Agricultural Education Division

• Peer review for accreditation is a critical examination of an institution/academic program by peers of the profession.
• The self-study report is the basic document, which the Peer Review Team studies and analyses before the visit to the institution.
• During the visit, the Peer Review Team Examines facilities and activities including classes in progress at the institute.
• The team interacts with students, staff, faculty and officers.
• Assess outcomes of the institution as a whole.
• Identifies strengths and challenges, and formulates suggestions and recommendations.
• Presents an Exit Report to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the institution.
• The review should establish whether accreditation criteria are being fulfilled/partially fulfilled or not fulfilled by the institution/program under accreditation.
• Submits the report to the Council with recommendations for accreditation, provisional accreditation or no accreditation, with reasons and rationales.

10.1 Selection of Peer Reviewers

• The Peers are senior academicians, education managers, administrators, representatives of user organizations, etc., who have high standing in the profession, and capacity to judge the quality and relevance of an institution / academic program, against the set goals.
• Since the ICAR Accreditation Board bases its final decision concerning accreditation status of an institution/program on qualitative criteria rather than an absolute quantitative standards to determining education quality, the role of reviewers is very critical and thus of paramount importance.
• Therefore, the selection and training of review team members are crucial to maintain credibility and integrity of the accreditation process.
• There are no rigid and written qualifications for selection of reviewers.
• The ICAR uses sound judgment and care to custom fit the reviewers with the candidate institution, keeping following points in view.
  1. Academic qualification
  2. Professional experience
  3. Leadership and people skills
  4. Personal/professional relationship
  5. Oral and written communication skills
  6. Openness, objectivity and freeness from preconceived judgments
  7. Lack of conflict of interest
  8. Willingness to serve
  9. Knowledge of the new accreditation process
  10. Commitment to quality assurance in higher education
  11. Timeliness and adherence to schedules
  12. Ability to meet divers needs

10.2 Peer Review Teams

(1) General Consideration

• The D.G., ICAR and the Chairman of the Accreditation Board constitutes the peer review teams depending upon the institutions/ programs to be accredited.
• Normally, the review teams are kept small, but collectively the team must embody the necessary training and experience for a thorough evaluation.
• Generally, the team will have at least one expert relating to each major faulty of accrediting institution/program.

(2) Team size

The size of team will depend on the following.

• Number of teaching campuses, colleges, programs, and major research and extension centers.
• Off-campus sites necessary for review.
• Number and scope of proposed institutional changes being considered.
• Proposed duration of visit.

(3) Team Composition

University with constituent colleges

Team Chair :	An accomplished agricultural educationist and research leader with professional experience at Vice Chancellor level.
Members :	Three to five senior professionals based on number of academic programs, colleges, campuses etc., representing academicians, administrators, students services, public/private user organization etc. with experience at the Level College Deans or above.
Member Secretary :	A senior officer from Education Division of ICAR, well versed with the agricultural education systems and new process of accreditation.

(4) College/academic program

Team Chair :	An accomplished academician with professional experience at the level of College Dean or above.
Members :	Two to three senior professionals as mentioned under university at the level of University Head of Department or above.
Member Secretary :	A senior officer from the Education Division of ICAR as mentioned under university.

10.3 Guidelines for Review

• Under the ICAR accreditation process, the accreditation status of an institution/program is based on qualitative criteria and standards, rather than on quantitative norms.
• It does not prescribe grading of an institution/program.
• Instead, it suggests an institution/program to be accredited/provisionally accredited/not accredited.

Following guidelines may be helpful to the team Chair and Members in making a comprehensive and thorough review.

(1) Team Preparations for the Visit

• The team members must have undergone peer reviewers' training conducted for the purpose. An orientation/refresher program, before commencing the visit will be of additional help.
• The team members should study thoroughly all the materials including ICAR accreditation manual, orientation-cum-hands-on training material, self-study reports, and any other documents provided by the institution/ICAR before commencing the visit.
• The Member-Secretary will finalize the visit dates including off-campus visits in consultation with the Chair and the host institution.
• The Member-Secretary in consultation with Chair will develop a tentative plan of evaluation and division of responsibilities among the Members based on their professional background and competencies. The plan will be communicated to the host institution and to all the Members.
• The Member-Secretary will inform the host institutions to make a Committee Room and secretariat services available at main campus for exclusive use of the Review Team. He will also request to keep 2-3 sets of all important academic, administration and financial documents (Annexure-I) in the Committee Room for perusal of the Team.
• The Member-Secretary in consultation with Chair and host institution will identify the key individuals and groups of university community for formal meeting and discussion.

(2) Analyzing Self Study Report Before Visit

The self study report is the Team's basic reference material during the visit, since the report is required to demonstrate clearly that the institution meets General Institutional Requirements and the Criteria for accreditation. For a successful review, the Team Chair and Team Members should make the following observations.

