Sections 2.2.1 and 5.2.1 of the Quality Assurance Framework indicate that the review committee may include an internal member from within the university, but from outside the discipline (or interdisciplinary group). Suggestions and recommendations made during the first cycle of audits have highlighted the need for universities choosing to include an internal member to carefully consider the following:

• The eligibility criteria for this role.
• That the IQAP describes in some detail the nomination and selection process for internal (and external) reviewers.
• That internal members of the review team are at arm’s length from the program under review (see Guidance on Selecting Arm’s Length Reviewers).
• That the IQAP (and/or associated guidance) clearly defines the role and degree of responsibility for the internal member of the review team. Some elements to consider:
  • What is the process for nominating and selecting internal members and are the eligibility criteria and any “qualifications” clearly spelled out?
  • What expertise, if any, should the internal member have in program-level learning outcomes and the assessment of student achievement of these learning outcomes? If they do not have this expertise, should this person play a role in ensuring the externals appropriately consider these elements as part of their review and pointing them to sources of guidance, as appropriate?
  • Who is responsible for providing an orientation / briefing to the internal reviewer?
  • The internal member’s primary responsibility tends to be to guide and act as the interpreter of local “context” and culture, as well as to ensure that the externals appropriately consider all elements of the review. If there are any additional expectations for this role, these should also be clearly specified.
  • Will the internal member of the team receive the same documentation provided to the external reviewers?
  • Is the internal member allowed to ask questions as part of the review meetings?
  • Is the internal member of the team expected to take on the role of note-taker during the meetings? If so, what is to be done with those notes?
  • Is there a term to the role of internal member’s role, or is this an ad hoc appointment?
  • Will this person be paid an honorarium and / or receive any other form of acknowledgement for undertaking this role?
  • Will the internal member see the guidance provided to the external reviewers to understand the distinction between the roles and responsibilities? Similarly, will the external reviewers receive clear guidance on the role and responsibilities of the internal member?
  • To what degree is the internal member involved in finalizing the external review report? Best practice would dictate that the internal does no more than review a draft of the externals’ report, provide comments on its accuracy and provide local context.
  • Who should they contact if they have any questions or concerns?
  • What are the expectations regarding confidentiality of material seen and discussions held?
• All internal reviewers should be provided with guidance and receive some form of orientation to the role in advance of participating in a review to ensure they have a clear understanding of their role and responsibilities. It may also be helpful for a past internal reviewer to assist with the orientation process.
• The university might consider periodically finding ways to seek general feedback from past internal members on what is working / not working well with the process for reviewing both new and existing programs.