UnderstandingpolicysuccessandfailureincontemporaryEnglish

highereducation:astudyofthreepolicyepisodes

By:

SamanthaCarolineDrobinski

AthesissubmittedinpartialfulfilmentoftherequirementsofthedegreeofDoctorofPhilosophy

TheUniversityofSheffield

FacultyofSocialSciences

SchoolofEducation

March2019

i

Abstract

Highereducation(HE)policy-makinginEnglandhasfeatureswhichmakeitdistinctive.An

intermediarybodybetweengovernmentandinstitutions,underanumberofguises,has

enduredsincethefirsthalfofthetwentiethcentury,informedbynewliberalismreforms:

thechangingroleofthestate,marketisationandnewpublicmanagement,andisperhaps

inimitableinhavingplayedacentralroleinpolicy-making.ThisthesisisastudyofHE

policy-makingthroughanalysisoftheworkofoneintermediarybody,theHigherEducation

FundingCouncilforEngland(HEFCE).ThethesiscontextualisesthepolicyworkofHEFCE

anditsplaceinmakingandinfluencingpolicy.

ThreeHEFCEpolicyepisodes(e-University,CETLsandLLNs)areusedtoexaminenotionsof

policysuccessandfailure.Thereisatendencyforpolicytobeseenassuccessorfailure;

thisthesisaimstoprovideamorenuanced,lessbinary,approach,whichcapturesmore

dimensionsofsuccessandfailure.Thethesisusesaframework,‘threedimensionsofpolicy

success’(McConnell2010),toilluminatehowpolicysuccessandfailurecanbeunderstood

onaspectrum.Thethesisutilisesthecasestudiestoexaminedistinctionsand

commonalitiesofsuccessandfailuretoyieldinsightandunderstandinginrelationtopolicy

learning.Fivekeythemesarisefromtheanalysis:enablingastrongcoalition,trajectoryof

policy-makingbetweenpolicy-makersandimplementers,approachestopolicy

sustainability,theroleofmonitoringandevaluationinensuringvalueformoneyandthe

roleofpolicy-makersinpreservingpolicygoals.

Thecontributionoftheresearchistheapplicationofatheoreticalframeworktoarticulate

policysuccessandfailuretothefieldofEnglishHE,whichhasnothithertobeenexamined

withthisframework,andtoarticulatepolicylearningasaresult.

ii

iii

Acknowledgements

Thisthesisisdedicatedwithlovetomyfamily:Peter,Mum,Tassie,AleksyandDora,andto

thosenolongerwithus:Dad,Njn-njn,GrandmammaandNigel.

SpecialthanksmustgotoProfessorGarethParryforhisinspirationandsupportintheearly

yearsofthisresearchandDrDavidHyattforhiswisdomandadviceinreachingtheend.In

addition,specialthankstoPeterDrobinskiforthelonghoursofproof-reading.

iv

v

Contents

Page

Acronyms..............................................................................................................................xv

Chapter1–Introduction.........................................................................................................1

1.1 Contextofhighereducation..........................................................................................1

1.2 Contextofpolicyanalysis(meaningsofpolicy).............................................................2

1.3 Understandingsofpolicysuccessandfailure................................................................4

1.4 Contributiontoknowledge............................................................................................5

1.5 Researchquestions........................................................................................................7

1.5.1 Supplementaryresearchquestions...........................................................7

1.6 Theoreticalapproachandresearchmethods................................................................7

1.7 Organisationofthesis.................................................................................................10

1.8 Descriptionofchapters...............................................................................................11

Chapter2–Situatingtheresearch.......................................................................................13

2.1 Introduction................................................................................................................13

2.2 Highereducationstudies............................................................................................13

2.3 Comprehensionsandconceptsofpolicy....................................................................15

2.3.1 Linearunderstandingsofpolicy..............................................................16

2.3.2 Theoriesofrationality–abriefdigression.............................................19

2.3.3 Addingdimensionsofcomplexitytocomprehensionsofpolicy............20

2.4 Approachestopolicyanalysis.....................................................................................28

2.4.1 Ahistoricalaccountofthepublic-private...............................................28

2.4.2 Theoreticalconceptualisationsofpolicyanalysis...................................30

2.4.3 Appliedpolicyanalysis............................................................................32

2.4.3.1 Decisionmaking.................................................................33

2.4.3.2 Implementation.................................................................34

2.4.3.3 Evaluation..........................................................................36

2.5 Notionsofpolicysuccessandfailure..........................................................................38

2.5.1 Comprehendingpolicysuccessandfailure:oppositeendsofa

spectrum.................................................................................................38

2.5.2 Dimensionsofsuccessandfailure:process,programmaticand

political...................................................................................................40

vi

2.5.3 The‘greyareasinbetween’...................................................................45

2.6 Policylearning.............................................................................................................51

2.7 Conclusion...................................................................................................................53

Chapter3–Approach,theoreticalframework,researchmethods....................................56

3.1 Approachtotheresearch...........................................................................................56

3.2 Theoreticalframework................................................................................................58

3.3 Researchdesign:methodsofreadingandrecordinganalysis....................................61

3.3.1 Casestudies...........................................................................................61

3.3.2 Thematicanalysis...................................................................................62

3.3.2.1 Becomingfamiliarwiththedata........................................63

3.3.2.2 Generatingcodes...............................................................64

3.3.2.3 Searchingforthemes,reviewingthemes,

definingandnamingthemes.............................................65

3.3.2.4 Report................................................................................66

3.4 Selectionofcasestudies ...........................................................................................67

3.5 Sourcesofdataanddocuments..................................................................................71

3.5.1 Selectionofthetexts..............................................................................71

3.5.2 Anoteaboutauthoritativetextsandevaluationreports.......................72

3.6 Issues:theresearcherandtrustworthinessofthestudy............................................73

3.6.1 Positionalityoftheresearcher...............................................................73

3.6.2 Ensuringtrustworthinessinthestudy...................................................75

3.7 Summary.....................................................................................................................76

Chapter4–Contextualisingtheresearchandsituatingthecasestudiesinthe

workofHEFCE.......................................................................................................................77

4.1 Introduction................................................................................................................77

4.2 Insidesoutwardspolicy...............................................................................................78

4.3 Asystemofhighereducation....................................................................................79

4.4 Massificationwhilstmaintainingtheunitofresource................................................80

4.5 Apolicyofefficiency...................................................................................................82

4.6 Quasimarketpolicy....................................................................................................84

4.7 TheHigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland....................................................86

4.7.1 ThestructureofHEFCE...........................................................................86

4.7.2 HEFCEmechanismsfordistributingfunding,enablingpolicy................88

vii

4.8 PolicyphasesinHEFCE’shistory.................................................................................89

4.8.1 1992–1997............................................................................................91

4.8.1.1 Furthergrowth...................................................................91

4.8.1.2 Targetedfunding................................................................91

4.8.1.3 Researchfunding...............................................................92

4.8.2 Dearing–aturningpointinfunding.......................................................93

4.8.3 1998–2006...........................................................................................94

4.8.3.1 NewLabourrhetoric–growth,inclusivity

andNewPublicManagement............................................94

4.8.3.2 Teachingfundingtodriveeconomicdevelopment,

socialinclusionandvalueformoney.................................97

4.8.3.3 Thebirthof‘thirdstream’................................................102

4.8.3.4 Research–alignedtotheeconomy.................................103

4.8.3.5 Capitalfundingdrivenbykeypriorities...........................104

4.8.3.6 Thelocusofpolicy-making...............................................105

4.8.4 2007–2010.........................................................................................106

4.8.4.1 Targetedstudentparticipationwithlessresource..........108

4.8.4.2 Research–cutsandqualitybasedonmetrics.................109

4.8.4.3 Thirdstream–conflictingpolicies...................................110

4.8.4.4 Adeclineinfocusonleadership......................................111

4.8.4.5 Thelocusofpolicy-making...............................................111

4.8.5 2011–2016.........................................................................................112

4.8.5.1 Learningandteaching–fundingshiftsandwaves..........114

4.8.5.2 Research–qualityjudgedbyimpact...............................116

4.8.5.3 Economyandsociety.......................................................117

4.8.5.4 Thelocusofpolicy-making...............................................117

4.8.6 2017–2018.........................................................................................118

4.9 Frombuffertoregulator(andashiftinthelocusofpolicymaking)........................120

4.10 Conclusion .........................................................................................123

Chapter5–Casestudy1:TheE-University.......................................................................125

5.1 Introduction .........................................................................................125

5.1.1 Sourcesofdata.....................................................................................125

5.2 Anaccountoftheepisode........................................................................................127

5.2.1 Origin....................................................................................................128

viii

5.2.2 TheEnglishcontext...............................................................................129

5.2.3 Someinternationalperspectives..........................................................130

5.2.4 Policyproposal.....................................................................................131

5.2.5 Organisationsandactors......................................................................132

5.2.6 Activities...............................................................................................133

5.2.6.1 Businessmodelandcorporatestructure.........................134

5.2.6.2 HoldCo..............................................................................137

5.2.6.3 UKeU................................................................................137

5.2.6.4 Programmesandstudents...............................................138

5.2.7 Targetsandoutcomes..........................................................................139

5.2.8 Timelineofevents................................................................................142

5.3 Acriticalreviewofevidenceandfindings.................................................................143

5.3.1 Process:Governanceandorganisation:HEFCE’srole..........................143

5.3.2 Process:Privatesectorengagement....................................................146

5.3.3 Process:Academicengagement:conflictingcultures..........................148

5.3.4 Process:Alackoffocusontheleaderandasupply-drivenapproach.150

5.3.5 Programme:Brandingandmarketing:alackofengagement..............153

5.3.6 Programme:Thetechnicalplatform.....................................................155

5.3.7 Programme:ArelianceontheEnglishlanguage..................................157

5.3.8 Process:Timescales..............................................................................157

5.4 Conclusion.................................................................................................................159

Chapter6–Casestudy2:CentresforExcellenceinLearningandTeaching....................160

6.1 Introduction .........................................................................................160

6.1.1 Sourcesofdata.....................................................................................161

6.2 Anaccountoftheepisode........................................................................................162

6.2.1 Origin....................................................................................................162

6.2.2 Englishcontext.....................................................................................163

6.2.3 Someinternationalperspectives..........................................................166

6.2.4 Organisationsandactors......................................................................168

6.2.5 Activities...............................................................................................169

6.2.5.1 Bids...................................................................................171

6.2.5.2 Funding............................................................................172

6.2.5.3 Successfulbids.................................................................173

6.2.5.4 Monitoringandaccountability.........................................175

ix

6.2.5.5 Outcomes.........................................................................175

6.2.6 Timeline................................................................................................178

6.3 Acriticalreviewofevidenceandfindings.................................................................179

6.3.1 Process:Bottom-upapproach..............................................................179

6.3.2 Process:Competitivebidding...............................................................181

6.3.3 Process:Excellence-acontestedissue................................................183

6.3.4 Process:Accountabilityandevaluation................................................185

6.3.5 Programme:EmbeddednessoftheCETLintheinstitution..................187

6.3.6 Programme:Rewardandrecognition..................................................191

6.3.7 Programme:Engagementofstudents..................................................193

6.3.8 Programme:Impactacrossthesector..................................................194

6.3.9 Programme:Fundingandfuturesustainability....................................197

6.3.10 Programme:Pedagogicresearch..........................................................199

6.4 Conclusion.................................................................................................................200

Chapter7–Casestudy3:LifelongLearningNetworks.....................................................201

7.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................201

7.1.1Sourcesofdata.........................................................................................201

7.2Anaccountoftheepisode .........................................................................................202

7.2.1. Origin....................................................................................................202

7.2.2 Englishcontext.....................................................................................204

7.2.3 Someinternationalperspectives..........................................................207

7.2.4 Organisationsandactors......................................................................208

7.2.5 Activities...............................................................................................209

7.2.5.1 Abottom-upapproach.....................................................209

7.2.5.2 Fundingandaccountability..............................................211

7.2.5.3 Organisationalstructures.................................................212

7.2.6 Outcomes.............................................................................................213

7.2.7 Timeline................................................................................................217

7.3 Acriticalreviewofevidenceandfindings.................................................................219

7.3.1 Process:Approach................................................................................219

7.3.2 Process:Monitoringprogress...............................................................220

7.3.3 Process:Sustainability..........................................................................222

7.3.4 Process:Impactofotherpolicies..........................................................225

7.3.5 Programme:Partnershipsandalliances...............................................226

x

7.3.6 Programme:Curriculumdevelopment.................................................230

7.3.7 Programme:Progressionagreements..................................................231

7.3.8 Programme:Information,AdviceandGuidance..................................233

7.3.9 Programme:Learnersandsocialmobility............................................235

7.4 Conclusion.................................................................................................................238

Chapter8–Analysisanddiscussionofthecasestudiesagainstthetheoretical

framework..........................................................................................................................240

8.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................240

8.2 Thee-university:mappingthepolicyepisodetotheframework.............................242

8.2.1 Policyprocess.......................................................................................242

8.2.1.1 Preservinggovernmentpolicygoalsandinstruments.....243

8.2.1.2 Conferringlegitimacyonapolicy.....................................243

8.2.1.3 Buildingasustainablecoalition........................................244

8.2.1.4 Symbolisinginnovationandinfluence.............................245

8.2.2. Policyprogramme.................................................................................246

8.2.2.1 Implementationinlinewithobjectives...........................248

8.2.2.2 Achievementofdesiredoutcomes..................................249

8.2.2.3 Meetingpolicydomaincriteria........................................250

8.2.2.4 Creatingbenefitforthetargetgroup..............................250

8.2.3 Policyaspolitics....................................................................................251

8.2.3.1 Enhancingelectoralprospectsorreputationof

governmentsandleaders................................................251

8.2.3.2 Controllingpolicyagendaandeasingthebusinessof

governing.........................................................................252

8.2.3.3 Sustainingthebroadvaluesanddirectionof

government......................................................................252

8.2.4 Summary...............................................................................................253

8.3 CentresforExcellenceinLearningandTeaching:mappingthepolicyepisode

totheframework......................................................................................................254

8.3.1 Policyprocess.......................................................................................254

8.3.1.1 Preservinggovernmentpolicygoalsandinstruments.....255

8.3.1.2 Conferringlegitimacyonthepolicy.................................257

8.3.1.3 Buildingasustainablecoalition........................................257

8.3.1.4 Symbolisinginnovationandinfluence.............................258

xi

8.3.2. Policyprogramme.................................................................................259

8.3.2.1 Implementationinlinewithobjectives...........................260

8.3.2.2 Achievementofdesiredoutcomes..................................260

8.3.2.3 Meetingpolicydomaincriteria........................................261

8.3.2.4 Creatingbenefitforthetargetgroup..............................262

8.3.3 Policyaspolitics....................................................................................264

8.3.3.1 Effectongovernment’scapacitytogovern.....................264

8.3.3.2 Controllingpolicyagenda.................................................265

8.3.3.3 Sustainingthebroadvaluesanddirectionof

government......................................................................265

8.3.4 Summary...............................................................................................265

8.4 LifelongLearningNetworks:mappingthepolicyepisodetotheframework..........268

8.4.1 Policyprocess.......................................................................................268

8.4.1.1 Preservinggovernmentpolicygoalsandinstruments.....269

8.4.1.2 Conferringlegitimacyonthepolicy.................................269

8.4.1.3 Buildingasustainablecoalition........................................270

8.4.1.4 Symbolisinginnovationandinfluence.............................271

8.4.2. Policyprogramme.................................................................................272

8.4.2.1 Implementationinlinewithobjectives...........................273

8.4.2.2 Achievementofdesiredoutcomes..................................274

8.4.2.3 Meetingpolicydomaincriteria........................................275

8.4.2.4 Creatingbenefitforthetargetgroup..............................276

8.4.3 Policyaspolitics....................................................................................277

8.4.3.1 Effectongovernment’scapacitytogovern.....................277

8.4.3.2 Controllingpolicyagenda.................................................278

8.4.3.3 Sustainingthebroadvaluesanddirectionof

government......................................................................278

8.4.4 Summary...............................................................................................278

8.5 Discussion:Characteristics,similarities,differencesandpolicylearning.................280

8.5.1 Theme1:Enablingstrongandsustainablecoalitions(process)...........281

8.5.1.1 Policylearning..................................................................284

8.5.2 Theme2:Thetrajectoryofpolicy-makingbetweenpolicy-makersand

implementers(process)........................................................................285

8.5.2.1 Policylearning..................................................................287

8.5.3 Theme3:Approachestoensuresustainability(programme)..............288

xii

8.5.3.1 Policylearning..................................................................290

8.5.4 Theme4:Theroleofmonitoringandevaluationtoensure

valueformoney(programme).............................................................290

8.5.4.1 Policylearning..................................................................292

8.5.5 Theme5:Theroleofpolicy-makersinpreservingthepolicy

goalsandagendamanagement(processandpolitics).........................292

8.5.5.1 Policylearning..................................................................294

8.6 Discussion:understandingthelocusofpolicy-making.............................................294

8.7 Discussion:critiqueoftheframework......................................................................297

8.7.1 Dynamismovertime............................................................................298

8.7.2 Lackofinvestigationofagencyofpolicy..............................................300

8.7.3 Theinvisibilityofsub-units...................................................................301

Chapter9–Conclusions.....................................................................................................303

9.1 Introduction .........................................................................................303

9.2 Summaryofkeyfindings .........................................................................................303

9.3 Implicationsandrecommendationsarisingfrompolicylearning

relatedtocontemporaryunderstandingsofpolicy..................................................308

9.3.1 Enablingastrongandsustainablecoalition(process)..........................308

9.3.2 Thetrajectoryofpolicy-makingbetweenpolicy-maker

andimplementer(process)..................................................................309

9.3.3 Approachestoensuresustainability(programme)..............................311

9.3.4 Theroleofmonitoringandevaluationtoensure

valueformoney(programme).............................................................311

9.3.5 Theroleofpolicy-makersinpreservingthepolicygoals

andagendamanagement(processandpolitics)..................................312

9.4 Addressingtheresearchquestions...........................................................................312

9.5 Originalcontributiontoknowledge..........................................................................315

9.6 Limitationsconstrainingtheresearch.......................................................................317

9.7 Directionsforfutureresearch...................................................................................318

References..........................................................................................................................320

xiii

Tables

Table1: MarshandMcConnell’sdimensionsofsuccess.............................................41

Table2: Degreesofpolicyfailure.................................................................................46

Table3: Spectrumfromsuccesstofailure...................................................................47

Table4: Policyandpoliticallearning............................................................................53

Table5: SummaryofMcConnell’s10-pointschemetohelpguide

researchersinassessingthesuccessorotherwiseofapolicy.......................60

Table6: Matchingofchosencasestudiesagainstselectioncriteria...........................71

Table7: SummaryofpolicyperiodsforHEFCE............................................................90

Table8: Theroleoftheintermediarybodyandthechanginglocusof

policy-making...............................................................................................123

Table9: Expenditureandresidualvalueofproject...................................................141

Table10: Timelineofeventsforthee-University........................................................142

Table11: Comparisonoflanguagechangesinobjectivesfromconsultation

toinvitationtobid........................................................................................172

Table12: Summaryoftargetsandoutcomesasaresultofself-evaluation................177

Table13: TimelineoftherelatedpolicyenvironmentandCETLinitiative.................178

Table14: SummaryofLLNactivityfromHEFCEreports..............................................214

Table15: TimelineofkeyLLNandrelatedpolicymoments........................................217

Table16: Policyasprocess(e-university)....................................................................242

Table17: Policyasprogrammes(e-university)............................................................246

Table18: Policyaspolitics(e-university).....................................................................251

Table19: Policyasprocess(CETLs)..............................................................................254

Table20: Policyasprogramme(CETLs).......................................................................259

Table21: Policyaspolitics(CETLs)...............................................................................264

Table22: Policyasprocess(LLNs)................................................................................268

Table23: Policyasprogramme(LLNs).........................................................................272

Table24: Policyaspolitics(LLNs).................................................................................277

Table25: Policyasprogramme(CETLs)–addingdynamismtotheframework.........299

Table26: Policyasprogramme(LLNs)–addingdynamismtotheframework............300

Table27: Policyasprocess(summaryofcasestudies)................................................304

Table28: Policyasprogramme(summaryofcasestudies).........................................305

Table29: Policyaspolitics(summaryofcasestudies).................................................306

xiv

Figures

Figure1: Pictorialrepresentationofunderstandingsofpolicy.....................................23

Figure2: BridgmanandDavis‘policycycle’(2004).......................................................24

Figure3: Visualrepresentationofcontemporaryunderstandingsofpolicy,

‘thecontextofpractice’.................................................................................26

Figure4: Twologicsofevaluation.................................................................................40

Figure5: Revisedlogicsofevaluation...........................................................................42

Figure6: Degreesofpolicysuccess...............................................................................46

Figure7: Measuringpolicysuccess...............................................................................50

Figure8: HEFCEdirectorate..........................................................................................87

Figure9: e-Ucorporatestructure...............................................................................136

Figure10: SubjectspreadacrossfundedCETLsinEngland...........................................174

Figure11: PedagogicspreadacrossfundedCETLsinEngland......................................175

Figure12: Organisationsandpartnershipsinvolvedinthedeliveryofthe

government’sskillsagenda..........................................................................207

Figure13: Colourkeytocodingofcasestudiesagainsttheframework.......................241

Appendices

AppendixA: Summaryofcasestudiessourcetexts.........................................................351

AppendixB: Codingestablishedfromthetheoreticalframework...................................359

AppendixC: TimelineofHEFCEpoliciesandinitiativesandthewiderpolicycontext.....360

AppendixD: PerceptionsofCETLparticipants,practitionersandPVCs...........................406

xv

Acronyms

ALTC AustralianLearningandTeachingCouncil

ASN AdditionalStudentNumbers

BBC BritishBroadcastingCorporation

BIS DepartmentforBusiness,InnovationandSkills

BTEC BusinessandTechnologyEducationCouncil

CASTL CarnegieAcademyfortheScholarshipofTeachingandLearning

CATs CreditAccumulationTransferAgreements

CEO ChiefExecutiveOfficer

CETL CentreforExcellenceinLearningandTeaching

CAT CollegeofAdvancedTechnology

CHERI CentreforHigherEducationResearchandInformation

CIPeL CentreforInterprofessionale-Learning

CNAA CouncilforNationalAcademicAwards

CoVEs CentresofVocationalExcellence

CPD ContinuingProfessionalDevelopment

CSET CentrefortheStudyforEducationandTraining

CVCP CommitteeofVice-ChancellorsandPrincipalsoftheUniversitiesoftheUnitedKingdom

DFE DepartmentforEducation

DfES DepartmentforEducationandScience

DLHE DestinationofLeaversfromHigherEducationSurvey

ELQ EquivalentLevelQualifications

ESF EuropeanSocialFund

EU EuropeanUnion

FD FoundationDegree

Fdf FoundationForward

xvi

FE FurtherEducation

FEC FurtherEducationCollege

FeC FullEconomicCost

FEFC FurtherEducationFundingCouncil

HE HigherEducation

HEA HigherEducationAcademy

HEFCE HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland

HEI HigherEducationInstitution

HEIF HigherEducationInnovationFund

HELPCETL HigherEducationLearningPartnershipsCentreforExcellenceinTeachingandLearning

HEROBC HigherEducationReach-OuttoBusinessandtheCommunityFund

HESA HigherEducationStatisticsAgency

HoldCo e-UniversityHoldingCompany

HR HumanResources

IAG Information,AdviceandGuidance

ICT InformationTechnologyandCommunication

JISC JointInformationSystemsCommittee

KIS KeyinformationSet

LNN LifelongLearningNetwork

LSE LondonSchoolofEconomics

LSC LearningSkillsCouncil

LTSN LearningandTeachingSupportNetwork

MASN MaximumAggregateStudentNumber

NAB NationalAdvisoryBoard

NIACE NationalInstituteofAdultContinuingEducation

NCOP NetworkforCollaborativeOutreachProgramme

NCTA NationalCouncilforTechnologicalAwards

xvii

NSS NationalStudentSurvey

NTFS NationalTeachingFellowshipScheme

NUS NationalUnionofStudents

OCF OpenCoursewareFactory

OCPA OfficeoftheCommissionerforPublicAppointments

OED OxfordEnglishDictionary

OFFA OfficeforFairAccess

OfS OfficeforStudents

OST OfficeforScienceandTechnology

PA ProgressionAgreement

PCFC PolytechnicsandCollegesFundingCouncil

PfP PartnershipsforProgression

PGT Taught-postgraduate

POLAR ParticipationofLocalAreas

PwC PriceWaterhouseCoopers

QAA QualityAssessmentAgency

QR ResearchQualityrecurrentfunding

RAE ResearchAssessmentExercise

RDA RegionalDevelopmentAgency

REF ResearchExcellenceFramework

RLO-CETL ReusableLearningObjectsCentreforExcellenceinLearningandTeaching

SCEPTrE SurreyCentreforExcellenceinProfessionalTrainingandEducation

SCOP StandingConferenceofPrinciples

SDF StrategicDevelopmentFund

SFC ScottishFundingCouncil

SNC StudentNumberControl

SNU SwedishNetUniversity

xviii

SRIF ScienceResearchInvestmentFund

SSC SectorSkillsCouncil

STEM Science,Technology,EngineeringandMathematics

SQW SQWConsultingLtd

TEF TeachingExcellenceFramework

THES TimesHigherEducationalSupplement

TQEF TeachingQualityEnhancementFund

TRAC TransparentApproachtoCosting

UCAS UniversityandCollegesAdmissionsService

UFC UniversitiesFundingCouncil

UGC UniversitiesGrantCommittee

UK UnitedKingdom

UKeU UKe-university

UKRI UKResearchandInnovation

USA UnitedStatesofAmerica

UUK UniversitiesUK

WW2 WorldWar2

1

Chapter1:Introduction

1.1Contextofhighereducation

Thelocusofpolicy-makinginEnglishhighereducation(HE)hasbeentransformedoverthe

lastcentury,fromonestateofaffairs,whereuniversities’autonomyallowedpolicy-making

atinstitutionallevel,tofacilitatetheirroleinenhancingsocialgood-definedasgoodwhich

doesnotdependuponpublicpolicyorfunding(MorBarrak2018)-topresentdaypolicy-

makingwheregovernmentisthefocusofpolicyformationandtheroleofuniversitiesis

perceivedtobeinaidingeconomicgood-asdefinedbyagoodthatismarketableandfor

whichthereisanopportunitycost.Thisevolutionissetagainstabackdropofwidernew

liberalismpolicyreforms(Shattock2012)intheroleofthestate,globalisation,

marketisationandnewpublicmanagement(Clark2004).

HEisperhapsdistinctiveinEnglishpolicy-making,inhavinghadanintermediarybody

betweengovernmentandinstitutions,withspaceforgovernment’svisionforHEpolicyto

beinterpreted,establishedandaccomplished.InEnglandthisintermediarybodyhashada

numberofforms,firstlyastheUniversitiesGrantCommittee(UGC),thentheUniversities

FundingCouncil(UFC),andmorerecently(1992-2018),theHEFundingCouncilforEngland

(HEFCE).Theroleoftheintermediarybodyhasundergonesignificantchangeinthelightof

evolvingideologiesofsuccessivegovernmentsfroma‘buffer’representingtheuniversities

inthefaceofgovernment,tomediator,agent,broker,andmorerecently,regulator.The

OfficeforStudents,HEFCE’sreplacementfrom2018,hastermsofreferencethatclassitas

aregulatorybody,andthereiscurrentlyhotdebateabouttheorganisation’sapparentlack

ofroleinpolicy-making(Kernohan2018).

ThisthesisoutlinesthepolicyworkofHEFCEindetail,bringingtogetheratimelineofpolicy

initiatives,andilluminatesunderstandingoftheseagainstthebackgroundofwidernew

liberalismpolicyreforms,thechangingroleofthestate,globalisation,marketisationand

newpublicmanagementinHEpolicy-making.Thisworkisacontributiontoknowledgein

itself,asIamnotawareofanysuchthoroughanalysisofthebreadthanddepthofHEFCE

policies.

2

1.2Contextofpolicyanalysis(meaningsofpolicy)

Themeaningsattributedto‘policy’haveevolvedovertime,fromsimple,lineardefinitions,

wherepolicyissimplyformedbythestateandfollowedbyimplementation,tomuchmore

cyclicalmeanings,wherepolicyisunderstoodasamuchmoresocial,culturalanddynamic

process,‘deeplyimbuedwithvaluesandideology‘(Phillips2007p.37).Inthesemore

complexunderstandingsofpolicy,therolesofdifferentactorshaveagencytointerpret,re-

interpretandmis-interpretpolicy,andthespacesbetweenformationandimplementation

becomeasimportantasthepolicyitself,asdo‘policytexts’ininforminganinterpretation

ofpolicy(Ball1993,2006,2015).Inmorecontemporarycomprehensionsofpolicy,the

local,astheplaceofimplementationgainsmorecredence(AyresandMarsh2013,

Newman2013,LowndesandMcCaughie2013,VanderSteenetal2013)andthecontextof

practice(Ball2006)iscentraltohowpolicyisunderstood.

Approachestoanalysinghowgovernmentsandorganisationsmakepolicydecisionsand

howpoliciesaredeveloped,implementedandevaluatedhavealsoevolvedovertime.The

1960sand1970sweredominatedbyrationalisttheoreticalperspectivesandpositivist

methodologies,whichalignedwellwithlinearunderstandingsofpolicy,anddrewon

quantitativeapproachestoexaminepolicy-making(Howlettetal2009).More

contemporarypolicyanalysts,suchasFischerandForester(1993)andBall(2006)takea

more‘postpositive’methodologicalapproach,takingaccountofthedynamicsofpolicy-

makingandthevaluejudgementsofactorsinthepolicyprocess.Discoursebased

approachestopolicyanalysis(Ball1993,Fairclough2014,Taylor2004),inwhichthepolicy

textitselfbecomescentraltoasemioticanalysis,havealsoplayedapart.Thetheoretical

workofMichelFoucault,whoextendeddiscourseanalysisbeyondlinguisticapproachesto

thoseofnotionsofknowledgeandpower,hasalsoplayedasignificantroleinhowpolicy

analysisisaccomplished.

Manydifferentframeworksforguidingpolicyanalystshavebeendeveloped,andsomeof

thesecanbecategorisedaseither‘rationalstages’or‘systems’methodologies.Theworkof

Laswell(1971)waspioneeringinthisrespect,ashebreaksdownthepolicycycleintoseven

rationalstagesinwhichtoanalyseknowledgeofandinthepolicyprocess,inorderto

ascertainhowgovernmentsmakepolicydecisions.Others,suchasHillandHupe(2006)and

Howlettetal(2009),havedrawnonLaswell’searlyworktofurtherdeveloppolicycycle

analysistotakeaccountofmorecomplexunderstandingsofhowexternalfactorsinfluence

governmentpolicydecisions.However,suchpolicycycleapproachestakebothpositivist

3

andlinearapproachestopolicyanalysis,anddonotadequatelyaddressapost-positivist

approachtotakeaccountofthedynamicsofpolicy-making.Lindblom’s(1959)andHerbert

Simon’s(1991)influentialworksquestionthepositivistapproach,andseektoembracethe

influencesofotheractorsinthepolicyprocess,acceptingthattheywillhavenon-rationalist

interventionsboundedbytheirownsocialandpoliticalnarrations.ForLindblom,like

Foucault,poweralsobecomesanimportantinfluenceinthepolicy-makingprocess.More

recently,analysistshavebeguntomoveawayfromobservingpolicymakingtopolicy

implementation,sinceitisinthespacesofimplementationthatpoliciesareinterpretedand

evolve.LewisandFlynn(1978)pioneereda‘policy-action’frameworkapproach,which

viewsthebehaviourofactorsandtheiractionsasinfluencedbytheirworldoutsidetheir

organisations(Parsons1995)anddeLeonanddeLeonsuggestaframeworkwhichexamines

‘differenttypesofaccountabilityundervaryingconditionsofambiguityandconflict’

(deLeonanddeLeon2002)inpolicyimplementation.

Whilstalloftheseapproachesareworthwhileintermsofseekingtoreachan

understandingofthepolicyprocess,itsimplementationanditsevolutionaryprogress

influencedbymanydiscourses,interactionsandinterpretations,whatisomittedisany

senseofpolicyevaluation.Policyevaluationisanimportantstepinthepolicycycle,ifpolicy

makersandimplementersaregoingtobeabletomakesenseofpolicy.DavidNachmias

(1979)isconsideredtobethepioneerinarticulatingevaluationasanimportantpartofthe

policycycle.Althoughcritiquesofthisearlyworksuggestthatitdrawstooheavilyona

rationalisttheoreticalpositionandpositivistapproaches,morerecentdebatearoundpolicy

evaluation,suchasDryzek(1993),hassoughttoaddressthisbyobservingthatevaluation

cannotbevaluefree.Thereisachoiceofcontemporaryanalyticalapproaches,butmany

currentpolicyanalysiststakeapost-positivist‘designapproach’,(BobrowandDryzek1987,

Howlettetal2009)whichisinterpretativeinnatureandmoreholistic,wherethepolicyis

considerednotjustasaprocessbutasbeinginfluencedbyideologicalandsocial

constructs,andpowerrelations,aspartoftheevaluation.Amorerecentdevelopmentin

thedesignapproachtoevaluationhasbeenthetheorisedworkonexaminingpolicysuccess

andfailure.‘Success’and,moreparticularly,‘failure’areemotiveterms,butareservedwell

byaninterpretativeapproachtopolicyanalysis.Takinganinterpretativeviewofsuccess

andfailureisaconstructivestepinengagingwithpolicylearning,inordertolearnlessons

fromprocess,programmaticandpoliticallearning,whichitselfhasbecomeatheorised

notioninrecentyears(BennettandHowlett1992,May1992).Policysuccessandfailureare

4

centralconceptsinthisstudy,sinceitisthroughananalysisofanuancedapproachtothese

thatthethesisseekstoilluminateunderstandingsofpolicysuccessandfailureinEnglish

HE.

1.3Understandingsofpolicysuccessandfailure

Bovens,‘tHart(1998)andBovens,‘tHart&Peters(2001)areconsideredtobethekey

contributorstotheorisationsofpolicysuccessandfailure,advocatingananti-positivistand

interpretativeapproachtodevelopingcriteriaforsuccessandfailure,whilstacknowledging

thatsuchconceptsarecontestedsocialconstructswithinherentvaluejudgements.Much

hasbeenwrittenonpolicyfailureinrecentyears,Bovens,‘tHart(1998)andBovens,‘tHart

&Peters(2001),KingandCrewe(2013),MarchandMcConnell(2010),McConnell(2015,

2016),Bovensand‘tHart(2016),andtheuseofempiricalstudiestoattempttodefine

policyfailureisacommonthemeintheliterature.Thereislessliteratureonpolicysuccess,

perhapsbecauseitdoesnotprovokesuchanemotiveresponse,andperhapsthereisa

perceptionthattherearefewerlessonstobelearned.Kerr(1976)soughttoidentifywhat

madeapolicysuccessful,andshesuggestsasetofformulaicconditionstodefinesuccess.

Bovens,‘tHartandPeters(2001)developedaframeworkforlocatingsuccessandfailurein

termsoftheprogrammatic(atechnographicapproach)andpolitical(aninterpretative

approach)dimensionsofpolicy.MarshandMcConnell(2010)morerecentlydetermined

thattheworkofBovens,‘tHart(1998)andBovens,‘tHart&Peters(2001)hadmisseda

keydimension,thatofpolicyprocess,andsodevisedatheoreticalframeworktoaddress

these,‘threedimensionsofpolicysuccess’.

However,theseearlierworkspolarisethenotionsofsuccessandfailure,suchthatwhat

doesnotsucceedlogicallyfails,andtheydonottakeaccountofthefactthatsuccessisnot

an‘allornothingphenomenon’(McConnell2010p.55).McConnellsoughttoarticulate

meaningsofpolicysuccessandcruciallyforthisstudy,McConnellformulatesaframework

forpolicyanalysisthatexaminespolicysuccessandfailureinamorenuancedway,and

articulatesthe‘greyareasinbetween’onaspectrumofsuccessandfailure.Hiswork,

drawingoncasestudiesasempiricalexamples,seekstoaddressthe‘threedimensionsof

policy’as‘process’,‘programme’and‘politics’andtopositionthemonacontinuumfrom

successthrough‘durablesuccess,conflictedsuccess,precarioussuccess’to‘failure’

(McConnell2010).McConnellalsotakesapost-positivistapproachinrecognisingthe

contextofpolicy-makingandtheinfluenceofotheractors,interventionsandinparticular,

theroleofpolicyinpreservingthepoliticalvaluesanddirectionofgovernment.The

5

frameworkdrawsonmorerecentpolicyanalysisapproachesinevaluatingpolicysuccess

andfailure,andhasbeenamajorcontributorinrecognisingthatsuccessandfailurearenot

binarypositions.IconsiderthattheMcConnellframeworkisausefultheoreticaland

methodologicaltooltoexaminepolicyepisodes,sinceitallowsforanapproach,which

recognisesthat‘successandfailurearenotmutuallyexclusive’(McConnell2010)andwhere

apolicymight‘failinonedimension’,itmight‘succeedinanother’(Bovensandt’Hart1998

p.35).Assuch,examiningsuccessandfailureinthisnuancedwaycouldilluminateclearer

understandingsofhowandwhycertainpolicyepisodeshavebeenperceivedtosucceedor

fail.

1.4Contributiontoknowledge

Thisthesisseekstoapplyachosentheoreticalframeworktothefieldofhighereducation

policystudiesinordertoundertakeasystematicassessmentofthreepolicyepisodesand

toilluminatehowpolicysuccessandfailurecanbeunderstoodonaspectrum.Thepolicy

episodesseektoexaminedistinctionsandcommonalitiesofsuccessandfailuretoyield

insightandunderstandinginrelationtopolicylearning.

Tight,inhismostrecentreviewsofresearchinthefieldofHE(2012,2018)arguesthat

whilstthereisaplethoraofstudiesintovariousaspectsofHEpolicy,andinparticularin

systempolicy(p.72012),manyHEresearchers‘showedlittleornoengagementwith

theory’(p.72018),althoughtheinter-disciplinarynatureofHEstudieslendsitselfwellto

importingtheoriesfromotherdisciplines-forexample,sociological,psychologicaland

managementstudies.Tightsuggeststhatthesituationisimprovingandindeed,thereare

examplesofeducationtheoristsemployingtheoreticalapproaches,suchasBall(1990)

takingasociologicalapproachtoexaminingpolicytexts,andTaylor(2004)andCochran-

SmithandFries’(2001)workonwarrantiscontextualisedthroughlanguageandsemiotics.

Therehasalsobeenmorerecentworkinusingtheoreticalframeworksfromother

disciplinesinexaminingHEpolicy,suchasKoganandHanney(2000),Taylor(2004),Bacchi

(2009),Hyatt(2013)andJungblut(2015).Whilsttheseframeworksexaminedifferent

aspectsofpolicy,particularlyinrelationtotexts,policyproblemsandsystems,whatis

currentlylesswellarticulatedinHEstudiesisaframeworkforobservingpolicysuccessand

failure,andinparticularanuancedapproachtothesuccess/failurespectrum.

Thisstudyaddressesthatspacebyutilisingthetheoreticalframeworkdescribedabove

(McConnell2010).McConnellusescasestudiesofpolicy-makingfromallovertheworldin

6

hisownworktoillustratetheframework,forexampleintaxreformandenvironmental

policies,andthereareexamplesofothersusingtheframeworktoillustrateunderstandings

ofpolicysuccessinotherareas,suchasKayandBoxwell’s(2015)reviewofhealthcare

reforminAustralia.AsfarasIamaware,andhavingconductedakeywordsearchreviewof

theBritishLibrarye-thesisonlineservice,aswellasaGoogleScholarsearch,thereareno

otherexamplesofstudiesusingMcConnell’sframeworkforananalysisofpolicycase

studiesinEnglishHE.

ThecontextofEnglishHEpolicylendsitselfwelltotheapplicationofaframeworkwhich

recognisesthatsuccessandfailureisnotabinarydistinction,sinceHEpolicyinEnglandhas

somedistinctivefeatures,particularlythepresenceofanintermediarybody,whichisunlike

governmentpolicy-makinginmostothersectors.Assuch,thesiteofpolicy-making,its

implementationandtheactorsinvolvedaddsnewaspectstotheprocess,programmeand

politicaldimensionsdescribedinSection1.3(p.4)above,wheresuccessinonedimension

maybeafailureinanother.Thisdistinctivenessprovidesahelpfultestoftheframework’s

usefulness.Throughasystematicandinterpretativethematicanalysisofpolicyandother

relatedtexts,thisthesisseekstoproducethickdescriptionsofthreespecificHEFCEpolicy

episodes.Usingthesedescriptionstocontextualisethetheoreticalapproach,thethesis

drawsupontheanalyticalframeworktoilluminateandarticulateapositionofsuccessor

failureinrelationtoeachepisode.AsfarasIamaware,analysisoftheseparticular

episodeshasnotbeenconductedwithsuchanuancedapproachtosuccessandfailurein

HE.

Tight(2017)arguesthatsmall-scalecasestudiesareusefulformakinggeneralisationsand

representativenessbuthealsoassertsthatoneofthedifficultieswithacasestudy

approachtopolicyanalysisisthattheyareoftentimeboundand‘assuchofferlittleto

policylearning’(p.1202012).However,Isuggestthatbyadoptinginsightsintothe

particularpolicyepisodes,anddrawingtogetherthedistinctionsandcommonalities,itis

possibletoyieldinsightintofutureHEpolicy-making.Yin(2014)atteststhatcasestudies

areadvantageousinresearchrequiringcomparisonstoexplaincausallinks,andthe

evaluationcriteriaproposedbyLincolnandGuba(1985)fordemonstratingcredibilityin

qualitative,interpretativestudiessuggeststhattheabilitytotransferunderstandings

betweendifferentdomainsisaneffectivetechniqueforestablishingtrustworthinessofthe

study.Thethesisdrawsontheanalysisofthecasestudiestoilluminatedistinctionsand

7

commonalities,togaininsightintofuturepolicy-making,drawingonsomeofthetheories

of‘policylearning’(BennettandHowlett1992andMay1992).

Finally,thisthesisoffersacritiqueoftheMcConnell(2010)framework,itsappropriateness

andlimitations,inthecontextofHEandcontemporarymodelsofpolicyanalysis,as

outlinedin1.2and1.3above.

1.5Researchquestions

Themainresearchquestionis:

Howcanpolicysuccessandfailurebeunderstood,fromthestudyofthreepolicyepisodes

inthecontextofcontemporaryHEinEngland,byapplyingcriteriafromanexisting

frameworkforsuccessandfailure?

1.5.1Supplementaryresearchquestions

a) Doestheevaluationofparticularpolicyepisodesrevealanycommoncharacteristics

anddistinctionsinrelationtopolicythatcouldusefullybeconsideredinrelationto

futurepolicysettinginHE?

b) WhatcanananalysisofHEFCEpolicy-makingrevealaboutthelocusofpowerin

policy-makinginHE?

c) Towhatextentisthechosentheoreticalframeworksufficientorinadequatein

analysingpolicysuccessandfailureinthecontextofcontemporarytheoretical

approachestopolicyanalysis?

1.6Theoreticalapproachandresearchmethods

Thetheoreticalframeworkforthestudyisadoptedfromthefieldsofpoliticalscienceand

policystudies,McConnell’s‘threedimensionsofpolicysuccess’(2010)asdescribedabove.

Thisframeworkhasbeenchosenoverandaboveothertheorisationsbecauseofits

nuancedapproachtoexaminingaspectsofsuccessandfailure,andforapplyingan

interpretativeapproachtoobservehowpoliciesmightbothsucceedandfailinthedifferent

dimensions.Astheresearcher,Itaketheviewthatthisisausefulapproachtotakewhen

analysingpolicyepisodesinthearenaofHEinEngland,wheretherearedistinctivefeatures

8

inthepolicyrelationshipbetweengovernment,HEFCEasanintermediarybodyand

institutionsaspolicyreceivers.Assuch,thiscontextofpractice(Ball2006)isdistinctivein

policy-making.Itismyviewthatthisdistinctivearenaforpolicysettingopensup

possibilitiesforpolicyepisodestosucceedorfailtovaryingdegreesinthethreedimensions

ofprocess,programmeandpolitics.

Acasestudyapproachisusedtoinformandexplainthespecificpolicyepisodes,as

empiricalenquiriesintocomplexsocialphenomenainarealworldcontext(Merriam1988),

toassistwithexplanation,descriptionandillustrationofparticularincidents.Casestudies

arealsosuitableforhistoricalresearch,wheretheresearcherisreliantuponmethodssuch

asdocumentaryanalysis,ratherthandirectobservation.Researchthatrequires

comparisonstoexplaincausallinksalsobenefitsfromtheuseofcasestudiesasamethod

(Yin2014),andthusthisapproachisusedinseekingtoidentifycommonalitiesand

differencesineachepisode.

ThejustificationfortheselectionofthecasestudiesisfurtherexploredinChapter3,butin

brieftheywereselectedfromaperiodinHEFCE’shistoryinwhichNewLabour(1997-2010),

andits‘ThirdWay’centristapproachtopolicywastheadoptedideologicalpositionofthe

time.Assuch,allthreepolicyepisodeswereinplacebetween2000and2010.Duringthis

time,HEFCEwasrichwithpolicyinitiatives,somedrivenbygovernmentandsomeby

HEFCEitself.ThechosencasestudiesalsohadtomeetsetcriteriathatIhaveidentifiedin

ordertoensurethatthedescriptionsweresufficientlyrobust.Briefly(butdescribedin

greaterdepthinChapter3)thecriteriaareasfollows:

a) Theyweresufficientlytimebound;

b) Thepolicyepisodehadidentifiableobjectives,proposedoutcomesandbenefitsto

thetargetgroup;

c) ThepolicyepisodefollowedatypicalpolicyapproachbyHEFCE;

d) Thereweresufficientsourcesofdatatoallowfora‘thickdescription’(Geertz

1973);

e) Thereweresufficientsecondarysourcesofdatatoallowforaricherandmore

texturedanalysis;

f) Thechoiceofcasestudiesallowedfor‘replication’,not‘sampling’(Yin2014)such

thatphenomenainrelationtopolicyprocess,programmeandpoliticsarelikelyto

produceresultsthatareeithersimilarorcontrasting,butforpredictablereasons;

9

g) Therewassufficientdocumentarymaterialavailabletotestfortrustworthiness

(LincolnandGuba1985).

Thesecriteriawerechosenbecausethefirstthreeyieldedsufficientinsighttomeetthe

requirementsoftheMcConnell(2010)frameworkinenablinganinterpretationofsuccess

andfailureinrelationtothethreedimensionsofsuccess,thereweresufficientdatasources,

andtheavailabledataallowedfortestsofrobustnessandtrustworthiness,asdescribedin

Chapter3.

Theresearchapproachisqualitativeandtakesaninterpretiveapproachinseeking

illuminationandunderstandinginrelationtothespecificpolicyepisodes.Aninterpretative

approachlendsitselfwelltotheanti-foundationalistapproachadvocatedbyBovensand

t’Hart(1998)inarticulatingpolicysuccessandfailurethroughtheideologies,socialand

politicsvaluejudgementsandthecontestedobservationsofthemanypolicyactors

involvedinEnglishHEpolicy.Suchaninterpretativeapproachalsolendsitselfwelltothe

realismpositionadvocatedbyMcConnell(2010b)inarticulatingsuccessandfailure,inan

‘artsandcrafts’(McConnell2015)interpretationofthe‘messyrealpolitikoftypesand

degreesof[successand]failure,aswellastheambiguitiesandtensionsbetweenthem’

(McConnell2015p.221).

Ahistoricalresearchdesignapproachisusedasadescriptiveandanalyticaldeviceforthe

interrogationoftextbaseddocuments.Thematicanalysis,whichisparticularlyapplicable

toqualitativecasestudyresearchwhichutilisesdocumentsasthesourcesforresearchdata

(Bowen2009)isusedasamethodwhichlendsitselfwelltothetheoreticalframeworkfor

thisstudy,inbeinginterpretative,andunderstandingtextsassocialconstructswithinthe

socialandhistoricalcontextinwhichtheyareproduced(McCulloch2004).Itismyopinion

thatathematicanalysisapproachisbestsuitedtothistypeofresearch,sinceitallowsfora

thickdescriptionofpolicyepisodeswhichhavenowconcluded(andthusarenotopento

directobservation)whilstgivingvoicestoarangeofactors,throughbothprimaryand

secondarydocumentsources.Whilstinterviewswithsomeoftheactorsmighthaveoffered

othervaluableinsights,itwouldnotbefeasibletointerviewallactorsgiventhelengthof

timethathaspassedsincethepolicyepisodeswereoperational.Thus,withalimited

numberofinterviewees,theremightbeatendencytoallowtheviewsofoneortwoactors

toinfluencetheinterpretation,ratherthanthecriticalandreflexiveanalysisofthedataby

me,astheresearcher.

10

Athematicanalysisapproachallowsreadingofthetexts(FeredayandMuir-Cochrane2006)

inorderthatemergingthemesinthedescriptionsbecomethepremisesforanalysis.Whilst

theapproachisinterpretative,athematicapproachallowsthemestoemergefromthe

analysis,ratherthanthesebeingpre-judged(Bowen2009).Ineachcase,thedominant

themesidentifiedwereusedtogiveanaccountofhowthepolicyepisodewasviewed,

evaluatedandjudgedbydifferentactorsatdifferenttimes.Withinthecontextofthe

thematicanalysis,Ihavechosentotakeacontentanalysisapproach(Scott1990),which

assessesthesignificanceofparticulardetailswithinthetextstomeasuretheimportanceof

particularconcepts,ratherthanotherdocumentanalysisapproaches,suchaslinguistic(Ball

1990)ormetanarratives(Roe1994).

Thisstudyusesbothprimaryandsecondarysourcematerials.Dataiscollectedthrough

closeandmultiplereadingsofarangeofprimarytextswhichinclude:HEFCEBoardpapers,

circularsandannualreports,policyannouncements,consultationsandevaluations,to

illuminateanunderstandingofthebackground,processandoutcomesinrelationtoeach

casestudy.Furtherreadingofsecondarytexts,suchasacademiccommentaries,

independentevaluations,parliamentaryquestionsanddiscussions,andmediareports,is

thenundertakeninordertoidentify,crossreferenceandcodifycommonthemesinrelation

toeachcasestudy.

Thescopeoftheresearchisdeliberatelylimitedtopolicyepisodeswithinthelearningand

teachingstrandofHEFCE’sactivity.Selectingfromonecategoryallowsforagreater

richnessinidentifyingcommonthemesorcontradictionsarisingfromthepolicyepisode,

ratherthanselectingfrommorethanonecategory,wherecommonthemesmaybemore

difficulttoidentify.Assuch,thislimitsthestudytoidentifyingcommonalitiesand

differencesinlearningandteachingpolicy,butthereisscopefortransferability(Lincoln

andGuba1995)toothercontextsandotherHEpolicyareas,suchaswideningparticipation

orresearch.

1.7Organisationofthesis

Thethesisisorganisedintothreeparts.Thefirstprovidesanoverviewofthefieldsof

enquiryinthecontextofHEstudies,policystudiesandpolicyanalysis,describesthechosen

theoreticalframeworkandprovidesajustificationforthechosenresearchmethods.The

secondcontextualisesthestudy,settingoutahistoricalreviewofHEpolicy-makinginthe

earlytwentiethcenturyandthepolicyworkofHEFCE.Thispartalsoprovidesathick

11

descriptionofeachofthethreechosenpolicyepisodes.Thefinalpartbringstogetherthe

theoreticalframeworkandthecasestudies,withananalysisofthemainfindingsineachof

theepisodes,toestablishcommonalitiesanddifferencesandidentifyareasofpolicy

learningforfuturepolicysetting.Thissectionalsoreviewstheappropriatenessofthe

theoreticalframeworkinthecontextofHEandcontemporaryapproachestopolicy

analysis.

1.8Descriptionofchapters

Chapter1-Introduction:introductiontothefieldsofenquiryandfocusoftheresearch

questions.

Chapter2–Situatingtheresearch:situatestheresearchwithinthefieldsofenquiry:HE

studiesandpolicystudies.Thechapterincludesadiscussiononthemeaningofpolicy(past

andcontemporary),theevolutionofpolicyanalysisstudiesandtheoreticalunderstandings,

appliedpolicyanalysis,policysuccessandfailureandanintroductiontothemethodological

framework,‘dimensionsofpolicysuccess’(McConnell2010).

Chapter3–Approach,theoreticalframework,researchmethods:outlinestheapproach

andtheoreticalframeworkchosenforthestudyandprovidesbothadescriptionof,and

justificationfor,thechosenresearchmethods.

Chapter4–Contextualisingtheresearch:describesabriefhistoryofpolicy-makingsince

theearlytwentiethcentury,documentsandsituatesthepolicyworkofHEFCEfrom1992–

2018,andinparticularthechangingideologiesforpolicy-makingduringthelifeofHEFCE,

andjustifiesthechoiceofpolicyepisodesascasestudies.

Chapter5–Casestudy1:TheE-University.

Chapter6–Casestudy2:CentresforExcellenceinLearningandTeaching.

Chapter7–Casestudy3:LifelongLearningNetworks.

Chapter8–Analysisanddiscussionofthecasestudiesagainstthetheoreticalframework:

drawstogethertheevidenceforpolicysuccessandfailurefromthecasestudiesandusing

thetheoreticalframework,appliesaninterpretativeapproachtosuggestwheretheymight

lieonthesuccess/failurespectrum.Thischapteralsousesthisworktoidentify

commonalitiesanddistinctionstoyieldinsightintofutureHEpolicy-making.Finally,this

12

chapteranalysestheappropriatenessandlimitationsofthetheoreticalframeworkand,

relatingbacktothediscussioninChapter2onapproachestopolicyanalysis,discussesthe

framework’srelevancetocontemporaryunderstandingsofpolicy.

Chapter9–Conclusions:thischapterprovidesasummaryofthekeyfindingsandrelates

theworkbacktoChapter2insituatingtheresearchwithincontemporaryunderstandings

ofpolicy.ThischapteroutlinesthecontributionofthethesistopolicyanalysisinHEand

setsoutthelimitationsandconstraintsofthework.Finally,thischapteroutlinessome

directionsforfutureworkthatcouldaddrichnesstotheresearch.

13

Chapter2:Situatingtheresearch:inthefieldsofhigher

educationandpolicystudies

2.1Introduction

Thischaptersituatestheresearchwithintherelevantfieldsofenquiryandliterature.This

thesissitswithintwofieldsofenquiry:highereducation(HE)studiesandpolicystudies.

ThischapterfirstlyexaminesthestudyofHEasafieldofresearch,sincethisiswherethe

workofthisthesisiscontextualised,inordertoestablishhowthisstudyenhancesan

understandingofpolicyinEnglishHE.Theremainderofthechaptersituatestheresearch

withinpolicystudies,andintroducesthetheoreticalframeworkusedtotheorisethe

research.Thisisdonethroughahistoricalreviewofthecomprehensionsandconceptsof

policy,thehistoricalandcontemporaryapproachestopolicyanalysis,andanexplorationof

thenotionsofpolicysuccessandfailure.ThischapterintroducesMcConnell’s(2010)

frameworkforexaminingpolicysuccessandfailure,whichiscentraltothethesis.Finally,

thischapterexaminesnotionsof‘policylearning’(May1992),whichisalsosignificantto

thepartofthethesiswhichexploreswhetherlessonsforfuturepolicysettinginHEcanbe

learnedfromanexaminationofthechosencasestudies.

2.2Highereducationstudies

ThisthesissitsrightattheheartofHEstudies,intermsofbothresearchingpolicyandas

thespacewherethefieldworkhasbeenconducted.ThestudyofHEhasbecomean

internationaldisciplineinitsownrightrecently,particularlyinthelightofincreasing

globalisationandtheknowledgeeconomy.Assuch,HEhasbecome‘bigbusiness’(Tight

2012)andconsequentlytherehasbeenagreaterinterestinresearch.Ozga(2000)asserts

thatnewwaysofresearchingeducationhavebeennecessitatedbytheneworderof

thinkingaboutcontemporaryeducation’splaceinsociety,andchangesinthesocialand

economiccontextswhichshapepolicyhavebecomeanimportantpartofthatresearch.As

such,policyanalysishasbecomeacriticalformofresearchintoeducation(Ozga2000).

Tight’srecentinsights(2012,2018)contextualisecurrentHEresearch.Hedividesthe

currentdebatesandresearchintoeightschema,orcategories,oneofwhichhecalls

‘systempolicy’(Tight2012p.7,2018p.95).Withinthatbroadcategory,Tightidentifiesa

numberofsub-categories:‘thepolicycontext,nationalpolicies,comparativepolicystudies,

14

historicalpolicystudiesandfundingrelationships’(Tight2012p.117).Hecontends,like

Ozga,thatpolicyhasbecomeadominantfieldinHEstudiesduetothechangingnatureof

thestate’srole,andhenotesthat,

‘Withgovernmentremainingthemajorfunderofhighereducationinmostcountries,systempolicyremainsthecrucialdeterminantofhighereducationpractice.Itnaturally,therefore,formsakeyfocusforcommentandresearch,withanychangesinpolicybeingsubjecttoreviewandevaluation’(2012p.117).

Ofthosesub-categories,thisstudyfitswellwithinpolicycontext,nationalpoliciesand

historicalpolicystudies.Thepolicycontext,andinparticulartheroleofHEFCEinthat

context,iscentraltothestudy.Thisstudyexaminesepisodesofnationalpolicyand,likethe

vastmajorityofthosethatfocusonnationalpolicy(Tight2012p.120),takesahistorical

casestudyapproach.Tightarguesthatoneofthedifficultieswithcasestudiesisthatthey

areoftentimeboundandassuchofferlittletopolicylearning:

‘Whilethesestudiesareofconsiderableinterestandtopicalityaboutthetimetheyarepublished–andofsomecontinuinghistoricalinterest–theirconcernsandemphasisoftensoondate’(Tight2012p.120).

Thisstudyseekstoaddressthatcriticismbyusingthecasestudiestoilluminateparticular

characteristics,similaritiesanddifferencesinrelationtopolicyepisodes.Althougha

historicalapproach,thethesisthenseekstoapplythoseunderstandingstoenlightenfuture

policypositioningbygovernmentandtheOfficeforStudents(OfS)underanewpolicy

settingandregulatoryregime.

TightcontendsthatmanyHEresearchersdonotengageexplicitlywiththeory(2018p.7),

althoughtheinter-disciplinarynatureofHEstudieslendsitselfwelltoimportingtheories

fromotheracademicdisciplines.However,thereareexamplesofinter-disciplinary

theorisation:forexample,Ball(1990)takesasociologicalapproachintheorisinghowpolicy

textshavebeenshapedbynotionsofpoweranddiscourse,asdoesTaylor(2004),and

Cochran-SmithandFries’(2001)workonwarrantandthejustificationforpolicyis

contextualisedthroughlanguageandsemiotics.BusemeyerandTrampusch(2011)contend

thatthereisincreasinginterestintheuseofpoliticalscienceinthestudyofeducation,and

theyprovideacomprehensivereviewofavailableliteratureinthisrespect.However,like

Tight(2012),theyconcludethatthestudyofeducationwithinpoliticalsciencesisunder-

theorised:

‘Theoreticalframeworkstendtobeborrowedfromeducationsociology,organisationtheoryormanagementstudiesratherthanpoliticalscience’(BusemeyerandTrampusch2011p.418).

15

TherehavebeenfewexamplesoftheoreticalframeworksadoptedinHEstudies,although

somehavebeguntoemergeinrecentyears.KoganandHanneyintheir(2000)bookon

‘ReformingHigherEducation’adoptapoliticalscienceframeworkfortheirtheoreticalbasis.

CarolBacchi(2009)takesadiscourseanalysisapproachinwhichsheproblematisespolicy

througha‘framingmechanism’(p.263)indevelopingher‘WPR(What’stheProblem

Represented)’frameworktoaddresspolicyproblemsthroughtheapplicationofsix

questions.AlthoughnotspecificallyaimedatHEstudies,itsbroadpolicyframework

approachiseasilyadaptabletoeducation.Taylor(2004)alsotakessimilardiscourse

analysisapproachestopolicytexts,usingaframeworkadaptedfromtheworkofFairclough

(2001)toexamineeducationpolicy.Hyatt’s(2013)frameworkforcriticalanalysisofHE

policytexts(p.43)isamorerecentexample,consistingoftwoelements,onefor

contextualisingtextsandanotherfordeconstruction.Jungblut(2015)usesatwo-

dimensionalanalyticalframeworktohypothesisewhetherdifferentpoliticalpartiesfavour

differentHEsystems,andconsequentlypolicyoutputs,andhowthesedifferencescanbe

conceptualised.

Section2.2(p.13)hasestablishedthatinterestinthestudyofpolicyinHEhasgrownin

recentyears,andthatthereareexamplesofeducationresearchersbeginningtouse

theorisationsfromotherdisciplinestoinformstudiesofHEpolicy.Thereisgrowinginterest

inusingtheorisationsfrompoliticalsciences,although,asBusemeyerandTrampusch

(2011)attest,itisanareaofresearchthatiscurrentlyunder-theorised.Fromananalysisof

theworkofBusemeyerandTrampusch(2011),andTight(2012,2018),insummarising

currentresearch,Ihaveconcludedthattheuseofatheoreticalframeworkfrompolitical

sciencetoexaminepolicyinHEand,morespecifically,policysuccessandfailure,isanarea

whichiscurrentlyunder-researched.PolicysuccessandfailureisexploredfullyinSection

2.5(p.38)andmyjustificationforadoptingtheMcConnellframeworkforthisstudywillbe

exploredingreaterdetailthere.

2.3Comprehensionsandconceptsofpolicy

Thissectiontakesahistoricallookatthechangingunderstandingsofpolicyovertimeand

examinestheworkofsociologistswhohaveaddedtothebodyofliteratureindefining

whatismeantbypolicy.Aninsightintohowconceptionsofpolicyhavechangedovertime

willassistthereaderinappreciatinghowcontemporarytheoristsunderstandthecomplex

andmultidimensionalnatureofpolicyandpolicyactors.Thisunderstandingisimportantto

16

thethesis,incritiquingtheusefulnessofthechosentheoreticalframeworkagainst

contemporaryconceptionsofpolicy(Chapter8).

800yearsago,alate1300sOEDdefinitiondefinedpolicyas‘anorganisedorestablished

systemofgovernment,suchasaconstitutionorastate’.Fromthemid-1400s,theOEDhad

developedthatdefinitionfurther,suchthatpolicywasforthepublicgood,

‘aparticularcourseofactionthatisadoptedbygovernment,party,ruler,politicianortheirrepresentative;moregenerally,anyparticularcourseofactionthatisadoptedasadvantageousorexpedient’(takenfromJenkins2007p.30).

Acontemporarydictionary(TheCambridgeDictionary2015)definespolicyas

‘asetofideasoraplanofwhattodoinparticularsituationsthathasbeenagreedofficiallybyagroupofpeople,abusinessorganisation,agovernment,orapoliticalparty’.

Whilsttherehavebeensubtlechangestothedefinitionoverthelast800years,whatis

clearisthatnotionsoforganisation,governmentandactionhaveremainedaconstant

featureindefining‘policy’.Inthefieldofpolicystudies,however,theacademicliterature

onthemeaningofpolicyisrichwithevolution,takingthisbroaddefinitiontogreater

depths.Earlyiterationsofthemeaningofpolicywereverylinearintheirapproach:policy

wasformedand‘doneto’thoseonthereceivingend.Laterinthe20thcentury,greater

emphasiswasplacedonideasofrationality,legitimacy,powerandknowledge,and,more

recently,morecomplexcomprehensionshavemovedawayfromlineardefinitionsofpolicy

tomoredynamic,cyclicaldefinitions,wheretheactorsinvolved,togetherwiththeirsocial

andculturalvalues,playagreaterpartinhowpolicyisformed,implemented,re-formed

andre-addressed.Assuch,therehasbeenashiftinunderstandingpolicyfrombeinga

product,tothatofaprocess,andfinally,topolicyaspractice.

2.3.1Linearunderstandingsofpolicy

Mostoftheearlyandmid20thcenturyexplorationsofthemeaningofpolicywerelinearin

theirdescription.Theydefinepolicyverymuchintermsofacourseofaction,wherean

entitysuchasgovernmenthasalegitimateandmoralrighttoalteracourseofactionfor

thebenefitofthepeople;examplesoftheseunderstandingsaregivenin2.2.4.3below.

Moreimportantly,governmenthasthepowerandexpertknowledge,intheFoucauldian

senseofexercisingpowerandknowledge,totakeactionintheformofintervention.This

actionisawayoforganisinglifeforacountry’scitizensandasameansofimposingorder

andcoherence.Marshall,inhisconsiderationofsocialpolicyin1965,defineditasthe

17

‘policyofgovernmentswithregardstoactionhavingadirectimpactonthewelfareofcitizens’(Marshall1965p.7).

ThesecomprehensionsofpolicywerewhatColebatch(2002)referstoas‘vertical

approaches’,topdown,with‘authoriseddecisionmaking’(p.39).These‘statecontrol’(Dale

1989)explanationsassumedthattheprocessofgeneratingpolicywasundertakenbythose

withexpertknowledge(civilservants,agentsofgovernment)andthatwasfollowedbythe

processofimplementationasa‘separatemoment’(AlfordandFriedland1988).

Theimpositionoforder,oftakingactionforthebenefitofcitizens,isacentralideainthese

1950sand1960slinearattemptsatmakingmeaningoutofpolicy.Ginsberg,(1953,p24)

tookthepositionthatpolicywasaboutmoralorderandprogressandin1957,Macbeath

continuesthethemeoforder,observingthat

‘socialpoliciesareconcernedwiththerightorderingofthenetworkofrelationshipsbetweenmenandwomenwholivetogetherinsocieties,orwiththeprincipleswhichshouldgoverntheactivitiesofindividualsandgroupssofarastheyaffectthelivesandinterestsofotherpeople’(Macbeath1957p.1).

Lafitte,in1962,continuedthislineofthoughtinrelationtoorder,definingpolicyasan

‘attempttosteerlifeofsocietyalongchannelsitwouldnotfollowiflefttoitself’(Lafitte1962p.9).

Hagenbuch(1958)continuesonthesamethemebut,likeGinsberg,seekstodefinepolicyin

termsofprogressingthelivesofcitizens:

‘Themainspringofsocialpolicymaybesaidtobethedesiretoensureeverymemberofthecommunityhascertainminimumstandardsandcertainopportunities’(Hagenbuch1958p.205).

Inalloftheseattemptstoexplainpolicy,thereisstrongemphasisontheaimforpolicyto

bebeneficial,butthekeyobservationisthatthereisadefiniteimposingofpolicyby

government,byanelitepower,andthatpolicymustbegoodpolicy,rational,ordered,to

thebenefitofcitizens.

Theconceptofpolicyasactionisfundamentaltomid-20thcenturypolicymeanings.In

1968,Bauerdefinedpolicyas‘parametershapingacts’,wheregovernmentsare

continuouslyacceptingorrejectingacourseofactioninordertooptimisedecisionmaking.

Hearguesthat

‘variouslabelsareappliedtodecisionsandactionswetake,dependingingeneralonthebreadthoftheirimplications.Iftheyaretrivialandrepetitiveanddemandlittlecogitation,theymaybecalledroutineactions.Iftheyaremorecomplex,havewider

18

ramifications,anddemandmorethought,wemayrefertothemastacticaldecisions.Forthosewhichhavethewidestramificationsandthelongesttimeperspective,andwhichgenerallyrequiremoreinformationandcontemplation,wetendtoreservethewordpolicy’(Bauer1968p.1-2).

Titmuss,consideredtobeoneoffoundingfathersofsocialpolicyanalysis,definedpolicyas

‘theprinciplesthatgovernactiondirectedtowardsgivenends’(Titmuss1974p.23).

Inthisdefinition,aswithalltheearliermeanings,thereistheimplicationofchangefrom

onestatetoanotherinaone-waylinearprocess,withpolicy-makershavingthepowerto

effectchange.Therightofpolicy-makerstoeffectchangeisnotquestioned,sincethey

havelegitimateagency,astheknowledgeexperts,todoso.

Dearlove(1973p.2)definedpublicpolicyas‘thesubstanceofwhatgovernmentdoes’,but

hearguesthisfromapointofviewthatseespolicyasbeingdefinednotbywhatis

intended,butbywhatcanbecommittedintermsofresourcestoaddressapublicproblem.

Heretherehasbeenaslightshiftofemphasisfromgovernmentsimplytakingactionto

achieveapredeterminedresult.Thereisnowtheimplicationthatotherfactors,suchas

resources(orlackofthem),caneffectachangeofcoursewhichmightresultindeliveryof

somethingdifferenttothatoriginallyintendedordesired.

Insummary,therearesomekeythemeswhichcanbeseenintheseearlylinear

characterisationsofmeaningofpolicy,particularly,thatgovernmenthasthepowerandthe

expertknowledgewhichgivesitthelegitimacyintakingacourseofactiontoimposeorder

onitscitizensfortheirownbenefit.Thesedefinitionsdo,however,makeanassumption

thatgovernmentsarerationalintheirpolicy-making,andthatcoursesofactionaretaken

tothebenefitofcitizens,notthatofpolicy-makersorgovernment.Thisreviewofearly

comprehensionsofpolicycontributestothethesisinsituatingpolicy-makinginHEinthe

twentiethcentury,andprovidesthegroundworkforexploringhowthelocusofpowerhas

shiftedwithchangingideologiesofdifferentgovernments-ontheonehand,neoliberalism

approachesandgreatermarketisationofHE,andontheotherhand,theroleofthestate

andnewpublicmanagement.

19

2.3.2Theoriesofrationality–abriefdigression

Inordertoaidunderstandingofhowpolicyhasmorerecentlybeenunderstoodintermsof

policyinpractice,Itisimportanttothethesisatthispointtodigressslightlyfrom

consideringmeaningsofpolicytobrieflyexploretheoriesofrationality,andrational-legal

authority,beforeaddingmorecomplexitytotheevolutionofunderstandingsofpolicy.This

isimportantsincethemajorityofmodernstateshavebeenconsideredtoberational-legal

authorities,andhenceallpolicy-makingneedstobeconsideredwithinthatcontext.Those

meaningsconsideredsofar,notonlyhavelinearityincommon,buttheyallhaveanimplicit

assumptionthatthecoursesofactionundertakenbygovernmentsintheirpolicy-making

arerational.Weber(1978)proposedthatsocialactionwasdeterminedbyfourtypesof

rationality,thetwomostimportantforthisstudybeingZweckrational,whereactionis

purposefulandrelatedtotheexpectationsofothersbeyondtheauthor,inaparticular

contextualenvironment,andWertrational,whereactionistakendependentuponan

actor’s,orauthor’s,valuesandbeliefs.Ineithercase,actionisconsideredtobedrivenby

beingrational,basedonfacts,knowledgeandreason,andisthereforelegitimateinits

making.Weber’sassumptionsthatallhumans,andhencegovernments,willbehaveinways

thatarerationalhasbeencriticisedbyothersociologists,fornottakingintoaccount

emotionsorotherfactorsthatlimitpeople’sabilitytoactinanentirelyrationalmanner.

Weber,inhisessay‘TheThreeTypesofLegitimateRule’(1958),goesontodistinguish

between‘typesoflegitimatepoliticalleadershipsandauthority:charismaticauthority,

traditionalauthorityandlegalauthority’.Forthepurposesofthisthesis,Ishallconcentrate

hereonlegalauthority,sinceWeberarguesthatitisakeycharacteristicofthemajorityof

modernstatesandgovernance.Weberarguedthatrational-legalauthoritiesareableto

exercisetheirauthorityandtakeactionbecausetheylegitimisethatactionthroughthe

organisationoftheofficialdom,monopolisationofcentraladministrationandlegislation,

andcontrolofcitizensthroughtaxationandphysicalforce.Theseactionsareseenby

citizensasbeingbothrationalandlegitimate,sincethelegalorderthatsetstherulesisin

linewithotherrulesthatgovernaction.Webersuggeststhat‘rationalpursuitofefficiency’

andthe‘ironcagedbureaucratisation’(Weber1958)wereattheheartofmodernsociety.

Likethelineardefinitionsofpolicyalreadyconsidered,thisviewofrationalgovernanceisa

verytopdown,powerelitemodel.

Thisbriefdivergenceintorationalityisimportantheresinceitisclearfromthemeaningsof

policyexaminedthusfar,thatinlinearexplanations(decisions–action),rationalityisa

20

centralundisputednotion.Inmorecontemporaryconceptsofpolicy,whichmoveaway

fromtheselinear,rationalmodels,thenotionofanelitepowerbecomesverymucha

contestednotion.

2.3.3Addingdimensionsofcomplexitytocomprehensionsofpolicy

Colebatchbeginstore-definepolicyinamorecomplexway.Heconcurswithearlierwriters

thatpolicy‘isaboutthemaintenanceoforderthroughtheexerciseoflegitimateauthority’

(inJenkins2007p.24)buthearguesthatourpreviousideasofpolicyrest‘onthree

assumptionsaboutsocialorder,instrumentality,hierarchyandcoherence’(Colebatch2002

p.8),wherepublicorganisationsexisttoachieveparticularobjectives(instrumentality),that

theflowofpowerisfromgovernmentstothepeople(hierarchy)andthatalltheactionsfit

togetherintoasinglesystemthatsteersandco-ordinatesprogress(coherence).However,

itis,heasserts,morecomplexthanthisnotionofsocialorder,sinceactiondoesnotsimply

followlegitimiseddecisionmaking.Colebatchintroducesanewhypothesisincontrastto

thetopdownrationalviewconstrainedbymorelineardefinitionsofpolicy.Heproposes

theconceptoftension,wheretheveryattributesofpolicy,‘order,authorityandexpertise’

(p.9)arelikelytoembodycontinuingtensionsinpolicyoutcomesandthusquestionsthe

legitimisationofthoseconceptsasrationalentities.Thisnotionoftensionbeginstobe

articulatedasacentralthemeinmorecontemporarymeaningsofpolicy.Thisisa

particularlyimportantconceptforthepurposesofthisthesis,sinceHEFCEhasoftenbeen

describedasa‘buffer’bodybetweengovernmentandHEIs,aswillbeexploredlaterin

Chapter4,incontextualisingpolicyintermsofHE.HEFCEisperhapsuniqueinactingasa

bufferbodyinpublicpolicy,andassuchthelocusofpowerinthishierarchyislessobvious.

Colebatch’snotionoftensionthenbecomesanimportantconsiderationinthisrespect.

Colebatchalsoarguesthatthereareavarietyofactorsinthepolicyprocess,suggesting

thatpolicyis‘sociallyconstructed’inacontinualprocessof‘socialactionandinteraction’

(p.13)andsobeginstoquestionnotionsofrationalelitistpower.Assuch,thefailingsof

Weber’sconstructionsofrationalist,identifiedin2.3.2,begintobeaddressed.Policybegins

tobedefinedintermsofamoresocialandculturalprocess,whereactorsmaynotshare

thesameobjectivesandtherecanbedivergencebetweentheprocessandtheexperience

ofthepolicybytheactorsinvolved.Hearguesthat

‘intheend,itiswhatpolicyparticipantsdowiththeideathatdetermineswhatpolicymeans’(Colebatch2002p.136).

21

Sototaketheseadditionaldimensionsintoconsideration,otheractors,andtheirsocialand

culturalhistoriesandexperiences,caninfluencetheformationofpolicy,negatingnotions

ofpolicyasequatingwithrationality.ThisworkalsodrawsontheearlyideasfromLipsky,

whoin1976arguedthatpolicyalsoneededtotakeintoaccounttheinteractionbetween

policy-makersandthoseat‘streetlevel’.

AthirdelementtoColebatch’s(2002)definitionisthatofchoice,whereheassertsthat

policymeaningstendtoassumearticulateconsciouschoice,withpolicybeingthenatural

actiontakenasaresultofadecision.However,heargues,thereisatensionbetween

choiceandstructure,andbothpreviousactionsandtherequiredcommitmentofresources

intheexistingsystem,canlimitchoiceorequallyopenupopportunitiesformakingother

choicesleadingtodifferentactions:

‘Theexperienceofthepolicyprocessisoftenthatitistheflowofactionwhichthrowsuptheopportunitiesforchoice’(p.17)….‘makingchoiceschallengestheexistingstructureandhavingthisstructurelimitstheopportunityforchoice’(p.18).

Colebatchacceptsthatthemeaningofpolicyreflectsparticularvalues,‘instrumental

rationality’and‘legitimateauthority’,buthedescribespolicyasa‘conceptinuse’(2002

p.20)wherebythemeaningofpolicyissociallyconstructed,shapedbybothhistoricaland

currentactionsandchoiceswithinthesystem,andthevarietyofactorsandtheir

interactionandtensions,whichresultinthepursuitofmaintainingorder.

Thisprogressionfromearlylinearmeaningdemonstratesthatsocialsciencedisciplines

begintoarticulateaconceptofpolicythatisamuchmoreinteractiveprocess,with

tensionsbothintermsofprocessandaction,movingawayfromideaswhichfocusonthe

centralityofchangeanddeliberatepolicyprocess.Jenkins(2007)goesevenfurtherthan

Colebatch,arguingthatthe

‘policyprocessisuncertaininitsoutcomes,limitedinitsvision,partialinitsscope,asinefficientasonemightexpectofanyorganisationprocess,andtosomeextentself-defeating:itisneitherironcagenorpanopticon’(p.32).

ThisharksbacktotheworkofDearlove(1973)above,forwhompolicyoutcomesarenot

necessarilythoseintendedbypolicy-makers,andthatofMargetts,6andHood(2010)on

theunintendedeffectsandparadoxesofpublicpolicyreforminmodernsocieties,where,

forexample,theapplicationofevidencebasedscientificknowledgeorNewPublic

Managementreforms,whichsoughttomoderniseandstandardisepublicserviceslike

universities,resultedineffectsthatwerenotoriginallyplanned.

22

Hill(2009)takesthisastagefurther,arguingthatpolicyisanon-goingandmultistranded

process,wheretheseparatemomentsbetweenpolicyformationandimplementationare

interlinked.Hearguesthatpolicyisnotsomethingthatisdefinedonlybyitsprocessfrom

thepointofformationbyoneentity,makingonedecisionatonemomentintime,butthat

‘policy-makingprocessisawebofdecisions‘(2009p.16)and,likeColebatch,involves

differentactorsatdifferentlevelsoftheprocess.Hillintroducesanewelement,thatof

time,suggestingthatthewebofdecisions,andhencethepolicydirection,cancontinueto

evolveoverthecourseoftime,beyondtheinitialpolicyprocess.Sothemeaningofpolicy

becomesamuchmoreholisticprocess,wherepolicyformationisnot‘done’inavacuum.

Hillalsoconsiderstheimpactofotherpolicydecisions,suchthattheyinfluenceeachother,

ina‘crowdedpolicyspace’(Hill2009p.16).Hillcontinuestoexpandthisholisticnotion,

addingafurtherdimensiontothematrix,thatofincrementalisation,wherepolicymaynot

alwaysbenew,butmaybeanincrementalchangetoanexistingpolicy.Inthis

understandingofpolicy,implementationmayalsoinfluencenewincrementsinthepolicy

process,orindeedtheformationofnewpolicies.Assuch,policyinformsnewpolicy,in

whatDery(1999)referstoas‘policybytheway’(1999p.165-6),suggestingthatpolicycan

alsobeincidental.Afurtherfacettoaddtothisalreadycomplexunderstandingofpolicyis

thatof‘nonpolicy’(Heclo1972p.85),wherea‘nondecision’or‘inaction’isadeliberate

act,inordertomaintainthestatusquoortogivetheappearanceofcoherenceandorder.

Thesecomprehensionsmoveawayfromtheearlylinearunderstandings,toonewhichis

muchmoreholistic,takingaccountofdifferentactorsinthepolicyspace,bothpolicy-

makersandpolicyparticipants,andacceptingthatpolicyisdynamic,withformation,

processandimplementationaspartofacyclicaldimensionthatevolvesovertime.Taking

theseunderstandingstogether,thismorecomplexmeaningofpolicycouldbepictorially

representedinthefollowingdiagram,wherebypolicyformation,processand

implementationarenotlinear,butconceptuallyinterlinkedandinfluencedatallpointsby

policyarchitectsandparticipants,withinthecontextsofthepolicyspace(society)andover

time:

23

Figure1–PICTORIALREPRESENTATIONOFUNDERSTANDINGSOFPOLICY

Thesemorecomplexunderstandingsbegintoconceivepolicyasmorecyclical,which

suggeststhatpolicyisnotalinearprocesswithabeginningandanend,andassuchithas

agency.BridgmanandDavis’(2003)‘AustralianPolicyCycle’(p.100),offersadiagrammatic

descriptionofthepolicycycle,althoughithastobenotedthattheirintentionwastooffer

apracticalguidetopolicy-makers,notatheoreticalframeworktoarticulatemeaningof

policy.TheirworkdrawsonthatofHaroldLasswell(1951)whocharacterised‘policy-

makingasasequenceofintelligence,recommendation,prescription,invocation,

application,appraisalandtermination’,andtherearealsoreflectionsoftheworkof

HowlettandRamesh,whodrewupamodelofapolicycycleforuseasananalyticaltool,by

breakingtheprocessupintoanumberofstages:

• ‘Agendasetting;• Policyformulation;• Decisionmaking;• Policyimplementation;• Policyevaluation’(HowlettandRamesh1995).

BridgmanandDavis(2004)drawontheseworkstodevelopapolicycycleconsistingof

eightstages,andthekeypurposeforincludingithereistoarticulatehowmore

contemporarynotionsofpolicyhavebeguntounderstanditasadynamiccourseofaction.

Theirpolicycyclecomprisesa‘stages’approach,thathasinformedmuchoftheworkin

policyanalysisconsideredlaterinthischapter.Itisalsoworthwhilenotingatthispointthat

therearereflectionsofthispolicycycleapproachinMcConnell’sframeworkforanalysing

policysuccess(Section2.5,p.38),whichreliesheavilyonthenotionsofpolicyprocessand

implementation,whichwillbeexploredingreaterdetailattheendofthischapter.

Policyspace Policyparticipants

Policyarchitects

Policyformation

Policyprocess

Time

Policyimplementation

24

Figure2–BRIDGMANANDDAVIS‘POLICYCYCLE’(2004p.26)

Morecontemporaryconceptualisationstakeapost-structuralismapproachto

understandingpolicyandhavesoughttobothproblematiseitintermsthatemphasisethe

dynamicnatureofpolicyandtosituateitwithinhistoricalandsocialcontexts,focussingin

particularonhowpolicyisshapedbyrelationsofpower,drawingespeciallyonFoucault’s

workonknowledgeandpower.Fairclough(2014)drawsonFoucault’stheoriesinrelation

tolanguage,powerandthestatetoarguethatlanguageandpowerareintrinsically

connectedand,assuch,thewayinwhichpolicydiscourseisunderstoodandinterpretedis

influencedbysocialandpoliticalstructures.‘Discourse’inthissenseisunderstoodtobean

entityorsigninlanguageortext,suchthatthesignhasmeaningattachedwhichis

constructedwithinsocialboundaries,beliefsandpractices(Fairclough2014).

Ball(1993,2006,2015)alsodrawsonthisunderstandingofdiscourseinseekingtoframea

theoreticalapproachwithinthecontextofpolicy,whereheseekstoarticulatepolicyas

‘discourse’and‘policyastext’.Hecontextualisesmuchofhisworkonpolicyineducation,

andsoitisfittingtoconsiderhisworkinthisthesis.Ball,inhis1993paper,‘Whatispolicy?

Texts,trajectoriesandtoolboxes’seekstoconceptualise‘policyasdiscourseandtext’asa

wayofgettingawayfromtheideaofpolicyasa‘thing’(p.11).

Ball(2006)emphasisestheimportanceofthe‘policyreceivers’andthe‘policytexts’in

makingsenseofpolicy,anditistheagencyofpolicythatisimportant.Lawton(1984)

describesadisconnectbetweenpolicy-makersandreceiversinthepolicyprocess,butBall

arguesthatpolicyisnotjustalegislativemoment,butadialogueandacontinualprocess.

Ballwantsto

25

‘approachlegislationasbutoneaspectofacontinualprocessinwhichthelociofpowerareconstantlyshiftingasvariousresourcesimplicitandexplicitintextsarere-contextualisedandemployedinthestruggletomaintainorchangeviews’(Ball2006p.13).

ForBall,howpowerandsubjectivityframepossibilitiesforthoughtandactionarekeyto

understandingwhatpolicyis,andarguesfromapositionthat

‘weneedtoappreciatethewayinwhichpolicyensembles,collectionsofrelatedpolicies,exercisepowerthroughaproductionof'truth'and'knowledge',asdiscourses’(Ball1993p.14).

Inhisview,policytextsarethelocuswheresuchdiscoursesaretranslatedandgiven

expressionofmeaning,andare

‘representationswhichareencodedincomplexways….anddecodedincomplexways’(Ball1993p.11).

So,whilstpolicy-makersseektoensurethattheirpoliciesarerepresentedinaparticular

way,thatrepresentationitselfiscontextualisedwithinamyriadofinterpretations,

compromisesandstruggles,andwhenapolicytextisreceived,itcanbere-interpreted,

misinterpreted,re-contextualisedandtransformedin‘policyspaces’byreceiverstosuit

theirownagendasandmeaning.Assuch,apolicy‘isbothcontestedandchanging’(Ball

1993p.11)and‘implementationmaybedrivenbydifferentinterpretationsofchange’(Ball

2006p.9).

Ballarguesthatstatecontrolmodelsofpolicyattempttopresenttextsaslegitimisedfact,

ratherthanthecontextandimplementationinpractice,ascentraltotheinterpretationof

themeaningofpolicy.Ball(2006)considersthattherearethreecontextsofpolicy-making:

firstly,the‘contextofinfluence,wherepolicyisinitiatedanddiscoursesareconstructed’;

secondly,the‘contextofpolicytextproduction’,wheretextswhichrepresentpolicyare

generallyarticulatedtobeofpublicgood,andcanincludeothersecondhandand

intertextualproductions,suchasthoseproducedbythemedia.Often,itisonlythesere-

productionsofpolicytextthatarepublicallyavailable,andsothegeneralpopulus

formulatetheirunderstandingbasedonthesetexts.Thethirdcontextisthecontextof

practice,anditisherethatreadersofthetextdrawupontheirownsocialandhistorical

contexttomakesenseandmeaningfromthepolicytext.Ballconcludesthat

‘Policymakerscannotcontrolthemeaningsoftheirtexts.Partsoftextswillberejected,selectedout,ignored….thekeypointisthatpolicyisnotsimplyreceivedandimplementedwithinthisarenaratheritissubjecttointerpretationandthen‘recreated’’(Ball2006p.22).

26

Inbeingre-created,theconsequencesforpolicycannotbecontrolledbypolicy-makers,and

hencespaceopensupforfurtherdiscoursestobeconstructed;forBall,itisthisthatisthe

policycycle.

Taylor(2004)alsodrawsontheworkofFaircloughtoexaminediscourseandits

relationshiptolanguageinpolicytextsand,likeBall,useseducationasafieldofstudyin

whichtocontextualiseherresearch.ForTaylor,analysisofthelanguageoftextshelpsto

highlightcompetingdiscourses,butshealsoseekstoexaminehowtextshighlight

discourseswhicharesidelinedinpolicyimplementation.Taylorarguesthatdiscourse

analysis

‘canbeusedtoexplorehowlanguageworksinpolicytexts,andinparticularhowitcanbeusedtodocumenthybridgenresanddiscourses,andtohighlightcompetingdiscoursesandmarginalizeddiscourses.Thesediscursiveandlinguisticissueshaveimplicationsforhowpolicytextsareread,implemented,andhowtheymaybeusedinemancipatoryways…itispossibletotraceasubtlediscursiveshiftinthepolicyimplementationprocess,wheresocialdemocraticdiscourses...havebecomemarginalized’(Taylor2004p.444-445).

Thusfar,thischapterhasexaminedhowcomprehensionsofpolicyhavechangedovertime,

movingawayfromthelineardefinitionswhichimpliedassumptionsaboutthepowerof

policy-makers,andsuggestedthatpolicywasaprocessfromformationtoimplementation.

Phillips(2007p.37)notesthattheseearlierdefinitionsimplythatpolicyisa‘technical

process’,whereasmorecontemporaryviewsregardthecontextofpolicyascentraltoboth

processandimplementation,aspacewherepolicyisformed,re-formed,andactedout,

andis‘deeplyimbuedwithvaluesandideology‘(Phillips2007,p.37).Forcontemporary

theorists,suchasBall,FaircloughandTaylor,policyisnotjustaprocess,policyisabout

practice.Assuch,policycanberepresentedas:

Figure3–VISUALREPRESENTATIONOFCONTEMPORARYUNDERSTANDINGSOFPOLICY,THE

‘CONTEXTOFPRACTICE’

Localityinsocial,historicalandideologicalcontexts

Time

policy

context

of

practice

27

Toreturnbrieflytothepreviousdiversion,anassumptionthatpolicy-makingisknowledge-

basedandrational;this‘policycontextofpractice’understandingofpolicychallengesthat

viewandhenceWeber’s(1958,1978)beliefthat‘rationalpursuitofefficiencyandiron

cagedbureaucratisation’wasattheheartofmodernsociety.Inthiscomprehension,policy

becomesmuchmorefluidandunstable,andassuch,itbecomesmoredifficulttopinpoint

theexactpointofpolicyformation.

Muchoftherecentdebatefrompolicytheoristshasdelvedfurtherintothisnotionofpolicy

contextofpractice,withparticularemphasisontheimportanceofthelocal(Ayresand

Marsh2013,Newman2013,LowndesandMcCaughie2013,VanderSteenetal2013)in

policy-making,andtheagencywhichindividualsandlocalleadershiphaveforinfluencing

andchangingpolicyinpractice.AyersandMarsh,reportingontheworkofVanderSteenet

al’sanalysisofschools’policyintheNetherlandsstatethat

‘Theirstudyshowsthatcontextualfactorsandlocalcircumstancescanhaveasubstantial,andsometimesunintended,impactonpolicyimplementationandoutcomes.Intheirview,onlylocalactorsareinapositiontoidentify,predictandultimatelymanagethesecausalinfluencesandoutcomes.This“movestheattentionofpolicymakersfromanalysisexantetowardsthelocalknowledgeoftheprocessasitemerges”’(AyersandMarsh2013p.656).

Manyofthenotionsidentifiedinthissectionwillbeimportanttothethesisinconsidering

theworkofHEFCE.Thelociofknowledgeandpower,andhowthattranslatesinto

different,andcompeting,discourseswillbeconsideredinlocatingHEFCEwithinHEpolicy-

making.Thelocusofpolicy-makinghasbecomeoneofthemostcontesteddebatesin

policystudiesinrecentyears,withdiscussionsoverthe‘QuangoState’(Flinders2008)and

whetherorganisationssuchasHEFCE,haveshiftedpolicy-makingfromgovernmentto

organisationswhoserolesaregovernance(AyresandMarsh2013).ThenotionthatHEFCE

actedasabufferbodyopensupdebateaboutBall’scontextofinfluence,andwhetherit

wasabletore-contextualisegovernmentpolicywithinitsownideologicalvalues,

influencedbyitsownuniquerelationshipwithHEIs.HEFCEprovidesadditionalspacefor

governmentpolicytobere-formedbeforeitisactedoutininstitutionsinBall’scontextof

practice,whichisexploredinthecontextofthepolicycasestudies.Thenotionthatthe

‘local’,wherelocalcanbeunderstoodatboththeinstitutionallevelorwithinHEFCEitself,

assignificantinHEpolicywillalsobeexploredthroughananalysisofHEFCE’sworkand

policyrelationshipwithHEIs.

28

2.4Approachestopolicyanalysis

Thissectionlooksatpolicyanalysisasafieldofresearchandhowithasevolvedovertime

ascomprehensionsofpolicyhavebeenfurtherdevelopedbysociologists.Thissectionis

relevanttothethesisbecauseitpavesthewayforunderstandinghowthechosen

theoreticalframeworkcanbearticulatedasanapproachtoanalysingpolicysuccessand

failure,exploredfullyinSection2.5(p.38).Inordertoexaminepolicyanalysisasafieldof

enquirymorefully,itisworthmakingashorthistoricaldetourintothechanging

conceptualisationofnotionsofpublicandprivate,andtheconflictbetweenthem,since

thishasinfluencedthestudyofpublicpolicyinthelatterhalfofthe20thcentury.Inhis

textbookofPublicPolicy,Parsons(1995)assertsthattherelationshipbetweenpublicand

privatehasdominated‘contemporaryargumentsabouttheroleof‘public’policy’(p.4).This

discussionisparticularlypertinenttoastudyinHE,whichhasbeenthesubjectof

considerablechangeinrelationtounderstandingsofthepublicandtheprivaterolesof

universitiesandtheirfundinginrecentyears.

‘Public’,asanidea,canbeseenasthesphereofactivitythatis‘heldincommon’(Parsons

1995p.3)andrequirestheinterventionandregulationofgovernmenttoensurethatthe

needsofallcitizensaremet,whereas‘private’comprisesactivitiesthatareinfavourofthe

individual.Thereisnecessarilyatensionbetweenthetwo,andconflictbetweenwhich

interestsshoulddominate,andatvariousstagesof20thcenturyhistorythedominanceof

oneorotherstandpointhasshapedhowscholarsofpolicyhaveviewedpolicyanalysis.

2.4.1Ahistoricalaccountofthepublic-private

Inearly19thcenturyEnglandtherewasaverycleardistinctionbetweenthepublicandthe

private,andanAdamSmitheconomistperspectivedominated.Economicfreedomwas

consideredtobethemostadvantageous,usingmarketforcesforthemaximisationof

individuals’interestswhichinturnbestpromotedthe‘publicinterest’(Habermas1989).

Government’srolewastoensurethattheconditionsofeconomicfreedomweresuchthat

individualinterestswereserved.Thismeantthatstateinterventionwasminimal,since

therewasnoneedforexcessiveregulation.

However,thedistinctionbetweenthepublicandtheprivatebegantobelessclearinthe

late19thcentury,whereitbecameapparentthat,inspheressuchaseducationand

housing,therewasaneedformorestateintervention.Inordertoliftagoodproportionof

theVictorianpopulationoutofcontinualpoverty,thereneededtobegrowthintheskillsof

29

workersandgreatereconomicdevelopment.Assuch,thereneededtobegreaterpolicy

directionandlegislationfromgovernment.Hence,Britainbegantoseethedevelopmentof

anewliberalism,withagreaterbalancebetweenthepublicandtheprivateinterest.This

wasbasedonthebeliefthatpromotingthepublicinterestrequiredacertainlevelof

‘knowledge’,andpublicadministrationwasthemeanstomakeithappen.Thisviewpoint

drewonWeber’stheoriesofrationality,asdescribedinSection2.3.2(p.19),where

knowledgeisrationalandassucharationalistapproachwouldnaturallybeinthepublic

interest.

‘Ideasaboutthepurposeofpublicpolicy-makingwerepredicatedonthebeliefthattheroleofthestatewastomanagethe‘public’anditsproblemssoastodealwiththoseaspectsofsocialandeconomiclifewhichmarketswerenolongercapableofsolving.Thekeytothisbravenewworldwasthedevelopmentofapolicyprocessanddecision-makingwhichwasmoreinformedbyknowledgethatithadbeeninthepast’(Parsons1995p.6).

AftertheSecondWorldWar,post-warliberalismbegantotakeshapeandthisperiodsaw

theriseofgreaterpublicpolicyandpublicadministration.However,thisriseinpublicpolicy

didnotnegatethetensionsthatstillexistedbetweenthepublicandtheprivate,andbythe

1970stheproblemsofusingpublicpolicytopromotethepublicinterest,whilststill

promotingtheeconomicrightsofindividuals,werebecomingapparent.Assuch,therewas

ashiftbacktowhatbecameknownasthe‘newright’,withtheappointmentofa

Conservativegovernmentattheendofthe1970s.Thisnewvisionofthepublic-privatewas

advocatedbyFriedrichHayek,aleadingeconomistinthetwentiethcentury,whoargued

thattoresolvethetensionbetweenthetwo,thereneededtobeareductioninthepublic

sectorandanexpansionofmarketmechanisms.Thispositionwasadoptedbythethen

Conservativegovernment.However,thisdidnotmeanthatthepublic-privatehadturned

fullcircle,becauseinadditiontothe‘newright’wastheriseofanewdoctrineinpublic

sectormanagement.Thisnewwayofthinkingcontinuedthroughthe1980sand1990s,and

intothe21stcentury:

‘Thisargumentthatthedemarcationbetweenthepublicandprivatespheresshouldbelefttothemarkethasformedthedominantframeworkwithinwhichthetheoryandpracticeofpublicpolicyhastakenplace’(Parsons1995p8).

Thisbriefoverviewofthetensionsbetweenthepublic-privatespheresandnotionsofthe

market,thestate,publicpolicyandpublicsectormanagementareimportanttothethesis.

HEisaprimeexampleofhowthesedifferingideologicalpositionshavebeenborneoutin

onesectorofpublicpolicyoverthelastonehundredyears.Theseideasareexploredmore

fullyinChapter4,incontextualisingHEpolicy.

30

2.4.2Theoreticalconceptualisationsofpolicyanalysis

Policyanalysisisamulti-disciplinaryapproachtoexamininghowgovernmentsmakepolicy

decisions,howpoliciesaredeveloped,implementedandevaluatedandwhatinfluences

andbehaviourvariousactors,institutions,structuresandhistoryhaveinpolicy-making.

Howsuchanalysishasdevelopedneedstoalsobeconsideredwithinthecontextofhow

policyitselfisconceptualised,asdescribedinSection2.3(p.15).Policyanalysisdrawsona

rangeofotherdisciplines:politicalscience,economics,sociology,psychologyandhistory,

aswellasmanyotherappliedfieldsofstudysuchashealth,educationandtransport.There

hasbeenawealthofstudiesinpolicyanalysisandmanytheoretical,conceptualand

analyticalframeworkshavebeendeveloped,particularlyinthepost-WorldWarTwoera.

Thissectionexaminestwoschoolsoftheoreticalthoughtwhichhavebeendominantin

relationtoapproachestopolicyanalysis:positivismandpost-positivism.Mostpolicy

analysiswillfollowoneorotheroftheseapproachestovaryingdegrees,butthereare

other,morenuancedschoolsofthoughtaswell.Positivism,prevalentasapositioninthe

1960sand1970s,isconsideredtobetherationalisttheory,anddrawsonqualitative

technographictechniquestoexaminepublicpolicy,particularlyfromdisciplinessuchas

economicsandespeciallyinwelfareeconomics,whichexpounds‘thenotionthat

individuals,throughmarketmechanisms,shouldbeexpectedtomakemostsocialdecisions’

(Howlettetal2009).

Positivismrecognisesthatsuchanidealisticpositionisnotalwayspossible,andso

governmentshavetostepinwithpolicydecisionsthatwillleadtobettersocialwelfare.

However,thistheoreticalpositionisverymuchatopdownapproach,andiscloselyaligned

toboththeearlynineteenthcenturyviewsofthepublic-privaterelationshipandthelinear

conceptualisationsofpolicyconsideredabove.Itsprinciplefailureisthatitdoesnottake

intoaccountthechaosofpolicy-makinginreality,wherejudgementsarenotalways

rational,andcanbepoliticalorvalue-laden.Assuch,itdoesnotfitwithmore

contemporaryconceptualisationsofpolicy.

Apost-positivisttheoreticalstance,whichhasbeenmorewidelyacceptedsincethe1990s,

stillrecognisesthevalueofqualitativeanalysis,buttakesgreateraccountofthenormative

andsocialbehavioursofactorsinthepolicyprocess,aswellasthechaosofpolicy-making

inreality.Forpost-positivists,thevaluejudgementofpolicy-makersandotherpolicy

participants,suchasotheractorsandinterestgroups,areofimportance.Fortheoristssuch

31

asFischerandForester(1993),language,action,powerandtheroleofpersuasive

argumentsinpolicydecision-makingarekeytoapost-positiveapproach.‘Non-decisions’

areequallyasimportantasdecisionsforanalysisinthisapproach.Howlettetaldescribe

someofthetypicalquestionsthatpost-positivistsmightask,suchas

‘doestheprogramfulfilitsstatedobjective(s)?,doestheprogramfulfiltheseobjectivesmoreefficientlythanalternativemeansavailable?...doesthepolicygoalcontributevalueforthesocietyasawhole?,doesthepolicygoalresultinunanticipatedproblemswithimportantsocietalconsequences?’(Howlettetal2009p.29).

Thepost-positivistapproachismuchmoreinlinewiththecontemporaryunderstandingsof

policythatwereconsideredinthelaterdescriptionsinSection1.2(p.2)(AyresandMarsh

2013,Ball1993,2006,2015,BridgmanandDavis2004,Colebatch2002,Hill2009,Taylor

2004).

Manyapproachestopolicyanalysishavebeendevelopedinthelasthalfcentury,all

drawingtosomeextentonthepositivistorpost-positivisttheoreticalpositionsdescribed

above.ForHowlettetal(2009),thebestpolicyanalysisapproacheshavecertainkey

elements:theymusthavesomeknowledgeoftheactorsinvolved,anappreciationofthe

ideasthatshapepolicydecisions,andtakeaccountofthesocialandpoliticalstructures,

‘actors,ideasandstructuresformthecommongroundwhereallpolicytheoriesconverge–fromdifferentdirections,andwithdistinctivepointsofview.Itisinadoptingandadaptingtheseconceptualparticularitiesthatthepotentialforgreaterinsightintopolicy-makingandpolicyoutcomescanberealised’(2009p.48).

Bobrow&Dryzek(1987)concurwiththisviewintheirpost-positivistmulti-disciplinary

framesapproach,wheretheyadvocateusingmorethanoneframeworkfromarangeof

disciplinaryperspectivestoensurethatthebestpossibleanalysiscanbeaccomplished.This

thesistakesapost-positiviststance,andthemulti-disciplinaryframesapproachisevidentin

thecasestudywork,whichsetsouttheideologicalpositionsofgovernmentatthetimeof

eachpolicyintervention,thepositionsofpolicy-makersandotheractors(HEFCE,HEIs)as

wellastheviewsofsecondaryactorsandinterestgroups,inordertodevelopathick

descriptionanddeepinsightintoeachpolicy.TheframeworkproposedbyMcConnell,

whichisusedtoarticulateapositionofpolicysuccessandfailureforeachcasestudy,is

alsopost-positivistandmulti-disciplinary,asitseekstoexaminepolicyfromanumberof

perspectives,whichatthetoplevelconsidertheprocess,implementationandpolitical

aspectsofpolicyandatamorenuancedlevel,thedesiredobjectivesandoutcomesandthe

valuesanddirectionofgovernment.

32

2.4.3Appliedpolicyanalysis

Thissectionseekstomovefromtheconceptualandtheoreticaltowardsanapplied

frameworkforpolicyanalysis.Anexplorationofhowtheoreticalconceptscanbe

operationalisedtoaidananalysisofpolicywillassistinarticulatingandjustifyingthe

chosenframeworkfortheresearchinthisstudy,asthetheoreticalframeworkisalsothe

analyticaltoolappliedtopolicysuccessandfailure(Section2.5,p.38).Thissection

examinessomeofthehistoricalandmorecontemporarypolicyanalysisapproaches

describedintheliterature,andseekstoexaminetheminthecontextofHEstudiesandthis

study.Manyofthesecanbecategorisedaseither‘rationalstages’or‘systems’approaches

and,equally,as‘topdown’or‘bottomup’approaches.Alloftheseapproacheshaveorigins

ineitherlinearormorecyclicalconceptualisationsofpolicy,andareeitherpositivistor

post-positivisttheoreticalunderstandingstosomeextent.‘Rationalstages’approaches

followmuchthesamelineofthinkingasthelinearunderstandingsofpolicyasconsidered

inSection1.2(p.2),whereassystemsapproachestakeamorepost-positiviststance,which

problematisepolicyintermsofideology,interpretationanddiscourse.

The‘rationalstages’hypothesisiscommoninapproachestopolicyanalysisthatfocuson

thepolicycycle.Lasswell(1971)isconsideredtobeoneofthepioneersofpolicyanalysis

and,astouchedoninSection1.2(p.2),takesarationalstagesapproach.Hedevelopedthe

policycycleasawayofaddressingpolicy-makinganalysisandforlookingat‘knowledgeof’

and‘in’thepolicyprocess.ThepolicycycleinLasswell’stermsisdividedintosevenrational

stages:‘intelligence,promotion,prescription,invocation,application,terminationand

appraisal’(inHowlettetal2009)anditfocussesonhowgovernmentmakesdecisions.It

allowsthepolicyscholartoconsiderthepolicyprocessinbitesizechunks,butwhatis

missingfromLasswell’sframeworkareanyexternalinfluencesongovernmentdecision

making.ManyotherpoliticalanalystshavedrawnonLaswell’sworktodevelopvariations

ofthepolicycycle,forexampleHupeandHill(2006),whoarguethat‘policystagesneedto

bereplacedwithamorecomplexmodelofthewayinwhichpolicydecisionsareinter-

relatedor‘nested’’(p.557),whichtheydescribeasstillembodyingtheideaofstages,but

moreloosely.

Parsons(1995)andHowlettetal(2009)usethepolicycycleasawaytoexaminethecritical

stagesofthepolicyprocessinordertoconsidertherelationshipsbetweenactors,ideasand

structures,althoughinbothcasestheyacknowledgethatthisisalsotakinga‘stagist’

viewpoint.ThestagesareidentifiedbyHowlettetal(2009)as:‘agenda-setting,policy

33

formation,publicpolicydesign-making,policyimplementationandpolicyevaluation’and,

similarly,as:‘meso,decisionanddeliveryanalysis’byParsons(1995).Allofthese

approacheshaveonethingincommon-theyallcontaindifferentdescriptionsofthe

notionsofpolicydecision,implementationandappraisalaspartofthecycle.Theseare

importantconsiderationsforthisthesis,sincetheseelementsareevidentinMcConnell’s

frameworkforexaminingpolicysuccessandfailure(Section2.5,p.38).Equally,the

approachfortheformationofthecasestudiesfollowssimilarlines,examiningthecontext

fortheformationofpolicy,howitwasimplementedandhowitwasevaluated.Indeed,it

canbearguedthatHEFCEitselfpursuedastagistapproachtopolicy,andthatthese

elementscanbestronglyobservedinitspolicyinitiatives,aswillbeconsideredinlater

chapters.

2.4.3.1Decisionmaking

Thedecisionmakingelementofthepolicystage/cycleisamuchconsidered,andmuch

contested,areafordiscussionbypolicyanalysts.Earlypioneers,suchasWardEdwards

(1954)tookahighlypositivist,top-downapproach,influencedbytheworkofWeber,in

arguingthatdecisionmakingbygovernment,andhencepolicy,isrational,anddecision-

makerswillmakeachoicethatmaximisestheoutcome:

‘Thesecondrequirementofrationalityandinsomewaysthemoreimportantone,isthateconomicmanmusttakehischoicesinsuchawayastomaximisesomething.Thisisthecentralprincipleofthetheoryofchoice’(Edwards1954p.381).

Inthismodel,governmentpolicy-makingisseentobeadjacenttothemarket,andassumes

thatpolicy-makerswilloperateinthesamewayasdecisionmakersintheprivatesector.

