section photograph

Liaison between the Agency and higher education institutions: a briefing paper for higher education institutions

Introduction

1 The Quality Assurance Agency (the Agency) wishes to develop and improve its relations with its individual subscribing institutions. The Agency has always had a formal, wide-ranging liaison role with the sector as a whole through, for example, consultations with stakeholders, the sector's representation on the Agency's Board of Directors and through the review function itself, but has not made any attempt to have an informal but structured dialogue with those individual higher education institutions (HEIs) that would like to have one. The changing nature of higher education and the issues faced by HEIs, not least the development of the academic infrastructure and the implementation of its constituent elements, have established a broader context for the Agency's relationship with HEIs themselves. The Agency needs to appreciate the individual environments in which HEIs work and get an overall view of the way its policies affect them. It is hoped the development of a new liaison policy, which is separate from audit and review, will facilitate this kind of understanding through the provision of a forum for discussion and feedback. It is also hoped that this forum will provide the opportunity for more than just the passing on of information that currently defines many of the day-to-day interactions between Agency officers and HEIs.

2 The Agency's commitment to developing and improving relations is highlighted by the purposes in the Strategic plan 2003-05:

  • safeguard the student and wider public interest in the maintenance of standards of academic awards and the quality of higher education;
  • communicate information on academic standards and quality to inform student choice and employer understanding, and to underpin public policy making;
  • enhance the assurance and management of standards and quality in higher education and promote a wider understanding of the value of well-assured standards and quality;
  • promote a wider understanding of the nature of standards and quality in higher education, including maintenance of common reference points, drawing on UK, other European, and international practice.

3 Further evidence of the Agency's commitment is shown by the values and standards underpinning the purposes:

Values

  • The importance of higher education.
  • The entitlement of learners.
  • The significance of the responsibilities of the providers of higher education.
  • The validity of the public interest in higher education.

Standards

  • Integrity
  • Professionalism
  • Accountability
  • Openness

4 The liaison role is seen as a way of achieving these purposes, values and standards. It is part of the Agency's corporate objectives and opens a channel of communication through which the Agency and HEIs can share and exchange views, information and ideas which will ultimately feed into the Agency's enhancement strategy. It will also provide a forum within which Agency staff can become more cognisant of both the sector and the wider work of the Agency.

5 This paper describes a proposal for providing a liaison officer (LO) for each HEI that would like to have one. The role envisaged for LOs is focused and refers to specific aspects of the relationship between the Agency and its subscribers. Its main purpose is to foster mutual understanding; it is not intended to be a consultancy or detailed advisory function.

6 The first three years of the role (2002-05) are intended to be developmental. The role of LO will be initially evaluated at the end of each year and then in depth at the end of that three-year period. The evaluation at the end of the first academic year (July 2003) will be very important. This first six month period from January-July 2003 will be the equivalent of a trial period and it is during this period that the Agency will learn how different institutions wish to approach the role. This guidance, therefore, does not constitute an operational manual but instead sets out the principles of the role along with some brief guidance. We hope that HEIs and those acting as LOs will assist, through feedback, in evaluating the role and in revising the guidance over time.

The benefits of the liaison officer role

7 The creation of LOs should benefit both HEIs and the Agency. The Agency considers the benefits of the LO role to HEIs as being:

  • the fostering of an atmosphere of mutual trust and understanding between the Agency and the sector;
  • the provision of a means through which HEIs can influence the agenda for the further development of the academic infrastructure;
  • the production of sector-wide reports on various matters raised through the liaison role;
  • an increase/improvement in the understanding of Agency policies and a means through which HEIs can explain to the Agency how these policies impact upon them, both centrally and at the faculty/school/departmental levels;
  • the provision of a means of active feedback for the HEI;
  • the provision of an immediate contact at the Agency for relevant new members of institutional staff;
  • the initiation of possible regional links through discussion among liaison officers;
  • the improvement of two-way communication and a reduction in possible misunderstandings;
  • the development of a means for an institution to share information that it wishes the Agency to know about without having to repeat the information for each Agency engagement (see also paras. 10-13);
  • the increase in the flow of information on the sector to other sector-wide bodies such as HEFCE, UUK, SCOP etc.

8 The Agency considers the benefits of the LO role for the Agency as being:

  • the fostering of an atmosphere of mutual trust and understanding between the Agency and the sector;
  • the provision of detailed, themed information that will feed into the Agency's development strategy;
  • a better understanding of individual institutions' working environments;
  • the improvement of two-way communication and a reduction in possible misunderstandings.

The principles

9 The following principles underpin the philosophy behind the liaison role. Together with the guidance attached to each, they are intended to provide a framework within which LOs and institutions agree protocols and a way of co-operating that best suits them.

From the Agency's point of view, the aim of the role is to increase its understanding of institutions rather than give advice

10 The main function of the LO is to listen to the institution rather than to extract information. The institution may be giving its view in response to an invitation from the Agency to discuss a certain issue; or it may wish the Agency to take on board and understand its view on a matter pertaining to Agency policy.

11 However, it will be beneficial for HEIs to have someone they can address questions to and seek advice from. This paper seeks to emphasise that this is not the sole function of the role and that it is hoped the process will be one of two-way communication.

12 LOs may not be best placed to answer certain questions and may ask the institution either to wait until a response is sought, or put the institution in contact with the most appropriate person at the Agency.

