Procedure for the Approval of Collaborative Provision Involving Taught Programmes and Research Degree Programmes Contents

Transcription

1 Approved by Senate: M08/10 refers Approved by UTC: M07/208 refers Last updated: September 2018 (approved by Chair of UTC/Dean of YGRS) UNIVERSITY OF YORK TEACHING COMMITTEE/YORK GRADUATE RESEARCH SCHOOL Procedure for the Approval of Collaborative Provision Involving Taught Programmes and Research Degree Programmes Contents A Introduction... 2 Governance responsibilities for the approval of collaborative provision... 2 Overview of the procedure for the approval of collaborative provision... 2 Tenders/bids involving collaborative provision... 3 Timescale for approval and implementation of collaborative provision... 3 Publicising collaborative provision... 3 Resources for approval and implementation of collaborative provision... 3 B Stage 1- Initial Consideration for Permission to Proceed With Negotiation... 4 C Stage 2 - Detailed Consideration for Full Approval... 5 Approval of the proposed collaborative partner... 5 The approval of the proposed collaborative venture... 6 Consideration of the business/planning case... 6 Consideration of the academic case... 6 Written agreements/contracts... 7 D Implementation and Monitoring of the Collaborative Proposal... 8 Appendix I: Determining the level of risk associated with collaborative provision... 9 Cultural distance... 9 Nature of the collaborative venture... 9 Quantifying risk... 9 Appendix II Table 1: Type of collaborative partner and likely risk Table 2: Nature of collaborative venture and likely risk Table 3: Requirement for a visit to the collaborative partner and external assessor input Table 4: Information required for full approval

2 A Introduction The University s Policy on Collaborative Provision sets out the ground for establishing collaborative provision that is educational provision leading to an award or credit from an awarding institution, delivered and/or supported and/or assessed through an arrangement with a partner organisation. This document details the procedure for the approval of proposals for collaborative provision involving taught programmes and research degree programmes. This document does not, however, apply to: the establishment of general collaborative agreements (i.e. without a clearly defined learning and teaching goal) at institutional or departmental level with international partners (contact Global Engagement for advice) work-based learning/placements/internships and similar (see the Policy Statement on Work Placements and contact Careers/Academic Support Office for advice) student exchanges/study abroad/staff exchanges (see the Policy Statement on Study Abroad and contact the Centre for Global Programmes for advice) progression or matriculation agreements, which enable entry to the University without advanced standing (contact Student Recruitment and Admissions for advice). If there is any doubt about whether this procedure applies in a particular case, please contact the Academic Support Office for advice. The aim of this procedure is to ensure that the University successfully discharges its responsibilities with respect to the academic standards and value of awards made in its name, and for the quality of the academic experience for its students, in line with the expectations set out in the UK Quality Code for Higher Education. This procedure takes a risk-based approach, which recognises that the degree of risk associated with a proposal varies significantly depending on the proposed collaborative partner and the nature of the proposed collaborative venture. Decisions made according to this procedure should be robust, transparent, consistent, and take into account the views of relevant stakeholders. Governance responsibilities for the approval of collaborative provision Collaborative provision involving taught programmes is the responsibility of University Teaching Committee (UTC), acting on behalf of Senate. The PVC for Learning, Teaching and Students (PVC) chairs UTC and is able to take Chair s action in certain cases. Collaborative provision involving research degree programmes is the responsibility of Policies and Programmes Sub-Committee (PPSC), which is a sub-committee of the York Graduate Research School (YGRS) Board, acting on behalf of Senate. The Dean of YGRS (Dean) chairs PPSC and is able to take Chair s action in certain cases. Overview of the procedure for the approval of collaborative provision The procedure for approval of collaborative provision is a two-stage process: Stage 1 - initial consideration for permission to proceed with negotiation This stage aims to establish if, in the light of the Policy on Collaborative Provision, there is a prima facie case to proceed with negotiation with the proposed collaborative partner. This stage includes an initial due diligence assessment of the proposed partner. The aim of stage 1 is to filter out 2

