In Europe and globally, a common trend in (higher) education is to govern through a rationale of pre-set objectives (learning outcomes) and measuring quality by assessing results/attainment in various ways. Sweden is no exception and since the middle of the 1990s different types of national evaluations of higher education have been carried out. The National Agency for Higher Education (NAHE) has regularly carried out several hundreds of evaluations where universities’ quality assurance systems, programmes and academic subject courses have been assessed. From now on a new system is developed, that is claimed to be better aligned to the intent in the Bologna reform as implemented in Sweden, that is, to be geared to assess results of higher education in terms of how well the learning outcomes are achieved, and the quality of student essays. The aim of this paper is to describe and analyse this shift in national evaluations of higher education and discuss probable consequences for educational practice.

This paper uses an explanation-oriented evaluation approach heuristically so that the description and analysis of the new Swedish evaluation system for higher education is organised around the aspects: pre-conditions/context – process – results/consequences (Franek-Wikberg & Lundgren 1980). The Swedish system is contextualised historically, nationally and internationally (Segerholm 2001; Segerholm & Åström 2007). Existing documents from the NAHE concerning the motives for a new system and the design of the new system (what is assessed and how) are analysed and related to the process within and outside the agency in the development of the new system. Research on consequences of evaluative activities is used to discuss the probable impact of the new system on educational practice.

University chancellors have been actively involved in promoting a new evaluation system in higher education along with the leadership at the NAHE and Ministry of Education. The design of the system risks curtailing disciplinary expertise and professional autonomy for university teachers and researchers. It also struggles with methodological problems in how to make the assessments of academic quality in students’ essays valid and reliable.