HerbertSimon’swork(1991),whichwasalsoveryinfluentialinpolicyanalysis,andwasalso

astagistandtop-downapproach,challengedsomeoftheseearlyassumptionsaboutthe

wayinwhichpolicydecisionsaremade.Simonadvocatedthatindividuals,andhence

policy-makers,donotmakewhollyrationaldecisions,theyexhibit‘boundedrationality’

influencedbytheirownhistory,abilitiesandtime,andsotheyseektomakedecisionsthat

arereasonableratherthanoptimal.

CharlesLindblomwasalsoveryinfluentialintheearlydevelopmentofpolicyanalysis,and

wasperhapsthefirsttoacknowledgethatpolicy-makingwasmore‘system’like,without

beginningorend.Lindblom’sworkbeginstolooklikethemoredynamicconceptualisations

ofpolicy,seekingtoexplaintheinfluenceofwiderfactorsondecisionmaking,the

34

discourseofotheractorsintheprocess,negotiationbetweenactorsandlesstangible

influencessuchaspower.Lindblomadvocated‘incrementalism’inpolicyanalysis,where

policyismadeandmovedbyincrements,withinternalandexternalinteractionsimpacting

on,anddistorting,thepolicyprocess.Helabelledhisapproach‘TheScienceofMuddling

Through’(1959).Lindblom’sframeworklookslessrational,lesstopdownandclosertoa

post-positiveapproach.However,oneofthecriticismsofthismodelisthatisassumesthat

decisionmakingwillalwaysreferbacktothestatusquo,sincedecisionswillalwaysbe

comparedwithearlierdecisions,andpolicyprogresswillbeslowandneverradical.In

examiningtheseearlyapproachestopolicyanalysisinwhichthelocusofthedecision-

makingisthefocusoftheanalysis,itispossibletotraceparallelswiththeevolutionofhow

policywasconceptualisedfromlinearunderstandingstomorecontemporarytheories,

wherepolicyisseenashighlydependentuponideologyanddifferentdiscourses,andcan

bechaoticinitsmaking.Thisisanimportantreflectionforthisthesis,sincethelocusof

policy-makingandtheideologicalpositionsofbothsuccessivegovernmentsand

intermediarybodiessuchasHEFCEplayakeyroleinhowHEpolicyhasbeenarticulated

andsystematisedinthelastonehundredyears,andwillbeexploredinlaterchapters.

2.4.3.2Implementation

Thesecond‘stage’ofthepolicycycletoconsiderispolicyimplementation,sinceafocuson

implementationwasanimportantpivotalmomentinpolicyanalysis.Earlytop-down

modelsassumedthatimplementationwasunproblematic,withdecisionssimplyexecuted

asexpected.JeffreyPressmanandAaronWildavsky(1984)areconsideredtobepioneersof

thestudyofpolicyimplementation,connectedwiththeirworkinthe1970soneconomic

policyintheUSAEconomicDevelopmentAgency.Theyfoundthattherecouldbemultiple

goalsanddecisionpathsforpolicy-makers,andthatoftenimplementationwas

compromisedsinceitwasnotalways‘carriedoutinthemannerintendedbypolicy-makers’,

andofteninvolvedacertainamountof‘bargaining’.TheworkofBall(1993)reflectsthis

understanding,inhisarticulationofthecontextofpractise.

ScholarssuchasLipsky(1980)tookpolicyimplementationasthekeytopolicyanalysisand

turnedthetop-downapproachonitshead,consideringthatthiswasnotthekeypointof

decision-making.Lipskyadvocateda‘streetlevel’approach,inwhichthe‘policymaking

community’wasdominantintermsofpolicypower.Thisbottom-upapproachisalso

reflectedintheworkofBall(1993),asconsideredinSection2.1(p.13),inwhichthepolicy

receiversarekeytounderstandingpolicy.

35

Morerecentapproachesbypolicyanalystshavemovedawayfromtop-downorbottom-up

analysis,suchthata‘thirdgeneration’ofmodelshascometothefore.Oneoftheearliest

methodstoconsiderhowbothapproachesmightbecombinedaspartofaframeworkfor

policyanalysiswasdevisedbyLewisandFlynn(1978),asapolicy-actionframework,which

considersimplementationtobeanevolutionaryprocess.They

‘putforwardabehaviouralmodelwhichviewsimplementationas‘action’byindividualswhichisconstrainedbytheworldoutsidetheirorganisationsandtheinstitutionalcontextwithinwhichtheyendeavourtoact’(Parsons1995p.471).

Inthismodel,itisrecognisedthattheanalysisofpolicyatthestageofimplementationis

key,butitalsorecognisesthattheapproachtakenbyindividualsinimplementationis

constrained,bothwithintheirownorganisationsandbyexternalinfluences,including

externally,policy-makers.Gogginet.al.(1990)tookasimilarapproach,butwithreference

togametheory,lookingatmultiplevariablessuchaspolicychangesovertimeandover

differentgovernments,anddevelopedacomplexmodeltoattempttopredicthowpolices

areimplemented.

deLeonanddeLeon(2002)consideranalternativeapproachtothetop-downorbottom-up

approachtopolicyimplementation,arguingthatimplementationshouldbemore

democratic:

‘Itdoesrequirethatpolicymakersdomorethanlistentothemselves,theirin-houseanalysts,andextantinterestgroups.Itrequiresthattheymakeaparticipatoryorientationmorethanatheoretictalismanandmorerealisedinoperations’(2002p.483).

deLeonanddeLeon(2002)suggestaframework‘todescribedifferenttypesof

accountabilityundervaryingconditionsofambiguityandconflict’inpolicyimplementation,

andsuggestthatimplementationshouldfollowdemocraticprocedures.However,theydo

acknowledgethattheirdemocraticframeworkdoesnottakeaccountofanumberofother

variables,suchasresources,othergovernmentprioritiesorhowpolicymightchangeover

time.

Forthisthesis,theimplementationstageisanimportantconsideration.Thewayinwhich

HEFCEimplementspolicywillbeexploredingreaterdetailinChapter4,butitisworth

notingherethatHEFCEattempts,atleastonthefaceofit,toavoidasimpletop-down

approach.Thereisanelementofconsultationwithpolicyreceivers(HEIs)suchthatthereis

somediscourseinaddressingpotentialproblemsofimplementation,andsmall

amendmentstopoliciesaremadeasaresult.Theimplementationstageisalsocriticalto

36

theframeworkadoptedinthisthesis,sinceMcConnell(2010)takesthisstagetobeoneof

thethreedimensionsbywhichpolicysuccessisevaluated,albeitintheguiseof

‘programme’(Section2.5,p.38).Tosomeextent,theMcConnell(2010)frameworkisan

extensionoftheworkofGogginet.al.(1990),anddeLeonanddeLeon(2002),inseekingto

addressanumberofvariableswhichincludeexaminingapolicyinterventionbeyondthe

programmeitself,totakeaccountof,amongstotherthings,governmentideological

position,itsgoalsandinstruments,preservingreputationandelectoralprospects.

2.4.3.3Evaluation

Thethirdstageofthepolicycycle,evaluation,considershowthepolicyhasmetitsgoals

andhowitworksinreality.Nachmias(1979,1983)isconsideredtobeoneoftheearliest

scholarstoarticulateevaluationasanimportantpartofpolicyanalysis.Muchofthework

inpolicyevaluationdrawsheavilyfromthepositivistandrationalistmovements,where

evaluationisseentobeobjective,systematicandempirical.AsNachmiaspointsout,

‘thedominantparadigmofcurrentevaluationresearchisgoal-directed,viewsitsroleindecisionmakinginanarrowsense,andisinthelogicalpositivistictradition’(1983p.77).

Parsons(1995)alsonotesthat

‘Theanalysisofevaluationandthetechniquesandmethodsusedinevaluationhas,likesomuchelseinpublicpolicy,beenframedbypositivistassumptionsaboutknowledgeandmethods’(p.563).

ForNachmias,theproblemwithsuchapositivistviewisthat,whilstevaluationanalysis

mightfollowthetraditionsofsocialsciences,itfailstoaccountfortherealityofthepolicy

processorthe‘political-bureaucraticestate‘(p.77).Hesuggeststhatpolicyevaluationneeds

tobemuchmorelooselycoupledandharmoniouswiththepolicyprocess,andneedstogo

beyondsimplyseekinga‘continueorterminate’approachtoevaluatingpolicy.

Morerecentapproachestoevaluationhavealsoacknowledgedthatevaluationitselftends

tobesubjectiveandnotvalue-free,andso,asParsonsconcludes,evaluationis,

‘morefragmentedandmorealivetothepolitical,value-basednatureoftheactivity.Theanalysisofaprogrammeoraproblemisseenbymanycriticsofthedominantparadigmasessentiallyapoliticalprocess,fullofvaluesratherthansomekindofscientificquestfortruthoranobjectiveanswer’(1995p.563).

Anumberofpost-positivistapproachestoevaluationhavebeendevised;oneofthose,

pertinenttothisstudy,isthe‘designapproach’.Inthisapproach,thepoliticalprocess,

realityandthevaluessurroundingthepolicy-makingprocessareconsideredaspartofthe

37

evaluation,asarethevaluesoftheanalyst.Assuch,itisrecognisedthatasubjective

approachisactuallydesirable,suchthat

‘Themythofneutralityisexploded.Analystscannotavoidtakingsidesonverybasicissuesofpoliticalstructure’(Dryzek1993p.229).

Parsons,too,arguesforsuchanapproach.LikeNachmias,hesuggeststhatevaluation

needstogobeyondsimplyseekingtoevaluatefactsandestablishingwhetherornota

policyhasworked.Theprocess,heargues,

‘isnotto‘evaluate’inthetextbooksense…thefocusisontheconstructionofargumentsandtheimprovementofthe‘qualityofdebate’…frameworksaretoolsfordiscussionandcriticaldialogueratherthantechniquestogenerateorprovide‘answers’,‘facts’,costsorbenefits’(1995p.566).

Theevaluationstageofthepolicycycleiscentraltothisthesis.TheMcConnell(2010)

frameworkisfirmlyembeddedinevaluationanalysis,butisnotsetinthepositivist

traditions.LikeNachmias(1979),McConnell(2010)articulatesaneedtoexaminepolicy

evaluationbeyondsimplyasking‘diditworkordidn’tit?’andtoevaluatethepolicy

process,theprogrammeanditsplaceinpoliticsasawhole.Theconstructionofthe

researchforthisthesistakesthepost-positivistdesignapproachadvocatedabovein

examiningthegivengovernmentideologyandthecontextofthepolicyintervention.

Followingthedesignapproach,inChapter3,Iargueforaninterpretativeapproachto

policyanalysis,andassuch,myvalues,astheresearcher,areinherentintheresearch.

EvaluationisalsoakeymechanismbywhichHEFCEexaminesitsownpolicies.Thevast

majorityofpolicyinitiativesfollowedasimilarpattern,withbothsummativeandformative

evaluationphases,frequentlyconductedbyexternalagencies.Theuseofthistechniqueby

HEFCEisexploredfurtherinChapter4.

Akeyareaofpolicyanalysisevaluationthathasbeguntogainmorecredencesincethe

mid-1990sisthatofsuccessandfailure,whichhasnotbeenexplicitlyaddressintheabove

discussion.Suchnotionsarecentraltotheworkofthisthesis,andcentraltotheMcConnell

(2010)framework.Thisnextsectionconsidersthescholarlyliteratureonpolicysuccessand

failure,beforesituatingtheworkofMcConnell(2010)bothwithintheliteratureandthe

contextofthisstudy.

38

2.5Notionsofpolicysuccessandfailure

Understandingsofpolicyfailureandsuccess,aspartoftheevaluationstageofthepolicy

cycle,arerelativelynewideasinthefieldofpolicystudies.Thelasttwentyyearsorsohave

seenariseinstudiesonfailure,althoughmorefrequentlyintheformofcasestudiesasa

responsetoparticularpolicyepisodes,ratherthanasystematiccomprehensionofhow

failuremightbydefinedandanalysed.ArecentexampleofthisisthebookbyKingand

Crewe(2013),‘TheBlundersofGovernment’whichlooksspecificallyatexamplesofpolicy

failurebyUKgovernments.Althoughinterestingcasestudies,KingandCrewehavebeen

criticised(Bovensand‘tHart2016)forfailingtofullydefinewhattheymeanbyblunder.An

articulationofwhatismeantbysuccessandfailureisanomissioninmanyrecentstudies,

andtheemotivelanguageusedtodescribefailureinsuchstudiesisnoteworthy:from

‘humanerror’,‘blunders’,‘disasters’,‘tragedies’,‘crises’and‘fiascos’.Thereislessworkon

policysuccess,perhapsbecausesuccessdoesnotprovokesuchastrongreactionasfailure,

orperhapsbecausethereisaperceptionthatlesslearningistobehadfromexamining

success.Therehasbeenevenlessscholarlyworkoncomprehendingdegreesofsuccessand

failure.Thissectionexamineshowpolicysuccessandfailurehavebeendescribedinthe

scholarlyliteratureandintroducesanalyticalframeworksforexaminingfailureandsuccess.

Finally,thissectiontakesadetailedexplorationoftheMcConnell(2010)frameworkandhis

descriptionsofthespectrumfromsuccesstofailure.Thissectioniscentraltotheworkof

thethesis,sincetheconstructionofferedbyMcConnell(2010)isadoptedasthetheoretical

frameworkforexaminingpolicysuccessandfailureinEnglishHE.

2.5.1Comprehendingpolicysuccessandfailure:oppositeendsofaspectrum

Oneoftheearliestattemptstodefinepolicysuccess,andtodevelopcriteriatodetermine

success,wasdevelopedbyKerrin1976.In‘TheLogicof‘Policy’andSuccessfulPolicies’,she

identifiedthreetypesofsuccess:‘goalattainment,implementation,andjustificatory

success’,andsuggestsasetofformulaicconditionsthatdefinesuccess,wherea‘policyfails

whenitcannotachieveitsgoals’orbeimplementedunderthegivenconditions.Shemakes

adistinctionbetweensuccessandfailure:‘apolicythatdoesnotfailissuccessful’(Kerr

1976p.362).

Elementsofthisearlyworkcanstillbeseeninmorecontemporaryunderstandingsofpolicy

success,particularlyincomprehendingtheimportanceofdeterminingoutcomesandthe

policyprogramme(implementation).However,Kerrdoesnotaddressissuessuchasthelink

39

betweentheformulationofpolicyanditsimplementation,orthedifferingperspectivesof

differentactors,whichlatertheoristsbegintochallenge.Forthisstudy,thelinkbetween

thelocusofpolicyformationandimplementationiskey,sinceitcanbearguedthatHEFCE

hasbeenuniqueinactingasanintermediarybetweengovernmentandHEIsand,assuch,

howandwherepolicyisformedandimplementedisofparticularinterestinarticulating

successandfailureinthisstudy.

McConnell(2010)suggeststhattherearethreewaysoflookingatdeterminingthenature

ofpolicysuccess:thefoundationalistposition,whicharticulatespolicysuccessasa‘fact’,

basedonrational,positivistandtechnocraticinterpretations(suchasthatadvocatedby

Kerr),theanti-foundationalistposition,wheresuccessisananti-positivistmatterof

interpretationandjudgement(suchasthatadvocatedbyBovensand‘tHartbelow),anda

positionbasedonrealism.McConnell,inadvocatingarealismapproachsuggestsa

definitionofpolicysuccessthus:

‘Apolicyissuccessfulinsofarasitachievesthegoalsthatproponentssetouttoachieve.’(McConnell2010p.39).

However,thereisaconflicthere,sincetheperceptionofsuccessispositionedfavourably

withtheproponentsofthepolicy.Thoseopposedtotheoriginalgoalswillseethissuccess

asfailure.

Policyfailurehasprovedequallydifficulttodefine.Bovensand‘tHart’s‘Understanding

PolicyFiascos’(1998)suggeststhat‘thereisanabsenceoffixedcriteriaforsuccessand

failure’(p.4)andlikeMcConnell(2010)theyarguethatpreviousattemptsatdefinitionhave

beendrawnfromapositiviststancethatreliesonrational,technocraticandqualitative

approachesand

‘thepredominantlypositivistmodeoftheoryformationinfiascoanalysishadconducedtoaproliferationofadhochypothesesandincompleteframeworks’(p.151).

LikeKerr,Bovens,‘tHartandPeters’earlierwork(2001)definesfailureasaposition

entirelyopposedtosuccess.Inamorerecentcontribution,McConnell(2016)has

attemptedamorenuanceddefinitionoffailure,suggestingthat

‘apolicyfails,evenifitissuccessfulinsomeminimalrespects,ifitdoesnotfundamentallyachievethegoalsthatproponentssetouttoachieve,andoppositionisgreatand/orsupportisvirtuallynon-existent’(McConnell2016p.671).

Itisclearfromtheseattemptstodefinepolicysuccessandfailurethatitisdifficultto

determineapositivistapproachandconcludeadefinitionthatisentirelyobjective.Equally,

40

itischallengingtodefinesuccessorfailureasanythingotherthanitsopposite;thatisto

say,whatisnotasuccess,isafailureandviceversa.

2.5.2Dimensionsofsuccessandfailure:process,programmaticandpolitical

TheworkofBovens,‘tHartandPeters,althoughstillviewingsuccessandfailureas

opposingpositions,takesamoreanti-positivistandinterpretativestanceindevelopinga

morenuancedapproach.Bovens,‘tHartandPetersintroduceaframeworkforanalysis

(2001,2016)whichdistinguishesbetweenprogrammeandpoliticaldimensionsofsuccess

andfailure,whichtheydefineasthe‘twologicsofevaluation’.

Reputation:Politicalassessment

Performance:

Programmaticassessment

++ --

++ Success Tragedy

-- Farce Fiasco

(AdaptedfromBovens&‘tHart(2016p.657)

Figure4-TWOLOGICSOFEVALUATION

Inthisframework,programmeisdefinedintherationalistscientifictraditionasthe‘world

offacts’(Bovens&‘tHart2016p.256)wheretherearemeasureableoutcomes,and

politicalisdefinedasthe‘worldofimpressions’(p.256)wherethehistoricalandcultural

positionsandperceptionsofstakeholdersarerelevanttotheperceptionofsuccessand

failure,andparticularlyhowtheseareplayedoutinholdingpolicy-makerstoaccount.

Thisnotionofprogrammeisakeyconceptforthisstudy.Underthisdefinition,evaluation

isbasedonfacts,andapolicywillfailwhereitdoesnotsucceedinmeetingitsproposed

outcomes.InHEFCEpolicy-making,theprogrammeelementiscentraltoHEFCE’sand

government’sevaluationsofpolicyinitiatives,wherefacts,measurableoutcomes,

determinesuccessorfailure.However,asananalysisofthecasestudieswilldemonstrate,

successandfailureattheprogrammelevelisnotabinaryconcept.Thisisparticularly

conspicuousinthecasestudyontheCETLs,whichwasasuccessinmanyrespectsatalocal

levelbutafailureatsectorallevel(seeChapter6).Thisconceptofdegreesofsuccessor

failurewillbeexploredlaterinthissection.

41

TheworkofMarshandMcConnell(2010)drawstosomeextentontheworkofKerrin

recognisingdifferenttypesofsuccess,andmoreheavilyontheworkofBovensand‘tHart

(2001)indistinguishingbetweenprogrammeandpoliticaldimensions,butalsobeginsto

developamoremultifacetedframework.ForMarshandMcConnell,whatismissingfrom

thetwologicsofevaluationisthedimensionofprocessinpolicyanalysis.Theyarguethat

thisisacrucialomission,andmustbeseparatedfromtheimplementationstage,sincea

policymayberegardedassuccessfulonceithasemergedfromthepolicy-makingstageof

thepolicycycle,butafailurelaterattheprogrammestage.Inaddition,McConnelllater

arguesthatexaminingprocessiscriticalforexaminingfailure,since

‘afterextraordinaryeventsandepisodes,societalandinstitutionalreflectionson‘whatwentwrong’,typicallyfocusonprocessesthatweren’tfollowedproperly’(McConnell2011p.67).

The‘processdimensionreferstothestagesofpolicy-makinginwhichissuesemergeandare

framed,optionsareexplored,interestsareconsultedanddecisionsaremade’(Marshand

McConnell2010p.572).The‘programmatic’dimensionstronglyreflectstheworkof

Bovens,‘tHartandPeters(2001)inrecognisingthe‘worldoffacts’anddescribesthe

successofaprogramme(theimplementationstage)basedonmeetingobjectivesand

producingoutcomesandevidence.Thepoliticaldimensiondescribesgovernment’s

retentionofthecapacitytogovern,andreflectsthepoliticallogicdevelopedbyBovensand

‘tHart.

MarshandMcConnellproposeaframeworkwhichoutlinesthe‘threedimensionsofpolicy

success’(2010)andgofurtherthanBovensand‘tHartinidentifyingindicatorstomeasure

successineachdimension:

Table1-MARSHANDMcCONNELL’SDIMENSIONSOFSUCCESS

Dimensionsofsuccess

Indicatorsofsuccess

Process § Legitimacyintheformationofchoices:producedthroughdueprocesses§ Passageoflegislation:legislationpassedwithnoamendments?§ Politicalsustainability:didthepolicyhavethesupportofasufficientcoalition?§ Innovationandinfluence:wasthepolicybasedonnewideasorpolicy

instruments?Programmatic § Operational:wasitimplementedasperobjectives?

§ Outcome:diditachievetheintendedoutcomes?§ Resource:wasitanefficientuseofresources?§ Actor/interest:didthepolicy/implementationbenefitparticulargroups/

interests?Political § Governmentpopularity:isthepolicypoliticallypopular,didithelpgovernment

re-electionchances,boostgovernmentcredibility?

AdaptedfromMarsh&McConnell(2010)p.571

42

Thisframeworkisnotwithoutitscritics,andBovensand‘tHart(2016)arecriticalof

separatingoutprocess,sincetheyarguethattheindicatorsofprocesssuccessaretoo

similartothoseforpoliticalsuccess,sincetheyarebothaboutreputationandlegitimacyof

thepolicy.Forthem,the‘technocraticsideofprocess’(p.659)ismissing.Inaddition,

Bovens(2010)suggeststhatMarshandMcConnelltreatallthreedimensionsasequalin

analysingpolicysuccess,butinfacttheyarenot,sincetheprogrammaticandpolitical

dimensionsareaboutoutcomes,whereasprocessisconcernedwithwhatleadsuptothe

adoptionofthepolicy.

Bovens(2010)suggeststhatinincorporatingprocess,thelocus,objectandfocusofpolicy

becomemorerelevantthanthedimensions(p.584).Bovenssuggeststhattheoriginal

modelmightthenbeadapted,suchthatthetechnocraticelementofprocessisarticulated

separatelyfromtheprogrammaticandpolitical,whichareredefinedaspolicyoutcomes,

suchthatthelogicsofevaluationbecomerepresentedas:

Programmatic

++/--

Political

++/--

Policyprocess

Policyoutcome

(AdaptedfromBovens(2010p.585)

Figure5–REVISEDLOGICSOFEVALUTION

Indefence,MarshandMcConnellarenotsuggestingthatallthreedimensionscanbe

consideredinisolation;theyareindivisiblylinkedand,assuch,thereisscopefor

consideringthetechnocraticinallaspectsoftheframeworkwherethataidstheanalysis.

‘Ourcontributionhereistoblendprogramme,politicalandprocessinawaywhichallowsanalystsandpractitionerstoapproachtheissueofsuccesswithinausefulheuristicframework,aswellashelpingtodevelopadialogue’(MarshandMcConnell2010p.581).

However,McConnell(2016)alsosuggeststhatviewingtheprocess,programmeand

politicalasseparateelementsisbeneficial.

‘Itisusefultoseparatethemanalyticallybecausedoingsohelpsdevelopourunderstandingofsomeoftheinternaltensionsofpolicyfailure,withgovernmentsfailinginsomerespectsbutnotothers’(McConnell2016p.236).

Thenotionofprocess,asseparatefromprogrammeforthepurposesofanalysis,isalsoan

importantoneforthisstudy.HEFCE’suniquepositionasabodybetweengovernmentand

43

institutionswarrantsdiscussionlaterinthethesis,inrelationtotheindicatorsofsuccess

identifiedinTable1above(p.41),andparticularlyinrelationtothewayinwhichHEFCE

‘does’policy.Typically,policyisdrivenbygovernment’sideologicalvisionsforeducational

andeconomicpriorities,andmanoeuvredthroughfundinginitiatives.Thenotionof

coalitionisparticularlynoteworthyinrelationtothewayinwhichHEFCEseekstogain

supportforpolicyinterventions,oftenthroughaprocessofconsultationwithinstitutions.

Boven’sviewthatthepolicyprocessandpolicyoutcomescanbeevaluatedin

programmatictermsalsoaidsanunderstandingofHEFCE’spositionasanintermediary

body,seekingtoimplementgovernmentpolicywhilstactingonbehalfofHEIs,andadding

anadditionalcomponenttobothpolicyprocessandoutcomes.Thesethemeswillbe

exploredinlaterchapters.

ThesecondlogicofevaluationadvocatedbyBovensand‘tHart,thepolitical,allowsfora

muchmoreinterpretativeapproachtopolicyanalysis,andthe‘worldofimpressions’

createsthespaceforpolicyanalyststotakeaccountofvaluejudgments,powerrelations

andtheimpressionsofdifferentactors.Theyconcludethat

‘Failureisnotinherentinpolicyeventsthemselves.‘Failure’isajudgementaboutevents’(Bovensand‘tHart1998p.21).

Itisinthepoliticalarenathatsociallyconstructedlabelsofsuccessandfailure,whichare

notneutralconcepts,are‘constructed,declaredandarguedover’(Bovensand‘tHart2016

p.654).McConnell(2015),too,observesthatunderstandingsoffailureneedto

accommodatethedifferingviewsofwhatfailureisand,assuch,therewillnotbe

agreementonwhatsuccessorfailuremeans.

‘UnderstandingfailurewouldbestraightforwardiftherewasuniversalagreementonfailuresbeingdefinedbybreachofauniversallyagreedbenchmarkofX,butthisissimplynotpossible,giventheexistenceofmultipleandoftenconflictingevaluationmeasuresandalsothepropensityofpolicyopponentstoemphasisethoseaspectsthathavefailedtobeachieved,andforpolicysupporterstoemphasisethosethathave’(McConnell2015p.227).

Suchuncertaintyoverhowtoarticulatesuccessorfailurebegstherelatedquestion,

‘successforwhom?’(McConnell2011p.65).Successcanbeacontestedissue,andwhat

mightbeasuccessforsomecouldbeafailureforothers.Bovensand‘tHart(2016)

acknowledgethatastudyofsuccessandfailureisalsoastudyofthedynamicsofpolitical

reputation,sincethiswillbeboundupinperceptionsof‘successforwhom’.ForMcConnell,

successandfailurecanalsobeapoliticallyconstructedact,boundupwith

conceptualisationsofpower:

44

‘Failureisboundupwithissuesofpoliticsandpower,includingcontestedviewsaboutitsexistence,andthepowertoproduceanauthoritativeandacceptedfailurenarrative’(McConnell2015p.222).

SoforMarshandMcConnell(2010)thisdimensionintheirframeworkisanimportant

elementinachievingaholisticapproachtopolicyanalysis,concludingthat,

‘Weneedaframeworkwhichallowsustoidentifydifferentindicatorsofsuccess,whileacknowledgethattheinternalandrelationalaspectsofourcriteriamayreflectpowerrelationsandbeperceiveddifferentlybydifferentindividuals/groupswhilerememberingthatsomewouldclaimpolicysuccesstobenothingmorethanasocialconstructreflectingpowerrelations’(MarshandMcConnell2010p.570).

Thesenotionsinthepoliticalspherereflectthecontemporaryunderstandingsofpolicyin

thepost-positivistsenseidentifiedearlierinthechapter,particularlyinrelationtothework

ofBall(1993,2006)andthatofAyresandMarsh(2013)inidentifyingthecontextof

practiceasbeingcriticaltounderstandingsofpolicy.

ThepoliticaldimensionisalsoimportanttothisthesisinexaminingpolicyinHE.The

existenceofHEFCEsuggeststhattherearemultiplestakeholders,fromgovernmentto

HEFCEandinstitutionswithmultipleperceptionsofwhatconstitutespolicysuccess.At

institutionallevel,thereareothervestedinterests,includingstudents,researchersand

otheragencies,sometimesinotherpolicyarenas,thatmightengagewithinstitutions,

includingcollegesandbusinesses,tonamejustafew.

ThenotionofafavourablepoliticaloutcomeiscuriousintermsofHEpolicyaswillbecome

evidentfromtheapplicationofthecasestudiestoMcConnell’s(2010)frameworkthat

HEFCEpolicies,apartfromthoseconcerningfeesandmaintenance,rarelycapturethe

publicinterest.Assuch,thequestionofsuccesstowhombecomesanimportantone,since

HEIseffectivelybecomethe‘public’receiversofHEFCEpolicy.

HEisagoodexampleofwheretheremightbeadegreeoftensionbetweenthedimensions

ofprocess,programmeandpolitical.WhereBovensand‘tHart(1998,2001,2016)and

MarshandMcConnell(2010,2011,2016)allrecogniseadegreeoftensionbetweenthe

dimensionsofprogrammeandpolitical,andinparticular,asobservedinthepreceding

paragraph,thatsuccessinonespherecouldequallybeafailureintheother.

‘thedynamic(dis)equilibriumbetweenperformanceandreputationthatmayresultarealwaystheresultoftwodifferentandonlyweaklyrelatedevaluationprocesses:thedeteriorationorimprovementofitsprogrammeaccomplishmentsasmeasuredintechnicalassessmentexercises;andthepoliticalwaxingandwaningofthecoalitionsofactorslendingitsupportorcriticizingit’(Bovens&‘tHart2016p.258).

45

‘theinclusionof‘politics’isimportanthere,becauseitalertsustothepossibilityofadisjunctionbetweenpoliticalandprogrammeoutcomes’(McConnell2015p.223).

2.5.3The‘greyareasinbetween’(McConnell2015)

Thusfar,notionsofpolicysuccessandfailure,andthetheoreticalframeworksexamined

above(Kerr1976),Bovens‘tHartandPeters(2001),MarshandMcConnell(2010),have

portrayedsuccessandfailureasbeingoppositeendsofthespectrum,withfailurebeingthe

logicalconclusionwheresuccessisnotachieved.However,asMcConnellpointsout,

‘onevitalpartoftheequationhasstilltobeconsidered;namely,thefactthatsuccessisnotan‘allornothing’phenomenon’(McConnell2010p.55).

Thenotionoftensionbetweentheevaluativedimensionsdescribedabovefurthersuggests

thatsuccessandfailurecannotsimplybeseenasopposingstates.Inspecificallyattempting

toredefineadefinitionforfailure,McConnellarguesthatfailureisneverasclearcutas

outrightfailure.Themainthrustsofhisargumentarenotonlythatfailureforonesetof

interestgroupscanbeasuccessforothers,butalsothereisafurtherchallengein

‘thattherearemultiplepointsinthepolicycyclewhenanevaluationmayoccur,leadingpotentiallytodifferentoutcomes.Forexample,projectionsoffailureatthepolicymakingstagemaydifferfromanevaluationofoutcomesafterimplementation’(McConnell2015p.229).

Inadditiontothedifferingperceptionsofsuccessorfailurefordifferentinterestgroups,

andvariationsoverthepolicylifecycle,therecanbemultiplecompetinggoalsforanypolicy

intervention,andassuch,successorfailurecanbemultifaceted.ForMcConnell,analysing

policyisverymuchastudyof‘artandcraft’andconsequentlyanalystsneedtorejectthe

foundationalistandanti-foundationalistpositions,inordertoadoptapositionthataccepts

thatpolicyisamessyactivitythatmaysucceedorfail,orsucceedandfail,forreasons

whichmaybebothpracticalandideological.

‘Onceweconceiveofstudyingpolicyfailureas‘artandcraft’,wearebetterplacedtonavigatethemessyrealpolitikoftypesanddegreesoffailure,aswellasambiguitiesandtensionsbetweenthem.Thegroundworkfordoingsoisbasedonaworkingdefinitionoffailure,namelythatapolicyfails,evenifitissuccessfulinsomeminimalrespects,ifitdoesnotfundamentallyachievethegoalsthatproponentssetouttoachieve,andoppositionisgreatand/orsupportisvirtuallynon-existent’(McConnell2015p.221).

McConnelladaptshisearlierworkwithMarshtosuggestanewframeworkforpolicyfailure

thatstillevaluatestheprocess,programmeandpoliticsdimensions,butconsidersfailurein

amorenuancedway.Assuch,thismodelattemptstodealwithsomeofthetensionsthat

existfordifferentinterestgroupsandhowsuccessorfailuremayoccuratdifferentstages.

46

Table2–DEGREESOFPOLICYFAILURE

Criteria TolerableFailure(=resilientsuccess)

ConflictedFailure(=Conflictedsuccess)

Outrightfailure(=marginalsuccess)

Process,programme,politics

Failureistolerablewhenisdoesnotfundamentallyimpedetheattainmentofgoalsthatproponentssetouttoachieve,andoppositionissmalland/orcriticismisvirtuallynon-existent.

Failurestoachievegoalsarefairlyevenlymatchedwithattainmentofgoals,withstrongcriticismandstrongdefenceinroughlyequalmeasure.

Apolicyfails,evenifitissuccessfulinsomeminimalrespects,ifitdoesnotfundamentallyachievethegoalsthatproponentssetouttoachieve,andoppositionisgreatand/orsupportisvirtuallynon-existent.

McConnell2015p.237.

McConnellatteststhatusingthisframework,

‘helpsusgrasptherealpolitikoffailure,thatsomefailuresaresurvivableandothersnot,whilefailureinsomerealmsmayactuallybeaconsequenceofsuccessinothers’(McConnell2015p.237).

Aswellasbeginningtounderstandfailureinamorenuancedway,McConnellsuggeststhat

‘successcanco-existwithfailure’andassuch,‘evaluatorsneedatypologicalframeworkto

helpgroupdifferenttypesofoutcomeswithbroadlysharedcharacteristics’(McConnell

2011p.71).

Thus,aframeworkthatturnsthenuancesoffailureonitsheadtodemonstratenuancesof

successbeginstoemergeas:

Success

Failure

DurableSuccess ConflictedSuccess PrecariousSuccess(successesoutweigh (successesandfailures (failuresoutweighfailures) fairlyequallybalanced) successes)

AdaptedfromMcConnell(2011p.71).

Figure6–DEGREESOFPOLICYSUCCESS

ThesetwoframeworkexamplesinTable2(p.46)andFigure6(p.46)demonstratehow

policysuccessandfailurecanbearticulatedinamorenuancedway.McConnellexplores

thespectrumofoutcomes,the‘greyareasinbetween’policysuccessandfailure.He

suggeststhat

47

‘policyhasmultipledimensions,oftensucceedinginsomerespectsbutnotinothers’and‘policiesmaysucceedand/orfailineachofthese[process,programmeandpolitics]andalongaspectrumofsuccess’(McConnell2010p.345).

McConnellintroducesamorecomplexandnuancedspectrumofsuccessandfailure,

addingmoredetailtothethreedimensionalcategoriesofprocess,programmeandpolitics,

viz:‘success,durablesuccess,conflictedsuccess,precarioussuccessandfailure’(McConnell

2010).Inaddition,McConnellprovidesajustificationforeachdimensiononthespectrum

toaidtheanalystinseekingtodetermineaposition.Althoughthevisualityofthematrix

suggestsdistinctdivisionbetweeneachcategory,heacknowledgesthat,

‘thereisnoclearlinedividingdurablesuccessandconflictedsuccess(andbetweenthelatterandthenextcategory,precarioussuccess).Rather,theyshouldbeseenasbroadpositionsonacontinuum’(McConnell2010p.60).

Thespectrumofsuccessandfailureisrepresentedthus:

Table3-SPECTRUMFROMSUCCESSTOFAILURE

Policyasprocess:thespectrumfromsuccesstofailure

Processsuccess Durablesuccess Conflictedsuccess Precarioussuccess Processfailure

Preservinggovernmentpolicygoalsandinstruments.

Policygoalsandinstrumentspreserved,despiteminorrefinements.

Preferredgoalsandinstrumentsprovingcontroversialanddifficulttopreserve.Somerevisionsneeded.

Government’sgoalsandpreferredpolicyinstrumentshanginthebalance.

TerminationofGovernmentpolicygoalsandinstruments.

Conferringlegitimacyonapolicy.

Somechallengestolegitimacy,butoflittleornolastingeffect.

Difficultandcontestedissuessurroundingpolicylegitimacy,withsomepotentialtotaintthepolicyinthelongterm.

Seriousandpotentiallyfataldamagetopolicylegitimacy.

Irrecoverabledamagetopolicylegitimacy.

Buildingasustainablecoalition.

Coalitionintact,despitesomesignsofdisagreement.

Coalitionintact,althoughstrongsignsofdisagreementandsomepotentialforfragmentation.

Coalitiononthebrinkoffallingapart.

Inabilitytoproduceasustainablecoalition.

Symbolisinginnovationandinfluence.

Notground-breakingininnovationorinfluence,butstillsymbolicallyprogressive.

Neitherinnovativenoroutmoded,leading(attimes)tocriticismsfrombothprogressivesandconservatives.

Appearanceofbeingoutoftouchwithviablealternativesolutions.

Symbolisingoutmoded,insularorbizarreideas,seeminglyoblivioustohowotherjurisdictionsaredealingwithsimilarissues.

48

Policyasprogramme:thespectrumfromsuccesstofailureProgrammesuccess Durablesuccess Conflictedsuccess Precarioussuccess ProgrammefailureImplementationinlinewithobjectives.

Implementationobjectivesbroadlyachieved,despiteminorrefinementsordeviations.

Mixedresults,withsomesuccesses,butaccompaniedbyunexpectedandcontroversialproblems.

Minorprogresstowardsimplementationasintended,butbesetbychronicfailures,provinghighlycontroversialandverydifficulttodefend.

Implementationfailstobeexecutedinlinewithobjectives.

Achievementofdesiredoutcomes.

Outcomesbroadlyachieved,despitesomeshortfalls.

Somesuccesses,butthepartialachievementofintendedoutcomesiscounterbalancedbyunwantedresults,generatingsubstantialcontroversy.

Somesmalloutcomesachievedasintended,butoverwhelmedbycontroversialandhigh-profileinstancesoffailuretoproduceresults.

Failuretoachievedesiredoutcomes.

Meetspolicydomaincriteria.

Notquitethedesiredoutcome,butsufficientlyclosetolaystrongclaimtofulfillingthecriteria.

Partialachievementofgoals,butaccompaniedbyfailurestoachieve,withpossibilityofhigh-profileexamples,eg.on-goingwastagewhenthecriterionisefficiency.

Afewminorsuccesses,butplaguedbyunwantedmediaattention;eg.examplesofwastageandpossiblescandalwhenthecriterionisefficiency.

Clearinabilitytomeetthecriteria.

Creatingbenefitforatargetgroup.

Afewshortfallsandpossiblysomeanomalouscases,butintendedtargetgroupbroadlybenefits.

Partialbenefitsrealised,butnotaswidespreadordeepasintended.

Smallbenefitsareaccompaniedandovershadowedbydamagetotheverygroupthatwasmeanttobenefit.Alsolikelytogeneratehighprofilestoriesofunfairnessandsuffering.

Damagingaparticulartargetgroup.

Policyaspolitics:thespectrumfromsuccesstofailure

Politicalsuccess Durablesuccess Conflictedsuccess Precarioussuccess Politicalfailure

Enhancingelectoralprospectsorreputationofgovernmentsandleaders.

Favourabletoelectoralprospectsandreputationenhancement,withonlyminorsetbacks.

Policyobtainsstrongsupportandopposition,workingbothforandagainstelectoralprospectsandreputationinfairlyequalmeasure.

Despitesmallsignsofbenefit,policyprovesanoverallelectoralandreputationalliability.

Damagingtotheelectoralprospectsorreputationofgovernmentsandleaders,withnoredeemingpoliticalbenefit.

Controllingpolicyagendaandeasingthebusinessofgoverning.

Despitesomedifficultiesinagendamanagement,capacitytogovernisunperturbed.

Policyprovingcontroversialandtakingupmorepoliticaltimeandresourcesinitsdefencethanwasexpected.

Clearsignsthattheagendaandbusinessofgovernmentisstrugglingtosuppressapoliticallydifficultissue.

Policyfailingsaresohighandpersistentontheagenda,thatitisdamaginggovernment’scapacitytogovern.

Sustainingthebroadvaluesanddirectionofgovernment.

Somerefinementsneededbutbroadtrajectoryunimpeded.

Directionofgovernmentverybroadlyinlinewithgoals,butclearsignsthatthepolicyhaspromptedsomerethinking,especiallybehindthescenes.

Entiretrajectoryofgovernmentisbeingcompromised.

Irrevocablydamagingtothebroadvaluesanddirectionofgovernment.

AdaptedfromMcConnell(2010)

49

Thisframeworkishelpfulinallowingtheanalysttodetermineapositionthatismoresubtle

thanoutrightsuccessorfailure.McConnellsuggeststhatthereisoftenconflictbetween

differenttypesofsuccess,becausetherecanbesomesuccessinonedimension,butless

successinanother,andwhatisperceivedtobeasuccessforoneinterestgroup,couldbea

failureforanother.McConnellarguesthatinthe‘realism’positionofdefiningsuccess,

‘thereisoftentrade-offforpolicymakersbetweenthethreerealmsofpolicywhichattimessituneasilyalongsideeachother.Strivingforsuccessinonerealmcanmeansacrificing,intentionallyorthroughlackofforesight,successinanother.Suchtrade-offsandtensionsareattheheartofthedynamicsofpublicpolicy’(McConnell2010p.357).

Heidentifiestheseascontradictionswhichcanresultinasuccessfulprocessbut

unsuccessfulprogramme,successfulpoliticsbutunsuccessfulprogrammes,orsuccessful

programmesbutunsuccessfulpolitics(McConnell2010).

Ihavechosenthisframeworkasthetheoreticalapproachtoanalysingsuccessandfailure

because,forme,itrecognisesthatsuccessandfailureinpolicyisamessybusiness,where

successandfailurecanbemulti-dimensional,succeedingorfailingforpracticalaswellas

ideologicalreasons.Successandfailurecanbedifferentlyinterpretedbyactorsatdifferent

times,andassuchcanbeconflicted.Thedistinctivenatureofpolicy-makinginHEin

England,andinparticulartheexistenceofanintermediarybody,needsananalytical

frameworkthatisabletorecognisethesemanyfacetsandinparticularthepotentialfor

conflictbetweentheinterestgroupsandtheprocess,programmeandpoliticaldimensions.

ThatisnottosaythattheMcConnellframeworkiswithoutitscritics,orthattherehavenot

beenothertheoristswhohaveattemptedtoimproveontheperceivedinadequaciesofthe

framework.AcritiqueoftheframeworkisofferedinChapter8,butforcompletenessthis

sectionbrieflyobservessomeofthosecriticisms.

IthasalreadybeennotedabovethatBovens(2010)iscriticalofMcConnell’streatmentof

thethreedimensionsasequalinanalysingpolicysuccess,suggestingthatitneedsto

acknowledgethatthereisadistinctionbetweentheprocesswhichleadstopolicyandits

outcomes(programmeandpolitical).Gray(2011)alsotakesissuewithMcConnell’s

emphasisonarealismapproachand,inhisview,ananalysisofsuccessdoesnotworkfor

allcontexts,whereitmightbemoreappropriatetoexamineotheraspectsofpolicy,such

asanexaminationofresources,tounderstandhowdifferentactorsidentifyissues.Gore

(2011),whilstacknowledgingthattheframeworkisusefulinhelpingtoilluminateenquiries

aroundpolicydevelopmentandimplementation,suggeststhatithassomeomissions,in

50

particularthattheframeworkisunabletotakeaccountofimplementationgaps,andmore

importantlyforthisstudy,itassumesaonedimensionalviewofgovernment,and

‘ignoresthekeyroleofsub-nationalunitsandinclusivepartnershipsininfluencingandimplementingpolicy…..littleattentionispaidtohowpolicyfiltersbetweendifferenttiersinanational(orevensupranational)policy’(Gore2001p.48).

Thiscriticisminparticularisextremelyrelevanttothisstudy,giventhefocusonHEFCEas

anintermediarybody,andthiswillbeexploredinmoredetailinChapter8.

Morerecently,Newman(2014)suggeststhattheframeworkislackinginthatitdoesnot

explicitlydeterminewhobenefitsfromapolicyanditsinterpretations.Hesuggestsre-

framingthedimensionsintofourcategories:‘process,goalattainment,distributional

outcomesandpoliticalconsequences’.

‘Byevaluatingtheseaspectsofapolicyseparately,itispossibletoprovideanassessmentofpolicysuccessthatcanaccountfordifferentaspectsofsuccessanddifferinginterpretations’(Newman2014p.203).

Whatisinterestingabouttheperspectiveonthisframeworkisthatthespectrumofsuccess

tofailureisnot‘defined’inthestyleofaslidingscale,asshownintheadaptationbelow.To

someextent,theadoptionofaslidingscaletacklesoneofthecriticismsofGore(2011),

whosuggeststhattheMcConnellframework‘doesbringwithitacertainrigidstylisation’

(p.49).However,itismyviewthatwhilsttheslidingscalemightallowformorefluidity,it

makesarticulatingchoicesfortheextentofsuccessorfailurelessdefendable,andassuch,I

rejectedthisasanoptionforthechosenframework.

AdaptedfromNewman(2014p.202).

Figure7–MEASURINGPOLICYSUCCESS

Process Goalattainment DistributionalOutcomes

PoliticalConsequences

Success

PartialSuccess

Failure

51

2.6Policylearning

Thissectionbrieflyconsiderstheoreticalapproachestopolicylearning.Policylearning,in

thiscontext,isunderstoodtobethewayinwhichgovernmentsandorganisationsuse

knowledgeofpolicyprocesses,programmesandoutcomestoviewproblemsandsolutions

toinformfuturepolicydecisions(IPP2018).Thisissignificanttothestudy,sinceithelpsto

answertheresearchquestion‘doestheevaluationofparticularpolicyepisodesrevealany

commoncharacteristicsanddistinctionsinrelationtopolicythatcouldusefullybe

consideredinrelationtofuturepolicysettinginhighereducation?’.Whilstthisquestionwill

beexploredindetailinChapter8,itishelpfulheretobrieflyarticulatesomeofthe

theoreticalapproachesunderstoodintheliterature.Thisstudydoesnotseektoaddtothe

bodyofliteratureonpolicylearning,buttoadoptanapproachtooperationaliseitin

seekingtoanswerthisspecificresearchquestion.

Policylearninghasbecomeasignificantstepintheevaluationstageofthepolicycycle,and

inasensecompletesthepolicycycle,wheretheoristshaveattemptedtoproblematisehow

governmentsareabletolearnfromtheirownpolicyepisodes,orfromobservingpolicyin

otherjurisdictions.Anunderstandingofpolicylearningisparticularlypertinenttothis

study,sincethecasestudieshavebeenchosenfromaveryspecificideologicalperiod,that

ofNewLabour,agovernmentkeentoinstilevidence-basedpolicy-makingingovernment,

asSanderson,writingduringthatperiodargues:

‘thenotionofevidence-basedpolicymakinghasgainedrenewedcurrencyintheUKinthecontextofthecurrentLabourGovernment’scommitmenttomodernisegovernment’(Sanderson2002p.4).

Muchoftheearlyliteratureonpolicylearningconcentratedonconflict-basedtheories

(BennettandHowlett1992),whereitwasunderstoodthatgovernmentslearnedfromhow

theirpreviouspolicieshadfaredandamendedtheirfutureactionsinthelightofthe

consequencesand,assuch,learningisconcernedwithconflictandpower.These

theorisationsheldstrongrationalistassumptionsaboutpolicylearning.However,for

theoristssuchasHelco(1972),suchanapproachfailstotakeintoaccountknowledge

acquisition,politicallearning,notjustbygovernments,butotheractorsandsocietyasa

whole.BennettandHowlett(1992)alsoarguethatthe‘objectoflearning’(p.288),whatis

beinglearnedabout,isnotwelltheorised.Theycontend,then,thatpolicylearningisnot

justaboutresolvingconflict,itisinfactthreehighlycomplexprocesses:‘government

learning,lesson-drawingandsociallearning’(p.289).Forthem,itisimportantto

52

conceptualisepolicylearninginthisway,inordertobeabletooperationalisepolicy

learningforanalysis.Rose(1991)contendsafurtherconceptualisationoflesson-drawing,

wherepoliciesinonejurisdictionareobservedbyothergovernments,andtheperceived

successesemulated.

May(1992)drawsonthesetheorisationsinconceptualisingtwoalternativeformsofpolicy

learning,‘instrumentallearning’and‘sociallearning’,where

‘Instrumentallearningentailslessonsabouttheviabilityofpolicyinstrumentsorimplementationdesigns.Sociallearningentailslessonsaboutthesocialconstructionofpolicyproblems,thescopeofthepolicy,orpolicygoals’(p.331).

May(1992)alsosuggeststhatthesetwotypesoflearningcanbecontrastedwith‘political

learning’whichexamines‘lessonsaboutpolicyprocessesandthepoliticalprospectsofa

policy’(p.332).May’sconstructsallowforamoreinterpretativeapproachtopolicy

learning.ThisconceptualisationofpolicylearninghasastrongrelationshiptoMcConnell’s

(2010)threedimensionsofpolicysuccess,particularlyinarticulatingpolicy‘process,

programmeandpolitics’andinarticulatingtheimportanceofexaminingpolicyinstruments

andgoals,thebenefitsfordifferentinterestgroupsandthesustainingofagovernment’s

politicalreputationtomaintaintheirbroaddirectionandvalues.Indeed,May(1992)

assertsthathisconceptualisationofpolicylearningoffersmuchforexaminingpolicy

successandfailure,where

‘policyfailuresareusefultoconsidersincefailureservesasatriggerforconsideringpolicyredesignandasapotentialoccasionforpolicylearning…policysuccessmightbesaidtoprovideastrongerbasisforlearningbymakingitpossibletotraceconditionsforsuccess’(p.341).

Morerecently,Howlett(2012)hasusedMcConnell’sthreedimensionsofprocess,

programmeandpoliticstolinkhisconceptualisationsofpolicylearningas‘thin(technical-

strategic)andthick(political-experiential)’(p.539)tolearnfrompolicyfailure.Thereare

alsoechoesoftheworkofSanderson(2002),who,likeMcConnell,advocatesa‘realist’

(p.8)approachtopolicylearningwithamulti-methodapproach.

May(1992)articulateshisdistinctionsintheformsoflearningandthesourcesofevidence

thatmightbeconsideredforeachapproachinordertoconceptualiseandoperationalise

hismethod(Table4,p.53).SinceMay’sapproachtopolicylearningissostronglyalignedto

McConnell’sdimensionsofpolicysuccess,Iconsiderthatitisaworthwhileapproachto

examiningpolicylearninginthecontextofthisstudy.ThisapproachwillbeusedinChapter

8toarticulatewhatmightbelearnedfromthethreepolicyepisodestoilluminatefuture

53

policy-makinginHE.Thethesisdoesnotproposedtocritiquethistheorisationasadequate

forpolicylearning,merelytouseitasaninstrumenttoaidunderstandingoflearningfrom

thepolicyepisodes.

Table4-POLICYANDPOLITICALLEARNING

PolicyLearning PoliticalLearning

Instrumental Social

Entailslearningabout:

Viabilityofpolicyinterventionsorimplementationdesigns.

Socialconstructionofapolicyorproblem

Strategyforadvocatingagivenpolicyideaorproblem.

Foci: Policyinstrumentsorimplementationdesigns.

Policyproblem,scopeofpolicy,orpolicygoals.

Politicalfeasibilityandpolicyprocesses.

Mayleadto: Understandingofsourceofpolicyfailure,orimprovedpolicyperformanceinreachingexistinggoals.

Changedexpectationsconcerningexistinggoals,orredefinitionofpolicygoals.

Moresophisticatedadvocacyofapoliticalideaorproblem.

Requisiteconditions:

Improvedunderstandingofpolicyinstrumentsorimplementationbasedonexperienceorformalevaluation.

Improvedunderstandingoralterationofdominantcausalbeliefsaboutapolicyproblemorsolutionwithintherelevantpolicydomain.

Awarenessofpoliticalprospectsandfactorsthataffectthem.

PrimaFacieIndicators:

Policyredesignentailingchangeininstrumentsforcarryingoutthepolicy–eg.inducements,penalties,assistance,funding,timingofimplementation,organisationalstructures.

Policyredefinitionentailingchangeinpolicygoalsorscope–eg.policydirection,targetgroups,rightsbestowedbythepolicy.

Policyadvocateschangeinpoliticalstrategy-eg.shiftingarenas,offeringnewarguments,employingnewtacticsforcallingattentiontoaproblemoridea.

Potentiallyconfusedwith:

Superstitiouslearninginvolvingpresumedsuperiorityofagiveninstrument;mimickingbehaviour.

Policyredefinitionunrelatedtochangeindominantcausalbeliefswithinapolicydomain.

Haphazardchangeinpoliticalstrategy,unrelatedtounderstandingofpoliticaldynamics.

Requiresevidenceof:

Increasedunderstandingofpolicyinstrumentsorimplications.

Changeindominantcausalbeliefswithintherelevantpolicydomain.

Awarenessofrelationshipbetweenpoliticalstrategyandpoliticalfeasibilitywithinagivenadvocacycoalition.

(adaptedfromMay1992p.336).

2.7Conclusion

Thischapterhassoughttosituatethestudywithinthefieldsofenquiry,HEstudiesand

policyanalysis.ThestudyaddstopreviousworkinexaminingHEsystempolicy,astreamof

HEresearchthathasgainedcredenceintheUKinrecentyears,asthelocusofpolicy-

makinghasshiftedwiththechangingideologicalpositionsofsuccessivegovernments.The

existenceofanintermediarybodybetweengovernmentandinstitutions,uniquetoEnglish

HE,addsaninterestingdimensiontothestudyofHEpolicy-making.HEstudiesislesswell

theorisedthanotherdisciplines(Tight2012,2018)andwhilsttheoristsarebeginningto

54

adopttheoreticalpositionsfromotherdisciplinestoilluminateanunderstandingofpolicy

andpolicy-making,whathasnotbeenwellarticulatedisatheorisedapproachtopolicy

successandfailureand,inparticular,amorenuancedapproachtoexaminingdegreesof

successandfailure.Thisstudyaddstothefieldofenquiryinthisrespectbyutilisinga

theoreticalframeworkfrompoliticalsciencestoilluminatecharacteristicsofEnglishHE

policysuccessandfailurebyconsideringthreeparticularepisodes.

Thischapterhasalsosituatedtheworkwithinthefieldofpolicystudies,andhassoughtto

articulatebothhistoricalandcontemporaryunderstandingsofpolicy.Historical

conceptualisationsofpolicywererationalistandlinearintheirapproach,withastrong

emphasisonrationaliststatecontrol.Morecontemporaryunderstandingsrecognisethat

policyishistoricallyandsociallyconstructedandthatmanyactorsintheprocessbringwith

themtheirownconstructs,valuesandideology.Assuch,policyislesslinearandmore

dynamic,andcanbearticulatedasa‘conceptinuse’(Colebatch2002).Contemporary

understandingsrecognisethepowerrelationships,theinfluenceandbehavioursofactors

and,assuch,thatpolicyhasagency,withina‘contextofpractice’(Ball1993,2006).More

recenttheorisationshavesoughttounderstandpolicyintermsofdiscourse,often

competingdiscourses(Ball2006,Taylor2004),andthevalueofthepolicytextbecomes

centraltoitsconstruction,andevendeconstruction,withinthecontextofpractice.These

contemporaryunderstandingsofpolicyarecentraltothisthesis,sincethelocationof

policy-makingandthe,oftencompeting,ideologiesandconstructsoftheactorsinHE

policy,whethergovernment,HEFCEorinstitutions,arecentraltohowpolicymightbe

viewed,implemented,contestedandevaluatedwithinthecontextofHE.

Thischapteralsoexaminedthechangingunderstandingsofpolicyanalysis,andconsidered

inparticularthreestagesofthepolicycycle:policysetting,implementationandevaluation.

Earlyapproachestopolicyanalysiswereconsideredbeforemovingtomorecontemporary

post-positivistconceptualisations,whichtakealesstechnocraticapproachinarticulatinga

qualitativeandinterpretativeapproachtopolicyanalysis,wherethebehavioursandvalue

judgementsofactorstakeacentralrole.Thisworkthenconsideredamorerecent

developmentintheunderstandingofpolicyevaluation,thatofpolicysuccessandfailure.

Earlyconceptualisationsconsideredsuccessandfailuretobebinarydistinctions(Kerr1976,

Bovens,‘tHartandPeters2001)butbegantotheoriseprogrammeandpoliticalsuccessas

keyconceptsinunderstandingpolicysuccessandfailure.MorerecentworkbyMarshand

McConnell(2010)addedathirddimension,policyprocess,totheseconcepts.Finally,the

55

workofMcConnell(2010)wasexplored,indevelopingatheorisedframeworkapproachto

amorenuancedspectrumofsuccessandfailure,andthe‘greyareasinbetween’

(McConnell2010).Thisapproachrecognisesthatsuccessorfailurecanbedifferently

interpretedbydifferentactorsatdifferenttimes,andananalysisofpolicyneedstotake

accountofthetemporal,spatial,culturalandpoliticalinterpretations,aswellasrecognising

thattherewillbeconflictbetweentheseonthethreedimensionsofprocess,programme

andpolitics.Thisunderstandingofsuccessandfailureiscentraltotheworkofthisthesis.

TheworkofHEFCE,andthelocusofpolicy-makingwithinitsjurisdiction,istemperedbyits

relationshipswithsuccessivegovernmentideologiesandoftencompetingideologiesof

HEIs.TheMcConnellframeworkwasutilisedtoarticulateapositionofsuccessandfailurein

theserespectsforthechosenpolicyepisodes.

Finally,thischapterconsideredtheorisationsofpolicy-learningtoaidanilluminationof

characteristics,similaritiesanddifferencesinthechosenHEpolicyepisodes,inorderto

offerinsightintofuturepolicy-making.TheworkofMay(1992)wasusedtooperationalise

atheoreticalpositioninthisrespect.

Chapter3,indiscussingtheoverallresearchapproach,providesmoredetailonusing

McConnell’sframeworkasatoolforanalysingpolicysuccessandfailure,anddescribesthe

chosenresearchmethodsforadoptingtheframework.

56

Chapter3:Approach,theoreticalframeworkandresearchmethods

3.1Approachtotheresearch

Thisstudytakesaqualitativemethodologicalresearchapproach,asiscommonwithmuch

socialscienceresearch.Methodologywithinthiscontextofsocialscienceresearchis

understoodtobethe‘systematic,theoreticalanalysisofthemethodsappliedtoafieldof

study’(BergandLune2012).Thestudyadoptsa‘post-positivistparadigm’(Gubaand

Lincoln2005)commoninqualitativeresearch,inrecognisingthatpolicyanalysisrequires

morethanatechnographicapproach,inwhichsolelyscientificmethodsareutilisedinthe

analysis,andinacceptingthattheknowledge,valuesandhistoriesofboththeobserved,

andtheresearcherasobserver,arenotindependentoftheresearch.Thisalignswellwith

contemporaryinterpretationsofpolicyandpolicyanalysis,asdescribedinChapter2,which

alsoadoptapost-positivistapproachinassertingthatpolicyisboundedbyculturaland

societalvalues.

Thestudyadoptsaninductivereasoningapproachinidentifyingpatternsandobservations

inthecasestudydatainordertodevelopsomehypothesesinrelationtothesuccessor

failureofthechosenpolicyepisodes,andfromthisIproposetodrawsomeconclusionsin

relationtoHEpolicy-making.Inlinewitha‘groundedtheoryapproach’,asadvocatedby

Guestelat(2014p.11)thetreatmentofthecasestudiesissuchthatthefirstpartofeachis

asummaryof‘whathappened,whenandwhatweretheoutcomes’withsupportingdata,

inordertoprovidetheinitialdatacollection,beforemovingontoanidentificationof

themesandananalysisofinterpretationssupportedbythedata,linkedtoatheoretical

model.

Identificationoftheresearchapproachisanimportantpartoftheresearchdesignprocess,

inordertoensurethattheapproachisappropriateforthestudyinquestionandtodevelop

knowledgeinrelationtothechosenfield,andthisstudyalignsitselfwelltoan

interpretativeapproach.Interpretativeapproachesattestthathumanbeingsmakesenseof

theirworldandattachmeaningstoitthroughcontextand,assuch,contextualisationis

importantinmakingsenseofparticularphenomena.Thisisparticularlyappropriatein

seekingtounderstandpolicyandthesociallyconstructedandsubjectivenatureofpolicy

analysis.FischerandForester(1993)assertthat‘interpretivepolicyanalysis’isan

57

academicallyrecognisedmethodintheanalysisofgoverning,andColebatch(2014)argues

thatinterpretationisanessentialelementinpolicyanalysis:

‘takinganinterpretativeapproachtopolicyshouldnotbeseenasamethodologicaloption…butasanintegralelementofpolicyanalysis’(p.349).

Yanow(2011)alsoadvocatesaninterpretativeapproachtopolicyanalysis,andatteststhat

‘localknowledge’iskeyinunderstandinghowpolicyactorsmakecontextspecificsenseof

policyanditsimplementation.Shestressestheimportanceofthecontextualnatureof

knowledge,andassucharguesstronglyforaninterpretativeapproach:

‘thisfocusoninterpretationofmeaningsmadebyactorsinpolicyandagencycontextsliesattheheartofaninterpretiveontological,epistemologicalandmethodologicalstance’(p.16).

Thisnotionoflocalcontextinaninterpretativeapproachisparticularlyimportantforthis

study,giventheuniquepositionofHEFCEinactingasanintermediarybody.Yanowattests

thatthepositionofagencies,suchasHEFCE,arejustaskeyinmakingsenseandmeaningof

policyandhencethelocusoforganisationisequallyimportanttoprocessininterpreting

policy:

‘Theactsoflegislatorsanddecisionmakers,andtheactionsofimplementingagencies[are]potentiallyascentralincommunicatingpolicymeaningsastheenablinglegislationitself.Inincludingagencyactions,policyanalysisdrawsonideasfromorganisationalstudies(includingthataspectofpublicadministration)asmuchasitdoesonideasaboutpolicyprocessesdevelopedwithinpoliticalscience’(Yanow2011p.8).

Thisconceptofcontextiskeytoansweringtheresearchquestion,‘whatcanananalysisof

HEFCEpolicymakingrevealaboutthelocusofpowerinpolicymakinginhighereducation?’

whichwillbeexploredthroughthecasestudiesandinmoredetailinChapter8.

Interpretativeapproachescanbeopentothecriticismthattheevaluationisnotsufficiently

robust.IhaveobservedLincolnandGuba’s(1985)evaluativecriteriatoestablish

‘trustworthiness’inthestudyofthe‘credibility’ofthedataandchosentexts,the

‘transferability’ofmyilluminationsandobservationstoHEpolicybeyondthecasestudies,

the‘dependability’ofthefindingsinbeingabletorepeatthestudybyapplicationofthe

frameworktodrawthesameconclusionsand‘confirmability’ofthestudyindeclaringmy

ownpositioninrelationtoit.Thesecriteriaareexplicitlyaddressedin3.6below,andare

implicitthroughouttheresearchdesignasdescribedthroughoutthischapter.

Formytheoreticalapproach,Ihaveadoptedtheframework‘threedimensionsofpolicy

success:spectrumfromsuccesstofailure’establishedbyMcConnell(2010).Thisframework

58

isdiscussedindetailin2.5.3,andtherationaleforthistheoreticalapproachisdiscussedin

3.2below.

Ihavechosencasestudiesasanappropriateresearchmethodforarticulatingsuccessand

failureinpolicyepisodes,sincetheyaredistinctiveinsupportinganinterpretativeapproach

(Stake1995)andforaidingthedevelopmentofathickdescription(Geertz1973b).The

rationaleforthismethodandajustificationforthechosencasesisexploredin3.3and3.5

below.Ihavealsotakenathematicanalysisapproach(ClarkeandBraun2017,Guest2014,

Nowelletal2017)tothecasestudies,sincethematicanalysisisanappropriateresearch

methodtouseinqualitativeandinterpretativeresearchapproaches,‘canbeappliedacross

arangeoftheoretical’frameworks(ClarkeandBraun2017),andhas‘theoreticalfreedom’

(Nowelletal2017p.2).Therationaleforthisapproachandadescriptionofthedesign

approachisdiscussedindetailin3.3.Thedatasetusedforthecasestudiescomprises

relevanthistoricaldocuments,whichincludeprimaryandsecondarysources,andtheseare

describedindetailin3.5.

3.2Theoreticalframework

Malterud(2001)describesatheoreticalframeworkasfollows:

‘Thetheoreticalframeworkcanbeequatedwiththereadingglasseswornbytheresearcherwhensheorheasksquestionsaboutthematerial’(p.486).

ThetheoreticalframeworkadoptedforthisstudyisMcConnell’s(2010)‘threedimensions

ofpolicysuccess:spectrumfromsuccesstofailure’.Thefundamentalassumptionof

McConnell’sframeworkisthatpolicysuccessandfailureisnotabinaryposition,and

successorfailureispossibleinanyandallofthedimensionsofthepolicyprocess,

programmeorpolitics.Equally,successandfailureitselfismorenuancedandpoliciesare

rarelyacompletesuccessoranoutrightfailure,withsomeelementsofthepolicyenjoying

somedegreeofsuccess,withothersbeingconflictedandheadingtowardssomedegreeof

failure.ThedetailoftheframeworkisdescribedinTable3(p.47).AsMcConnellpointsout,

‘Thereisnoclearlinedividingdurablesuccessandconflictedsuccess(andbetweenthelatterandthenextcategory,precarioussuccess).Rather,theyshouldbeseenasbroadpositionsonacontinuum’(McConnell2010p.60).

Mypremiseinthisstudyisthat,likeotherpolicydomains,HEpoliciesarenotoutright

successesorfailuresandthatbyusingtheMcConnellframeworkasthelookingglass

throughwhichtoenquireintohistoricalpolicyepisodes,itispossibletoilluminatepatterns

59

andobservationsinrelationtotheextentofsuccessandfailureinthedimensionsof

process,programmeandthepoliticstodevelopsomeconclusionsforpolicy-makinginHE.

McConnellrecognisesthathisframeworkisinterpretativeand,asaconsequence,thereare

manymethodologicalchallengestobeovercome,bothinthedataandinarticulatingthe

valuesoftheanalystinmakinginterpretativejudgementsthatmustberecognised:

‘Assessingpoliciesisriddledwithambiguities,informationdeficits,andvalueconflictsrenderingitnecessaryforjudgementsanddifferentchoicestobemade’(2010p.95).

However,heisunapologeticinrecognisingthe‘artsandcraft’natureofsuchan

interpretativeapproach:

‘Locatingtheoutcomesof[successandfailure]inanyparticularcategoryisnotanexactscience.Therewillalwaysbedifferencesofinterpretationandcomplexmethodologicalissuestoberecognised,aswellasjudgementsandrationalesforplacingoutcomesinanyparticularcategory’(McConnell2011p.71).

‘Placingaspectsoffailureinthesecategoriesshouldbeconsideredsomethingofanintellectualmappingexerciseinvolvingjudgementinordertogetsenseoftheforms,strengthsandinterconnectionsoffailure.Veryfewpolicieswillfitneatlyintothesamecategorybuttheweighingupwhatfactorsare/arenotimportant,ispartofthe‘artandcraft’ofanalysis’(McConnell2015p.237).

Assuch,thepolicyevaluatorisopentocriticismformakingparticularvaluejudgementsin

usingMcConnell’sframework.MoredetailonhowIensuredtrustworthinessinthe

researchdesignanddecisionsisfurtherexploredin3.3and3.6,butforthepurposesof

describingthetheoreticalframework,itishelpfultonotethatMcConnellprovidesaten-

pointschemetoofferguidanceon‘weighingupdifferentoutcomeswhenthereisconflict

betweenthem’(McConnell2010p.96)andtheconsequencesofissues(Table5,p.60),in

ordertoaddresssuchacriticism.Hesuggeststhatanalystsneedtothinkaboutthesein

workingthroughthecriteriaforassessingsuccessandfailure.Thesequestionsformthe

basisforgeneratingthecodingforthestudy,whichisexplainedin3.3.

60

Table5-SUMMARYOFMCCONNELL’S10-POINTSCHEMETOHELPGUIDERESEARCHERSINASSESSINGTHESUCCESSOROTHERWISEOFAPOLICY

1 Doyouwanttoassessprocess,programmeand/orpolitics?

2 Whattimeperioddoyouwanttoassess?

3 Whatbenchmarkwillyouusetoascertainsuccess:Governmentobjectives,Benefittotargetgroup,Before-and-after,Policydomaincriteria,Whosupportsthepolicy,Anotherjurisdiction,Balancesheet,Newnessandinnovation,Ethics,moralityandthelaw?

4 Areyouconfidentthatsufficientandcredibleinformationisavailableinordertoreachaconclusion?

5 Areyouconfidentthatyoucanisolatethepolicyoutcomesfromallotherinfluencesontheseoutcomes?

6 Tothebestofyourknowledgeand/orinstincts,doyouconsiderahiddenagendatobeatwork?

7 Doesthesphereofpolicyyouareassessing(process,programme,politics)havemorethanonegoal?

8 Arethereanyunintendedconsequences,includingsuccessbeinggreaterthanplanned?

9 Doesthepolicyfallshortofmeetingthetargetsthatwereset?

10 Areyouassessingmorethanonepolicyrealm(process,programmesandpolitics)?

(McConnell2010p.96-101)

Inchoosingthisframework,itisnottosaythatIamunawareofotherconceptual

frameworksthatmighthavebeenadoptedinstead.Forexample,inChapter2,other

frameworkswereacknowledged,particularlythosethatspecificallytakeaHEpolicy

analysisapproach,suchasHyatt’s(2013)‘frameworkforcriticalanalysisofHEpolicytexts’,

Bacchi’s(2009)WPRmodel,inwhichshetakesadiscourseanalysisapproachtoexamine

‘What’stheProblemRepresented(WPR)’throughaframework,andJungblut’s(2015)two-

dimensionalanalyticalframeworkusedtohypothesisewhetherdifferentpoliticalparties

favourdifferentHEsystemsandthereforepolicyoutputs.However,theseapproacheshave

verydifferentconceptualframeworks;forexample,Hyatt’sdiscourseanalysisapproach

examinescontextualisationofthemeaningofpolicytextsandallowsfor‘investigationof

therelationship’between‘language,powerandprocesses,andactors’,andtheframework

recognisesthat

‘systemsofpoweraffectpeoplebythemeaningstheyconstructandrepresentinpolicytextsandprocesses’(Hyatt2013p.843).

Jungblut’sframework,whilsthelpfulinexaminingthepoliticsdimensionandaddressingHE

asasystem,doesnot,forme,helptoaddressthepolicyprocessorprogrammeelementsof

apolicyepisode.

61

Assuch,theseframeworksdonotexplicitlyofferaninstructivelensforexaminingsuccess

andfailureinanuancedwayinrelationtothethreedimensions:process,programmeand

politics.TheframeworkproposedbyNewman(2014),describedinFigure6(p.46),draws

onthatofMcConnell,butproposesaslidingscaleofsuccessandfailure,ratherthana

spectrumwithclearlyarticulatedcategorisations.Icontendthat,whilstthismodelallows

foragreaterinterpretativemethodology,ratherthantherigidity(Gore2011)ofthe

McConnellcategorisations,inmyopinionitlaystheanalystopentobeinglessableto

defendtheirinterpretativepositionsonthescalebecauseitlosesthenuancedandmore

illustrativecategorisationsof‘success,durablesuccess,conflictedsuccess,precarious

successandfailure’(McConnell2010),infavourofthelessdefinedsuccess,partialsuccess

andfailure.

3.3Researchdesign:methodsofreadingandrecordinganalysis

Thetwomainresearchmethodsusedinthisstudyarecasestudiesandthematicanalysis,

usingdocumentsasthedatatoinformathickdescriptionofthepolicyepisodesand

thematicanalysistosystematicallycaptureinterestingfeaturesfromthedata.The

theoreticalframeworkdescribedaboveisthenappliedtoeachcasestudy,inorderto

provideaninterpretativenarrativeandevidencedjustificationforpositioningthepolicy

episodeundereachdimensionontheframeworkforananalysisofsuccessandfailure.The

approachtakenisusedtoascertainwhetherthereareanysimilaritiesandcontradictionsto

beunderstoodfromtheanalysisofthoseepisodes,toilluminaterecommendationsfor

futureHEpolicy.SincethisstudyiscontextualisedwithinthefieldofcontemporaryHE,

thesecasestudieshavebeenchosenfrompolicyepisodesformulatedbyHEFCE,asthekey

agencyinpolicyformation.

3.3.1Casestudies

Casestudiesarecentraltothestudyandhavebeenchosenasanappropriateresearch

methodbecauseoneoftheirmostdistinctivecharacteristicsistheiremphasison

interpretation(Stake1995),andhencetheyfitwellwiththechosenepistemological

orientation(Yin2014)forthisstudy.Casestudiesareempiricalenquirieswhichallowthe

researchertoexaminecomplexsocialphenomenawithinarealworldcontext(Yin2014,

Merriam1988)andareusedtoexplain,describe,illustrateandilluminateparticular

incidents.Hence,theylendthemselveswelltotheexaminationofpolicyepisodes.Case

62

studiesarealsoparticularlyusefulforhistoricalresearch,wheretheresearcherisreliant

uponmethodssuchasdocumentaryanalysis,ratherthandirectobservationor

experimentation.

Casestudiesarealsoausefultoolwhentheresearchrequiresanelementofcomparison,as

inthisstudy,whichseekstoidentifycommonalitiesanddistinctionsbetweenthepolicy

episodes.Yinsuggeststhattheyareuseful

‘toexplainthepresumedcausallinkinrealworldinterventionsthataretoocomplexforsurveyorexperimentalmethods’(Yin2014p.19).

Equally,Tight(2017)suggeststhatsmall-scalecasestudiesarehelpfulwhentheyare

‘triangulated..forexamplebycomparisonwithothersimilarcasestudies’(p.30).Chapter2

establishedcontemporaryunderstandingsofpolicytobehistoricallyandsocially

constructed,whichrecognisespowerrelationships,theinfluenceandbehavioursofactors,

andtheagencyofpolicywithinacontextofpractice(Ball1993,2006).Allofthese

complexitiescanbeunderstoodincontemporaryHEpolicy-making,whichrecognisesthe

multifacetedrelationshipbetweengovernment,HEFCEandinstitutionsand,consequently,

thecontextwithinwhichpolicyformulationandimplementationisplayedout.Casestudy

researchinthiscontext,then,isbeneficialinmakingcomparisonsbetweenpolicyepisodes

andintryingtoanswertheresearchquestion‘doestheevaluationofparticularpolicy

episodesrevealanycommoncharacteristicsanddistinctionsinrelationtopolicythatcould

usefullybeconsideredinrelationtofuturepolicysettinginhighereducation?’

3.3.2Thematicanalysis

Thematicanalysisisacommonresearchmethodinqualitativeanalysis,andisusedto

identifyandexaminepatterns,calledthemes,withinthedatawhichhelptoexplaina

particularphenomenonbyproducingthickdescriptions.Thismethodisparticularlyuseful

forinterpretativemethodologiesandforundertakingdocumentaryresearch,which

examinesthemesintexts.Guestetal(2014),notethat

‘Athematicanalysisisstillthemostusefulincapturingthecomplexitiesofmeaningwithintextualdata’(Guestetal2014p.10).

Thematicanalysisuseseitheraninductiveoradeductiveapproach(ClarkeandBraun

2017).Thisparticularstudyusesaninductiveapproach,sincetheanalysis,aswith

groundedtheory,isdrivenbyatheoreticalframework,anditistheuseoftheframework

thathelpstoidentifyparticularphenomenawithinthedata.ClarkeandBraun(2017)and

63

Nowelletal(2017)advocatethat,sincethematicanalysisdemonstrateshighlevelsof

flexibility,ithastheoreticalfreedomandthuscanbeappliedtomanydifferenttheoretical

positions.

Therearemanydifferentschemasforundertakingathematicanalysis;forexample,Guest

etal(2014)advocateanappliedthematicanalysisapproachwhich,whilstbeing

interpretative,hasastrongemphasisonpositivistassumptionsaboutthethematicnature

ofthedata.Oneofthemostcommon,andfittingwellwiththeinterpretativenatureofthe

chosentheoreticalframework,isthatdevelopedbyBraunandClarke(2006),whodivide

theresearchplanintosixdistinctphases.Ihaveusedthesesixphasesasthebasisformy

researchdesign.ThephasesproposedbyBraunandClarkeare:

1) ‘Becomingfamiliarwiththedata2) Generatingcodes3) Searchingforthemes4) Reviewingthemes5) Definingandnamingthemes6) Report(thickdescription)’

Forthepurposesofthischapter,phases3,4and5inrelationtothemeshavebeen

condensedintoonesectionbelow.

3.3.2.1Becomingfamiliarwiththedata

Thesourcesoftextsanddataforeachcasestudyandtherationalefortheirselection,are

describedin3.5,buthereitisimportanttoestablishhowthetextswereread,and,in

particular,whattechniqueswereusedinestablishingthecredibilityofthetexts,using

LincolnandGuba’s(1985)evaluationcriteriatoensuretrustworthinessintheresearch.The

notionoftrustworthinessisexploredmorefullyin4.6.

Thereadingoftextsiscentraltotheresearchdesignofthestudy,sincetheyarehistorical

andsocialdocuments,whichlendthemselvestoaninterpretativestudyofthecontextof

policy-makingineachcase(Bowen2009).ForAtkinsonandCoffey(1997)andMcCulloch

(2004),documentsare‘socialfacts’andassuchforhistoricalresearch,theyattestthat

documentaryanalysismaybetheonlyreliableapproach.

Inthefirstinstance,eachdocumentwasclassifiedaseitheraprimaryorsecondarytextand

wasgivenauniqueidentificationnumber.Ithenundertookan‘analyticstrategy’(Yin2014)

astheresearchapproachtothedata,inwhichtherearemultiplereadingsofthecontentof

thetexts.Thefirstreadingofthetextsusedananalyticaltechniquecalled‘explanation

64

building’(Yin2014,Stake1995)todevelopadescriptiveaccountofthepolicyepisode,

identifyingtheorigin,chronologicaltimeline,organisations,actors,decisions,activitiesand

outcomesoftheepisode.Thisexplanationbuildingprovidesthecontextualrichnessto

createanaccountofthepolicyepisode.Muchofthedataforthisreadingofthetexts

comesfromtheprimarydatasources,suchasHEFCEcirculars,consultationsandevaluation

reports.ThenIundertookmultiplereadingsofthetextsinordertoestablishthecodesand

identificationofthethemesasdescribedbelowandsummarisedinAppendixB.These

multiplereadingsareestablishedtechniquesofprolongedengagement,whichseekto

establishcredibility,asdefinedbyLincolnandGuba(1985).

Itisalsoimportanttodeclaretheuseofanothertechniqueusedtoestablishcredibilityof

thedatasourcesatthispoint,whichistriangulation.Thistechniqueusesmultipledata

sourcesasamethodofvalidationandverification(Patton1999)ofthedataandisa

commonlyusedtechniqueforestablishingtrustworthinessinthephaseoffamiliarising

oneselfwiththedata(Nowelletal2017).Triangulationisalsousedasatechniqueto

‘increasetheunderstandingofcomplexphenomena’(Malterud2001p.487).Inthecontext

ofthisparticularstudy,triangulationwasestablishedthroughthesamplingofarangeof

bothprimaryandsecondarydatasources,suchthatthecontextualrichnesswasachieved,

notjustfromHEFCE’sowndocumentsandreports,butfromotherssuchasgovernment

texts,independentevaluations,mediareportsandacademiccommentaries.Theseare

listedinAppendixAforeachcasestudy.

3.3.2.2Generatingcodes

Thesecondphaseofthematicanalysisisthegenerationofcodes(Scott1990,Scott2000,

Bowen2009),where‘codesarethebuildingblocksforthemes’(ClarkeandBraun2017).

‘Qualitativecodingistheprocessofreflectionandawayofinteractingwithandthinkingaboutthedata…codingallowstheresearchertosimplifyandfocusonspecificcharacteristicsofthedata’(Nowelletal2017).

FeredayandMuir-Cochrane(2006)advocatedevelopingan‘prioritemplateofcodes’(p.82)

inordertocomplementtheresearchquestionsofthestudyinquestion,anditiswhile

generatingthesecodesthattheadoptionofthetheoreticalframeworkisestablished,since

‘codingsareessentiallyawayofoperationalisingtheoreticalconcepts’(Scott1990p.9).

Todevelopthecodingforthisstudy,Iusedthetenresearchquestionsproposedby

McConnell(Table5,p.60),inordertoprovidealenstofocusontherelevantcharacteristics

65

ofthedata.ItisimportanttonotethatthequestionsproposedbyMcConnellareintended

tobebroadandapplicableacrossarangeofpolicydomainsand,assuch,somequestions

heldmorerelevanceinthecontextofHEthanothers.Thecodeswerethencross-matched

againsttheframework‘threedimensions:aspectrumfromsuccesstofailure’(McConnell

2010)toensurethatthecodingaddressedthecategoriesonthematrix.Thisensuredthat

thecodingwassufficientlyrichtoprovideboththemes,andasuitablythickdescriptionto

demonstrateajustificationforwhereonthespectrumIconsideredeachcasestudytobein

relationtosuccessandfailure.ThecodingisdescribedinAppendixB.Eachdocumentwas

thenanalysedtoseewhererelevantcodescouldbeidentified.Noteverycodewasevident

ineverydocument,butthefrequencywithwhichtheywerereferencedwasnoted.In

addition,keysectionsoftextwerehighlightedwheretheydemonstratedimportant

referencingtothecoding.

3.3.2.3Searchingforthemes,reviewingthemes,definingandnamingthemes

FollowingBraunandClarke’s(2006)approachtothematicanalysis,thenextstagewas

identifyingthemesfromthetextsthathadarisenasaresultofthemultiplereadingsto

collateandcodethedata.FeredayandMuir-Cochrane(2006)describethesearchfor

themes

‘asbeingimportanttothedescriptionofthephenomenon’andinvolves‘carefulreadingandre-readingofthedata.Itisaformofpatternrecognitionwithinthedata,whereemergingthemesbecomethecategoriesforanalysis’(p.82).

Thecodingisanimportantstageoftheprocess,inilluminatingdataofrelevancetothe

researchquestionsandthetheoreticalframework,andthecodeddataisextractedintothe

themes.Theidentificationofthemeshelpsto

‘bringmeaningandidentity….Athemecapturesandunifiesthenatureorbasisoftheexperienceintoameaningfulwhole.Themesareidentifiedbybringingtogethercomponentsorfragmentsofideasandexperiences,whichoftenaremeaninglesswhenviewedalone.Athemeisnotnecessarilydependentuponquantifiablemeasuresbutratheronwhetheritcapturessomethingimportantinrelationtotheoverallresearchquestion’(BraunandClarke2006).

FollowingtheadviceofNowelletal(2017),Iproducedamatrixinrelationtothecoding

identifiedinAppendixBinordertoexplorethemesrelevanttoeachcasestudy.Inlinewith

BraunandClarke’s(2006)phases,thesewerethenreviewedinordertoaccommodatethe

theoreticalframeworkandhencearticulateapositionofsuccessorfailureinrelationto

eachdimension.Concurrentwithaninductivethematicanalysisapproachinidentifying

66

patterns,thethemesforeachcasestudywereidentifiedinpartbythedegreetowhich

theyassumedimportanceinboththeprimaryandsecondarytexts,butalsobytheir

significanceinrelatingtothetheoreticalframework.Assuch,mycentralityasthe

researcher,andmyinterpretation,aresignificanttothechoiceofthemes.Mypositionin

relationtothestudyisfurtherdescribedin4.6.1.Thisalsomeansthattheaccountofthe

episodesandselectedthemesarebiasedtowardstheresearchstudy,andsothereisa

caveatthatthedescriptionoftheepisodeswillconcentrateonparticularaspectsofthe

datainrelationtoidentifyingsuccessandfailureasopposedtootheraspectsofhowthe

policymightbeviewed.Nowelletal(2017)suggestthatthisisacceptableininductive

thematicanalysis.InlinewithBraunandClarke’s(2006)phasingapproach,thethemes

weregivennames,whicharereflectedinthesubheadingsinthecasestudychapters.

3.3.2.4Report

ThecasestudiesaredescribedinChapters5,6,7,intheformofathickdescription.Ineach

casethefirstpartofthechapterisanaccountoftheepisode,includingadescriptionofthe

origin,thecontextwithinEnglishpolicy-making,atimelineofevents,theorganisationsand

actorsinvolvedinboththepolicyformationandimplementation,theactivitiesandthe

outcomes.Thesecondpartofthechapterexamineshowthepolicywasviewed,bothfrom

‘official’primarysources,suchasformativeandsummativeevaluations,andsecondary

texts,suchasacademiccommentariesandmediareports.Thethemesidentifiedinthe

analysisarereflectedinthissection.Thissectionincludesdataandquotesfromthetextsin

ordertodemonstratetheidentifiedthemes,asadvocatedbyNowelletal(2017):

‘Extractsofrawdataneedtobeembeddedwithintheanalyticnarrativetoillustratethecomplexstoryofthedata,goingbeyondadescriptionofthedataandconvincingthereaderofthevalidityandmeritoftheanalysis’(p.11).

MostoftheinterpretativenatureoftheworkisconductedinChapter8,which,foreach

casestudy,providesamappingofthedescriptionofthepolicyepisodeagainstthe

theoreticalframework,toseektoestablishapositiononthesuccess/failurespectrumin

relationtoeachofthe‘threedimensionsofpolicyprocess,programmeandpolitics’

(McConnell2010).Chapter8alsoseekstoidentifyanycommonalitiesanddifferences

betweenthepolicyepisodes,drawingonthesetoyieldinsightintofutureHEpolicy-

making.Assuch,thischapterseekstomeetLincolnandGuba’s(1985)second

trustworthinessevaluationcriteria,‘transferability’,todemonstratethatthefindingscan

67

beequallyappropriateinotherpolicycontexts.Theyconcludethatthickdescriptionsarea

valuabletechniqueforestablishingtransferability:

‘[theyact]asawayofachievingatypeofexternalvalidity.Bydescribingaphenomenoninsufficientdetail,onecanbegintoevaluatetheextenttowhichtheconclusionsdrawnaretransferabletoothertimes,settings,situationsandpeople’(LincolnandGuba1985).

3.4Selectionofcasestudies

Chapter4providesthecontextfortheresearchintermsofthehistoryandfeaturesof

policy-makinginEnglandand,importantly,theroleofHEFCEsince1992andsituatesthe

chosencaseswithintheworkofHEFCE.Forthepurposesofthischapter,itisnecessaryto

justifythechoiceofcasestudies,andthissectiondescribestheprocessandmotivationfor

theparticularselection.Thefirststageofresearchforthisthesiswastoundertakea

comprehensivereviewofthepolicyworkofHEFCEsinceitsinceptionin1992andto

developasfullapictureofpolicy-makingaspossible,throughtheconstructionofatimeline

ofpolicyepisodesandrevisions.ThistimelineisincludedinAppendixC.Policyepisodes

werecategorisedaccordingtoHEFCE’sownclassificationsofitswork,whichittendedto

replicateinthestructuresofboththeirannualreportsandontheirwebsite.Thesewere:

Learning&Teaching;WideningParticipation;Research,Economy&Society;LeadershipandManagementandGovernance.

Iaddedafurthercategory,‘Finance,Estates&Assurance’,tocapturepolicyepisodesthat

didnotfitwithintheothercategories.Dataonpolicyepisodeswasgatheredthrougha

triangulationofthereadingofHEFCEannualreports,circularletters,reportsfrom-or

commissionedby-HEFCEandHEFCEBoardminutes.TheBoardminutesmostlyservedto

providecontextforpolicydecisions,partlybecauseminutesarenotavailableonthe

websitebefore2003,andafter2003,minuteswereinpartmissingwherediscussionwas

eithercommerciallysensitiveorreferredtoindividualinstitutions.

Thecompositionofthetimelineestablishedtheextentandrangeofpolicyactivity

conductedbyHEFCEthroughoutitshistory,andalsorevealedapatternforhowpolicy-

makingtendedtobeformulatedandaddressed.Asmightbeexpectedforafunding

council,thevastmajorityofpolicyepisodesweredriventhroughtheestablishmentof

fundingmadeavailabletoinstitutionsoveraspecifiedperiodoftime.Thesewere

68

formulatedinordertodrivethebehaviourofinstitutionstowardsparticularstrategies,

identifiedbygovernmentandHEFCEasimportantforfurtheringHE.Atypicalpattern

suggeststhatpolicywasdrivenbygovernmentthroughparticulareducationactsand

comprehensivespendingreviews,whichthenestablishedthepolicydirectionforHEFCE.

Thelocusofpolicy-making,aseitherbeingdrivenbygovernment,orHEFCEitself,isa

notablefeatureofHEpolicy-making,whichisexploredthroughthecasestudies.Typically,

fundingwouldbemadeavailableforaninitiativeandHEFCEwouldlaunchaconsultation

withinstitutionspriortoseekingbidsforfunding.Policyepisodeswouldtypically,butnot

always,bereviewedthroughaformativeevaluation,beforebeingconcludedwitha

summativeevaluation,usuallycommissionedbyHEFCEandconductedbyindependent

researchers.Thatisnottosaythatallpolicy-makingfollowedthis‘project’approach,since

HEFCEalsosoughttodrivebehaviourthroughregularmodificationstorecurrentfunding

policies.Forthisstudy,Iestablishedthattheselectionofcasestudiesneededtooffer

sufficientdepthandbreadth,particularlyintheavailabilityofdocumentdata,toallowfora

fulldescriptionandinterpretationagainstthetheoreticalframework.Inaddition,there

neededtobesufficientdataavailabletoallowtheconditionsoftheten-pointscheme(as

describedinTable5,p.60)tobemet.Assuch,thecriteriaforchoosingcasestudieswere

that:

a) Theyweresufficientlytimebound,sinceboundingthecaseisimportantincase

studyresearch,butalsotheten-pointschemesuggeststhatidentifyinganend

pointisbeneficialinapplyingthetheoreticalframework.Assuch,Ichosenotto

selectrecurrentpolicies,suchasfundingformulasbasedonstudentnumbers,as

theyaresubjecttoconstantamendmentsandre-iterations.Thetime-boundnature

ofthetheoreticalframeworkisanimportanttopicthatIwillreturntointhe

critiqueoftheframeworkinChapter8;

b) Thepolicyepisodehadclearobjectivesandproposedoutcomes,particularlyin

allowingbenchmarkingforthebenefittargetgroup.Thiswasimportantinbeing

abletoaddresspointthreeintheten-pointscheme;

c) Thepolicyepisodesfolloweda‘typical’policyapproachbyHEFCE,suchthatthey

werelaunched,soughtconsultationwithinstitutions,soughtbidsforfundingand

wereevaluatedintermsofmeetingobjectivesandbenefitsforthetargetgroup;

d) Thereweresufficient‘sourcesofdatatoallowforathickdescription’(Geertz

1973b)fromprimarysourcesofdatasuchasarchivalrecordsintheformofHEFCE

69

circulars,consultations,othergovernmentdocumentsandindependentevaluation

reportstoHEFCE,inordertodevelopproposedthemesforanalysis;

e) Thereweresufficientsecondarysourcesofdatatoallowforaricherandmore

texturedanalysisfromsourcessuchasnewspaperarticles,parliamentaryquestions

andreportsandscholarlyarticleswhichexploredtheidentifiedthemesofthe

chosencasestudies;

f) Thechoiceofcasestudiesallowedfor‘replication’,not‘sampling’(Yin2014)sothat

theyeitherproducedasimilaranalysis(‘literalreplication’)orcontrastingresults

(‘theoreticalreplication’)(Yin2014p.57)inordertohelpanswerthesupplementary

researchquestionseekingtoidentifysimilaritiesorcontradictionsintheprocess,

programmeorpoliticsdimensionsofchosenpolicyepisodes;

g) ThereweresufficientdocumentarydataavailabletoallowtheapplicationofYin’s

(2014)‘casestudytactics’totestforthequalityoftheresearchdesign:‘construct

validity’(using‘multiplesourcesofevidenceandestablishingachainofevidence’),

‘internalvalidity’(patternmatching,explanationbuilding,addressingrival

explanations),‘externalvalidity’(‘usingreplicationlogicinmultiple-casestudies’),

and‘reliability’(‘usingcasestudyprotocol’)(Yin2014p.45);

h) Theavailabilityofdataalsoneededtobesufficienttoensurethatthecasestudies

weresufficientlyrobusttomeetLincolnandGuba’s(1985)evaluationcriteria.

Timeboundednesswasakeyconsiderationinselectingcasestudiesfromaparticular

timeframeofHEFCEpolicyepisodes.TheDearingreportin1997hadproposedthatmass

HE,whilstdesirable,wasnotfinanciallysustainable,andsoafundingmechanismneededto

beestablishedwherebystudentscontributedtothecostoftheireducation.Thiswasswiftly

followedin1998bytheTeachingandHigherEducationAct,andtheestablishmentofa

meanstestedfee.TheHigherEducationActin2004establishedanincreaseinfeeto£3,000

perannumandfeeincreasescontinuedtobearecurringtrend.1997alsosawtheNew

Labourgovernmentelected,withanelectionpledgetoensurethattherewasa50%

participationrateinHEby2010.FundingforHEwasapriorityforthenewgovernmentand

acomprehensivespendingreviewin1998sawtheintroductionofadditionalfunding.In

2001,HEFCEreceivedanadditional10%(£1bn)infundingoverthreeyearstotacklefuture

expansionandwideningparticipation.OneofthekeyfeaturesoftheNewLabour

governmentwasanideologydominatedbya‘ThirdWay’,characterisedbymarket-based

reformsandwiderpolicyaimsaroundtechnology,e-governmentandnewmanagerialism.

Inresponsetoboththeadditionalfundingtosupportgrowthandwideningparticipation,

70

andaneedtoensurethatHEinstitutionswereofferingvalueformoneyinanincreasingly

marketisedareaofpolicy,HEFCEintroducedaplethoraofnewpolicyinitiativesbetween

2000and2006(seetimelineinAppendixC),manyofwhichwereinsupportinglearningand

teaching.2006sawastepchangeinpolicy-making,withanewChiefExecutiveforHEFCE

andachangeinfocusasHEFCEbecamethechiefregulatorforHEundertheCharitiesAct

2006.Thiswasswiftlyfollowedin2008bytheglobalfinancialcrisisandafurtherchangeof

focusforHEamidconsiderablefundingcutsandtheintroductionofvariablefees.For

thesereasons,Ichosetoselectcasestudiesthatwerelaunchedwithintheperiod2000-

2006,sincethiswasaperiodrichinHEFCEpolicyepisodeswhichreflectedNewLabour’s

‘ThirdWay’ideology.Thisideologicalpositionisimportantasitisexploredthroughthe

contextualisationofeachcasestudy.

Inrecognitionofthefocusofthisperiod‘spolicy-makinginsupportinglearningand

teachinginitiatives,Ichosetoselectthreecasestudiesfromthatparticularpolicycategory:

learningandteaching.Selectingfromonecategoryallowsforagreaterrichnessin

identifyingcommonthemesorcontradictionsarisingfromthepolicyepisode,ratherthan

selectingfrommorethanonecategory,wherecommonthemesmaybemoredifficultto

identify.Assuch,thiswouldmeetLincolnandGuba’s(1985)evaluationcriteriain

establishingtransferability.

TheselectedcasestudiesshowninTable6(p.71)werechoseninmeetingtheselection

criteria.Thatisnottosaythatotherpolicyepisodeswouldnotalsohavemetthecriteria,

butformethesestoodoutasofferingsufficientopportunitiestodemonstrateenough

similaritiesanddifferencesinordertoilluminateinsightsintoHEFCEpolicy-making.Asthe

researcher,Ihavetoadmittoaslightbiastowardschoosingthee-Universityasoneofthe

chosencasestudies,asithasbeenperceivedtobeanoutrightpolicyfailure,andassuchit

servesasanexcellenttestforexaminingsuccessandfailureinamorenuancedway.

71

Table6-MATCHINGOFCHOSENCASESTUDIESAGAINSTSELECTIONCRITERIA

Policyepisode Timeboundedness

Clearlyidentifiedproposedoutcomesandbenefittotargetgroup

Typicalpatternofpolicyprocess

Sufficientsourcesofprimaryandsecondarydocumentation

Thee-University

ü2000–2004

üTargetnumbersidentifiedExpectedincreasedfundingforinstitutionsTargetgroup:homeandoverseasstudents

üLaunchConsultationBidsforfundingFormalenquiry(evaluation)

üSeeAppendixA

CentresforExcellenceinLearning&Teaching

ü2005–2010

üEnhanceprofessionalisation/reputationofL&Tthroughinfrastructureandtechnology,rewardingstaffTargetgroup:staffandstudents

üLaunchConsultationBidsforfundingFormativeevaluationSummativeevaluation

üSeeAppendixA

LifelongLearningNetworks

ü2004–2010

üIncreasednumbersofstudentsundertakingvocationalqualificationstomeet50%participationIncreasedHE/FEengagementTargetgroup:wideningparticipation

üLaunchConsultationBidsforfundingFormativeevaluationSummativeevaluation

üSeeAppendixA

3.5Sourcesofdataanddocuments

TheprimaryandsecondarydocumentsusedforeachcasestudyarelistedinAppendixA.

3.5.1Selectionofthetexts

Inselectingthedocumentsforanalysis,IfollowedtheselectioncriterianotedbyJohnScott

(1990),Hart(2001)andMcCollach(2004).Theycontendthat,inthefirstinstance,selected

documentsmustbeauthenticintheirsourceandauthorship,thematerialmustbecredible

andreliable,andanypotentialbiasonbehalfoftheauthorsacknowledged.Inaddition,the

selectedtextsmustberepresentativeofallthelikelydocumentsthatmightbeavailable,

andsosamplingisakeyissue.Scott(1990)attemptstoclassifytypesofdocumentsin

termsofauthorshipandaccesstogenerateatypologyofmoderndocuments,andinScott’s

terms,documentsselectedforthisstudytendtoformtype11,(governmentalpapersto

whichthereisopenaccessthrougharchives)andtype12,(Britishofficialpublications)such

asActsofParliamentandtheHansardrecordofparliamentarydebates.Somearetype8,

72

(publisheddocumentsofaprivatesource),suchasnewspaperarticles.Inselectingthe

relevantdocumentsandensuringamanageablesample,theprimarytextsweretakentobe

criticaltotheanalysis,andsecondarytextswereselectedonthebasisofeitherbeing

commonlyreferencedinthebibliographicalanalysisofprimarytexts,orthattheyoffered

insightsofparticularinteresttothecasestudy,andinparticulartheanalyticthemes

identifiedasaresultoftheanalysisoftheprimarydatasources.

Themainreferencetoolsusedtoselecttheprimarytextsforeachcasestudywerethe

HEFCEwebsite(http://www.hefce.ac.uk/)forcircularletters,consultationsandevaluation

reports.Theparliamentarywebsite(www.parliament.uk)wasusedinkeywordsearchesfor

acts,bills,committeeandothergovernmentalreportsandHansardforthereportofofficial

proceedingsoftheHousesofCommonsandLords.Theprimarytextswerealsoveryoften

usedassourcesforidentifyingotherprimaryandsecondarytexts,andthesewere

identifiedthroughaprocessofcross-checkingbibliographiesina‘bibliographicalanalysis’

(Hart2001).TheTimesHigherEducationalSupplement(THES)electronicarchivewasalso

usedinkeywordsearchesformediareports.TheUniversityofSheffieldLibraryelectronic

resourcesandGoogleScholarwerealsousedinasecondlevelsearchforidentifying

learnedjournalandothermediacontributionsassecondarytexts.

Ididconsiderusinginterviewswithkeyactorswhowouldhavebeeninvolvedinthe

developmentofthepolicyepisodesatthattime,asasupplementarysourceofdata,andto

increasetriangulationasatechniqueforfurtherestablishingcredibility.However,Irejected

thisapproach,sincemanyofthosekeyactorswouldhavemovedonandmightbedifficult

tocontact,giventhelengthoftimesincethepolicyepisode,andhencethenumberwho

couldbeinterviewedwouldnecessarilybesmall.Inaddition,theirjudgementsmayalso

havebeencloudedbytime,bytheirlevelofinvolvementandbysubsequentevents,which

mightsignificantlyswaythedocumentaryfindings.Thisapproachwasalsorejectedfor

pragmaticreasonsconsideringthetimeitwouldhavetakentotravelto,andconduct,the

interviews,whichwouldhavebeendifficultgiventhenatureofmyfull-timeemployment.

3.5.2Anoteaboutauthoritativetextsandevaluationreports

Theresearcherisawarethatmanyofthechosendocumentscentraltothefindingsforeach

casestudy,suchasHEFCEcircularsandcommissionedevaluationreports,maybeseenas

havingaparticularbias.Scott(2000)inhisbook‘ReadingEducationalResearchandPolicy’

cautionsthat‘authoritativedocuments’(p.19)areconstructedtogivetheimpressionthat

73

thetruthisrepresented,anditisimportanttoacknowledgethe‘directiveness’ofanygiven

text.Scottalsocautionsresearchersthat

‘readersofpolicytextsneedtobeawareoftheneedtoreadbetweenthelinesandunderstandthatreadingasframedbyassumptionsheldbythewriter(s)ofthetext’(p.19).

ForSilverman(1997)itisimportanttoacknowledgetheaudienceforeachtext,asthistoo

willaffecttheconstructionandcontentofthattext.Scottalsocautionsresearchersagainst

theperilsofreadingandanalysingresearchreports,particularlyintermsoftheirinternal,

externalandobjectivevalidity,andnotesthatitisimportanttoarticulatethatsuchreports

arepositionedbyasetofsocialmarkersandpowerrelations(p.48),asdoCochranSmith

andFries(2001)intheirworkonwarrant.

BarnettandParry(2014)contendthatsomeactorsinthepolicyprocess(suchasHEFCE)

mayactasgatekeepersinordertoinfluenceorcontrolfindingsandconsequentlythisis

challengingtotheresearcherinacceptingtheneutralityoftheirwork:

‘Policyresearch,especiallyinasituationfreightedwithideologicalconflictisasiteofchallenges:isthereavailableapositionofvalueneutralitytotheresearchteam?’(Barnett&Parry2014p.82).

Astheresearcher,Iacknowledgethattheseconsiderationsareparticularlyimportanttomy

approachtothestudy,sinceHEFCEdocumentsformasubstantialpartofthedataupon

whichthethematicanalysisisconstructed.Iconcedethatineachcase,theparticular

authorsofevaluations,regardlessoftheirassumedindependence,wouldhavebeenaware

ofdifferentideologicalpositionsinplaybetweengovernment,HEFCEandinstitutions,and

thedifferingpowerrelationshipsbetweenthem.Assuch,theymaypresenttheirreportsin

awaythatfavoursadominantpowerrelationship.Thisissuewillbeexploredfurtherin

4.6.2belowinarticulatingthetrustworthinessofthestudy.

3.6Issues:theresearcherandtrustworthinessofthestudy

3.6.1Positionalityoftheresearcher

AshasbeenexploredmorefullyinChapter2,policy-makingisverymuchaconstructed

phenomenon,beinghistorically,sociallyandculturallysituated,andconsequentlypolicy

analysisisequallyrecognisedasbeingsociallyconstructed.Assuch,itisimpossibleto

ignorethepositionoftheresearcher,asasocialbeing,ascentraltotheinterpretative

methodologyadoptedinthisstudy.Irecognisethatmyownframesofmeaningand

74

positionalitywillinfluencethewayinwhichtheresearchhasbeenframed.AsScott(1990)

asserts,‘noresearchercanescapetheconceptsandassumptionsofhisorherownframeof

meaning’(p.31).Malterud(2001)assertsthat‘reflexivity’isanimportantconsiderationin

qualitativeresearch

‘ateverystepoftheresearchprocessandreflexivitystartsbyidentifyingpreconceptionsbroughtintotheprojectbytheresearcher,presentingpreviouspersonalandprofessionalexperiences’(p.484).

Inthespiritofopenness,Irecognisethatmyownprofessionalbackgroundasamanagerin

anacademicdepartmentofaRussellGroupuniversityoverthelasteighteenyearswillhave

influencedthoseframesofmeaningandinterpretations.Imyselfampartofthepolicycycle

processataverylocallevel,asreceiverandinterpreterofmanypolicyepisodesinstigated

byHEFCEalthough,ithastobenoted,notdirectlybythosechosenascasestudies.I

recognisethattheresearchmethodologyandresearchdesignwerenottheonlyviable

approach,andthattheyhavebeeninfluencedbymyownpreconceivedideas,knowledge

andunderstanding.

Iequallyrecognisethatthechosenresearchmethodswillexemplifytheframingand

positionalityoftheresearcher.CaseStudiesthemselves,whilstseekingtoestablishathick

description,willembodytheinterpretativestanceoftheresearcher.AsMerriamnotes,

‘Theimportanceoftheresearcherinqualitativecasestudycannotbeoveremphasised.Theresearcheristheprimaryinstrumentfordatacollectionandanalysis.Dataaremediatedthroughthishumaninstrument,theresearcher…..Theresearcherasinstrumentisresponsivetocontext’(Merriam1988p.19).

Equally,theselectionoftextsandparticularlytheapproachtothethematicanalysiswill

embodythepositionalityoftheresearcher.However,Iwouldarguethatsincethechosen

theoreticalframeworkadoptedforthisstudyisitselfinterpretativeinnature,itis

appropriatetoselectresearchmethodswhicharealsointerpretative.

ItisalsorelevanttonotethatIrecognisethatmyownbackgroundinHEadministrationhas

influencedthewayinwhichIinterprettheanalysisofthecasestudiesagainstthe

theoreticalframework,particularlyinrelationtothe‘threedimensionsofprocess,

programmeandpolitics’(McConnell2010).Asaprofessionaladministrator,Ihaveto

declareabiastowardsareasinwhichIhavethegreatestinterestandthereforetheprocess

andprogrammeimplementationaspectsoftheframeworkareofgreaterinteresttome

professionallythanthepoliticsdimension.

75

Finally,Ihavetodeclarethat,asaresultofthestudyanddelvingintotheworkofHEFCE,I

havedevelopedadeeprespectfortheworkofpolicymakerswithintheorganisationand

thusHEFCE’srecentdemisesaddensme.

3.6.2Ensuringtrustworthinessinthestudy

Inordertomitigateagainstcriticismthattheinterpretativenatureofthetheoretical

underpinningandresearchmethodsusedinthisstudysuggestthatitisnotrobust,or

trustworthy,itisbeneficialtoapplyLincolnandGuba’sevaluativecriteriatoestablish

‘trustworthiness’inthestudy:‘credibility,transferability,dependabilityandconfirmability’

(LincolnandGuba1995).

Theysuggestthattoestablishcredibilityinthestudy,triangulationisanacceptable

technique.Asdescribedin3.5above,triangulationwasachievedthroughathematic

analysisofsourcesofdata,usingbothprimaryandsecondarytexts,whichgaveavoiceto

differentactorsinthepolicyepisode,aswellascommentatorssuchasacademicscholars

andthemedia.Itwasnotedin3.5.2thatIrecognisedthepowerrelationshipofHEFCEin

relationtoprimaryevaluativetextsandthechallengesthatsuchdatasourcesposetothe

researcher.However,Iwouldadvocatethatthetriangulationofdatathroughtheinclusion

ofsecondarytextshelpstomitigatetheaccusationthatHEFCEactedasgatekeeperinthe

constructionofprimarytexts,sincethedatasourcespresentamulti-dimensionalviewof

theepisode.

