About

Judgements based on sets of criteria constitute an intrinsic part of higher education. They are particularly prevalent in academic assessment, where studentsʼ performances are assessed against pre-defined learning outcomes and grade descriptions. For certain groups of students, particularly those in teaching and health, an additional assessment is carried out: a professional suitability assessment. Suitability assessments are based on discretionary criteria, serving as benchmarks for the studentsʼ ability to care for the people they come across in their chosen professions. Despite the importance of such assessments in higher education, we have limited knowledge about how such discretionary judgements are carried out and whether they are executed consistently.  

This interdisciplinary project combines insights from law, education, sociology and economics to further our understanding of how relevant actors reason in suitability assessments. SuitEd applies a modified model of practical reasoning (Wallander & Molander, 2014) as an analytical framework to understand the discretionary reasoning that takes place in such assessments, coupled with insights on judgement variability. We use several methodical approaches, combining survey data with qualitative case studies at different higher education institutions. By doing so, we aim to provide insights into how various actors interpret and operationalise the same set of criteria, and how the context of such assessments may influence their outcome. The aim of the project is to not only to further our knowledge regarding discretionary assessments in higher education, but also to improve the transparency and fairness of such assessments. 

SuitEd is led by the Norwegian Institute for Studies of Innovation, Research and Education (NIFU), in collaboration with Østfold University College (HiØ) and Zittau/Görlitz University of Applied Sciences (HSZG).