3 proposals that are unlikely to receive approval, to ensure that work is not undertaken in vain and that a proposed partner is not given unrealistic expectations. It is important to note that permission to proceed to Stage 2 does not guarantee that full approval will be granted. Stage 2 - detailed consideration, for approval of the proposed collaborative partner (based on an assessment of its suitability and its ability to enter into a legal contract/agreement with the University etc., including an enhanced due diligence assessment where required) and the proposed collaborative venture, based on: (i) an assessment of the business case and (ii) an assessment of the academic case (e.g. pedagogic value, compliance with national and University policy). Tenders/bids involving collaborative provision Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the PVC, stage 1 approval must be obtained before a department submits a tender/bid which includes collaboration with respect to a taught programme. The department is responsible for ensuring that it allows sufficient time for gaining stage 1 approval (see below). With the approval of the Dean, University approval of a tender/bid to a research council/other funding body may replace some or all of stage 1 approval. Timescale for approval and implementation of collaborative provision The proposing department must factor in sufficient time for the approval of collaborative provision, particularly where this involves a collaborative partner and/or a collaborative venture that is likely to be deemed medium or high risk (see Appendix I). Collaborative provision cannot be approved retrospectively. For stage 1 approval, the department must allow sufficient time to obtain the views of various internal stakeholders. The PVC/Dean will endeavour to make a decision within four weeks of the completed Collaborative Provision Pro Forma being submitted. With sufficient notice, a decision may be expedited up e.g. to facilitate a tender/bid submission. For stage 2 approval, the time taken to reach a final decision will vary significantly depending on the speed with which the required documentation is supplied, whether enhanced due diligence proceedings and/or a visit are required and whether the decision is taken by Chair s action, by UTC/PPSC or by Senate. The Academic Quality Officer in the Academic Support Office (ASO) can advise on a likely timeline for approval. The proposing department must also factor in sufficient time for the implementation of the collaborative proposal. For collaborative proposals involving extensive combined delivery, double and joint awards, franchise, or validation at least two years of lead time is recommended and may be required as a condition of approval. Publicising collaborative provision Collaborative provision must not be advertised using the University s name until full approval has been granted, unless this has been agreed in writing by the PVC/Dean (this is likely only in exceptional circumstances). Resources for approval and implementation of collaborative provision Central resources for the approval and implementation of collaborative proposals are limited and the proposing department will need to devote significant internal resources to manage and support the approval and implementation process. 3

4 B Stage 1- Initial Consideration for Permission to Proceed With Negotiation 1. The proposing department should read the Policy on Collaborative Provision and seek informal advice from their Planning Officer and Academic Quality Officer in the ASO as early as possible. If a proposal is received from an external organisation, the PVC for Learning, Teaching and Students/Dean of YGRS (as appropriate) will decide, in consultation with the Planning Office/ASO, if there is a case for referring the proposal to the relevant department(s) for consideration. 2. The proposing department should complete the relevant Collaborative Provision Pro Forma for Initial Consideration, including obtaining the views of various internal stakeholders (see the relevant pro forma for details). The completed pro forma should be submitted to the department s Academic Quality Officer. 3. On the basis of the Pro Forma for Initial Consideration (which includes an initial due diligence assessment of the proposed partner), the PVC/Dean will decide, with reference to the University s Policy on Collaborative Provision and following further consultation with relevant internal stakeholders if required, whether to grant stage 1 approval, i.e. permission to proceed with negotiation. For stage 1 approval, the PVC/Dean will need to be convinced that there is a prima facie case that: (i) the proposed collaborative partner is suitable, (ii) the proposed collaborative venture has sufficient business and academic merit to be worthy of further exploration, and (iii) that there are no significant issues/risks that are unlikely to be able to be resolved/mitigated. 4. If the PVC/Dean is connected to the proposing department (or there is any other real or perceived conflict of interest) or it is felt that the proposal requires wider consideration (e.g. because of the scale or the nature of the proposed collaborative venture or because of uncertainty with respect to the suitability of the proposed collaborative partner), then the proposal will be referred to UTC/PPSC (by correspondence or at its next meeting) for a decision. 5. If stage 1 approval is granted, the decision will be reported to UTC/PPSC as Category II business. The UTC/PPSC minute will be sent to relevant support services (e.g. Student Admissions and Recruitment, Student Services, Library, etc.) for information. It is important to note that permission to proceed to Stage 2 does not guarantee that full approval will be granted. 4

