1 Purpose
This is the third annual report on the liaison scheme. The purpose of the report is to summarise and analyse the quarterly reports on the scheme from May 2005 – June 2006. 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 scheme. It will also highlight matters or areas where further consideration about the liaison scheme itself is required.
2 Introduction
During the period covered by this report, 24 liaison visits have been made to higher education institutions (HEIs), as well as an increasing number of interactions by
e-mail and telephone. The largest share, 38%, of these visits were to pre-’92 universities, in contrast with the preceding year. However the relatively small number of visits should be borne in mind. The continuing increase in informal interactions between liaison officers and HEIs is considered in more detail below.
The first piece of thematic work (revision to the Guidelines for programme specifications) was completed in this academic year, following an extensive amount of feedback from the sector through the liaison scheme and the first annual liaison conference, amongst other activities. The revised Guidelines were due to be published in July 2006.
The second annual liaison conference was held in London in May 2006. The conference focused on the series of papers Outcomes from institutional audit and their utility to the sector. It was well attended (approximately 65 HEIs were represented by approximately 77 participants) and the evaluation sheets demonstrate a high level of satisfaction. Thanks are due to all colleagues who helped to organise the conference, in particular Susan Melvin. (Further details on the conference can be found below in section 4).
The relationship between a liaison officer and her/his allocated institutions is guided by the principles set out in a briefing paper which was agreed by HEIs and LOs (www.qaa.ac.uk/education/liaison/).Last year’s report considered whether or not the principle guiding confidential information was necessary given experience of the scheme over the preceding two years. The provision for confidential information to be fed into the file notes was, again, rarely used in 2005-06. However, when it was used, it was for matters to do with degree awarding powers and other, potentially sensitive matters. This report proposes that the feature remain for a further year and be reviewed again in 2007.
The scheme will be due for further evaluation by liaison officers and HEIs in 2006-07.
3 The quarterly and annual reporting system
The quarterly reporting system, initiated in spring 2004, has continued to provide a level of information which is appreciated by liaison officers. This annual report draws on quarterly reports provided in July and October 2005 and January and April 2006. Liaison officer meetings occurred just after the production of the relevant quarterly reports and the reports are analysed and summarised in this annual report.
The quarterly reports pick up all interactions between liaison officers and their HEIs that are recorded on the database for that particular quarter. A quantitative analysis of themes is provided by the Information Unit. This is then supplemented by a qualitative “human” analysis by a Development Officer in the Development and Enhancement Group (DEG). An annex to each quarterly report shows the number of times a theme was discussed during that period. This allows officers to look at specific aspects of work for which they are responsible and to follow up the full text of the discussion in order to inform themselves as to whether or not there is any action that needs to be taken in that area.
The quarterly reports discuss themes under two headings: Operational and policy and Development, although it should be remembered that some themes/discussions could fall into both categories.
However, if the information arising from the liaison scheme is to continue to be useful, it is necessary to find some way of recording the outcomes of informal contact. This is not currently happening consistently through the file note templates. The following is taken from last year’s annual report and sums up work which still needs to be taken forward:
… despite the useful detail provided in the reports, the number of visits has now dropped to a level where it is necessary to consider their true value. The increasing number of informal contacts (by e-mail, telephone and conversations, for example, at conferences and at QAA events) also impacts on this matter. The dwindling number of visits does not necessarily indicate a dwindling interest in the scheme. Indeed, the increasing amount of informal contact suggests that it is becoming further embedded and relationships have been developed that do not require formal meetings. As mentioned above, the quarterly reports for the last three quarters have not been so useful because the number of file notes arising from visits has dropped considerably (see number of visits in section 2). 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, e-mail exchanges etc. Liaison officers have discussed this matter several times but, as yet, there has been no satisfactory resolution … 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.
Some initial work began in this area by asking a small number of liaison officers to consider several possible models that might be used to record such information. These officers’ responses will be considered at the beginning of 2007.
4 Analysis of themes: 2005-06
The quarterly reports for the last year indicate that the following themes were the most commonly discussed:
- collaborative provision
- programme specifications
- communication
- institutional audit
- foundation degrees
- institutional matters.