• Has the institution conducted a candid, comprehensive and participatory self-study process?
• Does the self-study report contain the required information in the proper format prescribed by the ICAR?
• Is the institution analyzing and documenting students' academic and other achievements across all of its academic programs?
• Is the self-study report sufficiently evaluative rather than descriptive?
• Who are the key individuals and groups that will have interactions with the Team?
• What programs, functions or operations deserve special attention?
• Does the self-study report identify strengths and challenges, and contains an action plan to optimize them?

(3) Institutional Preparedness for the Visit

For a successful review the institution should ensure the following.

• The Vice Chancellor/Chief Executive Officer (CEO) should be fully available during the visit, as absence exhibits lack of commitment to accreditation process by the leadership and may jeopardize the whole effort.
• Officers, faculty and administrative and other staff should also be available.
• Classes should be in session and students should be on the campus.
• Visit should not take place during semester breaks, holidays or vacations.
• Visit should not coincide with special activities that hinder the work of the team.
• Branch campuses and outstations should be fully informed and made aware the purpose and duration of the review team visit.
• Meeting places for individuals/groups discussion should be clearly indicated.
• Necessary transportation arrangements should be made so that Team Members can reach the target sites without much loss of time.
• A Committee Room should be made available for Team's use where all supporting documents and data may be kept for reference (Annexure I).
• Secretarial facility should be made available during the visit.
• The institutional self-study coordinator should be readily available during the visit so that any logistic problem is resolved.
• Opportunities for full and social interaction between the Review Team and the university community are encouraged without adversely affecting teams work.
• Finally, arrangements should be made for the Team to meet with the faculty and student groups, if found necessary by the team.

4) Logistics of Review Team Visit

• The Team Members are to be present during the entire visit, including pre-visit orientation.
• The comprehensive review visits are normally scheduled for 3-5 successive days depending upon the off-campus visits needed.
• Notification of daily visit schedules informing all concerned with details like venue, place and participants should be made.
• Awareness among the entire institutional community about the proposed schedules of the visit should be created
• The visit commences with the meeting between the CEO of the institution and Review Team, and ends with an exit meeting with him.
• Uninformed visit to activity centers like theory and practical classes, hostels, sports and games centers, libraries, computer centers etc should be planned in advance.
• Open and continual communication between Chair, Team Members and University Officers should be established.
• Proper protocol should be observed by all concerned during the visit.
• The Team will meet at least once formally, each day of the visit, preferably in the evening to discuss the progress and make adjustments, if any, for next day programs.
• Team cannot solve institutional problems, cannot resolve internal disputes and cannot entertain politicizing the visit.
• On the final day of the visit, the Team will deliberate on all aspects and arrive to broad consensus about strengths, challenges and suggestions for improvement, which are to be orally presented to the CEO during the exit meeting.

(5) Indicators for Assessing Institutional Effectiveness

Teaching and learning or the two attributes that make the university and colleges unique institutions of higher learning. Some of the indicators for assessing the effectiveness of teaching learning process and institutions as a whole are as follows.

1. Teaching -learning process
   • Enhanced knowledge and skill learned and applied by the students / alumni.
   • Personal attributes such as leadership qualities acquired and being used by the students / alumni.
   • Existence of scientific methods to measure academic achievements and personal development of students.
   • Existence of database to judge effectiveness of teaching-learning process.
   • Existence of an on-going assessment process.
   • Existence of internal processes that encourage professional development of teachers and students.
2. Institutional improvement
   • Existence of a clear mission statement, goals and objectives.
   • Existence of functional communication.
   • Evidence of quantitative measures in achieving goals and objectives involving peers.
   • Existence of outcomes research efforts to provide useful communicative data about the institution.
   • Existence of an institutional development plan and its implementation schedule.
   • Identification of institutional strengths and challenges, and action plan for their optimization.

(6) Expectations from the Review Teams

1. Primary responsibilities

• To check that findings in the institutional self-study report are valid and are based on exhaustive institutional analysis, involving all constituents of the institution.
• To verify that the institution is not only carrying out its mandated functions but also satisfying the various criteria for accreditation.
• To offer suggestions to the host institutions for improving the quality of teaching, research, extension education, administration and student services.

2. Expectations from the Members

1. To be objective, fair, appreciative of good educational practices, good interviewer and listener, and be able to balance the role of a professional colleagues and peer reviewers.
2. To fulfill their responsibilities in a professional manner and exercise their best judgment in assessing an institution/program using General Institutional Requirements and Criteria with evidences.
3. To discharge their responsibilities diligently and confidently even in face of conflicting personal feelings or preferences.
4. To strike a balance between individual views and judgments, and those held by fellow reviewers.
5. To hold in confidence all information obtained from the self-study report and the visits.

(7) Exit Meeting with the Chief Executive Officer

• The Chair along with Team Members will formally meet the Chief Executive Officer of the institution, before concluding the visit.
• During the meeting, the Chair will orally present the impression of the Team about strengths and challenges the institution has, and suggestions for the improvement.

<< Back >> << Home >>