5 C Stage 2 - Detailed Consideration for Full Approval Stage 2 consists of detailed consideration of: (a) the proposed collaborative partner and (b) the proposed collaborative venture, in terms of the business and academic case. In practical terms, (a) and (b) will normally run in parallel. The proposing department and the proposed collaborative partner should be aware that progress to stage 2 does not imply that full approval will be granted. Approval of the proposed collaborative partner 1. The PVC/Dean will decide, in consultation with relevant internal stakeholders (e.g. Registrar, Faculty Dean, ASO, Planning Office, Legal Team, Global Engagement), if the proposed collaborative partner should complete the Due Diligence Pro Forma or if the initial due diligence assessment that forms part of stage 1 is sufficient. 2. The requirement to complete the Due Diligence Pro Forma will normally be waived by the PVC/Dean if: the proposed partner is an existing institutional partner and/or has already undergone due diligence proceedings with the University, and the partnership is working well the proposed partner is a UK university in good standing with the Office for Students/regional funding body and the Quality Assurance Agency and may be waived if: the level of risk posed by the collaborative venture is low the level of risk posed by the collaborative venture is low-medium and the proposed collaborative partner is a low risk university of high repute, in good standing with relevant national agencies. 3. If the Due Diligence Pro Forma is required, its completion should managed by the proposing department. Universities or other organisations with which the proposed partner has, or had, a link may be contacted to request further information or a reference (this is particularly important if there is evidence that the proposed partner has recently terminated a collaborative relationship in an academic area similar to that being explored with the University). 4. The PVC/Dean will decide, with reference to Appendix I and (where applicable) the Due Diligence Pro Forma and in consultation with relevant internal stakeholders (see above), whether a visit to the proposed partner is needed and, if so, by whom this should be carried out (the department or the University) and any particular areas to be investigated. The proposing department may be asked to organise and finance the visit. 5. The PVC/Dean will decide, with reference to Appendix I and (where applicable) the Due Diligence Pro Forma and visit report and in consultation with relevant internal stakeholders (see above), whether the proposed partner poses a low, medium or high risk. If, at any stage in the approval process, information is received that indicates that the level of risk may have been underestimated, the process to be followed will be altered accordingly. 6. The decision regarding the proposed collaborative partner will be taken as follows: 5

6 a. Low risk the decision will be made by the PVC/Dean and the outcome reported to UTC/PPSC and Senate as Category II business. If, however, the PVC/Dean is connected to the proposing department (or there is any other real or perceived conflict of interest) or it is felt that the proposal requires wider consideration (e.g. because there is some uncertainty about the suitability of the proposed partner), then the proposal will be referred to UTC/PPSC (by correspondence or at its next meeting) for a decision; b. Medium risk information on the proposed collaborative partner will be considered by UTC/PPSC. The outcome will be reported to Senate as Category II business; c. High risk information on the proposed collaborative partner will be considered by UTC/PPSC, which will make a recommendation to Senate. The approval of the proposed collaborative venture Consideration of the business/planning case 1. It is the University s expectation that collaborative ventures will be fully costed and accounted for accurately. A business/planning case for the proposed collaborative venture will normally be required, although this requirement may be waived if the PVC/Dean, following consultation with the Planning Office and Faculty Dean, is satisfied that the resources required by, and the financial risks associated with, the venture are minimal. 2. The proposing department is responsible for collating the business/planning documentation (this will include the Planning Committee New Programme Pro Forma in the case of a new or heavily modified programme), and for obtaining approval from its departmental senior management team prior to submission to the relevant Faculty Office for consideration by the Faculty Learning and Teaching Group (FLTG). The business/planning case must be approved by the FLTG before the academic case for the programme is considered. Consideration of the academic case 1. The PVC/Dean will decide, with reference to Appendix I and in consultation with the ASO, what information will be required for consideration of the academic case, including what input is required from an external assessor. 2. The PVC/Dean, with reference to Appendix I and in consultation with the ASO, will decide whether a visit to the proposed collaborative partner to scrutinize the academic case is required and, if so, by whom this should be carried out (the department or the University) and any particular areas to be investigated. The proposing department may be asked to organise and finance the visit. If a visit to the proposed partner is required for due diligence reasons (see above), then the visits may be combined, at the discretion of the PVC/Dean, into a single event. A visit may also be carried out conjointly with a PSRB or other external agency. 3. Universities or other organisations with which the proposed partner has, or had, a link may be contacted to request further information or a reference. If the proposed collaborative venture might affect a PSRB-recognised programme, the proposing department must inform and/or seek permission from the relevant PSRB(s). 6