These results are unsurprising given that the audit cycle was coming to an end, the collaborative provision audit activity had begun and there was a consultation on the revised Guidelines for programme specifications. More interesting is the number of institutions that wished to discuss internal activity that had begun as a result of an institutional audit. This often led to fruitful discussions about the series of Outcomes papers and to the possibility of the liaison officer offering to initiate contact between two institutions who were considering similar matters.
Although not specifically mentioned in the list of themes above, two areas of work were taken forward this year, through the liaison scheme:
Outcomes from institutional audit and the second annual liaison conference
Although not designated as a theme, discussions at liaison meetings about institutional audit demonstrated that it would be useful to find out, from a wider audience, if the Outcomes papers were useful and if there are any ways that their utility could be improved.
As reported above, the conference was well attended and one of the slots was given over entirely to listening to case studies from institutions which had been using the Outcomes paper. A representative from the Higher Education Academy (HEA) also spoke about how one of the series of papers had been used with good effect in the project he was conducting in the area of external examining.
The conference, including the breakout sessions, provided some very valuable feedback for the Outcomes team and various points will be picked up by that team
as it considers the next round of papers in the series.
Student involvement in review activities
This, currently, is the second liaison theme and, again, derives from discussions
at liaison meetings about the role of students in institutional audit. It was agreed, however, that it would be useful for the work to consider student involvement in review processes more widely.
A cross-QAA project group has been set up and has commenced its work. One member of the group gave a paper on the role of students in quality assurance processes at the Higher Education Close Up conference in July 2006, a crib sheet for use by liaison officers in their discussions with institutions was produced and the information gathered will contribute to the work of the project group. The outcomes from this theme will form the basis of the third annual liaison conference to take place in spring 2007.
5 Matters arising over the last year
The liaison scheme continues to be a very different experience for each QAA officer and each HEI. We continue to monitor this and also to remind staff that, in cases where burden of work becomes too heavy, reallocation of some or all HEIs is always an option. Due to staff leaving and moving to other roles in QAA, there has been significant reallocation in the last year. Recently, two development officers were allocated institutions after they had been at QAA for a period of time. It will be useful to speak to those officers to find out if they feel they could have picked up their allocation at an earlier stage.
Meeting dates for liaison officer meetings continue to be set one year in advance and meetings conclude their business in approximately 45 minutes, 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. In 2005-06, there were briefings on qualifications frameworks by Jayne Mitchell and presentations on the overseas audit in China by Nicola Channon and on integrated quality and enhancement review (IQER) by Gillian Hayes. 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 awareness that thematic work could be perceived as solely the territory of the DEG was overcome this year with the work on student involvement in review processes being led from within the Reviews Group with DEG participation in the project group. This enables the scheme to impact, as intended, on QAA-wide areas of work, with all groups being aware of the information and themes that arise from the scheme, and suggesting areas of work/projects that relate closely to their own areas of work.
Amongst other matters raised/decisions taken were the following:
- due to the nature of certain institutions and the kinds of discussions that they might wish to have which are of a sensitive nature, it was becoming increasingly easy to identify, by theme, those institutions that had discussions recorded in the ‘sensitive information’ part of the file note. It was agreed that the themes would be removed from the sensitive section of the file note template in order to decrease the risk of identification.
6 The way ahead: 2006-07
In its third 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. However, the scheme has changed in the way that contact is made; this impacts on the provision of information to the agency and will need to be considered over the coming year.
Matters for consideration over the coming year are:
- the effectiveness of the file note template for recording more informal contact.
A view on how easy it is to remember to use the file note template to record, for example, an e-mail or telephone discussion will be taken and possible other models considered (see above, section 3) - small and specialist institutions will be among the first to be audited under the new methodology. It has been the intention of the liaison scheme to find out if the provision of a more focused version of the liaison scheme might be beneficial for such institutions. Such a discussion was initiated at an event organised by the Reviews Group to introduce the small and specialist institutions to the new cycle of audit. Care was taken to draw an appropriate distinction between audit and liaison activities
- the idea of bringing together HEIs with similar interests continues to remain on the agenda.
7 Conclusion
The major issue over the last year has been the recognition of a liaison officer scheme which has become well-embedded. The task now, is to consider how best to deal with a less formal reporting structure to ensure that we continue to benefit from the level of information that the scheme has previously provided, thus ensuring that it remains as useful as possible to QAA, its staff and HEIs.
FRC
December 2006
Top