently and make the role easier to sustain across cohorts.
Q: What should teams be cautious about before generalising from this study?
A: This is a survey of experienced students already involved in European quality assurance, many of whom had repeated exposure to panels and access to a shared training environment. That makes the study strong on how trained student participation can work, but weaker as a description of what every first-time student panel member will experience. UK institutions should therefore treat it as practice-oriented evidence about conditions for success, not as proof that any student member will automatically feel like a partner or expert.
Q: What does this change about student voice more broadly?
A: It shifts the conversation from access to contribution. Universities often ask whether students are represented in quality systems. This paper suggests the more useful question is whether students are equipped to interpret evidence, challenge assumptions, and help shape review outcomes. Student voice becomes stronger when surveys, comments, representatives, and quality processes connect, rather than operating as separate channels.
References
[Paper Source]: Jens Jungblut, Bjørn Stensaker "Extended collegiality? The role of students in external quality assurance panels in Europe" DOI: 10.1080/13538322.2026.2663650
Request a walkthrough
Book a free Student Voice Analytics demo
See all-comment coverage, sector benchmarks, and reporting designed for OfS quality and NSS requirements.
- All-comment coverage with HE-tuned taxonomy and sentiment.
- Versioned outputs with TEF-ready reporting.
- Benchmarks and BI-ready exports for boards and Senate.
UK-hosted · No public LLM APIs · Same-day turnaround