7 4. The proposing department is responsible for collating the academic documentation and submitting it to the relevant Board of Studies/Graduate Schools Board for approval, prior to its submission to the ASO. 5. The PVC/Dean will decide, with reference to Appendix I and in consultation with the ASO and other relevant stakeholders (e.g. Registrar, Faculty Dean, Planning Office, Legal Team, Global Engagement, RSA, Student Services) whether the proposed collaborative venture poses a low, medium or high risk. If, at any stage in the approval process, information is received that indicates that the level of risk may have been underestimated, the process to be followed will be altered accordingly. 6. The decision regarding the proposed collaborative venture will be taken as follows: a. Low risk the decision will be made by the PVC/Dean and the outcome will be reported to UTC and Senate as Category II business. If, however, the PVC/Dean is connected to the proposer (or there is any other real or perceived conflict of interest) or it is felt that the proposal requires wider consideration (e.g. because it might set a precedent), then it will be referred to UTC/PPSC (by correspondence or at its next meeting) for a decision; b. Medium risk - information on the proposed collaborative venture will be considered by UTC/PPSC. The outcome will be reported to Senate as Category II business; c. High risk - information on the proposed collaborative venture will be considered by UTC/PPSC, which will make a recommendation to Senate. In the case of taught programmes, proposals for extensive combined delivery, double awards, joint awards, franchise, and validation will normally be considered, as a minimum, by UTC. 7. The UTC/PPSC minute will be sent to relevant support services (e.g. Student Admissions and Recruitment, Student Services, Library, etc.) for information. 8. The collaborative venture will be added register of collaborative provision, which is sent to Senate and Council for information on an annual basis. Written agreements/contracts 9. A written and legally binding agreement or contract, which sets out the rights and obligations of the University and collaborative partner should be produced. Where a University template is unavailable, the agreement/contract should be drawn up by, or in consultation with, the University s Legal Team and the draft agreement should be circulated to relevant internal stakeholders for comment and checking (e.g. Registrar, Planning Office, ASO, Academic Registrar, Global Engagement, SRA, Student Services, Library and IT). Written agreements will be normally be signed on behalf of the University by the PVC/Dean and at least one representative of the Department (normally the Head of Department) (when deciding who should sign the agreement, consideration will be given to the wishes of the collaborative partner). If the University and a collaborative partner have a number of collaborative ventures, it may be more appropriate to have an over-arching agreement covering the institutional interface, with appendices covering individual ventures. 7

8 D Implementation and Monitoring of the Collaborative Proposal 1. Once full approval has been obtained, the proposing department should work with the relevant support services to ensure that the necessary steps are taken to implement the proposal. This may include work on: data protection student records staff training and induction recruitment admissions procedures module catalogue entries documentation for students induction timetabling detailed curriculum and assessment design external examiner appointment library and IT resources student support services intellectual property rights health, safety and wellbeing equality, diversity and inclusion quality assurance and enhancement. 2. The collaborative proposal should be monitored and reviewed within the relevant department via its standard procedures, which in turn are overseen by UTC/PPSC via Annual Programme Review and Periodic Review. Special monitoring and review arrangements are in place for some collaborative ventures (e.g. for validated programmes) and additional monitoring and review procedures (e.g. an initial visit) may be agreed by UTC/PPSC at approval particularly in relation to new types of collaboration or those perceived to be higher risk. 8

