IQAC Functions
clause (d) provides -“Collection and analysis of feedback from all stakeholders on quality-related institutional processes”. Well in my opinion, Feedback on curriculum, syllabus and teaching-learning (an academic quality related process) should be kept out of IQAC preview.
Obtaining Students Feedback is an academic executive function. A program-specific feedback on mid-sem and end-sem is more effectively collected and analysed by the concerned department and prompt action-taken by the HOD on matters that fall in the jurisdiction and authority so vested in the HR Manual. It can’t go round and round through the IQAC spiral. Where feedback points so raised require resolution by the higher functionaries, like Dean of School, Dean (A), Registrar and the VC/Principal, the same should accordingly be flagged and forwarded to appropriate officers of the university by the fastest means, requesting for appropriate decisions. If a matter has a longterm telling impact and requires a BOS and AC meeting, such a meeting must be held on a short notice. In all other academic matters, decisions arrived at by the appropriate functional authorities like HODs and officers of the university can even be subsequently ratified in the appropriate statutory meetings.
IQAC has an historic role of quality standards-setting, quality assurance/promotion that entails checking, verifying, validating and auditing of academic and admin preset standards and other practices/initiatives having quality dimensions. It has a fairly large ambit that cuts across multiple domains relating to quality. Its role on feedback can at best be stretched to rendering advice on what should constitute a quality feedback process design including. specific questionnaire formats and obtaining feedback in anonymous mode and NOT getting into actual obtaining and its analysis which should be left to academic units. The fact that IQAC doesn’t have a mandate to design, develop a curriculum or courses (an executive role) it doesn’t cut ice to ask it to collect feedback and analyse it. It doesn’t fall within its stated mandate. Maybe someone in the next NAAC organisation will understand this and hopefully effect a relevant correction. Meanwhile, please go ahead with the one which is currently mandated till such time, a change is incorporated. Well, if you have a plausible other reason, please express.
