ΜΟΔΙΠ

Μονάδα Διασφάλισης Ποιότητας Παντείου Πανεπιστημίου

The Panteion University Quality Assurance Unit (MODIP) is the central coordinating body for all quality assurance and assessment processes of the Institute. It is formed by decision of the University Senate, the supreme collective body of the Institute, which also specifies its composition, organisation, operation and responsibilities. 

The Chair of MODIP is the Panteion University Rector, Professor Christina Koulouri.

Quality Assurance Policy

The Panteion University academic quality policy aims to ensure the university’s improvement through adopting best practices and ensuring quality teaching practices for its students. This strategic and ongoing improvement is achieved by integrating quality assessment methods for the work conducted and the services offered at all levels.

Since its establishment, Panteion University has been adhering to a broader philosophy that promotes quality based on the following fundamental principles:

 i. To advance science and disseminate knowledge as part of the educational process, as a public university.

ii. To foster academic freedom in teaching and research, as well as free expression and circulation of ideas, to the extent specified by the Constitution, the law of the State, and the regulatory obligations and standards pertaining to it.

iii. To support meritocracy in all processes involving faculty (DEP) members and staff. 

iv. To continuously develop and update the undergraduate and postgraduate programmes offered.

v. To have students participating in all the procedures that concern them.

The object of the Quality Policy and the mission of the Quality Management System that the Institute has developed and implements – and which governs its structure, organisation and operation – is to contribute to putting these principles into practice.

The Panteion University Administration pledges to its students, academic staff, associates and other staff to abide by and continuously improve the effectiveness of the Quality Management System and to provide all financial, technical and human resources required.

A measure of success of this policy and the effectiveness of the Quality Management System is student and staff (academic and administrative) satisfaction, which is achieved by close and efficient cooperation, focusing on:

- Creating a model teaching and research Institute.

- Continuously recording, analysing and reviewing needs, aiming to fulfil them as best as possible.

- Capitalising on the experience of the Institute and its staff on new technologies and especially lifelong learning and e-learning.

- Creating a powerful link between teaching and administrative staff and solidifying the trust among all Institute employees through responsibility and accountability.

- Making the best use of funds to ensure financial viability.

This personalised approach is at the core of the Panteion University Quality Management System and dictates both the Institute’s internal structure and organisation and the management and supervision of its entire operation.

These aims are further customised for each of the Institute’s key processes (tenders, implementation of projects, human resource management, teaching staff assessment, provision of educational work etc.), which are assessed regularly so that they are in line with the continuously changing environment the Institute operates in. The achievement of said aims is assessed via predefined indicators, specified by the Quality Management System, during internal/external inspections.

 

MODIP Members (according to 29.10.2020 decision of the Senate):

Koulouri Christina - Chair, Rector

Kefis Vasilios, Professor, Department of Public Administration 

Athanasiou Athina, Professor, Department of  Social Anthropology

Rovolis Antonios, Professor, Department of  Economic and  Regional Development

Papadimitriou-Zotou Despoina, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science and History

Iordanoglou Dimitra, Assistant Professor, Department of Communication, Media and Culture 

Roussos Christos, EEP representative

Valini Christina, ETEP representative

Karalis Dimitrios, Administrative Staff representative

Ierapetritis Dimitrios, EDIP representative

A Representative of undergraduate students

A representative of postgraduate students and PhD candidates

Substitute member:

Chalkia Alexandra, Professor, Department of Sociology 

Secretary of the MODIP Committee is  Vareltzi Efrosyni

 

OM.E.A.

The Internal Evaluation Group (OM.E.A.) is defined by the academic unit submitted for evaluation, by its General Assembly. It’s composed of distinguished faculty members from the rank of Professor and Associate Professor, preferably with experience in quality assurance procedures. A student representative also participates.

Responsibilities of OM.E.A.:

  • It is responsible for the conduction, in cooperation with its MO.DI.P., of the internal evaluation procedure inside the academic unit
  • Monitoring the completion of the inventory forms and questionnaires and informing the bodies and members of the academic unit for the results
  • Gathering all necessary data for the evaluation, and based on them
  • Writing the Internal Evaluation Report (self-evaluation) of the academic unit, which is forwarded to the MO.DI.P. and through MO.DI.P. to the H.Q.A.A.
  • Collaborating with the H.Q.A.A for organizing and carrying out the external evaluation

The OM.E.A. of the academic units of Panteion University of Social and Political Sciences consist of:

 

Department of Political Science and History

1

George Xiropaidis

2

Stefanos Dimitriou

3

Styliani Ladi

4

Andreas Kollias

 

 

Department of Social Policy

1

Despoina Papadopoulou

2

Eleni Prokou

3

Christos Papatheodorou

4

Konstantinos Dimoulas

5

Theodosia Anthopoulou

6

Maria Symeonaki

 

 

Department of International, European and Area Studies

1

Xaralampos Platias

2

Andreas Gofas

3

Georgios Eyaggelopoulos

 

 

Department of  Social Anthropology

1

Eirini Tountasaki

2

Αthina Athanasiou

3

Sofia Vidali

4

Aliki Lavranou

5

Niki Maroniti

6

Leonidas Oikonomou

7

Dimitra Kofti

8

Salomi Boukala

 

 

Department of Communication, Media and Culture

1

Andromachi Gazi

2

Georgios Klimis

3

Dimitra Iordanoglou

4

Aggeliki Gazi

5

Chrysanthi Avlami

6

Stavros Kaperonis

7

Dimitris Ntounas

 

 

Department of Public Administration

1

Th. Mariolis

2

P. Papadaki

3

L. Babalioutas

4

I. Filos

5

Ch.. Christopoulos

 

Substitute members

1

Α. Bolos

2

Ε. Vogklis

3

E. Balta

4

Ν. KAravitis

5

E. Papazoglou- Mitropoulou

 

 

Department of  Psychology

1

Α. Stalikas

2

P. Kordoutis

3

G. Prodromitis

4

Β. Giotsidi

5

Ch.. Parpoula

6

Α. Brailas

7

A. Vataki

 

 

Department of Economic and Regional Development

1

Β. Tselios

2

Ι. Keramidou

3

Α. Rovolia

4

Α. Mimis

 

 

Department of Sociology

1

Andreas Lytras

2

Panagiotis Doukellis

3

Anthozoi Chaidou

4

Gerasimos Karabelias

5

Miltiadis Kipas

 

Substitute members

1

Tryfonas Kostopoulos

2

Charalambos Meletiadis

3

Christina Zarafonitou

4

Vasiliki Kantzara

5

Nikolaos Kotaridis

 

Evaluation procedures

The evaluation of higher education institutions takes place in two stages: The first stage involves the evaluation of work done by the academic units of institutions of higher education themselves in relation to their nature, objectives and mission (internal evaluation). After the completion of the first stage follows the evaluation of the completed work, by a committee composed of independent experts, which takes into account the results of the internal evaluation report of the academic unit (external evaluation).

The process of internal and external evaluation is repeated at least every fourth year from the start of the previous evaluation. During the resumption of the evaluation process, the implementation of the findings of the previous evaluation is also examined, especially the proposals, suggestions and recommendations of the external evaluation committee. In particular, it is examined whether the weaknesses and gaps identified in the previous evaluation are addressed as well as the progress in implementing the measures taken to ensure and improve the quality of the research and teaching, the curriculum and the rest services provided by institutions of higher education.