9 Appendix I: Determining the level of risk associated with collaborative provision The level of risk associated with a collaborative proposal is influenced by: (i) the cultural distance between the University and the proposed collaborative partner, and (ii) the nature of the proposed collaborative venture. Cultural distance The cultural distance between the University and a collaborative partner provides a measure of the collaborative partner s likely ability to deliver higher education that meets the University s expectations. The cultural distance will be influenced by: the country in which the proposed partner is located (the country s safety and stability, its approach to HE (including academic freedom), quality assurance regime, legal system, and approach to health and safety and equal opportunities) the nature of the partner including its status (in particular whether it has degree-awardingpowers), financial and legal strength and stability, sources of funding, governance structure, and strength (size and availability of resources) the partner s knowledge and experience of delivering higher education at the relevant level and of collaborating successfully with HEIs (particularly those in the UK or with HEIs in systems similar to the UK) the partner s approach to teaching, learning and assessment, including its staffing and physical resources the University s knowledge and understanding of the partner, and vice versa. Over time, it is expected that the cultural distance between the University and a collaborative partner should decrease as both parties grow in their understanding of one other, policies and procedures are harmonised and trust develops. Nature of the collaborative venture The nature of the collaborative venture determines the extent to which responsibilities relating to a University award and the quality of the academic experience are delegated to the collaborative partner and the extent to, and ease with, which, the University is able to influence the partner. For example, a validation arrangement, where significant levels of responsibility for standards and the quality of the academic experience are delegated to the collaborative partner, presents a far greater risk than a collaborative arrangement, e.g. an articulation agreement, where the University retains much greater control over its award and the academic experience of its students. The nature of the collaborative provision can also affect the level of commitment required from the University in terms of finance for, and duration of, the collaborative venture (for example, it will take longer for a part-time programme to run out than a full-time programme, with a consequent increase in costs). Quantifying risk Some universities quantify the level of risk associated with a collaborative partner/venture using a numerical scoring system. It has been decided not to adopt this approach at York as the basis for scoring risk factors is, by its nature, somewhat arbitrary. Instead, the type/location of the collaborative partner (which gives an indication of the cultural distance ) and the nature of the collaborative venture have been given broad risk ratings (see Appendix II - Tables 1 and 2). For each individual collaborative partner/venture there may be particular factors that increase or 9

10 decrease the broad level of risk and these will be taken into account in making the final decision about the level of risk posed. 10

11 Appendix II Table 1: Type of collaborative partner and likely risk Type of collaborative partner Likely level of risk UK university Very low UK HEI with degree-awarding-powers or further education college Low UK other educational Low-high EU university Low-medium EU other educational Medium-high Non EU university in countries with strong, established links to UK HE (this typically includes universities in Australia, Low-medium New Zealand, USA, Canada, South Africa, Hong Kong and Singapore) Non EU university with limited links to UK HE and/or very different HE system Medium-high Non EU other educational High UK based non-educational (commercial or charity) Medium-high Non-UK based non-educational (commercial or charity) High For the purpose of this table, UK includes the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, and EU includes countries in the European Higher Education Area Table 2: Nature of collaborative venture and likely risk Nature of collaborative venture Administrative centre for off-shore delivery - a UoY programme is delivered by the UoY at a partner organisation overseas but all academic input and educational resources are provided by the UoY Learning centre for off-shore delivery - a UoY programme is delivered by the UoY ( flying faculty ) at a partner organisation overseas which provides some educational support, in the form of learning resources and/or some limited learning and teaching support Recognition by another HEI of UoY credit as part of a formal arrangement (sometimes called reverse articulation) Articulation - a formal relationship in which the successful completion of a named programme (or part of a programme) at the partner institution is recognised as providing the basis for entry with advanced standing to a named programme at the UoY (i.e. UoY recognises the credit of the partner). It differs from the accreditation of prior learning in that it can be applied to a cohort rather than on a case by case basis Likely level of risk Very low Low (partner provides educational resources) medium (partner provides some learning and teaching support) Low Low-medium (depending partly on the degree of advanced standing granted) 11

12 Combined delivery the UoY and one or more additional awarding institutions collaborate in the delivery of a programme leading to an award granted by the UoY Very limited combined delivery (e.g. maximum of 20 non-core non-uoy credits) Limited combined delivery (e.g. more than 20 non-uoy credits but the UoY programme is not dependent on their inclusion e.g. no core modules) Extensive combined delivery (the partner institution s contribution is essential e.g. provides core modules or all option modules) Double award - the UoY and one or more additional awarding institutions design and deliver a single programme leading to separate awards being granted by both (all) awarding institutions (i.e. there are two (or more) degree certificates) Joint award - the UoY and one or more additional awarding institutions design and deliver a single programme leading to a single award made jointly by both (all) awarding institutions (i.e. there is one degree certificate) Franchise - the UoY as the awarding institution authorises delivery of the whole or part of one or more of its own approved programmes by a partner organisation. Normally the awarding institution retains overall and direct responsibility for the receipt of fee income and the programme s content, delivery, assessment and quality assurance arrangements Validation - the UoY as the awarding institution judges that a programme (or part of a programme) developed and delivered by a partner organisation is of an appropriate quality and standard to lead to an award or credit from the UoY Very low Low Medium-high Medium-high Medium-high High High Table 3: Requirement for a visit to the collaborative partner and external assessor input Nature of the collaborative venture Formal visit to the proposed collaborative partner as part of the Input of external assessor approval process Administrative centre for off-shore Strongly encouraged at departmental level Not normally required delivery Learning centre for off-shore delivery May be required at departmental level External assessor to comment Recognition by another HEI of UoY Not normally required Not normally required credit as part of a formal arrangement Articulation Strongly encouraged and may be required at departmental level External assessor to comment Limited combined delivery, UoY award Strongly encouraged and may be required at departmental level External assessor to comment Extensive combined delivery, UoY award Likely to be required at departmental and/or institutional level External assessor to comment and/or form part of visit panel Double or joint award taught Likely to be required at departmental and/or institutional level External assessor to comment and/or 12