AfurthercriticismofthisstudymightbethatIdidnottriangulatethedocumentaryanalysis

withotherresearchmethodsinordertoensurethatthedatacollectionandfindingswere

robust.Thiswouldbealegitimatecriticism,butImaintain,asBowen(2009)argues,that

‘therationalefordocumentanalysisliesinitsroleinmethodologicalanddatatriangulation,theimmensevalueofdocumentsincasestudyresearch,anditsusefulnessasastand-alonemethodforspecialistformsofqualitativeresearch.Understandably,documentsmaybetheonlynecessarydatasourceforstudiesdesignedwithinaninterpretiveparadigm,…oritmaysimplybetheonlyviablesource,asinhistoricalandcross-culturalresearch’(p.29).

LincolnandGuba(1985)suggestthatitisimportanttoshowthatthestudyhas

transferabilitytoothercontextsandthatthickdescriptionsareausefultechniquefor

demonstratingthis.Thisstudydemonstratestransferabilitybyusingthethickdescriptions

ofthecasestudiestoarticulatecommonalitiesanddifferencesbetweenthestudies,in

ordertoyieldsomeinsightintofutureHEpolicy-making.Thisisthebasisforansweringone

76

ofthesupplementaryresearchquestions.ThethirdcriterionforLincolnandGuba(1985)is

dependability,‘wherethefindingsareconsistentandcouldberepeated’.Iwouldsuggest

thatthetheoreticalframework,andtheconsistentapplicationoftheten-pointschemefor

assessingsuccessandfailureagainstthe‘threedimensionsofprocess,programmeand

politics’(McConnell2010),shouldensurethattheapplicationoftheframeworkatdifferent

timeswouldproducethesameresults.

Finally,thestudyshouldshowconfirmability,orthedegreetowhichthefindingsare

mouldedbythepositionoftheresearcher.Techniquesfordemonstratingconfirmability

includereflexivity.Ihavearguedforaninterpretativeapproachtothisstudy,sincepolicy

researchissocially,culturallyandhistoricallyconstructed,andassuchwarrantsan

interpretativeapproach.Ihavealsodeclaredmyownpositionalityinrelationtothisstudy.

3.7Summary

Thischapterhasdescribedtheoverallapproachtotheresearchdesignforthisstudy,in

beingqualitativeandinterpretative.Therationaleforthechoiceoftheoreticalframework,

McConnell’s(2010)‘threedimensionsofpolicysuccess:thespectrumfromsuccessto

failure’hasbeenarticulated,andthechosenresearchmethods,casestudiesandathematic

analysisofdocumentarysourceshavebeenrationalised.Mypositionalityastheresearcher,

asasocialbeingintheinterpretativeapproach,isrecognisedasbeingcentraltothe

researchdesignandconclusions.Thischapterhasalsosoughttoevidencehowtheresearch

designtechniquesmeetLincolnandGuba’s(1985)trustworthinessevaluationcriteria.

77

Chapter4:ContextualisingtheResearch:Anhistorical

commentaryonhighereducationpolicy-makinginEngland

andtheroleoftheintermediarybodies,theworkofthe

HEFCE(1992–2018)andsituatingthecasestudiesas

examplesofHEFCE’sroleinpolicy-making

4.1Introduction

ThischaptercontextualisestheresearchbyfirstlyprovidinganhistoricalaccountofEnglish

HEpolicy-making,withSections4.2(p.78)to4.6(p.84)describingpolicydevelopmentsince

thestartofthetwentiethcenturyandadiscussionontheroleoftheintermediarybodies

betweengovernmentandinstitutions(UGC,UFC,HEFCE).Thisdiscussioninformsthe

researchbyilluminatingthechangingnatureofthoseintermediarybodiesandtheir

influenceonthelocusofHEpolicy-making,throughshiftsinsuccessivegovernments’

politicalideologicalstandpointsandpolicyagendas.Thisisimportantforthethesisbecause

inSection4.9(p.120),Ireturntotheideaofarelationshipbetweentheroleofthe

intermediarybodyandthelocusofinfluenceofpolicy-makingsincethisishelpfulin

addressingtheresearchquestion,’whatcanananalysisofHEFCEpolicy-makingreveal

aboutthelocusofpowerinpolicy-makinginhighereducation?’,whichisdiscussedin

Chapter8.Sections4.7(p.86)and4.8(p.89)provideanaccountoftheworkofHEFCEfrom

1992–2018,informedbywidergovernmentpolicyagendasandreforms.TheHEFCEpolicy

datagatheredforthetimelineinAppendixCisusedtoenrichthisaccountandtohighlight

particularpolicyepisodestodemonstratethebreadthandscaleofHEFCEpolicy-making

duringdifferentphasesofitsexistence.Thisisimportanttotheresearchsinceitprovides

thedatasetfromwhichIselectedthechosencasestudies,andilluminatesthewayin

whichHEFCEhasimplementedgovernments’HEpolicyagendas,howithasinfluencedand

implementedpolicy-makingandhowithashadtoadaptitsownideologicalpositionto

accommodateshiftsinitsrole.Thishelpstoaddresstheresearchquestionsbyidentifying

policyepisodesthatindicatesuccessandfailure,aswellascommoncharacteristicsand

differencesinthewayinwhichHEFCEhasarticulatedandaddressedthem.

ThisthesisconcentratesonHEFCE,ratherthantheworkoftheotherUKFundingCouncils

(NorthernIrelandHigherEducationCouncil,HigherEducationFundingCouncilforWales,

78

ScottishHigherEducationFundingCouncil),althoughIrecognisetheimportanceofallfour

fundingcouncilsinshapingthelandscapeofHEsince1992.Astheresearcher,Ihaveto

declareaninterestinHEpolicyinEngland,sincemyprofessionalhistoryisentirely

contextualisedwithinEnglishHEinstitutions.

ThischaptermakesreferencetoanumberofHEFCEcirculars,reportsandotherpublished

documents.Thesearereferencedbytheiridentificationnumber,eg.14/2006(circulars)

and2006/14(reportsandotherdocuments).Thesearelistedinthereferencesunder

‘HEFCE’.

4.2Insideoutwardspolicy

Beforethetwentiethcentury,therewereaverysmallnumberofuniversitiesinEngland,

andthemajorityoffundingcamefromprivateendowments.Thenotionofa‘system’of

highereducation(Tight2009)didnotexistandpolicy-makingwasataninstitutionallevel.

Theautonomousrolesofuniversitiesweremorecognisantoftheregionalandindustrial

associationsofthebusinesselite,ratherthanthestate(CochraneandWilliams2010).

Shattockdescribesthisphaseofuniversityhistoryasinsideoutwardsdrivenpolicy

(Shattock2006).AlthoughHEdidexpandinthenineteenthandearlypartofthetwentieth

centuries,withnewlyformeduniversitiessuchastheUniversityofDurham,new

institutionstendedtoestablishthemselvesinthemouldoftheancientinstitutions,Oxford

andCambridge,andconsequentlyHEwasstill,forthemostpart,fortheelite.The

establishmentofthecivicuniversitiesinthetwentiethcenturysoughttomoreevenly

spreadHEthroughoutthecountry,withastrongfocusontheregionalindustrialneedto

trainworkers,whichTight(2009)describesas‘aVictorian,privatesectorversionofthe

contemporaryUKwideningparticipationpolicies’(p.14).Alongsidetheestablishmentof

moreuniversities,therewasalsoanexpansionofarangeofcolleges,alignedtoparticular

professionsandfocussedonvocationaltraining,suchasartanddesign,andteaching

training,andanestablishmentoftechnicalcolleges.Thisdivideinuniversitiesandcolleges,

andthepolarisationofuniversityeducationandvocationaltrainingwastocontinuetobea

contestedissuethroughoutthehistoryofEnglishHE.AsTight(2009)describes:

‘theliberal/vocationaltensionwasdeeplyembeddedintheemergentUKhighereducationsystembeforetheendofthenineteenthcentury,andhasremainedakeyissueeversince’(p.11).

Atthispointinhistory,governmentandinstitutionsoperatedundertheHaldanePrinciple,

wherebyresearcherschosehowtospendresearchfunds,ratherthanasaresultof

79

decisionsmotivatedbypoliticalideologies.FollowingtheFirstWorldWar,therewasa

declineinprivatefundingofuniversities,butequallyagreaterappreciationofhow

universitiesmightbeabletocontributetotheeconomy,particularlythroughtrainingin

sciencesandtechnology.Thus,thestatebegantotakearoleinfundingHEand,in1919,

theUniversityGrantsCommittee(UGC)wasestablished.Ithadnostatutorybasis,andits

primaryrolewastodistributegrantstoinstitutionsandtoactasanadvisorycommittee,

establishingthefinancialneedsofuniversitiesandmakingrecommendationsto

government(directlytotheTreasury).Itreceivedincomeasgrant-in-aid,wherepublic

fundscamedirectlyfromcentralgovernment,butdecisionsonitsusewereindependentof

thestate.Taggartsuggeststhat:

‘TheUGCestablisheditselfasanenablingorganisationthatsupportedratherthanplannedtheactivitiesanddirectionoftheuniversities.Andthisisanimportantdistinction.ThefactthattheUGCallocatedgovernmentfundingdidnotleadtheUGCtomovetotheconclusionthatithadtherightorresponsibilitytomanagethehighereducationsector’(Taggart2003p.39).

TheCommitteeestablisheditselfasanintermediarybetweenuniversitiesandgovernment,

as‘anideal‘buffer’body’(Tight2009p.24)andfromtheuniversities’pointofview,

maintainingthisrelationshipwasconsideredcrucialiftheirautonomywastocontinue.

However,governmentwarneduniversitiesthatiftheywantedtomaintainthatautonomy,

theyneededtoretainalargeelementofprivatefundingandnotlooktothestateto

provide.In1936,NevilleChamberlain,asChancelloroftheExchequer,warneduniversities

that

‘ifthis[autonomous]characteristobemaintained….thisconditionplacesalimitupontheextenttowhichtheuniversitiesshouldlooktothestateasaprincipalsourceofrevenue’(TESMarch1936-inSalter&Tapper1994p.106).

4.3Asystemofhighereducation

Despitethegovernmentwarning,bytheendoftheSecondWorldWarthestatehad

becometheprincipalfunderofHE.The1944EducationAct,andthefirstpostwarLabour

government,sawanincreasedinterestinsocialreformand,consequently,agreater

percentageofthepopulationcompletingasecondaryeducation.Therefore,therewere

moreyoungpeoplesuitablyqualifiedtoenterHE.Inaddition,thestaterequiredmoreof

thepopulationtodeveloprelevantskillstoundertakenewformsofworktoexpandthe

economywhichhadsufferedduringthewar.Hence,therewasanexpectationthat

universitieswouldincreasestudentnumbersandundertakemorescientificresearchto

80

addresstheeconomicsituation.Tomeetthisnewdemand,statefunding,whichpriorto

WW2hadbeen£2.25mannually,increasedto£8min1945-6and£16.6mby1950-51(Tight

2009p.60).

TheBarlowReport(1946)acknowledgedthatifuniversitiesweretomeettheeconomic

needsofthenation,thengreaterguidancefromgovernmentwouldbeexpected(Salter&

Tapper1994).ConsequentlytherewasachangetoUGC’stermsofreference,gaininga

greaterroleinplanning,withfundingdirectedatparticularactivities.Institutionswere

expectedtorespondtogovernmentpriorities,whichbringsintoquestionthecommitment

ofgovernmenttomaintaintheHaldanePrinciple.

‘Thusby1947,theUGChadalreadychangeditsrolefromadistributorofmoneytoanagentofplanning,eventhoughtheplanningwasofthesimplestkind,dependingoncollectingestimatesfromuniversitiesandcomparingthemwith‘targets’setoutinofficialpapers’(Tight2009p.125).

ThisincreasedroleincentralplanningisacriticalstepchangeinthehistoryofHE,sincethe

notionofHEasa‘system’,withanationalprovisionandpriorities,beginstobegiven

greatercredence.TherelationshipbetweenthestateandHEhadshiftedandtherewasthe

potentialforpolicytobecomeacontestedarea,withinstitutionsfeelingalossofautonomy

andgreaterstatecontrol.However,inrealitytherewaslittleconflict,sinceinstitutions

werecontenttoexpandstudentnumbersandinvestinresearch,andthestatewascontent

tofundit.UGCtherefore,despiteitschangeoffocus,wasstillabletoactoutitsroleasa

bufferbody.AsTaggartpointsout:

‘Withintheframeworkofapost-warconsensus,theUGCdidnotneedtoplaytheroleofmediatorbetweengovernmentandtheuniversitysector.Therewasnothingtomediate:theGovernmentwaswilling,withintheconstraintsofthebudgetaryprocess,toprovideeverincreasingfundingtotheuniversities’(Taggart2003p.40).

4.4Massificationwhilstmaintainingtheunitofresource

Duringthe1950sand1960s,withareturntoaConservativegovernment,therewasarapid

expansioninthenumberofHEinstitutions,withanumberofregionalcollegesachieving

universitystatus.In1955,theNationalCouncilforTechnologicalAwards(NCTA)was

established,followedbyagrowthinthenumberofCollegesofAdvancedTechnology

(CATs),offeringtechnicaldiplomasinHE.The1960ssawtheestablishmentoftheCouncil

forNationalAcademicAwards(CNAA)andthecreationofmorethan30polytechnicsacross

theUK,withdegreesvalidatedbyCNAA.Thedevelopmentofthepolytechnicssawthe

creationofthebinarydividebetweenpolytechnicsanduniversities(Parry2001,Tight

81

2009).ThisexpansionofHEinstitutionswasmatchedbyanexpansioninstudentnumbers

andthemassificationofHE(Tight2009).Critically,thisexpansionofstudentnumberswas

matchedbyanexpansionofbothacademicstaffnumbersandgovernmentfundingand,

consequently,theunitofresourcewasmaintained.

Therecontinuedtobepressurefromgovernmentforuniversitiestotakemoreaccountof

thescientificandeconomicneedsofthecountry,resultinginanumberofreportsand

policyreforms,suchasthe1951WhitePaper,HigherTechnologicalEducation,the1956

WhitePaper,TechnicalEducationandthe1961WhitePaper,BetterOpportunitiesin

TechnicalEducation(Tight2009).Inresponsetosuchreports,therewerepolicy

interventionsbythestatetocontrolthestudentpopulationinsubjectareasbeneficialto

economicexpansion.HE’sideologicalstandpoint,thatpolicydirectionshouldbeforthe

socialgood,wheresocialgoodisdefinedasagoodwhichdoesnotdependuponpublic

policyorfunding(MorBarak2018),begantobecalledintoquestion:‘thefadingpowerof

thetraditionalidealinthisarenaismatchedbytheirresistibleriseoftheeconomicideology

ofeducation’(Salter&Tapper1994p.125).

In1960,theAndersonReport,GrantstoStudents,proposedameanstestedmaintenance

systemforsupportingstudentsthroughtheirstudies,pavingthewayforthe

recommendationsofthesubsequentRobbinsReport,HigherEducation(1963),tobea

viableproposition.TheRobbinsReport,consideredtobeafurtherwatershedmomentin

HE,articulatedaneedforamoreequitableHEsystem,wherebythosewhowerequalified

toenterHEshouldbegiventhemeanstodosobyremovingbarrierstoentry.Robbins

proposedanexpansioninstudentnumbersfromc.200,000in1962/3tomorethan500,000

by1980/1(Tight2009),tobemetbynewinstitutions,expansionofexistinginstitutionsand

enablingtheCATStobecomeuniversities.Robbinsprincipallyrecommendedexpansionof

numbersinscienceandtechnologysubjectstomeetthedemandsoftheeconomy,

althoughinpracticethisperiodsawahugeexpansionofsocialsciencessubjects(Tight

2009).SomecriticshavesubsequentlyarguedthatRobbinsdidnotgofarenoughinthe

proposedexpansion,andthatgovernmentprojectionsalreadytookaccountofit

(Greenbank2006).

Whilegrowingstudentnumberswasmatchedbyanexpansionofstatefundingtomaintain

theunitofresource,thisperiodalsosawacrucialchangefortheUGC.Shattockarguesthat

theRobbinsReport‘provedtobeawatershedindeterminingthefuturestructureofthe

policy-makingmachinery’(Shattock2012p.90),sinceitwasinstrumentalinareviewofhow

82

theTreasuryallocatedpublicfunds.Thisreviewmeantthat,by1964,UGCnolongerhada

directrelationshipwiththeTreasury,cominginsteadunderthenewDepartmentof

EducationandScience(DES),andthustheCommitteewasfirmlywithintheremitof

educationpolicy-makers.Forthefirsttime,UGChadtocompetewithothersectorsof

educationforfunding.Therelationshipbetweenthetwobodiescouldoftenbetense,as

theDEShad‘valueswhichconflictedwiththoseoftheUGC’(SalterandTapper1994p.120).

Consequently,thelocusofpolicyformationbegantoshift,withUGChavingtomake

decisionsaboutwheretoputresource,potentiallyputtingitinconflictwithinstitutionsand

theirautonomyinpursuingtheirownpolicydecisions.

4.5Apolicyofefficiency

The1970sbeganwithaConservativeadministration,butthiswasfollowedbyaminority

Labourgovernmentfrom1974.ThedecadesawthebeginningsofthepursuitofHEpolicy

withafocusonmorewithless,increasedstudentnumberswithlessunitofresource.The

economiccrisisof1974-75gavetheDEStheopportunitytointroducegreatercontrolover

institutions,settingtargetstudentnumbersforindividualinstitutions,initiatinggreater

efficiencyintheuseofresourcesandcutstogrant.A2%reductioningrantbetween1972

and1977,and30%inflation,sawrealtermsfundingcutsforUGCandinstitutions(Taggart

2003).

TheelectionofaConservativegovernmentin1979sawachangeinpolicydirectionthat

wasdirectlyinaccordancewithmonetaristeconomicsandnewpublicmanagement.There

wasgreaterstatecontroloveruniversitystandards,withgovernmentintroducing

regulationasawaytoimprovequalitywhilstfacilitatingincreasedefficiency.Itwasduring

thisperiodthatthefeesubsidyforinternationalstudentsended,resultinginthempaying

fulleconomiccost,andfundingforhomestudentswasreducedby8.5%by1983-4(Tight

2009).

Thecontinuedeconomiccrisisintheearly1980sledtoanideologicalshiftandariseinthe

influenceofneo-liberalthinking,aswellasfurther,andmoredrastic,cutstopublic

expenditure.Incrementalincreaseshadmeantthatby1980,morethantwo-thirdsofHE

incomecameintheformofasingleblockgrantfromUGC(Williams1992),thus

governmentfeltjustifiedindrasticallyreducingitby15%.UGChowever,wentagainst

governmentwishesandcutstudentnumbers,ratherthantheunitofresource(Parry2001).

In1983theNABwasformedtocontrolfundsandstudentnumbersinpolytechnicsand

83

colleges.Themid1980sbegantoseemoregovernmentrhetoriconefficiencywithfurther

reportssuchasthe1984NationalAdvisoryBoard(NAB)Report,AStrategyforHigher

Education,UGC’sownreportonastrategyforHEandthe1985GreenPaper,The

DevelopmentofHighereducation,recommendinggreaterefficiencyandmanagementof

HE.In1985,theJarrattreport,EfficiencyStudiesinUniversities,waspublished,

recommendingareviewofUGCandproposingthatinstitutionsbegantotakeamore

managerialapproachtostrategy.Thiswasswiftlyfollowedbythe1987WhitePaper,Higher

Education:MeetingtheChallenge,whichconsolidatedtheeconomicpurposeofHEand

furtherstrengthenedtheneedforimprovedqualityandefficiency.Thereportalso

committedthegovernmenttoincreasingstudentnumbersand,indeed,participation

between1988and1994increasedfrom15%to30%(Tight2009).Muchofthisgrowthwas

achievedthroughdrivingdownthecostoftheunitofresource,andthroughincreased

studentnumbersinthepolytechnicsandcolleges.Shattock(2008)arguesthatitisinthe

1980sthatthepolicydriversforHEbegantochange

‘frombeingself-governedtostate-governed,andarederivedfromasetofpoliciesdesignedforthereformandmodernisationofthepublicsectorfortheeconomy’(p.181).

Throughoutthe1980s,UGCcontinuedtoactasabufferbetweentheuniversitiesandthe

state,puttingforwardtheviewsofthesectorandnegotiatingblockgrant.Itwasduringthe

latterhalfofthe1980sthatblockgrantseparatedfundingforteachingfromthatfor

research,andUGCintroducedanelementofdrivingfundingthroughformula,althoughthe

formulawasnotpublished.Asaresultofthechangeofconstitutionalarrangementswithin

theDES,andthecontinuedeconomiccrisisputtingpressureonpublicfinances,thebuffer

relationshipwasbeingcalledintoquestion.Criticsquestioned‘WhosesideistheUniversity

GrantsCommitteeon?’(Taggart2003p.42)andUGCwasultimatelyforcedtore-examine

itsrole:

‘fromthemomenttheUGCacceptedresponsibilityformanagingthecutsinrecurrentgrantin1979-80,itimplicitlyacceptedresponsibilityforactivelymanagingandforre-shapingtheuniversitysystemtocopewiththecutsingovernmentfunding’(Taggart2003p.47).

ThissubtleshiftinUGC’srolebeginstoseeamovefromShattock’s‘insideoutwards’

(2006),whereinstitutionswerethelocusforHEpolicydevelopment,tothenowfamiliar

‘outsideinwards’policyapproachtoHE,wherethestatehasagreaterroleindeveloping

andimplementingpolicy.

84

4.6Quasimarketpolicy

Afurtherturningpointcamewiththe1988EducationReformAct,whichabolishedUGC,

andreplaceditwithastatutorybody,theUniversitiesFundingCouncil(UFC).The

Conservativegovernmentwantedtomoveawayfromapositionwhereblockgrantwasthe

majorfundingmechanismforinstitutions,proposinginsteadthatbothstudentsand

industryplayedagreaterrole,andsoughttoachievethisthroughtheestablishmentofa

newfundingcouncilwithoutthelegacyofUGC.Blockgrant,whichhadrepresentedmore

thantwo-thirdsofHEfundingin1979-80,wascontinuouslyreducedsuchthat,by2010-11,

itrepresentedjust31.4%ofincome(BrownandCarasso2013).TheUFCwasmatchedwith

thePolytechnicsandCollegesFundingCouncil(PCFC),replacingtheNAB,whichremoved

polytechnicsandcollegesfromthecontroloflocalauthorities,whilststillretainingthe

binarydividewithuniversities.Themechanismforthedistributionofblockgrantforboth

councilswasthroughformulafunding,wherefundswereallocatedonacompetitivebasis.

ItwasPCFCthatcreatedthe‘coreplusmargin’approachtotheallocationoffunding(Parry

2001),wherebythemajorityoffundswasallocatedonthebasisofpreviousstudent

numbers,withbiddingforadditionalnumbers.Therewasasubtledifferenceinthepurpose

ofthesenewCouncilsfrompreviousregimes,andhencetherelationshipbetweenHEand

thestate:

‘theirfunctionistoprovidefundsinexchangefortheprovisionofspecificacademicservices[teachingandresearch]ratherthantosubsidiseinstitutions’(Williams1992p.13).

Taggart(2003)arguesthatthiswasanimportantstepchange:

‘ThefundingbodybecameapurchaseronbehalfoftheGovernment.Andtheroleofpurchaserwasanimportantstepinthetransformationofthefundingbodyfromaproviderofgrant(UGC)toaregulatorandmanagerofthehighereducationsystem’(p.57).

TheintroductionofcompetitionforfundingwasthestartingpointforHEtobeperceivedas

a‘quasimarket’(Parry2001).A1989speechbythethenSecretaryofState,KennethBaker,

ispurportedtobethefirsttimethat‘market’waslinkedtoHE(BrownandCarasso2013),

andpolicyreformswhichfollowedwerealignedwithmarketeconomics,includingarisein

feesforfeepayingstudentsand,in1990,theintroductionoftop-uploans,whichwouldin

timereplacemaintenancegrants.TheConservativegovernmentsawthemarketastheway

forwardforbothraisingcompetitionwithinHEandintroducinggreaterstudentchoice

alongsideexpandedstudentnumbers.

85

ThiswasamomentousmomentinthehistoryofHEpolicy-making,sinceitrepresentsa

pointatwhichthereisamomentofconflictbetweentheoutsideinapproachtopolicy

(wherethestatehadsignificantcontroloverthepolicyagendaforHE,andwasresponsible

forthemajorityofitsfunding,withcontrolsoverstudentnumbersandefficiencyof

delivery)and,inasense,areturntoinsideout,whereinstitutionsaresubjecttomarket

conditionsandrelianceonpublicfundingbeginstodiminish.However,asnotedbelow,any

returntoinsideoutconditionswasquashedbyanincreaseinregulationofthemarket.

The1992FurtherandHigherEducationActintroducedoneofthebiggestchangesintheHE

sector,withtheshort-livedUFCandPCFCabolishedinfavouroffourregionalfunding

councilsinEngland,Scotland,WalesandNorthernIreland.ThenewCouncilsintroduceda

singlefundingstructureforteachinginallinstitutionsandanationalsystemforassessment

ofquality.Asaconsequence,thebinarysystemforuniversitiesandpolytechnicswas

removed,polytechnicsbecameuniversitiesovernight,anduniversitiesandcollegeswere

nowopentocompetitionbetweeneachother.Thus,HEevolvedintoa‘fullymarket

orientatedsystem’(Parry2001p.124).However,asnotedabove,thismarketwasalso

highlyregulated,bothinstudentnumbersandqualityassurance.Theincreasein

interventionandregulationbythestatewasfirmlyinlinewiththenewpublicmanagement

rhetoric,andthe‘outsideinwards’approach(Shattock2012,CoffieldandWilliamson1997)

thathadbecomeadominantfeatureofthe1980sand1990sundertheThatcher

Government.

The1992Actrepresentsaturningpointthatthreatenedtheautonomyofinstitutionsand

changedthenatureoftheintermediarybodyfromabuffertoonethatactedasanagentof

government,despitetheguaranteethatthefundingcouncilshadconstitutional

independencefromgovernment.The1992Act

‘wastoplacethesevariousinputsintoastatutorycontextwhich,besidesextendingthem,greatlyreinforcedthehandoftheMinisterandDepartmentagainstthefundingcouncilsanduniversities’(Salter&Tapper1994p.205).

ForShattock,thismovefirmlyestablished‘outsidein’policy-making:

‘Wehaveinmyviewstaggeredalmostunknowinglytoasituationwherethestatehastakenoverpolicymakingbecausetheinsiderorgansthatoncegeneratedpolicieshavebeenweakenedornolongerexist.TheUGC,whateveritsshortcomings,hasbeenreplacedbyFundingCouncilswhomakepolicythroughadjustingfundingformula’(Shattock2006p.138).

86

ThiscommentaryhasprovidedaninsightintothedevelopmentofHEpolicyandthe

changingroleandinfluenceoftheintermediarybodiesagainstthepoliticalandeconomic

conditionsoverthelastcentury.Thisisusefulininforminganunderstandingforthe

creationoftheHEFCEandotherfundingcouncils,andinordertoarticulatetheworkof

HEFCEintheforthcomingsections.Thesectionsbelowaresignificantforthisresearchsince

theyseektobothilluminateandarticulatethepolicyworkofHEFCEagainstthebackdrop

ofchanginggovernmentideologiesandpolicyagendas,andsituatethechosencasestudies

withinthosecontexts.

4.7TheHigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland

ThefourFundingCouncilswereestablishedon6thMay1992,undertheDepartmentfor

Education(DfE),andtheyassumedresponsibilityforfundingfromPCFCandUFCon1stApril

1993.ThecorefunctionsoftheFundingCouncilswere:toactasafundingandintermediary

bodybetweengovernmentandinstitutions;theallocationofrecurrent,capitalandspecial

funding;assessmentofthequalityofresearch;assessmentofthequalityofteaching,and

monitoringthefinancialhealthofthesectorandindividualinstitutions.

TheActsetsouttheroleformallyas:

• ‘Toadministerfundstosupporteducationandresearchinhighereducationinstitutions;

• Toadministerfundstosupportprescribedhighereducationcoursesinfurthereducationcolleges;

• ToprovidetheSecretaryofStateforEducationandSkillswithinformationrelatingtoallaspectsofhighereducationteachingandresearch,includingthefinancialneedsofthesector;

• TosecuretheassessmentofthequalityofeducationatinstitutionsthatreceiveHEFCEfunding’.(SourceHEFCEAnnualReportandAccounts2005-06).

TheActgavetheSecretaryofStategreatercontrolovertheFundingCouncilsintermsof

appointingtheboardandthetermsandconditionsoffunding.

4.7.1StructureofHEFCE

HEFCEwasoverseenbyaBoardof15members,withallmembersappointedbythe

SecretaryofStateforEducation.TheBoardconsistedofaChair,HEFCEChiefExecutiveas

chiefoperatingofficer,anumberofmembersselectedfromhighereducationinstitutions(a

minimumofeight),andotherinterestedpubliclyfundedbodies,suchastheNHS,industry

andtheprofessions.AllappointmentsweremadeundertheguidanceoftheOfficeofthe

87

CommissionerforPublicAppointments(OCPA).Governmentwasrepresentedbyan

assessorfromtherelevantgovernmentdepartmentandasmallnumberofobserversfrom

otherfundingbodiesandtheNationalUnionofStudents(NUS).Intheinterestsof

transparency,papersandminutesoftheBoard,otherthaninstitutionallyorcommercially

sensitivediscussions,havebeenpublishedontheHEFCEwebsitesince2003.

BelowtheBoard,therewereanumberofstrategicadvisorycommitteeswhichrelated

directlytothepolicyworkofHEFCE:Teachingexcellenceandstudentopportunity;

Researchandknowledgeexchange;Leadership,governanceandmanagement;quality,

accountabilityandregulation.Therewerealsojointadvisorycommitteeswiththeother

FundingCouncils.

TheworkofHEFCEwassplitintoanumberofdirectorates,introducedin2002andrevised

in2012,whichreporteddirectlytotheChiefExecutive,assummarisedinFigure8(p.87).

Withineachdirectorate,therewereanumberofheadsoffunctions,suchas

communications,funding,quality,andgovernance.ReportingtotheDirectorofUniversities

andColleges,therewereeightregionalconsultants,introducedfrom1999,wholiaised

directlywiththeseniormanagementofinstitutions.From2000,HEFCEalsohadasmall

numberofnationalteams,focussingonparticularpolicyareas:disability,actiononaccess,

innovations,andenhancingstudentemployability,althoughthesewerelostunderare-

structurein2012.

Figure8–HEFCEDIRECTORATE

HEFCEChiefExecutive

DirectorateRegulationandAssurance

DirectorateResearchandKnowledgeExchange

DirectorateUniversitiesandColleges

DirectorateFinance

DirectoratePolicy

DirectorateAnalyticalServices

88

Melville(2018)notesthatthisstructurehasbeenanimportantfeatureindeterminingthe

locusofpolicy-making:

‘akeyfeatureofHEFCEhasbeenthatthedevelopmentofHEpolicyhasresidedalmostentirelywiththecouncilanditsexecutives,ratherthanwithcivilservantsandministers.Notably,whileitwasthegeneralviewthatintheUGCdaysofthe1980sand1990smany‘special’fundingdecisionsweremadepersonallybyPeterSwynnerton-Dyer[thenViceChancellorCambridgeUniversity],theUFCandHEFCEhavedevelopedopenandtransparentfundingmodels.’(MelvilleWONKHE2018).

4.7.2HEFCEmechanismsfordistributingfunding,enablingpolicy

TheapproachtakenbyHEFCEtoformandimplementpolicyisanimportantpartofthe

policyprocess.GovernmentinformedHEFCEofitsavailablegrantthroughtheannualgrant

letter,whichmorphedfromtheletterofguidanceestablishedin1988forUGC.Taggart

(2003)notesthatthiswasthe

‘primarymechanism…forensuringthattheGovernmenthasbeenabletolinkitsoverarchingframeworkforhighereducationpolicywiththefundingbodies’policies’(p.58-9).

Theannualgrantlettersetoutthefundingtobeprovidedforcoreactivities,teachingand

research,andestablishedparticularfundingpriorityareas.Inturn,HEFCEusedtheavailable

fundstosteerpolicyandprioritiesthroughthefinancialmemorandumwithinstitutions.

Thispointisanimportantoneforthisstudy,andinparticularforadiscussiononthelocus

ofpolicy-making.Aswillbefurtherexploredlaterinthischapter,andfurtherinrelationto

thecasestudies,thereweremomentswhereitwasHEFCEitselfthatinfluencedthe

government’sannualgrantletter.

Fundingwasdistributedthroughthreedistinctivemechanisms:recurrentfunding(generally

basedonformula),capitalfundingandspecialprojectsfunding,withsomepolicyareas

fundedinamultitrackapproachofcombinedformulaandspecialinitiativefunding.Both

capitalandspecialprojectsfundinggenerallyrequiredinstitutionstobidfortime-limited

funds,andincompetitionwitheachother.Thespecialprojectsinitiativemirroredthe

EnterpriseinHigherEducationinitiative,setupinthelate1980sbyUGC,whereinstitutions

bidforfunding.Selby(2018)notesthatthiswasaclassicHEFCEapproach:

‘thisinitiativefollowedaclassicHEFCEapproachtopolicy-makinginanareainwhichtherewaslittlepriorknowledge–identifyaproblem,offersomefinancialopportunities,withtheparametersbroadlydefined,andseekproposalsfromHEIs’(SelbyWONKHE2018).

89

ThemechanismbywhichpolicywasenactedwithinHEFCEisimportanttothisstudy.All

threeofthecasestudies,inordertomeetthecriteriasetoutinChapter3,canbe

categorisedasspecialprojectfundedinitiatives.

OneofthechiefmechanismsbywhichHEFCEformulatedandimplementedinitiativesto

driveforwardpolicyinterestswasthroughaconsultationprocesswiththesector.Typically,

consultationswereheldforlargescalepolicychanges,suchastheintroductionofthe

ResearchAssessmentExercise(RAE),latercalledtheResearchExcellenceFramework(REF),

butalsoonsmaller,timelimited,specialfundinginitiatives,particularlywhereabidding

processwasrequired.Minorchangestorecurrentfundingmethodologiesdidnotgenerally

resultinaconsultation.Theconsultationprocesstypicallyinvolvedsomere-negotiationof

elementsofthepolicyprocessorprogramme,basedontheviewsofthoseinthesector.

Taggartsuggeststhisisanimportantpartofthepolicy-makingprocess:

‘everyHEFCEpolicyhasapeer-reviewinputeitherthroughtheadviceoftheHEFCEstrategiccommittees[or]throughsectorwideconsultation’(Taggart2003p.89).

Kernohan(2018)agrees,contestingthat

‘HEFCE,historically,hasbeenprettygoodatsettingpolicytransparentlyandopenly.Itpublishesitsboardminutes,consultswidelywiththesector,andevenwheredecisionsaremadethatgoagainstaconsensus,itiscleararounditsrationalefordoingso’(KernohanWONKHE2018).

Shattockismorescepticalabouttheconsultationapproach,suggestingthatitismoretop

downthangenuineconsultation:

‘Whiletherhetoricofhighereducationpolicymakingisdominatedbytheword‘consultation‘itisneitheronanagendacreatedinGovernmentnorintheuniversitiesthemselves’(Shattock2006p.139).

Initiativeswhichwerecategorisedasspecialfundingweretypicallysubjectedtoan

independentformativeandsummativeevaluation,withtheformativeevaluation

occasionallyleadingtosomechangesinapproach,dependentuponrecommendations.

FormativeandsummativeevaluationswerefundedbyHEFCE,andwhilstHEFCEsetoutthe

aimsandobjectives,evaluationsweretypicallycarriedoutbyindependentconsultants.

4.8PolicyphasesinHEFCE’shistory

IhaveconsolidatedthepolicyworkofHEFCEintofiveseparatetimeperiods,wherethe

changeinperiodrepresentsadistinctchangeinthepolicydirectionortheroleofHEFCE,

informedbychanginggovernmentideologies,ActsofParliamentandeconomicpressures

90

(summarisedinTable7,p.90).Icontendthatthereisastrongrelationshipbetweenthese

distinctphasesandthechangingrelationshipbetweengovernment,theintermediarybody

andinstitutions,whichwillbeexploredlaterinthischapter.Thissectionprovidessome

historicalcontexttoeachtimeperiod,andthenusesthetimelineofpolicyepisodesand

initiativesdetailedinAppendixCtoprovideasynthesisandcommentaryontheevolving

policyagenda,clusteringpolicyendeavoursandhighlightingparticularepisodesto

articulatetheworkofHEFCE.Theresearchmethodsfordevelopingthetimelineofpolicy

episodesareexplainedin3.4.Wheredatahasbeendrawnspecificallyfromcirculars,letters

orHEFCEBoardminutes,thesearereferencedinthenarrative.

Table7–SUMMARYOFPOLICYPERIODSFORHEFCE

Timeperiod

Prevailinggovernment Principleactsandeventsinstigatingchange

1992-1997 Conservative 1992FurtherandHigherEducationAct(endofbinarysystem,FundingCouncilsestablished)1997DearingReport(recommendsstudentcontributiontofundingHE)

1998-2006 Labour(Blairgovernment)

1998TeachingandHigherEducationAct(introductionofmeanstestedfees)2004HigherEducationAct(variabletopupfees£3kfrom2006)2006CharitiesAct(HEFCEbecomesprincipleregulatorforHE)

2007-2010 Labour(Browngovernment)

2007FurtherEducationandTrainingAct(formationof,andinvestmentin,companiesandcharitableincorporatedorganisationsbyHE)2008Globalrecession2009ANewFrameworkforHigherEducation(‘consumerrevolution’)2010Brownereview,SecuringaSustainableFutureforHigherEducation(greaterchoice,studentfinanceplan,part-timevariablefees)2010spendingreviewcutsofmorethan£300mtoHEFCE

2011-2016 Conservative/LiberalDemocratcoalition(to2015)Conservative(from2015)

2011WhitePaper–StudentsattheHeartoftheSystem(variablefeesto£9k,promotionofinterestsofstudents)2012ChangeoffocusforHEFCE,investonbehalfofstudents2013HEFCEgreaterregulatoryinsight2015Nursereviewofresearchcouncils(proposesUKRI)2016Brexit

2017-2018 Conservative 2017HigherEducationandResearchBillHEFCEclosesOfficeforStudentsestablishedResearchandInnovationUKestablished

91

4.8.11992-1997

4.8.1.1.Furthergrowth

TheearlyyearsofHEFCEfrom1992to1997sawcontinuinggrowthinstudentnumbers,

withanexpectationthatonethirdof18-21yearoldswouldhaveattendedHEby2000.

However,growthwasalsometwiththeintroductionoftheMaximumAggregateStudent

Number(MASN)in1994,inordertocontrolstudentnumberstocontainpublic

expenditure.Thiseffectivelyended‘marketledgrowth’infavourofa‘highlyregulated

market’(Parry2001p.125).HEFCE’sroleinadministeringfundingunderaregimeofcuts

andtightpublicspendingmeantagreaterroleinallocatingfundingtoassistinstitutionsin

financialcrisis,andechoedthechangeinethosforUGCinthe1980s,whereithadtotakea

greaterroleinmanagingtheuniversitysystemduringaperiodofcuts.Thisperiodsawa

continuationofpoliciesbeguninthe1970swithasteertowardsunderpinningHE’srolein

theeconomyaswellasdrivingdownthecostoftheunitofresource,withgovernment

imposingefficiencygainsonthesectorof7.5%overthreeyearsfrom1996.Whilststudent

numbershaddoubledsincethe1970s,andpublicfundingforHEhadincreasedby45%

overall,theunitofresourcehaddecreasedby40%(NCIHE1997).

4.8.1.2.Targetedfunding

Upuntil1997,muchofHEFCE’spolicyworkwasconcentratedonrecurrentfundingfor

teaching,basedonthecore-plus-marginfundingformulaintroducedbyPCFC,andHEFCE’s

teachingfundingmethodologyremainedbroadlysimilaruntil1998.Policyinterventions

focussedonestablishingclarityinteachingfunding,initiallyforAdditionalStudentNumbers

(ASNs),continuingeducationandminoritysubjects(2/94,10/94,29/94)aswellasspecific

disciplineareasinscience,engineeringandtechnology(6/95)todriveforward

government’sagendainconcentratingeffortsinsciencebaseddisciplines.Afurther

exampleoftargetingteachingfundingtodriveeconomicinterestswastargetedfundingfor

formerSovietandEastEuropeansubjects(32/95),whichwereseenascountrieslikelyto

experienceconsiderableeconomicgrowthwiththedownfallofcommunismintheeastern

bloc.

In1994,HEFCEbegantodedicatespecialprojectfundinginwhatcouldbedescribedasthe

beginningsofawideningparticipationpolicy.Notably,HEFCEreviseditspolicyonaccess

funds,allocating£3mforprojectswhichsupportedspecialeducationalneedsstudents.In

responsetotheDisabilityDiscriminationAct1995,£6mwasallocatedfrom1996-1999for

92

projectswhichexpandedthequalityof‘provisionforstudentswithlearningdifficultiesand

disabilities’(9/96,23/96).HEFCEalsodirectedrecurrentfundingtowardsnon-traditional

learnerssuchaspart-timeandmaturestudents(19/96,21/96).Thisisanexampleofwhere

HEFCEsoughttodriveitsownpolicyagendaoutsideofgovernment,sincewidening

participationwasnot,atthatstage,partofHEFCEobjectives.

Specialprojectfundingwasalsointroducedtoenhancethedevelopmentofbestpracticein

learningandteaching,withphasesoneandtwooftheDevelopmentofTeachingand

Learningin1995and1996(29/95,22/96),andafocusontechnologyfrom1997withthe

introductionofspecialprojectfundingof£3.5moverthreeyearsintheTeachingand

LearningTechnologyProgramme(14/97).Specialprojectfundingforenhancinglearning

andteachingwasastrategypursuedbyHEFCEthroughoutitsexistence.

OneoftheconsequencesofgreaterparticipationinHEwas‘credentialinflation’(Tight2009

p.82)withmoreofthelabourmarketseekingtogainpostgraduatequalifications.In1996,

HEFCE,theCommitteeofVice-ChancellorsandPrincipalsoftheUniversitiesoftheUnited

Kingdom(CVCP)andtheStandingConferenceofPrincipals(SCOP)commissionedareport

intopostgraduateeducation.ChairedbyProfessorMartinHarris,TheHarrisReview,made

recommendationsmostlyinrelationtostandardsandfunding(Hogan1997),whichwere

implementedin1998.Institutionshadalreadybeenaskedin1995toidentifyallocationof

teachingfundingforundergraduateandpostgraduateseparately,whichforcriticslike

Shattock(2012)representedafurtherdeteriorationofinstitutionalautonomy.

TeachingqualitywasalsoamajorareaofpolicyforHEFCEwhichcontinuedto2018,but

unlikerecurrentresearchfunding,HEFCEresistedanyattempttolinkteachingqualityto

funding.Until1997,andtheestablishmentoftheQualityAssessmentAgency(QAA),quality

assessmentofteachingwasundertakenin-housebyHEFCE.Policyontheteachingquality

assessmentmethod,whichincludedself-assessmentbydisciplinesandtheprovisionof

datasets,wasintroducedin1993(3/93)andaframeworkforqualityassessmentwas

introducedin1994(33/94).HEFCEalsoledonpolicieswhichinfluencedthenationalsystem

ofteachinginHE,withpoliciesontheorganisationoftheacademicyear(6/94)andthe

lengthofdegreecourses(1/94).

4.8.1.3.Researchfunding

ResearchfundingcontinuedinmuchthesametermsasithadunderUGCandUFC,with

researchqualityrecurrentfunding(QR),havingbeenintroducedin1986withthe

93

establishmentoftheRAE.ThefirstRAEunderHEFCEwasconcludedin1992,whichwas

consideredtobemorerobustandrigorousthanthatconductedin1989(Tight2009).RAE

1992sawareducednumberofunitsofassessmentandgreateremphasisontransparent

definitionsofquality.Thepolicyonthedualfundingofresearch,whererecurrentquality

fundingwasallocatedbyHEFCEandtheResearchCouncilsfundspecificprojects(7/93)was

introducedsectorwide,includingpost1992institutions,in1993.Therewerefewspecial

fundinginitiativesforresearchintheearlyyears,otherthantheJointResearchEquipment

Initiative,whichcontinueduntil1999(09/96).

4.8.2.Dearing–aturningpointinfunding

TheturningpointforthisperiodwasthepublicationoftheDearingReport(NCIHE1997),

followinganinquiryintoHEcommissionedbythethenConservativegovernment,with

backingfromtheLabourshadowcabinet.Itrecognisedthatacontinuingexpansionof

studentnumbersandhighlevelsofstateprovisionoffundingwasnotsustainableandso,

unliketheRobbinsreport,Dearingexplicitlyaddressedtheissueoffunding.Dearing,which

wasareflectiononthemarketisation,massificationandregulation(Parry2001)ofHE,

recognisedthatHEwasunderfunded,butthattomeetthefundinggaptherewouldneed

tobeashiftfromthepublictotheprivate(Tight2009),andmorespecificallyagreater

contributionfromgraduates:

‘thecostsofhighereducationshouldbesharedamongstthosewhobenefitfromit.Wehaveconcludedthatthosewithhighereducationqualificationsarethemainbeneficiaries,throughimprovedemploymentprospectsandpay.Asaconsequence,wesuggestthatgraduatesinworkshouldmakeagreatercontributiontothecostsofhighereducationinfuture’(NCIHE1997p.28-29).

AsWager(1995)pointsout,thisenabledgovernmenttochangethecashflowto

universitiesinsteadofincreasingpublicexpenditure.Althoughfundingwasthekey

recommendationtocomefromtheDearingreport,therewereotherrecommendationsin

relationtowideningparticipationandexploitationoftechnologiesinlearningandteaching,

themeswhichcontinuedthroughtheworkofHEFCE,aswillbeexploredlaterinthis

chapter.Theendofthisperiodalsosawachangeofgovernment,withNewLabourtaking

officeandassumingtheresponsibilityofimplementingtherecommendationsofthe

DearingReport.

94

4.8.31998–2006

4.8.3.1.NewLabourrhetoric-growth,inclusivityandNewPublicManagement

NewLabourbroughtnewrhetoriconexpandingstudentnumberstoprovideskilled

workersintheemergingglobalisedknowledgeeconomy,andamoreinclusivesocial

mobilityagenda.TheseprinciplesbecameNewLabour’s‘ThirdWay’and,asthissectionwill

demonstrate,becamethekeydriversformuchofHEFCE’spolicyworkupto2006.New

Labour’selectionmanifestopromised500,000AdditionalStudentNumbersby2010,

increasingtheparticipationrateto50%.InstitutionswereabletobidforASNsyearonyear,

particularlyintargeteddisciplinesorthosethatencouragedgreaterdiversityofintakesuch

assub-degreelevelcourses.Assuch,therewasasteertowardsfundingpolicieswhich

favouredwideningparticipation.Vocationaleducationandreformofqualificationsbecame

keypolicyinitiatives,andhenceagreaterfocusonHEincollegesandanemphasison

employerengagementandtheregionaleconomy.Selby(2018)notesthat

‘theperiodaroundtheturnofthecenturywasatimeofgreatdevelopmentinHEFCEpolicy,mostparticularlyintheareaofwideningparticipation,butalsointhedevelopmentofpolicytowardsHEinFurtherEducationColleges’(SelbyWONKHE2018).

FollowingDearing,the1998TeachingandHigherEducationActsawtheintroductionof

meanstestedtopupfees,witha£1,000feeintroduced.Sixyearslater,the2004Higher

EducationActsawafurtherstepchange,withvariabletop-upfeesupto£3,000introduced

from2006.Consequently,by2006,institutionswerereceivingonly60%oftheformerblock

grantforteaching(BrownandCarasso2013).In1998,thestudentmaintenancegrantwas

replacedwithloans,thusfurthershiftingthecostsofstudytowardsindividuals,although

theywerere-introducedforsomestudentgroupsagainin2004.Theintroductionoftuition

feesisseenbymany(Shattock2012,Tight2009)asthepointatwhicharealmarketwas

createdforHE,asitmovedfurtherawayfromasolelystatefundedsuppliertoapart

privatelyfundedenterprise,wheresupplywasinfluencedbydemand.Theshiftawayfrom

statefundingmeantthattheroleofHEFCEasthefundingbodyhadbeguntoalter.In2004,

SirHowardNewby,thenHEFCE’sChiefExecutive,announcedthatwiththeintroductionof

variablefees,HEFCE’srolewouldbetosecurethepublicinterestand,inHEFCE’s2003-04

annualreview,itisnotedthat‘thefocusonthelearnerinhighereducationwillbecome

evenmorecriticaloncevariablefeesareinplace’(p.3).

Despitetheshifttowardsagreatercontributionfromstudents,considerablefundingstill

camefromthepublicpurse,andtheperiod1998-2006couldbedescribedasthegolden

95

yearsforHEFCE,undertheBlairgovernment.Therewasanadditional£1.4bofresearch

fundingoverthreeyearsfrom1998andanadditional10%inrealtermsforadditional

studentnumbersandincreasingaccess.TheSpendingReview(1998)announcedadditional

fundingforscience,engineeringandtechnologysubjects,andinvestmentinstaff.Also

receivingtargetedfundingwerespecialistareassuchasChineseStudies(1999),performing

artsinstitutions(1999),FormerSovietandEasternEuropeanStudies(2000)andtwonew

medicalschoolswith1,000additionalplacesformedicine(1999,2000).Thus,despitethe

movetowardsafullmarket,thestatewasstillhighlyinfluentialincontrollingthesupplyof

HE.

UndertheBlairgovernment,HEFCEcontinuedtoapplyitslongstandingmethodologiesto

recurrentfundingforteachingandresearch,maintainingfundamentalprinciplesbutwith

adjustmentsandchangesalongtheway.Alargenumberofspecialfundinginitiativeswere

alsointroducedwhichsoughttoembedchangewithinthesector.Usingfundedprojectsto

drivecertainpolicyagendasbecameacommonapproachbyHEFCE,maintainedright

throughto2018.Taggart(2003)notesthat

‘ThefinancialleversoftheHEFCEarearguablyseenattheirmostextremeinthecaseofearmarkedfundingforspecialinitiatives….HEFCEwasincreasingtheproportionoffundingthroughthemorecloselymonitoredandregulatedspecialinitiatives…specialfundingrepresents18%ofthetotalHEFCEbudget[for2003-04]’(p.100).

AnotherstrongthemetoemergeduringNewLabourgovernancewasNewPublic

Managementpractices,particularlypublicsectorreform,whichbuiltonthemanagerialism

approachesofthepreviousConservativegovernment.Thisideologicalpositiontakenbythe

NewLabourgovernmentwastodominatenotjustHEpolicy,butallgovernmentpolicies

andreforms,inallpolicyarenas,suchashealthandeducation(Shattock2012,)andwas

characterisedbyincreasedperformancemanagementinthepublicsectorandthe

commercialisationofpublicservices,withelementsofcompetition(Cutler&Waine2002).

HEFCEintroducedaraftofguidanceforinstitutionsinrelationtofinancialassurance,and

leadershipandgovernance,wheretherehadbeenlessfocusintheearlyyears.In1988,the

annualstrategicplansrequiredofinstitutionswerereplacedbythreeyearcorporateplans

withafocusonfinancialstrategy(98/13),andaspecialfundof£2.5mwasmadeavailable

forthreeyearstoimplementstrategiesforcostingandpricingactivities(98/32).HEFCEwas

concernedtoensureeffectiveuseofitsfundingand,followingthegovernment’s

TransparencyandAccountabilityReviewin2000(17/00),implementedtheValuefor

MoneySteeringGroup’srecommendationsforimprovingfacilitiesmanagementand

96

supportservices(00/14).Theimplementationofaframework,TransparentApproachto

Costing(TRAC)forinstitutionalreportingcameintoeffectinthesameyear.Accountability

continuedasastrongthemefollowingtheSpendingReviewin2004,whichfocussedon

achievingefficienciesinthepublicsector.Consequently,newcodesofpracticeforaudits

andaccountabilitywereintroducedin2004and,in2006,changestothefinancial

memorandumprovidedforgreateraccountabilitywhilstreducingthecostburdenof

financialreporting(12/2006).ThelaunchoftheHEFCEsustainabledevelopmentinitiativein

2005aimedtotacklelong-termsustainabilityininstitutions(28/2005)withHEIsbeing

askedtoconsidertheuseofsharedservicesin2006(20/2006).Assuch,efficiencyin

relationtotheunitofresourcewasstillverymuchontheagenda.Itisnoteworthythat

thereisasubtlechangetoHEFCE’smissionin2003,asrecordedintheannualreports,with

cost-effectivenessbeingintroducedasafocus.

CloselylinkedtoNewPublicManagementrhetoricandgreaterfinancialaccountabilitywas

afocusonspecialfundinginitiativestoimprovegovernanceandleadership.TheSpending

Reviewof2000granted£50mforinvestmentinstaffininstitutions,andHEFCEsetupan

EqualOpportunitiesActionGroup.In1999,HEFCEinvested£10moverthreeyearsto

developgoodmanagementpracticesprogrammes(99/54)and£330moverthreeyears

from2001fundedthedevelopmentofhumanresourcesstrategiesininstitutions(01/16).

TheLeadership,GovernanceandManagementFundwassetupin2004,with£10mover

threeyears(2004/26).Aswellasspecialinitiativesfunding,HEFCEalsoconsolidatedthe

fundfor‘rewardinganddevelopingstaff’intothecoreteachinggrant(2004/03),thus

establishingstaffingpolicywithinrecurrentfunding.Theseinitiativesculminatedin2006

withthepublicationoftheHigherEducationWorkforceFramework(2006/21).

Theintroductionoffeesmeantthattherewasgreaterpublicinterestinteachingstandards

andvalueformoney,andsoHEFCEcontinuedtoinvestheavilyinlearningandteaching

development,suchastheTeachingandLearningDevelopmentProgramme,implemented

in1997with£3.5moverthreeyears(14/97)and£7min2003.TheTeachingQuality

EnhancementFundalsoreceivedconsiderablelevelsoffunding:£26min2000,£32min

2001,£31min2002(99/26)andafurther£158.5moverthreeyearsfrom2006(2006/11).A

taskgroupchairedbySirRonCookereportedonqualityandstandardsoflearningand

teachingin2002(02/15)and,in2003,HEFCE,UniversitiesUK(UUK)andSCOP

recommendedthatthereshouldbeasingleinstitutionresponsibleforstandardsin

teachingdevelopmentinHE.TheInstituteforLearningandTeachinginHigherEducation,

97

whichhadonlybeenestablishedin2000ontherecommendationoftheDearingReport,

theLearningandTeachingSupportNetwork(with24subjectdisciplinecentres)and

HEFCE’sNationalCoordinationTeamfortheTeachingQualityEnhancementFundwere

mergedtoformtheHigherEducationAcademy(HEA).Inthefollowingyear,theLeadership

FoundationwasestablishedbyUUKandSCOP,withanaffiliationtoHEFCE.Boththese

organisationssurvivedfundingcutsandmergersformanyyears,beforefinallybeing

mergedintoAdvanceHEin2018.

Inresponsetothe2003WhitePaper’scommitmenttorewardandenhanceexcellencein

teaching,thecreationofCentresforExcellenceinLearningandTeaching(CETLs)(2004/05)

waslaunchedin2005.ThispolicyepisodewasHEFCE’slargestfundedlearningandteaching

initiative,with£335moverthefiveyears,anditalsofollowedatypicalspecialproject

process,withinstitutionscompetingforfunding.Thepurposeoftheinitiativewastoraise

theprofileof‘teachingandlearningasaprofessionalactivity’(DFES2003)inlinewiththe

statusofresearch,inordertojustifythechargingoffeesandtoprovevalueformoney,in

linewithbothmarketisationofHEandnewpublicmanagementpolicies.Whatwasof

particularinterestaboutthisinitiativewasthatHEFCEhadbeendeliberatelyhands-offby

notdefiningwhatitmeantby‘excellence’andnotrequiringstrongaccountabilitymeasures

tobemetbyinstitutions,andassuchwasatypicalofHEFCE’sinitiativesatthattime.The

successofCETLswasverymuchcontested,withsomepointingtoarangeofindividual

institutionalsuccesses,butothersquestioningthelegacyofthe£335minvested.Forme,

thisrepresentsaninterestingstudyintermsofperceptionsofsuccessandfailureand,

consequently,Ihavechosenthisasoneofthecasestudies.

4.8.3.2.Teachingfundingtodriveeconomicdevelopment,socialinclusionandvaluefor

money

MuchofthefocusofHEFCElearningandteachingpolicyduringthisperiodwasondriving

NewLabour’sagendainmeetingeconomicneeds,particularlyinscienceandtechnology,

withformulafundingattractingadditionalfundsandASNsforspecificdisciplines,and

specialfundinginitiativessuchastheNewTechnologyInstitutes,whichreceived£25mof

capitalfundingin2002(01/47).ASNsweretargetedatScience,Technology,Engineering

andMathematics(STEM)highcostlaboratorybasedsubjects,dental,medicalandmedicine

relatedcourses,andalsosubjectswhichwereconsideredstrategicallyimportantbut

vulnerabletoclosure,suchasmodernlanguagesandIslamicstudies.By2003,participation

inhighereducationhadincreasedto43%,butafurther250,000ASNswererequiredifthe

98

governmentwastomeetit’stargetof50%participationinHEby2010.Therecurrent

fundingmethodology,whichhadbeeninplacesince1992,withrelativelyminor

modifications,wassubjecttoafullreviewin2005,withimplementationsetfor2007-08.

Alignedwithapolicyagendatoimproveteachingstandards,HEFCEcontinuedtoasserta

strongpresenceinteachingqualityassurance.Followingaperiodofin-housequality

assurancebyHEFCE,itwassub-contractedin1997totheQAA,althoughHEFCEremained

activeinprovidingpolicyandguidance,particularlyinsettingbenchmarksforperformance.

Thisdecisionwasmadeinparttoensurethatfundingwasentirelyseparatefromquality

assurance,apositionwhichHEFCEsoughttomaintainthroughoutitshistory.Aframework

forqualificationsbasedonnationalstandardscameintoeffectin2001,andanew

frameworkforqualityassurancein2002sawtheabolitionofsubjectreviews,andthe

introductionofindependentinstitutionalauditsconductedbytheQAA.TheQAAhadits

contractrenewedin2004todelivertherevisedqualityassuranceframework(2005/35).

Concurrentwithadrivetoensurevalueformoney,theNewLabourgovernmentwaskeen

toensurethat,withgreateraccesstoHEandmorechoiceofcourses,datashouldbe

providedtohelpstudentsmakethosechoices.Consequently,theprovisionofpublicdata

startedtobecomeakeyfeatureofHEFCEpolicywork,inlinewiththeirrevisedremitto

securethepublicinterest,andawebsitefornationalteachingqualityinformationwas

establishedin2003(2003/52,04/2005)withthefirstpilotoftheNationalStudentSurvey

(NSS)thatsameyear.TheNSSwaslaunchednationallyin2005and,withminor

modificationstothedatasetovertheyears,continues,nowundertheremitoftheOfS.Itis

noteworthythatmanyofthesepolicythemeshavecontinuedtodate,withthe

developmentoftheTeachingExcellenceFramework(TEF)beingthefocusofteaching

qualityandvalueformoney.

Socialinclusionandwideningparticipationbecameasignificantstrandofpolicyworkfor

HEFCErightupuntil2018,althoughitwasnotexplicitlyoneoftheoriginalaimsofthe

FundingCouncil.ItisnoteworthythatGreenbankobservesthat,priortotheDeering

Report,HEFCEhadlittleinterestinwideningparticipation:

‘PriortotheDeeringReport,HEFCEwasunenthusiasticabouttheideaofHEIsplayinganactiveroleinwideningparticipation….YetinresponsetotheDearingReport,HEFCEchangeditsposition.Itstatedthatwhileitstillbelievedthatmanyofthecausesofunder-representationoriginatedfromoutsidetheHEsystem,itfeltthat‘highereducationcanmakeacontributiontoredressingparticularimbalances’(HEFCE,1997,para24).Moreover,withinafewyearssocialclassandwideningparticipationhadbecomea‘majorpriority’forHEFCE’(Greenbank2006p.148).

99

Intheearlypartoftheperiod,wideningparticipationinitiativesonlyaccountedforaround

2%ofteachingfunds(Stiles2002)buttherewasanincreasingamountofactivityandpolicy

steer.In2000,theActiononAccessTeamwascreated,andinstitutionalbehaviourwas

influencedbyincentivisingformularecurrentfundingwithspecialpremiumsforpart-time

andmaturestudents(10/97,98/09,2003/48),specialfundingincentivesincluding£1.5min

1998and£7.5min1999forregionalwideningparticipation(98/35,99/24),andincreased

accessfundsin1998.Institutionswereencouragedtomoveawayfromthedeficitmodel

(Apperley2014)approachfavouredbyDearing,wherebytheonusisputonthelearnerto

bridgetheHEgap,toonewhereinstitutionswereencouragedtoaccommodatewidening

participation.Participationratesforstudentsfromspecificneighbourhoodsbecameoneof

thewideningparticipationdriversin1999,withenhancedfundingfrom2001(01/29),and

wideningparticipationtarget-settingforinstitutionsbecameaconditionofgrantfrom2002

(02/22,2002/49).

By2003,thegovernment’ssocialmobilityagendawasfirmlyestablished,notjustwithin

HEFCEandtheinstitutions,butbeyond,withbothregionalandnationalorganisations

supportingwideningparticipation.HEFCEwassuccessfulina£9.4mEuropeanSocialFund

(ESF)bidunderObjective3,LifelongLearning,whichresultedinthedevelopmentofthe

PartnershipsforProgressionInitiative.In2004,HEFCEandtheDfESformedAimhigher,by

mergingthePartnershipsforProgressionInitiativeandExcellenceChallengefunding,tobe

aregionallybasedumbrellaorganisationforwideningparticipationactivities.Summer

schools,whichhadbeenaspecialfundinginitiativesince2000,werealsointegratedinto

Aimhigherin2004.TheSchwartzreviewintofairandtransparentadmissionstoreduce

barrierstoHEreportedin2004,settingoutprinciplesforfairaccess,andtheOfficeForFair

Access(OFFA)wasestablished,asanindependentregulatoroffairaccesstoHEinEngland

(subsumedintotheOfSfrom2018).OFFAworkedcloselywithHEFCEinensuringthatall

institutionsthatchargedfeeshadanaccessagreementand,consequently,widening

participationstrategieswerenolongerrequiredasaconditionofgrantfrom2004,since

additionalstrategicrequirementswereimposedoninstitutionsbyOFFA(21/2004).For

criticslikeShattock(2008),thecreationofOFFApresentedanopportunityforgovernment

tointervenefurtherintouniversities’autonomousselectionofstudents.

Disabilitywasakeyareaintowhichfundingwasdirected,andHEFCE’sNationalDisability

Teamwascreatedin2000.£6mofspecialfundingwasprovidedtodevelopquality

provisionfordisabledstudentsin1999(99/08),andafurther£5.4min2002(02/21).

100

Additionalfundingfordisabledstudentsalsobecamepartoftherecurrentfundingformula

(98/66).

In2000,theNewLabourgovernmentannouncedtwonewinitiativesthatsoughttoaddress

the‘ThirdWay’agenda,inusingHEasadriverforbothincreasingglobaleconomic

competivenessandsocialinclusion,byaddressingtheskillsgapandwideningparticipation.

InalandmarkspeechbyDavidBlunkett(thenSecretaryofStateforEducationand

Employment),thee-University(00/43,00/44)wasannounced.HEFCEwastoallocate£62m

infundingtoencourageinstitutionstodevelopon-lineprogrammesaspartofanationale-

Universitybrandwhichwouldattractbothinternationalstudents,andhencesubstantial

income,andhomestudentsunabletoattendHEinitstraditionalform.Blunkettsawthee-

Universityasamajor‘dot.com’competitortothesuccessfulon-lineprogrammesbeing

developedintheUSA.Whatwasnovelaboutthee-Universityinitiativewasthatitwasto

beapublic-privateenterprise,withprivatecompaniesaspartners.Thee-University,UKeU,

launcheditsfirston-linecoursesinAutumn2003but,justoneyearlater,afterasuccession

ofdifficulties,itwaswoundup,resultinginaHouseofCommonsEducationandSkills

Committeeinquiryin2004.

Thisparticularpolicyepisodeisofinterest,asthereissomedebateaboutwhetherthe

initiativewasdrivenbygovernmentorHEFCEinthefirstinstance.Itwasalsofirmly

establishedwithinNewLabour’s‘ThirdWay’asaninitiativewhichusedaprivateenterprise

businessmodeltodrivebothwideningparticipationandmaintaintheUK’smarketposition

intheglobalknowledgeeconomy.Itwasuniqueinthisrespect,notamodelpreviously

pursuedbyHEFCE,althoughinallotherrespectstheinitiativefollowedthetypicalHEFCE

formatinrequiringinstitutionstobidforspecialprojectfunds.Althoughgenerally

consideredtobeanoutrightfailure,thee-Universityinitiativeisinterestinginthatitcanbe

usedtousetodetermineamorenuancedlevelofsuccessorfailureinrelationtothe‘three

dimensionsofprocess,programmeandpolitics’(McConnell2010).Assuch,Ihavealso

chosenthispolicyepisodeasacasestudy.

Inthesame2000speech,DavidBlunkettannouncedthecreationoftheFoundationDegree

(13/00),whichwoulddrivethesocialmobilityandskillsagenda.FoundationDegreeswould

bedevelopedinthetraditionalHEinstitutions,butalsoasHElevelqualificationsinFurther

EducationColleges(FECs).LikeUKeU,therewasanexpectationofpublic-private

partnership,inthiscasefromregionalemployers.ForNewLabour,therewasastrong

correlationbetweeneconomyandsociety,andapersuasivenarrativewascomingfrom

101

governmentaroundthedevelopmentofskills,theregionandlocalemployers,aswellas

socialmobilitythroughregionalFECsandHEinstitutions.TherelationshipbetweenHEand

FECshadbecomeacorepartoftheHEFCEagenda,particularlywiththetransferof

responsibilityforfundingHEprovisioninFECsfromtheFurtherEducationFundingCouncil

(FEFC)toHEFCEin1999andacodeofpracticeinthesameyear(99/63).In2003,HEFCE

statedthat

‘Thedevelopmentofawiderangeofcollaborativearrangementsbetweenhighereducationinstitutions(HEIs),andbetweenHEIsandcollegesfromthefurthereducationsector,islikelytobeanimportantfeatureinthecomingyears.SupportingsucharrangementswillbeakeypriorityfortheSDF[StrategicDevelopmentFund].Inthiscontext,weareinterestedinexploringthepotentialformulti-partnercollaborations,pilotingnewarrangements,andprovidingincentivesforinstitutionstodevelopinnovativeandflexibleprogrammesofstudy,particularlyinregionalandsub-regionalcontexts’(2003/28).

FoundationDegreeswerefundedthroughtherecurrentfundingmethodology,attracting

ASNs(2003/48)anda10%premiumfrom2004.FoundationDegreesmettheirproposed

targetnumbersin2010,andcontinuetothisday,althoughtherehasbeenadeclinein

interestinrecentyears,bothfrompotentialstudentsandfromgovernmentinsupporting

thequalification.

AstrongfeatureofHEFCEpolicyhadbeeninrelationtoencouragingHEIcollaborationwith

otherregionalinstitutions,almostsinceitsinception.TheRestructuringandCollaboration

Fundhadbeensetupin1997,toprovidenon-competitivefundstohelpinstitutionswhich

requiredmajorrestructuresor,moreparticularly,assistancewithmergingwithotherlocal

institutions.By1999,anadditional£10mhadbeenprovidedunderthefund,whichwas

nowextendedtosupportcollaborativeactivitiesinvolvingmultipleHEIs(99/34).By2003,

thisfundhadbeensupersededbytheStrategicDevelopmentFund,whichprovided£90m

ofspecialfundingoverthreeyears(2003/28).Thisfundfocussedspecificallyon

collaborationwithFECsand,despitethecontinueddividebetweentheliberaland

vocationalprovidersofHEobservedbyTight(2009)andnotedin4.2above,HEFCE

continuedtopursuepoliciesthroughoutitshistorywhichaddressedthisdivide.

OneofHEFCE’smajorspecialfundinginitiativeswascollaborationbetweenHEFCE,the

LearningSkillsCouncil(LSC)andtheDfES,tofundLifelongLearningNetworks(LLNs)

(12/2004)asnetworksbetweenHEIs,FECsandregionalemployerstofacilitatevocational

progressiontoHE.AlignedwiththeemphasisoncollaborationbetweenHEIsandFECs,the

governmentwasprioritisingthereviewofskillsrequiredtomeetchangingeconomic

102

demands,andincreaseparticipationinvocationaltraining.TheLeitchReviewofSkills,

commissionedin2004andreportingin2006,aimedto‘maximiseeconomicgrowth,

productivityandsocialjustice’(HMTreasury2006)throughanoptimisationoftheUK’s

skillsmix,andculminatedinthe2006WhitePaper‘FurtherEducation:TrainingSkills,

ImprovingLifeChances’.

LLNswereverymuchinlinewith‘ThirdWay’rhetoric,requiringHEIstoworktogetherwith

FECstofacilitatevocationalprogressiontoHE,butalsohavingstrongconnectionsto

employersataregionallevelandkeysectoragencies.Theinitiative,althoughstrongly

alignedtogovernment’sagendawaswidelythoughttohavebeeninitiatedbythethen

ChiefExecutiveofHEFCE,SirHowardNewby.Whatwasalsodistinctiveaboutthispolicy

approachwasthatitwasthefirsttimethatHEFCEhadtrieda‘bottomup’approach,where

theexactstructureandtermsforLLNswerenotprescribed,unlikethemajorityofHEFCE

policyinitiativeswhichconformedtotheveryprescriptivebiddingprocess.Inthiscase,

therewasnobiddingprocessassuch;proposedLLNswoulddevelopbusinessplansin

consultationwithHEFCEregionalconsultants,aswellasFECs,HEIs,SSCsandRDAs.The

rationalefordevelopingsuchapolicyapproachwasthattheinitiativewaspurportedtobe

sectordriven,ratherthanprescribedbyHEFCE.LLNsjoinedaplethoraofgovernment

initiativesaimedattheskillsagendawithmultiplepartnershipsand,assuch,thedynamics

ofabottomupapproachandengagementwithothersectoragenciesmakesitan

interestingchoiceofstudytodeterminewhetherthesefactorscontributedtoitssuccessor

failureinrespectoftheprocess,programmeorpoliticaldimensions.IhavechosenLLNsas

thefinalcasestudy.

4.8.3.3.Thebirthof‘thirdstream’

NewLabour’srhetoricaroundeconomyandsociety,andparticularfocusontheregional

economy,establishedastrandofHEFCEpolicyworkthatwasadominantfeatureduring

theBlairadministration.RDAswerecreatedin1998,primarilyfortheeconomic

developmentofnineEnglishregionsand,inthesameyear,theLearningAgeGreenPaper

recommendedthedevelopmentofregionalstructurestoaccommodatelinksbetweenHE

andcommunities.Thus,thelinkbetweenregionaleconomiesandHEwasestablished.In

response,HEFCEintroducedregionalconsultantsin1999,whoseremitwastoliaisewith

regionalinstitutions.Thelinktotheregionaleconomyinstigatedwhatbecameknownas

‘thirdstream’fundingandbecameacorepartofHEFCEpolicyin1999,throughtheHigher

EducationReach-OuttoBusinessandtheCommunityFund(HEROBC),with£22mper

103

annum(99/16).In2001,BusinessFellowships(01/06,01/25)andtheHigherEducation

InnovationFund(HIEF)(00/22,00/34)wereintroduced,buildingontheactivitiesof

HEROBC,with£80moverthreeyears.In2003,HEIFwasconsolidatedaspermanentthird

streamfundingwith£187moverthreeyears(2003/34)andafurther£238movertwo

yearsfrom2006(2005/36,/46,2006/30).AkeyfeatureofHIEFfundingwasthe

requirementforcollaborationbetweenregionalinstitutions.

By2004,GovernmenthadannouncedatenyearScienceandInnovationInvestment

Framework,whichsoughttoimprovethecountry’sglobalcompetitivenessinscienceand

technologybyinvestinginscientific,engineeringandtechnologicalintellectualandresearch

capabilities,andpromotinginnovationdirectlytocompanies.AsaresultoftheLambert

Reviewonbusiness-universitycollaboration,whichrecommendeda50%increaseinthird

streamfunding,HEFCEcommittedtothirdstreamasapermanentstrandoffundingforHE.

Consequently,£12mofspecialfundingwasmadeavailable,withfinancialsupportfromthe

OfficeforScienceandTechnology(OST),fortheKnowledgeTransferCapabilityFundfor

twoyears,whichsupportedinstitutionsinmeetingtheneedsoflocalbusinessesthrough

researchandknowledgeexchange(2005/05).ThepilotBeaconsforPublicEngagement

Initiativewaslaunchedin2006,with£8moverfouryears(2006/49)tosupportcentres

basedininstitutionswithpublicengagementactivities.

4.8.3.4.Research–alignedtotheeconomy

ResearchreceivedsubstantialfundingundertheBlairGovernment,asitsoughttoensure

thattheresearchinterestsofuniversitieswerealignedwiththeeconomicneedsofthe

country,particularlyinscienceandtechnologyandtheemergingglobalknowledge

economy,undertheScienceandInnovationFramework.Fundingwaschannelledthrougha

rangeofspecialfundinginitiatives,suchasthe£23.5mJointResearchEquipmentInitiative

(4/97)andtheScienceResearchInvestmentFund(SRIF)with£600min2001(26/2002),

£845min2003(2003/06)and£903min2006(2006/30).TheResearchCapabilityFundwas

announcedin2003,whichwouldcontinueuntil2009(29/2005)with£20min2003,anda

further£17.5min2004,tosupportemergingresearchintargeteddisciplineareassuchas

socialwork,artsbasedsubjects,mediaandculturalstudies,performingartsandsport.

Recurrentgrantremainedmostlyunchangedintheearlypartoftheperiod,withonly

minoralterationstothefundingmethodology.However,postgraduateresearchwasa

focusofpolicyinterventions,withpostgraduateresearchstudentsremovedfromthe

104

teachingfundingmethodologyandincludedasasinglesupportstreamwithinrecurrent

researchfunding.RevisionstotheQAAcodeofpracticein2004includedminimum

standardsforpostgraduateresearchdegreeprogrammes(18/2004)and,in2005,anew

elementofrecurrentfundingforresearchwasintroducedforundertakingresearchfunded

bycharities(16/2005),whichcontinueduntil2018.

TheRobertsreviewoftheRAEwaspublishedin2003,andthisresultedinanumberof

recommendationswithregardstoexpertjudgementsandpanelstructures,thebestfitfor

subjectsandtheassessmentburden(2003/22).HEFCEundertookareviewoftheQR

recurrentmethodology,agreeingamoreformulaicapproach(2003/38)andnewcriteriafor

RAE2008wasannouncedin2006.

Continuingtheagendatoensurevalueformoney,thecostsofresearchwereconsideredby

HEFCE,withthepublicationofareportdescribingthemethodforrecoveringtheFull

EconomicCostofresearchandotheractivities(05/2003).Assuch,‘FeC’becamethe

standardmethodofcostingresearchwithinthesector.

4.8.3.5.Capitalfundingdrivenbykeypriorities

Provisionofcapitalfundingforestatewasasubstantialfundingstreamduringtheperiod,

withbothspecialfundinginitiativesandtheincorporationofcapitalfundswithinrecurrent

grantfrom1997(6/97).Overfouryearsfrom1998,£135mwasprovidedtoimprovepoor

estate(97/22,98/50).Capitalfundingwasalsousedtosupportlearningandteaching

priorities,with£90mofformulabasedfundingfrom1999-2002tosupportlearningand

teachinginfrastructure(99/26)and,in2003,asizeableamountwasinvestedthrough

specialfundingtoimprovecapitalandITprovision,with£494mbetween2004-06

(2003/26).Ofthat£494m,HEFCEsoughttodrivespendingtowardscertainpolicypriorities,

with£117musedtoimproveprovisionforstudentswithspecialeducationalneeds,and

£60mtoimprovescienceandengineeringlaboratories.Additionalcapitalfundingby

formulaforlearningandteaching(£95moverthreeyears)wasannouncedin2006

(2006/12).WithagreaterfocusontheprovisionofHEwithinFECs,£22mwasprovidedin

2006tosupportcapitalprojectsinFECs(11/2005).

Inlinewithgovernmentprioritiesininvestinginscienceandtechnologyresearch,£30m

wasallocatedforrefurbishingresearchlaboratories(97/23),anadditional£7mfor

MetropolitanAreaNetworks(98/17)and£150mofformulafundingfrom1999-2002to

supportresearchcapitalprojects(99/52).Aswithotherfundingpriorities,valueformoney

105

anddrivingdowntheunitofresourcebecameakeyconsiderationforHEFCEinrelationto

theestate.In2005,aSpaceManagementGroupwascreatedtoreviewefficiencyand

sustainabilityinspacemanagement,resultingintheintroductionofspacecostdrivers

withininstitutions.

4.8.3.6.Thelocusofpolicy-making

ItisevidentfromtheHEFCEpolicyinitiativesandfundingmethodologieshighlightedabove

thattheNewLabourgovernment’sprioritiesinthe‘thirdway’policy-makingwereakey

focuswithinHEFCEinprioritisingfundingfordrivingregionalskillsdevelopment,business

collaboration,scienceandtechnology,andsocialmobilitythroughwideningparticipation.

Anotherkeythemeunderlyingmuchofthepolicyworkwasafocusonvalueformoneyand

efficiency,evidentwithinallthemainpolicyareasoflearningandteaching,researchand

capitalfunding.ForShattock,thisfocusoncostefficiencywasthedriverbehindthelocusof

policy-makinglyingwithgovernment,notHEFCE:

‘Thiswasabody[HEFCE]setuptomonitorandencourageinstitutionalcompetitiontopromotethemostcosteffectiveuseofresourceswithinanimperativetocontainpublicspending;policywaspushed‘upstairs’totheDepartmenttobedeliveredthroughannuallettersofguidancefromtheSecretaryofState’(Shattock2012p.83).

AnalysisbyStiles(2002)supportsthishypothesis,insuggestingthat

‘overthe1990s,HEFCEfundingmethodsevolvedtoreflectgovernmentaimsofexpandingstudentplacesandreducingunitcosts,whileincreasingequity,accessandcompetitionaswellasteachingandresearchquality…developmentofFundingCouncilallocationmethodsoverthe1990sreflectedaspiritofconservatismthatservedtoperpetuatehighereducationstructuresinahostilepublicfundingenvironment’(Stiles2002p.711/730).

However,despitetheseassertions,thereissomeevidenceduringNewLabouryears

suggestingthatHEFCEdidhavesomeinfluenceoverbroadpolicydirection,whichperhaps

demonstratesthestrongrelationshipbetweengovernmentandHEFCEatthattime,as

HEFCEfoundopportunitiestodevelopandsteerpolicy.Taggartpointstoinstanceswhere

thisisdemonstrated:

‘ThereareareaswheretheHEFCEhaseffectivelydevelopeditsownpolicieswithouttheobviousimpetusfromGovernment’(Taggart2003p.90).

Onesuchinstancewasacorrelationbetweenfundingandteachingquality,whichhadbeen

desiredbygovernmentssince1988.HEFCEhadstronglyresistedthisapproachandin1997

outsourcedoneofitskeyfunctionsinassessingqualitytotheQAAasdescribedabove,in

106

ordertodisconnectfundingfromquality.By1998,theexpectationoflinkingfundingto

qualityhadbeenabandoned(Taggart2003)andthisisagoodexampleofwhereHEFCEwas

abletoexercisecontrolinordertoprotectthesector.

The2003WhitePaper,TheFutureofHigherEducation,alsodemonstratesaninstance

whereHEFCEappearedtoinfluencegovernmentpolicythinking.Taggart(2003)recountsa

situationwhereHEFCEchosetodelaypublicationofits2003strategicplan,inorderto

awaitthepublicationoftheWhitePaper.Governmenthadalreadyhadsightofthedraft

strategicplan,andwhentheWhitePaperwaspublishedmanyofthekeythemeswerea

reflectionoftheHEFCEstrategicplan:

‘WhentheWhitePaperwaspublishedinJanuary2003therewasaremarkablemeasureofsymmetrybetweentheAutumn2002draftHEFCEstrategicplanandthechapterheadingsintheWhitePaper.AllofthekeythemesfromtheHEFCEdraftpaperwereincludedintheWhitePaper’(Taggart2003p.94).

ForTaggart,thisdemonstratestheextenttowhichgovernmentatthattimehadfaithin

HEFCEtodeliveritsHEagenda,andsuggeststhatgovernmentviewedHEFCEmoreasan

agentofgovernment,ratherthanthebuffersoenjoyedbyUGC:

‘ThismayindicatethattheDfEShasahighmeasureoftrustintheabilityoftheCounciltodeliveronademandingandcomplexagendaforhighereducationovertherestofthedecade.ItwouldappearthattheGovernmentviewsHEFCEasasafe,trustedandprofessionalpairofhands’(Taggart2003p.95).

Assuch,thisisanimportantmomentforthisresearch,sinceitdemonstratesatension

betweenHEFCEasanagentofagovernment,heavilyinvolvedinthepromotingofNew

Labour’s‘thirdway’agenda(andthusverydifferentfromtheUGC’sbufferrole),andyet

equally,HEFCE’spurportedinfluenceovergovernment’sthinkinginHEpolicydevelopment.

Thismomentisparticularlysignificantforthisthesis,sincethecasestudieshavebeen

chosenfromtheNewLabourperiod,andinallthreecasesthereisevidenceofHEFCE

playingakeyroleintheinitiationofthepolicyepisodes.

4.8.42007–2010

ThisperiodinHEFCE’shistorysawacontinuationofNewLabour’s‘thirdway’ideology,but

undertheadministrationofGordonBrownasPrimeMinisteruntil2010,whenageneral

electionresultedinaConservative/LiberalDemocratcoalitiongovernment.ASNswere

targetedatspecificdisciplinesandawideningparticipationagendatoincreaseHE

107

participationto50%by2010.Thattargetwasinfactmissedin2010,withonly45.8%

participation,althoughtherateclimbedto49%in2011.

2007sawafurthershiftinthepublic-privatefundingofHE,withvariablefeesof£3,070

introduced,thusfurtherincreasingthecontributionexpectedfromstudents.Inthesame

year,HEFCEbecametheprincipleregulatorfor110HEinstitutionsunderthe2006Charities

Act,andhenceafurthersubtleshiftintheremitoftheCouncil.Aneventwhichwastohave

asubstantialimpactonfuturepolicyforHEwastheglobalfinancialcrisisin2008,resulting

inthecommissioningofthe2010BrowneReviewofHEfunding:IndependentReviewof

HigherEducationFundingandStudentFinance,whichrecommendedproposalsforgreater

choiceforstudents,theremovalofthecapontuitionfees,studentfinanceplansandthe

introductionofpart-timefees.Thesenotionshadalreadybeenattheforefrontof

ministers’mindssince,in2009,theDepartmentforBusiness,InnovationandSkills(BIS)

announcedtheHigherEducationFramework,higherambitions:thefutureofuniversitiesin

theknowledgeeconomy.Thisdocumentitselfrepresentedawatershedmoment,

effectivelyendingpublicfundingofuniversitiesinfavourofincreasingthecontributions

fromstudentsandemployers.Theemphasisonstudentsascustomers,competition

betweeninstitutionsforfunding,andbusiness-facinginstitutionsarenoteworthyinthe

framework.

ThisperiodsawareductioninfundingtoHEFCEasaresultofthecomprehensivespending

reviewsin2007and2010,followingsignificantcutstopublicexpendituretoreducethe

country’sborrowingrequirements,leadingtotheSecretaryofStateannouncing£180mof

efficiencysavingsforHEin2009andafurther£135min2010.£20mofspecialfundingwas

madeavailabletodeliver‘efficiencyandvalueformoneythroughsharedservices’,

announcedin2010(07/2010).Thefocuswasonincreasingaccessandparticipationwhilst

increasingefficiencyandreducingcosts,andgovernmentlaunchedtheUniversity

ModernisationFund,with£270mforincreasingaccessandefficiency.

Thefocusonefficiencysavingsmeantthatbytheendoftheperiod,HEFCE’sinternal

organisationhadbeenrestructured,withthelossoftheinternationalcollaborationteam,

closureofsubjectcentresintheLTSN,andreplacementofHEFCEregionalteamswiththree

institutionalteams.

108

4.8.4.1.Targetedstudentparticipationwithlessresource

ASNscontinuedtodominatetherecurrentfundingmethodology,inordertomeetthe50%

participationinHEtargetby2010,andwerespecificallytargetedatkeyareasand

disciplinessuchasfoundationdegrees,strategicallyimportantandvulnerablesubjects,

STEM,andhealth(2007/06),04/2007,05/2008,32/2008,22/2009).In2007,HEFCE

publishedastrategyonemployerengagementtosupportflexiblelearningintheworkplace,

andallocated5,000ASNsin2008onaco-fundedbasiswithemployerengagement

(03/2007),thusstrengtheningpoliciesinrelationtoemployerengagementandHEandFEC

collaboration.Assuch,in2009,employerengagementandskillsbecameembeddedasone

ofHEFCE’sstrategicaims.However,therewastensionbetweentheneedformoreASNsto

meettargetandarequirementtoreducecosts,andsoanumberofpolicyshiftswere

introducedtoreducegrant.TheseincludedthephasingoutoffundingforEquivalentLevel

Qualifications(ELQs)in2008(2008/13),withdrawaloffundingforoldandhistoricbuildings

andphasingoutofadditionalsupportforFoundationDegreesin2010(2010/08).Tomeet

unanticipatedstudentsupportcosts,HEFCEintroducedclawbackoffundingin2009-10to

discourageinstitutionsfromrecruitingabove2008-09numbers(2009/08)andalso

introducedthesettingofspecificstudentnumbercontrolsforinstitutionsin2010

(2010/08).TheUniversityModernisationFund,aimedatimprovingefficiencyandreducing

costs,wasitselfreducedfrom£270mto£152min2010(14/2010)andthenabolishedin

2011(2011/07).

Someinvestmenttodrivestudentrecruitmentinspecificdisciplinesandforspecificgroups

ofstudentstookplace,althoughwithsubstantiallyreducedresourcesthanundertheBlair

government.Forexample,afocusonscienceandengineeringcontinuedtodominate,with

£75moverthreeyearsfrom2007to‘supportchemistry,physics,chemicalengineeringand

mineral,metallurgyandmaterialsengineering’(13/2007)and£25mrecurrentfundingwas

madeavailableforveryhighcostlaboratorysubjectsin2009(2009/08).Thepolicyon

strategicallyimportantandvulnerablesubjectswasreviewedin2010,andalignedtothe

government’sNewIndustry,NewJobs,HigherAmbitionsandSkillsforGrowthagenda

(2010/09),thusfurtheraligningHEtogovernmentpriorities.Whilstthereweresometime-

boundspecialfundinginitiativestosupportlearningandteaching,suchasthe£5.7mpilot

programme,establishedin2009todevelopadigitalrepositoryoflearningmaterials,anda

£13.6mGraduateInternshipsSchemetohelpwithemployability,fundingwasrelatively

modestcomparedwiththepreviousperiod.

109

WideningparticipationremainedakeyfocusforHEFCE,withinstitutionsexpectedtofocus

ondisadvantagedlearners(2007/12),andthefundingmethodologywasamendedin2009

tosupporttheadditionalcostsofworkingwithschoolsindisadvantagedareas(2009/30).

Disabilityalsocontinuedtobeakeyfocus,withcontinuedrecurrentandspecialistfunding

(2009/49).However,initiativesandfundingincentiveswerefewerthanundertheBlair

administrationandtherewerenolargescalespecialfundinginitiatives.Aimhigherfunding

wasextendedto2011,withafocusontargetinglowersocialeconomicgroups,areasof

deprivationandcareleavers,anda£21mAimhigherassociatesschemewasannouncedin

2008.Policyonwideningparticipationandfairaccesswaspublishedin2008,withafocus

onbetterlinkswithschoolsandcolleges,andpartnershipsbetweenHEIsandcommunities

(2008/10).Retentionofstudentshadbecomeakeyfocussincetheintroductionofvariable

fees,with£1moverthreeyearsfrom2008introducedtodisseminategoodpractice

(08/2008),increasedfundingforunder-representedgroupsatriskofnon-completion

(2008/12)andachangeinthefundingmethodin2009toincludefundingforimproving

retention(2009/30).

Forqualityassurance,anewcreditframeworkandguidelineswerepublishedbytheQAAin

2008and2010,andnewarrangementsforauditingcollaborativeprovision,andnewpolicy

onqualityassurancesystemsforinstitutionalaudit,werealsopublished(2010/17).The

shiftoffocusforHEFCEtoensurethepublicinterestsawagrowthinHEFCE’srolein

providingpublicallyaccessibleinformation,withanewUnistatswebsiteintroducedin2008

toprovidecoursedatainordertofacilitatestudents’choices.TheNSSandDestinationof

Leavers’fromHigherEducation(DLHE)surveyswerealsoextendedtoincludeFECs,inline

withapolicytoencouragegreatercollaborationacrossthesector.

Despitethecontinuationofsignificantspendingcuts,capitalfundingcontinuedforlearning

andteaching,with£1,085moverthreeyearsfrom2008(2008/04).However,institutions

wereaskedtobringforwardspendingfrom2010toaddresstheeconomicposition,and

capitalinvestmentfundingforFECswasputonholdin2009(12/2008).Thiswasperhaps

thefirstofanumberofpolicyinterventionsthatsawfundingcutsaimedatFECs.

4.8.4.2Research–cutsandqualitybasedonmetrics

Researchfundingwasalsosubjecttoreductionsinrecurrentfunding,alignedwithpublic

sectorcuts,witharevisedpolicyonthepurposeandfundingofQRpublishedin2008,and

thefundingelementforthe‘best5*’departmentsdiscontinuedin2009.Therecurrent

110

grantmethodologywasfurtheramendedin2010,withenhancedfundingfordisciplines

alignedtogovernmentstrategicpriorities,suchasSTEM,geographyandpsychology.There

wereveryfewspecialfundinginitiativesduringthisperiod,anotableexceptionbeing£6m

transitionalfundingforeightmedicalschoolstobuildresearchcapacity.Inlinewith

HEFCE’sincreasedroleasproviderofpublicallyavailableinformationandprotectorofthe

publicinterest,apolicyonopenaccesstoresearchpublicationswasagreedin2007.

Thebiggestchangeinresearchpolicycamein2007,withtheannouncementthatanew

researchqualityexercise,theResearchExcellenceFramework,wouldreplacetheRAEafter

2008.TheREFwasannounced‘asasingleunifiedframeworkforassessingandfunding

researchacrossalldisciplines’usingbibliometrictechniquesandassessmentofimpact

(13/2008,34/2008,04/2010).TheREFsawtheintroductionofnewmetricsonmeasuring

researchimpact,whichprovedtobeproblematic,sincemanycriticsarguedthatimpact

wasdifficulttomeasure,anditrequiredresearcherstohaveimpactoutsideacademia,

whichunderminedacademicfreedom.Followingconsultationwiththesector,David

Willetts,thenUniversitiesandScienceMinister,announcedin2010thattheREFwouldbe

delayedbyayear,whilstfurtherworkonthemeasurementofimpactwasconducted.Like

learningandteachingfunding,somecapitalfundingforresearchwasmadeavailablefrom

2008,with£1,276mforthreeyearsalthough,onceagain,institutionswereaskedtobring

theirspendingforwardtoaccommodatelikelyfuturereductionsinfunding.

4.8.4.3Thirdstream–conflictingpolicies

Thirdstreamactivitiescontinuedtobewellfundedfrom2006-2010,withsubstantialHEIF

fundingof£396mfrom2008-2011(2008/02).However,HEIFfundingwasalsoincorporated

intorecurrentgrantallocationstosupportallformsofknowledgeexchange(2008/12):this

meanttheCentresforKnowledgeExchangewerediscontinuedafterafinalallocationof

£8min2008(2008/02),andtherewasamovetowardsperformanceasthebasisforthe

allocationoffunds.Thiscametofruitionin2011,whenHEIFfundingwascalculatedon

performancemetricsalone,ratherthanfundingbyvolume.InlinewithHEFCE’snew

strategy,StrategicDevelopmentFundfundingwasre-focussedtoprioritiseemployer

engagementand,in2008,theEconomicChallengeInvestmentFundwasannounced,

providing£25mofmatchedfundingtosupportemployerengagement.Itisnoteworthy

thatjustmonthslater,HEFCEannouncedthattherewouldbenomorefundingfor

employerengagementactivities(36/2008),thusreflectingthedispositionatthetimefor

continualrefinementstocutpublicexpenditure.Inthesameyear,andperhapsinconflict

111

withHEFCE’spositiontomoveawayfromemployerengagement,governmentannounced

theNewUniversityChallenge:unlockingBritain’stalent,settingout‘howlocalhigher

education,deliveredorsupportedbyuniversities,unlocksthetalentsofpeopleanddrives

economicregeneration’(18/2008).ThedocumentproposedthatHEFCEconducta

consultationonaschemefornewHEcentrestostresstheimportanceofhowlocalHE

institutionscouldworkwithlocalbusinessandregionalorganisationstosupport

communityaccesstoHE.In2009,HEFCEpublishedapolicyandprocessfordevelopingnew

HEcentres(2009/07),althoughthesedidnotfullycometofruition.

4.8.4.4Adeclineinfocusonleadership

Unlikethepreviousperiod,wheretherewasastrongfocus(andsignificantfunding),for

governanceandleadership,thisperiodsawamarkedreductionincomparison,asadirect

resultofrequiredpublicsectorcuts.In2007,HEFCEprovideddirectiontoinstitutions

throughthepublicationofpoliciesonrace,disabilityandgenderequality(2007/01)and

notably,giventhecontinuedfinancialconstraintsonthesector,apolicyonseverancefor

seniorstaffin2009(06/2009).ThecontinuationoftheLeadershipFoundationwas

announcedin2007,withverymodestfundingof£4.5muntil2012,andafurther£10mfor

theLeadership,ManagementandGovernanceFund07/2009).However,thisfundwas

withdrawncompletelyin2010(13/2010),significantlyreducingthefocusonsupporting

leadership.

4.8.4.5Thelocusofpolicy-making

Thereareperhapstwosignificanteventswhichcontributedtoachangeintherelationship

betweenHEFCE,governmentandinstitutionsduringthisperiod.Firstly,thereductionin

blockgrantto60%by2010,andsignificantcutsinspecialinitiativefunding,meantthat

HEFCEbegantoloseitsstrengthasafundingbodyand,indeed,itbegantorefocusits

purposebyactingasthedefenderofthepublicgood,throughanincreasedrolein

providinginformationtosupportchoice.Secondly,during2010HEFCEacquiredadditional

powersaschiefregulatorforHEunderthe2006CharitiesActand,assuch,HEFCE’srole

wastoensurecompliance,by‘exercisingcontrolandmanagementoftheadministrationof

thecharity’(HEFCE2006).Asaconsequence,therewasachangetothefinancial

memorandumwithinstitutions,whereHEFCEgainedgreaterpowersoffinancialcontrol

andgoverningbodiesbecamedirectlyaccountabletoHEFCEinmattersoffinance.This

representsasignificantshiftfromthebufferrelationshippreviouslyheldbythe

112

intermediarybody,aswillbediscussedinSection4.9(p.120).ForShattock,thismarksa

significantchange:

‘increasinglyuniversitieshadbecomeabsorbedintoastateaccountabilityapparatus.Thissignificantlyrebalancedthenatureofstate-universityrelations’(Shattock2012p.199).

Thisobservationisofparticularsignificancetothisstudy,asthischangeinHEFCE’srole

meantthatitsresponsibilityforpolicydevelopmentandinfluencebegantodiminishasit

lostitsstrengthasafundingbodytoinfluencechange,butitgainedstrengthasthebody

ensuringthefinancialaccountabilityofinstitutions.Ascanbediscernedfrommanyofthe

policyinitiativesdescribedintheprevioussectionsonHEFCE’spolicywork,andparticularly

recognisableinthechosencasestudies,muchofHEFCE’sworkindrivinginstitutional

behaviourtowardsparticularpolicygoalsrevolvedaroundtheprovisionofspecialfunding

initiatives.Asaresultofacombinationofverysignificantcutstopublicexpenditure,

particularlyforteaching-relatedfunding,andafocusonperformance-relatedfundingin

researchandthirdstreamactivities,HEFCE’sroleinpolicydevelopmentthroughhighly

fundedinitiativesislessdiscernible.Hence,therearefewersuitablecandidatesthatmeet

thecriteriatobedevelopedascasestudies.

4.8.52011–2016

Theperiod2011-2016waswitnesstoturbulenttimesinUKgovernance,withacoalition

governmentofConservativeandLiberalDemocratsfrom2011andafullyConservative

governmentfrom2015.Theleavevoteinthe2016Brexitreferendumaddedfurther

turbulenceforHE,withconcernsaroundEuropeanstaffing,studentsandresearch

collaborations.TheperiodsawmomentouschangeforHEinEngland,withtwoWhite

Papers:StudentsattheHeartoftheSystemin2011andSuccessasaKnowledgeEconomy:

teachingexcellence,socialmobilityandstudentchoicein2016.The2011WhitePaper

emphasisedtheneedforgreatercompetitionthroughdynamism,andrecommendedan

increaseinthevariablefeeuptoamaximumof£9,000.TheWhitePaperalsocontained

provisionfornewtypesofprivatesectorproviders,andastrongeremphasisonstudentsas

customers.Thispromptedtheincreaseinfeesfrom2012(withmostinstitutionscharging

themaximum£9,000forthevastmajorityofcourses),andashiftoffocusforHEFCE:in

2012toinvestonbehalfofstudentsand,in2013,tohavegreaterregulatoryinsightasa

resultoffundingandregulatoryreform.Regulatoryreformresultedinanewoperating

frameworkfrom2013andtheintroductionofthe‘HEFCEregister’whichlistedall

113

‘appropriatelyrecognised’institutionsandnewproviders,andheldthoseinstitutionsto

accountthroughcompliance.HEFCEacknowledgedthisshiftinfocusintheir2010-11

annualreport,reflectingthecharacteroftheWhitePaper:

‘futurearrangementswillrequireclosecollaborationonaregulatoryframeworkwhichwillneedtobetransparent,fairandproportionate,andtoprotecttheinterestsofstudents,thepublicandtaxpayers.Theywillalsoneedtoincludemeasurestofurtherstudentchoiceandopportunities’(HEFCEAnnualReport2010-11p.3).

Thiswasaccompaniedin2012byanewframeworkbetweenBISandHEFCEandaninternal

restructureofHEFCE.In2016,HEFCEnolongerreportedtoBIS,buttotheDepartmentfor

Education(DfE),therationalebeingthattheDepartmentcouldtakeaholisticviewof

lifelonglearning.AfurtherchangeinfocusforHEFCEwasitsincreasedpowersunderthe

Counter-TerrorismandSecurityAct2015,whichenabledittomonitorinstitutionsandhow

theypreventedpeoplefrombeingdrawnintoterrorism.

The2016WhitePaperproposedastrongeremphasisonregulationandtheintroductionof

theTEF,whichawardsteachingqualitywithabronze,silverorgoldrating.Thisproposal

suggestedthereturnofthelinkbetweenfundingandteachingquality,whichhad

consistentlybeenresistedbyHEFCE,proposingthatfrom2020teachingqualityresults

determinewhetherinstitutionscanraisetuitionfees.AlthoughTEF1tookplacein2016,

withthesubsequentTEF2,andnowTEF3whichfocussesondisciplinelevel(andisoneof

thekeyactivitiesthathasbeenpassedovertotheOfS),therehasbeenmuchcriticism,

bothwithinthesectorandinthemedia,overimperfectionsoftheframework.Inaddition,

the2015NurseReviewoftheresearchcouncilsproposedtheestablishmentofanumbrella

organisationwhichwouldfundresearchquality,thusremovingtheresponsibilityfrom

HEFCE.TheseproposalspromptedthecreationoftheHigherEducationandResearchBillin

2016,andtheultimatedemiseofHEFCE,whichisconsideredinSection4.8.6(p.118).

AnotherkeyshiftwithinHEFCEpolicyduringthisperiodwasachangeofemphasisinthe

waythatHEFCEallocatedfunding.Specialfundinginitiativeshadalwaysbeenakeyfeature

oftheHEFCElandscapeindrivinginstitutionalbehaviourtowardsparticularpolicygoals,

butin2012,specialinitiativesfundingreducedfrom£208mto£125mandtherewasa

movetochannelmostfundingthroughrecurrentroutes(03/2012).

Therewasstillastrongfocusonaccountabilityandvalueformoney,althoughnotas

stronglyevidentasithadbeenintheNewLabouryears.TRACcontinuedtobethetoolby

whichthecostingofactivitieswasconsideredbyHEFCE,althoughproposedchangesin

114

2013tomakeTRACdatatransparenttostudentswasmetwithmuchcriticismfromthe

sector(2013/09).Afocusonefficiencyandsharedservicescontinued,with£250,000of

fundingfor‘developinganddisseminatinggoodpracticeinsharedservices’(27/2013).

Therewasfarlessemphasisonpolicyinrelationtoleadership,managementand

governanceofinstitutionsthaninpreviousyears,asacasualtyofpublicsectorfundingcuts

andtheneedtoprioritiseotherkeyareas.

4.8.5.1Learningandteaching–fundingshiftsandwaves

TheshiftinfundingforlearningandteachingawayfromHEFCEresultedinaplethoraof

policystatements,shiftsinpolicyemphasisandnewinitiativestofocuseffortonthe

studentascustomer.In2011,allelementsofthe‘teachinggrant,withtheexceptionof

wideningparticipationandimprovingretention’,weresubjecttoa4.28%cashreduction

(2011/07)and,in2014,therewasa£20mreductionintherecurrentteachinggrant.In

2012,whenthenewfeeregimewasintroduced,studentsachievingAABwerenolonger

includedintheStudentNumberControl(SNC);in2013,morestudentsweretakenoutof

theSNCpolicyand,in2015,SNCwasabolishedaltogether.Thenewfeeregimewasalso

introducedforpart-timeaswellasfull-timestudents,andconsequentlypart-timestudent

registrationsdroppedby40%which,despitesomeamendmentstothefunding

methodology,havetodateneverfullyrecovered.By2015,HEFCEhadsoughttosimplifyits

recurrentfundingmethodologyforteaching,suchthatthethreestagerecalculation

processwasremoved(30/2013,29/2014).Theamountofrecurrentgrantcontinuedto

decline,particularlythesupplementfor‘oldregime’students,whichwasreducedby£54m

in2016,althoughfundingwasmaintainedinrealtermsforhighcostandSTEMsubjects

(03/2016).

HEFCEstillhadsomecontroloverthefundingofspecificdisciplines,withfinancial

incentivesforstrategicallyimportantandvulnerablesubjects(09/2011),highcostsubjects,

STEM(forwhichsomenewdisciplineswerenowincludedinclassifications,suchassports

science)andarelaxationoftheELQpolicyforsomeSTEMsubjectsandstudentstakinga

yearabroad(14/2013).In2011,despiteHEFCE’spreviousassertionthatemployer

engagementwasnolongerapolicyfocus,20,000ASNswereprovidedforco-funded

employerengagementaspartofaworkforcedevelopmentprogramme(03/2007),butby

2012,co-fundedplaceswerephasedoutandHEFCEhadannouncedthatworkforce

developmentwasnolongerapolicypriority.

115

Thevastmajorityofpolicydecisionsintheperiodwereinrelationtotherecurrentfunding

methodology,withlittlespecialinitiativefunding.However,whatlittlewasavailablewas

focussedonotherareasofthesector,suchastaughtpostgraduatestudents,with£25mof

specialinitiativefundingin2013tostimulateprogressiontotaughtpostgraduate(PGT)

(2013/13)and£50min2014asmatchedfundingtowardsthecostofstudiesaspartofa

PostgraduateSupportScheme(32/2014).FollowingtheSainsburyreviewoftechnicalskills

pathwaysandqualifications,HEFCEturneditsattentiontodegreeapprenticeships,with

£11mfortheDegreeApprenticeshipsDevelopmentFund(06/2016).

In2011,aspartofHEFCE’snewroleinsupportingstudentsandprovidinginformationon

choiceandopportunities,HEFCEpublishedapolicyontheprovisionofinformationabout

HEinresponsetotheWhitePaper,includingtheestablishmentofKeyInformationSet(KIS)

datatobeprovidedbyinstitutionsonallcourses(2011/18)andincludedatafromsurveys

suchastheNSSandDLHE,(2011/18).ThefirstKISdatawasproducedin2012and

publishedonthenewUNISTATSwebsite(16/2012).By2014,institutionswerebeingasked

formoretransparency,andaskedtoprovidestudentswithinformationonincomeand

expenditure,aspartofthegovernment’sSupportingPublicAccountabilityinitiative

(06/2014).HEFCElauncheddatamapsofHEprovisionin2014,thusenhancingitsrolein

theprovisionofpublicallyavailableHEdata.Provisionofdatawasextendedto

postgraduateprovisionin2015,withthedevelopmentoftheStepstoPostgraduateStudy

decision-makingtoollaunched.

Increasingparticipationcontinuedtobeapriorityforgovernment,andalthough

participationhadincreasedto49%in2011,theparticipationratedeclinedsharplyto42.1%

in2012withtheintroductionofthehigherfeecap.However,despitethisdropin2012,

participationcontinuedwithanupwardstrajectorytoriseto49.1%by2016(source:DfE

2018).

PolicysteersandrecurrentfundingincentiveswerestillattheforefrontofHEFCE’s

wideningparticipationagenda,butthesetooweresubjecttofundingcutsduringthe

period.Indeed,Aimhigher,whichhadbeentheflagshipumbrellaorganisationforwidening

participationfundedbytwogovernmentdepartmentsandHEFCE,wasclosedin2011.

Underthecoalitiongovernmentin2011,aNationalScholarshipProgrammewas

announced,whichprovided£300mofmatchingfundingoverthreeyearstosupport

studentswhosehouseholdincomewaslessthan£25,000(13/2011,2011/10).However,

theprogrammewasshort-livedand,followingare-calculationofitsfundingmethodto

116

concentratefundingininstitutionswithagreaternumberofstudentsfromlowincome

families(2013/02),togetherwitha£50mreductioninfundingin2014(32/2013),the

programmewasabolishedin2015inordertoconcentratefundingtosupportpostgraduate

studentsfromdisadvantagedbackgrounds(24/2013).Arelativelymodest£25mwas

providedovertwoyearsasspecialinitiativefundingin2014tosupportanationalNetwork

forCollaborativeOutreachProgramme(NCOP)betweenHEandFE(20/2014).However,

withanowwhollyConservativegovernment,andapushfromthethenPrimeMinister,

DavidCameron,theNCOPbecamearecurrentfundingstreamwith£90movertwoyearsin

ordertomeetthePM’sgoalsofincreasingparticipationfromdisadvantagedbackgrounds

by100%,anddoublingtheproportionofstudentsfromethnicminoritygroups(27/2016).

DisabledstudentsalsocontinuedtobeafocusforHEFCE,withfundingdoubledto£40m,

albeitwithrevisedweightings(03/2016).However,despiteastrongsteertowards

increasingparticipationfromcertaingroupsthroughthesefundinginitiatives,by2016

formulafundingforwideningparticipationhaddroppedfrom£68mto£54m(03/2016).

