The liaison scheme annual report: May 2004 - June 2005

Purpose

The purpose of this report is to summarise and analyse the quarterly reports on the liaison scheme from May 2004 – June 2005. It is also intended to highlight work which has been undertaken, is in progress and which will be undertaken in the near future within the liaison scheme. The report will highlight matters or areas where further consideration about the scheme itself is required. Details of the liaison scheme may be found in the briefing paper.

Introduction

During the period covered by this report, liaison visits have been made to many higher education institutions (HEIs), as well as a considerable number of interactions by email and telephone. The scheme has become considerably more embedded in the last year and informal interactions between liaison officers and HEIs are becoming more frequent.

The first piece of thematic work carried out through the liaison scheme was on programme specifications and in April 2005, the first annual liaison conference was held in London. The conference focused solely on this theme; it was well attended (approximately 70 HEIs were represented by approximately 90 participants) and the evaluation sheets demonstrate a high level of satisfaction.

The scheme has recently been evaluated by liaison officers and it is intended that a similar evaluation of the scheme, from the point of view of the HEIs, be conducted later in the summer of 2005.

Analysis of themes: 2004-05

During the last year, HEIs were most interested to discuss the following themes:

institutional audit
programme specifications
institutional matters
liaison
collaborative provision
Teaching Quality Information (TQI) and
university title/degree awarding powers.

These results are unsurprising given that the audit cycle was ongoing, programme specifications had been chosen as a liaison theme and collaborative provision audits will begin next year. However, in section 6 there is some indication of those themes which, although not discussed by a large number of HEIs, were discussed in some depth.

Programme specifications and the first annual liaison conference

Following a survey of the use of programme specifications across Wales, Northern Ireland and England, some thematic work in the area of programme specifications was developed.

The survey provided QAA with a snapshot of the current purposes, use and benefits of programme specifications across the UK (excluding Scotland). On analysing the results, a decision was taken to carry out some more detailed exploratory work by inviting representatives from the sector (including higher education in further education) to attend three regional meetings at which matters were discussed in more depth. This work culminated in the first annual liaison conference in April 2005. The results of this work have enabled QAA to draw up an action plan which will result in a revised set of Guidelines for preparing programme specifications (the Guidelines) by Easter 2006. An interim report on the current purposes and uses for programme specifications, including examples, will be published in the autumn 2005. Areas for discussion/thought with regard to the revision of the Guidelines include:

what is the best way for QAA to specify a 'minimum content' for programme specifications? (Some participants at the conference felt that this would be a good way of allowing HEIs to continue to use their programme specifications as they saw fit, provided they included at least the minimum of information necessary for them to be of use to prospective students when viewed on the TQI website)
how can we select the most appropriate and useful examples to illustrate the Guidelines? (Participants at the conference were clear that they felt that the current examples were out of date and did not match the stated, main purpose for programme specifications, ie to provide prospective students with a summary of programmes to allow for comparison
what should the revised format of the Guidelines be? Should they look more like a section of the Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education (Code of practice)? Could we provide some explanatory text to accompany examples so that they are considered within the appropriate context and their purpose is clear?

The original cross-QAA programme specification project group will continue with the work. There will be consideration of the way forward in August 2005, with work on the Guidelines beginning in earnest in the autumn 2005.

All notes on programme specifications from the liaison conference can be found at www.qaa.ac.uk/education/liaison

Matters arising over the last year

The liaison scheme has become more embedded, at least at QAA, over the last year. Requests for information from officers now generally yield a high response rate. Meeting dates for liaison officer meetings are set one year in advance and meetings now conclude their business in the first half of the meeting, leaving the second half of the time available free for a presentation by/discussion with a relevant member of staff on a current 'hot topic'. So far, these have included European matters and the most recently revised sections of the Code of practice. It is envisaged that the next of these presentations will be at the October 2005 meeting when the topic will be the forthcoming overseas audit visit to China. The purpose of these sessions is to provide liaison officers with information that they can pass on to their HEIs if appropriate, but also, more importantly, to give them access to work that they are not necessarily closely involved with, allowing them to feel more prepared when conducting a liaison meeting.