13 programme Double or joint award research degree programme form part of visit panel External assessor to comment and/or form part of visit panel Strongly encouraged and may be required at departmental and/or institutional level Franchise or validation Required at institutional level External assessor to comment and form part of visit panel Table 4: Information required for full approval Nature of the collaborative Typical information to be provided for full approval venture All collaborative ventures A draft agreement/contract setting out the rights and obligations of the University and proposed collaborative partner The minimum and maximum number of students involved How the partner organisation will liaise with the UoY An analysis of the risks involved and how these will be controlled How data protection, intellectual property rights, and health and safety (including insurance) will be handled Where applicable, that the relevant PSRB has been consulted and given its permission Administrative centre for offshore delivery Details of the services to be provided by the partner organisation Learning centre for off-shore Details of the services to be provided by the partner organisation delivery Where applicable, details of all the partner organisation s staff to be involved in programme delivery and they will be supported, monitored, and managed Articulation Limited combined delivery leading to a UoY award See separate articulation guidance note The rationale for including modules (or other elements) from the partner organisation as part of the UoY programme and what would happen if the partner organisation s modules became unavailable Relevant module descriptions, including assessment details and how marks will be transferred to the UoY The quality assurance and enhancement procedures for the relevant modules and how these will feed into UoY procedures The staff to be involved in the delivery of the relevant modules How UoY students on the relevant modules: (i) will be supported, (ii) will access learning resources, (iii) will be registered and reported, (iv) will complain and appeal 13

14 Recognition by another HEI of UoY credit as part of a formal arrangement Extensive combined delivery leading to a UoY award Double award Joint award Franchise Validation What is being proposed and an explanation as to why the UoY credit/award will be unaffected by the arrangement How the arrangement will be presented on formal documentation issued to students before (e.g. marketing materials), during (e.g. student handbooks) and after (e.g. degree certificates) participation For joint or double PhD programmes see separate joint and double PhD programme guidance note For international partnerships, where applicable: confirmation that the proposal has received approval from relevant national body/bodies or that approval is being sought (with full details including with respect to timing of the approval process and York s involvement in this process) Where students on the collaborative programme will be registered and how this information will be reported for funding/statistical purposes (if applicable) How the collaborative programme will be managed and governed (including committee structures where applicable) Arrangements for marketing of and recruitment to the collaborative programme, including the admissions policy for the programme (including criteria for admissions, English language requirements) Full details of the collaborative programme (including UTC new programme documentation, module descriptions and assessment and feedback details (the approach to assessment and feedback, assessment and feedback rules, assessment briefs, academic misconduct) How responsibilities for learning, teaching and assessment will be shared between the parties The learning resources (VLE, library, computing, teaching accommodation) available to students on the collaborative programme The support services (personal tutor system, counselling and health services, careers services, disability service, nursery, accommodation, extra-curricular opportunities etc.) available to students on the collaborative programme The quality assurance and enhancement framework for the collaborative programme (including acquisition and consideration of feedback from students, peer observation of teaching, student representation, module and programme monitoring (including monitoring of student admission, progression and completion), module and programme review, use of external examiners) How student complaints and appeals will be dealt with The staff to be involved in the delivery of the collaborative programme (to include CVs, details of the role they will play in relation to the collaborative programme and other work they undertake in their institution) and the framework within which staff at the partner organisation operate (employment and staff development practices (the later including induction, training, support, appraisal and reward for staff involved in teaching/learning support)) Arrangements for the issue of transcripts/degree certificates, graduation etc. See Validation Handbook 14