CapitalspendingforlearningandteachingthroughtheCapitalInvestmentFundcontinued

tobeapriority,bothforHEIsandforHEFCEfundedFECs,withincreasesyearonyearfrom

2012-14(05/2012,2013/08,03/2014),andthereweremovestodrivecapitalinvestment

towardsparticularpriorities,with£200mmadeavailablein2014forinvestmentinSTEM

facilities(02/2014).Likemanyofthefundinginitiativesbeingintroducedpost2011,this

requiredmatchedfundingfrominstitutionsthemselves.HEFCEintroducedachangeof

emphasisduringthisperiod,withmanycapitalpolicyfundinginitiativesbeingdriven

towardsthereductionofcarbonemissions,suchastheRevolvingGreenFund(16/2011,

29/2012).Indeed,in2012,capitalfundingbecame‘conditionaluponcarbonmanagement

plansandimprovedenvironmentalperformance’(16/2011).

4.8.5.2Research–qualityjudgedbyimpact

Althoughrecurrentresearchfundingwasalsosubjecttocutsatthebeginningoftheperiod,

withanoverallreductionof1.1%in2011(2011/07),by2016QRfundinghadincreasedby

£20m(03/2016).HEFCEcontinuedtoinvestinresearchcapability;from2012,£100mof

additionalfundingwasmadeavailableoverthreeyearstosupportresearchfacilities

(2012/12)andtherewas£240mtosupportpostgraduateresearch.TheUKResearch

PartnershipInvestmentFundforcapitalfundingwasintroducedin2013,withfour

consecutiveroundsinthefouryearsto2016ofover£400minfunding(2012/31,2013/35,

2014/17,2015/33).However,therewerealsochangestotheQRfundingmethodology,

117

suchthattwostarresearchoutputswerenolongerfunded(03/2012)and,inthelightof

the2014REFresults,theparametersforthefundingmethodwerereviewed(03/2015).A

furthershiftofemphasiscamein2014,wheninstitutionswererequiredtocomplywiththe

ConcordattoSupportResearchActivity,asaconditionofgrant(153rdBoardMeeting

minutes).

ThekeyeventinHEFCE’sresearchpolicyintheperiodwasthefirstREFsubmissionin2014,

withitsincreasedfocusontheimpactofresearch.In2016,theSternReviewreportedona

reviewoftheREFguidelines,recommendingthattherewasanevengreateremphasisin

futureREFsontheimpactofresearch.However,therehadbeencriticismofthisapproach,

andastudybytheRANDCorporationin2014foundthatbothdefiningimpactand

authenticatingtheimpacthadprovedproblematic.Anotherkeyoutcomefromchangesto

theREFpost-2014wastheimplementationofanopenaccessframework(2013/16,

2014/07,32/2016,2016/35),suchthatthefindingsofresearcharepublicallyavailable,thus

enhancingitstransparency.

4.8.5.3Economyandsociety

ThirdstreamactivitiescontinuedtobeafeatureontheHEFCEfundinglandscape,albeit

muchreducedincomparisonwithpreviousyears.TheStrategicDevelopmentFund(SDF)

wasreplacedin2012byCatalystFunding,specificallytargetedtopromoteactivitiessuchas

projectswhichenhancedthesector’scontributiontoeconomicgrowth,theNUS’sgreen

fund(2012/12)andhigherleveltechnicaleducation(2014/21).TheCatalystFundbecamea

catch-allfundforsupportingactivitiesinotherkeypolicyareas,suchasthe2016focuson

teachinginnovationsinaddressingbarrierstosuccessandsafeguarding(20/2016,

36/2016),thussignificantlysimplifyingthefundingofspecialinitiatives.

4.8.5.4Thelocusofpolicy-making

ThisphaseinHEFCE’shistorysawthelocusofpolicy-makingshiftwhollytothatofoutside-

in,asHEFCEbecamechiefregulator,anditsabilitytoinfluencepolicythroughspecial

fundingcontinuedtodiminish,bothasaconsequenceofcontinuedcutstopublicfunding

andcutstolearningandteachinggrantthroughincreasedstudentfees.Indeed,agood

manyofthespecialfundinginitiatives,whichhadpreviouslygivenHEFCEthepotentialfor

influencinginstitutionalbehaviour,becameabsorbedintorecurrentfundinginlearningand

teaching,research,andthirdstreamfunding.Henceshiftsinpolicydirectiontendedtobe

characterisedbyincrementalshiftsintherecurrentfundingformulas.Thefocusonthe

118

studentasconsumermeantthatHEFCEfounditsrolemoreasproviderofinformationand

lessasinfluencerofpolicy.

TheconsequencesforthisstudyarethatinthisperiodofHEFCE’shistory,therearefew

policyinitiativesthatadequatelymeetthecriteriatobeconsideredascasestudies.There

arefewspecialfundedinitiativesresultinginadequateformativeandsummative

evaluations,andlittlepolicydevelopmentworkwhichhasresultedinsufficientlyrich

discussionsandreviewbyothercommentators.

4.8.62017–2018

AsaconsequenceoftheWhitePapersnotedin4.8.4above,andtheNursereview,The

HigherEducationandResearchBillhaditsfirstreadingintheHouseofCommonsinMay

2016andreceivedRoyalAssenttwelvemonthslater.TheBillrecommendedfurther

significantchangestothefundingandregulatorystructuresforHE,mostnotablythe

demiseofHEFCEandtheintroductionofanewHEregulator,theOfS.TheBillalsosawthe

mergeroftheResearchCouncils,andtheresearchfundingfunctionsofHEFCEtransferred

toanewbody,UKRI.ByApril2018,formulafundingforteachingandregulatory

responsibilitieshadbeentransferredtotheOfS,andformulafundingforresearchhad

transferredtoUKRI.Assuch,thefundingofteachingandresearchhadbeentruly

separated.

TheOfSisessentiallyanamalgamationofthestudent-facingfunctionsofHEFCEandOFFA.

ThespecificpurposeoftheOfSistoregulatethemarketforHE.Whatlittlestatefunding

thatremainswillcomestraightfromtheDfE:

‘Wewillestablishanewmarketregulator,theOfficeforStudents(OfS)thatoperatesonbehalfofstudentsandtaxpayerstosupportacompetitiveenvironmentandpromotechoice,qualityandvalueformoney.Indoingsowewillputstudentsattheheartofhowhighereducationisregulated.TheOfSwillbeexplicitlypro-studentchoice,achampionoftransparency,andwillmakesurethatahighqualityhighereducationexperienceisavailableforstudentsfromallbackgrounds’(HouseofCommonsEducationCommitteereportFebruary2017).

OtherHEagencieswerealsosubjecttosignificantchangewithinthisperiod,withtheUUK

andGuildHEBellReviewofthesectoragenciesrecommendingamergeroftheLeadership

Foundation,theHEAandtheEqualityChallengeUnit,andthiswasfulfilledin2018.Data

collectionforthesectorwasalsosubjecttochangeandtheHigherEducationStatistics

Agency(HESA)datacollectionwasrebrandedasDataFuturesfrom2019-20.Inafurther

119

movetodistanceHEfundingfromthestate,thegovernmentalsosoldpartofthestudent

loanbooktotheprivatesectorin2017.Evans(2018)notesthattheOfShadnotbeenset

uptoworkco-operativelywithsectoragencies,andindeedthereviewofsuchagencies

meansthat

‘thebalancinginfluenceofHEFCE’scooperatingbodieshasbeenbrokenupandreshaped’(EvansWONKHE2018).

MuchofthepolicyworkofHEFCEinitsremainingmonthswasfocussedonpreparingfor

thetransitionofitsregulatoryfunctionstotheOfSandQRfundingtoUKRI,andhence

therewereveryfewnewinitiatives,withmostworkresultinginminorchangestothe

fundingmethodologies.Specialinitiativefundinghadbeenalmostcompletelywithdrawn,

withtheexceptionoftheCatalystFund,whichprovidedfundstosupportfocussed

initiatives,suchastacklingreligious-basedhatecrime(3/2018)andsupportingthemental

healthofpostgraduateresearchstudents(40/2017).Howevertherewasacontinuationof

theCapitalInvestmentFrameworkwith£324mtosupportbothteachingandresearch

(07/2017).Overallthough,thedemiseofHEFCEanditsinfluenceinpolicywasevidentfrom

2017.

Muchofthepolicyworkin2017-18supportedthedevelopmentofTEF,includingchanges

totheNSSdatasettoincludeprivateproviders(30/2016).Inaddition,HEFCEcontinuedto

supportgovernment’sfocusonapprenticeships,withacontinuationoftheDegree

ApprenticeshipDevelopmentFund,althoughfundingwasmodestatonly£5mfor2017-18

(06/2016).Overall,teachingrecurrentgrantdeclined,by£40min2017,althoughtherewas

stillafocusondrivingsomeareasofpolicy,suchaschangestoformulafundingto

accommodatetheNCOP,andapushtosupportstudentmentalhealth(2017/05).

Therewassomegoodnewsforgovernmentin2018,withtheparticipationtargetalmost

meeting50%,standingat49.8%attheendof2016-17(sourceDfE2018),althoughithas

beenreportedthatthisisamisleadingfigure,sinceonceallmodesofstudyandgenderare

takenintoaccount,thenumberofentrantsismorethan4,000lowerthanin2011-12

(KernohanandCoiffait2018).

Therewaslittleinthewayofnewpolicydevelopmentforresearch,otherthana

consolidationoffunding,withrecurrentfundingincreasingby£28min2017,inorderto

switchtheGlobalChallengesResearchFundtotherecurrentfundingmethodology

(2017/05,24/2017).Specialfundingwasalmostnon-existent,withtheexceptionof£220m

120

ofresearchcapabilityfundingfortheUKResearchPartnershipInvestmentFund(2017/05).

ThebiggestpolicyinfluencefromHEFCEinresearchwasanannouncementonthe

frameworkforREF2012(33/2017,REF2017/01).Recurrentfundingforthirdstream

economyandsocietyfundingcontinued,althoughnewfundswererelativelymodest,with

smallincreasesinHIEFfundingtosupportgovernmentinitiativessuchastheindustrial

strategy(2017/24).

Asaconsequence,therewerenopolicyinitiativeswithsufficientlyrichdatatobe

consideredascandidatesforcasestudies.

4.9Frombuffertoregulator(andashiftinthelocusofpolicy-making)

FormanycommentatorsonHE,thebufferrolesoenjoyedbyUGChaddiminishedwiththe

adventoftheFundingCouncils.Scott(1995)describedtheFundingCouncilsas‘agentsof

government,notbufferbodies’(p.27)andShattock(2012)agrees,describingthemas

‘essentiallyaninstrumentofgovernment’(p.100).Hearguesthatthisagencyrelationship

wasfurtherstrengthenedin1997withtheinstallationoftheNewLabourgovernment,

whichsawtheroleofHEFCEasdeliveringpolicy,notcreatingit.ForShattock,theevidence

forthisliesinexampleswhereHEFCEhasbeenover-ruledbygovernment,suchasthe

occasionwhenaministerrequiredHEFCEtoreducethenumberoffivestardepartments

identifiedintheRAE,sincehethoughtthereweretoomany(Shattock2012p.100).

However,despitetheapparentlossofthebufferrole,ShattockacknowledgesthatHEFCE

hadacriticalroletoplayasa‘mediator’.Itisnoteworthythat,in2003,HowardNewby,

thenChiefExecutiveofHEFCE,alsosawtheroleofHEFCEasamediator,reportinginthe

Guardiannewspaperthat

‘IncarryingoutourroleweactasamediatorbetweenGovernmentanduniversitiesandcolleges.WerobustlyrepresenttheneedsofhighereducationtoGovernment,andconveytheviewsofGovernmenttohighereducation’(inTaggart2003p.10).

Conversely,inthesamearticlehedescribeshowHEFCEhadresponsibilityforimplementing

policieswithinthebroadpolicyframeworkofgovernment,thussuggestingthatScottand

Shattock’sdescriptionofHEFCEasinstrumentsandagentsofgovernmentwasalso

acknowledgedbyHEFCE.Equally,Taggart(2003)pointstoaMORIpollconductedin2002-

03inwhich90%ofrespondentsfromHEIsandFECsagreedthatHEFCEwasanagentof

government(p.11).ForTaggart(2003),whilstHEFCEdidnothavetheplanningpowers

underthetermsoftheAct(1992),itwasableto‘steer’policythroughregulatorypowers

121

andpromotinggoodpractice.Iwouldagreewiththisview,sincethereisevidence,asnoted

byTaggart(2003),thatHEFCEwasabletoinfluencegovernment,suchaswiththe2003

WhitePaper,andtheforthcomingcasestudiesdemonstratethatHEFCEchiefexecutivesin

particularhadonoccasionstheopportunitytoinfluencetheinstigationofparticularpolicy

initiatives.

By2010,HEFCEhadseenafurtherchangeinfocus,asstudentfeesbecamethedominant

fundingmethodologyforthesector,andHEFCE’srolebecamemoreregulatorythanthatof

afundingbody;andthisissupportedbyevidenceprovidedabove,forexamplethecreation

oftheHEFCEregisterin2013asaresultofregulatoryreform.Thusthefocuswason

regulatingexpenditureandmonitoringinstitutions’financialhealthinordertomakethem

moreaccountableforspendingfeeincome.Shattock(2012)arguesthatthisrepresenteda

furthermoveawayfromthebufferroleforthefundingcouncil,asHEFCEwasobligedto

refineitself:

‘in2010HEFCEabandonedthepretenceitwasa‘buffer’andrefineditselfasa‘broker’’(Shattock2012p.101).

HEFCEacknowledgedthischangeinroleitselfinits‘memorandumofassuranceand

accountabilitybetweenHEFCEandinstitutions’inJuly2017,inwhichitdescribedHEFCE’s

roleto‘actasabroker’(Evans2018).However,withthedemiseofHEFCE,theroleofthe

newintermediarybody,theOfS,shiftedonceagaintothatofsolelyregulator.

FormanycommentatorsandobserversofHE,thedemiseofHEFCEwasinevitableoncethe

focusoffundingshiftedfromthestatetotheindividual,andwithitcameashiftinthelocus

ofpolicy-making.WhilstHEFCEwasabletoretainakeyroleinusingfundingtoincentivise

(Selby2018)institutionstoengagewithcertainpolicies,whetherasabuffer,mediatoror

broker,itretainedaroleinfluencingpolicyatbothgovernmentandinstitutionallevel.

However,asitsfundingpowerdiminished,sodiditsabilitytoinfluencepolicy.AsMark

LeachobservedinTheGuardianin2015,HEFCE’spositionhadbeenunderthreatsince

2011:

‘havingtakenawaymostofitscarrotsastheprimaryfunderofuniversities,thegovernmentgaveitnonewstickstocompensate’(Leach,2015).

DavidMelville,formerChiefExecutiveoftheFEFCE,writingin2018,takesthisfurther,

arguingthatthedemiseofHEFCEfirmlyremovedanybridgebetweengovernmentandthe

institutionsandentirelyshiftedthelocusofpolicy-makingintotheheartofgovernment:

122

‘IwouldarguethatthedemiseofHEFCEisnotjustanothercommainthelast100-yearhistoryofHE.Ratheritisafull-stop.HEFCEhasbeenthelastbastionofacenturies-oldcompactbetweengovernmentsanduniversitiestoprovidethefundingwhilstleavingtheinternaloperationsofthesystemtotheuniversities…..Thisparallelswhathashappenedinotherareasofthepublicsectorintermsofcentralcontrol,butuniversities,oncehavingtheclouttoresistsuchmoveshavefragmentedintocompetingmissiongroupswhichmakeiteasierforcentralgovernmenttoimposeitswill.ThebypassingofHEFCEonthebasisofministerialanecdotetoinventdubiouspolicyinitiativeshasbeenprogressivelymoreevident’(Melville2018).

Kernohan,alsowritingin2018,concurs,arguingthatHEFCE’spolicyininterpretingand

managingpolicywasessentialforthesector:

‘policycomingfromministerialfiatwasthoughtfullytranslatedintointerventionsthatmadesense,andeitherachievedstatedgoalsorwereatleastnotactivelyharmful.Gettingridofthisfilterisnotgoodforthesector,foreithernewmarketentrantsorancientinstitutions’(Kernohan2018).

SothelossofHEFCEbegsthequestion,wherewillthelocusofpolicy-makingbeinthenew

regulatoryworldoftheOfS?TheinitialplanforOfSwasthatit‘wouldnotdopolicy’

(Kernohan2018)butwoulduseitsregulatoryframeworktoensurecomplianceand

monitoringofinstitutions.Policythereforeeitherhastobedeterminedatinstitutionallevel

throughmarketforces,whichisproblematicwhereHEisnotatypicalmarketgood,andis

subjecttointenseregulation,oratthelevelofgovernmentdepartment,andthereforethe

responsibilityoftheminister.ThiswouldleavetheOfSinsomethingofapolicyvacuum.

However,initsshortlife,OfShasalreadybeenaskedtotakeapositiononvariousissues,

suchasvicechancellors’remunerationanditsroleintheindustrialstrategyinassessingthe

higherlevelskillsgap(Kernohan2018)and,assuch,‘notdoingpolicy’maynotbea

sustainablepositionforOfS.

Inarticulatingtheroleoftheintermediarybodiesandtherelationshipwiththelocusof

policy-making,itisusefultosummariseinTable8(p.123)thatfollows.

123

Table8–THEROLEOFTHEINTERMEDIARYBODYANDTHECHANGINGLOCUSOFPOLICY-MAKING

Period Roleofintermediarybody Locusofpolicy-making1919-1940s Buffer–UGC Inside-out:Universities1940sto1970s

Buffer–UGC Inside-out:Universities

1980s Buffer/mediator–UGC

Movetowardsoutside-in:Universitiesbutgreaterstateintervention

1998-1992 Mediator–UFC Movetowardsoutside-in:Universitiesbutgreaterstateintervention

1992-1997 Agent–HEFCEasfunderandregulator Outside-in:Greaterstateintervention1997-2008 Agent/Broker-HEFCE Outside-in:Greaterstateinterventionwith

increasedaccountability2008-2010 Agent/Broker-HEFCE Outside-in:Greaterstateinterventionwith

increasedaccountability2010-16 Broker/Regulator–HEFCE(becomes

chiefregulator)Outside-in

2018- Regulator–OfficeforStudents Outside-in

ThissectionisimportanttothestudysinceitchartstheshiftinfocusfortheHE

intermediarybodyfromthebufferofUGCtotheregulatoroftheOfS.Thischapterhas

articulatedthatthereisastrongrelationshipbetweentheroleoftheintermediarybody

andthelocusofpolicy-making,andthiswillbefurtherexploredthroughthecasestudies.

ThisisparticularlyhelpfulininformingthediscussioninChapter8addressingtheresearch

questionsandarticulatingapositiononwhatananalysisofHEFCEpolicy-makingcanreveal

aboutthelocusofpowerinpolicy-makinginHE,throughtheevaluationofsuccessand

failureinrelationtothecasestudies.

4.10Conclusion

Thischapterhasprovidedanhistoricalaccountofthechangingroleoftheintermediary

bodyinpolicydevelopment,andasummaryofpolicyinitiativesfromHEFCE,againstthe

backdropofwiderpolicyreformandothergovernmentinitiativesandreviewsduringthe

period,inordertosetthescenefortheselectionofthecasestudies.Allthreeofthecase

studieshavebeenhighlightedduringthischapter.

Theperiod2000-2006sawaplethoraofHEFCEspecialfundingpolicyinitiatives,followinga

significantincreaseinfundingforteaching,research,capitalinvestmentandotherpolicy

areasundertheNewLabourgovernment.AkeyfocusofthisperiodwasNewLabour’s

‘thirdway’ideology,whichdrovemuchoftherhetoricforincreasingparticipationto50%

by2010,wideningparticipation,andinitiativestoengageHEwithinvestinginthe

knowledgeeconomy.AspartofthisideologytherewasalsoafocusonengagingFECsinHE

124

throughqualificationandskillsreformandanumberofinitiativestoengagewiththelocal

economythrougheducationandresearch.NewPublicManagementwasalsoastrong

featureoftheperiod.Allthreeofthechosencasestudiesfitwellwithinthe‘thirdway’and

theyallhavesomedistinctionswhichareusefulinilluminatingdifferentaspectsofsuccess

andfailureinrelationtothe‘process,programmeandpoliticaldimensions’(McConnell

2010)ofthepolicy,andthelocusofpolicy-makingbetweenHEFCEandgovernment.Inthis

chapter,IhavealsoobservedthatwhilstthisparticularstageinHEFCE’shistoryprovideda

largenumberofpotentialcasestudies,subsequentperiodsprovidedfewerandfewer

helpfulcasestudycandidates,asHEFCEhadlessandlessopportunitytoinfluencepolicy

behaviourthroughspecialfundinginitiatives,bothasaconsequenceofthechangingnature

ofitsroleandsignificantpublicfundingcuts.

InChapter3,Iaddressedtherationaleoftheselectionofthecasestudiesintermsof

methodology,whichwasdeterminedbytheirabilityto‘fit’wellwithintheMcConnell

frameworkfordeterminingsuccessandfailureandenablingevaluationcriteriaforcase

studies.Tosummarise,theselectedstudiesneededtobetimebound,haveclearobjectives

andproposedoutcomes,followafairlytypicalprocessandimplementationapproach,

whilsthavingsomedistinctions,andhavesufficientsourcesofdatatomeetcriteriafor

replication,validityandevaluation.Section3.4(p.67)providesafullerdescriptionforhow

thecasestudiesmeetthesecriteria.

Tosummarise,theselectedcasestudiesare:

Thee-University(2000–2004).

CentresforExcellenceinLearning&Teaching(2005–2010).

LifelongLearningNetworks(2004–2011).

Thenextthreechaptersformthethickdescriptionsinrelationtoeachofthecasestudies.

125

Chapter5:CaseStudy1:Thee-University

5.1Introduction

Thee-UniversityisanidealcasestudysinceitmeetsallthecriteriasetoutinTable6(p.71)

inbeingatimeboundepisode,havingclearlyidentifiedproposedoutcomesandbenefitsto

thetargetgroup,followingatypicalHEFCEpolicyprocessandhavingsufficientsourcesof

bothprimaryandsecondarytextstooffersufficientbreadthanddepthtodevelopathick

descriptionofthepolicyepisode.Inconsideringeachofthechosentexts,theuseofthe

codingestablishedinAppendixBenablesthethickdescriptiontobeinterpretedagainstthe

theoreticalframeworkinChapter8,togiveanuancedapproachinaddressingthemain

researchquestion,articulatingthesuccessorfailureofthee-Universitypolicyepisode.This

isalsousedtoaddressthefirstsupplementaryresearchquestioninestablishing

commonalitiesanddifferencesbetweenthechosencasestudies.Thisparticularpolicy

episodeisalsoofinteresttothethesisinthatitaddressesthesecondsupplementary

researchquestion,consideringthelocusofpowerofthepolicy,sincethereissomedebate

aboutwhethertheinitiativewasdrivenbygovernmentorHEFCEinthefirstinstance,and

thenovelapproachtoapublicprivateenterpriseraisessomeinterestingquestionsabout

thepowerrelationshipsbetweenHEFCEandtheprivatesectorenterprise.

Thischapterissplitintotwosections:thefirstprovidesanhistoricalnarrativeofthe

episode:howitcametofruition,thenationalandinternationalcontexts,theorganisations

andactorsinvolved,theactivitieswhichenabledtheimplementationofthepolicy,the

outcomesandsequenceofevents.Thesecondsection,drawingontheprimaryand

secondarytexts,takesathematicapproachinarticulatingacriticalanalysisofparticularly

importantorinterestingaspectsofthepolicy,whichwillenabletheinterpretationofthe

policyagainstthetheoreticalframework.

5.1.1Sourcesofdata

TheinitialsourcesofdataforthisepisodearethelandmarkspeechgivenbyDavidBlunkett

atGreenwichUniversitypriortothelaunchofthee-universityinitiativebyHEFCE,theinitial

HEFCEconsultationcirculartoHEIs,andthesubsequentreport.TheinitialPrice

WaterhouseCooper(PwC)businessmodelisalsoakeydocument,sincethissetsoutthe

initialorganisationalstructure,targetstudentnumbersandrevenueplan.Theothermain

sourceofdataforthisepisodeisthefindingsandevidenceoftheSelectCommittee,as

126

testimonyoftheviewsoftheprincipalactorsintheventure.Unliketheothercasestudies,

thisepisodedidnothavesufficientlongevitytoenableHEFCEtocommissionformativeand

summativeevaluations,buttheSelectCommitteereportiscomprehensiveinitsreview.

TheclosestHEFCEcametoanevaluationwasthecommissioningofaReviewoftheUKeU

byPAConsulting.AlthoughthereviewreportwasmadeavailablebyHEFCEin2005,itisno

longeravailable,butBacsich(2010)usefullysummarisesitsfindings.

Consideringthecontroversysurroundingthee-UniversityintheHEworld,thereis

surprisinglylittlefocusonitintheacademicliterature.However,therearesome

publicationswhicharewidelycitedashelpfulcommentariesandanalysis,andIhaveused

themtoestablishacriticalaccountoftheepisode.ThemaincontributorsareGarett(2004)

whosummarisedtheventureandthereasonsforthedemiseofUKeU,Peters(2011),who

consideredthepartnershiprelationshipsinUKeU,andBacsich(2004,2005,2010),whohas

authoredanumberofarticlesonthecontextofthee-University,accountsoftheepisode

andthelessonstobelearnedfromtheUKeU.Bacsichhashadunprecedentedaccessto

materialsrelatedtothee-UniversityandUKeU,andhenotesthatthereare166boxesof

archivematerialandnearly90,000electronicfiles,butonlyasmallpercentageofthem

havebeenmadepubliclyavailable,mostlytoaselectnumberofresearcherssuchas

Bacsich.Conoleetalundertookanextensivepieceofresearchintothee-University

experience(2006,2006a,2006b,2007),reviewingrelevantdocumentationand

interviewingactorsfromUKeUandHEIsbeforereachingsomeconclusions,particularlyin

relationtotheorganisationoftheventure,andsomeoftheirfindingsarealsohighlighted

here.

Thereisaconsiderableamountofliteraturecitingthee-Universityasanexamplein

relationtoitstechnicalplatformandthepedagogicalaspectsofe-learninghowever;these

arenotconsideredaspartofthisstudy,sincetheyaremoretechnicalconsiderations,and

notrelatedtopolicyperse.

Asearchformediainterestinthee-Universityrevealedsurprisinglyfewmentionsinthe

THESandonlyasmallnumberintheGuardianandObservernewspapers,withthemain

themesreportedduringtheepisodebeingdebatesonwhethertheinitiativeshouldbean

eliteorinclusiveventure,thelackofbranding,potentialprivateventurepartnersandthe

delaysexperiencedinmeetingobjectives.TheeventualdecisiontocloseUKeU,andthe

subsequentSelectCommitteereport,receivedthehighestlevelofreportingin2004and

127

2005.ThedemiseofUKeUdidreceivesomeinternationalattention,beingreportedinThe

ChronicleofHigherEducationinWashingtoninMay2004.

Itisnoteworthythat,inanarticleintheGuardiannewspaperon21stMarch2004,John

NaughtonclaimsthatanarticlebyMarkTownsendintheObservernewspaperinAutumn

2003promptedthedemiseofUKeU.Hesuggeststhatthedecisionwasnotentirelythatof

theHEFCEBoard,asHEFCEitselfhadreported,butdrivenbygovernmentinseekingto

divertbadpublicity:

‘Infact,mysourcestellmethattheeventswhichculminatedinHEFCE'sdecisiontoabortweretriggeredbyashortpieceinthisnewspaperlastautumnwrittenbymycolleagueMarkTownsendinwhichhereportedthee-U'sfailuretorecruitstudents.TheitemwasreadbyCharlesClarke,whoarrivedinhisofficeonMondaymorningbrandishingTheObserveranddemandingtoknowwhatthehellwasgoingon’(Naughton2004).

UKeUisraisedasanexampleofgovernmentfailureinmanysubsequentHouseof

Commonsenquiries,andonoccasion,alongwiththePollTax,asanexampleofpolicy

failureintitfortatexchangesbetweenConservativeandLabourpartyrepresentatives.

Indeed,DavidCameronuseditasanexampleinavitriolicspeechinaHouseofCommons

debateinNovember2006,whenhesaid“WhathappenedtotheChancellor’se-university,

whichwasmeanttolinkcommunitiestogether?Nooneusesit”(Cameron,Hansard

15.11.2006).

AfulllistofprimaryandsecondarytextsusedinthissectionisincludedinAppendixA.

5.2Anaccountoftheepisode

Thee-Universitywasashort-livedpolicyepisode,runningfrom2001to2004,withits

initiationdeclaredbyLordDavidBlunkettinhisGreenwichspeechin2000.Theaimofthe

e-Universitywastoprovideglobale-learningprogrammes,essentiallyownedbyHEIsbut

administeredthroughanoperatingcompany,UKeU(UKe-University).Thiswasapublic-

privateventure,triangulatedbetweenHEFCE,HEIsandprivatecompaniesandestablished

asaresponsetoaperceivedthreatfromtheUnitedStatestodominatethemarketin

globalHEe-learning.HEFCEwithdrewfromtheventurein2004,closingdownUKeU,when

itbecameclearthatbothprogrammesandstudentnumbersfellfarshortofthose

proposedintheoriginalbusinessplan.ThefailureofUKeU,andinparticularthewasteof

substantialpublicfunding,resultedinaHouseofCommonsEducationandSkillsCommittee

publicinquiry.

128

5.2.1Origin

SirBrianFender,ChiefExecutiveofHEFCEfrom1995-2001,tookresponsibilityfortheinitial

ideaforthee-Universityventureand,thus,itcouldbearguedthatHEFCEbecamethe

policycreator.WhenaskedbytheSelectCommitteereviewofUKeUifhehadbeenthe

inspirationforthee-University,heresponded:

‘Ithinkafairamountofresponsibilityforthatfallsonmyshoulders…whatwedidwasputinabidinthespendinground,andwesaidthiswasimportant,wethoughtitwasaninitiative…intheend,theDepartmentdiddecidetoputitontheagendaandtheSecretaryofStatemadeastatementsayingthathepersonallythoughtthiswasaprojectworthsupporting’(SC2005p.Ev90).

Fenderwasinfluencedbyaseriesofmeetingsthathehadwithpublicandprivate

universitiesintheUnitedStatesataconferenceinAspen,Colorado,atwhichdiscussions

centredonthedifficultiesthatuniversitiesfacedinattractingstudents,andtherolethate-

learningcouldplayinaddressingfuturechallenges.Heconcludedthat,inthelightofwhat

wasbeingachievedintheUSA,raisingtheprofileofUKe-learningwasanecessityiftheUK

wasnottobeleftbehindintheglobalknowledgeeconomy.Fenderdiscussedtheideawith

HEFCEcolleaguesin1999,concludingthatitwasimportanttosendoutastrongmessageto

theHEsectoraboutthevalueofe-learning.HEFCEputforwardaproposalforthe

governmentspendingroundandwonthesupportoftheSecretaryofStateforEducation

andEmployment,DavidBlunkett,althoughtherewasnotaroundtablediscussionwith

ministers(asreportedintheSelectCommitteeevidenceSC2005Q609p.94).

On13thFebruary2000,aspartofalandmarkspeechatTheUniversityofGreenwich,David

Blunkettannouncedplansforthee-University,with£62millionofpublicfundingtosetupa

public-privateinitiative,asanincomegeneratingvehicletodeliverHEprogrammesover

theinternet.Hesaid:

‘Iwanttodaytomakeasignificantstatementaboutthefuturedirectionofhighereducation…Learninghasbecomebigbusiness…NewProvidersarealreadyexpandingintotheLearningenvironmenttomeetthisdemand,particularlyintheUSA…Wemusthavebigaspirations,evenifweareasmallcountry….Theimpactofnewtechnologiesonlearningarewellrehearsed…Nonetheless,itisclearthatvirtuallearningisanindustrywhichisstrivingforwardallaroundus….Butthechallengeisalsoanationalone–howcanwebest,asacountry,respondtothewaveofchangethate-learningisbringingtohighereducationthroughouttheglobe?...ThatiswhyIcanannouncethatHEFCEwillbringforwardproposalsforanewcollaborativeventurebetweenuniversitiesandprivatesectorpartners,undertheworkingtitleofthe‘e-Universities’…Itwillbeclearlypositionedoverseasasaflag-carrierforthebestofUKhighereducationinwebbaseddelivery’(Blunkett,2000).

129

5.2.2TheEnglishcontext

Thee-Universitywasreflectiveofgovernmentrhetoricattheturnofthecentury.New

Labour’s‘ThirdWay’placedHEasamaindriverforenhancingworkforceskillsandthus

advancingtheeconomy,aswellasincreasingparticipationto50%,throughhigher

attainmentandwideningparticipation.Thee-Universitywastobethevehicletooffer

programmesthatreflectedmarketdemandforkeyskillsintheknowledgeeconomy,aswell

asmeetingtheneedsofnon-traditionalstudentswhodidnotparticipateinHE.Thee-

Universityalsoaddedafurtherdimension-globalisation;itwasseenbygovernmentasthe

answertorecruitingstudentsonaglobalscaleand,assuch,beingacontributortothe

economy.

The1997electionmanifestofromNewLabourprominentlyfeaturedInformation

TechnologyandCommunication(ICT)asoneofthecentralthemes,bothinaddressing

publicadministrationandineducation.Theturnofthecenturysawtheriseofmany

‘informationage’policiesintheadministrationofpublicservicesandlocal‘e-government’

services.Inaddition,between1997and2007,morethan£5billionoffundingwas

channelledtowardseducationalICT,in‘realisingthepotentialofnewtechnology’policies

(Selwyn2002).TherewereanumberofICTpoliciesintroducedtotheschoolssectoratthat

time,throughthreephasesofpolicymaking:‘NationalGridforLearning’,‘ICTinSchools’

and‘HarnessingTechnology’(Selwyn2008).Laurillard(2008)describesNewLabour’sICT

policiesas‘ambitious’,butasuccessintermsofprovidingresourcesforschools.

PoliciesaroundICTinschoolswerenotjustaboutincreasingthelevelofICTprovision.As

Selwyn(2002,2008)andLaurillard(2008)bothpointout,thesewerepartofamuchwider

policyagendainmodernisingeducation,inraisingattainmentandwideningparticipation.

This,inturn,waspartofthemuchwideragendaaroundglobalisationandtheeconomy:

‘theNewLabourICTagendawaslocatedfirmlywithinwiderprevailingconcernsoverenhancingcompetitivenessinaglobalisedeconomyandcreatingalifelonglearningsystemfitforasuccessfulknowledgeeconomy’(Selwyn2008p.708).

TonyBlair,asPrimeMinister,resolutelylinkededucationtotheeconomywhenhesaid

‘educationisthebesteconomicpolicythereis’(Blair2004).However,Selwyn(2002,

2008)arguesthatwhilsttheICTresourcingofschoolswasseenasasuccess,thesuccessin

thewidereconomicpolicyfailedtomaterialise.

130

Inadditiontogovernment’sfocusonICTandglobalisation,thecommercialsectorwas

goingthroughaperiodofrapidchange,withtheriseof‘dot-com’companies.Globalisation

wasfundamentaltotheirsuccess,withrapidgrowthofbusinessesusingtheinternetto

expandtheirmarketsonaglobalscale.Oneofthemaincriticismsofdot-combusinesses

(Garrett2004)wasthattheuseoftechnologytotransformaspectsofsocietywashugely

overstated.Elementsofthiscriticismarereflectedinthedevelopmentofthee-University,

aswillbeobservedlaterinthischapter.

InMarch2000,thedot-combubbleburst.Investorshadputagreatdealofconfidenceinto

technologicaldevelopments,andbothmarketconfidenceandsharevalueshadrisen

substantially,withmanycompaniesbecomingover-valued.Thislevelofconfidencecould

notbesustainedand,afterastockmarketcollapseinearly2000,alargenumberof

companiessufferedadramaticdropinsharepriceandwereconsequentlywoundup.The

timingofthedot-comcrashisnoteworthy,comingjustonemonthaftertheannouncement

ofthee-University.

GlobalisationandtechnologicaldevelopmentsalsobegantoimpactonHE.The1997

DearingreportspecificallyrecognisedtechnologyasbeingcentralinadvancingHEintheUK

andthetermvirtualcampuswasbecomingmoreprominent.By2004,andthedemiseof

thee-University,severaluniversitieshadtheirownsubstantialoffcampuson-lineactivities,

suchasMiddlesex,LiverpoolandPortsmouth,aswellasmanyothersaspartofwider

conglomerates(Bacsich2004,2005,2010).However,thevirtualcampusesweremore

frequentlyseparateentities,ratherthanHEIsexpandingtheirprovisionfromprogrammes

withintheinstitutions(Cinar2012).

InJune1999,thePrimeMinisterhadalsoannouncedafiveyearplantoincreasemarket

shareofoverseasstudents,from17%to25%,with75,000extraby2005(reportedinthe

Guardian19thJune1999).Inthisrespect,thee-Universitycouldhavebeenaninitiative

whichhelpedtoaddressthataspiration.

5.2.3Someinternationalperspectives

AsBacsichandFrank-Bristow(2004)note,therewere,atthattime,alargenumberof

countries,acrossallcontinents,engaginginsomelevelofe-universityactivity.Universities

intheUSAaresomeofthemostnotable,wheretheyweredevelopingglobalenterprisesin

on-linelearning,andby2000therewereanumberofhighlyorganised,wellbranded,e-

learningventures,suchasTheUniversityofPhoenix’son-linecampus,whichhad109,000

131

studentsbyMay2004(Bacsich2005).ItwasagainstaperceivedthreatfromtheUSAin

dominatingtheon-lineeducationglobalmarketthatthee-Universitywaslaunched.As

Bacsichnotes,

‘TheUKeUwasinitiatedinresponsetoaperceivedneedtobeakeyplayerinpackagingUKHEinternationally’(Bacsich2005).

ThethenMinisterforHigherEducation,KimHowells,confirmedthatthisperceptionalso

extendedtoafearoflosingthedomesticHEmarkettotheUSA,summedupinhisevidence

totheSelectCommitteeinquiry:

‘ItwasalsoinformedbyakindoffearthattheAmericansweregoingtocapturestudentsandthattheywereactuallygoingtocapturestudentsinthiscountry’(SC200SC20055p.6).

Swedenhadalsoembarkedonasimilare-universityproject,investingSEK470millioninthe

SwedishNetUniversity(SNU),whichisstillinexistence.Itactsasanagency,offeringa

databaseofpublicallyfunded,freecourses,runby35Swedishuniversities,mostlytaughtin

Swedish.ChristieandJurado(2007)undertookacomparisonofUKeUandSNUandfounda

numberofstrikingdifferences.Swedenconcentratedonthehomemarket,andinSwedish,

whereasUKeUfocussedonaperceivedinternationalmarketforcoursestaughtinEnglish.

SNUwasexplicitlyseenasawayofincreasingSweden’sparticipationrateto50%,whereas

UKeUwasconceivedasacommercialventuretocombattheperceivedthreatof

competitionfromtheUnitedStates,despitetheconjectureinthebusinessmodelthatthe

ventureshouldadditionallyaddresssocialinclusion(HEFCE00/44p.8).WhilstUKeUwas

conceivedasacommercialventure,SNUwasentirelypubliclyfunded,freetostudents,and

withuniversitiesbeingfinanciallyrewardedretrospectivelywithgrantforeachsuccessful

coursecompletion.Therefore,therewasincentiveforSwedishuniversitiestoputcourses

online,andalthoughthefundingmechanismchangedin2004,theystillcontinuetoinclude

theircoursesonlineasasuccessfulwayofincreasingstudentnumbers.

5.2.4Policyproposal

ThedayaftertheBlunkettspeech,SirBrianFender(thenHEFCEChiefExecutive)wroteto

allEnglishHEIsandHEFCEfundedFECs,announcingthelaunchofthee-Universityand

seekingconsultation,withresponsesrequiredquicklybyApril2000.Thecircularstatedthat

‘TheHEFCEisconcernedthatUKhighereducation(HE)shouldbeabletocapitaliseonitsconsiderableexpertiseinnewtechnologiesanditsreputationforqualitytosecureasignificantshareinthemarketsaccessedbythesevirtual/corporateproviders’(HEFCE04/00).

132

Theproposedkeycharacteristicsoftheventurewere:

• ‘Anewvehiclefordeliveringhighereducationprogrammesthroughvirtualdistancelearning;

• Jointlyowned,establishedandoperatedbyaconsortiumofhighereducationinstitutions,workingwithprivatesectorandoverseaspartners;

• FocussedonmeetingexpandingdemandforHEprogrammesbothintheUKandparticularlyoverseas;

• Establishedonascalethatwillenableittocompeteinternationally;• Establishedwithacentralcoreoffoundermembers;• Identifiedasaproviderofthehighestquality,bothinitsprogrammesandinthe

studentsupportstructuresthatunderpinthem,maintainingandenhancingtheinternationalreputationofUKhighereducation’.(HEFCE04/00p.1).

Therevenuestructureplayedamajorpartinthewaythee-Universitywasconceived.

AlthoughitwasproposedthattherewouldstillbeanelementofgrantfromHEFCEthrough

publicallyfundedstudents,itwasenvisagedthatthee-Universitywouldbeacommercial

venture,financiallyself-sustainingandprofitablewithin5-6years.Thiswouldbeachieved

bychargingvariablefeestonon-publicallyfundedstudents,businesses,overseas

universitiesorgovernments.Thee-Universitywouldmeetitsoperatingcoststhroughthose

feesandprivateinvestmentfrombusinessesprovidingexpertiseinsupportingactivities

suchasthetechnologicalplatformandmarketing,andwhowouldultimatelyseeashareof

theprofits.ItwasaconditionofgrantthatUKeUattractedprivateinvestmentwith50:50

public-privatefunding.ThiswasthefirsttimethatHEFCEhadbeeninvolvedinapublic-

privateventureonthisscale.

5.2.5Organisationsandactors

UKeU,astheoperatingcompany,wascentraltotheinitiative,andthemainfocusforboth

theexpectedsuccessoftheventureanditssubsequentdemise.Itstwomainactorswere

SirAnthonyCleaverasChairmanandJohnBeaumontasChiefExecutive.Bothhad

considerableexperienceintheprivatesector;AnthonyCleaverhadbeenChairoftheUK

AtomicAuthorityinthe1990sandalsoChairmanofAEATechnologyplc,andJohn

Beaumonthadhadalongcareerintechnology-basedindustries.AccordingtoBarry

SheermanMP,ChairtotheSelectCommittee,AnthonyCleaverwas

‘aformidableplayerinthewaythathecampaignstomakeBritishbusinessmoreeffectiveandefficient’(SC2005Q139).

BothmenhadconnectionstoHE,withCleaverhavingchairedtheBoardofGovernorsof

BirkbeckCollegeandtheRoyalCollegeofMusicinLondon,andBeaumonthavingbeena

133

professoratStirlingandBathuniversitiesfrom1987to1992.Itisperhapspertinentthat

bothhadbeenappointedfortheirprivateandpublicsectorexperience,andyetthepublic-

privatesectorrelationshipforUKeUwasthemostcontentiousissueidentifiedbytheSelect

Committee,aswillbeconsideredbelow.

HoldCowastheotherkeyorganisationintheinitiative,astheholdingcompanywhich

licencedUKeUtooperate.HoldCowasthemajorshareholderofUKeU,withallbutfour

HEIsasmembers.TherelationshipbetweenHoldCo,UKeUandHEFCEissignificanttothis

study,andwillbeconsideredlaterinthechapter.

Asteeringgroup,chairedbyProfessorRonCooke,ViceChancelloroftheUniversityofYork,

hadalsobeenestablishedtoworkonbehalfofHEFCtooverseetheimplementationof

UKeUwithinstitutions.OthermembersoftheSteeringGroupwerethreeHEFCEstaff,

includingSirBrianFenderasChiefExecutive,andsevenseniorleadersandmanagersfrom

HEIs.Therewerealsorepresentativesfromtheprivatesector,asspecialadvisers:onefrom

McKinseyConsultantsandonefromBritishAerospaceplcVirtualUniversity.

Otherkeyactors,whowereostensiblynotinvolvedintheestablishmentofthepolicy

episode,butcametotheforeaswitnessestotheSelectCommittee,wereSirHoward

Newby,succeedingSirBrianFenderasChiefExecutiveofHEFCEin2001,whohadtodrive

forwardtheinitiativefromhispredecessor,DavidYoungasChairmanofHEFCE,andDrKim

Howells,thenMinisterofState(EducationandSkills,LifelongLearning,FurtherandHE).

TheSelectCommitteeitselfwaschairedbyMrBarrySheermanMP,withotherMP

membersbeingValerieDavey,JeffEnnisandPaulHolmes.

5.2.6Activities

InJune2000,HEFCEpublishedtheresultsoftheinitialconsultationwithheadsofHEFCE-

fundedHEIs,FECsandIrish-fundedHEIs.74%ofheadsfromthoseinstitutionsthat

respondedwereinfavour,althoughmanyraisedconcernsaboutthehigh-risknatureofthe

venture.Theconsultationconcludedthat

‘[stakeholders]endorsedthevisionofthee-Universityasaworld-classproviderofvirtuallearningwhichshouldestablishitselfasabrandassociatedwithhighqualityandstandards’(HEFCE00/44a).

Itisnoteworthythattheoriginalplanhadbeenforasmallnumberofeliteuniversitiesto

takepartbut,followingargumentsintheSteeringGroup,theoriginalbusinessplan

134

preparedbyPriceWaterhouseCoopers(PwC),basedonthismodel,wasrejectedinfavour

ofamoreinclusiveapproach:

‘Plansforanelitecoreofinstitutionstoleadtheproject-unveiledaspartofeducationsecretaryDavidBlunkett'sspeechattheUniversityofGreenwichinFebruary-havebeenabandoned’(THES06.10.2000).

HEIsalsoquestionedtheeliteapproach,andinclusivityofthee-Universitywasraised

duringtheconsultation,withHEIswishingtoensurethatthewholesectorwasengaged

withtheinitiativeandthattheventurewasabletoaccommodateawiderangeofon-line

programmes.However,whilstmanyinstitutionswelcomedthemoreinclusiveapproach,it

stillremainedacontestedissue,withinstitutionssuchastheLondonSchoolofEconomics

andOpenUniversityexpressingconcernathavingtoworkingwithotherinstitutions,which

theysawasnotsharingtheirqualitybrand.Nevertheless,theSteeringGroupwaskeento

ensuretheinclusivenatureoftheventure:

‘theSteeringGrouphasbeenparticularlyconcernedtoensurethatthebusinessmodelmaximisestheopportunitiesforuniversitiesandcollegestocontributeto,andbenefitfrom,theproject,whilealsoprovidingthefocus,driveandcoherencenecessarytomakethee-Universityaneffectiveventure’(HEFCEEP05/00).

5.2.6.1Businessmodelandcorporatestructure

InOctober2000,takingheedoftheconsultation,HEFCEpublishedarevisedbusiness

model,commissionedfromPwC(HEFCE00/44).Thefirstnoteworthypointisinrelationto

theaimsandobjectivessetoutinthebusinessplan,withtheprimaryaimto

‘providetheopportunityfortheflagshipprovisionofUKhighereducationexcellenceusingdigitalchannels,primarilyabroadbutalsoathome…theresultshouldbeanexpansionoftheUK’soverallshareoftheglobaloverseasmarketsforhighereducation’(HEFCE00/44p.8).

Themodelalsonotesasecondaimto

‘supportandpromotetheexpansionoflifelonglearningathighereducationlevels…italsooffersameanstohelpincreasesocialinclusion’(HEFCE00/44p.8).

BothoftheseaimswereconcurrentwithNewLabour’s‘ThirdWay’ideology.Thebusiness

modelproposedthattheUKeU,astheoperatingcompany,actedasafacilitatorand

technologicalplatformforHEIstomakeavailablelearningmaterialsandprogrammes.

UKeUwouldperformanumberofcorporatefunctionsincludingdevelopingthebrand,

marketing,makingresourcesavailableforthedevelopmentofmaterials,providingand

supportingthetechnologicalplatform,overseeingacademicqualityofprovision,providing

135

afinancefunctiontomanagetheincome,andadministeringstudents’registration.The

programmeswouldattractfeesforthemajorityofstudentsandthebusinessmodel

proposedambitioustargetswhichwouldmakeUKeUfinanciallyself-sustaining.

TheobjectivesunderpinningtheaimsinthebusinessmodelsummedupUkeUas

• Learnerdriven(demandled)• Responsivetochange(tomeetchangesindemand)• Excellentfitforpurpose• Excellentinuseofnewtechnologytoenablelearningexperiencetobedelivered• Abletosecureeconomiesofscale• Financiallyself-sustaining

Itisnoteworthythatinthebusinessmodel,themainmarketswereconsideredtobe

‘incareers-associatedareasassomepostgraduateand/orpost-experienceareas,andparticularlyvariousformsofcontinuingprofessionaldevelopment,andwithafocusonbothcorporateandgovernmentconsumers.ThemodelnotesthesuccessofcorporateprovisionintheUS,short,executivecourses,drawnfrompartsofanawardbearingcourse,areoneofthefastestgrowingandmostprofitableactivitiesinsomeUSuniversities…thee-Uarrangementsmustbeabletomakesuchprovision’(HEFCE00/44p.15).

Assuch,thee-Universitywastoatleastmirror,ifnotreplicate,themodelsdevelopedin

theUSA.

Thetechnologicalunderpinningwasoneofthemainfeaturesofthebusinessmodel,since

itwasfundamentalinsupportingboththestudent-facinginterfaceandthelearning

materials.Thebusinessmodelassumedthatthiswaswherethee-Universitywoulddevelop

relationshipswiththeprivatesector,wheretheymay‘becomeanimportantstrategic

partner’(HEFCE00/44p.28).

Thecorporatestructure,particularlytherelationshipbetweenthepublicandprivate

sector,wasverysignificanttotheinitiative,andbecameoneofthekeyissuesfortheSelect

Committeeinquiry.Thebusinessmodelstatedthat

‘itmustbeattractivetotheprivatesectorbothasinvestorsandpartners.Thee-Uwillneedprivatesectorinvestmentandprivatesectorcommercialexpertisetomakeitwork’(HEFCE00/44p.28).

Thestructureconsistedfirstlyoftheholdingcompany(HoldCo)whichwasownedbythe

HEIswhohadsigneduptothee-University.Themainpurposewasto

136

‘ensurethattheacademicprinciplesandintegrityofthee-Universityweresafeguarded,bysettingthetermsonwhichitwouldgranttheoperatingcompanyalicencetousethee-Universitybrand’(HEFCE00/44).

AnAcademicQualityCommitteewouldoverseeacademicqualityoftheprogrammesand

assessments.Theoperatingcompany(UKeU)wouldmanagethedaytodayoperation,with

asmallexecutiveteamrunningthecompany.Itwasalsoproposedinthebusinessmodel

thatsubsidiarycompaniesunderUKeUwouldundertakemoreoftherisk-takingand

investmentwiththeprivatesector.ThePwCBusinessModelsummarisestheorganisational

structureas:

Figure9–e-UCORPORATESTRUCTURE(HEFCE00/44(p.29))©HEFCE

Followingthepublicationofthebusinessmodel,activitybegantoescalateatapaceand

HEFCEpublishedasecondconsultationtothesectoronthemodel(HEFCE00/43).

ResponsessuggestedthatHEIswerebroadlyhappywiththeproposalssetoutinthe

revisedbusinessmodel.Therewerestillsomeconcerns,however;inparticular,institutions

wereconcernedaboutintellectualpropertyrightsinrelationtoprogrammesofstudy,the

extenttowhichthemembersoftheholdingcompanywereliablefinancially,andwhether

thee-Universitywouldbesubjecttoaqualityreview.

Bytheendof2000,potentialjointpartnersfromtheprivatesectorwereinvited,via

advertisement,tojoinasshareholdersintheoperatingcompany,butweregivenlessthan

onemonthforexpressionsofinterest.InJanuary2001,HEFCEbegantheprocessofsetting

upthecorporatestructure,andsoughtnominationsfordirectorsofHoldCoandUKeU.

e-U corporate structure

e-U holdingcompany

E-U operatingcompany

HE sector owned

Joint venture company

Trading operations

Licence to operate

137

NominationswerealsosoughtformembersoftheCommitteeforAcademicQuality,all

drawnfromseniorleadersandmanagersofHEIs(HEFCE02/01).Thedraftmemorandum

andarticlesofassociationforHoldCowerepublishedalongsidethecircular,aswerethe

rolesandresponsibilitiesoftheCommitteeforAcademicQuality.

5.2.6.2HoldCo

TheSecretaryofStateforEducationandEmploymentannouncedthedirectorsofHoldCoin

March2001,consistingofSirBrianFender(ChiefExecutiveofHEFCE)asChairman,and

elevenleadersofHEIsinEngland.InApril,allHEIswereinvitedtobecomemembersof

HoldCo,limitedbyguarantee,with£1securingmembershipandbeingthetotalextentof

theliability(HEFCE07/01).AllbutfourHEIssigneduptoHoldCo.Theintentionwasthat

HoldCowouldhold50%ofthesharesinUKeU,(thepublicsectorshare),withitspurpose

beingtolicenceUKeU,appointtheBoardandholdittoaccount.Theestablishmentof

HoldCowastoactasagatewaybetweenHEFCEandUKeU,inordertoavoidanydirect

managementrelationshipbetweenthetwoorganisations.Thiswassignificant,sinceHEFCE

couldnotdirectlygivepublicfundingtoUKeUasaprivatecompany.However,HoldCowas

grantedauthoritybyHEFCEtoinvestfundsinUKeU.

5.2.6.3UKeU

InSeptember2001,UKeUwaslaunchedand,twomonthslater,SirAnthonyCleaverwas

appointedChairman.ByFebruary2002,JohnBeaumonthadbeenappointedasChief

Executive.Justonemonthafterthelaunch,UKeUsignedaFrameworkAgreementwithSun

Microsystems,asthefirstprivateinvestor,todeveloptheon-linetechnicalplatform.Itis

significanttotheultimatedemiseofUKeUthat,despiteacallforprivateinvestors,Sun

MicrosystemswastheonlymajorprivateinvestorinUKeU.Therewasoneothersmaller

investor,‘FortisLeaseUK,whoprovidedleasefundinginAugust2003tofinanceITtesting

equipment’(notedinSC2005p.10footnote15).ByApril2002,UKeUhadproduceditsfirst

businessplananditwasexpectedthattheorganisationwouldlaunchitspilotprogrammes

byOctober2002.

UKeUhadaround50membersofstafffocussedondevelopingthetechnologicalplatform,

qualityassuranceandmarketingprogrammes.ThemaintargetaudiencesforUKeUatthat

timewereoverseasstudentsandprivatesectorcompanieswantingCPDprogrammes.

UKeUhadanumberofbusinessmanagersin16countrieswhowereemployedtohelp

marketthecoursesandprovidesupportforstudents.

138

5.2.6.4Programmesandstudents

Theshorttimescalefordevelopingandlaunchingnewprogrammesmeantthatwithinsix

weeksofadvertisingformembersofHoldCoanddirectorsofUKeU,HEFCEhadannounced

thattheywerelaunchingtheventureandappointedaninterimmanagementteamanda

groupofconsultants,headedupbyProfessorKeithBakerfromOpenCoursewareFactory

(OCF).OCFbeganlookingatthedistributionofe-learningprogrammesandconcludedthat,

atthatstage,therewereinsufficienton-lineprogrammesavailableinthesectortolaunch

topotentialstudents.HEFCEnotedthat

‘amajorconclusionfromtheOCFstudyisthatcurrentlythereisnotasufficientvolumeandrangeoflearningprogrammes,fullydevelopedtothequalityandstandardsweenvisageforthee-University’(HEFCE06/01).

WithaproposedlaunchdateforOctober2002,therewasnowsomeurgencyinsettingup

programmes,aswellasmarketingthemandregisteringstudents.Consequently,inMarch

2001,HEFCEinvitedHEIs‘toexpressinterestin’developingfivepilotprogrammes:

‘Thoseinvitedtoparticipateinthepilotswillneedtoworkcloselywiththee-Universityoperatingcompanyanditspartners,contributinginsightsandexperiencethatwillensurethattheventureisrobustandeffectiveforthedeliveryofe-learningprogrammesfromabroaderrangeofinstitutionsbeyondthepilotphase.Thisrolemaybemostsuitedtoinstitutionsthatenvisageglobale-learningprogrammesasasignificantpartoftheirofferingsinthefuture,andhencearepreparedtoputinthecommitmentasearlyadopters.Therewillbesubsequentandregularopportunitiesforallinstitutionstoparticipateinthee-University'scommissioninganddeliveryactivities’(HEFCE06/01).

Withworkunderwaytodevelopprogrammes,HEFCElaunchedaninvitationtoinstitutions

inMarch2002tobidfor3000publiclyfundedadditionalstudentplacesinthefirstyear,to

meetpublicservicesobjectivesthroughUKeUthatwould‘widenparticipationthrough

increasingthenumberofstudentsfromdisadvantagedandunder-represented

backgrounds’(HEFCE08/02).Thisisperhapstheonlyevidencethatthee-Universitypolicy

wasseriousaboutmeetingitsaimforsocialinclusion,andthisisexploredfurtherinSection

5.3(p.143).InJune2002,HEFCEalsoinvitedinterestinasimilarorganisationtodevelop

on-lineteachertrainingprogrammesinChina(HEFCE14/02),incollaborationwithChinese

universitiesandtheChinesegovernment,andthisorganisationwasincorporatedintothe

portfolioofUKeU.Althoughe-Chinacost£3minUKpublicfunds,itscostswereseenas

beingequitabletoitsvalue(seeTable9,p.141),andsowiththedemiseofUkEU,e-China

wastheonlyelementthatwasretained,withprojectmanagementbeingtransferredtothe

UniversityofCambridge.

139

5.2.7Targetsandoutcomes

TheoriginalOctober2002launchdatewasmissedandonlythreepilotprogrammeshad

beenlaunchedbyMarch2003,fromfourinstitutions:TheOpenUniversityandthe

universitiesofCambridge,SheffieldHallamandYork.Theseprogrammesresultedinjust78

studentregistrations,thusmissinganinitialtargetof340.Theoriginalbusinessplantargets

wereambitious,with5,600forecastby2003-04,110,000studentsby2007-08andgrowing

to250,000by2012-13.

Asaresultofthedelayinlaunchingprogrammes,andfailuretomeettheinitialstudent

numbertarget,inMay2003HEFCEannouncedthatareviewofUKeUwastobeconducted

byPAConsulting.Alongsidethereview,UKeUcontinuedtoworkwithHEIsonnew

programmesandtorecruitnewstudentsand,byOctober2003,oneyearaftertheoriginal

proposedlaunchdate,17courseshadbeenlaunchedwith898studentregistrations.

However,byNovember2003,itbecameclearthatstudenttargetnumberswerenotgoing

tobemet,andsoUKeUreviseditsbusinessplan,significantlyreducingthestudenttarget

numberstojust45,000studentsby2009-10.Inafurtherattempttoaddressthepoor

performancebyUkeU,HEFCElaunchedanewresearchbody,theE-learningResearch

Centre,basedatManchesterandSouthamptonuniversities,whichwasexpectedtowork

alongsideUKeUinrealisingthee-universityambition.

However,therevisiontotargetstudentnumbers,thelackofprivateinvestmentandno

likelihoodofnewprivatesectorcompaniescomingonboard,putconsiderablepressureon

UKeUinitsquesttobecomefinanciallyself-sustaining.By2004,HoldCowasthemajor

shareholderinUKeU,withtheonlyothershareholdersbeingGuillemontTrustandCroft

Nominees.TheselattertwoorganisationsoperatedonbehalfofSunMicrosystemsLtdto

holdsharesonitsbehalf,sincethecompanyhadchosennottodirectlyholdsharesin

UKeU.Consequently,UKeUrequiredmorepublicfundingandtheexpected50:50public-

privatefundingconditionofgrantfailedtobeachieved.Itisalsoworthyofnotethatby

2004,anumberofuniversitieshadwithdrawnfromtheirpartnershipwithUKeU.

PAConsultingcompleteditsreviewinJanuary2004anditwasconsidered,alongwith

UKeU’srevisedbusinessplan,bytheHEFCEBoardinFebruary.Thereviewidentifiedsix

challengesforUkeU:

‘endtoendintegrationofthewholee-learningvaluetrain,thelackofadocumentedbusinessstrategy,thefeasibilityofthemarketingstrategy,thefinancialandrevenue

140

model,atechnicalplatformunsuitableforthebusinessneeds[and,finally]theinvestmentchallengegiventhehighlevelofneedforcapital’(assummarisedinBacsich2010).

ItwasatthatBoardmeetingthatthedecisionwastakentowithdrawfromtheinitiative

andre-structureUKeU,suchthatthecommercialaspectswouldbecloseddown,leaving

theorganisationtoconcentrateonthoseelementsthatsupportedthe‘publicgood’.RSM

RobsonRhodesLLP,afirmofaccountants,wasappointedtooverseethewind-downofthe

company.InHEFCE’smemorandumtotheSelectCommittee,theystatethereasoningfor

withdrawingfundingwasthat

‘TheBoardconcludedthattheventurewasinbreachoftheconditionofgrantthatHEFCEwouldonlyfundagainstarobustbusinessproposition.Theywerealsooftheviewthattheventurehadbreachedtheconditionofgrantonachievingprivatematchedfunding’(memorandumtotheSelectCommittee21.06.2004).

InhisevidencetotheSelectCommittee,SirHowardNewbyexplainedthathehadadvised

theHEFCEBoardthatthiswasthebestcourseofaction,notjustbecauseUKeUwasin

breachoftheconditionsofgrant,butduetothepoorrecruitmentandfinancialrisks:

‘inthelightofthe…disappointingrecruitment,andinthelightofwhatwasgoingoninfinancialmarkets,therisk….hadtiltedtheotherway.Thiswasanunacceptableriskforus…ourrecommendationtotheBoardwasthatthebusinessplanwasnotsufficientlyrobustonwhichtobasefurtherinvestment.TheBoardtooktheviewtorestructurethecompanyinlightofthat’(SC2005p.10).

Asaresult,theactivitiesandservicesofUKeUwerere-structuredandsomeofthe

remainderofthefunding(£12m)wasusedbyHEFCEtosupportindividuale-learning

programmesatUKuniversities,withanemphasisonblendedlearningandon‘thepublic

goodratherthancommercialobjectives’(HEFCE2009/12).On4thMarch2004,Donald

MacLeodreportedinTheGuardianthatHEFCEhad‘pulledtheplug’onUKe-Universityand,

byJuly2004,UKeUhadceasedtrading,havingspent£30-£31millionofpublicfunding.The

£30-31mrepresentedthedifferencebetweenthepublicexpenditureonUKeUandthe

residualvalueofitsassets.

141

Table9–EXPENDITUREANDRESIDUALVALUEOFPROJECT

Funding(£m) Value(£m)

Publicgoode-Chinae-learningresearchcentreResearchstudiesandotherpubliclydisseminatedoutputstoinformdevelopmentofeLearningAdvisers(legalandbusiness)

3121

312_

CommercialTechnologyplatformdevelopmentLearningprogrammedevelopmentSalesandMarketing(includesoverseas)UKeUoperatingcosts

14.510.94.212.9

1.4110.4

TOTAL 49.5 18.8AdaptedfromSC2005p.22

TheHouseofCommonsEducationandSkillsCommitteelaunchedaninquiryintoUKeUin

June2004.TheresultsofthatinquirywillbeexploredindetailinSection5.3(p.143),butin

summary,theCommitteefoundthatUKeU:

• ‘tookasupply-ledratherthandemandledapproach• hadaninabilitytoworkineffectivepartnershipwiththeprivatesector• failedtoattractsignificantprivateinvestment• failedtoconductsufficientmarketresearch• focussedtoomuchonprovidinganintegratede-learningplatform• hadsystemsandstructuresinappropriateforaventurethatwasalmostentirely

publiclyfunded’[takenfromSC2005summaryreportp3-4].

ThereportoftheSelectCommitteewaspublishedinMarch2005and,inapressrelease,

Chairman,BarrySheerman,saidthat‘UKeUwasaterriblewasteofpublicmoney’.Itis

noteworthythattheSelectCommitteereportitselfcomesinforsomecriticism.Bacsich

(2010)observedthattheCommitteeonlyinterviewedaselectnumberofseniorstaffand

assuchthereviewwasflawed.

BythetimetheSelectCommitteehadreported,HEFCEhadinplaceanewpolicy

statement,‘HEFCEstrategyfore-learning’(HEFCE2005/12)whichwasalsopublishedin

March2005.HEFCEhadtransferredthemajorityoftheactivitiestosupporte-learningto

theHigherEducationAcademy(HEA),andtofocusthestrategyon‘supportforthechosen

missionsandpartnershipsofindividualinstitutions’(p.3).

142

5.2.8Timelineofevents

Table10–TIMELINEOFEVENTSFORTHEE-UNIVERSITY

1999 E-UniversityproposalincludedinHEFCEspendingreviewbidbySirBrianFender

February2000 DavidBlunkett,SecretaryofStateforEducationandEmploymentannouncede-UniversityinitiativeinGreenwichspeechHEFCEseeksconsultationoninitiativewiththesectorHEFCEsetupSteeringCommitteechairedbyRonCooke

March2000 DOTCOMcrashApril2000 HEIsreportonconsultationMay2000 PriceWaterhouseCoopers(PwC)developbusinessmodel

CHEMSundertakeinitialmarketresearchJune2000 HEFCEpublishesresultsofinitialconsultationOctober2000 PwCreportonproposedbusinessmodelNovember2000 HEFCEconsultssectoronbusinessmodel

HEFCEadvertiseforjointventurepartnersfromtheprivatesectorGrantlettertoHEFCEannounces£62mfore-Universityventure

December2000 InterimmanagementteamappointedwithNickWintonasinterimCEOtoestablishnewcompanystructureforUKeUJointventurepartnerstohavemadeexpressionsofinterest

January2001 DraftbusinessplanforUKeUproducedwithPwCHEFCEbeginsprocessofsettingupcorporatestructureandseeksnominationsforholdingcompany,operatingcompanyandAcademicQualityCommittee

February2001

HEFCEannouncesconclusionsonbusinessmodelconsultationNominationsfordirectorsofholdingcompany,operatingcompanyandAcademicQualityCommitteetobereceived

March2001 HEFCEestablishesholdingcompanye-learningHoldingCompanyLtdtooverseeworkofoperatingcompanyHEIsinvitedtoexpressinterestinpilotprogrammesSecretaryofStateannouncesdirectorsofholdingcompany

April2001 HEFCEinvitesHEIstobecomemembersofHoldCoMay2001

NominationsforinterestinpilotprogrammestobereceivedbyHEFCEDeadlineforholdingcompanymembershipforms

September2001 OperatingcompanyUKeUestablishedOctober2001 StrategicalliancewithSunMicrosystemsLimitedagreed

SirHowardNewbyreplacesSirBrianFenderasCEOofHEFCENovember2001 SirAnthonyCleaverappointedChairmanofUKeUFebruary2002 JohnBeaumontappointedChiefExecutiveofUKeUandsenior

managementputinplaceMarch2002 FrameworkagreementsignedwithSunMicrosystemsLtd

HEFCEinvitesbidsforpublicsectorstudentplacesApril2002 UKeUproducesnewbusinessplanOctober2002 UKeUissuesassuranceonuseoftechnicalplatform

Originaldateforlaunchofcourses(notmet)February/March2003

2pilotcourseslaunchedonversion0oftechnicalplatform78studentsregistered(targetwas340bythispoint)

May2003 HEFCEinformsUKeUthatreviewwillbeconductedJuly2003 Technicalplatformduetobeready(£10mspent)

143

October2003 Mainlaunchwith17courses898studentsregistered

November2003 PAConsultingLtdbeginreviewUKeUproducesrevisedbusinessplanwithsignificantlyreducedtargetstudentnumbersof1,225

December2003 HEFCEreviewsdraftPAConsultingreviewreportandsendstoUKeUandHoldCoUkeUjoinedbyaresearchbody,theE-learningResearchCentre,basedatManchesterandSouthamptonuniversities

January2004 PAConsultingsubmitsfinalreporttoHEFCEHoldCorespondstodraftreport25coursesnowon-lineOriginaltargetwas5,638bythispoint

February2004 HEFCEwithdrawsUKeUfundingandannouncesre-structureofUKeURobsonRhodesappointedtooverseewinddownofUKeUUKeUBoardresignHEFCEdecidestoinvestremaininginitiativefundingindevelopmentofe-learninginHEIs

April2004 HEFCEmovespublicgoodprojects,suchase-China,outofUKeUJune2004 Almostcompleteversionoftechnicalplatformdelivered

SelectCommitteeinquiryannouncedJuly2004 UKeUstopstradingMarch2005 SelectCommitteepublishesreport

HEFCEpublishesanewstatementofpolicy–HEFCEstrategyfore-leaning

5.3Acriticalreviewoftheevidenceandfindings

5.3.1Process:Governanceandorganisation:HEFCE’srole

Theorganisationandgovernanceofthee-Universityisregardedbymanycontributorsasa

centralreasonforthefailureofthepolicyepisode,andtheorganisationofHoldCoand

UKeU,andtheirrelationshipwithHEFCE,cameinforconsiderablecriticism.Itwas

acknowledgedintheSelectCommittee,bybothHEFCEandgovernmentthatthenatureof

thegovernancestructure,withpublicandprivateelementsinatriangulationbetween

HEFCE,HEIsandtheprivatesector,wassomethingentirelynewtoHEFCE,andtheylacked

experienceofjointpublic/privateventures.TheSelectCommitteeconcludedthatthiswasa

highlyambitiousproject,andthat

‘attheheartofthefailureofUKeUwasthatsystemsandstructuresthatmayhavebeenconsideredappropriatewhensetupagainsttheoriginalplanbecameinappropriateforaventurethatwasalmostentirelypubliclyfunded’(SC2005p.12).

Conole(2007),inareviewoflessonstobelearnedfrome-learningorganisationalcultures,

agreed,arguingthat‘theUKeUwassetupwithanambitioussetofaspirations,whichwith

hindsightmightbeconsideredsomewhatnaïve’.

144

HEFCE’sremotenessfromUKeUviaHoldComeantthatHEFCEdidnothaveanydirect

controloverthedaytodayoperation,ordecision-making,withinUKeU,despitethe

organisationremainingveryreliantonpublicfunds.Thiswasdeliberate,sinceHEFCEhadto

maintaindistancefromUKeUasitcouldnotinvestpublicfundsinaprivatecompany.

Critically,thisdistancealsohadtobemaintainedsincetherewaspotentialforconflict

betweentheshadowdirectorshipandtheaccountingofficerroleforthechiefexecutiveof

HEFCE.ThisdistancemeantUKeUhadconsiderablefreedomandwaseasilyabletoshift

fromthePwCbusinessmodel,withoutanyneedforHEFCEapproval.Thisapproachwas

highlycriticisedbytheSelectCommittee:

‘TherunningoftheventurewashandedovertoUKeUwithlimitedrestrictions.Themanagementwereabletotaketheirownapproach,andthat,basedonlimitedinformationandnofurthermarketresearch,theymadestrategicdecisionsaboutthetargetmarkets,courses,pricingstrategies,andothermajoroperatingdecisions’(SC2005para76p.23).

Inthebusinessmodel,andasaconditionofgrant,theownershipofUKeUshouldhave

equallyincludedpublicandprivateinvestors,withoutrelianceonpublicfunding.The

tensionbetweentheprivateandpublicresponsibilitiesofHoldCoandUKeUbecame

particularlyproblematiconceitwasclearthattherewouldnotbeanymatchedprivate

investmentandthatthewholeventurewouldbepublicallyfunded.Asprivateinvestment

failedtomaterialise,HoldCobecamethedominantshareholderinUKeU,essentially

becomingtheparentcompany.HoldCoadvisedHEFCEinautumn2003thattheBoardhad

concernsthatHoldCohadbecometheprimaryaccountabilityagent,anditwasatthat

pointthatHEFCEaskedPAConsultingLtdtoreviewUKeU.

SincetheBoardofHoldCowasmostlyconfiguredfromvoluntaryandunpaidmembers,

unabletoprovideafulltimecommitmenttothekeymonitoringrole,itsinfluenceover

UKeUwaslimited,andthustherewasgreaterdistancebetweenthefundingandthe

operationofUKeU.SirBrianFender,inhisroleasformerChairmanofHoldCo,statedinhis

evidencetotheSelectCommitteethatalthoughithadalwaysbeenunderstoodthatHoldCo

wouldbeexpectedtoensurethatpublicfundswereinvestedwithvalueformoneyinmind,

inpracticethisrolewaslimitedduetothevoluntarynatureofmembersoftheBoard(SC

2005para85p.25).Bascish(2010)isparticularlycriticalofthisvoluntaryapproach,arguing

thattherewasnoreasonformemberstobeunpaid.

TheSelectCommitteeformedtheviewthatUKeUwasnotentirelytoblameforthat

situation,anddespiteKimHowell’sassertioninhisstatementtotheCommitteethat‘Ido

145

notthinkHEFCEcanbeblamedforthatandIdonotthinkthedepartmentcanbeblamed

forit’(SC2005para77p.24),HEFCEwastoofarremovedfromtheoperationofUKeU,gave

thecompanytoomuchofafreereinanddidnotrequireUkeUtoprovideastrategyor

businessobjectives.Consequently,UKeUwerenotdirectlyaccountableforthespendingof

HEFCEfunds.TheSelectCommitteewereparticularlycriticalofUKeU’slackof

accountability:

‘akeylessontobelearntisthat,inhighriskventuressuchasUKeU,agreatdealmoreneedstobedonetosupporttheaccountingofficertoenablehimtoacteffectivelyinhisrole….AgroupofadvisorstoHEFCE…..couldhavebeenputtogethertokeepUKeUinmuchcloseraccountintermsofthedecisionstheymade.Thiswouldhaveenabledmuchcloseraccountabilityfromthestartoftheproject’(SC2005para98/99p.28).

TheSelectCommitteewasclearinitsrecommendationsthatthereneededtobegreater

accountabilityintheuseofpublicfunds:

‘animportantlessontobelearntisthatseniormanagementshouldhavehadeitherveryclearaccountabilityfortheexpenditureofpublicmoney,orriskfrommarketpressurestosucceedthroughprivateinvestmentintheproject’(SC2005para82p.25).

HEFCEitselfwasdefensiveofitslackofengagementwithUKeU,citingasjustificationits

lackofexperiencewithprivatesectorpracticesandadesiretoremainatadistance,soas

toencouragenovelapproaches.LizBeaty,DirectorofLearningandTeachingatHEFCE

summedthisupinaquotetotheTHES,defendingHEFCE’s‘handsoff’approach:

‘Wewerefunders,notdirectors.Ifyoutieeverythingdownandtakenorisks,itmightstopyoucomingupwithinnovativethings’(Wainwright2005).

AfurtherexamplewhichdemonstratedthedistancebetweenHEFCEandUKeU,criticised

bytheSelectCommittee,weretheprivatesector-likebonusespaidtothecompany

directors,ofwhichHEFCEhadbeenapparentlyunaware.Oneofthekeycharacteristicsof

thebusinessplanwasthattheventurewasexpectedtooperateinabusiness-likemanner,

andindeedaconditionofgrantwasthatUKeUoperatedconsistently‘withbestpracticein

thecommercialsector’(HEFCE00/44a).Oneofthewaysinwhichthisbusiness-like

approachmanifesteditselfwastherewardingofseniorUKeUstaffwithperformance

relatedbonuses.SirAnthonyCleaverarguedinhisevidencetotheSelectCommitteethat

thiswasconsideredbestpracticeinthecommercialsector,wheretherewasconsiderable

marketrisk:

‘Allthebonuseswereawardedagainstdefinedcriteriawhichweresetinadvanceandpeople’sperformancewasassessedagainstthem…Ihaveabsolutelynoqualmsabouteithertheprocessortheoutcomesofthebonuses’(SC2005p.11).

146

TheSelectCommitteestronglyreproachedthepracticeofbonuses,giventheclearfailure

ofUKeUtomeetitsfinancialandstudenttargets,butmorecritically,itquestionedthe

extenttowhichtherewasanymarketriskinthisventure,sincethecompanywas

essentiallybeingfundedwithpublicmoney:

‘Weconsiderthatforeithertheprivatesectororthepublicsectorthebonusespaidtoseniorstaffwerewhollyunacceptableandmorallyindefensible.Theargumentthattheyreflectprivatesectorpracticedoesnotstanduptoscrutiny….WearealsounabletoaccepttheviewoftheChairmanandChiefExecutivethattheywereinvolvedinariskbusinesswhichmadesuchbonusesappropriate.Thecompanywasinvolvedinanewandrelativelyuntriedsector,butitcarriednomarketrisk.Itwasbackedwith£50millionofpublicmoney;theriskwastothatpublicinvestment,nottothecompany’(SC2005para33/34p.12).

Theawardofbonuseswasalsopickedupbythepress,withNaughton,writinginthe

Guardian,scathinginhiscriticism:

‘Theholdingcompanydulysetupan'operating'company,whichrecruitedaraftofbusinesstypeswhoknewlittleornothingabouteducation.(ThefinancedirectorcamefromCamelot!)Theydid,however,knowaboutburningmoneyandremuneratingthemselvesnicely.Thecompanyaccountsrevealthatpart-timechairmanSirAnthonyCleaver,forexample,got£70,000in2002-03,plusa£12,236'performancebonus'.ChiefexecutiveJohnBeaumonttookhome£180,000plusabonus(alsofor'performance')of£44,914’(Naughton2004).

Othercommentatorsagreedthatthecombinationofpoorgovernanceandaflawed

businessplanweretheessentialingredientsforfailure.PetersusesUKeUasanexampleof

whypartnershipsgowrong,andarguesthatinthiscase‘unclearorincomplete

accountabilitylinks…[where]thelevelofdelegatedauthorityoverresourcesanddecision

makingpowerswasunclear’(Peters2011).SteveMolyneux,DirectoroftheLearningLab,

concurswiththisview,andwasquotedinTheChronicleofHigherEducationassaying

‘It[UKeU]wasdowntobadmanagement,badimplementation,aflawedbusinessplan,andnotlisteningtoexpertsinthefield’(Carnevale2004).

5.3.2.Process:Privatesectorengagement

Amajorpartofthee-Universityconceptwasprivatesectorinvolvement.HEFCEconsidered

thatdevelopingsuchaventurerequiredexternalinvestment,partlybecauseHEFCEdidnot

havetheleveloffundingtofullysupportthedevelopmentoftheplatformand

infrastructurerequired,butalsobecauseitexpectedthebusinessmodeltocloselyfollow

thosebeingsuccessfullydevelopedintheUSA.Privatesectorinvolvementwasclearfrom

theoutset:

147

‘theoperatingcompanywouldalsoinvolvejointventurepartnersfromtheprivatesectorornon-HEbodies‘(HEFCE00/43).

InSirHowardNewby’sevidencetotheSelectCommittee,hecommentedonthegeneral

feelingtowardstheinvolvementoftheprivatesectorintheventure:

‘Ithinktherewasalsorecognition[byHEFCEandthesector]thattobeamajorglobalplayerinaglobalmarkettherehadtobeasubstantialprivatesectorinvolvement,becausethenecessaryfundingcouldnotcomerealisticallyfromthepublicsectoralone.GovernmentwouldnotwishtoearmarksufficientsumsofmoneytobeaheavyhitterintheglobalmarketwithoutsignificantprivatesectorinvolvementandcertainlytherewerenosparefundsintheFundingCouncil’(SC2005Q18p.8).

However,intheevent,SunMicrosystemsLtdwastheonlysignificantprivateinvestorto

comeonboard,andalthoughitwasreportedinthepressthatPearsonEducation

(publishers)andthecommercialarmoftheBBCwereexpectedtoinvestinUKeU,neither

did.FollowingHEFCE’sinvitationtoprivateinvestorstojointheventure,theywereonly

givenonemonthforexpressionsofinterest,andthusitcouldbeconcludedthattherewas

simplyinsufficienttimeforinvestorstocomeonboardintheinitialstages.Carnevale,

however,writinginTheChronicleofHigherEducation,believesthatthereasoningwas

morefundamental,reportingthat

‘Observerssaythatcompaniesdidnotwantanypartofthevirtualuniversitybecausetheysawthattheprojectwasflawedfromtheoutset’(Carnevale2004).

ThisviewmayhavebeenrecognisedbyUKeUitself,sincewhentheBoardrevisedthe

businessplaninNovember2003,itdidnotprovideforany‘privatesectorinvestmentwithin

atleastthenextsixyears’(asnotedbyBusinessReviewoftheUKeUconductedbyPA

Consulting2003).

HEFCE’sviewofwhytheprivatesectordidnotengagewasnotthattheprojectwasflawed

(andindeedtheycontinuedtoclaimthatanumberofcompanieswereinterestedin

joining)butthat

‘NoneoftheproposalsseemedlikelytobecompatiblewiththeinterestsandconcernsoftheHEsector’(HEFCEmemorandumtotheSelectCommittee21.06.2004).

EventherelationshipbetweenUKeUandSunMicrosystemswasnottrulyapartnership.

SunMicrosystemschosenottoholdanysharesinUKeUorhaveanyrepresentationonthe

Board,andsoessentiallytherelationshipwasthatofasupplierratherthanpartner,as

confirmedbyLeslieStretch,VicePresidentofSunMicrosystemsLtd,inhisevidencetothe

SelectCommittee:

148

‘Itbecameasupplier/customerrelationship.Attheoutsettheintentionwasmorestrategicbutoncewegotintodevelopingthesystem,theday-to-dayfocuswasdeliveringthatsystem’(SC2005Q531p.83),

FortheSelectCommittee,thefailuretosecurepartnershipswiththeprivatesectorwasa

furthermajorreasonforthefailureofUKeU:

‘UKeU’sattempttoformgenuinepartnershipswiththeprivatesector,thoughunsuccessful,wascommendableandcouldhavehelpedUKeUtostaycompetitiveandmarketorientated.Instead,UKeUbecameanotherexampleofhowdifficultthepublicsectorfindsittoformsuccessfulpartnershipswiththeprivatesector.Thefailuretofindprivatesectorpartnersorinvestorsshould,however,havecausedtheholdingcompany,HEFCEandtheDfEStohaveconcernssoonerratherthanlateraboutthevalidityoftheproject’(SC2005para63p.19).

ThisperceptionwasnotwhollyadifficultywiththeHEsector,andrhetoricaroundpublic-

privatesectorengagementswasprevalentwithingovernmentatthattime.Younie(2006)

notesthatthiswasapolicyproblemmoregenerally,andalthoughtheDfEE(asitwasin

1997)alsohadambitionsforjointpublicandprivatecollaborationto‘bringtogetherthe

bestofprivatesectorcreativityandthehigheststandardsofpublicservice’(DfEE1997p3),

muchofthiswasnotdelivered,andwasparticularlynoticeableinrelationtodeliveringICT

inschoolspolicies.AsO’Reilly(2007)concludes,

‘foranadministrationkeenontheinvolvementoftheprivatesectorintheprovisionofpublicservices,ICThasnotseenthesustainedinvolvementofprivateconcerns’(quotedinSelwyn2008).

5.3.3Process:Academicengagement-conflictingcultures

Thenatureofpartnershipandconflictingculturesinthepublic-privatesectorsalso

contributedtothedifficultiesinformingacoherentapproachthatwasbothbusinesslike

andmettheexpectationsoftheHEsector.TheworkofConole,Carusi,deLatt&Wilcox

(2006,2006a,2006b,2007)hasexaminedreasonsforUKeU’sfailureandtheyconcluded

thattheorganisationalstructure,theprocessesand,critically,theculturalrelationships

betweenthevariousactorsandorganisationsweresignificantinitsfailuretoachieveits

desiredoutcomes.Oneoftheirkeyfindingswasthatacademicorganisationshave

differentculturalinfluences,practicesandexpectationstocorporateones:

‘oneofthemostimportantfindingsoftheresearchisthemismatchbetweenthosewithmoreofabusiness-orientatedvisionforUKeUandthosemoreinterestedintheacademicaspectsandthepotentialeducationalinnovation’(Conoleetal2006p.136).

149

TheirresearchconcludesthattheorganisationbetweentheHEIsandtheoperating

companydidnotseektoaddresstheseculturaldifferences,andthattherewasabeliefthat

business-focussedapproachesweremoreoptimal,attheexpenseoftheacademic.Asa

result,theorganisationandapproachwasfragmented.Forthem,theverybusinessmodel

developedbyPwCwasquestionableinallowingforthedifferentculturalapproaches:

‘Thelackof‘joined-up’ormoreholisticthinkingmayreflecttheimmaturityoftheUKeUorganisationatthisstage;alternatively,orinaddition,itmaybeafeatureofsuchmodelsthattheydonotcapturethecomplexityandevolvingnatureoftheinstitutionalandinterpersonalrelationships…ThattherewasariftbetweenthecorporateandacademicculturesintheUKeUhasbeenremarkeduponbyallinterviewees’(Conoleetal2006p.143&p.147).

Conoleetal(2006,2006a,2006b,2007)alsonotethereisoftenamismatchbetweenthe

corporatesector,anditsfocusonprivategoods,andtheacademic,withitsfocusonpublic

goods.WhilstthiswasacknowledgedinPwC’sbusinessmodel,‘widerintentionstoincrease

socialinclusionandtodisseminategoodpracticedonotsitcomfortablywithafocuson

profitmaximisation’;thismismatchwasnotexplicitlyaddressed,andassuch‘thereappear

tohavebeennostepstakentotrytosmooththewayforcross-sectorandcross-cultural

relationships’(Conoleetal2006ap.8).

ThefindingsoftheresearchbyConole(2007)concludedthatthismismatchwassignificant

inthefailureofthee-University.

‘Therewasagradualfurtheraccentuationofthebusinessorcorporatenatureoftheorganisationattheexpenseofitsacademicaspectandanincreasingcorporate/academicrift.Themostsignificantpointtoemergefromouranalysisistheimportanceofmeanswherebyinstitutionscouldaddressthesedifferences’(p.141).

Therewasequallyaconcernthatuniversitiesthemselveswerenotwhollycommittedtothe

project,particularlyatseniorlevels.Althoughallbutfourinstitutionssigneduptothe

project,inrealitytherewaslittleinstitutionalcommitmentandthedevelopmentof

programmeswas,forthemostpart,leftdowntoindividualswithanenthusiasmfore-

learning.TheresearchbyConoleetal(2006,2006a,2006b,2007)alsofoundevidencethat

theinternalworkingsandlevelofcommitmentofindividualHEIshadasignificantimpact

onhowtheyengagedwithUKeU:

‘CircumstancesoftenincludedtheorganisationprocesseswithintheHEIsthemselvesand,inparticular,thewayinwhichthedecisionhadcomeabouttoworkwiththeUKeUinthefirstplaceandbywhatinternalstructuresthedecisionwasbeingenforced’(Conole,2006,p.144).

150

JohnBeaumontalsoquestionedthecommitmentofuniversitiestotheprojectinhis

witnessstatementtotheSelectCommittee:

‘TheywereaskedtoputapoundinandIthinkallbutfourdid,andIamnotsurethatshowsrealcommitmentofaninstitution.Whatwedidfind…wasinmanyinstitutionstherewerealotofveryenthusiasticacademics,buttogete-learningofqualityandscaleyouneedthewholeinstitutiontosupportit’(SC2005para64p.20).

ByOctober2003,just17courseshadbeenlaunched,andby2004anumberofHEIshadwithdrawnfromHoldCo,thusfurtherreducingthecommitmentoftheorganisationtoholdUKeUtoaccountforitsactions.ThelackofengagementledtheSelectCommitteetoconcludethat

‘itappearstousthatthewaveofenthusiasmwhichcausedallbutahandfulofhighereducationinstitutionstosignuptotheUKeU'sprojectrecededveryrapidly,leavingitwithoutprivatesectorinvestmentoractivehighereducationsectorengagement’(SC2005para65p.20).

5.3.4Process:Alackoffocusonthelearnerandasupply-drivenapproach

AnothermainfindingoftheSelectCommitteewasthatUKeU‘tookasupply-driven,rather

thandemand-led,approach’(SC2005)toitsbusiness.ThemainfocusinitiallyforUKeUwas

togetcontentontothelearningplatforminordertomeettheambitiousOctober2002

launchdate,andforthistheyneededthesupportofHEIsinprovidingprogrammes.As

such,thefocuswasonprogrammes,notonlearners.ThisledtheSelectCommitteeto

concludethat

‘asupply-drivenapproach,combinedwiththeveryambitiousnatureoftheventureinanemergingmarketthatdidnotsustainthehighexpectationsofdemand…ledtothefailureofUKeUtomeetitstargets,aimsandobjectives…TheproblemforUKeUwasacombinationoftheambitiousnatureoftheoriginalidea,andanover-confidenceaboutthelevelofdemandfore-learningwhichledtoanapproachwhichwasinsufficientlyfocussedonresearchandmarketingandwhichwasnotlearnercentered.Tobesuccessful,theproject’smainfocusshouldhavebeenonclearlyidentifyingitsmarketandknowingthedemandsofitscustomers’(SC2005p.13,para108p.30).

Peters(2011)alsocitesthesupplydrivenapproachasoneofreasonsforthedemiseof

UKeU:

‘Thelessonsfromthisexample[UKeU]aremanybuttheyincludetheinitiativebeingtopdownratherthanarisingeitherfromdemandfrominternationalstudentsoragapperceivedbyuniversities’(Peters2011p.29).

Inthebusinessmodel,followinginitialmarketresearchbyPwC,ithadbeenproposedthat

UKeUwouldconcentrateitseffortsinitiallyonsomelow-riskmarketssuchasUK-based

postgraduateandCPDprogrammes,‘corporate’universities,workplacelearningand

151

selectedoverseasmarkets.However,UKeUchosetogoglobalrightfromthebeginning,

perhapsbecausetheorganisationsawthisasaquickwiningeneratingsubstantialstudent

numbers,andtheywereheavilycriticisedforthisapproachbytheSelectCommittee.UKeU

hadmadeanassumptionthatthemarketintheUnitedStatesmirroredmarketsectorsin

otherpartsoftheglobe,andtheywereinfluencedbygovernment’soriginalassertionthat

therewasasignificantthreatfromtheUSA.Inhisevidence,SirHowardNewbyconcluded

thatUKeUhadmovedawayfromtheoriginalbusinessplan:

‘Ithinktherewasshiftofemphasis,yes…Oncethee-UniversityOpco[operatingcompany]boardhadbeensetup,theycertainlyfeltthattherewasamajoropportunityhere,ifyoulike,forUKexportearnings.Agreatdealofemphasiswasplacedoninternationalrecruitment….Opcoboardtooktheviewthatthemajorgrowthmarketwasoverseas,especiallyinAsia’(SC2005Q23p.9).

However,therewasnoevidencethattheglobalmarketexisted.In2003,sometwoyears

afterthestartofUKeU,thePAConsultingGroupreviewintoUKeUconcludedthat‘UKeU

hasyettodemonstratethatthereisasustainableandaccessibleglobalmarket’(SC2005

Q63p.14).

TherewasapparentconfusionaroundthetargetmarketbetweenHEFCEandUKeU.Whilst

UKeUwasseekingproposalsfromHEIstomeetdemandsintheinternationalmarket,Sir

HowardNewbywaswritingtoEnglishViceChancellorswithadifferentmessageconcerning

thee-University’sroleinsupportingsocialinclusion:

‘Thisinvitation[tobidforadditionalstudentnumbers]isnotaboutcommercialprogrammesbutaboutprogrammestobeofferedaspartofthepublicserviceofhighereducationinEngland,particularlytomeetobjectivesofwideningparticipation’(THES12.04.2002).

Forsomeobservers,afocusonthepubicgoodwasasquestionableastheinternational

marketand,asearlyas2001,commentatorswerequestioningwhetherthedevelopmentof

e-educationwassuitableasapublicservice,giventhetendencyfortheretobebothan

absenceofpublicfundingfore-educationandincreasedfinancialburdenonstudents,

whichisreflectedinthebusinessmodelofUKeU.AsRumble2001noted:

‘giventheunwillingnessorinabilityofgovernmentstomeettheadditionalcostsinvolved,thetendencyiseithertoforegotheexpenditure,ortopassthesecostsontothestudents.BoththesestrategiesareevidencedstronglyintheBusinessModelforthe[UK]e-University’(Rumble2001p.226).

Rumble(2001)andGreenerandPerriton(2005)warnedthatglobalisationofe-education

meantthatattentionwouldalwaysbefocusedonthoseelementsofthemarketthatcould

152

affordtopay,andthusignoringsectorsunabletoaffordthecost,includingthelocal

market.ThisisverymuchreflectedintheglobalapproachtakenbyUKeUand,assuch,it

failedtomeetoneoftheothermainobjectives:

‘ensuringthatthesocialinclusionagendaremainsapriority,primarilythroughthedevelopmentofundergraduatecoursestoreachthoseinthiscountrywhofinditdifficulttoaccessthemoretraditionalcampus-baseduniversity’(HEFCE04/00).

ThelocalandthesocialgoodwereignoredbyUKeUbut,inRumble’sview,thisisnot

surprisingsincetheoriginalbusinessmodelfailedtogivecredencetothisaspectofthe

visioninfocussingonthefinancialsustainabilityofUKeU.

Thelackofademand-ledapproachimpededUKeUinmeetinganotherofitsobjectives:to

belearner-driven.UKeUlookedfirsttowhatcoursescouldbesuppliedbyHEIs,ratherthan

focussingontherequirementsofthelearner.Intheoriginalbusinessmodel(HEFCE00/43)

itwasstipulatedthattheorganisationmustbe‘learner-centered’.However,theSelect

CommitteefoundthatUKeUhaddonelittletoresearchwhatlearnerswantedand,had

theydoneso,theywouldhaveconcludedthattherewasgreaterdemandfora‘blended

learning’approach.ThiswasacknowledgedinthePwCbusinessmodel,whereitsuggested

that‘wethinkthatthisprospectofcombininge-Uwithlocalprovisionmayoffera

particularlyattractivemarketopportunity’(HEFCE00/44ap.13).Demandforasolelye-

learningapproachrepresentedaverysmallsegmentofthemarket.NorhadUKeUlooked

atwhatwasbeingofferedelsewhere,whichmighthavebetterinformedtheirdecisions,

suchastheOpenUniversityortheUniversityofPhoenix,bothofwhichofferedblended

approachestolearning.AsUsoroandAbid(2008)noted,

‘IntheUK,mostofthesuccessfule-learningprogrammesaretheblendedratherthanthepure(noface-to-facecontact)approach’(p.79).

ItisnoteworthythatinJuly2003HEFCEconsultedthesectorona‘strategyforpromoting

e-learning’(HEFCE2003/35)andthevastmajorityofresponsessupportedablended

approach,withe-learningprovidingasupportingrole.Thisseemstobeatoddswiththe

consultationonthee-University,where74%ofrespondentssupportedtheinitiative.For

theSelectCommittee,thislearnercenteredapproachwasentirelyabsentfromUKeU’s

methodology:

‘wehavefoundthatUKeUinheritedanarrowlyfocusseddefinitionofe-learningandchosetopursuethatapproachwithoutquestioningitatanystage.Itdidnotfocusonresearchanddevelopmentconcerningthedefinitionofe-learning,anditdidnothavea‘learner-centredapproach’(SC2005para43p.14-15).

153

5.3.5Programme:Brandingandmarketing:afailureofengagement

UKeUrequiredastrongbrandinordertomarketitselfalongsideitsAmericancompetitors,

whichwasacknowledgedinthePwCbusinessmodel(HEFCE00/44ap.46).However,inthe

event,verylittleoftheexpenditure-just£4.2million-wasspentonbrandingand

marketing.TheSelectCommitteereportnotedthatalackofappropriatebrandingand

marketingwasanotherkeyreasonforUKeU’sfailure.ThisviewwasalsosupportedbyThe

MinisterforEducation,DrHowells.ForDrHowells,UKeU’snameitselfrepresenteda

significantbarriertothesuccessoftheventure:

‘Ihavenodoubtwhatsoeverthatiftherewasaclearerbrand–IgettangledupjusttryingtosayUKeUanyway.Idonotknowwhodreamtthatoneupbutitwasnotagreattitle.Itistypicalofthesortofrubbishthatwasaroundatthattime’(SC2005p.36).

ConfusionwasacharacteristicofmanyofthethemesidentifiedinrelationtoUKeU,and

brandingwasnoexception.E-learningventuresintheUnitedStatestendedtoprojecta

strongbrand,explicitlylinkedtoanalreadywellestablishedandrespectedinstitution,such

asUniversityofPhoenixOn-line.UKeUdidnothaveastrongbrandfromtheoutsetsinceit

wasessentiallyanumbrellaforaconglomerateofinstitutions.Neitherdidithavean

establishedreputationforquality,unlikemanyofitsHEImembers.Asaresult,potential

studentscouldnotmakeanimmediatelinkbetweenthestrongbrandofaninstitutionand

theon-linelearning,andthusthebrandwasconfused.AsGarrett(2004)noted,

‘ConfusionexistedbetweenthemainstreamUKeducationbrandemphasisingthethreeelementsoftradition,placeandqualityandmarketingbyUKeUthatpromised‘thebestofUKhighereducationwithonlineconvenience’withoutbeingabletoutilizetheseelements…convenienceisnotastrongpartoftheimageofUKhighereducationabroad’(p.4).

Brandingofthee-UniversitywaspickedupbythemediabeforeUKeUhadbeen

established.TheTHESquotedNeilGregory,headoftheresearchandcontractsdivisionat

theLondonSchoolofEconomics,assaying,

‘Itmightbeanunpalatabletruthbutthee-universitywillbeallaboutbrand.Unlessthosewithinternationalreputationsareincluded,andIamnotconvincedtheyare,itwillhavedifficultyingettingoffthegroundinanyrealsense’(THES16.06.2000).

IthasbeenobservedinSection5.2(p.127)thatoneofthemostcontestedissuesarising

fromtheinitialconsultationwasthetensionbetweenanorganisationthatincludedall

typesofHEIandthedesirebysomeeliteinstitutionstoprotecttheirreputations.TheTHES

154

observedin2000thattheinclusivenatureofthee-Universitywouldleadtochallengesin

branding:

‘Problemsalsoremainwiththeimageofthee-university.Ifitistoattractoverseasstudents,itmusthaveastrongbrandimage.Buteliteinstitutionsareunlikelytolendtheirnamestoaninclusivee-university’(Goddard2000).

GreenerandPerritonlaterconcludedthatthelackofastrongbrandcontributedtoUKeU’s

collapsebecausetherewasarelianceonthereputationsofcertaininstitutionstocarrythe

brand.

‘UKeUlackedarecognisablebrand–soinaninternationallycompetitivemarketplacetheyrelieduponthemore‘marketable’UKuniversitiestosupplylegitimacyandarecognisedproduceprofile’(2005p.68).

TheSelectCommitteealsocriticisedUKeUforfailingto‘undertakeanymarketresearchor

putsufficientemphasisonmarketing’(SC2005para44p.15),andwascriticalofthesmall

amountofmarketingexpenditure,whichonlyaccountedfor8.4%ofthetotalexpenditure

(£4.2mof£49.5m).UKeUhadbeenofferedtheopportunitytopurchaseamarketing

company,ScottishKnowledge,for£12m,buthadrejectedtheofferasbeingtooexpensive.

Inaddition,therewasalackofanymarketingexpertiseatseniormanagementlevel(SC

2005para47,48p.15-16).

Alackofsystematicanalysisandarelianceonanecdotalevidencefromindividualcontacts

wasalsoconsideredbytheCommitteeasfurtherevidenceoffailureinmarketresearch.

ManyexamplesofoccasionswhenUKeUseniormanagement’sapproachwasto‘drawon

theircontacts’(SC2005para53p.17),mainlyoverseas,weregiventotheCommittee(SC

2005para53-55p.17),ratherthanconductingrigorousandinformedresearch.For

example,SirAnthonyCleaversaidinhisstatementtotheSelectCommittee,

‘Fortuitously,IwasalsoChairmanoftheAsiaPacificAdvisersforTradePartnersUKandwasabletodrawontheircontactsinthatpartoftheworld’(SC2005paraQ161,ev27).

UKeUwasalsocriticisedforfailingtoseethepotentialforpartnerships,suchaswiththe

BritishCouncil(SC2005para52,48p.16-17),whichwouldhavehelpedUKeUtobenefit

fromtheirextensiveknowledgeofoverseasmarkets.Overall,theSelectCommittee

concludedthatlackofmarketingandresearchcontributedsignificantlytothefailureof

UKeU:

‘EvidencetothisinquirysuggeststhatUKeU’sunderstandingoftheirmarketscamefromanecdotalevidencefromindividualdiscussionsratherthanfromsystematicanalysis.Therewasnoformalmarketresearchundertakentoassesseitherthelevelof

155

demandorthenatureofthedemandandthetypeofe-learningrequired.Therewasnosystematicevaluationofthemarkets,nothoroughandrobustmarketresearch,andnounderstandingofconsumerdemand.ThiswasatypicalofUKeU’ssupply-drivenratherthandemand-ledapproach’(SC2005para55p.17).

Thepressalsopickeduponthelackofmarketresearch,withNaughtonbeingparticularly

scathingofthelackofit:

‘Itwaspuredotcommery.Nobodyhaddoneanymarketresearch.WiththeexceptionoftheOpenUniversity,therewasn'tanHEinstitutioninBritainthatknewthefirstthingaboute-learning.ButBlunkettputaside£62mforhisfantasyandsetthedisasterinmotion.First,therewastheobligatoryconsultant'sreport,whichspent55pagesavoidingthereallycentralquestions.WasthereamarketforBritishweb-basedlearningmaterials?AndcouldUKuniversitiesdeliveranythingthatpeoplemightactuallybuy?’(Naughton2004).

Conversely,though,Bacsich(2005)pointsoutthatthereisevidenceofmarketresearch

fromUKeU,withanumberofmarketandcompetitorresearchstudiescarriedout:

‘[from]themarketresearchnowpublishedinthee-UniversityCompendiumandtheUKeUReports,itappearstotheauthortobethemostcomprehensiverecentmarketresearchone-universitye-learningdoneinrecentyears’(Bacsich2004p.5).

Theproblem,forBacsich,wasnotalackofmarketresearch,butoneoftiminginthelong

delaysbetweenmarketresearchinarapidlychangingworldandtheusemadeofitby

seniormanagersinUKeU.Healsocitesalackofknowledgeofthemarketresearch,dueto

poororganisationandcommunicationwithintheorganisationitself,asafailuretousethe

availableresearcheffectively.

5.3.6Programme:Thetechnicalplatform

ThevastmajorityofUKeU’sexpenditurewasonthedevelopmentofthetechnicalplatform

(£14.5m).However,UKeUwasheavilycriticisedforputtingfartoomuchemphasison

developingabespokeon-lineplatformfromwhichtodelivercourses.AlthoughthePwC

businessmodelacknowledgedthatsomebespoketechnologicaldevelopmentwouldbe

required,andalsoacknowledgedtheadvantageofhavingatechnologypartnerinthe

businessmodel,therewasanexpectationthatUKeUwouldlooktoexistingtechnology

providersinthefirstinstance:

‘Thefirststepinprocuringsuchacomplextechnologyplatformwouldbetoestablishthemoredetailedoperationsofthee-Utodefinethefunctionalityrequired…Thesecondstepwouldbetoconductamarketevaluationofsuitabletechnologyproviders,whichwouldincludeassessingpossiblecommercialoff-the-shelfproductsaswellassystemsintegratorswhocoulddeveloporpackageabespokesystem–andwhomaybecomean

156

importantstrategictechnologypartner.Itislikelythattheprocurementstrategywillresultinacombinationofbespokeandoff-the-shelfsolutions’(HEFCE00/44a2000,p.28).

Contrarytothebusinessmodel,UKeUperceivedthatexistingplatforms,suchasBlackboard

andWebCT,wereinsufficienttodeliverthescaleoftheactivity,althoughtheyfailedto

consultwithe-learningexperts,theJointInformationSystemsCommittee(JISC)orthe

LearningandTeachingSupportNetwork(LTSN).AsaresultofUKeU’sdecision,Sun

Microsystemswerechargedwithdevelopinganewplatform.Significantly,developinga

bespokeplatformdelayedthelaunchofcourses,withthefirstprogrammesnotbeing

introduceduntil2003.Garrett(2004)arguedthatthiswasacrucialmistakeand,

‘inretrospect,thecompanymighthavesavedsignificantfundsbyusinganexistingplatform,gettingprogramsupandrunningmorequickly,andleavingmorefundsformarketing.Thiswouldalsohavepermittedtheventuretogrowmoreslowly’(p.5).

Almost30%ofUKeU’s£49.5mtotalexpenditurehadbeenspentonthetechnology

platformdevelopmentalone,andtheSelectCommitteewerehighlycriticalofthis

approach:

‘UKeUallowedthedevelopmentofthetechnologyplatformtodriveitsstrategyandthedevelopmentofprogrammes.Ithadaskewedfocusontheplatform,basedontheassumptionthatoncethiswasright,theoriginalprojectionsofveryhighstudentnumberswouldbeeasytorealise.Unfortunatelythisassumptionwasnotbasedonresearchevidence,butinanoverconfidentpresumptionaboutthescaleofthedemandforwhollyinternetbasede-learning’(SC2005para60p.18).

Bascishobservedthatthetechnicalplatformtookupmostofthemanagementtimeand

provedtobeamostcontentiousissuebetweenmanagers,thetechnicalteamand

universities.Henotesthattheplatformwouldhavecausedfarfewermanagement

difficultieshadanexistingcommercialplatformbeenbroughtin(Bascish(2010p.28).

JaniceSmith,inher2005reviewof40yearsofon-linelearning,suggeststhatthe

developmentof‘bigsystems’suchastheUKeUtechnologicalplatformisanapproachthat

hadbeenadoptedbygovernmentsincethe1997Dearingreport,andtheirgenericnature

typicallyleadstofailure.Shearguesthatgovernmentneedstolearnfromthefailureof

UKeUandthattechnologicalinnovationthatmatch‘toolsandresourcescloselytothe

studentlearningneed’(Smith2005p.106)ismoreappropriate.TheresearchbyConole

(2007)alsoconcludedthate-learningis‘complexandmulti-faceted’(p.149)and,assuch,a

narrowon-lineapproachisinsufficient.Thislessonappearstohavebeenlaterunderstood

byHEFCEin2005,inthedevelopmentofamuchbroaderandinstitutionallyfocussede-

learningpolicy,fundedfromwhatwasleftofthee-Universitymoney:

157

‘Ourstrategy[fore-learning]shouldnotfocussolelyorevenprimarilyontheuseoftechnologiesindistancelearning…Newtechnologiesclearlyprovideopportunitiesforenhancementandinnovationinlearningopportunitiesonthecampus,orwithintheworkplaceorhome.Thedefinitionofe-learningshouldbesufficientlybroadtoencompassthemanyusesofICTthatindividualuniversitiesandcollegesdecidetoadoptintheirlearningandteachingmissions.Ourstrategyshouldpromoteandsupportthatdiversity’(HEFCE2005/122005,p.5).