The difficulty in deciding upon a theme on which further work could be carried out was surmounted over the last year. However, the intention is that some of the thematic work might be carried out to benefit areas of work or projects undertaken by all groups in QAA. While the scheme has become more familiar and more embedded, we need to take care that it continues to focus on the kinds of outcomes for which is was intended and that all groups are aware of the information and themes that arise from the scheme, and can suggest areas of work/projects that relate closely to their own areas of work.

Among other matters raised/decisions taken were the following.

It was agreed that a report from the QAA/NUS steering group would become a standing item on the agenda for meetings.
It was agreed that the public folder for frequently asked questions should be reinstated and this has recently happened.
The file note template was revised by increasing the length of use before timeout. Revisions to the printing of the forms and the expansion of the boxes as they are filled are imminent.

The way ahead: 2004-05

In its second full year of operation, the liaison scheme continued to show its potential for developing good relations between QAA and individual HEIs, acting as an information source and providing a means of feeding into other QAA work. The scheme will aim to consolidate this position over the coming year.

Matters for consideration over the coming year

A need to consider a means of providing a further resource or network of small and specialist HEIs. One HEI in particular has been active in providing suggestions in this area – again, informally, the idea appears to be popular amongst such institutions. A decision would need to be made with regard to exactly what constitutes a 'small and specialist' HEI for the purposes of the liaison role, how we might instigate a better information flow between such institutions and QAA and what benefits might accrue from such an activity.

In terms of benefits to HEIs, it is obvious from the file note templates that matter such as progress files, Europe/the Bologna process and collaborative provision (including some confusion with overseas audit)/joint degrees etc are becoming more actively debated through the liaison scheme. Although such matters may not be as numerically obvious as, for example, the audit/review processes, nevertheless, a qualitative analysis shows more in depth discussion around such matters. This may provide us with some material to think about in terms of future themes, or may indicate some further work to be done by QAA outside the liaison scheme over the coming year. Indeed work on some of these areas (eg joint degrees) has already begun.

There were many informal comments by individual HEIs with regard to their experience of the audit process – such comments could be gathered together and provided to the Working Group which is currently considering revisions to the method. Some of the comments are already being discussed, for example, the provision of reports that are easier to read and a greater role for enhancement. However, there are others that may be of interest to the Group.

The idea of bringing together HEIs with similar interests continues to be voiced by a minority of institutions – for example, one HEI said that it would be interested in talking to others who were working on the governance of their institution. Time did not allow for any such activity last year but it should, nonetheless, remain on the agenda.

As mentioned above, the number of file notes arising from visits has dropped considerably. This is not necessarily a matter for concern with regard to the liaison scheme, since it is apparent that many officers have developed a relationship with their institutions that no longer requires the formality of a visit – indeed it is interesting to note colleagues chatting with liaison contacts at conferences/seminars, whether they are organised by QAA or not – and a number of officers have remarked that the scheme equips them to recommend institutional contacts or others to take part in QAA working groups etc. The problem arises in capturing the essence of telephone calls, email exchanges etc. Liaison officers have discussed this matter several times but, as yet, there has been no satisfactory resolution. It may be worth considering a link with the public folder for frequently asked questions – perhaps there could be some means of using an enhanced version of the folder as a way of determining the kinds of matters that HEIs wish to discuss at any given time. However, care will have to be taken to ensure that the benefits provided by a searchable database such as that associated with the file note template are not lost.

Finally, the liaison scheme continues to welcome the views of QAA Executive’s views on its work in terms of feeding in themes/areas of interest of its own on which it would be interested in hearing the views of individual institutions. This level of interest will also assist liaison officers in determining themes on which they might work further.

Conclusion

The major issue over the last year has been the embedding of the liaison officer scheme. The staff evaluation shows that, with some exceptions, this has been achieved successfully. Over the coming year, our challenge is the refinement of the scheme, to ensure that it remains as useful as possible to QAA, its staff and HEIs.