The LO's role is separate from the review function of the Agency

13 The LO's role will be different, and completely separate, from that of the management of any of the Agency's audit/review activities. The role is intended to assist the Agency in working with HEIs outside the review function. In order for the role to work, though, there will need to be a clear understanding of the differing nature of the information gathered through each function (liaison and audit/review) and the two will have to be kept separate. For this reason, no member of staff will manage the audit of an institution for which they are LO and the HEI will be asked not to use the liaison officer in relation to its audit or other reviews.

14 There is likely to be some discussion of the audit process; a general discussion of the process is as much as part of the liaison role as any other topic of Agency policy. What should NOT be discussed is the institution's individual audit. For example, a discussion about how the Agency selects and recruits auditors is an acceptable topic. A discussion about the individual auditors on the team that will be visiting the institution is not.

15 One of the purposes of the role is to allow institutions to feel free to discuss with an officer matters that pertain to work outside the immediate review function. This will allow institutions to feed into the development of Agency policy more proactively. In order to build a relationship based on trust, any views, opinions and information passed on will not be used directly in audit/review but will instead inform Agency thinking with regard to its policies. Although there still will be a need for formal consultation on various issues, the liaison role will allow for a more continuous dialogue and allow the Agency, in partnership with the sector, to work through and understand the impact of its policies.

16 The issue of the LO discovering something extremely serious about the institution, which, in the view of the LO, puts quality and standards at risk, is a difficult one. However, action might still be taken indirectly such as confidentially informing the Vice Chancellor that the issue had come to light. In such cases, the Agency's Executive Group should also be informed confidentially.

The relationship between the Assistant Director (AD) managing an audit and the LO from the institution: to follow principles similar to those for managing sensitive information

17 Following discussions between LOs and with representatives from the sector at the Agency's subscribers' meeting in May 2003, the following guidance is offered to LOs and institutions regarding the relationship between the LO and the AD managing an audit: information which the institution has asked the LO to regard as sensitive should not be discussed with the AD (or with anyone else). However, the AD may wish to brief themselves prior to a preliminary visit by reading any public file notes on the institution arising from the liaison role, and may seek clarification from the relevant LO on various matters contained within the file notes. The Agency will not share the file notes (public or sensitive) with audit teams; however, the HEI may do so if it wishes.

Management of information should lie with the institutions

18 Any information about an institution that the LO may gain in the course of discussions will not be part of the information set provided to teams for individual audits or other reviews, unless the institution specifically wishes the information to be shared in that way.

19 If information is considered by the institution to be particularly sensitive, then it needs to be clear it is given in confidence. Otherwise information will be shared internally to enable further Agency officers to develop their understanding of the sector. There may also be occasions when it will be useful to ask if an HEI's views on a matter can be fed into a wider project/debate. There may even be occasions for asking an HEI if it wishes to join a project or if it wishes other institutions in the region to know that it is interested in working in a particular area. However, the principle allows the institution to decide on the status of the information coming out of each interaction with its LO.

20 After each interaction with an allocated HEI, the LO will produce a file note which will be agreed with the institution, not only in terms of content, but in terms of the level of sensitivity to be attached to that note BEFORE it is sent to the Agency's Information Unit (IU).

21 The IU will manage folders by theme rather than institution. On receipt of each file note, IU officers will note if there is sensitive information contained in that note. If this is the case then the information will be taken forward for analysis via a unique reference number. The number attached means the institution cannot be identified in terms of any sensitive issues. The name of the institution will be attached to shared information. The reason for the file reference number for sensitive information is two-fold: the information gained from the liaison role is intended to assist the Agency to develop and further its enhancement agenda sector-wide rather than to apply to each institution individually; and, it is important that the Head of the IU does not feel compromised by analysing reports coming from LOs AND self-evaluation documents sent in for the audit process.

22 A minority of HEIs indicated, in their response to the consultation, that they would not wish to provide the Agency with information twice. It would be useful therefore to use the first stage of the development of the liaison role (until July 2003) to test with these institutions, how they wish to deal with information arising from the liaison function.

The role is flexible and should be developed in negotiation with each individual institution

23 Within this flexibility, it is important for the institution and the LO to work within boundaries. Two of the most important protocols that should be set up with the institution at the beginning of the relationship are:
i Contact - does the institution wish to have one central contact or for anyone in the institution to be able to contact the LO? and,
ii Protocols - protocols for the management and use of information.

Collaboration

24 It is recognised that while the Agency is aiming, though the liaison role, to work in partnership with the sector, it is one of a number of organisations with which institutions have contact. There is always a possibility of collaborative work or that the Agency is not the right organisation to carry out a particular project. This is the kind of information that should be fed through the management process so that the Agency can either offer to work in partnership with another organisation or inform that organisation, where appropriate, that certain themes are arising from the Agency's liaison function.

The management of the role and its support structure

25 The management of the role will lie with the Agency's Development and Enhancement Group and officers will ultimately report to the Director of the Development and Enhancement Group, Nick Harris.

26 The Development and Enhancement Group will also evaluate the generic information provided by the LO and will consider further work that might be undertaken with the sector.

Evaluation

27 It is very important that HEIs fully understand the purpose, scope, and limitations of the liaison function. Prior to the production of this paper the Development and Enhancement Group held a meeting with invited members of the sector in order to discuss the various issues raised by the liaison role. The very helpful comments and suggestions made at that meeting have been incorporated into this paper. The LO function will continue to be developed in the light of our experience over the first years of its implementation and will be reviewed after the first six months in July 2003. It will be evaluated again in July 2004. These first two evaluations will lead to an in-depth review in summer 2005. At that point we will be seeking HEIs' views on how useful they have found the role as it developed at their institution.

FRC 07.07.03

TopTop