5.3.7Programme:ArelianceontheEnglishlanguage

AlthoughtheoriginalHEFCEcircularassertedthat‘Englishisthepreferredinternational

mediumofinstructioninHE’(HEFCE04/00AnnexApoint6),UKeUwascriticisedfornot

takingintoaccountthePwCbusinessmodel’swarningthat‘itwillbeimportantforthee-U

provisiontobesensitivetolocalculturesandlanguage’(HEFCE00/44ap.15),sinceUkEU

proposedtoprovideallofitsprogrammesinEnglish.AswithmanyaspectsofUKeU’s

approach,therationaleforprovidingprogrammesonlyinEnglishwasbasedonhearsay

ratherthanevidencedresearch.SirAnthonyCleaverreportedtotheSelectCommitteethat

hisvisitstotheFarEastwereinfluentialindeterminingthefocusoncoursesinEnglish:

‘Koreaisprobablythebestexample.OnmyfirstvisittoKoreaImettheMinisterofEducation.Hesaid‘wellofcourseweneedEnglish.WeasacountryarenotstronginEnglishandinternationallythatisfinanciallydetrimentaltous’’(SC2005para54p.17).

ThisassumptionthattherewasaninternationalmarketforcoursestaughtinEnglishwasat

oddswithevidenceofsuccessinothercountries.Forexample,thesuccessfulSNU,which

focussesonthehomeSwedishmarket,hascoursesentirelyinSwedish(ChristieandJurado

(2007).

5.3.8Process:Timescales

Theaccountoftheepisode,andthetimelineabove(Table10,p.142),outlinejusthow

quicklyHEFCElaunchedtheinitiative,withshortdeadlinesforHEIsandprivateinvestorsto

reacttoconsultationsandinvitationstoengage,andHoldCoandUKeUequallyquickly

established.Thespeedoftheinitiativewas,formanycommentators,putdowntotheneed

toreactquicklytocompeteintheglobalmarketandavoidbeingtakenoverbytheUSA.

However,thenecessityforsuchspeedwasquestioned.Garettnotesthat

‘therewasconcernthatiftheUKdidnot“dosomething”itsinternationalstudentmarketwouldbeoverrunbyaggressiveonlineuniversitiesfromtheUnitedstatesandelsewherewasbasedonfearratherthanfact’(Garett2004p.4).

158

Equally,despiteHEFCE’sconjecturethattheUSAofferedsuccessfulmodelsofe-learning

thatshouldbeemulated,Hedberg(2006)observesthattheUSAalsoexperiencedsimilar

failures:

‘TheclosureofUKe-UniversitiesWorldwide(UKeU)followstheearlierfailureofsuchschemesintheUSA,wherethelownumbersofenrolledstudentsindicatethatthisisnotalwayswhatthemajorityofstudentsseekfortheiruniversityeducation’(p.174).

TheSelectCommitteealsoquestionedthespeedatwhicheventstookplace,andindeedDr

KimHowellsreportsinhisevidencethat

‘weprobablycouldhavedonewithmoretimeintermsoflookingaroundtheworld,perhapsnotreactingasquicklyaswedidtowhatweperceivedtobegreatthreatscomingfromAmericaofourownstudentsbeingcapturedtododegreesbyuniversitieslikePhoenixandsoon’(SC2005para106p.30).

Equally,thespeedwithwhichtheinitiativewasshutdownhasbeencriticised.Bacsich

(2004)assertedthat‘2yearsisnotlongenoughtojudgeadotcom’,asdidMichaelDriscoll,

thenViceChancellorofMiddlesexUniversity,writingintheGuardianin2004,whosaidthat

theventurehadnotbeengivenlongenough.TheSelectCommitteealsonotedthatseveral

witnesseshadalsosuggestedthatthefinalclosedownofUKeUwastoohurriedand‘did

notallowenoughtimetomakethemostofexistingassetsandtodiscussthelessonslearnt

andideasforthefuture’(SC2005para130p.35).SirAnthonyCleaver,inresponsetothe

SelectCommittee’squestioningonwhethertheventurewasdoomedtofailure,saidthat‘I

donotthinkitfailed;itjustdidnothavethetimetosucceed’(SC2005Q323p.46).Garrett,

too,conjecturedthattheplugmayhavebeenpulledtooquicklyandmoretimemighthave

deliveredadifferentoutcome:

‘Takeshort-termfunding–andimpatienceforresults–outoftheequation,however,andtheventurewouldlikelyhavecovereditscostsinanotherfiveyearsorsoandbecomeamajoronlinebrand’(Garrett2004p.6).

DespitetheclosureofUKeU,itisnoteworthythat,asapolicy,e-learningdidnotentirely

disappearfromHEFCE’sagenda,andtheorganisationlearntfromthemistakesofthee-

university,revisingitsstrategytosupporte-learninginindividualinstitutions(HEFCE

2005/12),andthroughtheHEA.WritingfortheGuardiannewspaperatthetime,Stephen

Hoareobserved:

‘Initsdyingdaysin2003,UkeUwasjoinedbyaresearchbody,theE-learningResearchCentre,whichisbasedatbothManchesterandSouthamptonuniversities.ItwasanattemptbytheHigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland(Hefce)toreininUkeU'sambitionsandkeepitinlinewithmarketdemand.TheE-learningResearchCentrenowformsapowerfulalliancewithUkeU'sdefactoreplacement,theHEAcademy.Grainne

159

Conole,professorofeducationalinnovationatSouthamptonUniversityandco-directorofthecentre,says:"Ratherthanthrowthebabyawaywiththebathwater,Hefcehastakenupthechallengeandsaid'Ohwell,whatcanwelearnfromthis?'’’(Hoare2005).

5.4Conclusion

Thee-Universitywasperceivedbymanytohavebeenanexampleofcompletepolicy

failure,withUKeUfailingtomeetthestudentnumbertargetssetoutinthebusinessplan

andfailingtomeettheconditionsofgrantintermsofpublicandprivatefinancial

engagement.Myevaluationoftheepisode,drivenbytheevidenceandfindingsfromthe

texts,showsthatoneofthekeyreasonsforthefailureweredifficultiesofgovernance

betweenHEFCEandUKeU,duetothenovelpublic-privatenexus,andtheinabilitytoalign

thedifferingorganisations,practicesandculturesofthecommercialandacademicsectors.

Inaddition,UKeUalsofailedtounderstanditsmarket,focussedonsupply-notlearner-

demand,andinvestedtooheavilyinthedevelopmentofabespoketechnicalplatform.

ThenarrativeandevidenceinthischapterisusedinChapter8tointerpretthepolicy

episodeagainstMcConnell’sframeworktoassesssuccessorfailureintermsofthe‘process,

programmeandpoliticaldimensions’(McConnell2010)oftheepisode.Thechartingofthe

episodeagainsttheframeworkhelpstoaddressthemainresearchquestioninexamining

elementsofsuccessandfailureinrelationtothee-university,andtoseektoidentify

commonalitiesanddifferencesbetweenthisandtheremainingtwocasestudies.The

secondcasestudyisdiscussedinChapter6.

160

Chapter6:Casestudy2:CentresforExcellenceinTeachingandLearning

6.1Introduction

TheCentresforExcellenceinLearningandTeaching(CETL)isanidealcasestudysinceit

meetsallthecriteriasetoutinTable6(p.71)inbeingatimeboundepisode,withclearly

identifiedproposedoutcomesandbenefitstothetargetgroup,followingatypicalHEFCE

policyprocessandtherearesufficientsourcesofbothprimaryandsecondarytextstooffer

sufficientbreadthanddepthtodevelopathickdescriptionofthepolicyepisode.In

consideringeachofthechosentexts,theuseofthecodingestablishedinAppendixB

enablesthethickdescriptiontobeinterpretedagainstthetheoreticalframeworkin

Chapter8,togiveanuancedapproachinaddressingthemainresearchquestion,

articulatingthesuccessorfailureoftheCETLpolicyepisode.Thisisalsousedtoaddressthe

firstsupplementaryresearchquestioninestablishingcommonalitiesanddifferences

betweenthechosencasestudies.

Thisparticularpolicyepisodeisofinterestsincetheinitiativeaimedtoraisethequalityof

learningandteaching,andenhanceandcelebratetheprofessionalisationofteaching

(HEFCE2003/36).Theemphasisonlearningandteachinghadbecomeapriorityforboth

governmentandHEFCEasaresultoftheintroductionoffeesinthelate1990s,with

studentsexpectinggreatervalueformoney,andconsequentlyanumberoflearningand

teachingfundedprogrammeswereputinplacebyHEFCEandotherorganisationssuchas

theHEA.Teachingqualitypolicieswereperceivedtobelessdevelopedthanthatof

research,whichalreadyhadinplacetheestablishedRAEforfundingqualityresearch,with

recurrentfundingrelatedtoresearchperformance.InitiativessuchastheCETLswere

thoughttobe‘onewaytoredressthebalance‘(Smith2006p.50).

TheCETLinitiativefollowedatypicalHEFCEprojectfundedapproachinrequiring

institutionstobidforcapitalandoperatingfundingtofundactivitiessuchasrewardand

recognitionforstaff,facilitiesforstudentsandpedagogicalresearch.Intotal,£335mwas

providedtosupporttheinitiativebetween2005and2010.Unlikeresearchqualityfunding,

thisinitiativewasenvisionedtobetime-limitedprojectfunding‘overthefive-yearperiod

from2004-05to2008-09’(HEFCE2004/05p.1),ratherthanrecurrent.Whilstfundingwas

providedforindividualcentres,itwasanticipatedthattheywouldworktogetherwithother

CETLsandsectoragenciestodisseminategoodpracticeacrossthesector,thuscreatinga

161

longtermlegacybeyondthefundingperiod.Oneofthekeycharacteristicsofthepolicy

approachwasthatitwasabottom-up,hands-offapproachfromHEFCE,inwhichthe

definitionofexcellencewasdeliberatelyloose:

‘wehopethatinstitutionswillthinkflexiblyandcreativelyabouthowtheydefinetheirexcellentpractice’(HEFCE2003/36p.2).

Thechapterissplitintotwosections:thefirstprovidesanhistoricalnarrativeofthe

episode,howitcametofruition,thenationalandinternationalcontexts,theorganisations

andactorsinvolved,theactivitieswhichenabletheimplementationofthepolicy,the

outcomesandsequenceofevents.Thesecondsection,drawingontheprimaryand

secondarytexts,takesathematicapproachinarticulatingacriticalanalysisofparticularly

importantorinterestingaspectsofthepolicy,whichwillenableitsinterpretationagainst

thetheoreticalframework.

6.1.1Sourcesofdata

Themainevidenceandfindingsforthiscasestudycomefromtheformative(Saundersetal

2008)andsummative(SQW2011)evaluationsoftheCETLs,whichreportedin2008and

2011respectively,andreportedevidenceofactivityfromtheCETLsandinterviewswiththe

CETLsandinstitutions.Otherscholarlyworkshavecontributedtoacommentaryonthe

CETLs:Gosling,HannanandTurnerhave,atvariousstages,conductedlongitudinalstudies

intoaspectssuchasthebiddingprocessthroughtousingCETLsasanexampleof

contestationinteachingandlearning.Theirwork,andthatofTrowlerandBamber(2005),

Clouderetal(2008)andSabri(2011),haveprovidedusefulinsightsintoCETLs.

TheideaofexcellenceinlearningandteachinginHEhasbeenamuchdebatedand

contestedissueformanyyearsandthischapterdrawsontheworkofsomeofthose

commentators,manyofwhomusetheCETLsasexamples,Barnett(2000),Skelton(2005),

Allan(2007)Littleetal(2007),Nixon(2007),Taylor(2007),Mieg(2014),Lemmens-Krug

(2015).

Areviewofmediasourcesrevealssurprisinglyfewmentions(57),withtheTHESbeingthe

mainstageforcommentators’views.Manyoftheearlymediareportswerefromleadersof

individualCETLpromotingtheirwork.Parliamentaryreferencesarefew,withonlytwenty-

sevenduringthewholepolicyperiod,andmostservingtouseCETLsasanexampletothe

162

Innovation,Universities,ScienceandSkillsCommitteeofapolicysuccessfulinraising

studentandemployerengagement.Afulllistofprimaryandsecondarytextsisincludedin

AppendixA.

6.2Anaccountoftheepisode

6.2.1Origin

TheCETLinitiativewasinitiallyenvisionedinthe2003WhitePaper,‘TheFutureofHigher

Education’anditsconceptionwasalreadywelldeveloped,withaspirationsfortheCentres

articulatedinthepaper:

‘4.28Weshouldalsocelebrateexcellentpracticeinteachingdepartments.TheverybestwillbedesignatedasCentresofExcellence,andgivenfundingof£500,000ayearforfiveyearstorewardacademicsandtofundextrastafftohelppromoteandspreadtheirgoodpedagogicalpractice.TheseCentreswillbeidentifiedthroughaprocessofpeerreviewmanagedbyHEFCEanddrawingwhereverpossibleonexistinginformation.Theirstatuswillhelptoraisetheprofileofexcellentteaching,aswellashelpingthemtoattractstudents.70Centreswillbeidentifiedby2006and,dependingonsuccessfulevaluationoftheprogramme,wehopetoexpanditinthefuture.

4.29Inordertorecognisethegoodworkofthosedepartmentsthatcomecloseto,butdonotquitemeet,thestandardtobecomeaCentreofExcellence,HEFCEwillalsooffera‘commended’status.Thiswillrecognisethosedepartments’achievement,andmakeitcleartoprospectivestudentsthattheycanexpectaparticularlyhighstandardofteachingontheircourses.

4.30CentresofExcellencewillbeabletobidforcapitalfundingofupto£2meach,forimprovingtheirteachinginfrastructureandestates.Capitalfundingforteachingwillhelptomakesurethatthelearningenvironmentandequipmentgivesabetterexperiencetostudents,keepspacewiththeskillofthelecturers,andplaysitspartinraisingthestatusoflearningataninstitutionallevel.’(DfES2003).

HEFCEalsodrewattentiontoCETLsinits2003strategicplan,announcingthat‘wewillfund

anumberofCentresofExcellenceinteaching,assetoutinthehighereducationWhite

Paper’(HEFCE2003/12p.18).AsnotedinChapter4,therehasbeensomespeculationasto

theextenttowhichthe2003WhitePaperwasthecreationofgovernment,orwasdrawn

directlyfromtheHEFCE2003strategicplan,althoughtheWhitePaperwaspublishedfirst.

ItistheviewofTaggart(2003)thatitwasthestrategicplanthatdrovethecontentofthe

WhitePaper,andhencetheoriginalarticulationoftheCETLscouldhavebeendrivenby

HEFCE.

163

6.2.2Englishcontext

QualityassuranceinHEhadbeenembeddedwithingovernmentprioritiessince1992,with

thecreationoftheFundingCouncilsand,in1997,theQAA.Sinceitsinception,HEFCE

engagedinthedevelopmentoffundinginitiativestosteerteachingandlearning,withthe

1992TeachingandLearningTechnologyProgrammeand,in1995,theestablishmentofthe

FundfortheDevelopmentofTeachingandLearning,thefirsttoexplicitlyaddress

excellence.ThereportfromtheNationalCommitteeofEnquiryintoHEin1997(NCIHE

1997)reasonedthattheprofileoflearningandteachingneededtoberaised,particularly

becauseitwasrecognisedthattheproposedintroductionofstudentfeesmeant

institutionswouldhavetodemonstratevalueformoneyand,consequently,theywould

needtoconsiderteachingandlearningatamorestrategiclevel.TheDearingreport

recommendedthat

‘withimmediateeffect,allinstitutionsofhighereducationgivehighprioritytodevelopingandimplementinglearningandteachingstrategies,whichfocusonthepromotionofstudents’learning’(NCIHE1997p.116).

TheDearingreportrecognisedthatlearningtoteacheffectivelywentbeyondthediscipline

andwantedtoprofessionaliseteaching,particularlythroughtechnology,whichwas

developingataconsiderablerate.KeytotheDearingreportwasthefocusonthreeareas:

nationalpolicy,institutionalstrategiesandindividuals’teachingprofessionalism.Thesekey

conceptsarerecognisableintheCETLinitiativeasexploredbelow.

InthesameyearthatDearingwasseekingtoraisetheprofileoflearningandteaching,the

NewLabourgovernmentwasfocussingschoolspolicyonexcellence,withthe1997White

Paper,ExcellenceinSchools(DES1997).In1998,thegovernmentannouncedthe

establishmentof‘beaconschools’,whichproposedthatschoolsworkedtogetherin

partnershiptodisseminategoodpracticefromschoolsconsideredtobeexcellent:‘the

beaconschoolsinitiativeisdesignedtoraisestandardsthroughthedisseminationofgood

practice’(DfES2001).By2001,1000beaconschoolshadbeenestablished(sourceBBC

News21.06.2001).Itisnoteworthythatthispolicy’sprinciplesofsharingexcellentpractice

inpartnershipacrosstheschoolssectorarereflectedintheCETLsintheHEsector,and

indeed‘beacon’isexplicitintheoriginalCETLobjectives(seeSection6.2.5,p.169).

InresponsetoDearing,andtheintroductionofstudentfees,demonstratingacommitment

tolearningandteachingqualitybecameakeyfocusforHEFCE,ascanbeobservedfromits

highprofileinsuccessivestrategicplansandannualreviews.HEFCEconsultedthesectoron

164

astrategyforlearningandteachingin1998(HEFCE98/40),publishingthefinalversionin

1999(HEFCE99/26).ReflectingtypicalHEFCEpractice,thesectorwasconsultedonthe

learningandteachingstrategy,with138responsestotheconsultation(HEFCE99/26).

ManyofthepositiveresponsesforproposalsarereflectedinthesubsequentCETL

initiative;forexample,therewasconsiderablesupportforproposalswhichrecognisedand

rewardedindividualacademics.LikeDearing,respondentsalsorecognisedakeyrolefor

institutionsinraisingthequalityofteachingandwerecriticalthatHEFCEhadapparently

notgiventheinstitutionalrolesufficientpriority:‘theimportanceoftheinstitution’srolein

developingandsupportingexcellencewasnotappropriatelyrecognisedin[HEFCE’s]

proposals’(HEFCE99/26).Consequently,HEFCEproposedtostrengthentherolethat

institutionalstrategiesplayedwithinlearningandteaching.Oneofthekeymessagesto

emergefromtheconsultationwasadesiretoensurethatinstitutionswereabletouse

fundingforimprovingexcellence,notexclusivelyrewardingexistingexcellence,incontrast

tothefundingmethodologyforresearchquality.HEFCEacknowledged

‘theneedtoprioritisetheenhancementandimprovementoflearningandteachingastheprinciplefundingaim–rewardingestablishedexcellenceshouldbesecondarytothis’(HEFCE99/26).

ThisisasignificantpointinrelationtoCETLs.Asobservedinthe2003WhitePaper,CETLs

wereoriginallyconceivedasCentresofExcellence,likebeaconschools,butintheevent

theybecameCentresforExcellence;asubtledifferenceinwording,butsignificantin

shiftingtherewardingofexistingexcellencetorewardingtheenhancementofexcellence.

Thefivemainthemestoemergefromthestrategyareconsistentwiththekey

characteristicsoftheCETLinitiative,whichwastofollowalmosthalfadecadelater:

• ‘Encouragementandreward• Co-ordinationandcollaboration• Disseminationandembeddinggoodpractice• Researchandinnovation’(HEFCE98/40).

Oneobservationfromtheconsultationwasthatthesectorrecognisedthattheremightbe

tensionbetweenfundingtheenhancementoflearningandteachingandrewardinghigh

qualitylearningandteaching,andthuslinkingqualityandfunding.HEFCErecognisedthis

concernintheirresponsetotheconsultation:

‘Althoughthereiswidesupportforourlearningandteachingstrategy,thereisaperceivedtensionbetweenencouragingthesectorasawholetoenhancelearningandteaching-whichiswidelysupported-andtheselectiveapproachofrewardingthoseinstitutionswhichcandemonstratehighquality.Whileourfundingmechanismswill

165

ensurealinkbetweenhighqualityandfunding,wewillplacegreateremphasisonthedevelopmentandenhancementoflearningandteaching.Further,toincreasetheprofileandstatusoflearningandteachingacrossthesectorasawhole,wewillintroduceapproachestofundingwhichwillincludeallinstitutions’(HEFCE99/26).

Itisnotablethatthistensionbetweenfundingenhancementandfundingqualitywould

continuethroughoutHEFCE’shistoryand,in2016,governmentexplicitlylinkedteaching

qualitymeasures,throughtheTeachingExcellenceFramework(TEF),toincreasedfunding,

albeitthroughallowingincreasesinstudentfees:

‘UndertheproposalssetoutintheGreenPaper,inyearoneoftheTEF,providerswhohavesuccessfullycompletedaqualityassessmentreviewwillbeawardedthefirstlevelofTEFandwillbeabletoraisetheirfeesinlinewithinflation,uptoamaximumfeecap’(HoC2016p.12).

Inlinewiththestrategy,in1998HEFCEdevelopedtheTeachingQualityEnhancementFund

(TQEF)(HEFCE99/48),whichincludedanumberoffundingschemesaimedatinstitutions,

subjectdisciplinesandindividualacademicsand,in2000,theNationalTeachingFellowship

Scheme(NTFS)waslaunched.TheNTFSisremarkableinitslongevity;itisstillinexistence,

albeitnowfundedbytheHEA,nowpartofAdvanceHE.

Asaresult,therewasincreasedengagementbythesectorinthelate1990sinprioritising

learningandteaching.In1995,DavidGoslingundertookasurveyofeducational

developmentunits,dedicatedtoimprovingteachingandlearningactivitiesand

professionalismacrossaninstitution,andreceived23responses.Whenheconductedthe

samesurveyfiveyearslaterin2000,hereceived53responses.Goslingconcludesthatthis

increaseinactivitypartlyreflectstheextenttowhichinstitutions,andparticularlytheolder

institutions,wishedtobeseentobetakingteachingandlearningdevelopmentseriously,

whichheputsdowntoHEFCE’sfocusonpolicyandfunding,aswellastheintroductionof

fees(Gosling2001).MillsandHuber(2005)alsonotedtherapidriseof‘educational

development’withgovernmentfundedreformsandpolicies‘topromotetheprofessional

statusofteachingandlearning’.

In2000,HEFCEandothersectoragenciessetupanumberofnationalorganisationsaimed

atsupportingthesectorinprofessionalisinglearningandteaching,withTheInstitutefor

LearningandTeachinginHE,LearningandTeachingSupportNetworkandTeachingand

LearningResearchProgramme(underESRC).In2003,HEFCE,UniversitiesUKandThe

StandingConferenceofPrincipalsformedanationalcommitteetoconsiderthe

enhancementoflearningandteachinginHE,andtheyrecommendedthatonebodybe

166

formedtocontinuethiswork.By2004,theHigherEducationAcademyhadbeen

established,asanamalgamationofTheInstituteforLearningandTeachinginHE,the

LearningandTeachingSupportNetworkandtheNationalCoordinationTeamforthe

TeachingQualityEnhancementFund.Itsmissionwasto

‘useourexpertiseandresourcestosupportindividualstaff,disciplinaryandinterdisciplinaryteamsandhighereducationcommunitiesandinstitutionsingeneraltoenhancethequalityandimpactoflearningandteaching’(HEA2011,p.6).

ItisnoteworthythatthenewHEAwasexpectedtobeakeyplayerinensuringthatbest

practiceofCETLs,wherebestpracticeinaneducationalcontextisdefinedas‘existing

practicesthatalreadypossessahighlevelofwidely-agreedeffectiveness’(Hargreavesand

Fullan2012),weredisseminatedthroughoutthesector.

Despitetherisinginterestinsupportinglearningandteachinginitiatives,vianational

organisationsandfundingthroughtheTQEF,therewasrecognitionthatteachingstillhad

lowstatusincomparisontoresearch.TheWhitePaperof2003statedthat‘teachinghasfor

toolongbeenthepoorrelationinhighereducation’(DfES2003)andnotedthatpromotion

foracademicstaffhadbeenlargelybasedontheirresearch.Consequently,theWhitePaper

proposedCETLsasalargescalefundinginitiativetoredressthisimbalance.

Forsomecommentators,thedevelopmentoftheCETLswasalsocongruentwithNew

Labour’sapproachtoNewPublicManagement.Allan(2007)andLemmens-Krug(2015)

botharguethat‘CentresofExcellence’isaconceptborrowedfromtheprivatesectorand

hasstronglinkswithmanagerialismandqualitycontrolpractices:

‘ItcanbearguedthatCETLsinheritseveralfeaturesofmanagerialism,andthereforecanbebestunderstoodasamanagerialisttechnologyingoverningteachingandlearningatuniversities’(Lemmens-Krug2015p.13-14).

Oneofthekeycharacteristicsofmanagerialismisthatqualityassuranceisusedbothasa

mechanismforcontrolandasanagentofchange(Lemmens-Krug2015),andthesetwo

featurescanbeobservedintheCETLinitiative,aswillbeconsideredbelow.

6.2.3Someinternationalperspectives

Therearemanyexamplesoflearningandteachingenhancementpolicesandfunding

schemesinothercountries,someofwhichfollowsimilarformatstothoseinEngland.

ScotlandistheclosestinhavingasimilarpolicywiththeNationalQualityEnhancement

Framework,introducedin2003ascollaborationbetweenTheQualityAssuranceAgency

167

Scotland,theScottishFundingCouncil(SFC),UniversitiesScotlandandtheNationalUnion

ofStudentsScotland.ThethemesofthisschemewereverysimilartotheCETLsinseeking

tobeenhancement-led.However,incontrasttotheCETLs,thiswasnotacompetitive

fundingscheme,asalluniversitieswereeligibletoreceivefunding.

TheModernisationAgendaofHigherEducationfeaturesprominentlyinEUpolicywiththe

goalofimprovingteachingandlearningquality,andtheBolognaagreementsoughtto

ensurethatlearningstandardsofHEqualificationswerecomparableacrossEurope.In

Germany,theGermanFederalMinistryofEducationandResearch(BMBF)andthefederal

statesrunajointprogramme,the‘QualityPactforTeaching’,whichprovidesfundsto

improveconditionsforteachingandmentoring,where186institutionsreceivefunding

(Lemmens-Krug2015).LiketheCETLinitiativebeforeit,institutionscompeteforsignificant

levelsoffunding,with2billioneurostobespentbetween2011and2020.

Furtherafield,NewZealandhasthe‘AkoAotearoa’,theAcademyofTertiaryTeaching

Excellence,establishedin2008,providingNZ$2.5mtosupportprojectsattheindividual

level,andisalsoacompetitivefundingscheme.TheCarrickInstituteinAustraliawas

establishedin2004,whichawardedteachingandlearninggrantsthroughafellowship

scheme,andmorphedin2008tobecometheAustralianLearningandTeachingCouncil

(ALTC).ThisissimilarinethostotheHEA,followingthesamemodelinprovidingawards,

fellowshipsandgrantfundingschemes.Australiaalsohassubstantialcentralgovernment

funding,withtheLearningandTeachingPerformanceFund,establishedin2009toprovide

A$83mto21universities.UnliketheUK,Australia’sfundingmodelismuchmore

performance-led(Brawleyetal,2009).AlignedtotherecentdiscussionsintheUKon

teachingperformancebeinglinkedtofundingthroughtheTEF,Australiahasalsorecently

seenareturntodiscussionsmoregenerallyaroundthevalueofperformancebasedfunding

andthevalueoflinkingfundingtoqualitycriteria(Hare2019).

TheAmericanHEsystemishighlyde-centralised,witheachstaterunningitsownsystem,

withmorethan50%ofstudentsstudyingatcommunityandtechnicalcolleges(Brawleyet

al,2009).Assuch,thereisagreateremphasisonscholarshipwithintheseinstitutions,with

lessfocusonresearch,meaningthatteachingqualityalreadyhasasignificantlyhighprofile.

Therearesomenationalorganisations:theCarnegieAcademyfortheScholarshipof

TeachingandLearning(CASTL),conductedbytheAmericanAssociationofHigher

Education,whichtakesaleadingroleinsupportingscholarship,andTheAssociationforthe

StudyofHigherEducation.However,thenationalschemesdonotprovidesubstantialand

168

reliablesourcesofexternalfunding:‘Carnegiejustlivesgranttograntwithnoguaranteed

future,andthusare‘trappedinthemargins’(Brawleyetal2009p.24).Thisisanoteworthy

pointinrelationtothefundingoflearningandteachingenhancementpoliciesintheUKat

thetimeoftheCETLs,withthevastmajorityreceivingproject-based,ratherthanrecurrent,

funding.

Brawleyetal(2009)giveaveryusefulaccountofthedifferentsystemsintheUSA,Australia

andtheUKinrelationtoteachingandlearningenhancement.Theyconcludethatthede-

centralisednatureoftheUSA,thesheerscaleofthecountry,andthefactthatsomany

studentsaretaughtininstitutionswithoutaresearchfocus,hasproduceddifferenteffects

onteachingandlearningenhancement.ThescholarshipapproachintheUSAismuchless

theoretical,andmorea‘socialmovement’,thereisfarlessemphasisonprofessionalising

teachingandlearningthroughpedagogicresearch,andthereismuchlessofadiscipline-

basedapproach.MillsandHuber(2005)supporttheviewthatthede-centralised

organisationintheUSAmeansthatenhancementis‘lessrobust’thanintheUKand

Australia,‘becausetheaccreditation,governanceandfundingofUScollegesand

universitiesarelessdeterminedbycentralgovernmentpolicythantheircounterpartsinthe

UK’(Mills&Huber2005p.18).ItisofsignificancethatinrelationtotheCETLs,therewasa

strongfocusonbothdisciplinesandpedagogicresearch,incontrasttotheUSA.

6.2.4Organisationsandactors

WhilstHEFCEdrovetheinitiativeatonelevel,itwasalsokeentoensurethattheselection

oftheCETLswasasaresultofpeerreview,ratherthanatopdownapproach,verymuch

reflectingthephilosophyofthewholeinitiative.Aselectionpaneltoreviewcompetitive

bidsconsistedof25membersfromHEFCEandHEIs,chairedbyMadeleineAtkins,then

Vice-ChancellorofCoventryUniversity.HEFCEstatedthat

‘CETLswillbechosenbyassessmentundertakenbypeers.WereceivedagoodresponsetoourinvitationtoinstitutionstonominateexperiencedseniorstafftoassistwiththeassessmentofCETLbids.AnassessmentpanelcomprisingmembersofHEFCE’sQualityAssessmentLearningandTeachingCommitteeandindividualsnominatedbyinstitutions-chosentorepresentaspreadofinstitutional,subject,thematicandpractitionerexpertise-willadvisetheHEFCEBoardontheselectionofCETLs’(HEFCE2004/05p.18).

OneofthecharacteristicsoftheCETLswastheanticipatedengagementofotheragencies,

andinparticulartheHEAanditssubjectcentres,fortheirroleinenablingthedissemination

ofpracticeacrossthesector.ForHEFCE,thisrelationshipwaskey,althoughthe

organisationswerenotrepresentedontheselectionpanel.

169

‘KeytothesuccessofCETLswillbetherelationshiptheyforgewiththeHEAcademyanditsSubjectCentres.WewillmakeitaconditionofCETLfundingthateachCETLmustworkcloselywiththeHEAcademyandtheSubjectCentrestodevelopeffectiveandwell-informeddisseminationstrategiesthatbuildonthepracticalexperienceofCETLsandthesector-wide,professionalnetworkexperienceoftheHEAcademy…..[they]willformapowerfulalliancetoraiseandsustaintheprofileofeffectiveteachingandlearningthroughoutthesector’(HEFCE2004/05p.5).

TheothermainactorswerethoseHEIsawardedCETLs,andtosomeextentthosethatwere

notsuccessfulinbeingawardedaCETL.TheCETLs,theseniormanagementoftheHEI,

professionalservicedepartmentsandkeyindividualswholedonCETLactivities,andthe

dynamicsoftherelationshipbetweenthoseactors,werecriticaltothesuccessofthe

CETLs,aswillbeexploredinthischapter.

6.2.5Activities

InJuly2003,HEFCEconsultedinstitutionsontheproposedCETLs(HEFCE2003/36).As

notedin6.2.2,the2003WhitePaperhadoriginallyconceivedoftheprogrammeas

‘CentresofExcellenceinTeachingandLearning’but,followingHEFCE’sdiscussionswiththe

sector,therewasachangeinapproachto‘forexcellence’,withashiftinfocusfrom

rewardingexistingexcellencetooneofincentivisingenhancement,incontrasttoresearch

excellencefundingapproaches.HEFCEdeclaredthat

‘Thetitlingofthecentresas‘centresforExcellenceinTeachingandLearning’isintendedtocapturetheessenceoftheirroleandinfluenceasforward-lookinganddynamicproponentsonexcellence’(HEFCE2004/05p.4).

Therewere5originalobjectives:

• torewardpracticethatdemonstratesexcellentlearningoutcomesforstudents;• toidentifybeaconsofgoodteachingpracticeandencouragedevelopmentofthis

practicesothatthebenefitsaredeliveredmorewidely;• toenableinstitutionstodevelopapproachestoteachingandlearningthat

encourageadeeperunderstandingwithinthesectorofmethodsofaddressingstudentlearningneeds;

• toencouragecollaborationandsharingofgoodpracticeandsoenhancethestandardofteachingthroughoutthesector;

• tocontributetotheinformationavailabletoinformstudentchoice(HEFCE2004/05p.4).

Morethan140responsestotheconsultationwerereceivedand75%broadlysupportedthe

proposals(HEFCE2004/05).ItissignificanttonotethatHEFCEdeliberatelydidnotattempt

todefineexcellenceforCETLs,arguingthattheydidnotwanttoconstraininstitutions,and

manyrespondentswelcomedtheflexibilitytodefineexcellenceforthemselves:

170

‘Wedonotattempttodefineexcellenceinabsoluteor‘goldstandard’terms.Thisisnotonlydifficultinitselfbutismorelikelytoconstrainthanencourageinstitutionstoselectexcellentpracticeinalocalcontextthathashadademonstrablypositiveimpactonstudentlearning.Itismoreinstructivetoaskhowexcellenceisrecognisedbythesector,whatmakesitdistinctive,whereandhowitshowsitselfandwhosejudgementsarepertinentinrelationtosuccessfullearning’(HEFCE2004/05p.13).

Despitethislooseapproach,HEFCEsoughttoestablishsomecharacteristicsofexcellencein

AnnexBoftheinvitationtobid,mostlyoutliningthetypesofactivitiesinwhichexcellence

mightberecognisedinqualitativeandquantitativeterms,suchasevidenceof‘standing

amongstpeersandprofessionalrecognition,innovativecurriculumdesignand

development,understandingandaddressingdiversityoflearningneeds,activeuseof

studentfeedback,activedisseminationandtake-upbyothers,responsivetoemployers’

needsandrequirements’,tonamejustafew(HEFCE2004/05,p.28).

Oneareaofcontestationarosefromawidespreadoppositiontobadgingas‘commended’

thosebidsthatsucceededatthefirststagebutfailedatthesecond,originallyproposedin

the2003WhitePaper,incaseobservers,andfutureapplicantstoHE,sawthisas

tantamounttoasecondclassrating.ThisproposalwasabandonedbyHEFCEandtherewas

noformalrecognitionofinstitutionalbidsthatfailedatthefirststage.Somerespondents

alsofearedthatfundingasmallnumberofinstitutionscouldhaveunintended

consequencesforthoseinstitutionsfailingtobeawardedaCETL,particularlyintermsof

reputation:

‘ManyinstitutionswereconcernedthatthecreationofafixednumberofCETLsmightweakenratherthanstrengthenthepromotionofexcellenceacrossthewholeHEsector.TheyfeltthattheremightbeunintendedconsequencesforthosewhofailtosecureaCETL.Therewaswidespreadoppositiontotheproposaltobadgebidssuccessfulatthefirstbutnotthesecondstageas‘commendedforexcellence’(HEFCE2004/05p.3).

ItisstrikingthatboththeformativeandsummativeevaluationsoftheCETLsobservedthat

manyHEIswouldhavepreferredforfundstobedistributedtoallHEIs,ratherthana

competitiveprocess,althoughthiswasnothighlightedintheoutcomeoftheconsultation

processandcontradictsthegeneralviewofthesectorin1998,wheninstitutionsexpressed

apreferenceforcompetitive,ratherthanformula,fundinginexcellencestrategies.A

furtherareaofconcernformanyrespondentswastheextenttowhichthepolicyapproach

wouldenableCETLstoembedtheirgoodpracticeacrossthesector.

171

6.2.5.1Bids

InJanuary2004,HEFCEinvitedinstitutionstobidforCETLfunds,withanAprildeadline

(HEFCE2004/05).HEIsandFECswithmorethan500FTEdirectlyfundedHEstudentswere

eligibleforrecurrentandcapitalfunding,whichwasidentifiedforfiveyearsinthefirst

instance.Therewasarestrictiononthenumberofbidsperinstitution,dependentuponthe

sizeofthestudentpopulation.Bidscouldbefromasingleinstitutionorpartnerships

although,likeexcellence,theorganisationalformofpartnershipwasnotdefinedbyHEFCE.

Itisnoteworthythat,atthatstage,therewassomesuggestionthatfundingmightcontinue

beyond2010,butintheeventthiswasnotachieved,partlyduetothe2008recessionand

significantgovernmentcutstoHEfunding.

Therewasatwostagebiddingprocess,thefirstrequiringarationalefortheproposedCETL

andthecaseforexcellence.Thosesuccessfulatstageonewouldgothroughtostagetwo,

whichwouldfocuson‘thebusinesscasefordevelopingexcellenceandimpactonteaching

andlearning’(HEFCE2004/05).Theinvitationtobiddefinedthepurposeasbeing

‘torewardexcellentteachingpracticeandtoinvestinthatpracticefurtherinordertoincreaseanddeepenitsimpactacrossawiderteachingandlearningcommunity…..tostrengthenthestrategicfocusonteachingandlearningbydirectingfundstocentresthatrewardhighteachingstandards,promoteascholarly-basedandforward-lookingapproachtoteachingandlearning,andwheresignificantinvestmentwillleadtofurtherbenefitsforstudents,teachersandbeyond’(HEFCE2004/05p.1/3).

Aswellasrecognisinginstitutionalandsectoralimpact,fundsforCETLswereexpectedto

rewardexcellenceattheleveloftheindividualandwould

‘recognise,celebrateandpromoteexcellencebyrewardingteacherswhohavemadeademonstrableimpactonstudentslearningandwhoenthuse,motivateandinfluenceotherstodothesame.WeenvisagethatCETLswillsustainandstimulatefurtherexcellentpracticethroughteachingthatisinformedbyscholarlyreflection,developedthroughinnovativeandadventurousthinking,extendedthroughtestedknowledgetolearninginnewcontexts,andmultipliedbyactiveengagementindisseminationofgoodpractice’(HEFCE2004/05p.4).

Incomparingtheoriginalobjectivesfromtheconsultation(HEFCE2003/36)withthosein

theinvitationtobid(HEFCE2004/05),itisnoteworthythatthereweresomesubtlechanges

totherhetoric;theencouragementthatwasimplicitintheconsultationwasmuchmore

directintheinvitationtobid,withafocusonaction:leading,embedding,supporting,

influencinganddemonstrating.Thelanguageforstudentengagementwasmuchmore

rigorousthanjustunderstandingstudentneedsandcontributingtoinformation,withmore

172

emphasisoneffectivityandmaximisinglearningperformance.ThenotionofCETLsasa

‘beacon’hadbeendroppedfromtheobjectivesbythetimeoftheinvitationtobid.

Table11–COMPARISONOFLANGUAGECHANGESINOBJECTIVESFROMCONSULATIONTO

INVITATIONTOBID

Consultation Invitationtobidforfunds

Torewardpracticethatdemonstratesexcellentlearningoutcomesforstudents.

Torewardpracticethatdemonstratesexcellentlearningoutcomesforstudents.

Toidentifybeaconsofgoodteachingpracticeandencouragedevelopmentofthispracticesothatthebenefitsaredeliveredmorewidely.

Toenablepractitionerstoleadandembedchangebyimplementingapproachesthataddressthediversityoflearners’needs,therequirementsofdifferentlearningcontexts,thepossibilitiesforinnovationandtheexpectationsofemployersandothersconcernedwiththequalityofstudentlearning.

Toenableinstitutionstodevelopapproachestoteachingandlearningthatencourageadeeperunderstandingwithinthesectorofmethodsofaddressingstudentlearningneeds.

Toenableinstitutionstosupportanddeveloppracticethatencouragesdeeperunderstandingacrossthesectorofwaysofaddressingstudents’learningeffectively.

Toencouragecollaborationandsharingofgoodpracticeandsoenhancethestandardofteachingthroughoutthesector.

Torecogniseandgivegreaterprominencetoclustersofexcellencethatarecapableofinfluencingpracticeandraisingtheprofileofteachingexcellencewithinandbeyondtheirinstitutions.

Tocontributetotheinformationavailabletoinformstudentchoice.

Todemonstratecollaborationandsharingofgoodpracticeandsoenhancethestandardofteachingandeffectivelearningthroughoutthesector.

Toraisestudentawarenessofeffectivenessinteachingandlearninginordertoinformstudentchoiceandmaximisestudentperformance.

Key:yellowdenotessubtlechangesinphrasing,reddenotesabandonmentofconcept

AdaptedfromHEFCE1994/05andHEFCE2003/36(Differenceshighlighted,myemphasis).

6.2.5.2Funding

TheCETLinitiativewasthebiggesteversinglefundedprogrammefromHEFCEtoenhance

thestatusofteachingandlearning,with£335mover5years,equaltothewholeofall

otherHEFCEteachingenhancementinitiativesfrom1999to2009combined.£315mwas

initiallymadeavailable,including£140mforcapitalwhichhadtobespentwithinthefirst

twoyears,withanadditional£20mmadeavailabletoCETLsduringthecourseofthe

programme.Therewerethreelevelsoffunding,awardeddependingupontheanticipated

173

reachoftheCETL,notionallydeterminedas£1,000offundingtoaminimumratioofone

studenttobenefit:

1:‘£200,000peryearfor5yearsandupto£800,000forcapital

2:£350,000peryearfor5yearsandupto£1,400,000forcapital

3:£500,000peryearfor5yearsandupto£2,000,000forcapital’(HEFCE2004/05)

Useofthefundingwasnotprescribed,althoughHEFCEprovidedsomeexamplesfor

guidance,suchas:rewardingexcellentpractitioners,refurbishingbuildingsforteaching,

enhancingITandotherresources,buyingstafftime,boughtinexternalexpertiseand

strengtheningtheresearchandadministrativeinfrastructure.Therewasanexpectation

thatstrategiesandpracticewouldbeembeddedinstitutionallyandcontinuebeyondthe

fundingperiod.Assuchitwasexpectedthattherewouldbelegacyfromtheinitiative

(HEFCE2004/05,p.10).

6.2.5.3Successfulbids

Tobegrantedfunding,aproposedCETLhadtohaveitsownidentitywithintheinstitution,

provideevidenceofexistingexcellenceanddemonstrateanabilitytoserveasacatalystfor

change.Useofnewtechnologywasalsooneofthefavouredcomponents.Initially,the

2003WhitePaperproposedtofocusspecificallyonsubjectdisciplines,butbytheinvitation

tobid,HEFCEhadincluded‘distinctivepractices’(Gosling&Hannan2007a),whichmeant

thatCETLswithapedagogicthemealsostoodachanceofsuccess.Successfulbidswould

alsoneedtodemonstratewaysinwhichtheywouldengagewithsectororganisationsto

disseminatebestpractice.

126institutionssubmitted259proposalsandthesewerejudgedbytheindependentpanel,

with106(including24collaborativebids)consideredforstagetwo.Ofthose,74CETLswere

approvedacross73HEIs,including19collaborativecentresand16institutionshosting

morethanoneCETL.59proposalsdidnotgetCETLfunding(13frompre-92,18post-92,

and28small/specialistinstitutions)andnofurthereducationcollegeshostedaCETL.The

outcomeswerereportedinApril2005(HEFCE2005/17).

SomeCETLswerestand-aloneunits,whilstotherswerelinkedcloselytocentral

institutionalsupportunits,suchaseducationaldevelopmentunitsorthecareersservice,

174

andsomewerebasedinasinglesubjectdisciplinedepartmentsorfaculty.Thosethatwere

basedincentralservicesunitstendedtohaveaninstitutionalremitforaparticularareaof

pedagogy.

Thesuccessfulbidswereacrossarangeofdisciplinesandcrossdiscipline,representedin19

subjectcategoriesand17pedagogicthemes.Althoughthebidswerejudgedontheirability

tomeetthefundingcriteriaandobjectives,therewasalsoanelementofpositivediversity,

asHEFCEsoughttoavoidanimbalancein‘geographicaldistribution,subjectcoverage,

thematicspreadandpedagogicfocus’(HEFCE2004/05p.18).Therangeofdisciplinesand

pedagogiccapacitiescoveredbyCETLsisrepresentedbelow.

Figure10–SUBJECTSPREADACROSSFUNDEDCETLsINENGLAND(Figure2-1(SQW2011p.9))

©HEFCE

175

Figure11–PEDAGOGICSPREADOFFUNDEDCETLSINENGLAND (Figure2-2(SQW2011,p.8))©HEFCE

6.2.5.4Monitoringandaccountability

IthasbeennotedthatHEFCEdidnotwishtoconstraininstitutionsbydefiningexcellenceor

restrictingactivitiesinpursuitofexcellence(HEFCE2004/05).Equally,HEFCEwereunwilling

toimposestrictaccountabilitydemandsoninstitutions,whichisincontrasttomanyother

HEFCEpolicyinitiatives,whereinstitutionswereexpectedtoproviderigorous,regularand

evidence-basedjustificationthatfundingwasbeingwellspent.HEFCEalsodidnotpropose

toauditinstitutionsexceptinexceptionalcircumstances.Assuch,accountabilitywas

relaxed:

‘Wedonotwishtoimposesignificantaccountabilitydemandsonsuccessfulbidders.Wedoexpectthatthosegrantedfundsperiodicallyappriseusofprogress,adviseusifsignificantproblemsarise,onlyusethefundsforthepurposesintendedanddisseminatetheresultsofCETLactivity.Tothisend,weproposetorequestlimitedmonitoringdata’(HEFCE2004/05p.20).

6.2.5.5Outcomes

Sincetherewaslittlerequirementforformalaccountability,muchoftheevidenceforthe

activityofCETLscomesfromtheformativeandsummativeevaluationsconductedin2008

and2011.Theformativeevaluationwasconductedhalfwaythroughthefundingperiod

fromMarch2007toJanuary2008andwasundertakenthroughinterviewswithsenior

institutionalmanagersandCETLpartners,with36visitstoCETLs,adirectors’surveyand

176

self-evaluationssubmittedbyCETLsinJuly2007.ItwascommissionedbyHEFCEand

conductedbytheCentrefortheStudyofEducationandTraining(CSET)andtheInstituteof

EducationalTechnology.Theformativeevaluationfoundthattherewasan

‘overallpositivenarrativeforthedevelopmentofCETLsas‘nodes’ofteachingandlearning-focusedactivities…thedatapointstoarangeofpositiveeffectstheexistenceoftheCETLprogrammehadenabled….theseeffectstendtobecirculatingaroundthedirectbeneficiariesofCETLresourcesbutthereisgrowingevidencethateffectsarebeginningtomoveoutfromtheenclavesofpracticewithinCETLsand,insomecases,arebeingusedtostrategiceffectwithininstitutions’(Saundersetal2008p.4).

ThereportfoundthatthenarrativefromtheCETLsthemselveswasverypositiveandthat

theyhadbeenengagedinarangeofactivitiesthatbenefitedstudentsandstaff,aswellas

disseminatinggoodpractice,with99%ofCETLsclaimingtohaveworkedwellsofarand

97%sayingthattheyweremeetingtheiraims.89%saidaccesstoadditionalresources

(throughfunding)wasadvantageousinchangingpractice,with88%positivelyinfluencing

teachingandstudents’learning.Themostcommonachievementswereindeveloping

partnershipsandnetworks,innovativeteachingpractices,provisionofnewfacilities,and

staffdevelopment.AllCETLshadprovidedrewardsforindividualstaff,forexamplethrough

teachingawardandfellowshipschemes,smallfinancialrewardsandprizesandpromotion

opportunities.

AllCETLsagreedthatakeyadvantagewasthatfundinghadenabledthemtobeinnovative,

creativeandtakerisks.Insomecases,deepeningofpracticewasevidentacrossthe

institution,butmoststatedthatthesegainswereseeninmodestterms.Overall,the

intervieweeswhocontributedtotheevaluationfoundthat‘theexistenceofaCETLinan

institutionanditsassociatedinjectionofresourceshaveenabledgoodpracticetodevelop

further’(Saundersetal2008,p.5).

However,despiteanoverallpositivenarrative,theformativeevaluationdidquestionthe

extenttowhichtheprogrammeoverallwouldenabledeepeningeffects,particularlyacross

thesector:

‘Asanembeddedtheoryofchange,theideaofaCETLprogrammedoeshaveitscritics…Thecritiquepointstothesub-aimoftheprogrammeto‘deepenitsimpactacrossawiderteachingandlearningcommunity’[and]pointedtothedifficultiesofusingtheCETLexperiencetodeepenitseffectswithininstitutionsandacrossthesector’(Saundersetal2008,p.5).

ThesummativeevaluationwascommissionedinDecember2010,byHEFCEandthe

DepartmentforEducationandLearninginNorthernIreland,andconductedin2011bySQW

177

ConsultingLtd.Itwasprimarilybasedonself-evaluationssubmittedbyCETLsinMay2010

withsomesupplementaryresearchintwoe-surveysofpractitioners(114responses),Pro

ViceChancellorsforteachingandlearning(32responses)andsomeconsultationswith

otherstakeholders.Asummaryoftheresponsesfromthesurveysandconsultationsis

collatedfromtheSQW2001reportinprovidedinAppendixDandreferencedthroughout

Section6.3(p.179)below.

ThisreportconcludedthatCETLshadbeeninvolvedinavarietyofactivitiesandproduceda

rangeofoutputssuchascurriculumcontent,diagnostictoolkits,supportmaterialsande-

learningsystems.Therehadbeenmuchinnovationinpilotingnewapproachestolearning

andresearchprojectsand2,679spin-outprojects,secondments,fellowshipsandawards

hadbeenachievedthroughtheallocationofsmallresearchgrants.Therehadbeen3,435

peer-reviewedoutputsand5,594developmentanddisseminationevents(SQW2011p.12).

ManyCETLssawtheirmaincontributionas‘influencingunderlyingattitudestowards

teachingandlearningand,inratherfewercases,thoseofstudentstoo’(p.12).

ThenumberofEnglishHEIsclaimingtohavemetthetargetsandobjectivessetoutintheir

businessplansaresummarisedinTable12below(p.177),suggestingthatthemajorityof

CETLshadachievedwhattheysetouttodo.However,whatisstrikingaboutthesummative

evaluationreportisthat,asalreadyhighlightedbytheformativeevaluation,whilstthere

wasconsiderableevidenceofactivityatindividualandinstitutionallevel,theengagement

ofsectoragenciesanddisseminationofbestpracticeacrossthesector,andtothose

institutionswithoutaCETL,waslessevident:

‘WiderimpactontheHEsectorisachallengingareatounpack…theextenttowhichCETLshavedirectlycontributedtosector-widechangesinbehaviourandcultureisimpossibletoquantify’(SQW2011,p.iv).

ThiscriticismwillbeexploredfurtherinSection6.3(p.179).

Table12–SUMMARYOFTARGETSANDOUTCOMESSTATEDASARESULTOFSELF-EVALUATION

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09Notachievedtargets 11 9 4 4Achievedtargets 47 47 52 53TOTALRESPONSES 58 56 56 57

(SQW2011p.11).

178

6.2.6Timeline

Table 13 below summarises the key dates of the CETL initiative and other related policy

initiatives.

Table13–TIMELINEOFTHERELATEDPOLICYENVIRONMENTANDCETLINITIATIVE

CETLs Otherrelatedpolicyinitiatives

1987 EnterpriseinHigherEducationprogramme(EHE)

1989 ComputersinTeachingInitiative(CTI)1992 TeachingandLearningTechnology

Programme(TLTP)1995 FundfortheDevelopmentofLearningand

Teaching[1sttoexplicitlyfundexcellence]1997 QualityAssuranceAgencycreated1998 HEFCEconsultationonDearing

recommendationsinrelationtolearningandteachingTeachingQualityEnhancementFunding(TQEF)

1999 HEFCEL&Tstrategy–HEFCEtakesstepstopromotequalityinL&T

2000 NationalTeachingFellowshipSchemeInstituteforLearningandTeachinginHELearningandTeachingSupportNetworkTeachingandLearningResearchProgramme(underESRC)

2003 ConsultationonCETLsinitiatedandconcluded

2004 InvitationtobidforCETLsSubmissionofbidsforfirststageAssessmentofCETLbidsSubmissionofbidsforsecondstage

HigherEducationAcademyestablishedasanamalgamationofInstituteforLearningandTeachinginHE,LearningandTeachingSupportNetwork,TQEFNationalCo-ordinationTeamCreationoftheInternationalSocietyfortheScholarshipofTeachingandLearning(iSSoTL)

2005 OutcomeofCETLbidsannouncedCETLcontractssigned

NSSlaunched

2006 Anadditional£20.86mofcapitalfundingwasmadeavailabletoCETLs

ResearchInformedTeachingFundlaunched

2007 EachCETLsubmitsself-evaluationtoHEFCE

2008 Formativeevaluation‘anoverallpositivenarrative’

2010 CETLsfundingstreamwoundup TQEFfundingstreamwoundup2011 Summativeevaluationnotessome

goodexamplesandevidenceofimpactinstitutionallybutalackofenhancementacrossthesector

TeachingandLearningResearchProgrammewoundup

179

6.3Acriticalreviewoftheevidenceandfindings

6.3.1Process:Bottom-upapproach

ThepolicyapproachwasdifferenttomanyHEFCEpolicyinitiatives,beingbottom-up,

whereHEFCEonlylooselydefinedexcellence,therewerefewconstraintsonspendingand

activitiesandminimalmonitoringandaccountability.HEFCE’srationalewasthatsuchan

approachwouldbetterallowthesectorthefreedomtoconcentrateonembeddingand

disseminatingexcellence.However,likemanyotherprojectfundinginitiatives,fundingwas

competitive,andthereweremixedviewsfromthesectoronwhetheracompetitive

initiativewaspreferabletoonewhichdistributedfundstoallinstitutions.Trowleretal

(2013)suggestthatthebottom-upapproachwasoneofthestrengthsofsuchHEFCEpolicy

initiativesinthattheylet‘1000flowersblossom’(p.19)throughallowinginstitutional

autonomy.However,thisviewwasnotsharedbyallinthesector,andtheformative

evaluationobservedsomedisquietwiththisapproach,withoneintervieweecommenting

that

‘Thepriceofletting‘athousandflowersbloom’isthepossibilitythatalotofresourceisspentreinventingthewheel-ifyouallowittobebottom-upfortoolongyouwastealotofimpactonindividualprojects-thereisvaluetopullingpeopletogetherandestablishingacommonframework’(Saundersetal2008p.22).

Whilstthisbottom-upapproachresultedinarichdiversityofindividualapproachesand

examplesofgoodpracticewithinCETLs,formany,acrossinstitutions,oneconsequence

wasthatitwasdifficulttoidentifyhowgoodpracticehadbeenconsistentlydisseminated

andembeddedthroughoutthesector,particularlyforthoseinstitutionsthathadnotbeen

successfulintheirbidforaCETL.Thelikelihoodofthisconcernwasraisedbyrespondents

totheinitialconsultation,andwhilstitwasacknowledgedbyHEFCEintheinvitationtobid,

itdidnotresultinanymajorchangestotheinitiative.Theseconcernswerestillbeing

contestedinboththeformativeandsummativeevaluations,andwhilstitwas

acknowledgedthattherewaswidespreadgoodpracticeamongstinstitutions,itwas

generallyagreedthattherewasalackofsector-wideimpactandconsequentlyaconcern

thatasapolicyapproach,theinitiativehadfailedtoachieveoneofitsmainobjectives.

‘whetherCETLsarethebestpolicyinstrumenttostimulatesystemicchangeinthequalityoflearning,teachingandcurriculum…SomepeoplefeltthattheCETLprogrammerepresentedweakpolicymakingandthatthemoneywouldhavebeenbetterspentaspartoftheblockgranttouniversities’(Saundersetal2008p.21/26).

‘TheCETLswereextraordinarilyandintentionallydiverse.Whiletheyrepresentedaprogrammeinthesenseofcommonoverallaims,specificaimsanddetailedactivities

180

variedwidely…..Itisdifficulttotraceimpactatsectorlevel,especiallyforthoseHEIswhichdidnotreceivefunding’(SQW2011p.vi).

GoslingandHannan’s(2007b)researchquestionedwhethertherewasamorefundamental

methodologicalweaknessbeyondtheCETLsand,assuch,whetherbottom-upapproaches

forenrichingandembeddinglearningandteachingexcellenceacrossthesectorwerethe

mostappropriate,sincetheyweresomewhatpiecemealandneededmorecoherencethan

arangeofinitiatives:

‘ManyofthosewespoketofoundithardtoseehowtheCETLinitiativewaspartofanoverallstrategyforenhancingteachingandlearninginhighereducation’(p.645).

GoslingandTurner(2015),writingafterCETLfundedended,alsoobservedthatHEFCEhad

failedtounderstandthecomplexnatureofthesectorandthattherewasaneedforamore

hands-onapproachbythefundingagencyiftruesector-widechangewastobeachieved:

‘Government-fundedteachingandlearningprojectshaveemergedasafavouredtoolofpolicymakerstomotivatechangeinteachingandlearning.Thisstrategypayslimitedheedtothecomplexityofhighereducationandthecontradictions,tensionsandconflictsthatneedtobenegotiatedtochangepractice’(2015p.1573).

TrowlerandBamber(2005)alsoquestionedthepolicyapproachanditslikelylongterm

legacy,likeningittoa

‘“ChristmasTree”modelofpolicydevelopment,plentyofprettylightsandshinybaubles,buttheydon’tlastlong,havelittlerelationshiptoeachotheranddon’thaveanylastingeffectonnormaleverydaylife’(p.81).

In2013,TheHEAcommissionedTheCentreforHigherEducationResearchandEvaluation

toreviewHEFCEteachingandlearningenhancementinitiatives.Theirfindingsare

noteworthyinrelationtowhattheycategoriseas‘pilot-basedbeaconprojectapproaches,

(suchasCETLs)’,whichtheycriticiseforbeingtooshortterm,under-evaluatedand

insufficientlyabletoinstigatechangethroughlackofengagement(Trowleretal2013

p.12).

DavidKernohan,writingmorerecentlyasAssociateEditorofWONKHE,reflectedonthe

legacyoftheinitiativeand,inparticular,whattangibleevidencetherewasforitssuccess.

HequestionedhowHEFCEcoulddeterminewhichoftheproposalswere‘betterteaching’

andwhetheritwasonlythelargesumsofmoneyinvolvedthathadattractedinstitutionsto

engagewiththeinitiative:

‘Thepitchwastograbtheattentionofinstitutionalleaderswhereitwasmosteasilyattracted:theinstitutionalbankaccount.Areality-shifting£315millionpoundsseemed

181

tobendlightaroundit,thecloserwelookedtheharderitwastopickoutdetails’(Kernohan2015).

ItisthelackoftangibledetailthatleadKernohaninthesamearticletoquestionwhether

CETLswereapolicyatall:‘apolicyismorethandetailsandtheCETLsnevertrulybecomea

policy’.WhilsttheevidencefromtheCETLsclearlydemonstratedagooddealofpositive

activity,therehasbeenageneralconsensusthattheapproachwasinsufficienttoenablea

consistentapproachandembeddingofactivityatsectorlevel.

6.3.2Process:Competitivebidding

Thecompetitivenatureoftheinitiativewasanareaofcontestation,raisedatthe

consultationstageand,subsequently,bymanycommentators.Concernswerenotonly

raisedbysomeinstitutions,whofearedthattherewouldbenegativereputationalissues

forthoseHEIsnotawardedaCETL,butalsobyothersectororganisationsandinthepress.

Leon,reportinginTHESinDecember2003,suggestedthat

‘Abiddingwaramonguniversitiesseekingtohostoneofmorethan70CentresforExcellenceinTeachingandLearningwillbegininthenewyearamidclaimsthatthepolicyisdangerouslydivisive.Experts,agenciesandunions,whilewelcomingthemoney,havecriticisedthiscompetitiveapproach.TheyclaimthepolicythreatensthecultureofcollaborationandsupportthathasgrownthroughagenciessuchastheLearningandTeachingSupportNetwork,theInstituteforLearningandTeachingandtheNationalTeachingFellowshipScheme,sincethe1997Dearingreport’(Leon2003).

Thebiddingprocess,andparticularlyitsrelationshiptoexcellence,wasviewedwithsome

disquiet.GoslingandHannan(2007b)undertookastudyofthebiddingprocesspriortothe

launchoftheCETLs,interviewingparticipantsfrom25proposedCETLs,12ofwhichfailedto

receivefunding.Theyfoundthattheprocessitselfwasflawedbythelackofclarification

anduncertaintyoverthedefiningofexcellence.AlthoughHEFCEhadovertlyrefrainedfrom

definingexcellence,thereviewingpanelmadevaluejudgementsonwhattheyconsidered

tobeexcellentandhenceworthyoffunding.Theirresearchsuggeststhatselectedbids

werechosenondevelopmentplansthatwereonthemespreferredbyHEFCE,suchas

technologyandemployability,ratherthanonjudgementsofteachingexcellence.They

concludedthatthe

‘biddingprocessdiscouragedclaimsforexcellencebasedonapervasivecultureofexcellenceinteaching,whichmightincorporateavarietyofpedagogicalapproaches,andfavouredthosetakingaspecificinnovativeapproachthatcouldbecomea‘project’‘(p.637).

182

QuestionsaroundthebiddingprocessalsoreachedtheHouseofCommons,withChris

GraylingMPaskingoneoftheveryfewquestionsraisedintheHouse,inwhichheasked

theSecretaryofState‘whatestimatehehasmadeofthecosttohighereducation

institutionsofbiddingtobecomeaCentreofExcellenceinLearningandTeaching’.Alan

Johnsonreplied,

‘NeitherInortheHigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland(HEFCE)havemadeanyestimatesofthisnatureasthecostswillbevariable.However,thebiddingprocessforCentresforExcellenceinTeachingandLearninghasbeendesignedbyHEFCEtokeepadditionalcoststoaminimum,whileensuringarigorousselectionprocess’(Johnson,Hansard05.02.2004).

Theresultofajudgmentalapproachtoselectingfavouredbidsalsoledtoanextensive

rangeofsubjectdisciplinesandpedagogicareasbeingcoveredbyCETLs.Whilstsuch

diversitywasacclaimedinthesummativeevaluation,thistooledtocriticism:‘CETLappears

tobemoreapostmoderncelebrationofdifference’(Skelton2005p.68).Equally,whilst

therewasmuchdiversity,GoslingandTurner(2015)alsoobservedthatthecompetitive

natureoftheprocess‘discouragedsharingofgoodpracticeoutsidetheCETLitself’,which

conflictedwithHEFCEsobjectivetodisseminatepracticeacrossthesector.Inasimilarvein,

Sabri(2011)suggestedthatthefragmentaryapproachinselectionofCETLsisreflectedin

thewayinwhichthefundingwasdistributedtosupportsuchadiverserangeofactivitiesat

institutional,disciplineandindividuallevel.Sincethisdistributionitselfwaspiecemealand

supportedsuchadiversityofsmallscaleprojects,itresultedinmodestimpactat

institutionallevelthatcouldnotbereplicatedatsectorlevel:

‘Thewayinwhichfundsaresharedout–firstamonginstitutions,thenamongstvariousstaffgroupswithininstitutions,andfinallyamongstindividuals–resultsinapanoplyofsmall-scaleprojectswithlimitedmeaningbeyondtheirlocalenvironmentandlittlecapacitytoquestionthetermsofreferenceunderwhichfundsaregranted.Theheadlinefigures,inthehundredsofthousandsormillions,beliethesmall-scaledisparatenatureoftheworkthatismadepossibleundertheirauspices’(Sabri2011p.662).

Thesummativeevaluationalsocametotheconclusionthatthecompetitivenatureofthe

biddingprocessandfragmentedimplementationofthefundinghadbeendetrimentalto

theinitiativeinhavingsufficientinfluenceatsectorallevel:

‘wewouldquestionwhetherthecompetitiveandselectivebiddingapproachusedinEngland,andwhichincludedasignificantamountofcapitalfunding,wasthemosteffectivewaytoenhanceandrewardexcellenceinteachingandlearningacrossthesector’(SQW2011p.52).

GoslingandHannan’s(2007a)researchalsoconcludedthatthebidwritingprocessinHEIs

wasequallyunsound,wherebidwriterstendedtousetacticaljudgementsandconcentrate

183

onwhattheythoughtthepanelwouldacceptasevidenceofexcellence,andthosethat

‘playedthegame’weremorelikelytobesuccessful:

‘TheexplanationforsomeinstitutionsbeingawardedmultipleCETLsmaynotbethatthoseinstitutionshadmoreexcellentteaching,butratherthattheyhadmanagedthebid-writingprocessexceptionallysuccessfully’(p.157).

Thiscorrelateswiththefindingsoftheformativeevaluation(Saundersetal2008),which

alsosuggestedthatitwastheexpertiseinbidwritingthatwasrewardedratherthanthe

excellence.

Oneofthemainissuestoariseinrelationtothecompetitivebiddingapproachwasthe

differenceinthattakentorewardresearch.AlthoughCETLswereanattempttobring

teachingexcellenceonaparwithresearchexcellence,thetwofundingapproacheswere

contradictory,withresearchexcellencefundingbasedonretrospectivedataandmetricsfor

individualsaswellasdisciplines,andCETL’sbasedonthepromiseofexcellence.TheRAE

approachrewardedallinstitutionsthatdemonstratedresearchexcellencebutthe

competitiveandselectivenatureoftheCETLsmeantthatnotallexcellencewasrewarded.

AsGoslingandHannan(2007a)pointout,

‘ThenatureoftheselectionprocessmeansthatitisnotpossibletoconcludefromtheawardofaCETLthattheindividualsinvolved,singlyorcollectively,arethehighestperformingteachers,orthatbiddersare‘themostexcellent’(p.154).

6.3.3Process:Excellence–acontestedissue

IthasbeenobservedthatHEFCEchosenottodefineexcellence.Whilstthiswasostensibly

inordertoallowCETLsthefreedomtodefinetheirownversionofexcellence,‘excellence’

itselfisacontestedissuewithinHEmorewidely,andbecameanissuefortheCETLs,

althoughitisnoteworthythatneithertheformativenorsummativeevaluationsraisedthis

asamatterofconcern.Somescholarsassertthatthenotionofexcellenceiswithout

foundationatall,suchasBarnettwhoarguesthat‘theideaofexcellencehasnocontent,it

isneithertruenorfalse,ignorantnorself-conscious…asacarrierofastatedrivenideology,

itshouldbeputaside’(2000p.2).Conversely,somescholarsarguethattheideaof

excellencecanbeinterpretedascreatingspaceforinnovationandcreativity,as‘important

sourcesofvaluecreation’(Ensign2002p.997)and‘therefore,thepoliticaloptimisationof

anyframeworkofembeddingexcellencehasdimensionsofbothrandomnessandcreativity’

(Mieg(2014p.78).

184

Othersmorespecificallydebatewhatismeantby‘excellence’inthecontextofteaching

andlearning:

‘Claimstoexcellenceinteachingareparticularlypronetobecontentious,partlybecauseoftheircloserelationshipwithneo-liberalideologicalassumptionsaboutteachingperformativity…Judgementsofexcellencenecessarilyinvolvecontestedvalues’(GoslingandTurner2015p.1575).

Nixon(2007)alsoequatesthecontestednatureofexcellenceineducationwithneoliberal

narrativesonthemarketisationofHE,suggestingthat‘excellence’hasbecomesynonymous

withchoice.ForNixon,achievingexcellenceinthisrespectisdifficultinwhathasbecomea

highlydivided,diversesystemofHE.Nixonalsodescribesexcellenceas‘aprocessof

growth,development,andflourishing;itisnotjustanendpoint’(2007,p.8).Thisviewis

particularlypertinenttothisstudy,sincemuchoftheevidenceoftheCETLs’success

presentedintheevaluationsrefertoproducts(forexample,thenumberofteaching

developments,rewardsorpublications),buttheprocessofexcellenceislesswell

articulatedandisperhapsoneofthereasonswhyevidenceofdeepeningacrossthesector

hasbeenlesswelldeveloped.

Skelton(2005)alsodefinesexcellenceasaprocessratherthanaproduct,articulatingfour

ideal-typeunderstandingsofteachingexcellenceinorderto‘demonstratethat

understandingsofteachingexcellencecandifferfundamentallyintermsofunderlying

assumptionsandpurposes’(p.25).Hearguesthathisthirdtype,‘psychologised’,currently

dominatesandinfluencespolicymakingineducationand‘istoensurethattheteacher-

studentencounterisproductive,leadingtoindividualgrowthanddevelopment’(p.36).He

arguesthatthe‘professionalisation’ofteachinghasarisenfromthisunderstanding.For

Skelton,whatismeantbyexcellenceinpolicydevelopmentisoftenunclear,‘astermslike

‘excellent’,‘good’,‘outstanding’,‘competent’and‘best’[practice]areoftenused

interchangeablybypractitionersandeducationalpolicymakers’(p.19).Theseexplanations

canbeobservedinthecontestednatureofexcellenceintheCETLs.

Littleetal(2007)undertookaliteraturereviewofexcellenceinteachingandlearningfor

theHEAandconcludedthattherearedifferentunderstandingsofexcellenceinthesector,

especiallyatpolicylevel,withafocusonprocessratherthancontent.Theyalsoconclude

thatsomepolicy

‘takes‘excellentteaching’tobesynonymouswith‘effective’teaching’,and‘inseveralpolicydocumentsthereisanimplicitacknowledgementthatexcellenceinstudent

185

learningmaynotrequireexcellentteaching,andthattheformercanbemanaged’(p.2-3).

Theycriticisepoliciesforfailingtotakeaccountofstudents’perceptionsofexcellenceand

itisnoteworthythat,asSabri(2011)pointsout,‘thephrase‘thestudentexperience’isused

justonceinthe2003WhitePaper’(p.659).

Littleetalalsocontendthatnotionsofexcellencecanbedisciplinespecific:

‘incertaindisciplines,theusageoftheterm‘excellence’doesvaryinsomefundamentalways,ratherthanbeingusedtoidentify“distinguishingfeaturessuchthatthoseexhibitingexcellencestandoutfromtherest”,thetermisusedtoimplyabaselinecompetence’(2007p.42).

Withsuchwiderangingdebateonthemeaningofexcellenceinlearningandteaching,itis

inevitablethattheseissueswouldbecontestedinrelationtoCETLs.GoslingandHannan’s

researchdiscoveredthat

‘Therewasanacuteawarenessthattheconceptofexcellencewasrelativetothebeliefsandvaluesaboutpedagogyofthepersonmakingthejudgement’(2007bp.636).

‘Somebidwritersassumedthatexcellencemeantexceptional,duetothecompetitivenatureoftheprocess,whichisbackedupbyHEFCE’sfeedbackfromstageoneofthebiddingprocessthatcommonplacepracticewasnotrewardedasitdidnotsupporttheclaimforexcellence’(2007bp.637).

Theyalsoassertthat‘thearticulationoftheCETL’sclaimto‘excellence’[inthebid]was

framedwithinadiscoursethathadlittleornocredibilitywithcolleagues’(Gosling&Turner

2015p.1582).

6.3.4Process:Accountabilityandevaluation

Incommonwithdefiningexcellence,therequirementsforaccountabilitywereveryloosely

definedbyHEFCE:‘anovelfeatureoftheinitiativewastheabsenceofstrongaccountability

requirements’(Gosling&Turner2015p.1575).Institutionshadonlytoreportunderthe

institutionalAnnualMonitoringStatementsinrelationtotheextenttowhichtheyhadmet

theirCETLtargets,withafocusoncapitalspend.AlthoughnotaformalHEFCErequirement,

self-evaluationswereproducedbyCETLsfortheformativeandsummativeevaluationsand

althoughthesehadtobeevidencebased,thelength,formatandcontentcouldbeadapted

tosuiteachCETLand,assuch,variedconsiderably.MarkFenton-O'Creevy,FormerDirector

ofthePractice-basedProfessionalLearningCETL,quotesHEFCEsourcesassaying‘nooneat

186

Hefcewillreadyourself-evaluationreports’andindeedtheformativeevaluationnotedthat

HEFCEfailedtocommentontheinterimreports.Fenton-O'Creevyconcludedthat

‘Theevaluationprocesswaspoorlyresourcedanddesigned,andreliedonreportscompiledwhiletheCetlswerestillactive:hardlythebestwaytoassesslastingimpact’(Fenton-O’Creevy2012).

Thislackofformalstructureledtomuchcriticismoftheself-evaluations.Theformative

evaluationfoundthattheinterimreportstookanentirelypositivestance,therewasahuge

varietyinthequalityofthereportingofdataandthemajoritylackedrobustandtheorised

evaluationstrategies.TheauthorsnotedthatCETLstendedtofocusonactivityratherthan

evidence-ledconclusions:

‘Inthemajorityofcases,thefactthatactivitieshadoccurredwasthemainevidenceofeffectwithinthereport’(Saundersetal2008p.9).

‘WhatisimportanttonoteisthatmanyoftheCETLreportsdidnotrefertoevidencecollectedsystematicallywhichcouldactasaresourceforajudgementoftheeffectivenessofanactivityasachangemechanismwhateveritssubtletyortimeframe’(Saundersetal2008p.115).

Theyconcludedthat,ofthe1181instancesofactivity,72%didnotprovideevidenceofthe

impactofthoseactivities(p.9).Thesummativeevaluationalsocriticisedtheself-

evaluations,notingthatusingthemforthesummativereportwas‘challenging’(SQW2001

p.2).Theyconcludedthattheywereusefulinprovidingagooddealofquantitative

feedbackontheimpactonindividualsandinstitutionsandsomeevidenceofimpacton

students,but‘itisdifficult,however,toquantifytheseimpactsinarigorousway’(SQW

2011p.iii).

In2010,asCETLswerepreparingtheirfinalself-evaluations,VirginiaKing,fromtheCentre

fortheStudyofHigherEducation,publishedanarticle,‘Evidencingimpactofeducational

developments:the‘influencewheel’anditsuseinaCETLcontext’,havingconcludedthat

theinterimself-evaluations‘revealedsomeexcellentpracticebutnomajorimpact’(King

2010p.35).The‘influencewheel’washeldupasatoolwhichcouldhelpCETLstoevidence

impact,butthereisnoevidencethatsuchanapproachwassystematicallytakenupby

institutionsintheir2010self-evaluations.

HEFCEcameinformuchcriticismforitshands-offapproachtoaccountabilityand

evaluation,andnotjustfromtheresultingevaluationsbutfromotheragencies,

commentatorsandthepress.Turner(2007)observedthat‘CETLsweretheapotheosisof

187

thestrategyofsteeringatadistance’(p.58).ThesummativeevaluationcriticisedHEFCEfor

failingtoputinplaceanyformalmonitoringandevaluationstructure:

‘AnevaluationframeworkshouldhavebeendesignedanddevelopedwiththeCETLsfromthestartoftheprogramme.CETLsshouldalsohavebeenaskedtoprovidemoredetailedmonitoringfeedbackontheuseofthefundsagainstanagreedtemplate’(SQW2011p.vii).

TheHEAwereparticularlycriticalofthepolicyapproach,especiallysinceitwasobserved

thatthelackofclarificationmadeanyformalconnectionsbetweenCETLsandtheHEA

problematic,leadingtolessengagement,withformerChiefExecutivePaulRamsden

arguingthat

‘HefcemadelittleattempttocoordinatethisexpensiveinitiativeortosupportandinstructCetlsandtheHEAtoenablethemtoworkinharmony.Instead,itpushedtheresponsibilityforitsownunwillingnesstoprovideguidanceovertotheCetlsandtheHEA-aclassiccaseofweakmanagementthatmagnifiedtheflawsinpolicy…Hefceshouldhavefoundawaytomakeinstitutionsaccountable,notjusttotakethemoneyandrun’(Ramsden2012).

JohnGill,EditoroftheTHES,wasequallycriticalofthelackofrobustmonitoringand

evaluation,andsuggeststhattherewasarelationshipbetweenthelackofmonitoringand

theabilityoftheCETLstosuccessfullyaddressexcellenceacrossthesector:‘Theideaof

£315millionbeingputupwithrelativelylittlemonitoringoroversighttoraisethestatus

andstandardofteachinginhighereducationseemsfanciful’(Gill,THES2012).

ForGosling,HEFCE’shands-offapproachdemonstratedthattheorganisationwasoverly

reliantonHEIsbeingcommittedtotheCETLinitiativeataseniorlevelthatwasn’t

necessarilydemonstrableatinstitutionallevel,andthatthisrelianceassumedthatahigh

levelofmonitoringwasnotrequired.

‘Therewasanover-confidenceinrationalistmanagerialapproachesinvolvingplans,targets,rewardsandsuperficialmonitoring’(Gosling2013p.19).

6.3.5Programme:EmbeddednessoftheCETLintheinstitution

CETLobjectivesrequiredHEIstoembedtheworkofCETLsmorewidelywithinthe

institution.Theextenttowhichthiswasachievedwasaconcernofboththeformativeand

summativeevaluations,aswellasothercommentators.Concernsraisedintheevaluations

centeredontheabilityfordiscipline-specificapproachestolearningandteachingtobe

moregenericallyembedded,andtheextenttowhichthepositionofaCETLwithinan

institutiongaveitsufficientinfluencetoembedmorewidely.Theformativeevaluation

188

concludedthat,althoughthemajorityofintervieweessaidthattheysawtheCETLsas

havingastrategicpurposeandawiderinstitutionalrole,onlyaminorityofCETLshadhad

aneffectoninstitutionalpolicyandpractice,andmanyhadlittleeffectoutsidetheCETL.

Only33%believedthattheCETLwasfullyembeddedininstitutionallearningandteaching

strategiesand48%thoughtitwaspartlyembedded:

‘InterviewswithseniormanagersofinstitutionsthathostCETLssuggestamixed,althoughoveralloptimistic,pictureofCETLs’propensityto‘deepen’theeffectsofexcellentpractice.Itisjustifiabletosay,onthebasisoftheevidencecollectedduringthisevaluationthatonlyarelativelysmallproportionofseniormanagerswereabletopointtotheirCETLsasembeddedinorprovidingleadershiptothestrategicdirectionoftheinstitution’steachingandlearningstrategy.Mostcommentedonitsrelatively‘enclaved’stateatpresentandsawaneedforamoreintegrativeapproachgoingforward’(Saundersetal2008p.6).

AnindependentevaluationoftheengineeringCETLatLoughboroughUniversity(Tolley

2008)reachedthesameconclusions.CrawfordandDickens(2008)consideredthefindings

ofTolley’sevaluation,concludingthat‘therehasbeensomesuccessinmovingbeyond

academicswhoareveryenthusiasticteachers,buttherearestillonlyalimitednumberwith

ahighlevelengagement’(p.10).Tolley’sevaluationrecommendedthattheproject‘get

beyondtheconverted‘few’tothe‘many’inordertoincreasethepoolofstaffwhoare

sufficientlymotivated’(p.5).

Despitetheseearlyconcerns,thesummativeevaluationobservedthatbythetimefunding

wascomingtoanendin2010,therewasmoreofadeepeningeffect,concludingthat:

‘ManyoftheCETLscontributedtoincreasesincross-disciplinaryandwiderinstitutionalworking.Inmanyinstancestheyfosteredasenseofcollegialitythatspreadbeyondthetraditionalboundariesofacademicdisciplines.Staffwereabletonetworkandcollaboratewithpeopleoutsidetheirareaofexpertise,whichinmanycases,wouldnothavehappenedwithouttheCETL’(SQW2011p.22).

However,theyalsocautionedthatwhilsttherewereexamplesinwhichCETLswereableto

describetheirworkasembeddedandhadinfluencedwiderinstitutionalstrategies,‘itis

difficulttoassesstheactualextentoftheirinfluence’(SQW2011p.23).

ForGoslingandTurner(2015),thedifficultiesinembeddingtheworkofCETLsacrossan

institutionwasoneofinfluenceandtheneedforthesupportofseniorleadership.They

observedthatCETLdirectorsoftendidn’thavethepower,oroccupytherightspaceinthe

organisation,toinfluenceotherdisciplines.Theyconcludedthatwithoutgoodsenior

managementsupport,CETLdirectorscouldnotinfluencechange.Theyalsoconcludedthat

CETLsweremorelikelytobeabletodisseminativetheiractivitiesmorewidely,andengage

189

morefullyacrossaninstitution,wheretheCETLwasalignedtoinstitutionalgoalsand

whereitwasnotchallengingtotheprevailingcultureoftheorganisation:

‘CETLswereleastlikelytorecountexperiencesofcontestationwheretheaspirationsfortheCETLexhibitedcontinuitywithexistingcultureoftheinstitutionorthesubsectioninwhichtheCETLoperated’(GoslingandHannan2015.p.1583).

However,otherswithinCETLsexpressedanalternativeview.MargaretPrice,thenDirector

oftheASKeCETLatOxfordBrookesUniversity,wasquotedintheTHESassaying,

‘BecauseCetlssitslightlyoutsideuniversitysystems,theyhavefreedomtoexplorenewdirections.Cetlsaremakingatangibledifferencetostudents'learningexperiencesinmanyways’(Attwood2008).

However,shealsoaddedthat‘theproportionofcentredirectorswhodidnotfeelsupported

byseniormanagerswasshockinglyhigh’.(Attwood2008).

TheformativeevaluationobservedthattherelationshipbetweentheCETLandinstitutional

managementwascriticalinengagingthewholeinstitutionintheworkoftheCETLand

effectinginstitutionalchange.Intheirsurvey,58%reportedthattheCETLwasfully

supportedbyseniormanagement,34%felttherewassomesupportand8%thoughtthere

wasnosupport.Although61%saidofCETLdirectorsthattheyhadworkedwiththeirsenior

managementtodisseminatetheworkoftheCETLacrosstheinstitution,39%saidthatthey

hadno,oronlysome,supportfromseniormanagers(figurestakenfromSaundersetal

2008). Thesummativereportalsonotedthatakeyissueforinstitutionsintheirself-

evaluationreportswas‘theimportanceofsecuringseniormanagementengagement,

especiallywhereaimswereinstitutionwide’(SQW2011p.10).Theconclusionofboth

evaluationswasthatseniormanagementcommitmentwascrucialiftheworkoftheCETL

wastobeembeddedacrosstheinstitution.

AreviewoftheLondonMetRLO-CETLReusableLearningObjectsCETL(Cooketal2007)

concludedthattherewasasignificantgapbetweentopmanagement’scommitmenttothe

CETLandtheabilityforchangeatthegrassrootsendoftheinstitution.Equally,areport

intotheCIPelandSCERTrECETLs(Clouderetal2008)notedsimilarfindings,and

‘tensionsbetweenthemanagerialistdiscoursepromotingaccountabilityandperformativityevidentinhighereducationandthepotentialforcreativitypromotedbystrategiesadoptedinthecontextofthetwoCETLs’(p.642).

ThelocusoftheCETLwithinaninstitutionoftenplayedapartinhowsuccessfulitwasin

meetingtheobjectivesfordisseminatingpractice.HEFCEdidnotdictateanorganisational

190

structureandencourageddiversityofapproachesand,assuch,somewerebasedin

departmentsordisciplinesandothersweremorecentrallylocatedinaninstitution.Those

thatweredisciplinebasedhadthemostdifficultyindisseminatingtheirpracticeacrossthe

institution,inpartbecausetheiractivitywasoftenseenasdisciplinespecificbyotherparts

oftheorganisation,asopposedtoCETLsthatwerebasedinacentralserviceorhadan

institution-widepedagogicfocus.Assuch,thesummativeevaluationconcludedthatwhilst

theCETLswerehighlysuccessfulatalocallevel,widerdisseminationacrosstheinstitution

wasnotalwaysasevident:

‘WhilstsomeCETLstaffandparticipantshavebenefittedfromenhancedrecognitionandreward,thishasnotalwayshadawiderinstitutionalimpactinrelationtotherecognitionofteachingandlearningexcellencemoregenerally’(SQW2011p.iv).

Thosethatwerestand-aloneunitsoftenhadmoredifficultyinengagingwithcentralservice

departments,andtheformativeevaluationobservedhowchallengingitwasformanysuch

CETLstodealwithsomeofthebureaucraticprocesses,especiallyinHRandfinancial

reporting,asthesedidnotsitwellwiththesemi-autonomousnatureofCETLs.Many

consideredthattheyhamperedinitialprogress.Thisexperiencewasalsoreflectedinthe

summativeevaluation,whereitwasconcludedthat

‘someofthenewlyestablishedcentreswereoutsidethepre-existingacademicstructureandsomefounditachallengeinitiallytoestablishworkingrelationshipsandconnectionstoseniormanagement.Inafewcases,theyalsounderestimatedthemanagementtimewhichwouldneedtobedevotedtotaskssuchasfinanceandHR’(SQW2011p.A-2).

Thesummativereportobservedthatevidencefordisseminationacrosstheinstitutionswas

sporadic,andconcludedthat‘CETLcommunicationscanbecomplicatedbythepositionof

thecentrewithinitsinstitution’(SQW2011p.23).Clouderetal(2008)notedthatCETLs

wereoften‘contextbound’(p.636)andGoslingandTurner(2015)concludedthat

‘HEFCE’sassumptionthatCETLswouldbespreading‘goodpractice’tooknoaccountofintra-departmentalrivalriesanddeeplyfeltdifferencesofacademicvaluesorofprincipledindifferencetothegoalsoftheinitiative’(p.1582).

Gosling(2013)observedthattheissueofembeddednessacrosstheinstitutionwasnotjust

limitedtoCETLs,butthatmanyoftheHEFCEpolicyinitiativesaimedatenhancementhave

been‘basedonthetheoreticallynaïveassumptionthatteachingandlearningpractices

developedinthecontextofoneacademicdepartmentcanbe‘transferred’toothers’(p.7).

191

6.3.6Programme:Rewardandrecognition

Providingincentivesandrewardsatindividuallevelforstaffengagedinteachingwasa

centralpartoftheCETLinitiative.HEFCEsuggestedinitsinvitationtobid‘thatCETLfunds

mightbeusedtorewardexcellentpractitionersthroughfinancialorpromotionalschemes

orinotherways’(HEFCE2004/05p.10),anditsfirstkeyobjectivewas‘torewardpractice

thatdemonstratesexcellentlearningoutcomesforstudents’.Bothevaluationsreported

considerableactivityandsuccessinrelationtomeetingthisobjective,withmanyexamples

offellowships(themostcommon),secondmentsandprovisionofresourcesfor

conferencesandotheractivities.52%ofpractitionersrespondingtothee-surveysaidthat

theyhadmoretimetoreflectontheirteachinghavingbeenapartofaCETLand79%felt

thattheiroveralllearningandteachingpracticehadimprovedasaresult(SQW2011p.19).

Theself-evaluationreportsfromMay2010includedmanyexampleswhereCETLandother

staffinaninstitutionhadbenefitedfromrecognitionandreward,butthepractitioner

surveysuggestedthatonly46%ofrespondentsagreedthattheirworkhadbeenrecognised

viapromotionorotherreward(SQW2011p.25).Whilstmostrewardsinvolvedafinancial

element,themajorityofrecipientsperceivedthattherecognitionwasmuchmore

importantthanfinancialgain.Thesummativeevaluationalsonotedthatitwasdifficultto

quantifytheimpactoftheserewardsinarigorouswayastheycouldbetheresultofother

mechanisms,andnotthedirectinfluenceoftheCETL.

Oneofthemostcommonissuesreportedintheself-evaluationswasthedifficultyin

freeinguptimeforstafftoworkwiththeirCETL,asinmanycasestheywereexpectedto

continuewiththeirexistingworkloadalongside.Thesummativeevaluationconcludedthat

oneofthemainchallengeshadbeencompetingdemandsontimeandconcernsoverthe

managementofworkload.

Therewereanumberofcasestudiesreportedinrelationtorewardandrecognition,more

thananyotherareaofactivity.Turneretal(2008)undertookasmallstudytoexaminethe

impactofawardstolecturersreceivedfromtheHELPCETL,whichworkedwithPlymouth

UniversityPartnerCollegesFacultytoenhancethestudentexperienceforthosestudying

withinthepartnercolleges’network.TheAwardHolderSchemewasdevelopedtoreward

lecturers’contributions,rangingfrom£500to£10,000tosupporttheirprofessional

development.Theirfindingsshowedthattherecipientsvaluedtherewardsandthe

opportunitiesthatthefundingprovided,andraisedlevelsofconfidence.However,in

192

researchingtheimpactoftheawards,thefindingswerelesspositive,withrecipients

reportingthattheydidnotperceivethattheawardshadrecognitionandvalue,particularly

fromcolleaguesandmanagers.Indeed,theresearchfoundthatmanagersconsideredthe

awardstobedetrimentaltootheroperations,withtheawardholderhavingtobebrought

outofteachingorbeingabsent.Recipientsalsonotedthatbuy-outwassometimesnot

forthcomingandsotheirCETLactivitiesneededtobecompletedontopoftheirexisting

workload.Theauthorsconcludedthatatalocallevelawardandrecognitionhadbeen

beneficial,butithadnotsufficientlyaddressedtheobjectivetoraisetheprofileofteaching

inlinewithresearch:

‘ourfindingsdonotquestionthevalueoftheawardsandthebenefitstorecipientsbutposeabiggerquestionabouttheabilityofaninitiative,liketheCETL’s,toaddressthewiderissueofthestatusofteaching’(Turneretal2008p.447).

TheCentreforInterprofessionale-Learning(CIPeL),ajointCETLbetweenCoventryand

SheffieldHallamuniversities,created‘innovativee-resourcestosupportinterprofessional

andinterdisciplinarylearning’.AswiththeHELPCETL,asurveyoftheCIPeLstaffindicated

thatindividualswerenotinterestedinfinancialreturns:‘Therewasageneralconsensus

thatrecognitionwasinfactmoreimportantthanfinancialgain’(BluteauandKrumins2008

p.421).They,too,reportedthatsecondeeswereoftennotreleasedfromtheireveryday

dutiesandsohadtoundertakeadditionalworkload.

Oneofthemaindifficultiesraisedwasinembeddingrewardandrecognitionbeyondthe

CETL,alignedwithinstitutions’HRstrategiesandpolicies.ManyCETLsfoundthatthey

neededtoaligntheirworkwithinexistinginstitutionalpolicies,iftheyweretobeseenas

integrated.CrawfordandDickens(2008)examinedtheimpactoftheengineeringCETLat

LoughboroughUniversityandobservedtheimportanceofintegrationwithuniversity

systems:

‘ThisrewardmechanismisruncentrallybytheUniversity.ToensurethatwebecameintegratedintotheUniversityrewardsystem,theengCETLbecameinvolvedindiscussionsabouttheawardsfromtheoutsetin2005’(p.4).

However,Turner&Gosling(2012)observedthatCETLshadlittleimpactonrewardsystems

ataninstitutionallevel,whichwerestillgroundedinresearchrecognition.Evidencefrom

theirresearchsuggeststhatlittleprogresswasmadeintermsofembeddingrewardand

recognitionacrossthoseinstitutionswherelongstandingculturesandrewardsystems

werealreadyfirmlyestablished.

193

‘Intranslatingtherewardagenda,thebidwritersconcentrateduponwhatwasachievable,reducingtheambitiontoachievechangefromtheinstitutionaltothelocal.Thishadconsequencesforthelonger-termsustainabilityoftheCETLrewardandrecognitionstrategies,sinceCETLs’ownlocalpracticescouldruncounterto,oralongside,institutionalrewardsystems’(p.420).

TheyconcludedthatHEFCE’sfailuretofullydefinerewardandrecognitionmeantthatthe

perceptionthatitwasacentralstrandinenhancingtheworkoftheCETLwasoverstated

(p.427).PaulOrsmond,writingintheTHES,alsoobservedthesilonatureofCETLsin

relationtorewardandrecognition:

‘Theymostlyprovideopportunitiesforteachingstaffwhoalreadyhaveaninterestinlearningandteachingtoshiftintoabiggerghettoandtalktolike-mindedindividuals.Buttheypassbymostofteachingstaffbecausetheydonotimpingeontheirprivateworldandtheirdiscipline’(Orsmond2003).

6.3.7Programme:Engagementofstudents

AlthoughfourofthesixobjectivesofCETLswereexplicitintheirrequirementforimpacton

students,verylittlespaceisactuallydedicatedtostudentsintheformativeandsummative

evaluations.Theformativeevaluationinterviewedstudentsaspartofitscasestudyvisits

butonlydedicatedthreepagestostudentsoutofa126pagereport.Thesummativereport

onlydedicatesatotalofthreeparagraphstotheimpactonstudents.Indeed,studentsare

onlyreferredtoonceintheexecutivesummary,andthatisinrelationtostudentfees.

Despitethelimitedattentiongiventostudentsintheevaluations,thereportsdodraw

someconclusions.Theformativeevaluationreportedthat92%ofstakeholdersconcluded

thatCETLshadapositiveeffectforstudentsinsupportingtheirlearning.Althoughthe

evaluationconcludesthatitwas‘tooearlytodrawconclusions’abouttheimpacton

students,theydidnotethat,inanumberofCETLs,‘thereisagreateremphasisoninvolving

studentsinplanninganddesigninglearningactivities’(Saundersetal2008p.51)and

studentshadbeeninvolvedinanumberofprojectsandplacements.

ThesummativereportconcludedthatthevastmajorityofCETLsclaimedtohavestudent

engagementattheheartoftheirwork,andtherewassubstantialevidenceintheself-

evaluationreportsofprovisionofresources,innovationandpracticalsupportforstudents.

However,theevaluationfoundlittleevidenceofhowthishadapositiveimpactonthe

experienceofstudents.Thereportnotesthat‘insomecasesthenumberofstudents

affectedbythesechangesisestimatedinthethousands,althoughthereisseldomany

informationtocontextualisethesenumbers’(SQW2011p.11).ManyoftheCETLsproposed

194

todeveloptechnology-enhancedlearningtosupportstudents;however,theevaluation

concludesthatitwasimpossibletoadequatelyassesstheimpact:

‘Itisdifficulttoassessthespecificimpactthattechnology-enhancedlearninghadhadonstudents.Theavailabilityof,andaccessto,newresources,facilities,andteachingmethodsisjustoneofseveralfactorsthatcouldinfluencestudentmotivationandattainmentlevels.FewCETLshavedirectlyattributedthedevelopmentoflearners’skillstothepresenceoftechnology-enhancedlearningalthoughtherewasageneralacknowledgementinmanyself-evaluationreportsthatthetwoareinsomewayrelated’(SQW2011p.39-40).

6.3.8Programme:Impactacrossthesector

ThreeoftheCETLobjectiveswereconcernedwithembeddinggoodpracticeacrossthe

sector,butthiswasoneofthemostcontestedthemes.Intheformativeevaluation,the

authorsnotedthatintheinitialcasestudyinterviews,‘theaspectofimpactwithinand

outsidethesectorelicitedfarlessinformationthanotherissuesweexplored’(Saundersetal

2008p.58).However,inlaterinterviewstheyreportedthat‘manymoreoftheCETLswere

nowturningtheirattentiontodisseminatingtheiractivities,andbuildinguplinks,more

widelyandsystematicallyacrossthesector’(p.59).Thereportobservedthatinvolvementof

CETLswithotherHEIsvariedconsiderably,butconcludedthattheformativeevaluation

mayhavebeentooearlytoaccuratelyassesstheimpactacrossthesector.

Thesummativeevaluationismoreconclusive.73%ofpro-vicechancellorsforteachingand

learningand61%ofCETLbasedstaffsuggestedthat‘goodpracticeandinnovationin

learningandteachinghavebeensharedbetweenCETLsandnon-CETLinstitutions’,andthe

2010self-evaluationsreportedmuchexternalactivity,withover3,000publicationsand

morethan5,500disseminationevents.However,theauthorsdonotconcludethatthe

impactonthesectorhadbeenevidentandindeedsuggestthatonlyahandfulofthe

reportedpublicationsanddisseminationeventsindicateanyimpactexternally:

‘ItisdifficulttogaugetheextenttowhichthismayhaveledtootherinstitutionsactivelyadoptingtheapproachesandmaterialsdevelopedbytheCETLs’….specificevidenceoftheadoptionofCETLapproachesinnon-fundedHEIsismuchscarcer…theextenttowhichCETLshavedirectlycontributedtosector-widechangesinbehaviourandcultureisimpossibletoquantify’(SQW2011p.iv/32).

‘thelegacyoftheprogrammerestslargelyinindividualstaffandinthoseinstitutionswhichhaveembeddedCETLdevelopments…ratherthaninageneralenhancementofteachingandlearningacrossthesector…wedonotbelievethattheCETLprogrammeitselfhasledtomaterialchangesinnon-participatingHEIsandacrossthesectorasawhole’(SQW2011p.vi).

195

Taylor(2007)notesthatthenotionofthetransferabilityof‘excellentpractice’isexplicit

withintheCETLs,butquerieswhetheritcouldbetransferrableacrossthesector,and

Skelton(2005)alsonotesthedifficultiesoftransferringandembeddingpracticeacross

differentdisciplinecontexts.

ThedifficultyofcreatingalegacyofCETLimpactattractedmediainterest.Writinginthe

THESin2007,HEFCEDirectorLizBeatywasacclaiminginCETLs’role,describingthemas

‘theenvyoftheworld'.Shesaid,

‘TheCETLsarejusttwoyearsintotheirfiveyearsoffunding,buthugelyimpressiveoutcomesarealreadyvisible.Theyallhavewell-equippedlearningspacesbuiltwithcapitalfundingaspartoftheCETLpackage,andgrowingcommunitiesofpracticeareprovidingscholarlyevidenceforeffectiveapproachestoteaching’(Beaty2007).

Itisnoteworthythat,justoneweekearlier,inresponsetoadraftoftheformative

evaluation,journalistMelanieNewman,alsowritingintheTHES,reportedthat‘Thereis

littleevidencethatamultimillion-poundschemedesignedto"celebrateandreward

excellenceinteaching"hashadmuchimpact’(Newman2007).Followingthepublicationof

thesummativeevaluationreportin2012,viewsinthemediaweremixed.CraigMahoney,

thenChiefExecutiveoftheHEA,butpreviouslyaCETLdirector,wasreportedassaying,

‘Itwasunfairtojudgetheprogrammeonitslegacyasthiswasnotitsprimarypurpose.Thereisahugeamountofevidencetosuggestthatthiswasaneffectiveuseofmoney-therewerehugelypositiveimpacts’(Gove2012).

However,muchofthereportingatthattimewasnotpositive.JackGove,reportinginthe

samearticleundertheheadline‘Cetlsimpactassessed:thesectorhardyfeltathing’wasof

theopinionthat

‘Asanexampleofthefailureofpublicpolicyinhighereducation,the[CETL]programmewouldbehardtobeat…Thereportleavesnoroomfordoubtthattheprogrammeasawholefailedinitsprimarypurposeofenhancingteachingandlearninginhighereducation’(Gove2012).

JohnGill,alsowritinginthesameeditionundertheheadline‘theynevercametoboil’

arguedthat,

‘ThedearthoffundstoinvestinteachingtodaymakestheCetls'meagrelegacyallthemoredisappointing.Whenthefundingcametoanendtwoyearsago,therewasawidespreadfeelingthattheprogrammehadgoneoutwithawhimper’(Gill2012).

AttheendofCETLfundingin2010,TheHEAwascommissionedtoundertakeareviewofall

HEFCElearningandteachinginitiatives,whichincludedareviewofCETLs,andparticularly

theirimpactonthesector.Thereportconcludedthat

196

‘thereisnoevidencethatHEFCE’senhancementinitiativeshaveledtosustainedsector-wideculturalchangesinteachingandlearninginuniversities….ithasbeenfarlesssuccessfulinpromotingthestrategicdevelopmentofqualityenhancementacrossthesectorasawhole’(Trowleretal2013p.17).

Oneofthemainissueshighlightedintheformativeevaluationwasthedifficultyfacedby

CETLsinengagingwithsectoragencies,particularlytheHEAandsubjectcentres.The

authorssuggestthisisdueinparttoagenciesnotbeinggenerouslyfundedandthusnot

havingthecapacityforengagement.Theformativereportalsonotestheabsenceof

collaborationwiththeHEA:

‘Therewassomedisappointmentevidentinmanyoftheself-evaluationreportsabouttheroleoftheHEAcademy,whichwasinitiallyviewedashavingthepotentialtoenablebroaderengagementbetweenCETLs’(Saunders2008p.32).

Theformativeevaluationconcludedthattherewasunevennessandincoherenceof

engagementindifferentdisciplineswithHEAsubjectcentres,whichalsoimpededcross-

CETLconnections.Assuch,disseminationofpracticebetweenHEIswascompromised.The

summativeevaluation,however,foundthatengagementthroughtheSubjectCentres,was

fairlywidespread.Indeeditwasnotedthat

‘somestakeholderscommentedthatsomesubjectcentresmadeasignificantcontributiontotheimpactoftheCETLactivity,bytakingahighlyfocussedapproachtocoordinatingandstreamliningalltheexperienceinagivenfield’(SQW2011p.28).

ThesamecannotbesaidfortheCETLnetworkitself,wheretherewasverylittleevidenceof

CETLsworkingtogetheroutsidedisciplinenetworks.Although60%ofpro-vicechancellors

and56%ofCETLstaffreportedeffectiveworkingacrosstheCETLs,thesummative

evaluationconcludedthattherewasnoevidencetothateffect.Therewas

‘NorealsenseofanationalCETLnetworkandmanyCETLshavenotnecessarilyseenothercentresasimportantnodesintheirnetworks’(SQW2011p.iii).

Overall,thesummativeevaluationconcludedthatthelackofcoherentandsystematic

engagementwithintheCETLnetworkmeantthattheabilityforinstitutionstodisseminate

theirworkmorewidelywascompromised,andtheprogrammewouldhavebenefittedfrom

somenationalcoordination,notingthat

‘HEFCEdidnottakeamorestrategicco-ordinatingrole’…andasaresultofthelighttouchapproach,anopportunitytoraisethestatusandprofileofteachingandlearningacrossthesector,andtodisseminateresultsmoreeffectively,hadbeenmissed’(SQW2011p.vi).

197

6.3.9Programme:Fundingandfuturesustainability

Theprovisionofcapitalfundingtoestablishnewteachinginfrastructureandacquirenew

technologywasconsideredoneofthesuccessesoftheCETLprogramme,asobservedby

TurnerandGosling(2012p.427).Bythetimeoftheformativeevaluation,‘78%had

investedinequipmentandfacilities’forstudents’and‘58%feltthecapitalspendhadbeen

essentialtotheCETL’(Saundersetal2008).CrawfordandDickens(2008)concludedin

relationtotheEngineeringCETLthat

‘thereisnodoubtthatthecapitalfunds,increatingahighqualitypresencefortheCETL,havemadeasignificantcontributiontoraisingtheprofileofteaching,thusachievingoneoftheoriginalaimsoftheCETLprogramme’(p.8).

Thesummativeevaluationconcurred,concludingthat

‘ThecapitalfundingelementoftheCETLprogrammeinEnglandhasenabledparticipatingHEIstobuildstate-of-the-artlearningspacesandtoupgraderesourcessignificantly.Severalself-evaluationreportsdrewattentiontotheimpact,onstaffandstudents,ofthenewbuildenabledbythecapitalgrant’(SQW2011p.24-25).

However,timingofthecapitalfundingpresenteddifficultiesformanyCETLs.Capitalspend

neededtobeconcludedwithinthefirsttwoyears,andtheformativeevaluationobserved

that,asaresult,therewaslesslong-termstrategicthinkingfortheuseofcapitalfunds.The

summativereportconcurredthattherequirementtofocusoncapitalspendingintheinitial

stagesimpactedonthefuturedevelopmentactivitiesofCETLs.

AlthoughitwasnotexplicitlystatedthatCETLsneededtocreatealegacy,therewasan

expectationthatCETLswouldcontinuebeyondthefundingperiod.Indeed,itwasinitially

thoughtthattherewouldbesomecontinuedfunding,butthisdidnotcometofruition.

Achievingsuchalegacywithoutcontinuedfundingbeyond2010wasaconcernfor

institutions,andishighlightedintheevaluations.Asearlyas2008,HEIswerequestioning

theapproachtofundingandhowsustainabilitywouldbepossiblebeyond2010without

additionalmoney.Theformativeevaluationreportedthatlong-termplanningfor

sustainabilityvariedconsiderablyacrosstheCETLs,with42%havingnothingagreed,14%

concludingthattherewouldbenoinstitutionalfundingbeyond2010(andthereforeno

continuedactivity),14%havingsomefundingagreedbytheirinstitutionsandonly6%

reportingthatfundingwouldbeguaranteedbytheinstitution.Theindependentevaluation

oftheengineeringCETL(Tolley2008,CrawfordandDickens2008)notedasakey

recommendationthattheCETLwaswellembeddedwithinitsinstitutiontoensure

sustainabilitybeyondthefundingperiod.Theformativeevaluationsummarisedthatthere

198

wasverylittleevidencethatthesectorsawthecontinuationofCETLsasaninstitutional

priority.

Bythesummativeevaluation,thecontinuationofCETLswasstillnotresolvedforalarge

number,andtheauthorsnotedthat‘ourimpressionisthatnonewouldcontinuewiththe

samelevelofresourcesandactivitiesasduringtheprogramme’(SQW2011p.44).A

minorityofCETLs(17)reportedthattheywouldcontinuebeyondthefunding,although

withreducedresources,andanumberofthosereportedthattherewouldbegreater

emphasisonself-funding.Theevaluationalsonotedthat,insomecases,theCETLswould

beincorporatedintolearningandteachingdevelopmentunits(p.44)asamechanismfor

embeddingtheCETLmorefirmlywithintheorganisationalstructure:

‘ThedataindicatethatstafffromahighproportionofCETLswillremaininthehostinstitutionandtheirexpertisewillthereforebeavailablefortheHEItodrawuponinthefuture’(SQW2011p.45).

ThesummativereportalsoobservedthatwhereCETLshadbeenabletoengagemore

widelybeyondtheirdisciplineorinstitution,therewasmorelikelihoodofalegacy:

‘Itisworthnotingthatwherestrongexternalnetworkshadbeenestablished,ofteninvolvingpractitionersandemployersaswellasacademics,therewasahighlevelofconfidencethatthesewouldcontinueandbeavaluedvehicleforexchanginginformationandgoodpractice’(SQW2011p45).

ManycommentatorsquestionedHEFCE’sshorttermfundingapproachasbeingsuitablefor

embeddingCETLactivitybeyond2010.GoslingandTurner(2015)arguethatthereis

relativepowerlessnessinfundedshort-termprojectstoactasagentsforchanging

institutionalculture.JulieHall,co-ChairoftheStaffandEducationalDevelopment

Association,quotedintheTHES,alsocalledintoquestiontheshorttermnatureofthe

funding,suggestingthatthismadetheinitiative:

‘Inherentlyflawed.Theideathat...significant,time-limitedfundingforCetlswouldimpactmorewidelyoncurricula,universityprocesses,studentexperienceandpedagogicpracticeacrossthesectorwasmisguided,naïveandratherawaste’(Gove2012).

