QAHE Response to “Comparative Analysis of the Quality Assurance Framework of Pakistan and Afghanistan”
The International Association for Quality Assurance in Pre‑Tertiary & Higher Education (QAHE) welcomes the comparative study “Comparative Analysis of the Quality Assurance Framework of Pakistan and Afghanistan” (Kardan Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 2025) and recognises its timely contribution to policy dialogue on accreditation reform in Afghanistan. The paper’s central diagnosis — that Afghanistan’s centrally controlled, annual “one‑size‑fits‑all” accreditation model hinders meaningful, discipline‑sensitive quality improvement — aligns with concerns seen in many developing systems where uniform criteria and frequent compliance cycles create administrative burden without producing sustained enhancement in learning outcomes.
The authors’ comparative use of Pakistan’s Higher Education Commission and its specialised accreditation councils as a benchmark is appropriate and instructive. Pakistan’s multi‑council, programme‑focused approach, with 4–5 year cyclical reviews and a clear role for internal quality assurance, demonstrates how differentiated standards and delegated expertise can support both professional rigour (in fields like medicine or engineering) and institutional development. The study correctly notes that decentralisation requires strong coordination and oversight to avoid fragmentation — a key caveat for any reform pathway.
QAHE endorses the paper’s phased reform roadmap: categorising degree streams, piloting discipline‑specific councils in high‑impact areas, strengthening institutional IQA units, shifting to periodic review cycles, and investing in capacity building for QAAD and institutional staff. Piloting reforms in sectors with clear public‑safety stakes (e.g., medicine, engineering) is a pragmatic way to build legitimacy and learning before national rollout. The proposed move from annual compliance checks to developmental, outcome‑focused reviews would give institutions time to implement improvements and allow external reviewers to evaluate demonstrable changes rather than routine documentation.
The study could be strengthened by adding practical details that support implementation: concrete examples of how programme‑specific accreditation criteria differ in practice (for instance, sample standards and indicators for MBBS versus B.A. programmes), a costing and financing analysis for the proposed roadmap, and proposed monitoring indicators and data sources to measure progress during the pilot and rollout phases. These operational elements would make the recommendations more actionable for policymakers and potential funders.
Key policy implications for Afghanistan are clear: differentiate accreditation by programme risk and complexity; empower and resource internal quality assurance units so institutions take ownership of improvement; institutionalise multi‑stakeholder participation (professional bodies, employers, students) in standards setting and review; and treat accreditation as a developmental process with clear follow‑up and accountability mechanisms. Realistic implementation will require training for QAAD staff, institutional QA officers and external reviewers, as well as practical tools such as standardised SAR templates and guidance on authentic, outcome‑based assessment.
QAHE stands ready to support Afghan stakeholders and international partners in translating the study’s recommendations into practice. Support could include designing programme‑specific standards and assessment templates, delivering capacity‑building for IQA units and external reviewers, advising on pilot design and evaluation, and helping develop monitoring and evaluation frameworks that link accreditation to demonstrable graduate and institutional outcomes. Successful reform will depend on combining clear policy design with pragmatic resourcing, stakeholder buy‑in and transparent metrics to track progress.