Although,at£335m,thefundingfortheCETLprogrammewasequaltothewholeofall

otherHEFCEteachingenhancementinitiativesfrom1999to2009combined,itisperhaps

surprisingthattherewasnotgreaterinterestfromthepress,orinparliament,whenthe

legacyfortheprogrammefailedtomaterialise.Thelackofattentionmayreflectthefact

thatviewsonthesuccessorfailureoftheCETLprogrammeweremixedacrossthesector

itself.PaulRamsden,thenChiefExecutiveoftheHEA,statedthatCETLswere‘apoorpolicy

199

poorlymanagedthatleaveslittletoshowfor£315million[sic]’(Ramsden2012),butothers,

suchasMarkFenton-O'Creevy,FormerdirectorofPractice-basedProfessionalLearning

CETL,challengedthisview,claimingsourgrapesonRamsden’spartforHEAsfailureto

engagewithCETLs,andpointingtoindividualexamplesofsuccessinhisarticle,‘Dothe

maths:Cetls'contributionsaddup’(Fenton-O'Creevy2012).

Therewaslittlecommentfromgovernment,despitethelargesumsinvolved.Indeed,no

questionsraisedinparliamentwereinrelationtoeitherthehighleveloffundingorlackof

legacy.Kernohan,writingmorerecently(2015),questionswhy,withhindsight,therewas

notaselectcommitteeenquiry,whentherehadbeenanenquiryintothee-University’s

relativelymodest£50million.

6.3.10Programme:Pedagogicresearch

AlthougharequirementforpedagogicresearchwasnotexplicitintheCETLobjectives,it

wasimpliedandwasseenasamechanismforputtinglearningandteachingonaparwith

research.HEFCEsawpedagogicresearchasameansto

‘enableinstitutionstosupportanddeveloppracticethatencouragesdeeperunderstandingacrossthesectorofwaysofaddressingstudents’learningeffectively…[and]deepenstaffinvolvementincriticalscholarlyreflection…bystrengtheningtheCETLsresearch’(HEFCE2004/05p.10).

Theformativeevaluationconcludedthatpedagogicresearchhadbeensporadicinthefirst

halfoftheprogrammeand,although83%engagedintheactivity,therewerenotmany

examplesoftheresearchfeedingintoteachingpractice.However,theynoted,

‘indicationsthatinanumberofCETLspedagogicresearchishelpingtodevelopaculturewherepedagogyisbeinggivenfarmoreprominencethanhadbeenthecasepre-CETL’(Saundersetal2008p.74).

Bythetimeofthesummativeevaluation,pedagogicresearchhadbecomemoreembedded

andwasoneoftheareasoftheCETLsconsideredtobethemosteffective.Thevast

majoritysawresearchasasignificantaim,andindeed‘examplesofCETLswhichdidnot

undertakeprimaryresearchwererelativelyrare’(SQW2011p.37).MostCETLsgenerated

highlevelsofresearchoutputssuchaspeer-reviewedjournals,bookchaptersandcase

studies.Thedevelopmentofpedagogicresearchnetworkswerehighlightedinthereport,

anditwasnotedthat

200

‘InternalnetworksweresometimescrucialinthefirstfewyearsoftheCETL,withlarger,externalnetworksgrowinginprominenceascentresbecamemoreestablished’(SQW2011p.37).

TheevaluationdoeshighlightaconcernthatCETLsweredisjointedfromotherpolicy

initiativesinthisregard,withveryfewexamplesofengagementwiththeESRCandHEFCE

TeachingandLearningResearchProgramme,althoughitalsoquestionswhetherthatwas

simplybecausetheself-evaluationstructuredidnotgiveprominencetohighlightingsuch

links.

6.4Conclusion

HEFCEtookabottom-upapproachwiththeCETLinitiative,givinginstitutionsthefreedom

todefineexcellenceforthemselves,proposingtheirownorganisationalstructuresand

requiringlittleinthewayofaccountabilityforthefunding.Whilstsomeinthesector

welcomedsuchanapproach,otherscriticisedHEFCEforbeingtoo‘hands-off’andforfailing

tocoordinatetheprogrammetoensurethattherewasalegacyofgoodpracticeacrossthe

sector.ThereissubstantialevidencethatagooddealofCETLactivitytookplaceandthat

therewereparticularsuccessesinrelationtocapitalspendforteachingresourcesandon

students,andthattheprofileofpedagogicresearchhadbeenraisedbytheworkofthe

CETLs.AttheleveloftheindividualandwithinCETLs,therewasalsomuchevidencethat

thefundinghadledtoimprovedteachingandlearningandprofessionaldevelopment.

However,theevidenceforimpactatinstitutionallevelwassporadicandverydifficultto

evidenceatsectorlevel.Assuch,oneofthekeyconclusionsfromthisanalysisisthatthe

initiativedidnotsucceedinitsprimaryobjectivetoraisetheprofileofteachinginlinewith

thatofresearch.

Goslingconcludesoftheinitiativeasawholethat

‘Iftheaimwastotransformtheattitudeofthesectortowardsteaching,thenthisexpensiveinitiativemustbejudgedafailure…itisclearfromtheevaluationthatco-ordinationoftheCETLsactivitiesandtheiroutputshasbeenweak’(Gosling2013p.14).

Aswiththepreviouscasestudy,theworkofthischapterisusedinChapter8tointerpret

thepolicyepisodeagainstMcConnell’sframework.Chapter7addressesthefinalcase

study.

201

Chapter7:Casestudy3:LifelongLearningNetworks

7.1Introduction

TheLifelongLearningNetworks(LLNs)isanidealcasestudysinceitmeetsallthecriteria

setoutinTable6(p.71)inbeingatimeboundepisode,withclearlyidentifiedproposed

outcomesandbenefitstothetargetgroup,andtherearesufficientsourcesofbothprimary

andsecondarytextstoofferadequatebreadthanddepthtodevelopathickdescriptionof

thepolicyepisode.Inconsideringeachofthechosentexts,theuseofthecoding

establishedinAppendixBenablesthethickdescriptiontobeinterpretedagainstthe

theoreticalframeworkinChapter8,togiveanuancedapproachinaddressingthemain

researchquestion,articulatingthesuccessorfailureoftheLLNpolicyepisode.Thisisalso

usedtoaddressthefirstsupplementaryresearchquestioninestablishingcommonalities

anddifferencesbetweenthechosencasestudies.

TheLLNinitiativewasapolicytobringHEIsandFECsintolocalregionalpartnershipsin

ordertoguaranteevocationalprogressionpathwaystohighereducationthrough

collaborationbetweenthetwosectors.Whatwasdistinctiveaboutthispolicyepisodewas

thatLLNswere,atleastformally,ajointpolicyinitiativewithanothersectorfundingbody,

theLearningSkillsCouncil(LSC),andtheDfES,aspartofajointprogressionstrategy.

AnotherfeatureoftheinitiativewasanexpectationthatLLNswouldcollaboratewith

regionalagenciessuchasRegionalDevelopmentAgencies(RDAs)andregionalbranchesof

SectorSkillsCouncils(SSCs),aswellaslocalemployers.LikeCETLs,thiswasabottom-up

policy,whereHEFCEsoughttoallowtheinitiativetodevelopwithintheLLNs,withloose

objectivesandstructures,ratherthantop-downandimposed.Itisdistinctivefromthe

othercasestudiesinthattheconsultation,atypicalfeatureofHEFCEpolicyepisodes,was

conducted‘ontheground’throughconversationsbetweenHEFCEregionaloperativesand

institutions.Whilstfundingwaslimitedtothelifeofthepolicy(2005–2011),itwas

expectedthattheworkoftheLLNswouldbeembeddedandthuscontinuebeyondthe

fundingperiod.

7.1.1Sourcesofdata

TheevidencefortheLLNsisfertile,withbothinterimandsummativeevaluations,regular

HEFCEreportsarisingfromanalysisoftheLLN’sownmonitoringreports,andanalysisof

LLNlearnerattributes,asevidenceofLLN’sinfluenceonlearners.TheLLNNationalForum

202

wasalsoagoodsourceofreports,forexamplehavingconductedananalysisofLLN

research,aswastheCentreforRecordingAchievement,whichconductedresearchon

behalfofHEFCEintothepersonalisedlearningplansinLLNs.Inthesecondaryliterature,

thereissomeacademicfocusonLLNs,withthemaincontributorsbeing:BettsandBurrell

(2011),Leahy(2013),Little&Williams(2009),Mayetal(2012),Newby(2005),Wardetal

(2012),Watson(2005),WiseandShaw(2011),andWoodfieldetal(2013).Theseare

outlinedmorefullyinAppendixA.Thereweresurprisinglyfewmentionsinthemedia,with

themajorityofarticlesintheTHESbeingwrittenbythedirectorsofLLNsshowcasingtheir

work,andanycriticismoftheLLNsdidnotcomeuntillater,whenWard(2011)recognised

thatthelackofcontinuationfundingwouldimpactonLLN’ssurvival.IntheHouseof

Commons,althoughfewquestionswereraisedinregardstoLLNs,withonly33spoken

references,theresponseswerepositive.Forexample,MarkWilliams(CeredigionLD)paid

tributetoLLNson28thNovember2007,whenhesaid,

‘IalsowanttopaytributetotheworkinSouthYorkshireofHigherFutures,thelifelonglearningnetwork,whichseekstocombatthemalaiseofdifferentlearningprovidersandbringthemtogetherunderoneumbrellatoprovidefreshopportunitiesfortheprogressionofvocationalwork-basedlearning’(Hansard2007).

Areviewoftheliteraturerevealsageneralconsensusofsupportfortheactivityofthe

LLNs,bothduringthelifeoftheinitiativeandsinceterminationofthefunding,and

considersthattheymadesomeimpactonvocationalentryintohighereducation.Mostof

thedeliberationconcernswiderdebatesintermsofthepolicyapproach,whetherLLNs

succeededinraisingvocationalparityinlinewithacademicentryqualificationsand

whethertheycontributedtosocialmobility.LLNswerefrequentlyhighlightedasevidence

ofgoodpracticeonvocationalskillsinarangeofsubsequentgovernmentreports,

particularlyinevidencetothe2006-07FurtherEducationandTrainingBill,the2008-09‘Re-

skillingforrecovery:afterLeitch,implementingskillsandtrainingpolicies’forthe

Innovation,Universities,ScienceandSkillsSelectCommittee,andthe2011‘Government

ReformofHigherEducation’fortheBusiness,InnovationandSkillsCommittee.

7.2Anaccountoftheepisode

7.2.1Origin

In2001,HEFCEandtheLSCproposedanewjointinitiative,PartnershipsforProgression

(PfP),towidenandincreaseparticipationinhighereducation,inordertoaddressthe

government’sambitionof50%participationinhighereducationby2010(HEFCE01/73).

203

£60mwasprovidedforthreeyears,betweenApril2003andMarch2006,tofundFEandHE

partnershipswithstaffworkingwithschools,collegesandtrainingprovidersonregionally

co-ordinatedactivities,suchassummerschools.Oneofthecriticismsofthisinitiativewas

thatitwasdrivenatthediscretionoftheHEsector,andtheroleforFE,particularlyata

strategiclevelfordeliveringvocationaltraining,waslesscoherent(responsetothePfP

fromtheLearningandSkillsDevelopmentAgency2002).LLNs,introducedtowardstheend

ofthePfPinitiative,wereanattempttoaddresssomeofitsshortcomingsinrelationtothe

inclusionofFE,andtodevelopanationallycoherentpolicy.

TheHEFCEBoardhadendorsedproposalsforthedevelopmentofLLNsinlate2003,andthe

firstpublicreferencewasmadebythethenChiefExecutiveofHEFCE,SirHowardNewby,in

the2004ColinBellMemorialLecture,‘DoingWideningParticipation:Socialinequalityand

accesstohighereducation’.Newbyacknowledgedthat,despiteprogressinwidening

participationintheEnglishsector,whilst90%ofstudentstaking‘A’levelsprogressedinto

highereducation,only40-50%ofstudentsundertakingvocationalqualificationsatLevel3

progressed(Newby2005a).Datashowedthatthevastmajorityofstudentstaking

vocationalqualificationswerefromunder-representedandpoorerbackgrounds(Wardetal

2012)andthus,ifthesectorwastobesuccessfulinwideningparticipation,therewasa

needtoensuregreateropportunityforaccesstoHEforvocationalstudents.Newbyargued

thatthisapproachwasimperativeifthegovernmentwastomeetthe50%target.He

concludedthatintheEnglishcontext,therewasconfusionatthepost16levelforentry

intoHEforthosewantingtotakeamorevocationalroute,andprogressionrouteswerenot

nationallyandconsistentlyapplied.Inordertocombatthisproblem,hesuggeststhatthere

wasa

‘needtoensurethathighereducationaccommodatesthe‘vocational’aswellasthe‘academic’…‘theacademicandthevocationalarenotadistinction,butaspectrum’(Newby2005ap.13).

HowardNewbyhadfirst-handexperienceoftheAmericansystem,ashehadbeena

professorattheUniversityofWisconsin-Madisonintheearly1980s.IntheWisconsin

model,allcitizensinthestatehaveaccesstoHEopportunitiesthroughthesharingof

pathwaysandresources,andthereareclearerpathwaysforprogression.Inhis2004

speech,henotedoftheUSAthat

‘institutionswithdistinctlydifferentmissionshaveacommoninterestinensuringsuchopportunitiesareavailable,andinputtingarrangementsinplacetofacilitateit’(Newby2005ap.14).

204

Assuch,hesawthepotentialforpolicyborrowingfromtheUS.Newby’ssolutionwasto

developanetworkofpartners,typicallyataregionallevel,headedbyanorganisationthat

hadadistinctivenesswithwhichpotentiallearnerscouldidentifyandwouldprovidethe

structureandcohesionrequiredtoguidestudentsthroughprogressionroutes.He

proposedthatthesewouldbecalledLifelongLearningNetworksand

‘LLNswouldthereforeofferawide-rangingcurriculum,combiningthestrengthsoffurtherandhighereducation’…‘AttheheartofeveryNetworkwillbearrangementstofacilitateprogression’(Newby2005ap.16/17).

Networks,forthemostpart,wouldfocusonmaximisingopportunitiesinthelocaland

regionalcontext,throughlinkstotheSectorSkillsCouncilsandrelevantemployers.Thelink

toemployershadbeenlesscoherentinthePfPinitiative,butformedakeyelementfor

LLNs.InajournalarticleayearaftertheColinBelllecture,Newbyemphasisedthe

importanceoftheemployerlinktotheHEcurriculum:

‘HEneedstoengagemorecloselywithemployers,thinkmoresystematicallyaboutemployabilityinachangingsocietyandeconomy,andbepreparedtomakethenecessarychangestotheexistingcurriculumandthewaysinwhichitisdeveloped….[LLNswill]makethewholeHEofferavailabletolearnersoveralifetimeofworkandstudy,allowingpeopletobuildontheirearlierlearningwithoutbeingconfinedbyit’(Newby2005ap179-180).

AtaspeechattheLLNNationalForumin2009,NewbyrevealedthatLLNshadnotbeenthe

firstchoiceinHEFCE’svisionfortacklingvocationalprogression.Preferredsolutionswereto

firstlyfollowtheAmericanCommunityCollegemodelmuchmoreclosely,withinstitutions

sharingprogressionandresourcesthroughthelevelsofeducation,andthesecondwasa

proposaltomergeFEandHEtoensurecontinuousprogression(reportedinBetts&Burrell

2011,p.2).However,HEFCEhadobservedthatbothapproachesmightbemore

contentious(Newby2005b).

7.2.2Englishcontext

Thepost-compulsoryeducationpolicycontextinEnglandsincethe1950shadseenseveral

decadesofgovernmenttryingtoimprovevocationalpathwaystoHE,but‘A’levels

continuedtoremainthedominantrouteforprogression.The1980sand1990ssawthe

developmentofvocationalqualificationssuchasBTECNationalDiplomasandaccesstoHE

diplomas,buttherewaslittlewhichclarifiedtheircurrencyfor,orroutesinto,HE,resulting

inwhatLittle&Connorreferredtoasthe‘crazypaving’ofvocationalprogression(2005).

Dearing,inthe1997NationalCommitteeofEnquiryintoHigherEducation,recommended

205

thatHEIsworkwithFECstodevelopcurriculaandaccessroutes,inanattemptto

streamlineprogressionthroughbridgingcoursesandmakeHEmoreaccessibleto

vocationallearners,butintheeventlittlehadchangedbytheturnofthecentury.

InthecontextofHEintheearly2000s,thedominantrhetoricatthattimewasNew

Labour’scommitmenttoincreasingparticipationinhighereducationto50%by2010(Blair

2004),butinaddition,NewLabourfocussedattentiononproposalstowidenparticipation

tounder-representedgroups:

‘Theconceptofwideningparticipationinhighereducationasdistinctfromincreasingorexpandingparticipationisarelativelyrecentadditionaltothepolicydiscourse’(CHERI2008p.13).

Inparticular,therewasafocusonensuringgreaterinclusionfromlowersocio-economic

backgrounds,wheretheyoungweremorelikelytoundertakevocationalqualifications.The

attentiononwideningaswellasincreasingparticipationwasnecessaryifthe50%target

wastobemet,asNewbypointedoutinhis2004lecture:

‘Itisstatisticallyhighlyunlikelythatwecouldachievea50percentparticipationrateinhighereducationwithoutsimultaneouslywideningit’(Newby2005ap.4).

Thefocusonincreasingandwideningparticipationalsoresultedinreformsinthe14-19

sector,withthe2004TomlinsonReviewandthedevelopmentofthe14-19qualifications

framework,whichalsosoughttoclarifyandstreamlineeducationalprogressionforyounger

learners,againinthecontextofacademicandvocationallearning.Relatedtothewidening

participationagenda,thegovernmentcommissionedProfessorStephenSchwarzto

undertakeareviewoffairadmissionstouniversities,resultinginthe2004report,‘Fair

AdmissionstoHigherEducation:RecommendationsforGoodPractice’,todemonstratethat

theadmissionofstudentsundertakingnon-traditionalentrancecourseswasasfair,

transparentandprincipledasthatfor‘A’levelentrants.Followingrecommendationsinthe

2004HigherEducationAct,theOfficeforFairAccess(OFFA)wasestablished,witharemit

to

‘increasetheproportionoflearnersfromunder-representedanddisadvantagedgroupswhoenter,succeedinandarewellpreparedtoprogressfromhighereducationtoemploymentorpostgraduatestudy’(OFFA2015/02).

Alsoasaresultofthe2004HigherEducationAct,theHEsectorsawtheintroductionof

variablefeesandashiftintheprincipalfundingofhighereducationfromthestatetothe

student.SomeHEscholarsobservedthattheintroductionofhigherfeesmightcauseHE

institutionstore-evaluatetheirprioritiesawayfromnon-traditionalentryand

206

qualifications,thusputtinggreaterpressureonmaintainingpartnershipsforprogressionto

HE(Woodfieldetal2013).Newbyhimselfobservedthattherewaspotentialforgreater

fragmentationofFE-HEcollaborationasaresultoffees,butcontendedthatLLNsmightbe

positionedto

‘reconnectasectorthatmightotherwisebepulledaparttoagreaterdegreebytheintroductionofvariablefees’(Newby2005bp.183).

Indeed,someacademiccommentatorsonHEpolicyhavesuggestedthatthedevelopment

ofLLNswasanattempttoprotectvocationalopportunitiesaheadoftheintroductionof

fees(Parry2006).

OneoftheothermainpolicydriversfortheNewLabourgovernmentatthattimewasa

focusonthedevelopmentofskillstomeettheconditionsofamoreglobalisedand

knowledge-basedeconomy,resultingintheLeitchReviewofSkillsin2004.Thereport,

publishedin2006,recommendedaconsiderabledegreeof‘up-skilling’oftheworkforce,

withgreaterpercentagesofstudentsbeingexpectedtoprogress.Inaddition,the

establishmentoftheRegionalDevelopmentAgencies(RDAs)in1998andSectorSkills

Councils(SSCs)in2002contributedsignificantlytotheskillsagendaandagreaterfocuson

regionaleconomicdevelopment.FollowingtheLeitchReview,whichemphasisedthe

involvementofemployersinskillseducation,thegovernmenthadbeguntore-focuspolicy

morestronglyinfavourofemployerengagement,particularlyatregionallevel.

Thesepolicies,andothersmorespecificallyinhighereducation,suchasthedevelopment

ofFoundationDegrees,were,inprincipleatleast,aimedatcounteractingthe‘deficit’view

ofunder-participationinHE,favouredbyDearing(NCIHE1997)whichsuggeststhat

participationcanbeaddressedbyincreasingthesupplyofHE.Instead,thesepolicies

favouredamoredemand-ledapproach,wheretheneedsofbothstudentsandemployers

weremet,thusincreasingparticipation.Itiswithinthesepolicycontextsofprogression,

vocationalskillsdevelopmentandmeetingthedemandsforlocaleconomiesthatLLNswere

expectedtooperate.

AkeycharacteristicofLLNswastheirengagementwithawealthofotheragenciesand

policyinitiativesacrossmanypublicsectors.Thereweremanyotherorganisationsand

initiativesinplaceatthestartof,anddevelopedduring,theLLNinitiative,manyofwhich

crossedpolicyboundariesandthefocusoftheirwork,suchas:

207

• CentresofVocationalExcellence• NewTechnologyInstitutes• KnowledgeExchanges• Aimhigher• HigherLevelSkillsPathfinders• TraintoGain• EconomicChallengeInvestmentFund• 14–19QualificationsFramework• AdvancedApprenticeships

In2007,theNationalAuditOfficeattemptedtopictoriallysumupthepartnership

relationshipsoforganisationswhichhelpedtodelivertheskillsagenda,whichincluded

FECs,HEIsandLLNs.ThisdiagramisillustrativeincontextualisingLLNsalongsideother

policyinitiativesaswellasshowingthecomplexityofthepolicylandscapeatthattime:

LifelongLearningNetworks ©NationalAuditOffice(2007)

Figure12–ORGANISATIONSINPARTNERSHIPSINVOLVEDINTHEDELIVERYOFTHE

GOVERNMENT’SSKILLSAGENDA

7.2.3Someinternationalperspectives

IthasalreadybeennotedabovethattheWisconsinmodelintheUSAadvocatesclearer

pathwaysandsharingofresourcesforprogressiontothepublicuniversities,andWatson

(2005)observesthatmanyother(non-European)countries,suchasSingapore,Australia

DepartmentforEducationandSkills HigherEducationFunding

CouncilforEngland Departmentfor

WorkandPensionsSectorSkillsDevelopmentAgency

NationalLearningandSkillsCouncil

Ofsted/AdultLearning

Inspectorate

SectorSkillsCouncils

Employers

RegionalLearningAndSkillsCouncil

ChambersofCommerce

QualityImprovement

Agency

SkillsforBusinessNetwork

DepartmentofTradeandIndustry Schoolsand

SixthForms

LocalAuthorities

Higher

EducationInstitutions

IndependentTrainingProviders

Jobcentre+

AdultandCommunityEducation

ConnexionsServices

Work-based

Learningproviders

FurtherEducationColleges

GovernmentOffices

RegionalDevelopmentAgencies

SmallBusinessService

BusinessLink

Network

TradeUnions

LifelongLearningNetworksDevelopmentofjoint

approachestoencouragingvocationalandwork-basedlearnerstoprogressintoHE

RegionalSkillsPartnershipsDevelopmentofregionalstrategyforthedeliveryofadultskillandwork-basedlearningtosupportRegional

EconomicStrategy

LearningPartnershipsPromoteacultureofprovidercollaboration

acrosssectorstosupportlifelonglearningandlocalregeneration

RegionalQualityImprovementPartnerships

Identifypost-16improvementneedsandpriorities,leadingto

RegionalQualityStrategies

YoungApprenticePartnerships

Offerpupils,basedinschools,work

experienceaspartofvocationalqualifications

14-19PartnershipsDeliveryof14-19

entitlementprincipallySpecializedDiplomasfromSept

2008

EducationBusinessPartnerships

Consortiatoprovideworkexperienceand

placementsforstudentsandteachers

AimhigherPartnershipsRegionalpartnershipstoimproveaccesstoHEfor

youngpeoplefromdisadvantagedbackgrounds

Delegation,representationorparticipation

PreparedbytheNationalAuditOffice

16March2007

Lead

OrganizationsinPartnershipsinvolvedinthedeliveryoftheGovernment’sskillsagendaKEY

208

andNewZealandhaveprogressiontoHEsystemsthatare‘culturallyembedded’(Watson

2005p.193),suchthatprogressionbehavioursaretheexpectation.Similarly,sincethe

1990s,accesstoHEhasbeenapolicygoalintheEuropeanUnion,andithasbeenEUpolicy

since2002tosupportLifelongLearning(Nemeth2010).However,muchofthefocushas

beenaspirationalratherthaneffectual,andMulleretal(2015)foundinarecentstudythat,

formanycountries,thetransitionbetweenvocationalandacademicstillneedstobe

simplified.Mulleretal(2015)suggestthatthemodelsadoptedbyNordiccountries

demonstrategreaterparticipationrates,suchasinFinland,wherelifelonglearningisakey

principleofeducationpolicy,andanactofparliamentharmonisedallentrylevel

qualifications.Denmarkundertookamajorreformofitsvocationalandcontinuingtraining

systemin2000,andalthoughsecondaryeducationissplitintotheacademicand

vocational,allstudentshavetheopportunitytoprogresstoHEthroughclearpathways.

HungaryisperhapstheonlyotherEuropeancountrytohaveLifelongLearningNetworksas

ameanstoenhancingprogressionfromvocationalqualificationstoHE(Nemeth2010).

7.2.4Organisationsandactors

LLNswereunusualinengagingwithsuchawiderangeofbothparticipatingandinfluencing

organisations,asFigure12(p.207)demonstrates.AlthoughinitiatedbytheHEFCEBoard,

andSirHowardNewbyinparticular,LLNswerepartofthewiderJointProgressionStrategy

withtheLSCandtheDfES,anditwasenvisagedthattheLSCwouldbeanequalpartnerin

fundinganddrivingtheLLNpolicy.However,intheevent,theLSCdidnotcontribute

financially.

Theregionaldimensionaddedafurtherlayerofcomplexitytothepolicyepisode.

UniversitiesandcollegeswereexpectedtoplayakeyroleintheLLNs,butitwasintended

thatHEFCE’sownregionalconsultantsandLSCregionaldirectorswouldbethedrivingforce

indevelopingproposalsandbusinessplansforLLNs,andsuchproposalswouldbe

influencedbytheagendasoftheRDAsandregionalSSCs.Theinitialjointcircularand

briefingpapertoheadsofHEFCEfundedinstitutions,andLSCfundedFECs,reveals

expectationsthatLLNswouldengageatregionallevelwithatleastsevenother

organisations:CentresofVocationalExcellence(CoVEs),CETLs,NewTechnologyInstitutes

andKnowledgeExchanges(whichwereindevelopment),Aimhighernetworksandsteering

groups,localemployersandotherregionalagencies(HEFCE12/2004p.6).

209

TherelationshipbetweenHEIsandFECsinLLNswascriticaltosuccessindevelopinga

progressionstrategyandvocationalpathways,butrelationshipswereoftencomplex.This

wasparticularlyhighlightedinrelationtothedistributionofAdditionalStudentNumbers

which,whilstakeyelementofthefunding,alsointroducedanelementofcompetition

betweentheFECsandHEIs(Parry2006).Itisnoteworthythatintheoriginalbriefing

(HEFCE12/2004),itwasaconditionofgrantthatLLNshadaresearchintensiveuniversityas

partofthenetwork,althoughinpracticethisdidnotcometofruitionforallnetworks.

TheroleoflearnersinLLNswascomplex,asstudentswereexpectedtoengagewiththe

LLNsasentitiesintheirownright,astheywereintendedtohaveasufficientlystrongbrand

tobemeaningfultolearners,aswellasengagingwithindividualinstitutions.However,this

relationshipalsoproveddifficult,aswillbeexploredlaterinthischapter.

ThiswiderangeofactorsandorganisationsconnectedtoLLNsaffordedplentyofscopefor

challengingrelationshipsandcontestedtopics,whichareexploredin7.3below.

7.2.5Activities

7.2.5.1Abottom-upapproach

FollowingNewby’sspeech,aproposalforLLNswaslaunchedbyHEFCE,DfESandLSCtothe

sectorinJune2004.AspartoftheJointProgressionStrategy,LLNswereexpectedto

provide

‘thecoherence,clarityandcertaintyofprogressionopportunitiesforvocationallearnersintoandthroughhighereducation’(HEFCE12/2004).

UnusuallyforaHEFCEfundinginitiative,theproposalforLLNssetoutintheletterand

briefingdidnotconstituteaconsultation,andthesectorwasnotinvitedtocomment

beyondapromisefromHEFCEtoansweranyquestions.Inthispolicyepisode,consultation

tookplaceontheground,throughHEFCEregionalconsultants,LSCregionaldirectorsand

TheNationalInstituteofAdultContinuingEducation(NIACE),whowould

‘bediscussingtheseproposalswithHEIs,FECsandotherinterestedparties…withaviewtodevelopinginitialproposalsforatleastoneLLNineachregion’(HEFCE12/2004p.2).

Initially,theexpectationfromHEFCEwasthatthroughregionalconsultations,

‘demonstrator’orpilotLLNswouldbedeveloped,buildingonexistingprogression

arrangementsandpartnershipsbetweeninstitutions,andthatdifferentLLNswouldtake

differentapproachestotheirorganisationalstructuresandinsupportinglearners.

210

Promotedinthecirculartoinstitutionsasa‘stepchangeinvocationalprogression’(HEFCE

12/2004p.1),LLNswereexpectedtoofferarangeofcurriculaandpathwayspertinentto

theirlocallabourmarketneeds,inorderto:

• ‘Combinethestrengthsofanumberofdiverseinstitutions• Providesupportforlearnersonvocationalpathways• Bringgreaterclarity,coherenceandcertaintytoprogressionopportunities• Developthecurriculumasappropriatetofacilitateprogression• Valuevocationallearningoutcomesandprovideopportunitiesforvocational

learnerstobuildonearlierlearning• Locatetheprogressionstrategywithinacommitmenttolifelonglearning,ensuring

thatlearnershaveaccesstoarangeofprogressionopportunitiessothattheycanmovebetweendifferentkindsofvocationalandacademicprogrammesastheirinterest,needsandabilitiesdevelop’(HEFCE12/2004p.4).

Itwasexpectedthateachnetworkwouldhavecertainessentialkeycharacteristics,upon

whichfundingwouldbedependent:

• ‘LLNsmustcentrearoundProgressionAgreements(PAs)• WillinvolveFECsandHEIswithatleastoneresearch-intensiveinstitutionin

partnership• WillhaveconsultedwithSSCsandotherstakeholders’(HEFCE12/2004).

EachnetworkwouldfacilitateactivitiesinCurriculumDevelopment,Information,Advice

andGuidance(IAG)tostudentsanddevelopmentofPAs.Provisionforstudentstoeasily

changeprogrammesandmovetootherinstitutionswasconsideredakeycharacteristic

and,intheinitialproposal,developinglocalcreditaccumulationtransferagreementswas

animportantcomponent.

LiketheCETLs,thispolicyinitiativefollowedabottom-upapproach,andwhilstLLNswere

expectedtoconformtothecharacteristicsdescribedabove,theexactstructureandterms

forLLNswerenotprescribed.Therationalefordevelopingsuchapolicyapproachwasthat

initiativesthatweresectordriven,ratherthanprescribedbyHEFCE,wouldpresentlessrisk

intermsoftakeupbythesector,andcontinuedsustainabilitybeyondthefundingperiod,

withdeepeningeffectsacrossthesector,wasmorelikely.

UnliketheCETLs,therewasnofirmdeadlineforproposals,soasnottobe‘constrainedby

artificialdeadlines’(HEFCE12/2004p.2)andnobiddingprocessassuch;theproposalsand

businessplansdevelopedinconsultationwithHEFCEregionalconsultantsandLSCregional

directorswereconsideredonacasebycasebasis.InSeptember2004,HEFCEapprovedthe

firstthreeLLNs:Sussex,HigherYorkandGreaterManchesterNetworksand,by2007,thirty

networkshadbeenestablished,twenty-eighthavingaregionalfocus,including120HEIs

211

andover300FECs,representingalmostnationalcoverage.Inaddition,twoLLNs,National

ArtsLearningNetworkandVETNET(towidenparticipationinveterinaryeducation),hada

nationalfocusintwodistinctdisciplines.

7.2.5.2Fundingandaccountability

Theapproachtofundingisnoteworthyforbeingacombinationoftime-limitedstrategic

developmentfundingfortheset-upoftheLLN,andrecurrentfundingintheformofASNs

awardedtoeachLLN.Developmentfundingwasflexible,andunlikethee-Universityand

CETLs,theoriginalproposaldidnotstipulateafigurefortheinitiativeandneitherwere

theresetboundariesforfundingbandsbasedonsizeoractivity,ashadbeenthecasefor

theCETLs:‘wedonotwishatthisstagetosetprescribedlimitstothefundingaspirationsof

prospectiveLLNs’(HEFCE12/2004p.3).FundingcamefromHEFCE’sstrategicdevelopment

fundandHEFCEexpectedtoawardfundsinthefirstinstanceforaminimumofthreeyears,

whichwouldincludestart-upcapitalandrunningcosts.However,inthelongerterm,LLNs

wereexpectedtoattractfundsfromotherexternalsourcesinordertocontinueactivities.

Mostproposalsbeganbyseekingfundingfora3-6monthdevelopmentphaseleadingto

theproductionofafullbusinessplan,usuallywithfundingof£10-30k.AHEFCEadvisory

groupwasestablishedtoensurethatthereweremultiplereadingsofthebusinessplansby

staffacrossHEFCE,whowoulddevelopwell-documentedfeedbacktoproposedLLNs.To

agreefunding,thebusinessplansweresubmittedtoHEFCE’sSDFcommitteeor,inthecase

ofverylargeproposals,HEFCEBoard,forapproval.AlthoughHEFCEinitiallyplannedthat

LLNswouldbeasmallprogrammewithdemonstratormodels,overtimealargepercentage

oftheSDF,£105m,wasspentontheLLNprogramme.

TheawardofASNswascentraltoLLNs,particularlyasafinanciallevertoencouragethe

engagementofFECsandHEIs.SomeASNswereusedfornewcurriculumdevelopments,or

CPDwheretherewasdemandfromemployers,andtherewasasignificantfocusonusing

ASNsforFoundationDegrees(FDs).Indeed,FDswereamainfocusofmuchoftheLLN

activity.

Intheearlystages,LLNswereabletochoosebetweentwofundingmodels.InModel1,

ASNswereallocatedtoinstitutionswithinLLNpartnershipsaspartofmainstreamgrant.In

Model2,ASNswereheldoutsidemainstreamgrantbytheLLN’sleadinstitutionforall

institutionswithinit.Initially,networkshadexpectedtogetsignificantamountsofASNs,

andsoputtheseintheirplans;andbetween2006and2009,14,700ASNs(£60m)were

212

awardedtoLLNs.However,in2009,followingthewidereconomicdifficultiesandsqueeze

onpublicfunding,HEFCEsignificantlyreducedthenumberofASNsavailablewhich,insome

cases,impactedonLLN’sabilitytodelivertheirplans.By2009-10,Model2wasbeing

phasedout,withallsubsequentASNsbeingfundedthroughthemainstreamgrant,inorder

toembedtheLLNactivitybeforetheendoftheinitiative.

EchoingthepolicyapproachoftheCETLs,HEFCEdidnotproposeanyformalaccountability

forthenetworks,although,unliketheCETLs,HEFCEdidproposetointroducesome

quantitativemetricsforevaluatingthesuccessofLLNs,fromdataonprogressionand

increasingwideningparticipation:

‘Thepartnerswillevaluatethesuccessofnetworksinthecontextofmorewide-rangingresearchintothepatternsofprogressiontohighereducationfromvocationallearners’(HEFCE12/2004p.6).

The2005HEFCELLNprogressreportalsoproposedthat,forthepurposesofestablishing

valueformoney,thecostperstudentwouldbecalculatedbyformula,calculatedusingthe

costsoftheLLNdividedbythenumberofstudentsengagedwithit(HEFCE2005p.3).

Targets(bothintermsofprogressionarrangementsandstudentengagements)weresetby

eachLLNinternally,andtheywereexpectedtoestablishtheirowncriteriaforsuccess.It

wasanticipatedthatpeerevaluationbythepartnersineachLLNwouldbesufficientto

ensurethatthekeycharacteristicswerebeingupheldandtargetswerebeingmet.Despite

theoriginalexpectationthatLLNswouldnotberequiredtoformallyaccountfortheir

progress,intheeventtherewereregularprogressreportsonLLNspublishedbyHEFCEin

2005,2008and2009and,followingtherecommendationoftheinterimevaluationin2008,

astandardisedreportingmechanismwasintroducedforLLNstosubmitanannualreport.

ThesewereformallyanalysedbyHEFCEand,alongwithstatisticalreportsonLLNlearner

attributes,usedtoinformtheHEFCEprogressreportsupuntil2010.

7.2.5.3Organisationalstructures

ThediversityoftheapproachestakenbyLLNsmeantthatthereweremanyandvaried

organisationalstructures.HEFCEsupportedproposalsthatestablisheddifferentmodelsof

engagement,andtherewasnoformalexpectationoforganisationalstructure,otherthana

requirementforamanagementgroupandstrategiclevelgroup.SomeLLNshadalargecore

staffteamleadingonprojectsfundedintheLLNs,whilstothershadasmallstaffteamand

fundedactivitiesledbyFEandHEpartners.Initially,HEFCEproposedthatLLNswouldbuild

213

uponexistingpartnershipsbetweenFECsandHEIs,developingtheseintopilotLLNstotest

differentapproachestonetworkformation,andsoitwasenvisagedthatnetworkswould

bedifferent:somemightbelimitedtosomecurriculumareas,andsomemightbemuch

broader.

AllLLNsproposedinitiallytomapexistingprovisionintheirpartnerFECsandHEIsinorder

toidentifygaps,andthentodevelopcurricula,particularlybridgingprogrammes,tocreate

coherentprogressionroutesfromvocationalprogrammesontoHEprogrammes.

DevelopingcoherentPAs,IAGandindividuallearningplanswerecriticalactivitiesforLLNs,

asoutlinedintheoriginalbriefingpaper(HEFCE12/2004).AlthoughallLLNssharedthe

samelongtermambitions,thenatureoftheinitiativemeantthattheycoulddevelop

individuallyinlinewiththeirpartners’curriculuminterestsandtheiruniqueregional

contexts,thusallowingthemtofocusondifferentandlocallyrelevantemploymentsectors.

AsWilliamsnotes,

‘TheiterativenatureofthepolicyapproachhadledtoquitedistinctdifferencesbetweenLLNs.Networksvariedgreatlyintermsoftheirscope,focusandambitions’(Williams2008p.3).

In2006,almosttwoyearsafterthestartoftheLLNs,ANationalLLNForumwasestablished,

andhostedbyHigherYork,thefirstLLN.Itspurposewastosharegoodpracticeand

promotenewideasthroughouttheLLNnetwork,anditwasveryactive,withevidenceof

sharingofgoodpracticeandco-activity,aswellasawebsiteandnewsletters,notedinboth

theinterimandsummativeevaluations.

7.2.6Outcomes

AsaconsequenceoftheannualHEFCEprogressreports,thestatisticalreportingoflearner

attributesfor2006-07and2007-08,andthedatacollatedforthesummativeevaluation,it

ispossibletobuildupaclearpictureofLLNactivityandachievementsthroughoutmuchof

thetimeperiod.

Analysisofthekeyfindingssuggeststhatalmost50%offundingwasspentonactivities

providingcurriculumopportunitiessuchasbridgingcourses,PAsandIAG.Towardstheend

ofthefunding,LLNswereactivelyseekingfunding,securing£2,029,380fromothersources,

someofwhichwereotherHEFCEinitiatives,toensuretheirsustainability(HEFCE2009,

HEFCE2009/29,SQW2010).Perhapssurprisingly,giventheexpectationthatLLNswould

214

workcloselywithregionalemployers,lessthan10%offundingwasspentonemployer

engagement.

Thescaleoftheactivitywasvast,andincreasedthroughouttheperiodoftheinitiative,

withnearly33,000staffinvolvednationallyandmorethan8,500PAsinplacebetween

institutions.ThescaleofIAGwasequallylarge,with200,000paperbasedresources,15,000

learnersreceivingone-to-onesupportand39,000groupsupport,andtherewerealmost

onemillionwebsitehits(HEFCE2009,HEFCE2009/29,SQW2010).Theneedforsuchlarge

scaleIAGisunsurprising,giventhattheprogressionagreementswereoftencomplex

betweencoursesandinstitutions.Conversely,thescaleoftheactivityisnotreflectedinthe

scaleoflearnersengagingthroughLLNs.ThenumbersofLLNengagedlearnerswassmall,

withlittleover17,000nationallythroughouttheperiodand,in2008-09,thenumbers

representedonly0.7%ofthetotalundergraduatefirstyearpopulation,andonlyatenth

wereintheresearchintensiveuniversities.Inaddition,althoughalargenumberoflearners

wereengagingwiththeLLNatahigherlevelthantheirpriorqualifications,almost30%of

LLNlearnersalreadyhadanHElevelqualificationpriortotheirengagement,andthislevel

wasconsistentthroughouttheperiod(HEFCE2009,HEFCE2009/29,SQW2010).

ThesefindingsaresummarisedinTable14belowanddiscussedinmoredetailinSection

7.3(p.219),wheretheyarerelevanttothethemeddiscussions.

Table14–SUMMARYOFLLNACTIVITYFROMHEFCEMONITORINGANDSTUDENTATTRIBUTE

REPORTS

Area 2006-07keyfindings: 2007-08keyfindings: 2008-09keyfindings:

Expenditure Curriculumdevelopment(19%)PAs(16.6%)IAG(14.1%)Employerengagement(9.1%)wereactivitieswiththegreatestexpenditure

FundingfromothersourcesbeyondLLNHEFCEfunding

LLNsreceived£1,038,001fromothersources(someofwhichwasHEFCEotherinitiatives)

LLNsreceived£2,029,380fromothersources(someofwhichwasHEFCEotherinitiatives)

Curriculumdevelopment

KeyareawhereLLNsareworkingtoclarifyandcreateprogressionroutesisthroughBTECqualificationsandthroughHEfromFDs.

14-19engagementSignificantactivityinapprenticeships

Curriculumdevelopment

Over700newormodifiedcourses(3/4ofwhichwithinvolvementofemployers,andsomeSSCinvolvement)

1,150newormodifiedcurriculumdevelopmentswithanother700inprogress

215

Area 2006-07keyfindings: 2007-08keyfindings: 2008-09keyfindings:

Curriculum Creativeartsanddesignmostfrequentlystudiedsubjectarea

Combinedsubjectsmostcommonlyreturnedasmostfrequentlystudiedarea

Businessandadministrationstudies,creativearts&design,architecture,building&planningmostfrequentlystudiedarea

Progressionagreements

1,697PAsinplace 8,528PAsinplace

Progressionagreements

ComplexarrayofPAs(oneLLNhas52PAswith15,000pathways)

Staffdevelopmentandpartnerships

350staffdevelopmentevents,16,000staffinvolved(targetingadmissionsstaff)

2,400staffdevelopmentevents,32,900staffinvolved

IAG IAGactivity:1-1 20,075Groupsupport36,654Website211,833

200,000paper-basedIAGresources1-1 15,000Groupsupport53,000Website900,000

QualificationpriortoLLNactivity

28%alreadyheldHElevelqualificationsonentry23%hadAlevelorequivalentqualificationsonentry94%undertakeahigherlevelofstudyinLLNthanpreviouslevelofstudy

59%first-timestartersinHEfromlevel328%alreadyheldHElevelqualificationsonentry31%hadAlevelorequivalentqualificationsonentry88%undertakeahigherlevelofstudyinLLNthanpreviouslevelofstudy

46%first-timestartersinHEfromlevel336%hadAlevelorequivalentqualificationsonentry

Learnerattributes

63%female39%aged19oryounger83%white12%fromPOLARquintile1

61%female40%aged19oryounger83%white12%fromPOLARquintile1

Learnerattributes

3,170registeredasLLNstudents(only70registeredataFEC)

8,080registeredasLLNstudents(only440registeredataFEC)

5,880LLNflaggedlearners(0.7%oftotalug1styearpopulation)28%registeredforfirstdegree,39%forFDs

FEC/HEI Almosttwo-thirdsofstudentsreturnedingeneralcolleges,specialistHEIsandFECsOnein5inresearchorientateduniversities

Halfofstudentsreturnedingeneralcolleges,specialistHEIsandFECsAtenthinresearchorienteduniversities

Note:studentattributesassumesLLNflaggedlearners(atallentryqualificationlevels)

Sincetherewereregularmonitoringreports,andthesummativeevaluation,HEFCEwas

abletorespondquicklytoLLNissuesastheyarose.Whilstthegeneralpolicydirectiondid

notchange,therewereminorclarificationsandmodificationstoenabletheinitiativeto

meetitsobjectives,andthustheinitiativewasmoredynamicthanthatofthee-University

ortheCETLs.Forexample,inthe2005monitoringreport,HEFCErecognisedthattheissue

ofPAswascausingsomecontestationamongstLLNpartners,andsoprovidedgreater

guidanceonthemechanismforPAs.Inaddition,therelationshipwithAimhigherwas

216

provingcontentiousandsoHEFCEsoughttoclarifythatLLNsshouldbuildon,notduplicate,

theworkofAimhigher(HEFCE2005p.7).Bythe2008progressreport,sustainabilityofthe

LLNsbeyondthefundingperiodwasbecomingaconcernforLLNs,andsoHEFCEsoughtto

clarifythat

‘itisnotpossibletoprovide‘continuationfunding’forLLNs.Itisinappropriateinanycase;initiativesneedtobecomeembeddedinthecorebusinessofinstitutionsiftheyaretosurvivelong-term’(HEFCE2008p.3).

HEFCEalsousedthe2008reporttosteerLLNstowardsemployerengagementwhich,as

notedabove,onlyrepresented10%ofLLNfundingactivity,butHEFCEsawitasaviable

streamofworktoenablesustainabilityoftheLLNs.Theywereclearthatthiswas‘LLN

territory’:

‘If,moreover,theLLNissustainedsuccessfully,thereshouldbeopportunitiestocontributemorefullyinkeystrategicareas.Employerengagementisprobablythemostimportantofthese.Workplacelearnersarelikelytoengagewithlearninginadiscontinuouswayoveraperiodoftime’(HEFCE2008p.3).

HEFCEcommissionedtheinterimevaluationofLLNsin2007,fromtheCentreforHigher

EducationResearchandInformationattheOpenUniversity(CHERI).Atthispoint,LLNs

wereatdifferingstagesofdevelopment,withsomenearingtheendoftheirfundinganda

smallnumbernotyetinexistence.Theevaluation,whichtooktheformofdesk-based

researchfocussingonLLNmonitoringreportsandinterviewswitheightLLNs,reportedin

2008.TheinterimevaluationfoundoverallthatLLNsweremakingprogressinmeetingtheir

objectives,butthatitwastoosoontoascertaintheextenttowhichlearnersoremployers

wereengagingwithLLNprovision,ortosaywhetherthepolicywouldbeasuccessbythe

endofthefunding.Thereporthighlightedanumberofconcerns,someofwhichHEFCE

acteduponbeforetheendoftheperiod,andotherswhichcontinuedtoariseasthemesfor

concerninthesummativeevaluation.OneofthekeyissuesaddressedbyHEFCEatthis

timewastheneedforgreatermonitoringandevaluation,whichwasstrengthenedasa

resultoftheinterimreportrecommendations,withtheintroductionofareporting

template.

Thesummativeevaluation,commissionedbyHEFCEfromSQW,includeddesk-based

research,inwhichinformationincludingwebsitesandLLNmonitoringreports(2007-08,

2008-09)wereevaluated,visitsweremadetoeachLLN,andane-surveyoflearnerswas

conducted.Thee-surveyonlyattracted269responsesandsoSQWnotedthatthe

217

conclusionsinrelationtolearnerscouldonlybeillustrative.Overall,thesummative

evaluationfoundthat

‘TheLLNprogrammehasachievedwellagainstitsobjectives.Theprogrammedidleadtothedevelopmentofnewcurricula,ofteninvolvingemployers.Information,adviceandguidanceforlearnersonvocationalprogrammeshaveimprovedandthereareseveralthousandPAsinplace.Theprogrammehasalsomadeanimportantcontributiontootherpolicyareassuchasemployerengagement,andthedevelopmentofnew14-19qualifications.Inaddition,manyconsulteesprovidedevidenceofthewaysinwhichnetworkshadhelpfullyformalisedcollaborativeworkingandachievedconsiderableculturalchangewithininstitutions’(SQW2010p.xii).

HEFCE’sresponsetothesummativeevaluationalsoconcludedthat

‘Itshowsthattheprogrammehassuccessfullywidenedopportunitiesforprogressiontohighereducation(HE)forlearnersonvocationalprogrammes’(HEFCE2010).

Thesummativereportreflectedonthemainareasofactivity,curriculumdevelopment,IAG

andPAs,andalsoobservedsomekeyissuesmorebroadlyinrelationtoLLNs,someof

whichreflectthosedrawnoutintheinterimevaluation.Theseformthebasisforthekey

themeswhichareexploredin7.3below.

7.2.7Timeline

ThefollowingTable15representsthekeymomentsinthelifetimeoftheLLNpolicy

initiative,andotherpertinentpolicyevents.Itisnoteworthythatinthispolicyepisode,

therewerealargenumberofrelatedpoliciesinteractingwiththeLLNinitiativetosome

extent.

Table15–TIMELINEOFKEYLLNANDRELATEDPOLICYMOMENTS

Date LLNs OtherPolicies1980s-1990s Developmentofvocational

qualificationssuchasBTECNationalDiplomasandaccesstoHEdiploma

1997 DearingrecommendsHEIsworkwithFECstodevelopcurriculaandaccessroutesinanattempttostreamlineprogressionthroughbridgingcourses

1998 RegionalDevelopmentAgenciesestablished

2000 NewLabourgovernmentpolicytoincreaseandwidenparticipationinHEto50%

2001 LaunchofFoundationDegrees2002 SectorSkillsCouncilsestablished

218

Date LLNs OtherPoliciesDecember2003

HEFCEBoardendorsedworkonLLNproposalsaspartoftheJointProgressionStrategywithLSCandDfES

2004 OFFAestablishedTomlinsonReviewandthedevelopmentofthe14–19qualificationsframeworkRe-launchofapprenticeships

March2004 HowardNewbyannouncesLLNsaspartofColinBellMemorialLecture

June2004 JointletterfromHEFCEandtheLearningSkillsCouncil12/2004

August2004 Aimhigherlaunched(arevisionofPartnershipsforProgression)

September2004

HEFCEconsideredLLNproposalsfrompartnerships

Schwartzreportonadmissions

December2004

HEFCESDFagreeproposalsforSussex,HigherYorkandGreaterManchesterNetworks

2005 5LLNsestablished(inc.thoseabove) 2006 16furtherLLNsestablished LeitchReviewofSkillsJanuary2006 Changeingovernmentpolicyto

engageemployersineducationMarch2006 LLNNationalForumandpractitioner

groupsestablished

September2006

Firstvariabletuitionfees

December2006

HEFCEsetoutstrategyforevaluatingLLNs

2007 7furtherLLNsestablished June2007 HEFCEcommissionedinterimevaluation October2007 30totalLLNsbeenestablished April2008 Publicationofinterimevaluation

NationalForumseminartoreflectoninterimreportLLNpairingsexpectedtoproducewrittenreportonpeerevaluation

August2008 HEFCEintroducedastandardLLNmonitoringprocedure

October2008 FirstLLNreportedagainststandardmonitoringtemplate

September2009

HEFCEcommissionedSQWtoundertakesummativeevaluation

November2010 Summativeevaluationpublished 2011 FundingforLLNsends

219

7.3Acriticalreviewoftheevidenceandfindings

Anumberofthemescanbeobservedintheevidenceandfindings,whichechothestated

objectivesfortheLLNs,suchthattheywouldfacilitatecoreactivitiesincurriculum

development,IAGanddevelopmentofPAs,aswellasafocusonFECandHEIpartnerships

andevidenceofsocialmobility.Theseareexploredbelow.

7.3.1Process:Approach

Asdescribedin7.2,HEFCEtookabottom-upapproachtotheLLNinitiative,departingfrom

thetypicalconsultationandbiddingapproach,andfavouringconsultationon,and

developmentof,proposals‘ontheground’withoutaformalisedstructure.Theinterim

reportacknowledgedthatHEFCEhadtakenaninnovativeapproach,butexpressedconcern

that,intheevent,thelackofstructuremeantthatwhilsttherewasconsiderableLLN

activity,theyfailedtomakesufficientprogressinsomeofthemoredifficultareasof

activity,andconcentratedonthe‘easywins’:

‘WeacknowledgethattheLLNinitiativehasbeeninnovativeintermsofpolicydevelopmentinthatitwasamoveawayfromthenormal‘top-down’HEFCEbiddingprocess…However,wewouldsuggestthatmanyofthepotentialproposalswere‘talked-up’intermsofplansandanticipatedachievementsandoutputs.Moreover,oncefunded,activitiesmayhavebeenbiasedtowards‘easywins’…Suchwaysofworkingmaynot,infact,capitaliseontheopportunityprovidedbypump-priminginitiativesinvolvingthedisbursementofone-offfundstoexperimentandtacklethemoredifficultaspectsoftheendeavourforfearoffallingshortoftargets’(CHERI2008p.8).

Thesummativereportisequallycriticalofthebottom-upapproach,suggestingthatthe

unplannedandshort-termnatureofthefundingmeantthattheinitiativecouldonlybe

shortlivedandwithoutthepotentialforalongertermlegacy:

‘TheLLNprogrammeemergedasatypeof‘bottom-up’initiativeandhasseensignificantshiftsinthewiderpolicycontext.Thisapproachwasappropriateinitially,asasmallnumberofLLNswereoriginallyplannedasdemonstratormodels.However,astheprogrammeexpanded,asignificantproportionofHEFCE’sStrategicDevelopmentFund(SDF)wasspentsupportingLLNs,anditmayhavebeenhelpfulatthisstagetoadoptamorefocussedandplannedapproachtothewiderroll-outoftheprogramme’…‘Afive-yeartimescalewithacommensuratereductioninannualfundingmayhavebeenmoreappropriate’(SQW2010p.x/xi).

Thepolicyapproachalsocameinforsomecriticismfromothercommentators.Forsome,

theapproachwasflawedsinceitdidnotprovidesufficientstructureordirectionfor

networks,whichmeantthatconsistentandmeaningfulevaluationwasdifficult.Sheila

LeahyundertookaPhDstudy,‘aninvestigationintopartnershipworkingtowiden

220

participationinhighereducationinthesouth-westofEngland,withparticularreferenceto

LifelongLearningNetworks(LLNs)’,andLeahyisparticularlycriticalofthispolicyapproach,

acknowledgingtheresponsefromoneintervieweeinthestudy,that

‘LLNswerebadlythoughtthrough,andpoorlyimplementedandmanaged...despite[HEFCE]havingagenuinedesireforchange,itfailedtobesufficientlydirectivetothesector...LLNsneverhadstrategicdirection’(Leahy2013p.123).

Leahyconcludedthat,

‘Withoutanyrulesimposedbythefunderorbypolicy,theLLNoutcomeswerevariableandquestionable,insomeinstances,intermsofvalueformoney’(Leahy2013p.133).

Conversely,LittleandWilliams(2009)consideredthebottom-uppolicyapproachtohave

beenasuccessinmitigatingagainstpoorsectortakeup,andpointtoboththenumberof

institutionsinvolvedandthehighlevelsofactivityasevidenceofLLN’ssuccess.

7.3.2Process:Monitoringprogress

Oneofthebiggestconcernstoarisefromtheinterimevaluationwasthatofmonitoring

LLN’sachievementsinrelationtotheirtargets,andthisconcernresultedina

recommendationthatastandardisedmonitoringprocedurebeintroduced.Thereportwas

criticalofHEFCEforfailingtohaveaformalmechanisminplace,andofLLNsforthelackof

consistencyinreporting,withoftenpooruseofmeasurablebaselinedataandweak

financialreporting.Theevaluatorsnotedthatannualreportswereoftendescriptivein

nature,ratherthanevaluative,andneededtotakeamorecriticalapproach(CHERI2008

p.17).LikeLeahy(2013),thereportconcludedthatwithoutmorestructuredmonitoring

andevaluation,itwouldbedifficulttodemonstratevalueformoney.HEFCEtookactionas

aresultofthisrecommendation,andastandardisedmonitoringtemplatewasintroduced,

withLLNsbeingrequiredtoreportannually,coveringarangeoftopics:

• Financeandexpenditure• PAs• Curriculumdevelopmentandemployerengagement• Staffdevelopment• IAG• Definingandmeasuringthelearnerconstituency• FEandHEprogressionlinks• Qualitativecommentary

(takenfromHEFCE’s2008analysisofmonitoringreports,HEFCE2008)

221

DespitethenewmonitoringprocessandregularanalyticalreportsfromHEFCEin2005,

2008and2009,effectivemonitoringanddemonstrationofvalueformoneywasstillan

issueforthesummativeevaluation(SQW2010),andindeedthefirstrecommendationof

thereportsuggeststhat

‘HEFCEshouldensurethatanyfutureprogrammesofthisscaleincludeup-fronttimeforthedesignofconsistentandappropriatemonitoringmechanismwhichwillaidsubsequentevaluation’(SQW2010p.59).

SQWconcludedthat,bytheendofthefunding,monitoringqualitywasstillvariable,with

LLNsinterpretingreportingcategoriesdifferently,andtherewerefrequentgaps,especially

inrelationtofinancialdata.ThereportconcludedthatHEFCEshouldhavedeveloped

monitoringprocessesatthelaunchoftheinitiative,tobetterascertainvalueformoneyand

avoidduplicationofactivitiesbetweenLLNs.Theysuggestedthatitwouldhavebeen

beneficialiftheprogramme,ratherthanrelyonpeerobservation,hadengagedan

independentevaluationteamearlyon:

‘Monitoringsystemswerenotputinplacetorecordspendonaconsistentbasisacrossdifferenttypesofactivity,andalsobecauseofdifferentapproachesadoptedbyLLNstodeliveringandrecordingtheiractivities.IfclearerevaluationandmonitoringsystemshadbeenestablishedbyHEFCEfromtheoutsetoftheprogramme,theywouldhavehelpedtoensurethatLLNswerenotduplicatingactivity,andwouldalsohavebeenabletoinformdecisionsonfuturelevelsoffundingforthoseLLNswithlaterstartdates’(SQW2010p.29-30).

‘Expenditureisnotplannedandcontrolledandthatactivityandperformanceissovariablethatitcannotbemanagedorevaluatedwithinestablishedframeworks’(SQW2010p.3).

ManyLLNsthemselvesreportedfindingthemonitoringdifficult,inpartduetoalackof

systematisedmethodsforcollectingdata,particularlyinrelationtolearners.Manysaid

theyfounditdifficulttomonitorlearners,bothASNsandotherlearners,becausedata

gatheringwaslimitedininstitutionsandthroughUCAS,andtherewasnoformal

requirementforLLNstoidentifynonASNlearners.ThedifferingnatureofLLNs,andthe

factthatinstitutionscouldbelongtomorethanoneLLN,meantthatiswasn’talways

possibletoattributeindividualstudentstoanLLN,andsotherewasadangerof

duplication.HEFCErecognisedthedifficultiesintrackingstudentsinthe2009monitoring

report:

‘IdentificationofLLNstudentsisdifficult:whetherornotastudentisactiveonacourseprovidedbyaLLNisnotcurrentlycaptureddirectlybyeitherHESAorILRstudentrecords’(HEFCE2009/29p.6).

222

‘ThedistributionofstudentnumbersbyeachspecificLLNisunknown:althoughaparticularinstitutionmayreturnanumberofLLNstudents,weareunabletodeterminetheLLNinwhichthoseindividualstudentsareoperating.Itthereforefollowsthatinstitutions,andnumbersofstudents,appearundermorethanoneLLNinseveralinstances’(HEFCE2009/29p.10).

From2009-10,identificationofLLNlearnerswasbuiltintoHESAdatacollections.

Thesummativeevaluationconcludedoverallthatthelackofstructuredandappropriate

monitoringmechanismshamperedtheabilitytoreachanyconclusionsinrelationto

establishingvalueformoneyforaninitiativethathadabsorbedasignificantproportionof

theSDF:

‘Itisdifficult,therefore,todrawfirmconclusionsabouttheproportionofspendonparticularactivitiesandoverallvalueformoneyoftheinitiative’(SQW2010p.xi).

7.3.3Process:Sustainability

HEFCEoriginallyproposedthatfundingfortheLLNswouldbeforaperiodofthreeyears,

withtheprovisionofstart-upfunds,andsomerecurrentfundingthroughASNs,butthatin

thelongerterm,sustainabilitywouldbeachievedthroughfundingfromothersources.

TherewasaclearexpectationthattheinitialfundingwouldbesufficienttoallowLLNsto

developandembedtheiractivities,butthatpartnerswouldbesufficientlyengagedsuch

thatlongtermsustainabilitywasdesirableandachievable:

‘WewouldenvisagethatthemostambitiousLLNsmightbesupportedbysignificantresourcestocoverstart-upcostsandthenreceiveon-goingrecurrentfunding,drawnfromarangeofsources’(HEFCE12/2004p.3).

Inthelongerterm,HEFCEstatedthatwherenetworkswere‘meetingtheaimsand

objectivesoftheJointProgressionStrategy’,theremightbefurtherfunding,buttheywould

‘expectHEFCEfundingtobesupplementedbyinvestmentfromotherpartners’(HEFCE

12/2004p.6).Indeed,HEFCEsawthepartnershipworkingwithotheragenciesas

advantageousinidentifyingpotentialsourcesoffundingbeyondthedevelopmentperiod:

‘WeexpectLLNstoattractsubstantialfundsfromotherfunders.Networkswillthereforehavetodecidehowbesttointegratefunders’prioritiesintotheirmanagementarrangements’(HEFCE12/2004p.7).

Fromveryearlyonintheinitiative,establishedLLNswerealreadylookingatlongterm

financialsustainability,andwereengaginginactivitiesseekingtofindalternativesourcesof

funding,suchasmembershipsubscriptions,pump-primingfromleadinstitutionsand

furtherrecurrentHEFCEfundingintheformofadditionalASNs.Theinterimreportwas

223

optimisticthatmanyLLNswouldsurvivebeyondtheHEFCEfundingperiod,althoughit

acknowledgedthattheymaybefewerinnumberandwouldlikelyhavelowerlevelsof

funding.However,thereportalsoraisedconcerns,sharedbysomeLLNsandpartner

institutions,thattherewasalargenumberofemergingpoliciesandinitiativesconcerning

vocationallearningandtheskillsagendas,withlittleintegrationbetweenthem.Assuch,

manyoftheseinitiativesoverlappedtheworkofLLNs,andwerecompetingforbothfinite

fundingstreamsandtheattentionofsectorinstitutionsandotherstakeholders.

‘Someconcernshavebeenexpressed(byLLNstaff,partnerinstitutionsandotherstakeholders)aboutemerginggovernmentpoliciesandthelackofintegrationbetweeninitiativesestablishedinresponsetopolicyshifts…[andthis]hascausedsometensionsinfurther/highereducationpartnershipworking’(CHERI2008p.28).

ThenatureofthefundingalsoimpactedonhowLLNsapproachedtheiractivities.The

interimreportobservedthatLLN’sapproacheswerefrequentlydeterminedbyboththe

needtoreporttoHEFCEthatobjectiveshadbeenachievedwithinthreeyears,andthe

uncertaintyoffuturefunding.ItobservedthatLLNswerehavingtofocuson‘quickwins’

andso,atthatstage,muchoftheprogressinactivitieshadbeeninfavourofyoungcollege-

basedlearners,ratherthanwork-basedadultlearners,whoweremoredifficulttoreach

andwouldrequiregreaterinvestmentoftimetoachieveresults.Indeed,itwasnotedin7.2

thatlessthan10%offundingwasspentonemployer,workbased,engagement.Thereport

wascriticaloftheshorttermnatureofthefunding,rationalisingthattheinvestmentof

timetochangecultureswascriticaltoembeddingmuchoftheworkoftheLLNs,whichwas

notfeasibleinsuchashorttimescale:

‘ItisevidentfromourinterviewsthatattemptsarebeingmadetoembedLLNactivitiesintoinstitutionalpracticesandprocedures,butaclearmessageisthatthistakestime–embeddednessisasmuchaboutchangingheartsandmindsasitisaboutpracticeandprocedures’(CHERI2008p.27).

Thesummativeevaluationwasequallycriticaloftheshorttermnatureofthefunding,

suggestingthatadifferentapproachmighthaveledtolongertermsustainability:

‘Smallersumsofmoneyoveralongerperiodoftimewouldhaveenabledthedevelopmentofmoresustainableactivities…Overall,fundingwasgenerousandissuedoverashortperiod.Afive-yeartimescalewithacommensuratereductioninannualfundingmayhavebeenmoreappropriate,asitwouldhaveenabledalongerplanningperiodandhelpedtosetupsystemstoensuresustainabilityofactivity’(SQW2010p.xiii).

‘OurconsultationsrevealedawidespreaddisappointmentandfrustrationthatcentralfundingforLLNshadendedtoosoonintheprocess’(SQW2010p.53).

224

SQWidentifiedthatmanyLLNshadastrategyforcontinuinginsomeformorother,often

withasmallteamtocontinuetheworkoftheLLNand,bytheendoftheinitiative,more

than£2millioninalternativefundinghadbeensecured.However,itconcludedthatitwas

notrealistictoexpectthatallLLNworkwouldbefullyembedded,andnotedthatwithout

continuedfinancialsupport,therewouldbeaninevitablecontractionofactivities.

Woodfieldetal(2013),intheirresearchintotheeffectivenessandsustainabilityofLLN

progressionagreements,alsoconcludedthatitwouldbedifficultforLLNstomaintainthe

levelofactivitybeyondthefundingperiod:

‘NowthattheLLNfundingstreamisatanendthereisakeyquestionaboutwhetherthePAworkwillbesustainableinthenewpoliticalandfinancialclimate….ItremainstobeseenhowtheseoftenfragileassociationswillcontinuebeyondtheHEFCEfundingperiod’(Woodfieldetal2013,p.16).

SQWnotedtheconcernsofsomeLLNsthatcontinuationofactivitieswasreliantonthe

interestsandsupportofindividualstaff,andthattheessentialinstitutionalcommitment

wasnotalwaysevident.However,manyofthoseinterviewedhopedthatbyembedding

courses,PAsandcultureintoinstitutionalprocesses,thelegacyofLLNworkcouldcontinue:

‘Formanyconsultees,therewasasensethattheoverallcapacityofinstitutions(bothHEandFE)hadbeenraisedbytheLLNprogrammeanditwashopedthatthiswouldbesustainedwhetherparticularnetworkscontinuedtooperateornot’(SQW2010p.50).

LittleandWilliams(2009),writingintheyearfollowingthepublicationoftheinterim

report,consideredtheambiguityoftheLLNpolicy,andthewiderpolicyarena,ascontext

forquestioningwhetherLLNscouldmeetthepolicyobjectivesinthelongerterm.They

questionedwhethertakeupinthesectorwassufficientlystrongtoenablepartnerships

withdifferentvaluesandculturestoembedtheworkoftheLLNswithouttheinfrastructure

andfundingtocontinue,andwhetherLLNswouldbesignificantlyvaluedforsome

institutionswithchanginggovernmentprioritiesaffectinginstitutionalobjectives.Theyalso

concludedthat,giventhepolicyandfundingapproach,sustainabilitycouldonlybe

achievedthroughembeddingLLNactivitiesandpracticeswithininstitutionalprocesses:

‘themainissuesforthe‘legacy’oftheinitiativearetheextenttowhichprocessesdevelopedandputinplacewithinLLNstosupportthepolicyobjectivehavebecomeembeddedininstitutionalpracticesinasustainableway…Theseareissuesthattheinterimevaluationwasnotabletoanswerinasustainableway’(LittleandWilliams2009,p.13).

The2009FoundationForwardreportintoapprenticeshipsandtheroleofLLNsalso

acknowledgedthatcollaborationandembeddednessintoinstitutionalstrategiesand

processeswouldbekeytosustainability:

225

‘CollaborationisimportantandwillbecomeincreasinglyimportantasLLNsseekwaystoembedtheirmanysuccessfulstrategiesintoinstitutionsandprocesses,whichunlikesomeLLNs,arelikelytokeepfunctioningoverthenextfewyears’(fDf2009p.37).

Wardetal(2012)sharedthisviewandsummedupthedifficultiesfacedbyLLNsinfuture

sustainability:

‘TheembeddingoftheworkofLLNswithininstitutionsandregionswillproduceasignificantlegacy.Howeveritisalegacywhichwillneednurturingifitistohavelong-termimpact.Therearefinancialimplications,thereneedstobeasharedcommitmentfrompartnerinstitutionstowardsthisculturalandoperationalapproach.Thereisevidenceofthis,butareluctanceorinabilitytofundtheworkfromexistingbudgets.TheLLNshavestimulatedinnovationandforgedchange,itwouldbeextremelydisappointingifthevisionofSirHowardNewbywerelost’(Wardetal2012p.3).

7.3.4Process:Impactofotherpolicies

Oneofthemainissuesofconcern,highlightedinboththeinterimandsummative

evaluations,wasthatofshiftinggovernmentprioritiesandpoliciesinrelationtotheskills

agenda,anditsimpactontheobjectivesandactivitiesofLLNsandtheirpartner

organisations.DuringtheinitialperiodoftheLLNs,astheywerebecomingestablished,the

14-19qualificationsframeworkwasintroduced(2004),withqualificationsfromfour

differentroutes:apprenticeships,generalqualificationssuchas‘A’levels,diplomas,and

foundationdegrees.Inaddition,theLeitchReviewofSkillswaspublishedin2006,which

proposedasignificantchange,wherebyvocationaltrainingwouldbedemandledand,as

such,employerswouldneedtobeinvolvedinthetrainingprovision,aswellaschangesto

apprenticeshipsandtheintroductionofregionalhigherlevelskillspathfinderpilots(which

satoutsidetheLLNs).Assuch,thesepolicyshiftsimpactedontheworkoftheLLNsin

illuminatingandimprovingprogressionopportunitiesforvocationallearners.Theslow

responsebygovernmenttotheLeitchReview,andthecomplexrelationshipsbetweenthe

organisationsinvolvedindeliveringthegovernment’sskillsagenda,whichincludedLLNs,as

demonstratedinFigure12(p.207),ledLittleandWilliams(2009)toobservethat

‘AnumberofLLNsperceivedalackofclarityaboutbroadergovernmentpolicyandstrategyandthewholefitwithLLNpolicy….Insummarywecanseethat,althoughtheremaywellhavebeenaclearpolicyunderpinningtheLLNinitiative,asLLNsweregrantedfundsandsetaboutputtingtheirproposalsintoaction,otherimpactingpolicieswerealsobeingdeveloped.WhileitwasnottheintentionfortheseotherpoliciestonecessarilyweakentherationaleforLLNs,theywereneverthelessperceivedasshiftingand/orbroadening(andinsomeinstancesduplicating)theworkofLLNs’(LittleandWilliams2009p.6/7).

226

Thisconfusionandlackofclarityledtheinterimevaluationtorecommendthat

‘HEFCEshouldcontinuetodiscusswithotheragenciesandgovernmentdepartmentsthedesirabilityofcreatingconditionswherebypoliciescanbedevelopedinacoherentandinterlockingfashion,againstwhichparticularactivitiescanbeplannedandsustainedinamannertomeettheagreedgoal‘(CHERI2008p.34).

Thesummativeevaluationalsoobservedthattheskillsagendahadbeencontinually

shiftingthroughoutthedurationoftheLLNs,whichhadthentoadapttoachanging

environment.Thiswasparticularlyevidentinrelationtoagreaterfocusonemployer

engagement,withthedevelopmentofhigherapprenticeships.Thesummativeevaluation

creditstheexistenceoftheNationalForumasbeinginstrumentalinenablingLLNstoadapt

quicklytotheshiftingpolicyenvironmentandsharegoodpractice.However,thereport

alsocautionsthatbyadaptingtoshiftsinpolicy,thereachofLLNshadbecomesodiverse

thatthelegacyoftheirimpacthadbecomediluted,fragmentedandlessvisible.

‘Abroadthemeemergingfrommanyofourconsultationshasbeenthemulti-facetedcontributionsofLLNsbothtowideningparticipationandarangeofotherpolicyareas.Becausetheirreachissowide,thereisadangerthatthetrueimpactofLLNactivitiesmaynotbefullyapparenttosomenationalpolicymakersatpresent…whilsttheiradaptabilitytochangingcircumstancesmaybeseenasakeystrengthofmanynetworks,ithasalsoperhapscontributedtoasenseofdisconnectionbetweentheiractualachievementsandtheunderstandingofpolicymakers’(SQW2010p.48).

7.3.5Programme:Partnershipsandalliances

TheLLNsweredefinedbytheirpartnerships,withalliancesformedfromregionalFECsand

HEIsandengagementwithregionalemployers,andregionalandnationalorganisations.As

such,theirpartnershiparrangementsweremanyandcomplex,asdemonstratedbelow

fromextractsofthetextoftheinitialcircular:

‘NetworkswilltypicallylinkFECsandHEIsacrossacity,areaorregionthatpotentiallearnersidentifywith.Theseneednotconformtoexistingadministrativeboundariesaslongastheyhavean‘identity’…ThenetworkwillestablishcloseworkingrelationshipswithotherstakeholdersincludingAimhighernetworks…LLNswillhavetheinvolvementandcommitmentoftheLearningSkillsCouncil…withcoordinatedinputsfromlocalemployers,SectorSkillsCouncil,andotherregionalagencies’(HEFCE12/2004).

TheinterimreportparticularlyhighlightedthedifficultiesraisedbyLLNsinseekingto

establishpartnershipsbetweensuchadiversityoforganisationsinthetimeperiod,andthe

likelihoodofbeingabletomaintainthesepartnershipsoncethefundingceased:

‘InterviewswithLLNshavehighlightedthattheprocessesofbuildingupgenuinelyinclusiverelationshipswithinstitutionsandstakeholdersarecomplexandtimeconsuming–especiallyinlargepartnerships’(CHERI2008p23).

227

OneofthemostimportantpartnershiprelationshipsinLLNactivitywasthatbetweenthe

FECsandHEIs,andthiswasrecognisedasasuccess,onthewhole.TheLLNswereableto

bringtogetherFECsandHEIstodevelopsharedunderstandingofcoursesandtheneedsof

vocationallearners,andbythetimeofthesummativeevaluation,morethan39,000

institutionalstaffhadengagedwithLLNstaffdevelopmentactivitiesacrossthesectors.

HEFCE’s2008analysisoftheLLNmonitoringreportsnotedthatthemainoutputsfromthe

FE-HEactivitywereimprovedcommunicationbetweenthetwosectorsonprogression,

creditandcurriculumalignment.Theinterimevaluationparticularlynotedthattherewas

evidencethatmuchefforthadbeenputinto‘buildingrelationshipsandgainingtrustand

buy-intotheLLNmission’(CHERI2008p.24)and,equally,thesummativeevaluation

highlightsthescaleofcollaborationbetweenthetwosectors:

‘AconsistentthemeinourconsultationshasbeenthepositiveimpactofLLNsonthescaleandlevelofcollaborativeworkingbetweenHEIsandFECsacrossEngland’(SQW2010p.45).

Mayetal(2012)andWoodfieldetal(2013),intheirworkonthevalueoftheprogression

agreements,notedthatoneoftheconstructiveoutcomesofLLNswasimproved

partnershipworking,andthatthiswasmostrecognisableintheimpactofPAs,and

improvedsharedunderstandingsofcurriculaandvocationalstudents’needs.Theyconcur

withanextensiveresearchreport‘ASynopsisofLLNResearch2006-2010’byWiseand

Shaw(2011),whoconcludedthat

‘Unanticipatedbenefitsincludedworkingwithandestablishinggoodworkingrelationshipswithpeersacrossthecurriculumareasandsupportstaff’(WiseandShaw2011p.38).

Leahy(2013)alsoconcludedthatitwasthepartnershipsthemselvesthatwerekeytothe

successoftheLLNs,ratherthantheirsharedobjectives:

‘Ingeneralterms,thesuccessofthepartnershipappearstobebasedonthreeingredients:individualswhogetonwitheachother,whohavesufficientseniorityintheirorganizationstobeinfluentialinobtainingchange,andthepartnershipofferingtangiblebenefitstoeverypartner.Itwouldseemthattheseingredientsaremoreimportantthanthegoalofthepartnershipsitself’.(Leahy2013p.126).

Likewise,Wise(2010),inareviewofLLNswithafocusonhospitality,leisureandsports-

relatedactivities,arguesthatthesuccessofthepartnershipshadbeenkeytothesuccessof

LLNs:

‘PartnershipworkinghasbeenproductiveoverthelifetimeoftheLLNsandhasbeeninstrumentaltothesuccessofinitiativestoimproveandextendopportunitiesavailabletovocationallearners’(Wise2010p.21).

228

Intheir2008monitoringreport,HEFCEhadacknowledgedParry’s(2006)conclusionthat

theintroductionofvariablefeesmightintensifyanelementofcompetitionbetweenFECs

andHEIs,thatmightperverselyrestricttheopportunitiesforvocationallearnersto

progresstohighereducation.However,theinterimevaluationsuggestedthatinstitutional

commitmenttoasharedallegiancehadbeengreatlyenhancedbybuildingrelationshipsat

astrategiclevelininstitutions,andbythe‘hardcash’ofASNs,suchthatLLNswereableto

counteractthispotentialdifficulty:

‘Itisclearthatpartnershipshavebecomestrongerandmorematurebecauselevelsofunderstandinghaveincreased;hencetrusthasstartedtoreplace(actualandperceived)competition’(CHERI2008p.25).

Thisviewwasechoedinthesummativeevaluation,whichnotedthat:

‘LLNshaveprovidedamoreindependentorimpartialperspectivethathasbeenseentohavetheinterestsofthesub-region(ordiscipline)atheart.HEandFEpartnersinanumberofLLNspointedtohowinstitutionsthathadtraditionallybeenincompetitionwithoneanotherwerenowcollaboratingforthefirsttime’(SQW2011p.45).

However,despitethesepositiveassertions,itwasobservedthatengagementbypartners

variedconsiderablyacrossLLNs,andwasbetterwheretherehadbeenpre-existing

relationshipsbetweeninstitutions.Buy-infrompost-92institutionswasstronger,butsome

partners,particularlyresearch-intensiveHEIs,orinstitutionswheretheLLNcurriculafocus

didnotalignwithindividualinstitutions,werenotsopro-activeinthenetworks.SQW

observedthat

‘partnershipworkingwasmoredifficultinthoseLLNswhereinstitutionscompetedforstudents,wheretherewasnohistoryofworkingtogether,whereinstitutionshadjoinedtheLLNinordertoaccessprojectfundingratherthanfromanoverarchingcommitmenttofurtheringitsobjectivesandwhereASNswerenotavailable’(SQW2010pF-1).

Whilstthevalueofpartnershipswasrecognisedduringthedevelopmentperiod,some

expresseddoubtthattheywouldbestrongenoughtocontinueonceHEFCEprojectfunding

ranout,asWoodfieldetal(2013)observed:

‘theendoftheHEFCEfundingstreamssupportingprogression,andrecentHEpolicydevelopments,placesthelong-termsustainabilityofinter-institutionalpartnershipsandnetworksatrisk’(Woodfieldetal2013p.6).

Muchofthedebatearoundthecontinuationofpartnershipsbeyondtheendofthefunding

periodfocussedontherobustnessofthosepartnershipstocontinueintheirexistingform,

butalsotheextenttowhichotherpolicies,inparticularthecomplexskillsagendaand

furtherincreasesinfees(Parry2006),wouldimpactonsharedviewsofpartnershipagainst

229

increasedcompetitionbetweenFECsandHEIsbeyond2010.Indeed,thisconcernwas

raisedinthe2009reportfortheInnovation,Universities,ScienceandSkillsSelect

Committee,‘Re-skillingforrecovery:afterLeitch,implementingskillsandtrainingpolicies’,

whichstatedthat

‘Wearealsoconcernedbytheevidencewereceivedaboutthedevelopmentofcompetition,ratherthancollaboration,whichmaywellstemfromalackofclarityovertherolesofHEandFEandtheirplaceintheagenda’.

Mayetal(2012)alsoobservedthatwhilstHEIswerewillingtoholdpartnershipagreements

whenASNs,andthereforehardcash,wereonoffer,thewithdrawalofASNscouldresultin

HEIsbeingunwillingtosacrificetheir‘real’studentsforvocationallearners.

EngagementwithemployerswasakeyobjectiveoftheLLNs,buttheinterimevaluation

describedsuchengagementas‘patchy’(CHERI2008p.5),andnotedthatmanyLLNshad

not,atthatstage,madeemployerengagementapriority.Themostactivityinemployer

engagementwasinrelationtocurriculumdevelopment,particularlyinemploymentareas

suchashealthcare,wheretherewasaclearpublicservicedemand,andinLLNswherean

employerchampionhadbeenrecruitedtoworkwithlocalbusinesses.Thesummative

evaluationalsoobservedthatemployerengagementwasbetterinsomeLLNsthanin

others,andengagementwasoftenmoresuccessfulwhenallianceshadbeenformedbefore

theestablishmentoftheLLN,andtherehadbeensufficienttimetonurturepartnerships.In

HEFCE’s2009analysisoftheLLNmonitoringreports,theytooobservedthatmore

establishedrelationshipsproducedmorecollaborativeworking.However,despitethe

patchynatureofemployerengagement,SQWnotedthat78.6%ofcurriculum

developmentsincluded‘someformofemployerengagementinthedesignordelivery’

(SQW2010p.34).Itconcludedthat

‘LLNshaveexperiencedvaryingdegreesofsuccessinengagingandinvolvingemployersintheirwork.SeveralconsulteesfromarangeofLLNscitedhowtheywereabletoengagetrainingprovidersandemployergroupswithrelativeease,whileothernetworkshadfounditmoredifficult.Insomesectorswhereemployerswerehardtoengage,networkshadhadconsiderablesuccessinworkingwithSSCsinstead’(SQW2010p.46).

DuringthetimeoftheLLNs,employerengagementhadbecomeanincreasinglyimportant

strandofpolicyworkbygovernmentaspartoftheskillsagendabut,converselythe

economicdownturnin2008hadledtoemployersbeingmorecautiousincommittingto

newventures,asnotedinHEFCE’s2009analysisofthemonitoringreports.

230

ItisnoteworthythatwiththeexceptionofSSCs,littlementionwasmadeineitherthe

interimorthesummativeevaluationsofengagementwithotherstakeholders,suchasthe

LSCorAimhigher,otherthantonotethatsomeLLNshadnotmadeprogressinareaswhere

theyfeltthattherewasthepotentialforduplicatingotherinitiativesinotherorganisations

(CHERI2008p.23).Equally,littlementionismadeoftheNationalForum,despitethe

summativeevaluationobservingthatithadbeeninstrumentalinassistingwithhighlevels

ofcrossLLNworking,andinparticularinencouragingpartnershipsandcommissioningjoint

research(p.45).Indeed,thereportgoessofarastorecommendtoHEFCEthatsucha

forumcouldbeconsideredasbestpracticeforotherpolicyinitiatives:

‘HEFCEshouldensurethatanyfutureprogrammesofthisscalehavesomefundingforsharingbestpractices,perhapsthroughtheestablishmentofaforumonthemodelfortheNationalForum’(SQW2010p.59).

7.3.6Programme:Curriculumdevelopment

IntheinitialHEFCEcircular,thedevelopmentofcurriculawasexpectedtobeoneofthekey

activitiesfortheLLNs:

‘Agreatdealwillbeaccomplishedwithintheexistingcurriculum…However,theymayalsoidentifygapsinprovisionandwill,whereappropriate,developnewprogrammestofacilitateprogression.Thesemightbe‘bridgingcourses’toenablelearnerstoacquiretheskillstoprogressalongachosenpathway,ormoresubstantialprogrammesthatconstituteprogressionopportunitiesintheirownright’(HEFCE12/2004p.8).

TheinterimreporthighlightedthatLLNshadmadeprogressindevelopingcurricula,

particularlyinmappingexistingprovisionandencouraginginstitutionstoputinplacenew

andmodifiedprogrammes,suchasFDsandcoursestargetedatyoungercollegebased

learners.Thedevelopmentofnewprogrammestendedtobethosetofacilitate

progression,suchasbridgingcourses,andthemostcommoncurriculumareasidentified

werein‘healthandsocialcare,creativeandculturalindustries,finance,business,enterprise

andmanagement,engineeringandtechnology’(CHERI2008).CHERIconcludesthatthis,

‘inthefullnessoftime,couldmakeasignificantdifferencetothecoherence,clarityandcertaintyofprogressionopportunitiesforvocationallearners’(CHERI2008p.4).

Thesummativeevaluationfoundthat1,200newandmodifiedcourseshadbeen

establishedasaresultofLLNsby2008-09and,bytheendofthefunding,HEFCEconcluded

thattherehadbeenaround2,000curriculumdevelopmentsormodifications(HEFCE

2009/29).NewprogrammesincludedHE-levelprovision(ofwhichFDswerethemost

commonat44%),bridgingcoursesandwork-basedlearningopportunities.Ofthemodified

231

courses,BTECswerethemostcommon(36%).Therewasconsiderablevariabilitybetween

LLNs,withsomeseeingnewdevelopmentsaskeytofillinggapsinprovision,whilstothers

preferredmodificationofexistingcoursestoenableprogression.ThehighlevelofFD

developmentbyLLNsissignificant,sincethequalificationwasoftenperceivedbyLLNs

themselvesasanagentofchangeinfacilitatingprogression.InLeahy’sresearchofLLNsin

theSouthWest,oneintervieweeconcludedthat

‘FoundationDegreeshavebeenagreaterspurforcurriculumchangethanIbelievedtheywouldbe…IhaveseenchangeIneverthoughtIwouldsee…awayfromtraditionalformsofteachingtoembracingnew…waysofdoingthings(RespondentB)’(Leahy2013p.110).

77.5%ofnewcoursesand41%ofmodifiedcoursesinvolvedsomeemployerengagement,

andthereweremanyexamplesofengagementatthedesignstage,butfewerinrelationto

deliveryorassessment.SomeLLNshadalsodevelopedsignificantamountsofe-learningat

thespecificrequestofemployers.Thisisperhapssurprising,giventheconcernsraisedin

bothevaluationsthatemployerengagementwaspatchyacrossthenetworks.Itis

noteworthythattheinvolvementoftheSSCswasmuchlower,withonly36%ofnew

programmeshavingsomeinvolvement(SQW2010p.20).

Although‘16,155FTEASNswereprovidedtoLLNmemberinstitutions’overall(SQW2010

p.13),in2009HEFCEreducedthenumberavailable,andconsequentlysomeanticipated

newprogrammeswerenotdevelopedasplanned.TheWise(2010)reviewofLLNactivityin

hospitalityandleisure-relatedsubjectsnotedthatsomeprogrammessetupspecificallyfor

ASNswerenotrecruitedtoasaresultofthischangeinHEFCEpolicy.

7.3.7Programme:Progressionagreements

Intheoriginalcircular,therewasastrongemphasisfromHEFCEonthedevelopmentofPAs

toeasethetransitionfromvocationalqualificationstohighereducation:‘attheheartof

everynetworkwillbearrangementstofacilitateprogression’(HEFCE12/2004p.5).Assuch,

thedevelopmentofPAsbetweeninstitutionswasamajorstreamofworkforLLNs,

accountingfor16.6%ofexpenditureandresultinginmorethan8,500agreements.

Bythetimeoftheinterimevaluationtherewere1,697PAsinplace,buttheyhadprovedto

beamostcontentiousareaofworkfortheLLNs,sincetherehadbeeninitialconfusion

abouthowtheymightbedefined,andLLNswereslowtodevelopagreementsinfavourof

lessdisputatiousareasofwork.Theformofagreementsvaried,fromsimplebi-lateral

232

agreementsbetweensendingandreceivingcourses,tomorecomplex‘inprinciple’

agreementsbetweeninstitutions,withoneLLNhaving52PAswith15,000different

pathways.OneofthemaindifficultieswithPAswasreviewingandestablishingchangesto

admissionspoliciesandprocedureswithininstitutionsand,asBettsandBurrell(2011)also

observedintheirresearchandaccountoftheprogressionstory,thebureaucracyinvolved

inthedevelopmentofPAswasachallengetoLLNs,partners,andparticularlyemployers:

‘ourinterviewshaveshownthattheprogressionagreementaspectofLLNs’corebusinesshasprobablybeenthemostdivisiveamongstpartnerinstitutionsandisalsothemostdiversebetweenLLNs.Divisivenessamongstpartnersseemstostemfromfearsthatinitiativesintheareaoftheprogressionagreementscouldundermineinstitutional/departmentalautonomyintermsofadmissionspoliciesandpractices’(CHERI2008p.20-21).

Althoughthenegotiationofagreementswasausefulwaytodeveloprelationshipswith

institutions,asreportedbybothBettsandBurrell(2011)andSQWinthesummative

evaluation(2010),inpracticetheyweredifficulttoimplementbetweenthetwosectors,

withalackofcommonunderstandingorpracticebetweenLLNsandstaffininstitutions.

Consequently,theinterimevaluationquestioned

‘howfarLLNsaremeetingtheoriginalpurposeofdevelopingprogressionroutesintoaswellasthroughhighereducationforarangeofvocationalconstituencies’(CHERIp.19).

Despitethemisgivingsintheinterimevaluation,by2010thesummativereportfoundthat

19,500learnerswereexpectedtobenefitfromPAroutes,anditwasexpectedthata

further55,000wouldbenefitovertime.However,therewasstillconcernoverthequality

ofsomeagreements,andthatmanywerebi-lateralandthereforelimitedstudents’

options,ratherthanmulti-lateralandallowinglearnersgreaterchoice.SQWperceivedthat,

formanyagreements,thebureaucracywasgivenahigherprioritythanstudents’needs

and,inmostcases,PAswereeithersimplyaguaranteeofaninterview,oranagreementon

thenumberofplacesoncourses.Thesummativeevaluationalsonotedthattheextentto

whichagreementshadbeenembeddedwithininstitutionswasvariable:

‘AlthoughitwasgenerallyagreedthatPAshadopenedupopportunitiesforlearners,therewasconsiderableconcernamongstmanyconsulteesthatthequalityandscopeofsomePAswasnotasgoodasitcouldorshouldhavebeen’(SQW2010p.42).

Forthesummativeevaluation,thelackofconsistencyinboththedevelopmentand

embeddingofagreements,andvariablequality,hadledtolittleprogressindeveloping

network-wideprogressionandmobility,whichHEFCEhadenvisagedasakeyobjectivefor

theLLNs.Assuch,thisalsoimpactedonLLNs’abilitytodevelopCreditAccumulation

233

TransferAgreements(CATs),whichhadequallybeenakeyobjective.SQWconcludedthat

‘onthewhole,perceptionofPAshasbeenmixed’SQW2010(p.43).

OneareaofcontestationamongstothercommentatorswasthatofthevalueofPAs.Both

Watson(2005)andLayer(2005)arguedthatagreementsshouldhaveensuredparityof

progressionwith‘A’levels,butthiswasnotpossiblewithoutnationalagreementona

frameworkforprogression.AsLayerpointsout,thiswasoneofthebiggestchallengesfor

LLNs:

‘Withouttheprogressionframeworkbeinginplacetheywillnotsucceedinbeingregardedashavingparityofesteemamongstlearners’(Layer2005p.201).

Woodfieldetal(2013)reflectedthatthedifferentculturesandcontextsofpartnerships

betweeninstitutionsmeantthatagreementswereinherentlyopentovariability,bothin

theirqualityandimplementation.ForMayetal(2012),mostLLNs’ownevaluationsdidnot

quantifytheimpactofPAsonthenumberofstudentswhomighthavebenefittedonce

theygainedadmissiontoHE,andhence,withoutevidence,theissueofparitywouldalways

becontested:

‘Thereportednumberofparticipantsandagreementssigned–facilitatedbytheLLNs–clearlyindicatesthepotentialforincreasedprogressiontoHEofstudentsstudyingforvocationalqualificationsandhenceadegreeofsocialmobility.However,thereisadearthofevidenceoftheadditionalimpactofPAstoprogressionpatternsandtheperformanceoftheparticipantswhilstatuniversity’(Mayetal2012p.9).

7.3.8Programme:Information,AdviceandGuidance

TheprovisionofIAGwasnotanexplicitobjectiveoftheLLNs,althoughitwasimplied

throughouttheinitialcircular,throughitsexpectationsthatLLNswouldmakeprogression

opportunitiescleartostudents.MostLLNshadevaluatedexistingIAGprovision,identified

gapsandfilledthemthrougharangeofmechanisms,includingmarketingmaterialsand

websites,aswellasindividualandgroupIAGconsultationsforbothpotentiallearnersand

staffininstitutions,representing14%ofLLNexpenditure.Suchwasthescaleofactivity

that,bythesummativeevaluation,morethan65,000individualshadreceivedone-to-one

orgroupsupport,200,000paperbasedresourceshadbeenproducedandtherewere

nearly1,000,000websitehits.TherewassignificantLLNactivityinprovidingguidanceand

trainingtostaffininstitutionsregardingvocationalqualificationsandengagement,with

2,400developmenteventsandengagementwithexternalorganisations,suchasAimhigher,

inthedevelopmentofpaperandwebbasedmaterials(SQW2010).

234

Theinterimevaluationfoundthat‘Thesedevelopmentsareinnovativeandareclearlyfilling

agapwherelittleornoIAGexistedpreviouslyforyoungpeopletakingvocationallevel3

coursesandadultsseekingIAGabouthighereducationstudy’(CHERIp.20).However,there

wassomeconcernthatLLNshadparticularlyfocussedontheprovisionofIAGbecauseit

couldbeseenasa‘quickwin’.ThesummativeevaluationechoedtheCHERIreportin

acknowledgingthevalueofIAG,notingthehighlevelofengagementbetweenLLNsand

institutionsintheprovisionofIAG,andconcludingthatthiswasaverypositive

developmentinachievingHEFCEobjectives:

‘ForsomeLLNs,workwithFEtutorsonIAGwasquicklyestablishedasbeingoneofthemostimportantactivitiesforbreakingdownbarrierstoprogression’(SQW2010p.37).

Wise’s(2010)reviewofLLNactivityinhospitality,leisure,sportandrelatedsubjectsalso

concludedthattheengagementoftheLLNsinprovidingIAGtostaffininstitutionshad

beencriticalinbuildingtheunderstandingsandrelationshipsbetweeninstitutions:‘thisled

toon-goingactivitiesbetweenFEandHEandagreaterunderstandingofeachother’s

requirements’(Wise2010p.6).

However,despitesuchhighlevelsofengagementwithIAG,theinterimevaluation

expressedsomeconcernthateachLLNwasdevelopingitsownstrandofIAGactivity,and

thereforetherewasalackofnationalcoherenceinajoinedupservicetolearners.This

concernwasechoedinWiseandShaw’s‘SynopsisofLLNResearch2006-2010’reporttothe

NationalForum,inwhichtheyrecommended‘asinglecomprehensiveandeasyaccess

sourceofinformation’(Wise&Shaw2011p.11).Theinterimevaluationalsoobservedthe

potentialforduplicationofeffortwithotherorganisationsprovidinginformationto

learners,suchasAimhigher,andHEFCE’sownanalysisofthe2008LLNmonitoringreports

warnsLLNstoensurethattheywere‘carefulnottore-inventstructuresthatalreadyexist’

(HEFCE2008p.10).Thereseemstobenoevidencetosuggestthatthedevelopmentofthe

NationalForumaidedamorecollectiveapproachtoIAG,althoughitwaspraisedforits

disseminationofgoodpractice(SQW2010).

ConcernswerealsoraisedintheinterimevaluationconcerningtheextenttowhichIAGwas

accessedbylearnersthemselvesoremployers,ratherthanstaffininstitutionswherethere

wasmuchevidenceofengagement:

‘ThereissomeevidenceofstaffinpartnerinstitutionsandstaffinIAG-specificagenciesmakinggooduseoftheinformationandresultantmapsthathavebeenproduced,butmuchlessabout(potential)learner(andparental)andemployeruse’(CHERI2008p.20).

235

SQW,inthesummativeevaluation,alsoquestionedtheextenttowhichIAGprovisionhad

beenaccessedbylearners,withitslearnersurveysuggestingthatlearnerstendedtolook

toFECsandHEIsaskeysourcesofIAG,whilstLLNswerekeysourcesofinformationforstaff

inpartnerinstitutions.SQWalsoreflectedthatwhilstLLNshadprovidedIAGsupportto

bothpotentiallearnersandstaffininstitutions,thetendencyhadbeentoprovide

information,ratherthantailoredguidance.

TheissueofsustainabilityinrelationtoIAGhadalsobeenaconcern,withCHERI(2008)

notingfrominterviewsthatstaffinLLNsandinstitutionswereconcernedthattheprovision

ofIAGwouldbedifficulttosustainoncethedevelopmentfundingwasconcluded,

especiallygiventhehighcostofmaintainingweb-basedinformation.

7.3.9Programme:Learnersandsocialmobility

Theinterimevaluationconcludedthattheywerenot,atthatstage,abletodrawany

conclusionsinrelationtotheimpactoftheLLNsonlearners,partlybecauseofthe

difficultiesthathadarisenincollectingandmonitoringlearnerdata.However,bythe

summativeevaluation,therewassufficientdataavailabletodrawsomeconclusions,

althoughitisnoteworthythattheresponseratetoSQWs’learnersurveywassosmallthat

theywereunabletodrawanyconclusionsontheviewsoflearnersthemselves.

ThedataavailablerevealsthattheprofileofLLNlearnerschangedlittlebetween2006-7

and2007-8,with63-64%beingfemale,83%beingwhite,39-40%being19oryoungerand

only12%fromPOLARquintile1.ThisbringsintoquestiontheextenttowhichLLNswere

abletoinfluencewideningparticipationaswellasincreasingit,andthiswillbediscussedin

duecourse.Thedataforhowthismighthavechangedby2008-09isnotavailable,anditis

noteworthythatthesummativeevaluationdidnotaddresstheprofileoflearners,choosing

insteadtofocusonthetypeofqualificationsonentryasthekeylearnercharacteristicto

demonstratethevalueofLLNs.SQWspecificallyrequestedthisdatafromHEFCE,andit

revealsthattherewasasignificantlyhighproportionofLLNflaggedlearnerswhowere

enteringwith‘A’levelqualifications,oralreadyheldHElevelqualifications,andthusabout

athirdofLLNstudentswereoutsidethetargetgroup:

‘AdiminishingbutstilllargeproportionoftheLLN-flaggedASNsenteredHEwithacademicqualifications,representing48percentofflaggedASNsin2006-07and36percentin2008-09’(SQW2010p.24).

236

However,thedataalsorevealedthatthenumberofLLNlearnersenteringHEwith

vocationalqualificationsrosefrom38%in2006-07to46%in2008-08.TheanalysisledSQW

toconcludethat

‘theLLNprogrammemadeasmallbutimprovingcontributiontotheincreasingnumbersoflearnersonvocationalprogrammesenteringHEinthecontextofagrowingstudentpopulation’(SQW2010p.25).

Likewise,Mayetal(2012)observedthatonlyafewcohortsofvocationallearnerswould

ultimatelyhavebenefitedfromtheLLNs,andtheyquestiontheextenttowhichthefocus

on‘quickwins’,identifiedintheinterimevaluation,playedoutbytheendoftheinitiative.

Assuch,itisquestionabletheextenttowhichLLNswereabletomeettheiroverriding

objectivetowidenparticipationandincreasesocialmobility:

‘EvidencefromindividualLLNssuggeststhattheyembeddedsocialmobilityintheiroverarchingaimsandthattheyassociatethiswiththeprogressionofvocationallearners.However,whenLLNobjectivesareconsideredoverthethreecoreactivitiesofLLNs,itseemsthattheaspirationforsocialmobilitybecomeswatereddowninfavourofmoretechnicalandrealisableobjectives,resultinginlimitedopportunitiesforevaluatingimpactofprogressionagreementsonsocialmobility’(Mayetal2012p.12).

Thislackofevidenceforwidespreadbenefittolearnersledtomanycommentators

questioningtheextenttowhichLLNshad,inreality,contributedtosocialmobility.For

some,thecontinued‘eliteness’oftheresearchintensiveinstitutions,andtheirlimited

engagementwithLLNs(only10%ofLLNlearnerswereinresearchintensiveinstitutions),

wasacriticalbarriertogenuinesocialmobility.Mayelat(2012)andWoodfieldetal(2013)

questionedwhetherthelackofprogressionopportunitiesintoprofessionalsubjectssuchas

law,sciencesandmedicinemeantthattheactualopportunitiesforvocationalstudentsto

accesstheresearchintensiveinstitutionsandprofessionswerelimited:

‘AlthoughtheLLNshavecontributedtoprogressioninvocationalsubjectsinHE,theydonotappeartohavestimulatedlearners’widerintellectualhorizons.ThisindicatesacapontheLLN’ssocialmobilityaspirationsattheoutset,withanemphasisonsocialreproductionbytakingaconservativestanceonthevocationallearners’background,talents,studyneedsandfuturecareers’(Woodfieldetal2013p.18).

Theconcentrationofeffortonyounger,ratherthanwork-based,learnerswasalsopicked

uponintheOpenUniversity’sresponsetotheSelectCommitteeonEducationandSkills’

‘Leitchreportreview’inApril2008,whichsaid,

‘AlthoughsomeLLNsarebeginningtoaddresstheneedsofadultlearners,themainfocusoftheinitiativehasbeen15-18year-oldvocationallearners.Thereisanurgentneedtoconnectgovernment'sskillsagendawithitsengagementwithageingworkforce

237

asevidencedbythefirstandsecondreportsoftheTurnerCommission’(OpenUniversity2008).

Leahy(2013)concludedthatpolicyinitiativeslikeLLNsweresimplynotsufficientlyrobust

toweakentheelitenessofthesystem:

‘LLNsareanexampleofafielddisruptionwhichprovedtooweaktochallengetheprevailinghierarchy’(Leahy2013p.101).

Forothers,thebarrierstosocialmobilitywerebothculturalandstructural,withWatson

(2005)arguingforastrongerapproachinaligningtertiaryandhighereducation,whilst

acknowledgingthattheprevailinghierarchicalandculturallycompetitivesystemofHE

snobberyisunlikelytochange.Assuch,hequestionsthevalueofLLNsinthisregard:

‘Wouldamoreunifiedapproachtoatertiarysystemmakeapositivedifference,andistheLLNthebestapproach?’(Watson2005p.192).

LikeLeahy,WatsonquestionedwhetherLLNsweresufficienttochallengethesystem,andit

isnoteworthythat,asdescribedin7.2,thisapproachwasrejectedbyHEFCEasbeingtoo

controversial.LittleandWilliams(2009)alsoobservedthattheEnglishestablishment’s

regardfor‘status’challengedLLNs’abilitytosuccessfullyovercomebarrierstosocial

mobility,andquestionedwhetherinstitutionsmight‘reverttotype’oncefundingceased

(LittleandWilliams2009,p.13).

Conversely,somecommentatorswereoftheopinionthatLLNshadenabledgreater

opportunitiesforvocationallearners:

‘Theirachievementswerefar-reachingandsuccessfulinchangingthelandscapeandopportunitiesforvocationallearners…TheLLNswerepioneersofthisworkandassuchitisimportantthattherichnessanddiversityoftheirworkisnotlost’(Wardetal2012p.1,4).

‘Theseinitiatives…haveundoubtedlyreducedthebarriersforvocationallearnersandstimulatedprogressionintoHE’(Woodfieldetal2013p.11).

AlthoughMayetal(2012)werescepticalthatLLNshadachievedtheiroverallobjective,

theyacknowledgedthatLLNfocusonprogressionagreementswerekeyinpromotingsocial

mobility:

‘Oneofthestrengthsofprogressionagreementsistheirpotentialtopromotetheupwardsocialmobilityofstudentsfromlowincomebackgrounds’(Mayetal2012p.4).

JillWard(Chair,LifelongLearningNationalDirectors'Forum),writingintheTHESin2010,

equallyarguedthat

238

‘TheLifelongLearningNetworkshavemanagedtohelpvocationallearnerstoprogressinanenvironmentofequityandparityofesteem.Indeed,theyareheavilyinvolvedinanumberofkeynationaldevelopments-includingframeworksforhigher-levelapprenticeships,ensuringthat14-to19-year-olddiplomalearnersarefairlytreated,andofferinginnovativeguidancetothoseoutsidelearningwhowanttoreturn’(Ward2010).

ItwasnotjustthoseinthesectorthatperceivedthatLLNshadaddedvaluetowidening

participationandsocialmobility;theirapparentsuccesswasalsoobservedatgovernment

level.InresponsetoaquestionintheHouseofCommonson28thOctober2008,fromMr

DavidWillettstoMrDavidLammy,thethenSecretaryofStateforInnovation,Universities

andSkills,onplansforthefutureofLLNs,Lammyrespondedthat

‘TheGovernmentandHEFCEareinnodoubtaboutthevalueofLLNs.TheirfocusonprogressionandwideningopportunitymeansthattheycanmakeanimportantcontributiontoanumberoftheGovernment’sstrategicobjectivesincludinglifelonglearning,credittransfer,articulationarrangementsbetweenhighereducationprogrammesandthequalificationsandcreditframework,employerengagementandworkplacelearning,andprogressionfromthe14-19diplomas’(Hansard2008).

7.4Conclusion

TheLLNinitiativewasintroducedatatimewhentheskillsagenda,employabilityand

vocationalprogressionwerehotpolicytopicsacrossanumberofpublicsectors,andthe

policyenvironmentwasbothcomplexandsubjecttoconstantchange.TheLLNswerea

uniquepolicyinitiativefortheirtime,intheirrequirementtoengagewithbothFEandHE

sectors,employersandotherexternalorganisations,andberesponsivetothechanging

policyenvironment,whichaddedfurtherdimensionsofcomplexitytotheirwork.The

approachtakenbyHEFCEwasbottom-up,sinceengagementbythesectorwasjudgedto

besubjecttolessriskoffailure,andHEFCEimposedfewexpectationsintermsof

structures,targetsorfundingrequirementsonthenetworks.However,thislooseapproach

drewsomecriticism,sincealackofrobustmonitoringandreportingintheearlystages

meantthatitwasproblematictoevidencevalueformoney.

EvidenceofLLNactivitysuggestedthattheywerehighlyactiveincurriculumdevelopment,

PAsandIAG,andFE-HEpartnershipswerestrengthenedasaresultoftheactivities.Despite

ahighlevelofemployerengagementincurriculumdevelopment,inconsistentengagement

withemployersandotheragencies,suchasSSC,acrossthenetworks,wascriticised.The

summativeevaluationconcludedthattherehadbeenanincreaseinthenumberof

vocationallearnersprogressingtoHEduringthefundingperiod,butonlytwo-thirdsofLLN

239

learnerswereinthetargetgroupandthus,overall,onlyasmallnumberhadbenefitedfrom

theinitiative.WhilstcommentatorsinthesectorandgovernmentpraisedLLNsforthe

extentoftheirwork,somequestionedtheextenttowhichtheinitiativehadmadea

significantimpactinwideningparticipationandcontributingtosocialmobility.Therewas

alsosomedoubtthat,beyondthefundingperiod,LLNsweresufficientlyrobusttobeable

toensuretheirsustainability,orbeinapositiontoinstigateculturechangeinrelationto

parityforvocationalqualifications,againsttheprevailingelitenessoftheHEsystem.

Thenextchapter,Chapter8,interpretsallthreepolicyepisodeagainstMcConnell’s

frameworktoassesssuccessorfailureintermsofthe‘process,programmeandpolitical

dimensions’(McConnell2010).Thechapterthenseekstobringtogetherthecasestudiesto

identifycommonalitiesanddifferencesbetweenthemandtoidentifyopportunitiesfor

policylearning.

240

Chapter8:Analysisanddiscussionofthecasestudiesagainst

thetheoreticalframework

8.1Introduction

Thischapterdrawsonthethickdescriptionsofthethreepolicyepisodesconsideredin

Chapters5,6and7toaddressthemainresearchquestion,‘Howcanpolicysuccessand

failurebeunderstood,fromthestudyofthreepolicyepisodesinthecontextof

contemporaryhighereducationinEngland,byapplyingcriteriafromanexistingframework

forsuccessandfailure?’Foreachcasestudy,inSections8.2(p.242),8.3(p.254)and8.4

(p.268)ofthischapter,thedescriptionsareusedasevidencetopositionthepolicyepisode

onthespectrumoftheanalyticalframework‘threedimensionsofpolicysuccessandfailure’

(McConnell2010).Eachdimension-policyasprocess,policyasprogrammeandpolicyas

politics-isconsideredinturn,usingtheframeworkbyMcConnell(2010)setoutinChapter

2,Table3(p.47).Ineachdimension,theverticalaxisoftheframeworkarticulatesthe

criteriathatMcConnelladvisesneedtobeconsidered:

‘Evaluatorsneedatypologicalframeworktohelpgroupdifferenttypesofoutcomeswithbroadlysharedcharacteristics‘(McConnell2011p.71).

Thehorizontalaxisarticulatesthe‘broadpositionsonacontinuum’(McConnell2010p.60)

viz:‘success,durablesuccess,conflictedsuccess,precarioussuccessandfailure’,with

characteristicsinrelationtoeachcriteriondevisedbyMcConnell(2010)toaidthe

researcherinmakinganuancedjudgementaboutthesuccessorfailureofaspectsofthe

policy.

Inordertomakemyjudgementssystematic,rigorousandgroundedinMcConnell’scriteria,

Ihaveusedthe10-pointframeworkadvisedbyMcConnell(Chapter3,Table5,p.60),and

myownresultantcoding,asaguidetoassessingsuccessorfailure.Trustworthinessinmy

interpretationagainsttheframeworkhasbeenachievedthroughtheapplicationofLincoln

andGuba’s(1995)evaluativecriteriatoestablish‘trustworthiness’inthestudy:‘credibility,

transferability,dependabilityandconfirmability’inthethematicevaluationoftheprimary

andsecondarytexts,asdescribedinChapter3,Section3.6.2(p.75).Foreachcasestudy,I

takeeachofthethreedimensionsofpolicyprocess,programmeandpoliticsinturn,witha

separatetableforeach.Then,Itakeeachofthedimension’scriteriaontheverticalaxisand

proceedtojustifymypositioninginrelationtothespectrumofsuccessandfailureonthe

241

horizontalaxis.Thisisarticulatedwithashortsummaryineachcriterionandasymbol,

whichisdifferentlycolouredforeachcasestudy,thus:

e-University

CETLs LLNs

Figure13–COLOURKEYTOCODINGOFCASESTUDIESAGAINSTTHEFRAMEWORK

Thejustificationforeachcriterionismorefullyarticulatedundersub-headingsfollowing

eachdimensiontable.

Then,inSection8.5(p.280),Iaddressthefirstsupplementaryresearchquestion,‘Doesthe

evaluationofparticularpolicyepisodesrevealanycommoncharacteristicsanddistinctions

inrelationtopolicythatcouldusefullybeconsideredinrelationtofuturepolicysettingin

highereducation?’TheworkofMay(1992)onpolicylearningisstronglyalignedto

McConnell’sdimensionsofpolicysuccess,whereheconsidersthe‘viabilityofpolicy

instruments,implementationdesignsandpoliticallearning’(p.332).Hearticulates

distinctionsintheformsoflearningandthesourcesofevidencethatmightbeconsidered

foreachapproachinordertoconceptualiseandoperationalisehisapproach.Iconsiderthat

May’sapproachtoexaminingpolicylearningisusefulinthecontextofthisstudy,sinceitis

socloselyalignedtotheframeworkandassiststheresearcherinidentifyinglearninginthe

instrumental,societalandpoliticaldimensions.IwillusehisdistinctionssetoutinChapter

2,Table4(p.53),toinformthissectionofwork.

InSection8.6(p.294),Iusetheinterpretationsfromthisanalysis,andtheunderstandings

ofthelocusofHEpolicy-makingasarticulatedinChapter4,Table8(p.123),toaddressthe

secondsupplementaryresearchquestion,‘WhatcanananalysisofHEFCEpolicy-making

revealaboutthelocusofpowerinpolicy-makinginhighereducation?’

Finally,inSection8.7(p.297),Iofferacritiqueofthemethodologicalframework,inorderto

addressthefinalsupplementaryresearchquestion,‘Towhatextentisthechosen

methodologicalframeworksufficientorinadequateinanalysingpolicysuccessandfailurein

thecontextofcontemporarytheoreticalapproachestopolicyanalysis?’withobservations

onitsappropriatenessandlimitationsinthecontextofhighereducation,andrelatingback

tothediscussioninChapter2oncontemporaryunderstandingsofpolicyandpolicy

analysis.

c

242

8.2Thee-University–mappingthepolicyepisodetotheframework

8.2.1Policyprocess

Table16–POLICYASPROCESS(E-UNIVERSITY)

Policyasprocess:thespectrumfromsuccesstofailureProcesssuccess Durablesuccess Conflictedsuccess Precarious

successProcessfailure

Preservinggovernmentpolicygoalsandinstruments

Policygoalsandinstrumentspreserved,despiteminorrefinements.

Preferredgoalsandinstrumentsprovingcontroversialanddifficulttopreserve.Somerevisionsneeded.

Government’sgoalsandpreferredpolicyinstrumentshanginthebalance.

TerminationofGovernmentpolicygoalsandinstruments.

Thepolicygoals,increasedglobalmarketshareine-learning,socialinclusionandareductionontherelianceonpublicfundingfailedtobeachievedbythepolicyinstrument,thee-university.HEFCEhadtoreviseitspolicyinstrumentfore-learningasaresultofthefailureofUKeU.Conferringlegitimacyonapolicy.

Somechallengestolegitimacy,butoflittleornolastingeffect.

Difficultandcontestedissuessurroundingpolicylegitimacy,withsomepotentialtotaintthepolicyinthelongterm.

Seriousandpotentiallyfataldamagetopolicylegitimacy.

Irrecoverabledamagetopolicylegitimacy.

Therewereminorchallengestopolicylegitimacyinitially,particularlyduringtheconsultationphase,buttheseweredealtwiththroughreassurancestothesectorandthedevelopmentofabusinessplanbyPwCwhichdemonstratedthecommercialviabilityoftheinitiative.However,asUKeUfailedtofulfilthetermsofthegrantandwerealmostsolelyreliantonpublicfunds,HEFCEitselfquestionedthelegitimacy,ultimatelyclosingUKeU.Buildingasustainablecoalition

Coalitionintact,despitesomesignsofdisagreement.

Coalitionintact,althoughstrongsignsofdisagreementandsomepotentialforfragmentation.

Coalitiononthebrinkoffallingapart.

Inabilitytoproduceasustain-ablecoalition.

TherewassupportfromwithintheHEsectorinitially,withasteeringgroupledfromwithinthesectorandallbut4HEIssigninguptoownershipofUkeU.TheinvolvementofPwCinthedevelopmentofthebusinessmodelandtheirassertionthattheywere‘confidentofitssuccess’showsconfidencefromtheprivatesector;howeveracoalitionwiththeprivatesectorfailedtomaterialiseandthedifferingculturesbetweenthepublicandprivatesectorswasneverfullyaddressed.Towardstheendofthepolicyperiod,thecoalitionwasnotsustainableasHEIswithdrewfromUKeUandtherewaslittleprivatesectorengagement.Symbolisinginnovationandinfluence.

Notground-breakingininnovationorinfluence,butstillsymbolicallyprogressive.

Neitherinnovativenoroutmoded,leading(attimes)tocriticismsfrombothprogressivesandconservatives.

Appearanceofbeingoutoftouchwithviablealter-nativesolutions.

Symbolisingoutmoded,insularorbizarreideas,seeminglyoblivioustohowotherjurisdictionsaredealingwithsimilarissues.

Thepolicywasnotinnovativeglobally,withmanyotherexamples,someofwhichshowedsignsofsuccesssuchasSNUandGlobalUniversityAlliance.ThecomplexcorporatestructureledtoUKeUfailingtoobservealternativesolutions.However,thiswasanexperimentalpublic-privateapproachthatwasnovelforHEFCE.

243

8.2.1.1.Preservinggovernmentpolicygoalsandinstruments

Theconceptionofthee-UniversitywasinlinewithNewLabour’s‘ThirdWay’(Giddens

1998)objectivetoenhancetheUK’scompetitivenessintheglobaleconomy,widen

participationandsocialinclusion,andreducerelianceonstatefundingforhighereducation

(Giddens1998).Italsosatwellwithinotherpolicyagendaswithregardstoeducational

technologyandcommunicationinschools,wheretherehadbeensomeevidenceof

success.Despitethispolicygoal,somecommentators,suchasRumble(2001),questioned

whethere-learningwasrelevanttoglobaleducationalneeds,orsucceedsinmeetingthe

socialinclusionagenda,sincetherewasatendencyfore-learningapproachestobe

commerciallyled,passingthecostontostudentswhocouldmostaffordtopay.

Asapolicyinstrument,thee-University,inMcConnell’sterms,failedtomeetthepolicy

goal.MuchofitsfailurestemmedfromaweakorganisationalstructurebetweenHEFCE,

HoldCoandUKeU,andalackofengagementwiththeprivatesectorwhich,despitesome

proposedinitialinterest,failedtocommittotheproject.UKeUmovedawayfromthe

originalPwCbusinessplananddidlittletoincreasetheUK’smarketshareoftheglobale-

learningmarket,withlimitedinternationalengagement,asevidencedbythelackof

studentregistrations.UKeUalsofailedtoaddressthesocialinclusionagenda,byfocussing

onstudentswhocouldaffordtopayandignoringthedomesticmarket.Theexpectation

thattheinitiativewouldreducerelianceonstatefundingthroughapublic-private

partnership,whichwouldbeself-financinginthemediumterm,failedtocometofruition,

withHEFCEstillbeingthemainfunderbytheendoftheinitiative.Aninabilitytoresolve

issuesarisingfromthedifferentculturesofthepublic-privatesectors,andparticularly

imposingcommercialprotocolsonapublicsectorinitiative,contributedtothefailureto

meettheself-financinggoal.FollowingthefailureofUKeU,HEFCEsoughttoreframeits

policyinstrumentinrespectofe-learning,devisingastrategythatfocussedmoreon

blendedlearningapproachesandinvestedtheremaininge-Universityfundingat

institutionallevel.

8.2.1.2.Conferringlegitimacyonapolicy

Thepolicycouldinitiallyberegardedaslegitimate,sincetherewasevidencefromother

countries,suchastheUSAandSweden,thatane-universityapproachcouldbesuccessful.

SirBrianFender,thenCEOofHEFCE,hadinstigateditsinclusioninthespendingreview,and

soithadsupportofboththesector’sprimaryagencyandgovernment.Thee-University

244

wasunderwrittenbyabusinessmodeldevelopedbyPwC,oneoftheworld’slargestand

respectedmultinationalprofessionalservicesnetworks,whoexpressed‘confidence’inits

success(HEFCE00/44ap.3),givingitevidence-basedcommerciallegitimacyandlittleroom

forchallengefromopponents.Attheconsultationstagewiththesector,aSteeringGroup

wasestablished,chairedbyProfessorRonCooke,thenVice-ChancellorofYorkUniversity,

legitimisingtheprojectwithintheHEsector.

Thereweresomeminorchallenges,particularlyfromtheHEsectorattheconsultation

stage,withregardstotheinclusionofallHEinstitutions,andtheseconcernswere

addressedbyHEFCE.However,thisremainedacontestedissue,withsomeinstitutions,

suchasLSE,questioningtheeffectontheirqualitybrandiftheprojectwasinclusiveofall

institutions.HEIswerealsoconcernedthatthestrongcommercialaspectsoftheinitiative

wouldentailafocusonelementsofthemarketthatcouldaffordtopay,ratherthan

addressingakeyobjectiveofsocialinclusion,butthisconcernwasneveraddressedby

UKeU.OnceUKeUhadrevisedthebusinessplan,suchthatstudentnumbertargetswere

reducedandthepublic-privatepartnershipwasallbutabandoned,andwithUKeU

remainingheavilyreliantonpublicfunding,HEFCEitselfbegantoquestionthelegitimacyof

theinitiative,whichultimatelyledtheagencytotakethedecisiontoclosedownUKeU.

8.2.1.3Buildingasustainablecoalition

Initiallytherewasevidencethatthee-Universitycouldbuildasustainablecoalition.Allbut

fourHEIssigneduptobemembersofHoldCo,althoughasJohnBeaumont,ChiefExecutive

ofUKeU,pointedout,the£1feedidnotdemonstratefullcommitmentfrominstitutions.It

isworthyofnotethatalthoughHEIsappearedtogivetheirfullsupporttotheinitiativeat

theconsultationstage,inJuly2003,whenHEFCEconsultedthesectoronanewe-learning

strategy(HEFCE2003/35),thevastmajorityofresponsessupportedanapproachthatwas

blended,notfullydistancelearning,whichmightsuggestthattherewasnotinfactsuch

strongsupportforthee-Universityapproach.

Intheevent,institutionalcommitmentfailedtomaterialise,withonly25coursesbeing

providedon-line(SC2005).AkeyfindingoftheresearchbyConoleetal(2006,2006a,

2006b),andconcurredwithbyJohnBeaumontofUKeU,suggeststhattheHEsectoritself

wasnotfullyengagedinacoalitionatinstitutionallevel,withmanyinstanceswherethe

workindevelopingprogrammeswaslefttoenthusiasticindividuals,withlittleengagement

fromseniormanagement.Theyconcludedthattheinternalprocesseswithininstitutions,

245

andhowdecisionsweremade,wereoftenfactorsindicatingalackofengagementwith

UKeU.

TheconfidenceexpressedbyPwCintheinitiativefromacommercialperspectivemeant

thattherewasinitiallysomeproposedinterestfromtheprivatesector,withbothPearson

EducationandtheBBCpurportedlybeinginterestedinpartnershipwiththee-University.

However,theinvolvementoftheprivatesectorfailedtomaterialise,withonlySun

MicrosystemsLtdpartneringwithUKeU.TheSelectCommittee(SC2005)foundthatSun

Microsystemswasnotinfactatruepartner,buthadmoreofasupplierrelationshipwith

UKeUinsupportingthetechnicalplatform.Oneofthekeyfindings,bothbytheSelect

CommitteeandtheresearchbyConoleetal(2006,2006a,2006b)wasthefailureofthe

initiativetosuccessfullyformacoalitionbetweenthepublicandprivatesectorsand

addresstheculturaldifferencesbetweenthem,resultingincontestedissuessuchasthe

paymentofbonusestothecompanydirectors,whichSirAnthonyCleaverandJohn

Beaumontclaimedwereinlinewithcommercialpractices,butdrewcriticismfromthe

SelectCommittee.

By2004,thecoalitionwasshowingsignificantsignsofdisagreement,withtensionbetween

HEFCE,HoldCoandUKeU,alackofengagementfromtheprivatesectorandsomeHEIs

withdrawingfromHoldCo.

8.2.1.4Symbolisinginnovationandinfluence

Thepolicywasnotinnovativeinglobalterms,withmanyotherexamplesofe-learning

beingavailable,particularlyintheUSA,whichhadexamplesofstronglybrandedventures

suchasthatatPhoenixUniversity.Itwasthesee-universityinitiativesintheUnitedStates

thatwereperceivedasamajorthreattotheUK’sinternationalmarket,andassucha

drivingforcebehindtheinitiative,althoughasHedberg(2006)observed,theUSAalso

experiencedsimilarfailures.TheSwedishNetUniversity,whichisstillinexistence,isagood

exampleofsuccess,butwithanentirelydifferentapproach,beingwhollypubliclyfunded,

withrecurrentfundingforinstitutionsreceiveduponthesuccessfulcompletionofa

student’sstudies.CoursedofferedbySNUaretaughtentirelyinitsnativeSwedishandhave

astrongfocusonthehomemarket.RogerWaterhouse,thenViceChancellorofthe

UniversityofDerby,writingintheTHESin2000,observedthatwhilstthee-Universitywas

justgettingofftheground,aGlobalUniversityAllianceof‘tenuniversitiesfromCanada,the

UnitedStates,Australia,NewZealandandtheUKhadalreadymanagedtosetupinHong

246

Kongwithmorethan100courses,andstudentsalreadyenrolled’(Waterhouse2000).

Significantly,hereportedsomecharacteristicsofwhichHEFCEandUKeUmight,in

retrospect,havetakenheed:

‘Theyshareafocusonhighervocationaleducationandhavepooledtheirdistance-learningexperience.TheyhavedonetheirmarketanalysisofSoutheastAsiaandtargetedprofessionalsinmid-career.And,crucially,theyhaveenlistedacommercialpartnerwithaprovendeliveryplatform’.(Waterhouse2000).

Whilsttheinitiativewasnotinnovativeontheglobalstage,inEnglishHEpolicytermsthis

wasadistinctiveandexperimentalapproachforHEFCE,informingacoalitionofpublicand

privatestakeholders.Thecrucialfailingrelatedtothecomplexcorporatestructure,which

meantthatUKeUwasabletodivertfromthePwCbusinessplanandnotpayheedtoother

successfule-universityventures.Forexample,SNUhadbeensuccessfulinpartduetoits

teachinginnativeSwedishandconcentratingonthehomemarket,contrarytoUKeU’s

perception,basedsolelyontheresultofconversationsintheFarEastthat,globally,

studentswantedallcoursesinEnglish.DrKimHowells(MinisterforHigherEducationin

2005),inhisevidencetotheSelectCommittee,concedesthatmorecouldhavebeendone

toobservewhatwasgoingoninternationally.

8.2.2Policyprogramme

Table17–POLICYASPROGRAMME(E-UNIVERSITY)

Policyasprogramme:thespectrumfromsuccesstofailureProgrammesuccess

Durablesuccess Conflictedsuccess Precarioussuccess

Programmefailure

Implementationinlinewithobjectives.

Implementationobjectivesbroadlyachieved,despiteminorrefinementsordeviations.

Mixedresults,withsomesuccesses,butaccompaniedbyunexpectedandcontroversialproblems.

Minorprogresstowardsimplementationasintended,butbesetbychronicfailures,provinghighlycontroversialandverydifficulttodefend.

Implementationfailstobeexecutedinlinewithobjectives.

UKeUfailedtomeetanyoftheobjectivesintermsofbeinglearner-driven,responsivetochange,developingexcellenceinthetechnologicalplatform,securingeconomiesofscaleorbeingfinanciallyself-sustaining.Thepubic-privateorganisationalstructuremeantthatUKeUwereabletomoveawayfromtheobjectivesandbusinessplanwithoutaccountabilityforuseofpublicfunds.

247

Policyasprogramme:thespectrumfromsuccesstofailureProgrammesuccess

Durablesuccess Conflictedsuccess Precarioussuccess

Programmefailure

Achievementofdesiredoutcomes.

Outcomesbroadlyachieved,despitesomeshortfalls.

Somesuccesses,butthepartialachievementofintendedoutcomesiscounterbalancedbyunwantedresults,generatingsubstantialcontroversy.

Somesmalloutcomesachievedasintended,butoverwhelmedbycontroversialandhighprofileinstancesoffailuretoproduceresults.

Failuretoachievedesiredoutcomes.

UKeUfailedtoproducethedesiredoutcomesintermsofincreasingtheUKsshareoftheglobale-learningmarketormeetingdomesticsocialinclusion.Inmeetingthemilestonessetoutinthebusinessplan,thenumberofprogrammeson-linewaslowerthanexpectedandtargetstudentnumbersfailedtobeachieved,duetoasupply-ledratherthandemand-ledapproach.Asustainedpublic-privatepartnershipfailedtomaterialisethroughlackofengagementbythecommercialsector.Thee-ChinaprojectwasaminorsuccesswhichcontinuedafterthedemiseofUKeU.Meetspolicydomaincriteria.

Notquitethedesiredoutcome,butsufficientlyclosetolaystrongclaimtofulfillingthecriteria.

Partialachievementofgoals,butaccompaniedbyfailurestoachieve,withpossibilityofhigh-profileexamples,eg.on-goingwastagewhenthecriterionisefficiency.

Afewminorsuccesses,butplaguedbyunwantedmediaattention;eg.examplesofwastageandpossiblescandalwhenthecriterionisefficiency.

Clearinabilitytomeetthecriteria.

UKeUfailedtomeetwider‘ThirdWay’objectives:raisingattainment,socialinclusionandwideningparticipation,orenhancingtheUK’spositionwithintheglobaleconomy.UKeUfailedinotherpolicydomains:public-privatesectorcollaborationaswellasvalueformoneyintheuseofpublicfunds.Creatingbenefitforatargetgroup.

Afewshortfallsandpossiblysomeanomalouscases,butintendedtargetgroupbroadlybenefits.

Partialbenefitsrealised,butnotaswidespreadordeepasintended.

Smallbenefitsareaccompaniedandovershadowedbydamagetotheverygroupthatwasmeanttobenefit.Alsolikelytogeneratehighprofilestoriesofunfairnessandsuffering.

Damagingaparticulartargetgroup.

Thefailuretomeetstudentregistrationtargetsissufficientevidencethattheprojectfailedtocreatesignificantbenefitforthetargetgroups.Thereweresomeminorsuccessesforindividualstudentsregistered,althoughthesewerelatertransferredtotherelevantinstitutions.Thelackoffocusonthedomesticmarketignoredsocialinclusionandpotentialstudents.Therewerenohighprofilestoriesofstudentsbeingdisadvantaged.

248

8.2.2.1Implementationinlinewithobjectives

Intheimplementationoftheprogramme,thecorporateorganisationalstructurewas

centraltothefailureofthee-University,asitallowedUKeUtodivertfromtheoriginal

objectivesandbusinessplanwithoutsufficientaccountabilitytoHEFCEfortheuseofpublic

funds.ThiswasfurthercompoundedbythedistanceputbetweenHEFCEandUKeU,with

HoldCoactingasanintermediary,asHEFCEcouldnot,bylaw,givepublicfundstoaprivate

company.

Tore-iterate,theobjectiveswerethatthee-Universitywouldbe:

• Learnerdriven(demandled)• Responsivetochange(tomeetchangesindemand)• Excellentfitforpurpose(inprogrammesbeingoffered)• Excellentinuseofnewtechnologytoenablelearningexperiencetobedelivered• Abletosecureeconomiesofscale• Financiallyself-sustainingovertime

Evidencepointstofailureinthefirstobjectivetobelearnerdriven,sincetheSelect

CommitteecriticisedUKeUfortakingasupplyledapproachinlookingtoHEIstoprovide

programmes,ratherthanfocussingondemandfromstudentsbyundertakingsufficient

marketresearch.Itfailedtoshiftthedecision-making‘towardstheconsumerandaway

fromtheprovider’asrequiredunderthebusinessmodel(HEFCE00/44ap.9).Infailingto

meetthisobjective,UKeUwasunabletomeetthesecondobjectivetoberesponsiveto

changesindemand,sincetheventurewasentirelysupplydriven.Thebusinessmodel

statedthattheinterpretationofexcellenceshouldbe‘thatthee-Ucan,andshould,be

relativelyinclusiveforUKHEIsintermsofthetypesandsourcesofofferingwhichitmakes

available’(HEFCE00/44ap.9).Theevidencepointstofailureinthisregard,asby2004only

25courses,fromasmallnumberofinstitutions,wereavailableon-line.

UKeUwasheavilycriticisedfortheamountoftimeandfunding(£14.5m)thathadbeen

focussedonthedevelopmentofanewtechnologicalplatform,particularlyascheaperoff-

the-shelftechnologieswereavailable.However,giventheshortamountoftimethatthe

UKeUhadtorun,itisnotpossibletodeterminehowsuccessfultheplatformmighthave

beeninthelongerterm.Indeed,therearemixedviewsonwhethertheplugwaspulledon

theinitiativetooearly,withseveralwitnessestotheSelectCommittee,suchasDrKim

HowellsandSirAnthonyCleaver(ChairmanofUKeU),observingthatthiswasthecase,

claimingthattheinitiativewasnotgiventimetosucceed.Bacsich(2004,2010)also

supportsthisview.

249

Economiesofscalewerenotachievedasthenumberofstudentsregisteredwas

significantlybelowtheintendedtargets,withlessthan1,000registrationsagainstan

originaltargetof5,638by2003,andasignificantamountofmoneyhadalreadybeenspent.

Thebusinessmodelexpectedthee-Universityinitiativetobeself-sustainingwithin5-6

years,requiringittobeprofitmaximising.

‘Mostaspectsofthee-U’soperationswillbeprofitmaximising;itsmanagementstyleshouldcertainlybeperformancedriven,anditwillneedtomakesurplusessothatitisnotwhollydependentuponexternalfundingforre-investment’(HEFCE00/44ap.10).

Almost£50mofpublicmoneywasinvestedinUKeU,andbythetimeitreviseditsbusiness

planin2003,therewouldbeafurther6yearsbeforeanyprivatesectorinvestmentwas

planned.Consequently,additionalpublicfundingwouldberequired.Withsofewstudent

registrations,andrevisionstostudentnumbertargets,therewasnoconfidenceintheself-

sustainingobjectivebeingachieved.

8.2.2.2Achievementofdesiredoutcomes

TheoriginalPwCbusinessplanforecast110,000studentswithin6years,growingto

250,000by2012-13,inordertoincreasetheUK’smarketshare,bothinon-linelearning

andinmeetingthePrimeMinister’stargetofincreasedmarketshareofoverseasstudents

(from17%to25%)by2005.UKeUfailedtoachievethesetargets,andindeedin2003

significantlyreducedthetargetinitsrevisedbusinessplantojust45,000studentsby2009-

10.Thereweresomesmallelementsofsuccess,suchasthee-Chinaproject,whichwas

retainedafterthedemiseofUKeU,butthesewerelimitedandstillreliantonpublic

funding.ItcannotbeknownwhetherUKeUcouldhaveeverreachedthesetargets.

AlthoughtheSelectCommitteedidnotfocusonUKeU’sfailuretoincreasesocialinclusion

inthedomesticmarketinitsmainfindings,itwasneverthelessoneofthekeyaimssetout

inthebusinessmodel.Itisnoteworthythatthebusinessmodelitselfrecognisedthe

tensionbetweenthedevelopmentofaprofitmaximisingpublic-privateventureanda

policythatpromotessocialinclusion:‘widerintentionstoincreasesocialinclusionandto

disseminategoodpracticedonotsitcomfortablywithafocusonprofitmaximisation’

(HEFCE00/44).BasedontheevidencethatUKeUfocusedonthefeepayingoverseas

market,thereislittleevidencethatthiswideraspirationwasachievable.

250

8.2.2.3Meetingpolicydomaincriteria

Theprogrammefailedtomeetthewiderpolicydomaincriteriaintermsofraising

standardsthroughraisingattainment,socialinclusionandwideningparticipation,or

enhancingtheUK’spositionwithintheglobaleconomy.Otherdimensionsofpolicydomain

thatcameintoplaywereencouragingpublic-privatesectorcollaboration,withanemphasis

onmeetingprivatesectormanagementandaccountingstandardbenchmarks,and

demonstratingvalueformoneyintheuseofpublicfunds.Inallcases,UKeUfailedtomeet

thesepolicydomaincriteria,asevidencedbythelackofstudentregistrations(seepage

160),failuretosecureprivatepartners,and£50mofredundantpublicfundedexpenditure

onUKeU.

8.2.2.4Creatingbenefitforthetargetgroup

Theoriginalproposalforthee-Universityhadenvisagedthetargetgroupsto

‘beincareers-associatedareasassomepostgraduateand/orpost-experienceareas,andparticularlyvariousformsofcontinuingprofessionaldevelopment,andwithafocusonbothcorporateandgovernmentconsumers’(HEFCE00/44ap.15).

UKeUfailedtoengagewiththesetargetgroups,particularlyinthedomesticmarket,

concentratingtheireffortontheoverseasmarketasthemainsourceofincomefrom

students.However,theresultinglackofstudentnumbersisevidenceofthelackof

engagementwithevenoverseasstudentsasatargetgroup.Indeed,theUK’smarketshare

ofinternationalstudentshadonlyrisenbylessthan2%since2000[10.7%in2000,12.6%in

2010](source:PatternsandTrendsinUKHigherEducation,UniversitiesUK,2014).A

numberofreasonsforthiswereestablishedbytheSelectCommittee:theconfused

brandingforstudentswithalackoffocusonthequalityofindividualinstitutions,alackof

marketresearchbyUKeU,andthefocusonprovisioninEnglish.Thedomesticmarket,and

raisingaspirationsthroughsocialinclusion,werewhollyignored.

IntermsofthebenefittoHEIs,althoughallbut4UKuniversitiessigneduptoUKeU,inthe

endonly25courseswereputon-linebyasmallnumberofHEIs.TheoriginalcirculartoHEIs

statedanumberofanticipatedbenefitstoHEIsinbeinginvolvedwiththee-University:

increasedincomefromstudentnumbersfromoverseasandhomeCPDmarkets,reduced

costsfordevelopmentofon-linecourses,scopetouseexistingprogrammestoincrease

studentnumbers,involvementinthedevelopmentoftechnologies,andenhancementof

251

theirreputationthroughinvolvementwithaflagshipproject(HEFCE00/04).However,in

theevent,noneofthesebenefitscametopass.

8.2.3Policypolitics

Table18–POLICYASPOLITICS(E-UNIVERSITY)

Policyaspolitics:thespectrumfromsuccesstofailurePoliticalsuccess Durablesuccess Conflictedsuccess Precarious

successPoliticalfailure

Enhancingelectoralprospectsorreputationofgovernmentsandleaders.

Favourabletoelectoralprospectsandreputationenhancement,withonlyminorsetbacks.

Policyobtainsstrongsupportandopposition,workingbothforandagainstelectoralprospectsandreputationinfairlyequalmeasure.

Despitesmallsignsofbenefit,policyprovesanoverallelectoralandreputationalliability.

Damagingtotheelectoralprospectsorreputationofgovernmentsandleaders,withnoredeemingpoliticalbenefit.

Noapparenteffectonelectoralprospects.Controllingpolicyagendaandeasingthebusinessofgoverning.

Despitesomedifficultiesinagendamanagement,capacitytogovernisunperturbed.

Policyprovingcontroversialandtakingupmorepoliticaltimeandresourcesinitsdefencethanwasexpected.

Clearsignsthattheagendaandbusinessofgovernmentisstrugglingtosuppressapoliticallydifficultissue.

Policyfailingsaresohighandpersistentontheagenda,thatitisdamaginggovernment’scapacitytogovern.

SomeadversepubicityandsomequestionsraisedintheHouseofCommonsinresponsetotheSelectCommitteereport.However,HEFCEmanagedtocontaintheepisodeanddivertremainingfundstoarevisedstrategyfore-learning.Sustainingthebroadvaluesanddirectionofgovernment.

Somerefinementsneededbutbroadtrajectoryunimpeded.

Directionofgovernmentverybroadlyinlinewithgoals,butclearsignsthatthepolicyhaspromptedsomerethinking,espec-iallybehindthescenes.

Entiretrajectoryofgovernmentisbeingcompromised.

Irrevocablydamagingtothebroadvaluesanddirectionofgovernment.

HEFCErevieweditsstrategyine-learningandputtheremaining£12mintoindividualinstitutions.Areviewin2008ensuredthatthepolicyagendaremaindedintacttoalargeextent,althoughwithmajormodificationstotheoriginalprorgammeandawithdrawalfromthepublic-privatesectorconsortiummodel.

8.2.3.1Enhancingelectoralprospectsorreputationofgovernmentsandleaders

ThereisnoevidencetosuggestthatthefailureofUKeUhadeitheradamagingoran

enhancingeffectontheelectoralprospectsofthethenLabourgovernment.Indeed,since

252

theinitiativehaditsgenesiswithinHEFCE,itwouldhavebeenfeasibleforgovernmentto

deflectanydamagingeffects.However,thee-Universitywasthemostpolitically‘hot’ofthe

chosencasestudies,anddidattractsomeadversemediaattention,althoughsurprisingly

little,withafewmentionsintheTHESandasmallnumberintheGuardianandObserver

newspapers,mostlyfocussingonthelevelofpublicfundingthathadbeenputintoUKeU.

Thee-UniversitywastheonlyoneofthecasestudiestoresultinaSelectCommittee

inquiry,althoughthereisnoevidencetosuggestthatthisdamagedthereputationof

governmentoritsleaders.

8.2.3.2Controllingpolicyagendaandeasingthebusinessofgoverning

DespitetheSelectCommitteeinquiryandsomemediaattention,fewquestionsappearto

havebeenaskedintheHouseofCommons,withmostquestionsfocusingonrequestsfor

progressreportsand,assuch,thecapacitytogovernwasunaffected,despitesome

difficultieswithmanagingtheagenda.HEFCE’sabruptclosureofUKeUpointstoa

concentratedattemptatagendamanagementanddamagelimitation.Therewas,however,

arequestforadebateon3rdMarch2005,thedaythattheSelectCommitteereportwas

published,whereOliverHealdMPasked

‘Whencanwedebatetoday'sdamningEducationandSkillsSelectCommitteereportontheso-calledUKe-university?Itshowsthatonly900studentshavetakenpartinthis£50millionproject—awhopping£40,000perstudent.Italsofindsthattherewasinadequateresearch,askewedfocusandafailuretoworksuccessfullywiththeprivatesector.SowhatdidMinistersdo?Theypaidbonusestotheseniorexecutives.ShouldnotMinistershavedonetheirhomeworkbeforethrowingvastsumsofpublicmoneyataprojectthatnobodywanted?IsthatnotyetanotherpieceofGovernmentincompetencetorankwiththemillenniumdome,theChildSupportAgencycomputerandthetaxcreditsadministrativefiasco?ThetwocomputerprojectsthatIhavementionedweretheworkofEDS,towhichtheGovernmenthavethisweekgivena£4billioncontracttosupplydefencecomputers.Canwehaveadebateontherewardsoffailure,sothatwecanseekseriousassurancesaboutthatmassivecontract?’(Hansard03.03.2005).

8.2.3.3Sustainingthebroadvaluesanddirectionofgovernment

DespitesomelimitedadversepublicityandtheSelectCommitteeinquiry,thegovernment

wasabletocontainUKeUasashort-termepisodeoffailure.Theremainingfunding(£12m)

wasusedbyHEFCEtore-focusitse-learningstrategyandtosupportindividuale-learning

programmesinHEIs,wheretheemphasiswasonablendedlearningapproachandonethat

focussedonthepublicgoodratherthancommercialobjectives.HEFCEre-wroteitse-

learningstrategyin2005andGlenaffricLtdundertookanindependentreviewofthe

strategyin2008.Therevisedframeworkfocuseson

253

‘thebroaderopportunitiesofferedthroughtheuseoftechnology,ratherthanconcentratingonissuessuchasdistancelearning…ourprimaryfocusontheenhancementoflearningandteachingdrivesourapproach’(p.8HEFCEMarch2009/12).

Thus,HEFCEwasabletocontrolthepolicyagendaandrefocusitse-learningpolicy.

8.2.4Summary

ThepolicyprocesscanbejudgedtohavebeenafailureinMcConnell’sterms.Althoughthe

initiativeseemedatfirsttobelegitimate,withadesiretoincreasetheUK’sglobalshareof

e-learninginthefaceofcompetitionfromtheUSA,andstrongsupportfromtheprivate

sectorthroughtheconfidenceexpressedbyPwC,theweaknessoftheorganisational

structureallbutdelegitimisetheproject.DespitesupportfromallbutfourHEIsthrough

theirinitialcommitmenttoHoldCo,andinitialexpressionsofinterestfromtheprivate

sector,thecoalitionwasinfactweak,withlittleinstitutionalcommitmentandalackof

engagementbytheprivatesector.Theaimforthee-Universitytoaddresssocialinclusion

failedtocometofruition,asUKeUwasnottargetingthehomemarket,butfocussing

insteadonoverseasmarkets,thusfailingtomeetNewLabour’s’ThirdWay’agenda.UKeU,

throughinternalshortcomings,didnotlooktoothersuccessfule-learninginitiatives

globallytolegitimiseitsapproach.

Theprogrammecanbeviewedafailure,withaweakorganisationalstructurewhichwas

notonlyexperimentalforHEFCEintermsofpublicandprivatepartnership,butallowed

UKeUtomoveawayfromtheoriginalobjectives.Failureinanumberofareas,asidentified

bytheSelectCommitteereport,ledtothee-Universityfailingtomeetitsobjectivesorthe

desiredoutcomes.Therewerefewbenefitsforthetargetgroups,withlittledemand-led

studentengagement,eitherfromanincreaseintheUK’sshareoftheoverseasmarket,or

inmeetingthesocialinclusionagenda.

Intermsofpolitics,despitesomelimitedadversepublicityandquestionsintheHouseof

Commons,particularlyinrelationtotheperceivedwasteofpublicmoneythatwas

articulatedintheSelectCommitteereport(SC2005),governmentwasabletocontainthe

episodeandrealiseadurable,althoughconflicted,successwithachangeinHEFCEstrategy

andmovementoffundstosupportarevisede-learningpolicy.

Inaddressingthemainresearchquestion,byapplyingtheMcConnellframeworkcriteriato

thepolicyepisode,thee-Universitycanbejudgedtobeaprocessandprogrammefailure,

254

butpolitically,thegovernmentwasabletocontaintheepisode,withachangeine-learning

policyandre-directionoffunding.

8.3CentresforExcellenceinTeachingandLearning–mappingthepolicyepisodetotheframework

8.3.1Policyprocess

Table19–POLICYASPROCESS(CETLs)

Policyasprocess:thespectrumfromsuccesstofailureProcesssuccess Durablesuccess Conflictedsuccess Precarious

successProcessfailure

Preservinggovernmentpolicygoalsandinstruments

Policygoalsandinstrumentspreserved,despiteminorrefinements.

Preferredgoalsandinstrumentsprovingcontroversialanddifficulttopreserve.Somerevisionsneeded.

Government’sgoalsandpreferredpolicyinstrumentshanginthebalance.

TerminationofGovernmentpolicygoalsandinstruments.

Thepolicygoalswerepreservedthroughouttheinitiative,toraisetheprofileoflearningandteachinginlinewithresearch.However,thepolicyinstrument,abottom-upinitiative,inwhichHEFCEtookahands-offapproach,andthetimelimitedfunding,meantthatwhilsttherewasconsiderableCETLactivityandsuccessesatalocallevel,theseweredifficulttosustainbeyondthefundingperiod,andthelackofanationallyco-ordinatedapproachmeantthatsectoralimpactwasdifficulttoachieve.Conferringlegitimacyonapolicy

Somechallengestolegitimacy,butoflittleornolastingeffect.

Difficultandcontestedissuessurroundingpolicylegitimacy,withsomepotentialtotaintthepolicyinthelongterm.

Seriousandpotentiallyfataldamagetopolicylegitimacy.

Irrecoverabledamagetopolicylegitimacy.

Therewereanumberofcontestedissues,particularlyinrelationtodefiningexcellence,whichimpactedonbothhowbidsweremadeandhowthepanelusedtheirownvaluejudgementstoselectCETLs.ThecompetitivenatureofthefundingledtoconcernsaboutpotentialunintendedconsequencesforHEIsthatfailedtosecureaCETL.Therewerequestionsconcerningthereliabilityoftheevaluationprocesswhichpointedtosubstantialactivitybutlittleevidenceofimpact.

255

Policyasprocess:thespectrumfromsuccesstofailureProcesssuccess Durablesuccess Conflictedsuccess Precarious

successProcessfailure

Buildingasustainablecoalition

Coalitionintact,despitesomesignsofdisagreement.

Coalitionintact,althoughstrongsignsofdisagreementandsomepotentialforfragmentation.

Coalitiononthebrinkoffallingapart.

Inabilitytoproduceasustainablecoalition.

Theindividualinstitutionalprevailingcultures,levelofengagementbyseniorandmiddlemanagers,andtherelativepoweroftheCETLtoachieveengagementandchangewithintheirowninstitutions,impactedonthelikelihoodofsuccessatinstitutionallevel.Thelackofanationallycoordinatedprogrammemeantthatsectoralimpactwascompromised.Symbolisinginnovationandinfluence.

Notground-breakingininnovationorinfluence,butstillsymbolicallyprogressive.

Neitherinnovativenoroutmoded,leading(attimes)tocriticismsfrombothprogressivesandconservatives.

Appearanceofbeingoutoftouchwithviablealternativesolutions.

Symbolisingoutmoded,insularorbizarreideas,seeminglyoblivioustohowotherjurisdictionsaredealingwithsimilarissues.

Otherjurisdictionshadsimilarschemes,particularlyintheUSA,AustraliaandEurope.Acombinationofapproachessuggeststhatanationallyco-ordinatedapproachwithsustainablefundingforallinstitutionsmightbethemostappropriateapproach.

8.3.1.1.Preservinggovernmentpolicygoalsandinstruments

ThepolicygoalswerepreservedduringtheperiodoftheCETLinitiative:toraisetheprofile

oflearningandteachingqualityinlinewithresearchquality,andprofessionaliseteaching

withtheintroductionoffeesandhigherexpectationsfromstudents.Thiswasachievedto

anextent,buttheeffectsweremainlyseenatalocallevel;sectoralchangeprovedmore

difficulttoachieveandtheimpactfromanyengagementbetweentheCETLs,orbeyondto

partsofthesectorwithoutaCETL,proveddifficulttoassess,aswasconcludedbythe

summativeevaluation(SQW2011).Therewerenomodificationstothepolicygoalsinthe

timeframeobserved.

Thepolicyinstrument,characterisedbyabottom-upapproachinwhichHEFCEwas

deliberatelylooseinitsdefinitionofexcellence,andtime-limitedprojectfunding,was

256

subjecttosomecontestationanddisquietthroughouttheperiodoftheinitiative.Oneof

thekey,albeitsubtle,changestothepolicyinstrumentwasthechangeintitlefromCentres

ofExcellence,asarticulatedinthe2003WhitePaper,toCentresforExcellence,bythetime

theinvitationtobidforfundswasannouncedin2004(HEFCE2004/5).Thissuggestsa

changefromfundingexistingexcellence(likeresearchfunding)toaninitiativewhich

promotestheestablishmentofexcellence.Otherareasofcontestationwere,firstly,the

articulationofwhatwasmeantbyexcellence,particularlyintheselectionprocess,where

value-ladenjudgementswereoftenobserved(GoslingandHannan2007b).Thenotionof

excellenceisalreadyregardedasachallengingconceptwithinhighereducation(Nixon

2007),andlearningandteachinginparticular(Skelton2005),withsomescholarsarguing

thatitisanemptynotion(Barnett2000)andshouldbeseenasaprocessratherthana

product(Nixon2007).Secondly,theoriginalintentiontoawardinstitutionsthatfailedto

succeedatstageoneofthebiddingprocesswitha‘commended’statuswasabandonedby

HEFCE,inthelightofsomedisquietfromthesectorthattheremightbesomereputation

damageforinstitutionsthatwerenotawardedaCETL.Finally,thesector’sconcernthatthe

competitivenatureofthefundingwasdivisivepersistedthroughouttheinitiative,

particularlyinobservingthelackofdisseminationanddeepeningeffectacrossthesector

(SQW2011).BoththeformativeandsummativeevaluationsoftheCETLscommissionedby

HEFCE(Saundersetal2008,SQW2011),observedthatthesectorwouldhavegenerally

preferredanapproachthatwasinclusiveofallinstitutions.Theshorttermnatureofthe

fundingmeantthatthepolicygoals,whilstshowingevidenceofsuccessatalocallevel,

weremoredifficulttosustainbeyondthefundingperiod,withthesummativeevaluation

concludingthatfuturefundingwasnotinmostcasesaninstitutionalpriority,andthatonly

20%ofinstitutionshadarrangedsomeleveloffuturefunding(SQW2011).

AccountabilityandmonitoringoftheCETLprocesswascharacterisedbyHEFCE’s‘hands-off’

approach(HEFCE2003/36).Whilstwelcomedbythesector,itcameinformuchcriticism,in

bothformativeandsummativeevaluationsandbyothercommentators(Turner2007,

Gosling2013,GoslingandTurner2015).Theformativeandsummativeevaluations

concludedthattheself-evaluationsundertakenbyCETLs,althoughevidencebased,tooka

whollypositiviststance,lackedrobustandtheorisedevaluationstrategiesandmadeit

difficulttoquantifytheimpactofCETLsinarigorousway.Thus,addressingvaluefor

money,whichitselfisacontestableissueatthelevelofdiscourse,wasproblematic.

257

Linkedtotheweakmonitoringwasthelackofaco-ordinatedapproachtothenetworkby

HEFCE,whichmadethecoherenceoftheprogrammeatanationallevelproblematic.

Althoughbythesummativereporttherehadbeenagooddealofexternalactivity,with

over3,000publicationsandmorethan5,500disseminationevents,measuringtheimpact

ofthatactivityproveddifficult.Consequently,oneofthemainrecommendationsofthe

summativeevaluationwasthat‘anyfutureprogrammeofthiskindshouldbuildinmore

activecentralmanagementandcoordination’(SQW2011p.53).

8.3.1.2.Conferringlegitimacyonthepolicy

AsobservedinChapter6,therearemanyexamplesoflearningandteachingenhancement

policiesandfundingschemesinothercountries,whichfollowedasimilarpolicyprocess

(Brawleyetal,2009,Lemmens-Krug2015).ThisgavetheCETLinitiative,anditsapproach,a

levelofvalidity,aswillbediscussedin8.3.1.4below.Althoughtherewassector

engagementatanationallevel,thecompetitivenatureofthefundingmeantthatnotall

institutionswereawardedaCETL,whichgaverisetofearsthattherecouldbeunintended

consequencesforinstitutionswithoutaCETL,particularlyintermsofreputationforquality.

Whilstthesefearsdidnotseemtoberealised,thesummativeevaluationobservedthat

therewaslimitedimpactofCETLactivityforinstitutionsthatwereoutsideoftheCETL

network(SQW2011).

Thebiddingprocessandcontestednatureof‘excellence’alsosuggestssomethreattothe

legitimacyoftheprocess,wherebiddersmadecalculatedjudgementsonwhatHEFCE

wouldconsidertobeexcellent,andCETLswereawardedbasedonthevaluejudgementsof

thepanel.ResearchconductedbyGoslingandHannan(2007a,2007b)suggestedthatthe

biddingprocesswasflawedbythelackofclarificationanduncertaintyoverthedefiningof

excellence.

8.3.1.3.Buildingasustainablecoalition

Thecoalitionremainedintactthroughtheperiod,buttheareasofcontestationas

describedabovemeantthatthereweresomethreatstoitssustainability.Atinstitutional

level,thereweresignsofdisagreementandfragmentation,sincetherewasvariationinthe

engagementofseniormanagement,whichGoslingandTurner(2015)arguedwascrucialif

theworkoftheCETLwastobeembeddedacrosstheinstitution.Bythetimeofthe

summativeevaluation,deepeningeffectsacrossinstitutionswerebeingobserved,but

thereweredifficultiesinsomeCETLsbeingabletogainsufficientpurchasetoembedtheir

258

workwheretheyconflictedwiththeprevailingculture,orwereseentobeonthe

periphery,oftheinstitution.Therewasalsoevidencetosuggestconflictbetweenstaffin

theCETLsandtheirmanagersintermsoftimeandresourcestodeliverCETLactivities,as

wasreportedtoboththeformativeandsummativeevaluations(Saundersetal2008,SQW

2011).

Thelackofanationallycoordinatedprogrammeandthecompetitivenatureofthefunding

meantthatacoordinatedapproachthroughanetworkofCETLs,andengagementwiththe

HEA,weresporadic,althoughtheevaluationsobservedthattherewereoftenstrong

connectionswiththeHEASubjectCentresatdisciplinelevel(Saunders2008p.32).TheHEA

andformerChiefExecutivePaulRamsdenwereparticularlycriticalofthepolicyapproach,

especiallysinceitwasobservedthatthelackofclarificationonthepolicymadeanyformal

connectionsbetweenCETLsandtheHEAproblematic.

8.3.1.4.Symbolisinginnovationandinfluence

TheCETLswerenotagroundbreakinginitiativeinternationally.Scotlandhasasimilar

enhancementledpolicywiththeNationalQualityEnhancementFramework,introducedin

2003,butoneofthekeydifferencesisthatthisschemeisnotcompetitivelyfunded,withall

universitiesbeingeligibletoreceivefunding.LikeEngland,Germany’s‘QualityPactfor

Teaching’schemeandNewZealand’sAcademyofTertiaryTeachingExcellencehave

competitivefundingschemes,asdoesAustralia’sCarrickInstitute.Australiaalsohas

substantialcentralgovernmentfunding,withtheLearningandTeachingPerformanceFund,

aperformancebasedfundingmodel.

TheUSA,withamuchmorede-centralisedsystemofhighereducation,andalargernumber

ofinstitutionsfocussingexclusivelyonteachingratherthanresearch,hasfarlessemphasis

onprofessionalisingteachingandlearningthroughpedagogicresearch,andthereismuch

lessofadisciplinebasedapproach.Thereissomenationallevelsupport,throughthe

CarnegieAcademyfortheScholarshipofTeachingandLearning(CASTL)butitslevelof

fundingissmallandinconsistent.MillsandHuber(2005)suggestthatlearningandteaching

enhancementintheUSAislessrobustthanintheUKorAustraliabecauseitisless

determinedbycentralgovernmentpolicy.

TheevidencefromothercountriesaboveandinChapter6,Section6.2.3(p.166),suggests

thatnationallydeterminedapproaches,withsustainabilityoffundingforallinstitutions,

mightbethemostappropriateapproachforlearningandteachingenhancement.

259

8.3.2Policyprogramme

Table20–POLICYASPROGRAMME(CETLs)

Policyasprogramme:thespectrumfromsuccesstofailureProgrammesuccess

Durablesuccess Conflictedsuccess Precarioussuccess

Programmefailure

Implementationinlinewithobjectives.

Implementationobjectivesbroadlyachieved,despiteminorrefinementsordeviations.

Mixedresults,withsomesuccesses,butaccompaniedbyunexpectedandcontroversialproblems.

Minorprogresstowardsimplementationasintended,butbesetbychronicfailures,provinghighlycontroversialandverydifficulttodefend.

Implementationfailstobeexecutedinlinewithobjectives.

TheImplementationwasbroadlyinlinewiththeobjectives,althoughthereweresubtlechangesbetweentheoriginalarticulationofthe2003WhitePaper,the2004consultationandinvitationtobid.Critically,therewasafocusonembeddingexcellenceratherthancelebratingexistingexcellenceandthe‘commended’categoryofCETLwasabandoned.Concernsaroundthecompetitivenatureofthefundingwerenotaddressed.Achievementofdesiredoutcomes.

Outcomesbroadlyachieved,despitesomeshortfalls.

Somesuccesses,butthepartialachievementofintendedoutcomesiscounterbalancedbyunwantedresults,generatingsubstantialcontroversy.

Somesmalloutcomesachievedasintended,butoverwhelmedbycontroversialandhigh-profileinstancesoffailuretoproduceresults.

Failuretoachievedesiredoutcomes.

Inthebroadestterms,objectiveswereachieved,withmorethan90%oftheCETLsreportingthattheyhadachievedwhattheysetouttodo.However,thesummativeevaluationconcludedthattheevidenceforsuccesswaslimitedtodescriptionsofactions,andfailedtodemonstratequalitativeimpact,particularlyatinstitutionallevelandacrossthesector.Therewas,however,noevidenceofunwantedresultsleadingtocontroversy.Meetspolicydomaincriteria.

Notquitethedesiredoutcome,butsufficientlyclosetolaystrongclaimtofulfillingthecriteria.

Partialachievementofgoals,butaccom-paniedbyfailurestoachieve,withposs-ibilityofhigh-profileexamples,eg.On-goingwastagewhenthecriterionisefficiency.

Afewminorsuccesses,butplaguedbyunwantedmediaattention;eg.examplesofwastageandpossiblescandalwhenthecriterionisefficiency.

Clearinabilitytomeetthecriteria.

Thepolicydomaincriteriawereonlypartiallyachieved.Inraisingtheprofileoflearningandteaching,thereisevidenceofsuccessatCETLandinstitutionallevel,butnotthroughoutthesector.ThereissomeevidenceofteachingandlearningbeingseentobeonaparwithresearchintermsofrecognitionforindividualstaffandchangestoinstitutionalHRstrategies,butthisisverymuchatanindividualinstitutionallevel,ratherthanasectoralachievement.

260

Policyasprogramme:thespectrumfromsuccesstofailureProgrammesuccess

Durablesuccess Conflictedsuccess Precarioussuccess

Programmefailure

Creatingbenefitforatargetgroup.

Afewshortfallsandpossiblysomeanomalouscases,butintendedtargetgroupbroadlybenefits.

Partialbenefitsrealised,butnotaswidespreadordeepasintended.

Smallbenefitsareaccompaniedandovershadowedbydamagetotheverygroupthatwasmeanttobenefit.Alsolikelytogeneratehighprofilestoriesofunfairnessandsuffering.

Damagingaparticulartargetgroup.

Thetargetgroupswereindividualstaffandstudents.Thereisevidencethatindividualstaffdidwellintermsofprofessionaldevelopmentopportunities,withevidenceofstaffreceivingrecognitionfortheirCETLwork,butthiswasanareaofcontestationwithstafffeelingthattheirworkwasfrequentlynotrecognisedbymanagers.ThereisalsoevidenceinthesummativeevaluationthatpossiblythousandsofstudentsengagedwithCETLsintermsofprovisionofresourcesandlearningopportunities,butitisdifficulttoassesstheimpactofthatengagement.Benefitsareapparentbutnotaswidespreadordeepasintended.

8.3.2.1Implementationinlinewithobjectives

Theprogrammewasimplementedbroadlyinrelationtothatintendedintheoriginal2003

WhitePaper,althoughtherewasadistinct,butsubtle,changeinapproachfromCentresof

ExcellencetoCentresforExcellence(seeSection6.2.5,p.169).Thereweresome

modificationstotheprogramme,particularlyaftertheconsultationstage,wherethe

categoryof‘commended’wasabandonedforthosebidsthatwereunsuccessfulatstage

two.Inaddition,althoughtheprogrammehadinitiallyintendedtofocusondisciplinesonly,

intheeventanumberofpedagogicallyfocussedbidsweresuccessful.Thenumberof

differentlyfocussedCETLsdidleadtosomecriticism,forexampleSkelton(2005)observed

that‘CETLappearstobemorea‘postmoderncelebrationofdifference’(p.68).

AsdemonstratedinTable11(p.172),thereweresubtlechangesinthelanguageofthe

objectivesbetweentheconsultationandtheinvitationtobid,withtheformerfocussingon

encouragementandthelatterbeingmoreactionfocussed.

8.3.2.2Achievementofdesiredoutcomes

CETLself-evaluationsconcludedthat90%oftheobjectiveshadbeenachievedand,indeed,

atalocallevelevidencefromthesummativeevaluation(SQW2011)suggestsagooddeal

ofsuccess,with89%reportingthataccesstoadditionalresourceswasadvantageousin

changingpractice,92%reportingadirectpositiveeffectonteachingandstudents’learning,

261

2,679spin-outprojects,secondments,fellowshipsandawardshadbeenachievedandthere

hadbeen3,435peer-reviewedoutputsand5,594developmentanddisseminationevents

(SQW2011p.12).ThereisevidencereportedintheSQWsummativeevaluationthat

individualCETLsimprovedtheopportunitiesforprofessionaldevelopmentandpedagogical

researchforalargenumberofindividualstaff.Theevidencealsopointstoawidediversity

ofdisciplinesandpedagogicareasbeingcoveredbytherangeofCETLs,andhenceavariety

oflearningcontexts.TherearemanyexamplesoflocalCETLinnovation(asreportedin

Chapter6),particularlyintechnologicalsolutions,whichwereafavouriteoftheselection

panel.

Oneareaofuncertaintyrelatedtotheoutcomesforstudents,whereitwasconcludedin

thesummativereportthatalthoughCETLshadreportedthedevelopmentofmodules,

degreeprogrammesandlearningtoolkits,advantagingthousandsofstudents,therewas

littleinformationprovidedwithwhichtobackuptheseclaims(SQW2011p.11).

Intermsofthebroaderobjectivesatthesectorallevel,whichwereto‘enableinstitutionsto

supportanddeveloppracticethatencouragesdeeperunderstandingacrossthesectorof

waysofaddressingstudents’learningeffectively’and‘demonstratecollaborationand

sharingofgoodpracticeandsoenhancethestandardofteachingandeffectivelearning

throughoutthesector’(HEFCE2004/05),theformativeandsummativeevaluations

questionedwhetherthedesiredoutcomeshadbeenachieved,particularlyintermsof

impact.Thesummativeevaluationconcludedthat

‘Thelegacyoftheprogrammerestslargelyinindividualstaff,andinthoseinstitutionswhichhaveembeddedCETLdevelopmentsandcontinuetosupportinnovationanddevelopmentinteachingandlearning,ratherthanageneralenhancementofteachingandlearningacrossthesector…WedonotbelievetheCETLprogrammeitselfhasledtomaterialchangesinnon-participatingHEIsandacrossthesectorasawhole’(SQW2011p.53).

8.3.2.3Meetingpolicydomaincriteria

Thewiderpolicydomaincriteriawereonlypartiallymet.Raisingtheprofileoflearningand

teachingwasachievedtoanextentatlocallevel,withagooddealofCETLactivityreported

andmanyindividualsbenefitingfromtheinitiative.However,evenatthelocallevel,there

weredifficultiesreportedinenablingtheworkofaCETLtoreachotherpartsofits

institution,particularlywheretheCETLwasdisciplinebased.Tolley’sevaluationofthe

engineeringCETLatLoughboroughUniversity(2008)andGoslingandTurner’sresearch

(2015)bothconcludedthatembeddednessacrossaninstitutionwaspatchy,relianton

262

individualsanddifficulttoachieveincaseswheretheCETLdidnothavethepurchaseto

influenceseniormanagementorinstitutionalstrategy.Widerreachbeyondinstitutionsto

thesectorandHEIswithoutaCETLprovedevenmoreproblematic.Whilstthesummative

evaluationobservedthat73%ofpro-vice-chancellorsforteachingandlearning,and61%of

CETLbasedstaff,suggestedthattheirworkhadbeendisseminatedtootherCETLsandHEIs

throughthousandsofeventsandpublications,SQWalsoconcludedthat‘thereis,however,

littleevidenceofcollaborationacrosstherangeofCETLsasawhole’(SQW2011p.13)and

consequentlyitwasdifficulttoassessthesectoralimpact.Assuch,thesporadicnatureof

theimpactcanonlyleadtotheconclusionthatraisingtheprofileoflearningandteaching

wasonlypartiallyachievedatsectorallevel.

Equally,basedontheevidenceoftheevaluations,thewiderpolicygoaltoputlearningand

teachingexcellenceonaparwithresearchexcellencedoesnotappeartohavebeen

achieved.Thedifferentfundingmethodologiesbetweenteachingandresearchexcellence

suggestthattheproject-basedapproachoftheCETLshadlesspurchaseintermsof

sustainabilitythantherecurrentnatureofresearchexcellencefunding.GoslingandTurner

(2015)arguethatthereisrelativepowerlessnessinfundedshort-termprojects.Many

concernswereraisedbyHEIs,evaluatorsandothercommentatorsonthesustainabilityof

theCETLsbeyondthefunding,andtherewasevidencetosuggestthatitwasnotan

institutionalpriorityinthemajorityofcases,asconcludedbythesummativeevaluation

(SQW2011).Whilsttherewassomeevidenceofteachingandlearningbeingseentobeon

aparwithresearchintermsofrecognitionforindividualstaff(SQW2011p.25),with

changestoinstitutionalHRstrategies,thisisverymuchataninstitutionallevel,ratherthan

asectoralachievement.

8.3.2.4Creatingbenefitforthetargetgroup

Thetargetgroupswereindividualstaff,throughtherewardandrecognitionobjective,‘To

rewardpracticethatdemonstratesexcellentlearningoutcomesforstudents’andstudents,

‘toraisestudentawarenessofeffectivenessinteachingandlearninginordertoinform

studentchoiceandmaximisestudentperformance’.Theevidencepointstoagooddealof

individualsuccessesforstaff,with79%concludingthattheiroveralllearningandteaching

practicehadimprovedasaresultoftheCETLandprofessionaldevelopmentopportunities

madeavailablethroughthefunding(SQW2011p.19).However,itisnoteworthythatonly

46%ofrespondentsagreedthattheirworkhadbeenrecognisedviapromotionorother

reward(SQW2011p.25).Therewassomecontestationinregardstoreward,sincemost

263

rewardshadsomefinancialelement,butthemajorityofCETLstaffassertedthat

recognitionwasmuchmoreimportantthanfinancialgain.However,recognitionprovedto

bedifficultformany,wheretheirCETLworkwasnotrecognisedintheirworkloads,and

manyfeltthattheirmanagersdidnotrecognisethevalueoftheirwork.ResearchbyTurner

etal(2008)fortheHELP(HigherEducationLearningPartnerships)CETLconcludedthat

managersandcolleaguesdidnotrecognisethevalueofCETLstaff’swork.

ThemajorityoftheCETLspointedtopositiveeffectsinprovidingresourcesforstudentsand

severalnotedtheengagementofstudents,asdiscussedinSection8.3.2.2(p.260)above,

whichwereestimatedtonumberinthethousands.However,thereislittlesubstantial

evidenceofdemonstrableimpactinlearningmaximisingperformanceforstudents.Thereis

noevidencefromtheevaluations,andindeedthereislittlemention,thatCETLshelpedto

informstudentchoice.Henceasabenefittostudentsasatargetgroup,theevidenceof

successislimited.

264

8.3.3Policyaspolitics

Table21–POLICYASPOLITICS(CETLs)

Policyaspolitics:thespectrumfromsuccesstofailurePoliticalsuccess Durablesuccess Conflicted

successPrecarioussuccess

Politicalfailure

Enhancingelectoralprospectsorreputationofgovernmentsandleaders.

Favourabletoelectoralprospectsandreputationenhancement,withonlyminorsetbacks.

Policyobtainsstrongsupportandopposition,workingbothforandagainstelectoralprospectsandreputationinfairlyequalmeasure.

Despitesmallsignsofbenefit,policyprovesanoverallelectoralandreputationalliability.

Damagingtotheelectoralprospectsorreputationofgovernmentsandleaders,withnoredeemingpoliticalbenefit.

Noapparenteffectonelectoralprospects.Controllingpolicyagendaandeasingthebusinessofgoverning.

Despitesomedifficultiesinagendamanagement,capacitytogovernisunperturbed.

Policyprovingcontroversialandtakingupmorepoliticaltimeandresourcesinitsdefencethanwasexpected.

Clearsignsthattheagendaandbusinessofgovernmentisstrugglingtosuppressapoliticallydifficultissue.

Policyfailingsaresohighandpersistentontheagenda,thatitisdamaginggovernment’scapacitytogovern.

DifficultiesinagendamanagementwerelimitedtothesectorandmanagedbyHEFCE,ratherthangovernment.Therefore,therewasnoeffectoncapacitytogovern.

Sustainingthebroadvaluesanddirectionofgovernment.

Somerefinementsneededbutbroadtrajectoryunimpeded.

Directionofgovernmentverybroadlyinlinewithgoals,butclearsignsthatthepolicyhaspromptedsomerethinking,especiallybehindthescenes.

Entiretrajectoryofgovernmentisbeingcompromised.

Irrevocablydamagingtothebroadvaluesanddirectionofgovernment.

ThebroaddirectionandvaluesofgovernmentwerenotaffectedbytheCETLinitiative,butwiderpoliticalandeconomicissuesdidleadtosomeconsiderablerefinementofpolicydirection,throughlessrelianceonstatefundingandachangeofroleforHEFCEfromfundertoregulator.ItwasnottheCETLinitiativeitselfthatledtoare-thinkofpolicygoals,butachangeingovernmentandaglobaleconomiccrisis.

8.3.3.1.Effectongovernment’scapacitytogovern

Giventheproject-basedapproachandtime-limitednatureoftheCETLprogramme,the

initiativedidnothavesufficientlongevity,orasufficientlyhighprofilebeyondthesector,to

haveanyeffectongovernment’scapacitytogovern.Therewasverylittlemediaattention

265

giventoCETLs,andalthoughtherewasdisquietinrelationtotheirsuccess,particularly

afterthepublicationofthesummativereport,thiswaslimitedtothespecialistHEpress.

CETLswerenotahighprofileconcernforParliament,withveryfewquestionsbeingraised

intheHouse,andthesewerenotinrelationtothesuccessorfailureoftheinitiative.

8.3.3.2Controllingpolicyagenda

ThepolicyagendawascontrolledbyHEFCE,andthereweresomedifficultiesinagenda

management,mainlyinrelationtothecontestedissues:whatwasmeantbyexcellence,the

awardof‘commended’statusandthecompetitivenatureofthefunding.Thelegacyofthe

CETLs,orlackofit,couldhaveprovedcontroversial,giventhelargefundingenvelopeof

£335mandlackofevidencethattherehadbeenimpactacrossthesector,butthese

attractedlittleattentionbeyondthespecialistpress.AstheCETLfundingcametoanendin

2010,therecessionbitandanewcoalitiongovernmentcameintopower.Assuch,there

wasashiftinthinkingaroundhighereducationfunding,withthemainfocusnowon

passingthecostofHEtostudentsandreducedstatefunding.Consequently,therewasalso

ashiftoffocusforHEFCE,fromfundertoregulator.AfocusontheCETLinitiativeandany

possiblecontinuedfundingwaslostamongstthesestepchangesinHEfunding.

8.3.3.3Sustainingthebroadvaluesanddirectionofgovernment

ThebroadvaluesanddirectionoftheNewLabourgovernmentwerenotharmedbythe

CETLinitiative,butwiderpoliticalandeconomicissueshadaninfluencingeffectonHEFCE’s

approachtofundinglearningandteachinginitiatives,asdidthechangeofgovernmentin

2010.Withagreaterfocusonfeesandlessstatefunding,andamajorglobalrecession,

therewassignificantlylessmoneyavailableforsuchinitiatives,andindeedHEFCEdidnot

launchanylearningandteachinginitiativesonthisscaleoffundingthroughoutthe

remainderofitshistory.In2013,TheHEAcommissionedTheCentreforHigherEducation

ResearchandEvaluationtoreviewHEFCEteachingandlearningenhancementinitiatives,

anditfoundconsiderableweaknessesin‘pilot-basedbeaconprojectapproaches,suchas

CETLs’(Trowleretal2013).

8.3.4Summary

Thepolicyprocesscanbeinterpretedasoneofconflictedsuccess.Thebottom-uppolicy

approachledtosomecontestedissues:definingexcellence,competitivefundingandalack

ofco-ordinatedmonitoringmeantthatimpact,particularlyacrossthesector,wasdifficult

266

toassess.Thesecharacteristicswerecritiquedinboththeformativeandsummative

evaluations(Saundersetal2008,SQW2011)andinmuchoftheCETLresearchbyGosling,

HannanandTurner.Theproject-basedapproachmeantthatsustainabilityofthepolicywas

challenging,andwasagainoneofthemaincriticismsoftheapproachintheevaluations.

Thecoalitionbroadlyremainedintactthroughtheinitiative,althoughtherewasevidenceof

conflictatinstitutionallevel,particularlywhereCETLscameintoconflictwithprevailing

culturesandmanagersnotrecognisingtheworkofCETLstaff(GoslingandHannan2007a).

Beyondindividualinstitutions,therewaslittleevidenceofcrossCETLworkingandfew

examplesofworkingwiththeHEAtoembedgoodpracticeacrossthesector.Therewas

evidence,however,ofcollaborationbetweenCETLSandHEASubjectCentresforthose

CETLSwithadisciplinefocus,andmorethan56%ofpractitionersandpro-vice-chancellors

perceivedthattheworkoftheCETLswasbeingdisseminatedwidely(seeAppendixD).

Therewasnoevidencethatthepolicyinitiativehadlearntfromotherjurisdictions,where

commentatorsobservedthatprojectbasedfundingwasproblematicinlearningand

teachingenhancementinitiatives,andthatalackofnationalco-ordination,suchasthatin

theUSA,madedeepeningeffectsdifficulttoachieve(Brawleyetal2009,Lemmens-Krug

2015).

Theprogrammecanbeinterpretedasadurablebutconflictedsuccess.The

implementationwasbroadlyinlinewithobjectives,althoughtherewasasubtlechange

fromthevisionofthe2003WhitePaperforCETLstorewardexistingexcellence,whichwas

thenoutofstepwithresearchqualityfunding,adividewhichtheinitiativewasintendedto

address(HEFCE2003/36).Theprojectbasedapproachandcompetitivenatureofthe

fundingmeantthatwhilsttherewasmuchevidenceofCETLsmeetingtheirobjectivesata

locallevel,institutionalimpactwasmoresporadicandverydifficulttoevidenceatsector

level,partlyduetotheabsenceofnationalcoordination.Assuch,theeffectswerenotas

widespread,orasdeep,asintendedandthebroadersectoralobjectiveswerenot

satisfactorilymet.Thereisevidencethatindividualstaffbenefitedfromtheinitiative,but

lessevidencethattheimpactforstudentswentbeyondtheprovisionofadditional

resources.Thesewerealsothemainfindingsofthesummativeevaluation(SQW2011).

TheCETLinitiativecouldbeinterpretedasadurablepoliticalsuccess.Therewereno

apparenteffectsonelectoralprospects,buttherewerewidereconomicandpolitical

eventsandagendaswhichimpactedsignificantlyontheworkofHEFCE,whichwentbeyond

thescopeoftheCETLinitiative.Thesewereaneconomicrecession,whichledtoatight

267

squeezeonpublicfunding,andashiftintheHEpolicyagendatowardshigherfees.Assuch,

theroleofHEFCEasafunderwasreduced.Theseeventsledtoarethinkofpublicspending

onlearningandteachingenhancement,whichGoslingsumsupbest:

‘By2010…theGovernment’sconfidencethatpublicfundingcoulddeliverimprovementstoteachinghadcompletelydisappeared…studentsarenomoresatisfiedwithhighereducationthantenyearsago’(Gosling2013p.1).

Inreturningtothemainresearchquestion,theapplicationoftheMcConnellframeworkthetheCETLpolicyepisodesuggeststhattheinitiativewasaconflictedprocesssuccess,withsomecontestation.Theprogrammewasalsoaconflictedsuccess,butdurable,withmanylocalsuccesses,althoughlessevidenceofasectoralsuccess.Thepoliticalsuccessoftheepisodewasdurable,butovertakenbyotherevents,suchasaglobalrecession,whichledtoshiftinthepoliticalHEagendaawayfromfundinglearningandteachingenhancement.

268

8.4LifelongLearningNetworks–mappingthepolicyepisodetotheframework

8.4.1Policyasprocess

Table22–POLICYASPROCESS(LLNs)

Policyasprocess:thespectrumfromsuccesstofailureProcesssuccess Durablesuccess Conflictedsuccess Precarious

successProcessfailure

Preservinggovernmentpolicygoalsandinstruments.

Policygoalsandinstrumentspreserved,despiteminorrefinements.

Preferredgoalsandinstrumentsprovingcontroversialanddifficulttopreserve.Somerevisionsneeded.

Government’sgoalsandpreferredpolicyinstrumentshanginthebalance.

TerminationofGovernmentpolicygoalsandinstruments.

ThepolicygoalswereretainedthroughouttheperiodwithnochangetothegoalofwideningparticipationtoHEthroughvocationalprogression.Thepolicyinstrumentwassubjecttofewrefinements,otherthanawideningoftheprogrammebeyondpilotLLNsandHEFCEoverlookingtheoriginalfundingrequirementforallLNNstoengagewithresearchintensiveHEIs.However,theLLNinitiativewasoperatinginanovercrowdedandconstantlychangingpolicydomain.Conferringlegitimacyonapolicy.

Somechallengestolegitimacy,butoflittleornolastingeffect.

Difficultandcontestedissuessurroundingpolicylegitimacy,withsomepotentialtotaintthepolicyinthelongterm.

Seriousandpotentiallyfataldamagetopolicylegitimacy.

Irrecoverabledamagetopolicylegitimacy.

Therewerenochallengestothelegitimacyofthepolicy,asitsatwellwithingovernment’sgoaltoincreaseHEparticipationtoHE,followingtheprinciplesoftheWisconsinmodel.Buildingasustainablecoalition.

Coalitionintact,despitesomesignsofdisagreement.

Coalitionintact,althoughstrongsignsofdisagreementandsomepotentialforfragmentation.

Coalitiononthebrinkoffallingapart.

Inabilitytoproduceasustainablecoalition.

TheclearsupportfromgovernmentandHEFCEandtheinvolvementofalmostfullynational,sectorwidecoverageandtheengagementofnearly33,000staffinLLNactivitiesshowevidenceofasustainablecoalition.However,thereissomeevidenceoflackoffullengagementonbehalfofsomeelementsofthesector,particularlyresearchintensiveinstitutions.TheimpactofhigherfeespolicyledtosomeelementsofcompetitionbetweenFECandHEIpartners.Symbolisinginnovationandinfluence.

Notground-breakingininnov-ationorinfluence,butstillsymbolicallyprogressive.

Neitherinnovativenoroutmoded,leading(attimes)tocriticismsfrombothprogressivesandconservatives.

Appearanceofbeingoutoftouchwithviablealternativesolutions.

Symbolisingoutmoded,insularorbizarreideas,seeminglyoblivioustohowotherjurisdictionsaredealingwithsimilarissues.

Thepolicywasnotgroundbreakinginitsinnovation,sinceitwasbornoutofaregardfortheUSAsysteminpublicuniversitiesandthereareexamplesofsuccessfulprogressionarrangementsinseveralEuropeanandnon-Europeancountries.However,fortheEnglishsystem,itwasprogressiveinbeinganovelattempttoinstigateasectorwidepolicytoputvocationalprogressiononaparwithacademicprogression.

269

8.4.1.1Preservinggovernmentpolicygoalsandinstruments

Thepolicygoal,wideningparticipationtohighereducationthroughthealigningof

vocationalandacademicqualifications,andcreationofaccessiblepathwaysforvocational

learners,waspreservedthroughouttheperiodandtherewerenosignificantamendments

tothepolicygoals.

TheLLNinitiative,asthepolicyinstrument,wasnotsubjecttoanysignificantchanges

throughouttheperiod,otherthanawideningoftheprogramme,suchthatinsteadof‘pilot’

LLNs,therewere30networksestablished,andasignificantproportionoftheSDF(Strategic

DevelopmentFund),£105m,wasusedtofundthenetworks.Whatwasnoteworthyabout

theLLNinitiativewasthat,althoughitwassubjecttolittlechange,therewasconsiderable

impactfromotherpolicygoalsintroducedandmodifiedoverthecourseoftheprogramme.

Thepublicationofthe2004TomlinsonReviewandthedevelopmentofthe14–19

qualificationsframework,thedevelopmentofhigherapprenticeshipsandthe2004

SchwartzReviewofAdmissions,allhadsomeimpactonthepolicygoalofenabling

progressiontohighereducationfromvocationaleducation.In2007,followingtheLeitch

ReviewofSkills,governmentrefocusseditsattentiononemployerengagement,suchthat

thisbecameakeystrandofactivityformanyLLNsthatwerenotintheiroriginal

propositions.Theintroductionofvariablefeesasaresultofthe2004HigherEducationAct

createddifferentandincreasingcompetitionsbetweenFECsandHEIs,thusputting

pressureonthesustainabilityofLLNpartnerships,particularlywiththeresearchintensive

institutions.Indeed,ithadoriginallybeenaconditionofgrantthatallLLNsengagedwithat

leastoneresearchintensiveHEI,althoughthisdidnotcometofruitioninsomecases.As

Watson(2005)observed,LLNshadtooperateinanalreadycrowdedfield(p.187)in

vocationalprogressionandwideningparticipation,asisevidencedbythesomewhat

complexdiagramoforganisationalrelationshipsinFigure12(Chapter7,p.207).The

capacityfortheLLNinitiativetosurvivethroughoutitsfundingperiodinthefaceofthese

othercompetingandinfluencingpolicyagendasandinitiativesdemonstratesitsagility.

8.4.1.2Conferringlegitimacyonthepolicy

Thepolicy,althoughoriginatedbySirHowardNewbywithinHEFCE,satwellwithin

governmentgoalstoincreaseparticipationinhighereducationto50%by2010,andwas

endorsedbytheHEFCEBoard.Newbyhadalreadyhadfirst-handexperienceofthe

WisconsinmodelintheUSA(Newby2005b),whichhadprovedsuccessfulinenabling

academicandvocationallearners’accesstosharedresourcesandpathwaystohigher

270

education.Newbyarguedthatanapproachwhichbroughtfurtherandhighereducational

institutionstogetherinpartnershipwasnecessaryifthe50%targetwastobeachieved,

throughbothincreasingandwideningparticipation.Itisnoteworthythat,unliketheother

twocasestudies,therewasnoformalconsultationwiththesectorontheLLNinitiative,

andsothesectorhadlittleopportunitytoformallychallengetheprogramme,otherthan

thoughdiscussionswiththeHEFCEregionalconsultants,whowerechargedwithdeveloping

theLLNsinpartnershipwithinstitutions.Thiscombinationoffactorsmeantthattherewere

nopublicchallengestothelegitimacyoftheepisode.

8.4.1.3Buildingasustainablecoalition

TheLLNinitiativehadthefullsupportofgovernmentandHEFCE,sinceitmettheconditions

forincreasingparticipationtoHEasoutlinedinSection8.4.1.2(p.269)above.Althoughthe

policyepisodewasbadgedbyHEFCEasbeingabottom-upapproachtoensurethe

engagementofthesector,thisepisodewasunusualinbeingdriven,notbyinstitutions

themselves,butbyHEFCEregionalconsultantsworkingwithFECsandHEIstodevelopthe

businessplanandtargetsfortheLLNs.Assuch,theywereinapositiontobothinfluence

theinstitutions’commitmenttotheinitiativeandprovideacriticallinkbetweenHEFCEand

institutionsthatwaslackingtoalargeextentintheothercasestudies.Assuch,andsince

therewasnearnationalLLNcoveragewiththeinvolvementof120HEIsand300FECs,and

almost33,000staffengagedacrossthesectorwithLLNs,itcouldbearguedthatthesector

fullyendorsedthepolicy.

TheformationoftheNationalForum,asanentitywhichhelpedtosustainthecoalitionand

sharegoodpractice,wasalsorecognisedasaworthwhileadditiontotheinitiative,andwas

creditedwithenablingLLNstocopewiththeshiftingvocationalandskillspolicy

environments.TheNationalForumwascommendedbySQW(2010)inthesummative

evaluationasgoodpracticeforallsuchpolicyinitiatives.AFoundationForwardresearch

reportintotheimportanceofLLNsforapprenticeshipsalsorecognisedtheNationalForum

forencouragingLLNstoworktogether(FdF2009p.21).Althoughtherewasmuchpraisefor

theNationalForum,therewascriticism,inboththeformativeandsummativeevaluations

andWise&Shaw(2011)thattheprovisionofIAGandPAswerepatchyacrossthe

networks,andwouldhavebenefitedfromnationalco-ordination.Equally,aperceivedlack

ofnationalco-ordinationbyHEFCEwasakeycriticismofthesummativeevaluation(SQW

2010).

271

Despitetheappearanceofastrongcoalition,theextenttowhichsomepartsofthesector

werefullyengagedcouldbechallenged.Forexample,thesummativeevaluationfoundthat

buy-infrompost-92institutionswasstronger,andsomepartners,particularlyresearch-

intensiveHEIs,werenotsopro-activeinthenetworks.Thisisevidencedbyonly10%ofthe

LLN-engagedlearnersbeingregisteredatresearchintensiveinstitutions.Theintroduction

ofhigherfees,asaresultofthe2004WhitePaper,mayalsohavehadaneffectonthe

coalition,particularlyfromtheresearchintensiveinstitutions,withmanycommentators

expressingconcernthathigherfeesmightincreasethecompetitionbetweenFECsandHEIs

(Woodfieldetal2013,Newby2005,Parry2006).

ItwasalsointendedthatLLNsshouldengagewithothersectoragencies,suchasCentresof

VocationalExcellence,NewTechnologyInstitutes,AimhigherandTheHEA,aswellas

regionalandnationalorganisationssuchastheSSCs.However,intheevent,thereappears

tohavebeenlittleengagement,andthisstrandofactivityisnotonethatreceivesmuch

attentionineithertheformativeorsummativeevaluations.Engagementwithemployers

wasalsoakeyobjective,butboththeinterimandsummativeevaluationsdescribedsuch

engagementas‘patchy’(CHERI2008p.5),althoughSQWdidobservethat‘78.6%of

curriculumdevelopmentsincludedsomeformofemployerengagementinthedesignor

delivery’(SQW2011p.34).

8.4.1.4Symbolisinginnovationandinfluence

VocationaltransitiontoHEhasbeenaconsistentpolicythemeformanycountriesand,

alongwiththeUSA,manynon-EuropeancountrieshaveprogressiontoHEsystemsthatare

‘culturallyembedded’,suchasSingapore,AustraliaandNewZealand(Watson2005p.193).

InEurope,ithasbeenEUpolicysince2002tosupportlifelonglearning(Nemeth2010),

althoughMulleretal(2015)suggestthat,formanycountries,‘thetransitionbetween

vocationalandacademicstillneedstobesimplified’(p.530).ThemodelsadoptedbyNordic

countries,suchasFinlandandDenmark,demonstratethegreaterparticipationrates,

althoughHungaryisperhapstheonlyotherEuropeancountrytohavelifelonglearning

networks(Nemeth2010).

AlthoughtheLLNscouldnotbesaidtobeinnovativewithinaninternationalcontext,they

couldbedescribedasinfluentialinanEnglishcontext,andcertainlysymbolically

progressive,sincethiswasanattemptatanewsector-widepartnershipinitiativebetween

FECsandHEIstoputvocationalprogressiononaparwithacademicprogression.However,

272

commentatorshavequestionedtheextenttowhichLLNsweresufficienttobeableto

challengetheexistinghierarchyandperceptionofvocationalqualificationsincomparison

toacademicqualifications(Leahy2013,Watson2005,LittleandWilliams2009).

8.4.2Policyprogramme

Table23–POLICYASPROGRAMME(LLNs)

Policyasprogramme:thespectrumfromsuccesstofailureProgrammesuccess

Durablesuccess Conflictedsuccess Precarioussuccess

Programmefailure

Implementationinlinewithobjectives.

Implementationobjectivesbroadlyachieved,despiteminorrefine-mentsordevia-tions.

Mixedresults,withsomesuccesses,butaccompaniedbyunexpectedandcontroversialproblems.

Minorprogresstowardsimplementationasintended,butbesetbychronicfailures,provinghighlycontroversialandverydifficulttodefend.

Implementationfailstobeexecutedinlinewithobjectives.

Implementationwasinlinewithobjectives,andalthoughthereweresomeminormodifications,HEFCEwasabletosteerandcontrolthesethroughtheregionalconsultantsandregularprogressreports.Achievementofdesiredoutcomes.

Outcomesbroadlyachieved,despitesomeshortfalls.

Somesuccesses,butthepartialachievementofintendedoutcomesiscounterbalancedbyunwantedresults,generatingsubstantialcontroversy.

Somesmalloutcomesachievedasintended,butoverwhelmedbycontroversialandhigh-profileinstancesoffailuretoproduceresults.

Failuretoachievedesiredoutcomes.

Outcomeswerebroadlyachieved,withmuchevidenceofactivity,particularlyincurriculumdevelopments,PAsandIAGs.However,thesuccessofpartnershipswasvariableandthetimescaleforfundingdidnotallowthosewithweakpartnershipstofullyembedtheworkwithininstitutionalstrategies.ThesustainabilityoftheLLNsbeyondthefundingperiodwasasignificantconcern.However,thesuccesseswerenotcounterbalancedbysubstantialcontroversy.Meetspolicydomaincriteria.

Notquitethedesiredoutcome,butsufficientlyclosetolaystrongclaimtofulfillingthecriteria.

Partialachievementofgoals,butaccompaniedbyfailurestoachieve,withpossibilityofhigh-profileexamples,eg.on-goingwastagewhenthecriterionisefficiency.

Afewminorsuccesses,butplaguedbyunwantedmediaattention;eg.examplesofwastageandpossiblescandalwhenthecriterionisefficiency.

Clearinabilitytomeetthecriteria.

Inmeetingthepolicydomaincriteria,theLLNswereinapositiontofulfiltherequirementfora‘stepchangeinvocationalprogression’(HEFCE12/2004p.1)andaidbothvocationalprogressionandwideningparticipationand,despiteaconstantlychangingpolicyenvironment,manywereabletoadapt.However,thetimescalewasnotsufficienttoshowsufficientprogressinbeinganagentforchangeinsocialmobility,whichmighthavebeenachievedwithalongerfundingperiod.

273

Policyasprogramme:thespectrumfromsuccesstofailureProgrammesuccess

Durablesuccess Conflictedsuccess Precarioussuccess

Programmefailure

Creatingbenefitforatargetgroup.

Afewshortfallsandpossiblysomeanomalouscases,butintendedtargetgroupbroadlybenefits.

Partialbenefitsrealised,butnotaswidespreadordeepasintended.

Smallbenefitsareaccompaniedandovershadowedbydamagetotheverygroupthatwasmeanttobenefit.Alsolikelytogeneratehighprofilestoriesofunfairnessandsuffering.

Damagingaparticulartargetgroup.

Thereweresomebenefitsforthetargetgroup,withvocationalprogressionenabledforsomelearners.However,thelearnerconstituencycharacteristicspointtoafailuretoachievewideningparticipationtoagreatextent.Thismighthavebeenmitigatedbyalonger,ormoresustainable,fundingperiod.

8.4.2.1Implementationinlinewithobjectives

TheimplementationoftheLLNsinitiativewasinlinewiththatoriginallyintended.HEFCE

undertookabottom-upapproach,withlooseobjectivesandnoprescribedorganisational

structureand,initiallyatleast,fewmonitoringandaccountabilityrequirements.Although

implementationwasinlinewiththeobjectives,thisbottom-upapproachwasanareaof

contestationfortheinitiative,sinceboththeinterimandsummativeevaluations,and

otherssuchasLeahy(2013),questionedwhethertheapproachprovidedsufficientdirection

onthepolicyinstrument.

Whetherthisapproachwastrulybottom-upisopentodebate,giventhecloseinvolvement

oftheHEFCEregionalconsultantsinthebusinessplansofLLNs,andHEFCE’sown

assessmentofsectorimpact(HEFCE2007),wheretheyconcludethattheinitiativewasnot

genuinelybottom-upastherewasanon-goingprocessofnegotiationbetweenpolicy

makersandproviders.Assuch,HEFCEwasbetterabletocontrolimplementationinline

withtheobjectives,andindeeddidmakesomeminormodifications,suchasthe

implementationofstrongermonitoringrequirementsasaresultoftherecommendations

oftheinterimevaluation,andimprovedidentificationandtrackingofLLNlearnersfrom

2009-10builtintoHESAdatacollections.TheregularprogressreportsfromHEFCEalso

allowedthemtoprovideagreatersteertotheLLNs,suchasthe2008reporttoguideLLNs

towardsgreateremployerengagementasaresultofachangeoffocusinotherpolicy

domains.

274

8.4.2.2Achievementofdesiredoutcomes

Thedesiredoutcomes,whichweredeliberatelyloose,aresetoutinSection7.2.5.1(p.209).

Inachievingtheobjectives,itisclearthatLLNswereengagedinaverysubstantialamount

ofactivity,intermsofthenumberofcurriculumdevelopments,PAsandIAGengagements

acrossalargenumberofinstitutions,assetoutinTable14,Chapter7(p.214).Assuch,on

thebasisoftherangeandscaleofactivities,itcouldbearguedthatLLNsweresuccessfulin

providing‘supportforlearnersonvocationalpathwaysand‘developingthecurriculumto

facilitateprogression’(objectives2and4).

However,muchofthecriticismintheevaluations,andfromothercommentators,centred

aroundtheextenttowhichLLNsfocussedon‘quickwins’inordertoshowprogresswithin

thefundingperiod,andtheextenttowhichtheirownmonitoringreportsfocussedonthe

descriptive,ratherthanathoroughevaluationoftheimpactanddeepeningeffectsoftheir

work.Inaddition,therewassomedisquiet,fromLLNs,institutionsandthroughthe

evaluations,thattheshort-termprojectnatureofthefundingmeantthattheLLNswere

notsufficientlyabletoembedtheiractivitiessothattheyweresustainablebeyondthe

funding.

WhilsttherewasaconsiderableamountofIAG(InformationandGuidance)activity,with

200,000paper-basedIAGresources,15,0001:1s,530,000groupsupportactivities,900,000

websitehitsand8,528PAs(ProgressionAgreement)inplace,theextenttowhichLLNs

wereableto‘bringgreaterclarity,coherenceandcertaintytoprogressionopportunities’

(objective3)wasquestionable.Thesummativeevaluationandothercommentators

observedthevariablequalityofsomeoftheprogressionagreements,andthatthemost

commonbi-lateralagreementsactuallyrestrictedtherangeofprogressionopportunities,

andmanyoftheprofessionalsubjects,suchasLaw,werenotavailabletovocational

learners(Mayelat2012,Woodfieldetal2013).Thus,LLNs’abilitytomeetobjective6,

‘locatetheprogressionstrategywithinacommitmenttolifelonglearning,ensuringthat

learnershaveaccesstoarangeofprogressionopportunitiessothattheycanmovebetween

differentkindsofvocationalandacademicprogrammesastheirinterest,needsandabilities

develop’iscalledintoquestion.

OneofthemaindifficultieswithPAswasreviewingandestablishingchangestoadmissions

policiesandprocedureswithininstitutions,andasBettsandBurrell(2011)observed,the

bureaucracyinvolvedinthedevelopmentofPAswasachallengetoLLNs,partners,and

particularlyemployers,andthuswasnotclearlyarticulatedforlearners.Afurtherconcern,

275

raisedinbothevaluations,wastheextenttowhichinstitutionsweresufficientlyengagedat

aseniorleveltoembedtheactivitiesintotheirstrategiesbeyondthefundingperiod,

particularlygiventhetimeandmoneyrequiredtosupportIAG.

Partnershipswerepraisedfor‘combiningthestrengthsofanumberofdiverseinstitutions’

(objective1)andtherewassupportfortheextenttowhichstaffininstitutionshadsought

tounderstandtheirpartnersandtheircourses.However,theevidencesuggestedthatthis

wasvariableacrossthenetworks,particularlyinregardtotheengagementofsomeofthe

researchintensiveinstitutions,asnotedabove.Woodfieldetal(2013)alsoobservedthat

theendofthefundingperiodwouldresultinthebreakupofmanyofthenetworks,as

activitieswerenotfullyembedded.

Itisquestionablewhetherthesectorwasfullyengaged,despitethenationalcoverageof

institutions,andallbutafewbeinginvolvedinatleastonenetwork.Evidencesuggests

thatpartnershipswereoftensuccessfulasaresultofindividualsratherthaninstitutions

andthat,insomecases,HEIinvolvementwasbasedonthefinancialincentiveofASNs

ratherthanagenuinedesiretoputvocationalprogressiononaparwithacademic

progression.Inaddition,policychangesinrelationtotheskillsagendaresultedinLLNs

developingawiderrangeofwork,oftenfarbeyondtheiroriginalbusinessplans,whichled

tosomedisconnectbetweenLLNs,theirpartnersandotherstakeholders,suchas

employers.

8.4.2.3Meetingpolicydomaincriteria

HEFCEhadadvocatedLLNsasbeingacatalystforfulfillinga‘stepchangeinvocational

progression’(HEFCE12/2004p.1)andhelpinggovernmenttoachieveitsaimofa50%

participationrateinhighereducation.Thepolicyinitiativewasabletomeetthepolicy

domaincriteriainthisregard,tosomeextentthroughconsiderableactivityinthe

developmentofcurriculum,PAsandIAG.However,theshort-termfundingapproach,

whichcameinformuchcriticism,meantthatLLNswerenotabletoshowsufficient

progresstowardsmeetingthelongertermaimofincreasingsocialmobilityorembedding

culturechangeand,asMayetal(2012)observed,theLLNshelpedtoenableprogression

foronlyasmallnumberofstudents.

276

8.4.2.4Creatingbenefittothetargetgroup

Thedataavailablerevealsthatin2007-08,theprofileofLLNlearnerswas64%female,83%

white,40%19oryoungerand12%fromPOLARquintile1.Whatisstrikingaboutthisprofile

isthattherewaslessthan1%changebetweenthisandthepreviousyear.Thisprofilealso

didnotdifferhugelyfromtheprofileofotherundergraduatestudents,bringinginto

questiontheextenttowhichLLNswereabletowidenparticipationaswellasincreaseit.

ThedatadoesalsorevealthatthenumberofLLNlearnersenteringHEwithvocational

qualificationsrose,from38%in2006-07to46%by2008-09but,ofthe5,880LLNflagged

learners,28%wereregisteredforfirstdegreesand39%forFDs.Itisnotpossibleto

ascertainwhetherthe39%ofFDstudentswouldhaveregisteredwithouttheaidoftheLLN

orwhethertheFoundationDegreepolicyitselfinfluencedthem.Thedataalsorevealsthat

therewasasignificantlyhighproportionofLLNflaggedlearnerswhowereenteringwith‘A’

levelqualifications,oralreadyheldHElevelqualifications,andthusaboutathirdofLLN

studentswereoutsidethetargetgroup.ThisbringsintoquestiontheextenttowhichLLNs

hadachievedobjective5,valuevocationallearningoutcomesandprovideopportunitiesfor

vocationallearnerstobuildonearlierlearning’.Perhapsamorestrikingfigureisthatthe

5,880LLNflaggedlearnersrepresentedjust0.7%ofthetotalundergraduatepopulationfor

thatyear.

TheanalysisofthisdataledSQWtoconcludethattheLLNsweremakingasmall,although

stillsignificant,contributiontovocationallearning.Assuch,LLNsdidcreatebenefitsfor

someofthetargetgroup,butthesewereonlypartial,andnotasdeeporwidespreadas

intended.

Further,anumberofobserversquestiontheextenttowhichLLNswereinapositionto

changetheprevailinghierarchyofvocationalandacademicqualificationsandthusenhance

socialmobilityinsuchashorttimescale(Watson2005,Leahy2013).Ithasbeenobserved,

andhighlightedbythesummativeevaluation,thatalongertimescale,ordifferentfunding

regime,mighthavebeenbeneficialinenablingLLNstomeettheirsocialmobilityobjectives

morefully.

277

8.4.3Policyaspolitics

Table24–POLICYASPOLITICS(LLNs)

Policyaspolitics:thespectrumfromsuccesstofailurePoliticalsuccess Durablesuccess Conflicted

successPrecarioussuccess

Politicalfailure

Enhancingelectoralprospectsorreputationofgovernmentsandleaders.

Favourabletoelectoralprospectsandreputationenhancement,withonlyminorsetbacks.

Policyobtainsstrongsupportandopposition,workingbothforandagainstelectoralprospectsandreputationinfairlyequalmeasure.

Despitesmallsignsofbenefit,policyprovesanoverallelectoralandreputationalliability.

Damagingtotheelectoralprospectsorreputationofgovernmentsandleaders,withnoredeemingpoliticalbenefit.

Noapparenteffectonelectoralprospects.Controllingpolicyagendaandeasingthebusinessofgoverning.

Despitesomedifficultiesinagendamanagement,capacitytogovernisunperturbed.

Policyprovingcontroversialandtakingupmorepoliticaltimeandresourcesinitsdefencethanwasexpected.

Clearsignsthattheagendaandbusinessofgovernmentisstrugglingtosuppressapoliticallydifficultissue.

Policyfailingsaresohighandpersistentontheagenda,thatitisdamaginggovernment’scapacitytogovern.

ThechangingpolicyenvironmentthroughoutthetimescaleoftheLLNinitiativedemonstratessomedifficultyinmanagingtheagenda,butLLNsdemonstratedremarkableresilienceinadaptingtochangingagendas,perhapsasaresultofHEFCE’sagendamanagementthroughregularreportsandtheengagementofregionalconsultantswiththesector.Sustainingthebroadvaluesanddirectionofgovernment.

Somerefinementsneededbutbroadtrajectoryunimpeded.

Directionofgovernmentverybroadlyinlinewithgoals,butclearsignsthatthepolicyhaspromptedsomerethinking,especiallybehindthescenes.

Entiretrajectoryofgovernmentisbeingcompromised.

Irrevocablydamagingtothebroadvaluesanddirectionofgovernment.

Thebroaddirectionofgovernmentintermsofmeetingthe50%participationinHEtargetandwideningparticipationagendawassustainedthroughouttheperiod.

8.4.3.1Effectongovernment’scapacitytogovern

ThereisnoevidencetosuggestthattheLLNinitiativedamagedtheelectoralprospectsof

government,perhapsbecausegovernmentandHEFCEwereabletodemonstratethatthe

initiativerepresentedalogicalandlegitimatejustificationforraisingthestatusof

vocationalqualificationsandwideningparticipationinHE,sincethiswasnotdissimilarto

modelsthathadbeenadoptedinmanyprogressivecountries.Equally,thereappearedto

beasustainablecoalitionthatrepresentedalmosttheentiresector.

278

8.4.3.2Controllingpolicyagenda

ThepolicyenvironmentwassomewhatvolatilethroughouttheLLNinitiative,withanew

14-19qualificationsframeworkandare-focusonemployerengagementandadvanced

apprenticeshipsfollowingtheLeitchReviewofSkills(2006).TheLLNinitiativewasforthe

mostpartrobustandadaptabletothefluctuationsinotherpolicyrealms,perhapsbecause

HEFCEwasquiteadeptatmanagingthepolicyagendathroughminormodificationsand

regularcommunicationswiththeLLNsthroughprogressreports,regionalconsultant

engagementandtheworkoftheNationalForum.

8.4.3.3Sustainingthebroadvaluesanddirectionofgovernment

ThebroadvaluesanddirectionofgovernmentwerenotharmedbytheLLNinitiative.

Indeed,despiteconsiderablefluctuationinthepolicyagendasforvocationaleducationand

skills,thegovernmentremainedbroadlyonanupwardstrajectorytomeetthe50%

participationinHEby2010,risingfrom42%in2006-07to46%in2010-11and49%in2011-

12(althoughtodate50%hasnotquitebeenachieved)(sourceDfESFR4/2017).Although

theLLNscannotclaimtohavebeenentirelyresponsibleforthisrise,theydidmakea

contributiontoasmallnumberoflearners.

8.4.4Summary

TheLLNpolicyprocesscanbedescribedasadurablesuccess,despiteoperatingina

complexandcrowdedvocationalandskillspolicyenvironmentduringitslifetime,as

demonstratedinFigure12(Chapter7,p.207).Unusually,therewasnoformalconsultation

withthesectorontheinitiative,withconsultationtakingplace‘ontheground’between

HEFCEconsultantsandLLNpartnerorganisations.Thus,contestedissuescouldberesolved

atalocallevel.HEFCEwasdeliberateindesigningabottom-upinitiativewithloose

objectives,withlittlerequirementinitiallyformonitoringandaccountability,asstatedin

theoriginalcirculartoinstitutions(HEFCE12/2004).However,despitethebottom-up

approach,therewasastrongconnectionbetweenpolicymakersandimplementations,as

HEFCEregionalconsultantswerecriticallyengagedwithpartnerinstitutionsindesigning

thebusinessplansforLLNs.Theinitiative,whilstnotwhollyinnovative,waslegitimisedby

echoingtoanextenttheprogressionapproachtakenintheUSAintheWisconsinmodelof

accesstoHE,asarticulatedbyNewby(2005a)inhisColinBellMemorialLecture,andmany

othercountriesthatsoughttoalignvocationalandacademicqualifications(Mulleretal

2015,Watson2005).Thepolicyhadbroadsupportand,atfacevalue,significantsupport

279

fromacrossthesector,withalmostnationalcoverage.Asignificantnumberofstaffwere

showntohaveengagedwiththeLLNs,andmanyHEIsandFECshadsomelevelof

engagement,asconcludedinthesummativeevaluation(2005).However,thereisevidence

thatsomeelementsofthesectorwerenotfullyengaged,suchassomeoftheresearch

intensiveinstitutions,asnotedinHEFCE’sownsummaryreportsandthesummative

evaluation(HEFCE2009,HEFCE2009/29,SQW2010).

TheLLNprogrammewasbroadlyadurablesuccess,sinceitsimplementationremainedin

linewithobjectives,throughHEFCE’sengagementandcommunicationwithLLNsthrough

regularprogressreports,whichallowedittocontrolthepolicyagendatoanextent.The

objectiveswerebroadlyachieved,particularlyintermsofthelargenumberofactivitiesand

staffinvolved,withthesummativeevaluationfindingthat39,000institutionalstaffhad

engagedwithLLNactivities.However,theshort-termnatureofthefundingmeantthat

thesewerenotasdeeporaswidespreadastheymighthavebeenhadadifferentfunding

approachbeenmaintained,andthiswasoneofthemaincriticismsofthesummative

evaluation(SQW2010).Therewassomebenefittothetargetgroup,althoughthenumber

oflearnersgainingfromtheinitiativewassmall,with5,880LLNflaggedlearners

representingjust0.7%oftotalundergraduate1styearpopulation.Theimpactonsocial

mobilitywaslessobvious,asobservedbyLittleandWilliams(2009),butmighthave

improvedwithmoretime.

TheLLNinitiativecouldbeinterpretedasadurablepoliticalsuccess.Thepolicyhadno

effectonelectoralprospectsandHEFCE’scloseengagementallowedittomanageany

difficultiesinagendamanagement,despitethecomplexandchangingpolicyenvironment.

TheLLNmadeacontribution,albeitsmall,tothebroadvaluesanddirectionofgovernment

initsaimtoraisetheparticipationrateto50%.

Returningtothemainresearchquestion,theapplicationoftheMcConnellframeworkto

theLLNinitiativesuggeststhattheLLNswereadurablesuccess,inpartduetoastrong

coalitionandrelationshipbetweenpolicy-makersandpolicy-implementers.The

programmetoowasadurablesuccess,withalargenumberofparticipantsandsome

successforstudents.Thismighthavebeenmorewidespreadthattherebeenlongerterm

funding.Thepoliticswasequallyadurablesuccess,withgovernmentbeingabletocontrol

theagendamanagement,despiteaturbulentpolicyarena.

280

8.5Discussion:Characteristics,similarities,differencesandpolicylearning

Inthissection,Iseektoaddressthefirstsupplementaryresearchquestion,‘Doesthe

evaluationofparticularpolicyepisodesrevealanycommoncharacteristicsanddistinctions

inrelationtopolicythatcouldusefullybeconsideredinrelationtofuturepolicysettingin

highereducation?’

Policylearninginthiscontextisunderstoodtobethewayinwhichgovernmentuses

knowledgeofpolicyprocesses,programmesandoutcomestoviewproblemsandsolutions

toinformfuturepolicydecisions(IPP2018),andpolicylearningcompletesthepolicycycle,

sinceitusesevaluationofpreviouspolicyepisodestoinformfuturepolicywork.Thework

ofMay(1992)isparticularlypertinenttothisstudy,whereheconsidersthatinstrumental,

societalandpoliticalaspectsofapolicycanbeoperationalised,suchthatitispossibleto

learnlessonsaboutthevalidityofthepolicy.Therearesomekeyaspectsofhiscriteriaon

policylearningthatareusefultothisstudy,sincetheystronglyreflecttheprocess,

programmeandpoliticaldimensionoftheMcConnell(2010)frameworkforarticulating

policysuccessandfailure.Indeed,Mayarguesthatexaminingpolicysuccessesandfailures

isusefulforformulatingpotentialconditionsforfuturesuccess:

‘policyfailuresareusefultoconsidersincefailureservesasatriggerforconsideringpolicyredesignandasapotentialoccasionforpolicylearning…policysuccessmightbesaidtoprovideastrongerbasisforlearningbymakingitpossibletotraceconditionsforsuccess’(May1992p.341).

Inarticulatingapositionofsuccessandfailureinrelationtoeachofthecasestudiesabove,

Ihaveexaminedeachcriteriononthepolicyprocess,programmeandpoliticsframework

andsoughttoidentifycharacteristicsthatwerecommonbetweenthecasestudies,or

distinctlydifferent.Iconcludethattherearefivebroadthemesthatarisefrommy

interpretations,inrelationtopolicyprocessandprogramme,whichbenefitfurther

consideration.Aswellasarticulatingthesebroadthemes,Ihavealsoconsideredwhereon

thespectrumofsuccesstofailureIconsidereachofthesetolieinrelationtoeachcase

study,toascertainwhethertherearelessonstobelearnedforeitherthoseelementsthat

wereasuccess,orafailure,inrelationtopolicylearning.Then,usingMay’s(1992)criteria

forpolicylearningasaguide,Iconsiderhowlessonslearnedmightbeusefulforfuture

policy-making.Mayconcludesthatbyfocussingonparticularaspectsofpolicyinstruments,

orimplementationdesign,itispossibletoarticulateanunderstandingofthesourceof

policyfailure,andhowthepolicyinstrumentanddesigncouldbeimprovedfor

281

instrumentallearning,whichhedescribesasentailing‘newunderstandingsaboutthe

viabilityofpolicyinterventionsorimplementationdesign’(May1992p.335).Equally,

focussingonthescopeofthepolicyanditsgoalscanhelptochangeexpectationsorre-

definegoals,leadingtosocialpolicylearning,whichhedescribesasentailing‘anewor

reaffirmationsocialconstructionofapolicybypolicyelitesofagivenpolicydomain’(May

1992p.337).Anexaminationofthepoliticalfeasibilityandpolicyprocessescanleadto

politicallearning,whichMaydescribesasdifferenttoinstrumentalorsocialpolicylearning,

sinceit

‘isconcernedwithlessonsaboutmanoeuvringwithinandmanipulationofpolicyprocessesinordertoadvanceanideaorproblem….Politicallearningtakesplacewithinadvocacycoalitions,leadingtomoresophisticatedadvocacyofparticularproposalsorproblems’(May1992p.340).

TheseaspectsarefullydemonstratedinChapter2,Table4(p.53).Inthissection,Iwill

considereachofthefivethemesinturn,focussingfirstlyonthesimilaritiesanddifferences

betweeneachcasestudyinrelationtothethemeandthen,inexaminingaspectsof

instrumental,socialorpoliticallearning,articulatepossiblefuturepolicylearninginrelation

toeachtheme.

Itisimportanttonotethateachthemeisnotdiscrete,andtherearestrongconnections

betweenthem,sosomecross-referencingbetweenthesectionsisnecessary.

8.5.1Theme1:Enablingstrongandsustainablecoalitions(process)

Inallthreecasestudies,theestablishmentofasustainablecoalitionwasvitaltothesuccess

oftheinitiative.Thisrelatesnotjustto‘whowasonboard’butalsoaconsiderationofthe

relationshipbetweenthestakeholderswithinthepolicycontext,andinaccommodating

eachother’sprevailingcultures.

Thee-Universitywasafailureintermsofnotestablishingacoalitiontoenablethesuccess

oftheinitiative.ItwasthefirsttimethatHEFCEhadengagedinapublic-privateenterprise

onsuchascale,andtheexpectationthatitwaspossibletoimposecommercialprotocols

andcultureonapubliclyfundedventurewasperhapsnaïve,aswasevidencedbythe

controversyofthebonusespaidtoUKeU’sdirectors.AlthoughHEFCEbelievedthatithad

thesupportoftheHEsector,withallbutfourHEIssigninguptoHoldCo,infacttherewas

littlecommitmentrequiredfrominstitutions,sincetherewasnoupfrontrequirementfor

engagementotherthana£1fee.Indeed,theHEIelementofthecoalitionfailed,inpartdue

282

totherelianceonindividualswithininstitutionstocarrytheinitiativeforward,ratherthan

havingthestrategicsupportofseniormanagementand,intheend,duetothewithdrawal

ofmanyinstitutionsfromHoldCotowardstheendoftheinitiative.Theprivatesector

partnershipsfailedtocometofruition,perhapsbecausetimescalesforexpressionsof

interestweresoshort,butalsotherewasalackofconfidenceintheventureitself,despite

thePwCbusinessmodelanditslevelofconfidenceintheinitiative.Thebiggestfailingin

establishingaworkablecoalitionrelatedtothestructurebetweenthepublic-private

organisations,HEFCE,HoldCoandUKeU.Thecomplexorganisationalrequirementto

separateHEFCEfromUKeUmeantthatHEFCEwasonestepremovedfromtheagenda

management,andthusitwasunabletocontroltheobjectivesanddesiredoutcomes,as

evidencedbyUKeU’sdivergencefromthebusinessplan.Thetargetgroup(bothdomestic

studentsandinternationalstudents)was,inmyview,animportantpartofthecoalition

and,inthecaseofthee-University,UKeUfailedtounderstanditstargetgroups,notably

ignoringalargepartofthepolicygoalforenablingsocialinclusion.Thisledtoafailureto

benefitthetargetgroups.

TheCETLshadaconflictedsuccessinestablishingacoalition.Unlikethee-Universityand

LLNs,theinitiativedidnotrequireaformallevelofengagementwitheithertheprivateor

FEsectors,andsoitdidnotrequireanunderstandingofdiverseculturalcontexts.This

shouldhavemadetheprocessofestablishingacoalitioneasier,andindeedthecoalition

withineachCETLwasevidentlystrong,buttherewereanumberofprocessissueswhich

resultedintheCETLsgarneringconflictedsuccess.HEFCEchosetoadoptacompetitive

approachtothepolicyprocess,whichresultedinsomecontestedissues,particularlyin

relationtoconcernsthatthoseinstitutionswithoutaCETLwouldbedisadvantaged.The

competitivenatureofthefundingalsomeantthatCETLsremainedrelativelyinsulartotheir

institutionand,althoughthereweremanyinstancesofexternalengagement,thenotionof

a‘CETLnetwork’didnotcometofruition.UnliketheLLNs,whichwerepraisedforhavinga

NationalForumtosharegoodpracticeacrossthesector,therewasnonationalco-

ordinationoftheCETLs,forwhichHEFCEwascriticised,andtheresultantimpactacrossthe

sectorwassporadic.Indeed,thesummativeevaluation(SQW2011)concludedthatitwas

difficulttoassessCETLs’impactongenuinesectoralchangeinraisingtheprofileoflearning

andteachinginlinewithresearch,whichhadbeenakeyobjective.Oneoftheotherissues

toarisefromtheCETLswasrelatedtoengagementbyseniormanagementininstitutions,

whichwasacommonthemethroughoutallthreecasestudies.Itwasobservedineachcase

thatwhereelementsofsuccesscouldbedemonstrated,beitthedevelopmentof

283

e-learningprogrammes,devisinglearningtoolkitswithCETLfundingorengagingwithFEC

partnersinunderstandingvocationaladmissionsintheLLNs,thiswasoftenthroughthe

commitmentofindividualsorgroupsofindividuals,ratherthanasastrategiccommitment

totheinitiativeatinstitutionallevel.ThiswasparticularlynoticeableinsomeCETLs,where

theunitswereoftenmarginalisedwithindisciplines,didnotfitwithintheprevailingculture

oftheinstitution,orwerenotvaluedbymembersofstaffs’linemanagers.Theirlimited

powertoinstigatechangewithintheinstitutionimpactedontheirabilitytoinfluence

culture,forexampleinchangingHRstrategiessuchthatlearningandteachingwasas

equallyvaluedasresearchinprogressionstrategies,andsuccessinthisareawassporadic.

Indeed,thesuccessoftheCETLswasmostlyobservedatthelevelofindividualstaff.

TheformationofacoalitionfortheLLNswasadurablesuccessand,perhaps,themost

successfulofthethreeepisodes,despitethecomplexitiesofpartnershiparrangements

betweendifferentsectorswithdifferentcultures:HEIs,FECs,employersandotheragencies

suchastheHEAandSSCs.TheLLNsalsohadtoworkwithinacrowdedandcomplexpolicy

environment,whichinvolvedpolicyrealmsoutsideofHE,whichwasnotsoevidentforthe

otherpolicyepisodes.Althoughnotallofthesepartnershiprelationshipswerecompletely

successful(forexample,theengagementwiththeHEAwaslimitedandtheengagementof

theresearchintensiveuniversitieswasvariable),therewas,however,almostnational

coverageofFEC/HEIsandengagementof33,000individualstaff.Despitethepolicyprocess

beinglabelledbyHEFCEasbottom-up,thedrivecamenotfrominstitutions,butfrom

HEFCEregionalconsultants,whoworkedwithpartnersinthecoalitiontoenableand

developtheLLNs.Perhapstheirengagementwiththesectorsandtheirstronglinkswith,

andknowledgeof,thepolicyinitiator,HEFCE(notobservedsostronglyinthee-University

orCETLs),meantthatitwaseasiertomaintainthecoalitionandmanagethepolicyagenda,

whichwasparticularlyimportantinthechangingpolicyenvironment.Thesummative

evaluationalsopraisedtheworkoftheLLNNationalForum,whichitsawasinstrumentalin

assistingwithhighlevelsofcrossLLNworking,andsowasalsoabletomaintainthe

coalition.AlthoughtheLLNswerenotrequiredtoholdformalpartnershiparrangements

withtheprivatesector,unlikethee-University,theywererequiredtoengageinsignificant

collaborationwithemployers.Itwasobservedthatthiswasinconsistentacrossthe

networks,butnevertheless77.5%ofnewcoursesestablishedbyLLNshadsomelevelof

employerengagement,andthusengagementwiththeprivatesectorthathadprovedso

difficulttoachieveinthee-Universityinitiative.

284

8.5.1.1Policylearning

TheaboveanalysisleadsmetotheconclusionthatLLNs,whichhadcomplexcoalition

relationshipsacrosssectorswithdiverseculturesandanevolvingpolicyenvironment,were

moresuccessfulinbuildingacoalitionthanthee-University,ormoreparticularlytheCETLs,

wheremaintainingthecoalitionshouldhavebeenrelativelystraightforward.Inconsidering

whatinstrumentalpolicylearning(asdescribedintheintroductiontoSection8.5,p.280)

theremaybe,itisimportanttofocusonthedesignofthepolicyinstrumentineachcase,

andinparticularontheorganisationalstructures.

Theorganisationalstructureforthee-Universitywasthepointoffailure,becauseHEFCE,as

thepolicyinitiator,wastoofarremovedfromtheimplementation(byUKeU)tocontrolthe

agendamanagementandthusmaintainastrongcoalition.IntheCETLs,thecoalitionwas

morefragmented,influencedbythecompetitivenatureofthefunding,andthusnotevery

institutionhadaCETLconnection;someCETLssatuneasilywithintheirinstitutional

structuresandthussuccessestendedtobeattheleveloftheindividual,andthelackof

supportivenationalcoordinationmeantthatitwasmuchmoredifficulttoenableasectoral

coalitionandthusenablechange.InthecaseoftheLLNs,theorganisationalstructure

entailedastrongerconnectionbetweenthecoalitionandHEFCEthroughtheHEFCE

regionalconsultants,whohadmoreownershipoftheLLNbusinessplans.TheLLNsalso

benefitedfromtheNationalForum,whichwaswellplacedtomaintainastrongcoalition,

sinceitwasabletoengagewithalltheLLNsandsharegoodpracticebetweenthem

throughpublicationsandnetworkingevents.

Theengagementoftheinstitutionataseniorlevelisalsoapotentialpointofinstrumental

failure.Inallthreeepisodes,theengagementofseniormanagementatastrategiclevel

appearedtobeweak,andtherewasastrongrelianceonindividuals.However,senior

managementshouldbeanintegralpartofthecoalition,particularlytoensurethat

individualsnotonlyhavesufficientpurchasetochangetheheartsandmindsofother

individualswithintheinstitution,butalsothetoolstoinitiateastepchangewithin

institutionalculturesandstructures.TheLLNsmayhavebeenmoresuccessfulinthisregard

thantheCETLs,becausetheHEFCEregionalconsultantswouldmostlikelyhavebeenin

communicationwiththoseataseniorlevel.

Thepolicydesignintermsofthecompetitiveapproachtopolicyepisodeswasalsoa

potentialpointoffailureinsustainingastrongcoalition.Thisisevidentinthee-University,

whereinstitutionshadtobidforfundsandASNs,andsomeinstitutionswereconcerned

285

thatthee-Universitybrandmightbedetrimentaltotheirownqualitybrand.Itisalso

evidentintheCETLswheretherewasmuchconcernthattheremightbereputational

damageforinstitutionsthatwerenotawardedaCETL.Indeed,inbothcasesitwastheview

ofthesectorattheconsultationstagethattheinitiativesshouldbenefitallinstitutions.The

e-Universitydidnothavesufficientlongevitytodetermineanycausaleffects,butthe

competitiveelementtotheCETLinitiativeresultedinlessrobustimpactacrossthesector,

asitwasdifficulttoascertaintheimpactoninstitutionsthatdidnothaveaCETL.TheLLNs,

ontheotherhand,werenotcompetitiveandagoodmanyHEIsandFECswerepartofat

leastoneLLNand,assuch,maintainingacoalitionacrossthewholesectorwaseasierto

achieve.

Forfuturepolicymaking,toestablishandmaintainastrongcoalition,instrumentallearning

fromthisresearchprojectsuggeststhatthepolicydesignneedstobenon-competitive,

suchthatallinstitutionscanbenefitfromtheoutset,whichmayleadtogreaterdeepening

effectsacrossthesector.Theorganisationalstructureneedstobeclear,suchthatthe

policyinitiatormaintainsastronglinktothecoalitionandthereforeownershipofthe

agenda.Thismaybethroughtheestablishmentofanationalco-ordinatingorganisation,on

whichthepolicyinitiatorhassufficientrepresentationtocontroltheagendamanagement.

Theengagementofseniormanagementofinstitutionsisalsoacriticalpartofthecoalition,

suchthatthepolicyisapartofthestrategicthinkingoftheinstitution,notthe

responsibilityofindividuals,inordertoprovidesufficientpurchasetoembedchange.To

maintainengagementatastrategiclevel,policy-makerscouldintroduceinducementsor

penaltiesforengagementornon-engagementwiththepolicyasaconditionoffunding.This

mightavoidaccusationsof‘takethemoneyandrun’,suchasthatlevelledatinstitutions

withaCETL(Ramsden2012).Thereisanelementofsocialpolicylearning(describedin

Section8.5,p.280)inthisregard,whereinstitutionsneedtohaveanimproved

understandingofthecausalrelationshipsbetweenthepolicyandtheiractions,suchthat

thedeepeningeffectsofapolicycanbeobservedatinstitutionalandsectorallevel.

8.5.2Theme2:Thetrajectoryofpolicy-makingbetweenpolicy-makersand

implementers(process)

Atop-downorbottom-upapproach,wherebypolicy-makersmighteitherimposethepolicy

instrument(top-down),orlooselydefineitsuchthatthepolicyevolveswith

implementation(bottom-up)couldbedescribedasthetrajectoryofpolicy-making.This

trajectoryisakeyconsiderationinthepolicyprocessand,foreachofthesecasestudies,

286

theapproachtakenwasinfluentialinitssuccessorfailure.Thee-Universitywasthemost

‘top-down’oftheinitiatives,inwhichtherewasaclearbusinessplan,andtargets,setby

HEFCE,forprogrammestobedeveloped,alongwiththee-Chinainitiative.Institutionswere

abletobidforpre-determineddevelopmentfundsandforASNs.LikethemajorityofHEFCE

initiatives,therewasaconsultationprocesswithHEIs,resultinginsomechangestothe

initiative.Themostnotablechangewasthemovefromanexclusive‘elite’approachin

whichonlyaselectnumberofinstitutionswereinvolved,toamuchmoreinclusiveproject

forallinstitutions.Despitethetop-downapproach,theorganisationalstructurewith

HoldCoandUKeUresultedinHEFCEhavingveryhands-offengagementwiththeinitiative,

astheywereremovedfromtheimplementationoftheprogramme.Thus,UKeUwasableto

divertfromtheplannedtargetsandobjectives,resultinginafailureofthepolicyprocess,

andhencetheprogramme,inmeetingitsobjectivesordeliveringtothetargetgroup.

TheCETLinitiativewasa‘bottom-up’approach,whereHEFCEwasdeliberatelyhands-off,

withveryloosedefinitionsforwhatwasmeantbyexcellenceand,whilsttherewassome

guidanceonthe‘characteristics’ofaCETL,proposedorganisationalstructureswerenot

defined.TherewassomeguidanceonsizeandshapeoftheCETLintermsoffunding

againstthesizeofthestudentpopulation,butlittleguidanceonhowthefundingshouldbe

spent,otherthanaconditionofgranttospendthecapitalfundingwithinthefirsttwo

years.Therewasconsultationwiththesector,whichledtosomecontestedissuesbeing

resolved,suchastheabandonmentofthe‘commended’status.However,theloose

definitionofexcellencemeantthatbothbiddersandthejudgingpanelwereabletoimpose

theirownvaluejudgmentsofexcellenceontheawardofCETLs,whichwasoneofthemost

contestedissuesoftheepisode.Whilstthehands-offapproachdidallowtheCETLs

freedomtosetuptheirownstructuresandcontroltheirinternalandexternalactivities,the

lackofanynationallyco-ordinatednetworkmeantthatworkbeyondtheCETLswasdifficult

toassess,particularlyinnon-CETLinstitutions,andthussectoralchangewasless

demonstrable.Whilsttherewasmuchevidenceofsuccessforindividualstaffasatarget

group,theevidenceforstudentsislessevidencedbeyondtheprovisionofadditional

resources.Assuch,thebottom-upapproachledtoaconflictedsuccessforthepolicy

process.

TheLLNinitiativewasequallyabottom-upapproach.Therewerenoformalorganisational

structuresproposedandtheobjectivesforLLNswerekeptfairlyloose,althoughitcouldbe

arguedthattheyweremoredefinedthantheCETLs,withsomeclearexpectationssetout

287

intheobjectives.Unliketheothertwoepisodes,thefundingenvelopewasnotdefined,

whichmeanttheLLNscouldbeanysizeandshape,andtherewasnoformalconsultation

process.However,despiteformallybeingabottom-upapproach,HEFCEactuallyhad

greatercontroloftheLLNinitiativethantheothertwocasestudies.Theformationofthe

LLNswasdrivenbytheHEFCEregionalconsultantsinconsultationwiththesector,so

contestedissuescouldbedealtwithinamoreinformalmanneratalocallevel.Despitean

initiallackofclosemonitoring,LLNswereintheendrequiredtocompleteannual

monitoringtemplates,andHEFCEproducedregularprogressreports,whichgaveitthe

opportunitytoprovidegreaterguidancetotheLNNsandthesector,particularlyasother

impactingpolicyrealmsevolved.ThecreationoftheNationalForumalsomeantthatthere

wasgreateropportunitytocontroldisseminationacrossthesector.Assuch,theLLN

programmewasbetterabletodeliveronitsobjectivesandbenefitthetargetgroup(the

limitationsofwhicharediscussedin8.5.5below)atboththeleveloftheLLNandthe

sector,andthuswasadurablesuccess.

8.5.2.1Policylearning

Thediscussiononthepolicyapproachsuggeststhatthereisinstrumentalpolicylearningin

consideringthetypeofpolicydesign.Atop-downpolicyapproachdoesnotnecessarily

guaranteethatpolicy-makershavesufficientcontrolofthepolicyandotherfactors,

particularlywhereitisstructurallyremovedfromtheimplementation,asthiscanhavean

effectonhowtheprogrammeisdelivered,aswasthecasewiththee-University.Equally,a

truebottom-upapproach,whereobjectivesarelooselydefined,canleavethepolicyopen

toareasofcontestationandinstitutionslookinginwardstoresolvecontestedareas,rather

thanagreatersectoralapproach.Thisleadstoobjectivesbeingmetatalocallevel,but

deepeningeffectsacrossthesectornotbeingachieved,resultinginconflictedsuccess.

Perhapsthemostsuccessfulapproachisoneinwhichorganisationalstructuresand

objectivesremainrelativelyloose,andactivitycanbedeterminedbytheinstitutions

themselves,butthereisstronginvolvementfrompolicy-makersinmonitoringprogressand

controllingthepolicyagenda,byprovidingguidancetoinstitutionsonsteeringprogress

towardsthedesiredoutcomes,resultinginpolicy-makershavinggreatercontroloverthe

sectoralimpactofthepolicy.Thismightstillleadtoadurable,ratherthananoutright

success,butpolicy-makerswillhavehadgreaterinfluenceoverengaginginstitutions

towardsthatsuccess.

288

8.5.3Theme3:Approachestoensuresustainability(programme)

Thelong-termsustainabilityofapolicyinitiativeisakeypartoftheprogrammedesign,ifit

istobeaworthyuseofpublicfunds,andabletoendureadeepeningeffectacrossthe

sector.Thee-Universitywastheonlyoneofthepolicyepisodesinwhichthelongterm

sustainabilityoftheinitiativewasfullyarticulatedbyHEFCE,throughthebusinessmodel,

whichexpectedtheinitiativetobeself-sustainingwithin5-6years,fundedthroughstudent

feesandwithasmallelementofpublicfundingthroughASNs.Whatlittlepublicfunding

therewascameintheformofdevelopmentfundingforprogrammes,andASNstosupport

thesocialmobilityaimsoftheinitiative.Intheevent,theself-sustaininggoalsofthe

businessmodelwerenotsustainable,butthefailureswereduenottothefinancialmodel

itself,buttosignificantfailingsinthepolicyprocessanddeliveryoftheprogramme.Itis

noteworthythatseveralwitnessestotheSelectCommitteesuggestedthatthefinal

closedownofUKeUwastoohurried,andthatitmighthavebeenfinanciallysustainable

givenmoretime.

BoththeCETLandLLNinitiativeswerefinancedbytimelimited,projectfunding,although

thesignificantdifferencewasthatCETL’sfundingenvelopewassetat£335mover5years,

buttheLLNshadnodefinedlimit,asHEFCEdidnotwanttolimitLLN’splans;intheend,

£105moftheSDFwasspentover6yearsonLLNs.Onedifferencebetweenthetwocase

studieswasthatLLNshadasmallelementofrecurrentfunding,throughtheallocationof

ASNstoeithertheLLNitselforitspartnerinstitutions,althoughthesewerecutwhenpublic

spendingcutswereintroducedduringthe2008recession.TheCETLfundinghadfew

restrictionsonhowthemoneycouldbespent,although,crucially,capitalspendinghadto

becompletewithinthefirsttwoyears.SomeCETLsobservedintheirevaluationsthatthe

focusonspendingwithinthefirst2yearsimpactedonhowtheymanagedtheCETLandits

subsequentspendingintheremainderoftheperiod.Thusitcouldbeconcludedthatthe

wayinwhichfundingisallocatedandrestrictedcanhaveafundamentaleffectontheway

inwhichthepolicyepisodeplaysoutininstitutions.

Thetime-limitednatureofthefundingforboththeCETLsandLLNswasoneofthemost

contestedissuesintheevaluationsoftheepisodes.ThesummativeevaluationoftheCETLs

foundthatfewinstitutionshadalongtermcommitmenttocontinuingCETLs,withonly

20%committingfundstosecuretheirexistencebeyondthefundingperiod(SQW2011).For

SQW,thiswasasignificantfailingofinstitutionsandHEFCE,whom,theyargued,hadletthe

legacyoftheinitiativeliewithindividualscommittedtokeepingtheworkgoingbeyond

289

funding.Asaresult,althoughtherewassignificantCETLactivity,thelackofembeddingthe

activityininstitutionsandthesectormeantthatthelongertermlegacywasnot

sustainable.Thisresultedintheprogrammebeingadurablebutconflictedsuccess.Gosling

andTurner(2015)suggestthatthisisatypicalweaknessofshort-termfundingprojects,

thattheyarerelativelypowerless,withlittlepurchasetoinstigaterealchangeinthesector.

Trowleretal(2013)inanHEAcommissionedreviewofallHEFCElearningandteaching

initiatives,concludedthattherewasnoevidencethatprojectfundedinitiativessuchas

CETLshadresultedinculturechangeacrossthesector.

LikeCETLs,timelimitedfundingforLLNscameinformuchcriticismintheevaluations,as

fewinstitutionshadcommittedtofundingbeyondtheinitialfundingperiod.Thelimited

timeframemeantthatLLNstendedtoworktowards‘quickwins’ratherthanfocussingon

thelongertermneedtoembedvocationalprogressionintheworkofinstitutions.Like

CETLs,thesummativeevaluationconcludedthattherehadbeeninsufficientfocusonthe

longtermsustainabilityoftheLLNs,andalthoughmanyLLNshadastrategyforcontinuing

insomeformorother,itwasunrealistictoexpectthatallLLNactivitywouldbeembedded

ininstitutions,and,withoutcontinuedfinancialsupport,therewouldbeaninevitable

contractionofactivities(SQW2010).Thiswasparticularlyproblematicforachievingtheaim

ofincreasingsocialmobility,sincewhilsttherehadbeensomesuccessforasmallnumber

ofstudents,theeffectswerenotwidespreadandneededmoretimetoembedacrossthe

sector.

Anobservationthatwascommonacrossallthreeepisodeswasthattherewasnoupfront

commitmentrequiredbyinstitutionsforthefunding,oranyrequirementtocommittothe

continuationoftheinitiativeattheendofthefundingperiod.JohnBeaumont(Chief

ExecutiveofUKeU)hadcomplainedduringtheSelectCommitteeenquiryintothee-

UniversitythatinstitutionshadlittlecommitmenttoHoldCo,withonlya£1upfront

payment.TrowlerandBamber(2005)consideredthatbeaconprojectslikeCETLswere

‘ChristmasTree’modelsofpolicymaking,allshinylightsbutwithnolastingeffect,because

institutionswereattractedbythelargesumsoffundinginvolved,butnotcommittedtothe

initiativeinthelongertermwithoutfunding.Equally,DavidKernohan,AssociateEditorfor

WONKHE,speculatedthatinstitutionshadbeenattractedtothelargesumsofmoney

involved,ratherthananactualcommitmenttoimprovingteaching(Kernohan2015).

290

8.5.3.1.Policylearning

Thediscussiononsustainabilityoftheepisodeshighlightsopportunitiesforboth

instrumentalandsocialpolicylearning.Anunderstandingoftheconsequencesofshort

termfundingpolicydesignillustratesthattheendofthefundingperiodisapointof

weaknessinproject-basedinitiatives,whichgivestheminsufficientpurchasetoensurea

deepeningeffectacrossthesector,resultingin,atbest,durablesuccess.Thiseffectis

magnifiedwhenthereisalackofcommitmentwithininstitutionsatastrategiclevelto

continuefunding,anditislefttoindividuals,asobservedwiththeCETLs.Sociallearningcan

beachievedthroughchangedexpectationsofboththepolicy-makersandsenior

managementininstitutions,inensuringthatthereisacommitmenttocontinuebeyondthe

fundingperiodatastrategiclevel.Thismightbeachievedthroughtimelimitedproject

funding,toenableaninitiativetogetofftheground,andalongertermcommitmentfrom

policy-makers,withsmallerrecurrentfundingwhichrewardsinstitutionswhocontinueto

progressdeepeningeffectsoftheinitiativeacrossthesector.Institutionsmightalsobe

required,asaconditionoffunding,tosubmitaplanatthebiddingstageforhow

continuationoftheprojectisenabledwithintheirlongertermsstrategies,toensuresenior

managementcommitment.

8.5.4Theme4:Theroleofmonitoringandevaluationtoensurevalueformoney

(programme)

Monitoringandevaluationareanimportantpartofthepolicyprogramme:tocompletethe

policycycle;todemonstratevalueformoney;andforpolicylearning.Evaluationwasnotan

explicitdimensionontheMcConnellframework,butitisakeyimplicitpartofit.

Thee-Universityinitiativedidnotrequireformalmonitoring,partlybecausethebusiness

planproducedbyPwCmeantthatthereshouldnothavebeensufficientrelianceonpublic

fundsinthemediumtermtorequireextensivemonitoring,andASNsallocatedto

institutionswouldbemonitoredthroughtheusualinstitutionalannualmonitoring

mechanisms.However,UKeUwasexpectedtoreporttotheHEFCEBoard,anditwasits

revisiontothebusinessmodelreportedtotheHEFCEBoardthattriggereditsclosure.

Attheoutset,boththeCETLandLLNinitiativeshadveryfewmonitoringandaccountability

requirements,aspartoftheirbottom-updesignapproach.GoslingandTurner(2015)

observedthatwhentheCETLswerefirstestablished,thelackofstrongaccountabilitywasa

novelfeatureoftheinitiative.Duetothebottom-upapproachadoptedbyHEFCE,both

291

CETLsandLLNswereexpectedtobeself-monitoringand,inbothcases,thisapproachwas

metwithmuchcriticism.Gosling(2016)notedoftheCETLsthatHEFCEhadanover-reliance

oninstitutions’managerialcommitmenttooverseethemonitoringthemselves,butas

alreadyobservedelsewhereinthischapter,muchoftheimplementationoftheseinitiatives

waslefttoindividualstaff,andtheretendedtobealackofinstitutionallevelmanagement.

ItwasnotedinChapter6thatRamsden,thenoftheHEA,saidoftheCETLs,‘aclassiccase

ofweakmanagementthatmagnifiedtheflawsinpolicy…HEFCEshouldhavefoundawayto

makeinstitutionsaccountable,notjusttotakethemoneyandrun’(Ramsden2012).

However,despitetheinitialsimilarities,LLNsdidbecomesubjecttoclosermonitoring,after

muchcriticismoftheapproachbytheinterimevaluation.HEFCEsetupamonitoring

templateandthiswasusedtoproduceregularprogressreports.Thisregularmonitoring

andreportingenabledHEFCEtosteerLLNsinparticulardirections,whichwasnecessaryin

suchachallengingandchangingpolicyenvironment,asnotedin8.4.2.1above.

LikemanyHEFCEinitiatives,bothCETLsandLLNsweresubjecttoamid-termformativeand

anend-of-termsummativeevaluation,conductedbyindependentevaluators.Inboth

cases,theevaluationsweremostlydesk-basedactivities,withself-evaluationsfromthe

centresandnetworks,ande-questionnaires.Someinterviewswereconducted,however,

usuallywithcentres’directorsandseniorinstitutionalstaff.SomeindividualCETLsand

LLNswereindependentlyevaluated,butthiswasnotwidespread.Itisnoteworthythat

evaluatingbenefittothetargetgroupswasoftendifficult,particularlyinassessingthe

benefittostudentsand,inthecaseoftheLLNs,thee-surveytolearnersresultedinonly

269responses,makingitdifficulttogaugetheimpactonlearnerswithanyauthority.

Oneotherareaofcommonalityisthattheself-evaluationsfromcentresandnetworksfor

bothinitiativescameinforagooddealofcriticism.Theytendedtovaryinqualityandbe

highlydescriptiveandoneofthekeyscriticismsofthesummativeevaluationswasthatthey

werenotevidenceled.Inbothcases,thesummativeevaluationsconcludedthattheywere

challengingtouseanditwasdifficulttobothassessvalueformoneyandevidencethe

deepeningeffectsacrossthesector.InthecaseoftheLLNs,thecentresthemselves

observedthatthatitwasoftendifficulttoevidenceLLNlearnersbecausethemonitoring

mechanismsoutsideoftheLLN,ininstitutionsandthroughUCAS,madeitdifficultto

identifyLLNspecificlearners.

292

8.5.4.1Policylearning

Areviewofthemonitoringandevaluationmechanismineachcasegivesriseto

instrumentalpolicylearningwithregardstotheimplementationdesign.Theaboveanalysis

hasdemonstratedthatweakmonitoringandevaluationdesignleadstopoorlyevaluated,

insular,self-evaluationsandaninabilitytoevaluatebothvalueformoneyandcultural

changeacrossthesector.Ithasalsobeenobservedthatapoorresponsetotheformal

evaluationsbytargetgroupsmakesitchallengingtoevaluateimpactwithauthority.SQW,

followingthesummativeevaluationoftheLLNs,recommendedtoHEFCEthatthedesignof

anysuchpolicyinitiativesshouldhavetimeforafullprogrammeofevaluationbuiltin(SQW

2010p.59).Iwouldsuggestthattimeandfundingforafullyarticulatedanddesigned

evaluationisalwaysbuiltintofutureinitiatives,suchthatthereisanevaluativetemplate

whichrequiresregularevidenceofmeetingtargetsandobjectives,demonstrablebenefitto

thetargetgroupandtheimpactontheinstitution.Itmightbethecasethatsomefundingis

heldbackuntilthefullmonitoringandevaluationrequirementshavebeenmet.

Fullconsiderationoftheevaluationrequirementsinadvanceshouldalsoincludeany

systemdesignrevisions,tomitigatesuchinstancesasobservedwiththeLLNinitiative,

whereexistingsystems,throughUCASandinstitutionsformonitoringstudentnumbers,

mademonitoringofLLNlearnersproblematic.Inaddition,thisshouldbecentrallyco-

ordinatedsuchthattheimpactoftheinitiativeacrossthesectorasawholecanbe

evaluated.Regularmonitoringwouldallowrefinementstotheevaluationtobemade

duringthelifetimeoftheinitiative,whichworkedwellfortheLLNs.Thiswillbecome

particularlyimportantinthefuture,asoneofthedutiesfortheOfSundertheHigher

EducationandResearchAct(2017)istomonitorandpromotevalueformoneyasoneof

theprioritiesoftheregulatoryframework.

8.5.5Theme5:Theroleofpolicy-makersinpreservingthepolicygoalsandagenda

management(processandpolitics)

AkeypartoftheMcConnellframeworkisthesuccessorfailureofapolicytoretainthe

broadvaluesofgovernment,andforittosuccessfullymanagethepolicyagenda.

Considerationofhowthiswasachievedinrelationtothesepolicyepisodesisparticularly

relevanttothisstudy,sinceHEFCEheldauniquepositionbetweenthesectorand

government,andplayedapivotalroleinallofthecasestudies.Itisnoteworthythatinall

threecases,despitethelargesumsofmoneyinvolved,nonereceivedparticularlyadverse

293

publicity,beyondthespecialistpress.Althoughthee-Universitywasprobablythemost

politically‘hot’episode,inthatitsfailurewasthemostpubliclyairedintheformofaSelect

Committeeinquiryandtherewasmuchdisquietinrelationtothewasteofpublicfunds,it

actuallyrepresentedthesmallestinvalue,atalmosthalftheexpenditureoftheLLNsand

onlyafifthoftheCETLs.

Despitetheabsolutefailureofthee-Universitypolicyinstrumenttodeliverthe

government’sbroadergoals,thesewerenotadverselyaffectedbythepolicyfailure.It

couldbearguedthat,althoughHEFCEwascriticisedbysomeforclosingdownUKeUtoo

quicklyandnotgivingitachance,HEFCE’squickreactionsavedfurtherpubicfundingfrom

beingconsumed.Inaddition,thequickturnaroundinreviewingitsstrategyfore-learning,

enablingittoappeaseinstitutionsbyputtingtheremaining£12mintoinstitutionallybased

e-learningprogrammeswithmixedmodesofdelivery,mayhavealsocontributedto

retainingthebroaderpolicygoals.Inthiscase,HEFCEwasabletocontroltheagenda

management,suchthatitdidnotdamageeitherthegovernmentoritspolicygoals.

TheCETLsarenoteworthyfortheirpotentialtohavebecomepoliticallyhot,sincetheyonly

partiallymetthepolicygoalsanddomaincriteria,andasaresultwereaconflictedsuccess.

Yet,theconflictedsuccesswasatacostequaltothetotalcostofallotherlearningand

teachingenhancementinitiativesatthattime.Theevidencefortheseshortcomingsatsuch

acostcouldhaveresultedingreaterscrutiny,eitherfromgovernmentorthemedia,and

indeedKernohan(2015)questionedwhy,withhindsight,therewasnotaselectcommittee

inquiry.PartofthereasonforCETLsbeingaconflictedsuccesswasHEFCE’spolicy

approach,whichleftsomepartsoftheprocessopentocontestation,andabsenceof

nationalco-ordinationmeantthattheeffectsweremodestandmostlylocal,andtherewas

littleevidenceofsectoralchange.Inthiscase,thebottom-upapproachmeantthatHEFCE

waslessabletocontroltheagendamanagement.

TheLLNinitiativewastheepisodeinwhichcontroloverthepolicygoalsandagenda

managementhadthepotentialtobethemostproblematic,giventhevolatileandcomplex

policyenvironmentatthattime.However,theinitiativewasabletodeliveradurable

success,whichIwouldcontendwasdue,inpart,toHEFCE’sabilitytomanagetheagenda

withtheLLNsthroughtheregionalconsultants,regularmonitoringandprogressreports,in

whichtheywereabletosteerLLNsthroughsomechallengingpolicydomainsimpactingon

294

theirwork.Forexample,HEFCEwasabletosteerLLNstowardsgreaterengagementwith

employers,asaresultofthechangeingovernmentfocusfollowingtheLeitchReviewof

Skills.

8.5.5.1Policylearning

Ananalysisofhowthepolicyagendawasmanagedineachcaseoffersbothinstrumental

policylearningandpoliticallearning(asarticulatedinSection8.5,p.280)opportunities.In

instrumentalterms,theagendamanagementisacriticalpartofthepolicyprocess,

particularlywhenthepolicyenvironmentiscomplexandvolatile,andrequirespolicy-

makerstoretainsomeagilityoverthepolicy,andsteerchangesandre-directquicklyto

ensureatleastadurablesuccess.Inprocessterms,itishelpfultohavepolicy-makersto

haveadvocates‘ontheground’tohelpmanagethepolicyagendawiththecoalition.Inthe

caseoftheLLNs,thecloseinvolvementofHEFCEregionalconsultantsandtheNational

Forumwereinstrumentalinthisrole.Assuch,itwouldbehelpfulforfuturehigher

educationpolicy-makerstoestablishnetworksofadvocatesatthepolicydesignstage.

Intermsofpoliticallearning,thefocusrestswithMay’s(1992)politicalflexibility,inthat

policyprocessesandprogrammesaresufficientlyrobusttoaccommodatechangesin

governmentandotherpolicyinitiativeswhichmightimpactonthelikelysuccessofthe

programme,aswasthecasewiththeLLNs.Inthecaseofthee-University,thepolicy

processandtheprogrammewereinsufficientlysuccessfultoaccommodateflexibility,

primarilyduetotheweaknessesoftheorganisationalstructureandcoalition.However,

HEFCEwassufficientlyawareofthedifficultiesintheagendamanagementatthepointthat

UKeUofferedarevisedbusinessplan(whichreliedalmostentirelyonpublicfunds)toclose

downtheinitiativeandre-directremainingfundstoarevisede-learningpolicy.Assuch,

thissuggeststhatfuturepolicy-makersneedtohavebothastrongrelationshipwiththe

coalitiontoenablepolicyagilityandalsoacloserelationshipwithgovernment,suchthat

theyhavesufficientpurchasetotakecontroloftheagendamanagementwhenrequired,to

avoidapoliticaldisaster.

8.6Discussion:understandingthelocusofpolicymaking

InthissectionIconsiderunderstandingsofthelocusofHEpolicy-makingasarticulatedin

Chapter4,Table9(p.141),andthelessonslearnedfromtheaboveanalysis,toaddressthe

295

secondsupplementaryresearchquestion,‘WhatcanananalysisofHEFCEpolicy-making

revealaboutthelocusofpowerinpolicy-makinginhighereducation?’

InChapter4,Iobservedthathighereducationwasperhapsuniqueinhavingan

intermediarybodybetweengovernmentandthesector,andinTable9(p.141)Iarticulated

howthepositionofthatintermediarybodyhaschangedsincetheinceptionofUGCin

1919,wherehighereducationpolicywas‘insideout’(Shattock2012),withuniversities

determiningtheirownpoliciesandUGCoperatingasa‘buffer’tomitigatebetweenthe

potentialpolicyconflictsofuniversitiesandgovernment.Therewaslittlechangeinthis

situationuntilthe1980s,whentherewasgreaterstateinterventionandUGC’srolebegan

tomorphintoamediator,aspolicy-makingbecamemore‘outsidein’(Shattock2012),as

statefundingofthesectorcontinuedtoincrease.WiththeadventofHEFCEin1992,the

rolechangedoncemoretothatof‘agent’actingonbehalfofgovernmentasthefunder,

whereuniversitieshadtobecomemoreaccountableforstatefunding.Overthenext25

years,HEFCE’spositioncontinuedtochange,fromagentandfunderto‘broker’between

theopposingsidesofgovernmentandthesector,assuccessivegovernmentsincreased

accountability,whilstreducingfunding,andshiftingpolicygoalstowardsthemarketisation

ofhighereducation.In2010,HEFCEformallybecametheregulatorofhighereducation,

withamuchreducedfundingroleand,uponitsdemisein2018,theOfShasbecomethe

principleregulatorforHE,witharegulatoryframeworkagreedundertheHigherEducation

andResearchAct(2017).

Centraltothisstudyistheconsiderationofthelocusofpolicy-makingduringtheHEFCE

period,andwhatthismightmeanforfuturehighereducationpolicy-making.Successive

governmentshaveheldneoliberalpolicyidealsforhighereducationoverthelast25years,

whereneoliberalismisunderstoodtorefertoapreferenceformarket-orientatedpolicies,

drivenbystrongstateorientationtowardsthemarket(Mirowski2014).Suchanapproach

canbeobservedinHE,withincreasedmarketisationofthesector,movingfundingfromthe

statetotheconsumer,butwithnotablyincreasedrequirementsforaccountability.

Fromananalysisofthethreecasestudies,ithasbeendemonstratedthatHEFCEplayeda

pivotalroleinmanagingtheagendaofpolicy-making.Inallthreecases,theimpetusseems

tohavecomefromHEFCE,andtheknowledgeandexpertiseofitschiefexecutives,allof

whomhadexperienceoftheHEsector.SirBrianFender,ChiefExecutiveofHEFCEin2001,

tookresponsibilityfortheideaofthee-University,claimingthatHEFCEhadputforwardthe

ideapriortothespendinground,andthatithadbeensubsequentlytakenupbyministers.

296

TheCETLinitiativewasinitiallyenvisionedinthe2003WhitePaper‘TheFutureofHigher

Education’,but,accordingtoTaggart(2003),HEFCEhadalreadyincludedtheideaforCETLs

intheir2003strategicplan,andinfacttheWhitePaperwasessentiallyacopyofHEFCE’s

plan.In2003,theChiefExecutiveofHEFCE,SirHowardNewby,laidclaimtotheLLN

initiative,announcingitinthe2004ColinBellMemorialLecture.

FromtheanalysisofthecasestudiesagainsttheMcConnellframework,itismyviewthat

thereisadirectrelationshipbetweentheinvolvementofHEFCEintheprocess,

implementationandagendamanagement,andthesuccessofthepolicyinitiative.Forthe

e-University,theorganisationalstructureremovedHEFCEfromtheprocessandthe

programme,resultinginorganisationalweaknessesinthecoalitionandthefailureofthe

initiative.ItwaspossiblyHEFCE’sagendamanagementinclosingdownUKeUanddiverting

theremainingfundingtoarevisede-learningpolicythatavertedapoliticalfailure.The

CETLswereaconflictedsuccess,andmanyoftheissuesthatmadeitsorelatedtoHEFCE’s

bottom-upapproach.Thisapproachmeantthatitsdeliberatelyvaguedefinitionsof

excellence,togetherwithweakmonitoringandaccountabilityprocesses,lefttheinitiative

opentocontestation.Thecompetitivenatureofthefundingandlackofcentralco-

ordinationfortheinitiativemeantthatitssuccesseswerelocalisedandeffectswerenotas

deepasintendedacrossthesector.TheLLNinitiative,althoughostensiblybottom-up,

actuallyhadthemostHEFCEinvolvementofallthreeepisodes,beingdrivenbyHEFCE

regionalconsultantsindialoguewiththesector.Despiteacomplexandchangingpolicy

environment,HEFCE’smonitoringandregularprogressreportsmeantthatitwasbetter

abletocontroltheagendamanagement.AlthoughtheLNNswereadurable,ratherthanan

outright,success,thiswasduetotheinabilityoftheprogrammetosufficientlyembed

culturalchangewithinthetimescale,andsowasonlyabletoreachasmallnumberof

learners.Inmyview,thislastpointrepresentsagenericweaknessintheEnglishpolitical

system,wherebypolicyappearstooftenonlybethoughtofinthemediumterm,drivenby

theelectionofgovernmentsandcorrespondingchangesinpoliticalparties’agenda

manifestoseveryfourtofiveyears,resultinginthefundingofsuchinitiativesnotbeing

consideredoverthelongerterm.

IwouldarguethatHEFCEwasnotjusthugelyinfluentialasapolicy-maker,butalsohadat

itsdisposalthepowertoshape,influenceandsteerpoliciesinaction,andhasthusbeena

keypartofBall’s(2006)‘policycontextofpractice’(seeChapter2).Thisbringsthethesis

backtoBall’spointthatpolicyisnotjustalegislativemoment,andthatitistheagencyof

297

policythatisimportant.HEFCEpositioneditselfsuchthatitwasveryinfluentialin

managingthatagencyinhighereducation.Intermsofthelocusofpowerforfuturehigher

educationpolicy-making,thisdiscussionbringsthethesisbacktothequestionsraisedin

Chapter4,andtheroleoftheOfS,wheretheinitialplanforOfSwasthatit‘wouldnotdo

policy’(Kernohan2018),andhasnotbeensetup,asEvans(2018)notes,toactivelyengage

withothersectoragencies.Assuch,thelocusofpowerforpolicy-makingwouldliewith

ministers,who,inmyview,donothavethetime,expertiseorpurchasetoengagewiththe

agencyofpolicyinthecontextofpractice.Assuch,itwillbemoredifficultforthemto

activelyengageinsecuringastrongcoalitionandpreservethepolicygoalsthrough

effectiveagendamanagement,whicharecriticalforensuringpolicysuccess,asarticulated

above.

8.7Discussion:critiqueoftheframework

Inthissection,Iofferacritiqueofthetheoreticalframework,inordertoaddressthefinal

researchquestion,‘towhatextentisthechosentheoreticalframeworksufficientor

inadequateinanalysingpolicysuccessandfailureinthecontextofcontemporary

theoreticalapproachestopolicyanalysis?’,withobservationsonitsappropriatenessand

limitationsinthecontextofhighereducation,andrelatingbacktothediscussioninChapter

2oncontemporaryunderstandingsofpolicyandpolicyanalysis.

ItismyviewthattheMcConnellframework(2010)hasservedtoprovidebothasound

methodologicalapproachandausefuloperationaltoolforasystematicexaminationofthe

process,programmeandpoliticsdimensionsofthechosencasestudies.The10-point

frameworkthatMcConnellsuggeststoguideresearchersinexaminingparticularaspectsof

policies,asdescribedinTable5(p.60),provedusefulindevisingthecodesforseekingout

particularaspectsofthecasestudiesfromthechosentexts.Theframeworkhasenabled

metoarticulateaninterpretativepositionofsuccessandfailurealongthespectrumofthe

frameworkandhelpedidentifythat,inallthreecasestudies,aspectsofthepolicyprocess,

programmeandpoliticsweremoresuccessfulthanothers.This,inturn,hasenabledmeto

identifysomedistinctionsandcommonalitiesfromthecasestudiesand,inrecognising

whataspectsweremoresuccessfulthanothers,informedadiscussiononfuturepolicy

learning,aidedbytheworkofMay(1992)inpolicylearning.

However,useoftheframeworkhasalsohighlightedsomelimitations,particularlyin

relationtocontemporaryunderstandingsofpolicyanalysisandhighereducationpolicy-

298

makinginEngland.Ihaveidentifiedthreemainlimitationsandwilloffersomepossible

solutionstoaddresseachoftheseshortcomings.

8.7.1Dynamismovertime

McConnellsuggeststhattheresearchershouldidentifythetimeperiodwhichtheywishto

addressinrelationtothepolicy.Theframeworklendsitselfwelltoaddressingaparticular

timeframe,particularlygiventhestaticnatureofthematrix,andIsoughttoaddressthisby

identifyingcasestudieswhichconcludedwithinanarticulatedtimeframe.However,this

doesnotacknowledge,evenwithinthechosentimeframe,thatapolicymay,forexample,

succeedinitially,butfaillateron,andtheframeworknotdoeshavesufficientfluidityto

articulatethisposition.Thiswouldbeparticularlybeneficialinanalysinghowwellthepolicy

metitsobjectivesorbenefittedthetargetgroupontheprogrammedimension,whichmay

wellchangeovertime.TheCETLsareagoodexampleofthis,where,atthepointofthe

interimevaluation,therewasmuchevidenceofsuccess,andtheinterimevaluation

concludedthattherewas

‘anoverallpositivenarrativeforthedevelopmentofCETLsas‘nodes’ofteachingandlearning-focusedactivities…thedatapointstoarangeofpositiveeffectstheexistenceoftheCETLprogrammehadenabled…theseeffectstendtobecirculatingaroundthedirectbeneficiariesofCETLresourcesbutthereisgrowingevidencethateffectsarebeginningtomoveoutfromtheenclavesofpracticewithinCETLsand,insomecases,arebeingusedtostrategiceffectwithininstitutions’(Saundersetal2008p.4).

However,bythesummativeevaluation,itwasclearthatthedeepeningeffectsacrossthe

sectorhadfailedtocometofruition,andsowhatappearedtobeadurablesuccessbecame

aconflictedsuccessbytheendofthetimeperiodunderinvestigation.Asaresult,theCETLs

failedintheoverarchingaimtobringteachingandlearningexcellenceonaparwith

researchexcellence.Equally,theLLNscouldbeanexampleofapolicythatbothsucceeded

andfailedoverthetimeperiod.Toenabletheframework,theanalysisforLLNsstopsatthe

endofthefundingperiod,anditwasobservedthatwhilsttherehadbeensuccess,thishad

onlybeenevidentforsomelearners,andsotheeffectswerenotasdeeporaswidespread

asintended.Hadtheanalysisbeenextendedbeyondthefundingperiod,itmighthavebeen

thecasethatmanymorelearnershadbenefittedandsothedeepeningandwidening

effectsmayhavebeenmoreapparent.Inbothcases,itmighthavebeenpossibleto

representthisshiftinamoredynamicwayontheframework,andtoarticulatepossible

reasonsfortheshift,whichmighthavebeen,forexample,furtherrevisionstothepolicy

realm,afurtherinjectionoffundingorachangeofgovernment.Twoexamplesaregivenin

299

Tables25(p.299)and26(p.300),thefirstarticulatingachangebetweenthetwo

evaluationsoftheCETLs,andthesecondafictitiousexampleofwhatcouldhavebeen

articulatedhadthetimeframeoftheLLNsbeenextended.Ineachcase,thenotionthatthe

granularityofsuccesshaschangedovertimeisrepresentedbythearrowdemonstratinga

shiftfromonecharacteristicofsuccesstoanother,withthedatesindicatingtheperiodof

time.FortheCETLs,thisvisualisationdemonstratesthattheachievementofthedesired

outcomesdeclinedovertime,andfortheLLNs,thebenefitsforthetargetgroup(could

have)improvedovertime.Sucharepresentationwoulddemonstratethedynamismof

policiestochangeovertime.

Table25–POLICYASPROGRAMME(CETLS)–ADDINGDYNAMISMTOTHEFRAMEWORK

Policyasprogramme:thespectrumfromsuccesstofailureProgrammesuccess

Durablesuccess

Conflictedsuccess Precarioussuccess

Programmefailure

Achievementofdesiredoutcomes.

Outcomesbroadlyachieved,despitesomeshortfalls.

2008

Somesuccesses,butthepartialachievementofintendedoutcomesiscounterbalancedbyunwantedresults,generatingsubstantialcontroversy.

2011

Somesmalloutcomesachievedasintended,butoverwhelmedbycontroversialandhigh-profileinstancesoffailuretoproduceresults.

Failuretoachievedesiredoutcomes.

Attheinterimevaluationstage,theprogrammewasadurablesuccess,suchthatoutcomesforindividualswerebeingachievedandtherewassomeevidenceofworkingtowardsalloutcomesbeingachieved.Bythesummativeevaluation,inthebroadestterms,objectiveswereachieved,withmorethan90%oftheCETLsreportingthattheyhadachievedwhattheysetouttodo.However,thesummativeevaluationconcludedthattheevidenceforsuccesswaslimitedtodescriptionsofactions,andfailedtodemonstratequalitativeimpact,particularlyatinstitutionallevelandacrossthesector.Therewas,however,noevidenceofunwantedresultsleadingtocontroversy.

300

Table26–POLICYASPROGRAMME(LLNs)–ADDINGDYNAMISMTOTHEFRAMEWORK

Policyasprogramme:thespectrumfromsuccesstofailureProgrammesuccess

Durablesuccess Conflictedsuccess

Precarioussuccess Programmefailure

Creatingbenefitforatargetgroup.

Afewshortfallsandpossiblysomeanomalouscases,butintendedtargetgroupbroadlybenefits.

date

Partialbenefitsrealised,butnoaswidespreadordeepasintended.2010

Smallbenefitsareaccompaniedandovershadowedbydamagetotheverygroupthatwasmeanttobenefit.Alsolikelytogeneratehighprofilestoriesofunfairnessandsuffering.

Damagingaparticulartargetgroup.

Thereweresomebenefitsforthetargetgroupbytheendofthefundingperiod,withvocationalprogressionenabledforsomelearners.However,thelearnerconstituencycharacteristicspointtoafailuretoachievewideningparticipationtoagreatextent.By(fictitiousdate)therehadbeengreaterengagementoftheresearchintensiveuniversitiesandmorelearnershadbenefitedinlinewiththeintendedtargets.

8.7.2Lackofinvestigationoftheagencyofpolicy

Itismyviewthattheframeworkdoesnotallowforsufficientagencyforthepolicyunder

investigation,andthereforedoesnottakesufficientaccountofhowthepolicymighthave

beeninterpretedorimplementeddifferentlybypolicyreceivers.Contemporaryviewsof

policyanalysisconsiderthatpolicyformationandimplementationisnotalinearconstruct

oftheprocess,programmeandpolitics,andanalysisneedstotakeaccountofthedynamic,

cyclicalandchaoticnatureofpolicy,consideringnotionsofpoweranddiscourseandhow

thesearereceived.DrawingonFoucault’stheoriesofknowledgeandpowerandhowthe

relationshipbetweenthemisusedbygovernmentorotherinstitutionstocontrolpolicy

implementation,andtherelatedworkofBall(1993)andFairclough(2014)ondiscourse,

suchthatlanguageandpowerareintrinsicallyconnectedis,inmyview,missingfromthe

McConnell(2010)framework,anditisinsufficientinencouragingtheresearcherto

examinethelanguageofpolicytexts,howthesearereceivedandinterpretedandthe

powerrelationshipsbetweenpolicy-makersandimplementers.AsobservedinChapter2,

Ball(2006)emphasisestheimportanceofthe‘policyreceivers’andthe‘policytexts’in

makingsenseofpolicy:‘implementationmaybedrivenbydifferentinterpretationsof

change’(Ball2006p.9),andsuchnotionsarenotconsideredbytheratherlinearandstatic

natureoftheframework.Newman(2014)alsosuggeststhattheframeworkislackinginnot

takingaccountofthedifferentinterpretationsofpolicyreceiversandhesuggestsre-

framingthedimensionsintofourcategories:‘process,goalattainment,distributional

301

outcomesandpoliticalconsequences’(seeFigure7,p.50),inordertobetteraccountforthe

agencyofthepolicy.

‘Byevaluatingtheseaspectsofapolicyseparately,itispossibletoprovideanassessmentofpolicysuccessthatcanaccountfordifferentaspectsofsuccessanddifferinginterpretations’(Newman2014p.203).

Isupporthisviewthatthesecategorisationsmightallowtheresearchertobetterarticulate

howthepolicywasreceivedandinterpretedwithinthe‘distributionaloutcomes’

dimension,andananalysisofthediscourseofpolicytexts,andthepowerrelationshipsof

thepolicyimplementersandreceivers,mightbebetterarticulatedwithinthisdimension.

8.7.3Theinvisibilityofsub-units

Forme,oneofthekeycriticismsoftheMcConnellframeworkistheone-dimensionalview

ithasofgovernment,anditsfailuretotakeaccountof‘sub-units’,suchasHEFCE,orother

sub-unitsineducationsuchastheSkillsFundingAgencyorYoungpeople’sLearningAgency

or,moregenerally,localeducationauthorities.AsIhavealreadyarticulated,HEFCE,asa

sub-unit,wascriticalinboththeformationandagencyofhighereducationpolicies,andso

thisomissioniscriticaltothisstudy.Thisomissionisalsolinkedtotheweaknessofthe

frameworkinfailingtosufficientlyrecognisethepowerrelationshipsandagencyofpolicy.

Gore(2011)isequallycriticalofthisomissionandsumsthisupwellinhiscriticismofthe

framework.Hesaysit

‘ignoresthekeyroleofsub-nationalunitsandinclusivepartnershipsininfluencingandimplementingpolicy…..littleattentionispaidtohowpolicyfiltersbetweendifferenttiersinanational(orevensupranational)policy’(Gore2001p.48).

MorerecentconceptualisationsofpolicyanalysishavefocussedonwhatLipsky(1980)

termedthestreetlevel‘policymakingcommunity’.AyresandMarsh(2013),Newman

(2013),LowndesandMcCaughie(2013)andVanderSteenetal(2013)haveallconsidered

thatthelocalisanimportantnotionwithinthecontextofpractice.Theemphasisby

McConnellon‘government’missesanimportantpointinthepowerandinfluenceofsub-

agencies,suchasHEFCE,inbeingabletoaffecthighereducationpolicyanditssuccessor

failure.

ItismyviewthatthepoliticsdimensiononMcConnell’sframeworkisparticularlydifficult

toapplyintermsofhighereducationpolicy,whenthesub-unit,HEFCE,wassuchakey

influencer.Theframeworkassumesapositionwherethepolicyisofsuchcritical

importancethatitssuccessorfailurewilldeterminethefutureprospectsofgovernment.

302

However,themajorityofhighereducationpolicies,withtheexceptionofthecurrenthigh

profiledebatesonfeesandvicechancellors’pay,rarelyreachtheattentionofthegeneral

public,aswasthecasewithallthreeofthecasestudies,andsohadlittle,ifany,effecton

government’selectoralprospects.However,inallthreecases,HEFCEheldacriticalposition

incontrollingtheagendamanagementonbehalfofgovernmentandthusinfluencedthe

directionofthepolicysuchthatanyfailuresinprocess,programmeorpoliticshadlittle

effectontheoverallabilitytogovern.Inordertomakethisparticulardimensionmore

meaningful,itmightbeausefuladditiontoconsiderwhoorwhatsub-unitiscontrollingthe

policyagenda,itspoweranddiscourserelationshipwithgovernment,anditspositionin

influencingthebroadvaluesanddirectionsofgovernment.

Chapter9bringsthisthesistoaconclusioninaddressingthemainresearchquestion,by

firstlysummarisingthekeyfindingsforeachcasestudyagainsttheMcConnellframework

andsummarisingthefivekeysareaswheretherewereparticularcharacteristics,

commonalitiesanddifferencesbetweenthem,asidentifiedinSection8.5(p.280).This

analysisisthenusedtoconsidersomeimplicationsandrecommendationsarisingfromthe

policylearning.

303

Chapter9:Conclusions

9.1Introduction

Thischapterconcludesthethesis,firstlybysummarisingthekeyfindingsofthecase

studies,andarticulatingthemtogetheragainsttheMcConnell(2010)framework.Section

9.2(p.303)thengoesontodrawtheanalysisofeachcasestudytoaconclusion,

articulatingsuccessorfailureineachcaseandsummariesthefivekeyareaswherethere

wereparticularcharacteristics,commonalitiesanddifferencesbetweenthem.Section9.3

(p.308)considerstheimplicationsandrecommendationsforfuturepolicydesignarising

fromtheanalysisofthecasestudies,usingtheconstructfor‘policylearning’devisedby

May(1992).Thesefindingsarethenrelatedbacktocontemporaryunderstandingsofpolicy

andpolicyanalysis.Section9.4(p.312)thenre-addressesthemainandsupplementary

researchquestions,summarisingtheconclusionsreachedinChapter8.Section9.5(p.315)

considerstheoriginalcontributionthatthethesismakestounderstandingsofpolicyinthe

fieldofhighereducationstudies.Section9.6(p.316)considersthelimitationsconstraining

theresearchandfinally,Section9.7(p.318)articulatessomepossiblefuturedirections,

whichwouldfurtherenhancetheresearchwork.

9.2Summaryofkeyfindings

ThethesisconsideredthreecasestudiesofHEpolicyinitiativesfromthelearningand

teachingstrandofHEFCEpoliciesduringtheNewLabourperiodofgovernance.Usingthe

theorisedframeworkfromMcConnell(2010),Iundertookananalysisofeachtoenablean

interpretativepositioninregardstothenuancesofsuccessandfailureintermsofthe

‘policyprocess,programmeandpoliticsdimensions’(McConnell2010).Allthreecases

revealedelementsofsuccessandfailureineachdimension,andnonewasacomplete

successoranoutrightfailure,althoughthee-Universitycameclosesttobeingafailureinall

dimensions.TheanalysisinthesecasesconcurswithMcConnell’sassertionthat‘successis

notan‘allornothing’phenomenon’(McConnell2010p.55).Myconclusionsinrelationto

eachcaseandeachdimensionaresummarisedintables27-29below.

304

Table27–POLICYASPROCESS(SUMMARYOFCASESTUDIES)

Policyasprocess:thespectrumfromsuccesstofailureProcesssuccess

Durablesuccess Conflictedsuccess Precarioussuccess

Processfailure

Preservinggovernmentpolicygoalsandinstruments.

Policygoalsandinstrumentspreserved,despiteminorrefinements.

Preferredgoalsandinstrumentsprovingcontroversialanddifficulttopreserve.Somerevisionsneeded.

Government’sgoalsandpreferredpolicyinstrumentshanginthebalance.

TerminationofGovernmentpolicygoalsandinstruments.

Conferringlegitimacyonapolicy.

Somechallengestolegitimacy,butoflittleornolastingeffect.

Difficultandcontestedissuessurroundingpolicylegitimacy,withsomepotentialtotaintthepolicyinthelongterm.

Seriousandpotentiallyfataldamagetopolicylegitimacy.

Irrecoverabledamagetopolicylegitimacy.

Buildingasustainablecoalition.

Coalitionintact,despitesomesignsofdisagreement.

Coalitionintact,althoughstrongsignsofdisagreementandsomepotentialforfragmentation.

Coalitiononthebrinkoffallingapart.

Inabilitytoproduceasustainablecoalition.

Symbolisinginnovationandinfluence.

Notground-breakingininnovationorinfluence,butstillsymbolicallyprogressive.

Neitherinnovativenoroutmoded,leading(attimes)tocriticismsfrombothprogressivesandconservatives.

Appearanceofbeingoutoftouchwithviablealternativesolutions.

Symbolisingoutmoded,insularorbizarreideas,seeminglyoblivioustohowotherjurisdictionsaredealingwithsimilarissues.

305

Table28–POLICYASPROGRAMME(SUMMARYOFCASESTUDIES)

Policyasprogramme:thespectrumfromsuccesstofailureProgrammesuccess

Durablesuccess Conflictedsuccess Precarioussuccess

Programmefailure

Implementationinlinewithobjectives.

Implementationobjectivesbroadlyachieved,despiteminorrefinementsordeviations.

Mixedresults,withsomesuccesses,butaccompaniedbyunexpectedandcontroversialproblems.

Minorprogresstowardsimplementationasintended,butbesetbychronicfailures,provinghighlycontroversialandverydifficulttodefend.

Implementationfailstobeexecutedinlinewithobjectives.

Achievementofdesiredoutcomes.

Outcomesbroadlyachieved,despitesomeshortfalls.

Somesuccesses,butthepartialachievementofintendedoutcomesiscounterbalancedbyunwantedresults,generatingsubstantialcontroversy.

Somesmalloutcomesachievedasintended,butoverwhelmedbycontroversialandhighprofileinstancesoffailuretoproduceresults.

Failuretoachievedesiredoutcomes.

Meetspolicydomaincriteria.

Notquitethedesiredoutcome,butsufficientlyclosetolaystrongclaimtofulfillingthecriteria.

Partialachievementofgoals,butaccompaniedbyfailurestoachieve,withpossibilityofhigh-profileexamples,eg.on-goingwastagewhenthecriterionisefficiency.

Afewminorsuccesses,butplaguedbyunwantedmediaattention;eg.examplesofwastageandpossiblescandalwhenthecriterionisefficiency.

Clearinabilitytomeetthecriteria.

Creatingbenefitforatargetgroup.

Afewshortfallsandpossiblysomeanomalouscases,butintendedtargetgroupbroadlybenefits.

Partialbenefitsrealised,butnotaswidespreadordeepasintended.

Smallbenefitsareaccompaniedandovershadowedbydamagetotheverygroupthatwasmeanttobenefit.Alsolikelytogeneratehighprofilestoriesofunfairnessandsuffering.

Damagingaparticulartargetgroup.

306

Table29–POLICYASPOLITICS(SUMMARYOFCASESTUDIES)

Policyaspolitics:thespectrumfromsuccesstofailurePoliticalsuccess Durablesuccess Conflicted

successPrecarioussuccess

Politicalfailure

Enhancingelectoralprospectsorreputationofgovernmentsandleaders.

Favourabletoelectoralprospectsandreputationenhancement,withonlyminorsetbacks.

Policyobtainsstrongsupportandopposition,workingbothforandagainstelectoralprospectsandreputationinfairlyequalmeasure.

Despitesmallsignsofbenefit,policyprovesanoverallelectoralandreputationalliability.

Damagingtotheelectoralprospectsorreputationofgovernmentsandleaders,withnoredeemingpoliticalbenefit.

Controllingpolicyagendaandeasingthebusinessofgoverning.

Despitesomedifficultiesinagendamanagement,capacitytogovernisunperturbed.

Policyprovingcontroversialandtakingupmorepoliticaltimeandresourcesinitsdefencethanwasexpected.

Clearsignsthattheagendaandbusinessofgovernmentisstrugglingtosuppressapoliticallydifficultissue.

Policyfailingsaresohighandpersistentontheagenda,thatitisdamaginggovernment’scapacitytogovern.

Sustainingthebroadvaluesanddirectionofgovernment.

Somerefinementsneededbutbroadtrajectoryunimpeded.

Directionofgovernmentverybroadlyinlinewithgoals,butclearsignsthatthepolicyhaspromptedsomerethinking,especiallybehindthescenes.

Entiretrajectoryofgovernmentisbeingcompromised.

Irrevocablydamagingtothebroadvaluesanddirectionofgovernment.

Thee-Universitywas,overall,aprocessandprogrammefailure.Theweaknessofthe

organisationalstructure,wherebyHEFCEwasfarremovedfromtheoperationalaspectsof

thepublic-privateventure,wasasignificantreasonforthatfailure,whichresultedin

destabilisingthelegitimacyofthepolicy,suchthatUKeUcoulddeviatesosubstantially

fromtheoriginalbusinessplan.Asaresult,theprogrammefailedtomeetthepolicy

objectivesordeliverresultsforthetargetgroups,particularlyinmeetinggovernment’s

307

socialinclusionagenda.ThecoalitiondeterioratedasUkeUfailedtosatisfactorilyengage

thesectororprivateinvestors.Overall,thepolicyinstrumentfailed,whichresultedina

failuretopreservegovernmentpolicygoals.Governmentwasabletocontaintheepisode,

throughtheactionsofHEFCE,andclosedownUKeU,thusrealisingadurable,although

conflicted,politicalsuccess,withachangeinHEFCEstrategyandmovementoffundsto

supportarevisede-learningpolicy.

TheCETLpolicyprocesscanbeinterpretedasaconflictedprocesssuccess;thebottom-up

policyapproachledtosomecontestedissues,withsomeofthecoalitioninterpreting

excellenceindifferentways,andthecompetitivefundingapproachresultedinless

deepeningacrossthesectorthananticipated.Oneoftheweaknessesoftheapproachwas

havingastrongcoalitionattheleveloftheCETLitself,butaweakercoalitionat

institutionallevel,andanevenweakeroneatsectorlevel,duetoalackofnational

coordination.Theprogrammecanbeinterpretedasadurablebutconflictedprogramme

success,withmuchevidenceofsuccessatalocallevel,butinstitutionalimpactwasmore

sporadicandverydifficulttoevidenceatsectorlevel.TheCETLinitiativecouldbe

interpretedasadurablepoliticalsuccess,withnoapparenteffectontheabilitytogovern,

butsomedifficultiesinagendamanagementatsectorallevel.However,theimpactofwider

economicandpoliticalevents(achangeofgovernment,theadventofhigherfeesanda

globalrecession),ledtoarethinkonpublicspendingforteachingandlearninginitiatives,

andtheCETLinitiativewasnotcontinuedinanyform.

TheLLNpolicyprocessandprogrammecanbedescribedasdurablesuccesses.Despitethe

bottom-upapproach,therewasastrongconnectionbetweenpolicy-makersandreceivers

throughHEFCEregionalconsultants,andstrongcoalitionacrossthesector,withalmost

nationalcoverage,andanationalco-ordinatingbody,theNationalForum.Theobjectives

werebroadlyachieved,particularlyintermsofthelargenumberofactivitiesandstaff

involved,althoughtheshort-termnatureofthefundingmeantthatthesewerenotasdeep

oraswidespreadastheymighthavebeen.Therewassomebenefittothetargetgroup,

althoughthenumberoflearnersgainingfromtheinitiativewassmall,butmighthave

improvedwithlongertermfunding.Theinitiativecouldbeinterpretedasadurablepolitical

success.Thepolicyhadlittleeffectonelectoralprospects,andHEFCEwasabletomanage

anydifficultiesinagendamanagement,despitethecomplexandchangingpolicy

environment,throughahighlevelofengagementwiththeLLNs,withregularmonitoring

andevaluation,andprogressreports,whichenabledHEFCEtoinfluencethedirectionofthe

308

policy.TheLLNmadeacontribution,albeitsmall,tothebroadvaluesanddirectionof

governmentinitsaimofraisingtheparticipationrateto50%.

Theanalysisofthecasestudiesidentifiedfivekeyareaswheretherewereparticular

characteristics,commonalitiesanddifferences,andanarticulationofsuccessorfailurein

eachcaseenabledsomeaspectsofpolicylearning,asidentifiedinSection8.5(p.280):

a) Enablingstrongandsustainablecoalitions(process)

b) Thetrajectoryofpolicy-makingbetweenpolicy-makerandimplementers(process)

c) Approachestoensuresustainability(programme)

d) Theroleofmonitoringandevaluationtoensurevalueformoney(programme)

e) Theroleofpolicy-makersinpreservingthepolicygoalsandagendamanagement

(processandpolitics).

9.3Implicationsandrecommendationsarisingfrompolicylearning-

relatedtocontemporaryunderstandingsofpolicy

Asnotedabove,fivethemesarosefromtheanalysisofthecharacteristics,commonalities

anddifferencesbetweenthecasestudies.UsingtheconstructdevisedbyMay(1992),I

concludedthattherewerepossibilitiesforpolicylearningthatmightbeappliedtofuture

policydesign.ThesearearticulatedinChapter8,butaresummarisedhereandrelatedback

tocontemporaryunderstandingsofpolicyasconsideredinChapter2.

9.3.1Enablingastrongandsustainablecoalition(process)

Iconcludedthatthedesignofthepolicyinstrumentwaskeyinenablingastrongand

sustainablecoalition,andconcurwithBall’s(2006)viewoftheimportanceof‘policy

receivers’aspartofthecoalition,andLipsky’s(1980)streetlevel‘policy-making

community’.Thepolicydesignshouldensurethattherearestrongassociationsbetween

policy-makersandreceiversatalllevelsofthecoalition,inBall’s(2006)terms,thecontext

ofpractice.InHEinparticular,therelationshipbetweenpolicy-makers(HEFCE),senior

managementofinstitutions,andstaffwithavestedinterestinimplementationofthe

initiative,arepartofthecontextofpractice.Withoutastrongassociationbetweenall

elementsofthecoalition,thereisgreaterchanceofunintendedpolicyeffects,asobserved

byMargetts,6andHood(2010)(Chapter2,Section2.3.3,p.20),andDery’s‘policybythe

way’(1999p.165-6);forexample,theweaknessofthecoalitionofthee-University,where

HEFCEwasfarremovedfromthepolicyprogramme,ledtoUKeUbeingabletodeviateso

309

farfromtheprogrammethattheobjectivesandbenefitstothetargetgroupswerenot

met.

Astrongcoalitionismorelikelytoresultinmoredurablepolicysuccessacrossthesector,

andnotjustsmallpocketsidentifiableinindividualinstitutions.Astrongcoalitionbetween

policy-makerandinstitutions,eitherthroughregionalconsultantswithcloseinstitutional

relationships,ornationalforums,iscrucialinenablingthesteerofpolicy,particularlywhen

itmightbeopentoelementsofcontestation,oragreatersteerduetotheimpactofother

policyrealms.TheLLNcoalitionwasstrongerinthisregardthantheCETLs,andwasamore

durablesector-widesuccess.

Theimportanceofthelocal(Lipsky1980,AyresandMarsh2013,Newman2013,Lowndes

andMcCaughie2013,VanderSteenetal2013),andtheagencywhichindividualsandlocal

leadershiphaveforinfluencingandchangingpolicyinpractice,isequallyanimportant

elementinthepolicydesign.AstrongassociationamongHEseniormanagementof

institutionswithinthecoalitionisnecessarytoengagepoliciesataninstitutionallystrategic

level,andtoembedpolicyworkbeyondthefundingperiod.Thisensuresthatpolicy

successesareembeddedandinstitutionalised,ratherthanbeingreliantonenthusiastic

individuals,whichwasacriticismofboththee-UniversityandCETLs.

Thereisalsogreateropportunityforsector-widesuccessofpolicyinitiativeswherethe

policydesignisinclusiveofthecoalition,suchthatthepolicydesigndoesnotintroducean

elementofcompetitionbetweeninstitutions.Competitionleadsinstitutionstobemore

reticenttosharetheirsuccessesbeyondtheirinstitution,whichleadstofewer

opportunitiesfordeepeningeffectsacrossthesector,asobservedwiththeCETLs.More

inclusivepolicyinitiatives,suchastheLLNs,demonstratemoredurabilityinsector-wide

benefits.

9.3.2Thetrajectoryofpolicy-makingbetweenpolicy-makerandimplementers

(process)

Thetrajectoryofpolicy-making,eitherasatop-downorabottom-upapproachinthepolicy

instrumentdesign,alsoplaysakeypartindetermininghowBall’s(2006)contextofpractice

playsoutinpolicyimplementation.Atop-downapproach,whilstappearingtogivepolicy-

makersgreatercontrolovertheagendamanagement(usefulinpolicycontextswherethere

isacrowdedandrapidlychangingpolicylandscape),needstobedesignedsuchthatthe

310

organisationalstructureissufficientlyrobust,anddoesnotremovepolicy-makerssofar

fromimplementationthatthepolicyobjectivescanbere-focussedbyreceivers.Thiswas

particularlyobservedinthee-Universitywhich,whilsttop-down,hadaweakorganisational

structure,leavingHEFCEtoofarremovedfromtheagendamanagement.Conversely,a

bottom-upapproachgivesmorefreedomforthelocal,asidentifiedin9.3.1,tointerpret

andinfluencepolicyimplementation.WhilstsuchanapproachwashighlightedbyHEFCEto

bebeneficial,becauseitallowedthepolicytobesectordriven,infactsuchanapproachcan

leavethepolicyopentogreatercontestation.Thisisparticularlytruewherethepolicytexts

providesufficientlyloosediscourseforpolicytobere-interpreted,misinterpretedand

transformedinpolicyspacesbyreceiverstosuittheirownagendasandmeaning,aswas

thecasewiththeCETLs.Insuchcases,policy‘isbothcontestedandchanging’(Ball1993

p.11).ThecaseoftheCETLsalsohighlightsaphenomenonobservedbyTaylor(2004),

wherethelanguageofthepolicytexts,particularlyinrelationtodefiningthemeaningof

‘excellence’fortheCETLs,highlightedcompetingdiscoursesbetweenHEFCE,thepanel

reviewingbusinesscases,andthebiddersthemselvesindefiningexcellence.Inabottom-up

policydesign,weaklyconstructedpolicytextsandpoorlydefinedobjectivescanresultin

Ball’s(2006)contextofpracticebeingmoreopentoareasofcontestation,andthus

objectivesbeingmetlocally,butlesswidespreadsuccessacrossthesector.Iconcludedthat

themostsuccessfulapproachisoneinwhichthepolicydesignleavestheobjectives

relativelyloose,suchthatinterpretationscanbebestsuitedtoindividualinstitutions,and

thereforehavemorecurrencyatinstitutionallevel,butwithstronginvolvementfrom

policy-makersinmonitoringprogressandcontrollingtheagenda,steeringprogresstowards

thedesiredoutcomes.Thisresultsinpolicy-makershavinggreatercontroloverthesectoral

impactofthepolicy.SuchanapproachworkedwellwiththeLLNs,wheretherewere

regularprogressreports,whichhelpedsteercertainaspectsofthepolicyimplementation

inthelightofother,competing,policydomainsimpactingontheLLNs,inwhatHill(2009)

referstoasa‘crowdedpolicyspace’(p.16).Inthisrespect,suchanapproachsitswellwith

Ball’s(1993)assertionthatpolicyisnotjustalegislativemoment,butadialogueanda

continualprocess,‘inwhichthelociofpowerareconstantlyshiftingasvariousresources

implicitandexplicitintextsarere-contextualisedandemployedinthestruggletomaintain

orchangeviews’(Ball2006p.13).ThisalsositswellwiththeworkofFairclough(2014),who

arguesthatlanguageandpowerareintrinsicallyconnected,andthusthediscourseofthe

regularmonitoringofLLNs,andprovisionofprogressreports,gaveHEFCEthepowerto

maintainthepolicyagenda.

311

9.3.3Approachestoensuresustainability(programme)

IarguedinChapter8thattheendofthefundingperiodisapointofweaknessinproject-

basedpolicyinitiatives,sincethereisinsufficientpurchasetoensureadeepeningeffect

acrossthesectorinthetimescale,resultingin,atbest,durablesuccess.Thisobservation

concurswiththeworkofTrowleretal(2013),whoundertook‘areviewoftheroleofHEFCE

inteachingandlearningenhancement’,andconcludedthat

‘aproject-basedapproachisprobablynotthemosteffectiveformultiplereasons(includingthedifficultyin‘scalingup’fromtheprojectbase,whichisoftenleftunaddressedandtheissueofeffectiveplanningforthepost-fundingcontinuation)’(p.12).

Inthisrespect,theendofthefundingperiodrepresentsabreakingpointinthepolicycycle,

suchthatthereisnofurtherimpetusforpolicyimplementationtocontinue,andthepower

relationshipwithinthecontextofpractice(Ball2006)isconcentratedwiththepolicy

receivers.Assuch,thereisgreateropportunityforunintendedconsequences(Margetts,6

andHood,2010),andthepolicyinitiativemayfail.Tomaintainabalanceofpowerinthe

contextofpractice,Iarguedthatthismightbeachievedthroughchangingexpectationsof

boththefunderandseniormanagementininstitutions,inensuringthatthereisa

commitmenttocontinuebeyondthefundingatastrategiclevel.Thismightbeachieved

throughtime-limitedprojectfunding,toenableaninitiativetogetofftheground,anda

longertermcommitmentfrompolicy-makerswithsmallerrecurrentfunding,which

rewardsinstitutionswhocontinuetoprogressdeepeningeffectsoftheinitiativeacrossthe

sector.

9.3.4Theroleofmonitoringandevaluationtoensurevalueformoney(programme)

Nachmias(1983),andHowlettandRamesh(1995),consideredthatevaluationwasacritical

elementofthepolicycycle.Iwouldconcurwiththisview,andarguedinChapter8thatany

policydesignshouldincludetheprovisionformonitoringandevaluation,sincethiscould

leadtopolicy-learning(May1992).Thisviewalsoconcurswiththerecommendationof

SQW,followingtheevaluationoftheLLNs,suggestingthatallsuchpolicyinitiativesshould

haveafullprogrammeofevaluationbuiltin(SQW2010p.59).Thisisparticularlyimportant

forhighereducationinthecurrentclimate,wheredemonstratingvalueformoneyisakey

principleoftheregulatoryframeworkfortheOfS.

Theanalysisofthecasestudiesdemonstratedthatweakmonitoringandevaluationdesign

leadstopoorlyevaluated,insular,self-evaluationsandaninabilitytoevaluatebothvalue

312

formoneyandculturalchangeacrossthesector.Isuggested,therefore,thattimeand

fundingforafullyarticulateddesignevaluationisalwaysbuiltintofutureinitiatives,which

requiresregularevidenceofmeetingtargetsandobjectives,demonstrablebenefittothe

targetgroup,andtheimpactontheinstitution.Inaddition,thisshouldbecentrallyco-

ordinated,suchthattheimpactoftheinitiativeacrossthesectorasawholecanbe

evaluated.Regularmonitoringwouldallowforrefinementstothepolicytobemadeduring

thelifetimeoftheinitiative,whichworkedwellfortheLLNs.

9.3.5Theroleofpolicy-makersinpreservingthepolicygoalsandagenda

management(processandpolitics)

ConcurringwithBall’s(1993)viewthatpolicyisnotjustalegislativemoment,Ihaveargued

thatforapolicytobesuccessful,policy-makersplayakeyroleinensuringthesuccessof

thepolicy,astheagendamanagementisacriticalpartofthepolicyprocess.Thisenables

policy-makerstomaintainasuccessfulpowerrelationship,particularlyinrelationtothe

communicationofthepolicy.Thisisparticularlytruewhenthepolicyenvironmentis

complexandvolatile,andrequirespolicy-makerstobeabletosteerpolicychangesandre-

directquicklytoensureatleastadurablesuccess.Inpracticalterms,Iarguedthatitis

helpfulforpolicy-makerstohaveadvocates‘ontheground’,tohelpmanagethepolicy

agendawiththecoalition.InthecaseoftheLLNs,thecloseinvolvementofHEFCEregional

consultantsandtheNationalForumwasinstrumentalinthisrole.

Ihavearguedforanelementofpoliticalflexibility,asobservedbyMay(1992),suchthat

policyprocessesandprogrammesaresufficientlyrobusttoaccommodatechangesin

governmentandotherpolicyrealmswhichmightimpactofthelikelysuccessofthe

initiative,aswasthecasewiththeLLNs,wheretheevolvingskillsagendaaftertheLeitch

ReviewofSkills,andtheintroductionofvariablefees,impactedgreatlyontheworkofthe

LLNs.Assuch,thissuggeststhatfuturepolicy-makersneedtohavebothastrong

relationshipwiththecoalitiontosteerpolicy,andalsoacloserelationshipwith

government,suchthattheyhavesufficientpurchasetotakecontroloftheagenda

managementwhenrequiredtoavoidapoliticaldisaster.

9.4Addressingtheresearchquestions

ThethesisusestheMcConnell(2010)theoreticalframeworktoaddressthemainresearch

question:‘Howcanpolicysuccessandfailurebeunderstood,fromthestudyofthreepolicy

313

episodesinthecontextofcontemporaryhighereducationinEngland,byapplyingcriteria

fromanexistingframeworkforsuccessandfailure?’

Thethesishastakenapost-positivistdesignapproachtothreeHEFCEpolicyepisodes,

chosenfromfieldoflearningandteaching,withresearchmethodsappropriateforcase

studyresearch,anduseddocumentarysourcestoproducethickdescriptionsofthose

episodes.UsingthetheoreticalframeworkdevelopedbyMcConnell(2010),Ihavetakenan

interpretativeapproach,toproduceanuancedinterpretationofsuccessandfailureineach

episodeinrelationtothepolicyprocess,programmeandpolitics.Thisresearchconcluded

thatnoneoftheepisodescouldbecategorisedasanoutrightsuccessnor,equally,an

outrightfailure,butthatelementsoftheprocess,programmeandpoliticsinrelationto

eachepisodedemonstratedsomedegreeofsuccessorfailureinaccordancewiththe

framework,assummarisedinSection9.1(p.303)above.

Thisanalysisledmetobeabletoaddressthefirstsupplementaryresearchquestion,‘does

theevaluationofparticularpolicyepisodesrevealanycommoncharacteristicsand

distinctionsinrelationtopolicythatcouldusefullybeconsideredinrelationtofuturepolicy

settinginhighereducation?’Theanalysisofthecasestudiessuggestedanumberof

characteristics,distinctionsandcommonalitiesinrelationtoeachepisode,whichfurther

raisedarangeofissuesandquestionsinrelationtothepolicydesign,implementation,

evaluation,andtheroleofpolicy-makers.Iconcludedthattherewerefivemainissuesto

beaddressedand,usingtheconstructdevisedbyMay(1992),Iarticulatedhowtheremight

besomeelementsoffuturepolicylearninginrelationtoeachofthese,asdescribedin9.2

above.

InChapter4,Iprovidedanhistoricalaccountofhowthehighereducationintermediary

bodieshavechangedfromthatof‘buffer’,intheearlypartofthenineteenthcentury,to

thatof‘regulator’inthepresentday.Ialsousedanaccountofpolicy-makingduringthe

HEFCEyearstoarticulatehowHEFCEitselfchangedfromthatof‘agent’initsearlyyears,to

regulator,asneoliberalpreferencesformarket-orientatedpolicies(Mirowski2014)came

intoeffect,withincreasedrequirementsforinstitutionalaccountabilitywhilstmoving

fundingfromthestatetotheconsumer.

Usingthishistoricalaccount,andtheanalysisofthecasestudiesagainsttheMcConnell

framework,Ihavebeenabletoaddressthesecondsupplementaryresearchquestion,

‘whatcanananalysisofHEFCEpolicy-makingrevealaboutthelocusofpowerinpolicy-

314

makinginhighereducation?’Itismyviewthatitisnocoincidencethat,inallthreeofthe

chosencasestudies,HEFCEhadastronginfluenceinboththearticulationofeachepisode,

andinitsimplementation,andthereisadirectrelationshipbetweentheinvolvementof

HEFCEintheprocess,implementationandagendamanagementandthesuccessofthe

policyinitiative.IarguedthatHEFCEwasnotjusthugelyinfluentialasapolicy-maker,butit

hasalsohadatitsdisposalthepowertoshape,influenceandsteerpoliciesinaction,and

hasthusbeenakeypartofBall’s(2006)‘policycontextofpractice’,bringingthethesisback

toBall’spointthatpolicyisnotjustalegislativemoment,andthatitistheagencyofpolicy

thatisimportant.

Thefivekeypolicy-learningthemesthatIidentifiedasaresultofthecasestudies’analysis

allindicatethatpolicy-makersplayacriticalroleintheagencyofpolicy,ifpoliciesaretobe

atleastadurablesuccess.Thesearein

• designingandmaintainingastrongcoalition,

• designingapolicyapproachwhichensuresthecurrencyofthepolicyatalocal

level,

• enablingpolicy-makerstosteerthepolicythroughcomplexpolicyagendas,thus

preservingthepolicygoalsandagendamanagement,

• enablingthesustainabilityofthepolicygoalsandoutcomestoensuresector-wide

deepeningandlongevityofthepolicy,

• ensuringvalueformoneythrougheffectiveevaluationandpolicy-learning.

ThisdiscussionbringsthethesisbacktotheroleoftheOfS,whichassertedthatit‘would

notdopolicy’(Kernohan2018),andhenceraisesquestionsaboutwhetherthelocusof

powerforHEpolicyremainsatgovernmentlevelorwithinOfS,andwhatthatmightmean

forgovernment’sabilitytosuccessfullyguidepolicywithintheHE‘contextofpractice’(Ball

2006).

Finally,Iconcurredwiththeworkofotherscholarsinaddressingthefinalsupplementary

researchquestionthroughthelensofhighereducationstudies:‘towhatextentisthe

chosenmethodologicalframeworksufficientorinadequateinanalysingpolicysuccessand

failureinthecontextofcontemporarytheoreticalapproachestopolicyanalysis?’Itismy

viewthattheMcConnellframework(2010)hasservedtoprovidebothasoundtheoretical

approach,which,asnotedpreviously,Tight(2012,2018)argueshasbeenlessobviousin

highereducationresearch(see9.4below),andausefuloperationaltoolforasystematic

315

examinationoftheprocess,programmeandpoliticaldimensionsofthechosencase

studies.Althoughtheframeworkallowsforaninterpretativeapproach,itgivesthe

researcherastructureinwhichtoframetheirassertions,moresothantheframework

approachtakenbyNewman(2014),whichadoptsasimilarsuccess/failureframework,but

islessdescriptiveindefiningthenuancesofsuccessandfailure.However,Iconcurredwith

Gore(2011)thatthematrixapproachdoesgivetheframeworkarigiditywhichmakessome

elementsofpolicyanalysismoredifficult.Isuggestedthattheframeworkisinsufficientin

threeareas.

Firstly,theframeworkdoesnotallowtheresearchertoshowhowapolicymightsucceedor

failovertime,andIwouldsuggestthatitshouldbepossibletobuildmoredynamisminto

theframework,tobetterarticulatehowtimemightbeafactorforsuccessandfailure

(Chapter8,Section8.7.1,p.298).Ialsoarguedthattheframeworkisinsufficientin

addressingtheagencyofpolicy,andinparticulardoesnotsufficientlyacknowledge

competingdiscourses(Taylor2004),andthediscourseofpolicytexts(Ball2006,Fairclough

2014),andtheirroleinthecontextofpractice.IaminagreementwithNewman(2014)that

re-framingthedimensionsintofourcategories–‘process,goalattainment,distributional

outcomesandpoliticalconsequences’(seeFigure7,p.50)-mightallowtheresearcherto

betterarticulatehowthepolicywasreceivedandinterpretedwithinthe‘distributional

outcomes’dimension,andananalysisofthediscourseofpolicytextsmightbemore

feasibleunderthisdimension.Finally,IconcurredwithGore(2011)thattheframework

doesnotaccountfortheroleofsub-unitsofgovernment,suchasHEFCE,which,asIhave

arguedinthisthesis,heldakeypositionindeterminingthesuccessorfailureofelementsof

theprocess,programmeandpoliticaldimensions.

9.5Originalcontributiontoknowledge

Thethesissitswithinthe‘systempolicy’strandofHEresearch,asdefinedbyTight(2012

p.7,2018p.95),andinparticularinTight’ssub-categoriesof‘policycontext,national

policies[and]historicalpolicystudies’(Tight2012).Tightarguesthathistoricalcasestudies

areausefulwaytoexaminepolicies,butthattheyofferlittleinthewayofpolicylearning

(Tight2012p.120).Thisstudyhassoughttoaddressthatcriticismbyusingthecasestudies

toilluminateparticularcharacteristics,similaritiesanddifferencesinrelationtoparticular

policyepisodesand,further,toprovidesomeinsightintopolicylearningfromthose

particularcharacteristics,usingMay’s(1992)constructforpolicylearning.Thus,thisthesis

316

hascontributedtothefieldof‘systempolicy’research(Tight2012,2018)byusingcase

studiesandatheoreticalmodeltooffersomeinsightintopolicylearning.

Tight(2012)contendsthatmanyhighereducationresearchersdonotengageexplicitlywith

theory,althoughitisincreasing(Tight2018)andtheinter-disciplinarynatureofhigher

educationstudieslendsitselfwelltoimportingtheoriesfromotheracademicdisciplines.

Likewise,althoughBusemeyerandTrampusch(2011)contendthatthereisagrowing

interestintheuseofpoliticalscienceinthestudyofeducation,theyarguethatit,too,is

under-theorised.Thisthesishassoughttoaddressthesedeficitsbyusingatheoretical

framework,importedfromthestudyofpoliticalsciencesandappliedtothefieldofhigher

educationstudies.Thus,thisthesishasmadeatheoreticalcontributiontothestudyof

educationalresearch.

Section2.2(p.13)observedthatthereareincreasingexamplesoftheoreticalframeworks

devisedandadoptedinhighereducationstudies,suchasKoganandHanney(2000),Bacchi

(2009),Taylor(2004),Hyatt(2013)andJungblut(2015).However,noneofthesetheoretical

frameworkshavebeenspecificallyappliedtothestudyofanuancedexaminationofpolicy

successandfailureinEnglishhighereducation,andsoIwouldattestthatmyuseof

McConnell’s(2010)frameworkapproachisanovelapplicationinEnglishhighereducation

studies.Equally,althoughtherearecritiquesofMcConnell’sframework,Ihavenotbeen

abletoidentifyanythatcritiqueitthroughthelensofhighereducation,andsoIwould

arguethatmycritiqueisnovelinthisrespect.

Thus,thisthesismakesthreecontributionstoknowledge:

1) Theapplicationofachosentheoreticalframeworktothefieldofhigher

educationpolicystudies,whichhashithertobeenundertheorised;

2) Asystematicassessmentofthesuccessandfailureofthreepolicyepisodes,as

informedbytheframework,whichhavenotpreviouslybeenexaminedinterms

oftheirsuccessandfailureusingtheMcConnell(2010)frameworkandthus

contributingtounderstandingsofthosepolicyepisodes;

3) Acritiquehighlightingthemeritsanddemeritsoftheframework,throughits

applicationtoEnglishhighereducation.

317

9.6Limitationsconstrainingtheresearch

Theresearchwasprincipallyconstrainedbythreemainfactors.Thefirstwasmypositionin

full-timeemployment,withoutthefundsorcapacitytoundertakeaschemeofworkthat

wasbeyonddesk-basedresearch.WhilstIhaveacknowledgedinChapter3that

interviewingkeyactorsineachpolicyepisodewouldbringitsowndifficulties,suchasthe

practicalitiesofundertakinginterviews,andthelengthoftimeinwhichtheirmemories

wouldhavebeencloudedandswayedbyotheractorsandotherpolicyevents,interviews

wouldneverthelesshaveofferedaninterestingperspectiveanddegreeoftriangulation

withotherresearchmethods.Interviewingactorsinthepolicyprocessmaywellalsohave

helpedtoidentify‘non-actions’,Heclo’s(1972)‘nonpolicy’(p.85),orconsequentialevents

whichwentbeyondthescopeofthepolicyepisodeitself,whicharenotarticulatedinthe

policytextsavailable,suchastheformativeandsummativeevaluations.

Secondly,thedesk-basednatureoftheresearchmeantthatitwasonlypossibletoanalyse

episodesforwhichtherewasextensivetext-basedevaluationwithwhichtosupportmy

interpretations.Thismeantthatthechoiceofcasestudieswasconstrainedtothosewhere

therehadbeeneithersubstantialformativeandsummativeevaluationsor,inthecaseof

thee-University,anin-depthSelectCommitteereviewandreport.Therewereanumberof

policyepisodeswhichIconsiderwouldhaveofferedequallyfascinatinginsights,butfor

whichtherewaslimiteddataavailable.Forexample,in2008,HEFCEbeganphasingoutthe

ELQfunding,butrelaxedthisforsomeSTEMsubjectsin2014.Theprocessand

consequencesforimplementingthispolicy,andthesubsequentchangeofheart,would,in

myview,beenanilluminatingcasestudy,butmighthaverequiredmoretime-consuming

andcostlyresearchmethods.Equally,astudyoftheNationalScholarshipProgramme

wouldhavebeenofsignificanceinarticulatinganunderstandingofitsbenefittothetarget

groupandwideningparticipation.

Finally,theMcConnell(2010)framework,andtheneedtoconstrainthelimitationsofthe

datafortheresearch,meantthatproject-basedpolicyepisodes,withclearlydefinedend

points,wereappositeforthisresearch.Thismeantthatpolicylearninghasbeen

constrainedtotheseparticulartypesofpolicyinitiatives.Longertermpolicyinitiatives,such

asthosewithrecurrentfundingoveralongperiodoftime,wouldequallyhaveoffered

fascinatinginsightsintothehighereducationpolicyworld,andwouldlikelyhaveoffered

verydifferentopportunitiesforpolicylearning.Ananalysisofonesuchepisode,Foundation

Degrees,wouldhavealsostronglyhighlightedaparticularweaknessintheMcConnell

318

framework,inthatitdoesnotlenditselfwelltodemonstratingthedynamisminapolicy

overtime,suchthatitcansucceedinonetimeframeandfailinanother.Myoriginal

researchproposaldidincludeFoundationDegreesasafourthcasestudy,butitbecame

evidentthatthesheervolumeofmaterialavailableforthecasestudymeantthatitwasnot

possibletodojusticetoitinthelimitingconstraintsofaPhDthesis,alongwiththeother

threeepisodes.Oneofthekeyobservationsofthiscasestudywasthat,by2010,FDshad

overshottheirinitial2010studentnumbertargetandthereforebeenaprogrammesuccess

but,justthreeyearslater,by2013,entrantstoFDshadfallenby46%,andthussuccess

couldbedurableatbestinalongertimescale.

9.7Directionsforfutureresearch

Thisresearchwasnarrowlydefinedinexaminingthreedistinctpolicyepisodesinthe

learningandteachingstrandofHEFCE’spolicywork.IbelievethatIhavedemonstratedthat

thetheoreticalframeworkapproachadoptedforthisstudyisusefulinarticulatinga

nuancedpositionofsuccessandfailureinpolicyepisodes,andsotherewouldbescopefor

usingthisapproachtoexamineotheraspectsofHEFCE’spolicywork,asanapproachto

policylearning.Wideningparticipation,forexample,althoughnotinitiallyakeystrandof

HEFCE’sworkin1992,asobservedinChapter4,becameanincreasinglyimportantfocusfor

HEFCE,particularlyasthefundingenvironmentchanged,anditsroleasprincipalfunder

wasreduced.Assuch,itwouldbeinterestingtoconductananalysisofwidening

participationpolicyepisodesfromearlyoninHEFCE’shistory,andtocompareitsapproach

inlaterpolicyepisodes,whenitsroleinfundingwasmuchreduced.

Furthermore,itwouldbeinterestingtoexamineHEFCE’spolicyapproachestoresearch,

whichhadaverydifferentfundingenvironment,withdualfundingfromHEFCEforresearch

quality,andfromtheresearchcouncilsforfundingfutureresearchinlinewithgovernment

researchpriorities.ItwouldbeparticularlyinformativetoexaminehowHEFCE’spolicy

approachesdifferedfromthoseoftheresearchcouncils,andhowtheframeworkmight

identifysuccessfulandlesssuccessfulprocessapproachesandprogrammedesigns,aswell

astheroleoftheresearchcouncilsinpreservingthepolicygoalsandagendamanagement.

WiththedemiseofHEFCEandtheadventoftheOfS,whichhasstatedthatitwill‘notdo

policy’(Kernohan2018),itwouldbeinterestingtousetheframeworktoexaminefuture

episodesofhighereducationpolicyinrelationtolearningandteaching.Iwouldbecurious

toexaminewhetheranyofthepolicylearningidentifiedintheHEA-commissioned

319

evaluationtoreviewHEFCEteachingandlearningenhancementinitiatives(Trowleretal

2014p.12),hadbeenobservedinthearticulationoffuturepolicyepisodes.Itwouldalsobe

particularlyilluminatingtoexaminethelocusofpolicymakingunderthenewregime,and

whethertheOfSistruetoitswordanddoesnotdopolicy,suggestingthereforethatpolicy

willcomedirectlyfromgovernment.Thiswouldbeofparticularinteresttome,giventhe

findingsidentifiedhere,inthatthepositionofthepolicyinitiatoriskeyifthepolicyagenda

isittobesuccessfullymanagedandsteeredincomplexpolicyenvironments.

Finally,althoughtheMcConnell(2010)frameworkhasprovedtobevaluableinarticulating

anuancedpositionofsuccessandfailureinrelationtopolicyprocess,programmeand

politics,itdoeshaveitslimitations,asdiscussedinSection8.7(p.297).Itwouldbea

worthwhiletestoftheframework’susefulnesstoadoptothercontemporarypolicyanalysis

frameworks,suchasNewman’s(2014)re-framingofthedimensionsintofourcategories,to

determinewhetheraninterpretationofsuccessandfailureusingthisframeworkwould

determinesimilarinterpretativeoutcomes.Itcouldalsobebeneficialtoadoptother

frameworkstoexamineotheraspectsofthechosencasestudies,suchasHyatt’s(2013)

‘frameworkforcriticalanalysisofhighereducationpolicytexts’,andBacchi’s(2009)

discourseanalysisapproachtoexamine‘What’stheProblemRepresented(WPR)’,andto

comparethepolicylearningfromtheseanalysestothoseinthisstudy.Suchanapproach

wouldconcurwithBobrow&Dryzek’s(1987)view,inwhichtheyadvocateapost-positivist

multi-disciplinaryframesapproach,usingmorethanoneframeworkinordertoensurethat

thereisarangeofinsights.

320

References

Alford,R.,andFriedland,R.(1988).Powersoftheory:Capitalism,thestate,anddemocracy,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Allan,K.L.(2007).Excellence:anewkeywordforeducation?,CriticalQuarterly,49(1),54-78.

Apperley,A.(2014).RevisitingDearing:HigherEducationandtheconstructionofthe'belaboured'self,CultureUnbound,6,731-735.

Atkinson,P.A.,Coffey,A.(1997).Analysingdocumentaryrealities,inD.Silverman,(ed.),Qualitativeresearch:Theory,methodandpractice.London:Sagepp.45-62.

Attwood,R.(2008).Flagshipforteachinghaslimitedeffectonpractice,10thJuly2008,London:TimesHigherEducationalSupplement,TimesNewspapersLtd.(accessed10.07.2014)

Ayres,S.,MarshA.(2013).Reflectionsoncontemporarydebatesinpolicystudies,PolicyandPolitics,41(4),643-663.

Ball,S.(1990).PoliticsandPolicymakinginEducation:ExplorationsinPolicySociology,London:Routledge.

Ball,S.(1993).Whatispolicy?Texts,TrajectoriesandToolBoxes,Discoursestudiesintheculturalpoliciesofeducation,13(2),10-17.

Ball,S.J.(2006).Educationpolicyandsocialclass:TheselectedworksofStephenJ.Ball,Abingdon:Routledge.

Ball,S.J.(2015).Whatispolicy?21yearslater:reflectionsonthepossibilitiesofpolicyresearch,Discourse:StudiesintheCulturalPoliticsofEducation,36(3),306-313

Bacchi,C.(2009).Analysingpolicy:whatʼstheproblemrepresentedtobe?,NewSouthWales:PearsonEducation.

Bacsich,P.,FrankBristow,S.(2004).Thee-UniversityCompendiumVolumeOne.London:HigherEducationAcademy.

Bacsich,P.(2005).LessonstobelearnedfromthefailureoftheUKe-university.Availableat:http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.87.3662(accessed14.12.2018)

Bacsich,P.(2010).LessonstobelearnedfromthefailureofUKeU(UKeUniversitiesWorldwideLimited),MaticMediaLtd,Availableat:http://www.academia.edu/4238152/Lessons_to_be_learned_from_the_failure_of_the_UK_e-University(accessed14.12.2018)

Barnett,R.(2000).RealisingtheUniversityinanageofSupercomplexity,Buckingham:SRHEandOpenUniversityPress

Barnett,R.,ParryG.W.(2014).PolicyAnalysisResearchinHigherEducation:NegotiatingDilemmas,RevistaInternacionaldeInvestigationenEducation,7(14),69-84.

321

Bauer,R.A.(1968).Thestudyofpolicyformation:Anintroduction,inR.A.BauerandK.J.Gergen,(eds.),Thestudyofpolicyformation.NewYork:TheFreePress,pp.1-26.

BBC.(2001),BeaconSchoolsexplained,London,BBCNews21.06.2001,http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/1400353.stm(accessed14.12.2018)

Beaty,L.(2007).Excellentprospectsforbest-practiceteaching,20thJuly2007,London:TimesHigherEducationalSupplement,TimesNewspapersLtd(accessed03.02.2016).

BIS.(2014).Nursereviewofresearchcouncils,DepartmentforBusiness,EducationandSkills,London:HMSO

Bennett,C.J.,Howlett,M.(1992).Thelessonsoflearning:Reconcilingtheoriesofpolicylearningandpolicychange,PolicySciences,25,275-294.

Berg,B.L.,Lune,H.(2012).QualitativeResearchMethodsfortheSocialSciences,Boston,USA:PearsonEducationInc.

Betts,S.,Burrell,K.(2011).TheProgressionStory.London:LinkingLondon:LifelongLearningNetwork.

Blair,T.(2004)NewBritain:Myvisionofayoungcountry,London:BasicBooks.

Blunkett,D.(2000).SpeechatUniversityofGreenwich,13thFebruary2000,http://cms1.gre.ac.uk/dfee/#speech(accessed12.06.2015)

Bluteau,P.,Krumins,A.(2008).Engagingacademicsindevelopingexcellence:releasingcreativitythroughrewardandrecognition,JournalofFurtherandHigherEducation,32(4),415-426.

Bobrow,D.B.,Dryzek,J.S.(1987).PolicyAnalysisbyDesignPittsburgh,USA:UniversityofPittsburghPress.

Bovens,M.(2010).AcommentonMarshandMcConnell:TowardsaFrameworkforEstablishingPolicySuccess,PublicAdministration,88(2),584-585.

Bovens,M.,t’Hart,P.(1998).UnderstandingPolicyFiascos,NewBrunswick,USA:TransactionPublishers.

Bovens,M.,t’Hart,P.,Peters,B.G.(2001).Successandfailureinpublicgovernance:Acomparativeanalysis,Northampton,UK:EdwardElgar.

Bovens,M.andt’Hart,P.(2016).Revisitingthestudyofpolicyfailures,JournalofEuropeanPubicPolicy,23(5),653-666.

Bowe,R.,Ball,S.J.,Gould,A.(1992).Reformingeducationandchangingschools:Casestudiesinpolicysociology,London:Routledge

Bowen,G.A.(2009).DocumentAnalysisasaQualitativeResearchMethod,QualitativeResearchJournal,9,227-40.

Braun,V.,Clarke,V.(2006)Usingthematicanalysisinpsychology,QualitativeResearchinPsychology,3(2),77-101

322

Brown,R.,Carasso,H.(2013).EverythingforSale?TheMarketisationofUKHigherEducation,Abingdon,UK:Routledge.

Bridgman,P.,Davis,G.(2003).Whatuseisapolicycycle?Plenty,iftheaimisclear,AustralianJournalofPublicAdministration,62(3),98-102.

Bridgman,P.,andDavis,G.(2004).AustralianPolicyhandbook,Sydney:AllenandUnwin.http://www.allenandunwin.com.

Brawley,S.,Mills,K.T.,Timmins,G.(2009).SoTLandNationalDifference:Musingsfromthreehistoriansfromthreecountries,Arts&HumanitiesinHigherEducation,8(1),8-25.

Busemeyer,M.R.,Trampusch,C.(2011).ReviewArticle:ComparativePoliticalScienceandtheStudyofEducation,BritishJournalofPolicyStudies,41,413-443.

CambridgeEnglishDictionary.(2015).CambridgeEnglishDictionary,Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress.

CentreforHigherEducationResearchandInformation.(2008).InterimevaluationofLifelongLearningNetworks,MiltonKeynes:CHERI,TheOpenUniversity.

Carnevale,D.(2004).BritainDismantlesaVirtualUniversityAfterItFailedtoAttractEnoughStudents,TheChronicleofEducation,50.36,14thMay2004,Washington:TheChronicleofHigherEducation(accessed30.01.2016)

Cinar,B.(2012).E-University:BritishExperience.Availableat:http://bjes.beder.edu.al/uploads/arch-201311271520385187.pdf(accessed14.12.2018)

Christie,M.F.,Jurado,R.G.(2007).UKeUandSweden'sNETUniversity:AComparativeStudy,InternationalConferenceonEngineeringEducationandResearch2-7December2007,Melbourne,Australia.

Clarke,B.(2004).SustainingChangeinUniversities,MiltonKeynes,UK:SRHE,OpenUniversityPress

Clarke,V.,Braun,V.(2017).Thematicanalysis,TheJournalofPositivePsychology,12(3),297-298.

Clouder,L.,Oliver,M.,Tate,J.(2008).EmbeddingCETLsinaperformance-orientatedcultureinhighereducation:reflectionsonfindingcreativespace,BritishEducationalResearchJournal,34(5),635-650.

Cockran-Smith,M.,Fries,M.K.(2001).Sticks,StonesandIdeology:TheDiscourseofReforminTeacherEducation,EducationalResearcher,30(8),3-15.

Cochrane,A.,Williams,R.(2010).Theroleofhighereducationinsocialandculturaltransformation,MiltonKeynes,UK:CHERI.

Coffield,F.,Williamson,B.(1997).TheChallengesFacingHigherEducation,inB.W.FrankCoffield,(ed.),RepositioningHigherEducation.BuckinghamUK:SocietyforResearchintoHigherEducationandOpenUniversityPress,pp.1-26.

323

Colebatch,H.K.(2002).Policy,Maidenhead:OpenUniversityPress.

Colebatch,H.K.(2014).InterpretationintheAnalysisofPolicy,AustralianJournalofPublicAdministration,73(3),349-356.

CommitteeonHigherEducation.(1963).Report.London:HMSO

CommitteeofVice-ChancellorsandPrinciples(1985).ReportoftheSteeringCommitteeforEfficiencyStudiesinUniversities.London:CVCP.

Conole,G.(2007).Distillinglessonsfromacrossdifferenttypesofe-learninginterventions,MiltonKeynes,UK:TheInstituteofEducationalTechnology,TheOpenUniversity.

Conole,G.,Carusi,A.,deLatt,M.,Wilcox,P.,Darby,J.(2006).Managingdifferencesinstakeholderrelationshipsandorganizationalculturesine-learningdevelopment:lessonsfromtheUKeUniversityexperience.StudiesinContinuingEducation,28(2),135-150.

Conole,G.,Carusi,A.,deLaat,M.,Darby,J.(2006a).WhatcanwelearnfromthedemiseoftheUkeU?Evaluationofthelessonslearnt,NetworkedLearning,1-9.

Conole,G.,Carusi,A.,deLaat,M.,Darby,J.,McConnell,D.(ed)(2006b).LearningfromtheUkeUExperience,StudiesinContinuingEducationSpecialEditionone-learning

Cook,J.,Hollie,D.,Andrew,D.(2007).Astakeholderapproachtoimplementinge-learninginauniversity.BritishJournalofEducationalTechnology,38(5),784-794.

Crawford,A.,Dickens,J.(2008).TheImpactoftheCentresforExcellenceinTeachingandLearning(CETL)Programme:AperspectivefromtheEngineeringCETL,2008NationalCETLConference,Leicester,UK:TheHigherEducationAcademyEngineeringSubjectCentreandtheUKCentreforMaterialsEducation.

Cutler,T.,Waine,B.(2001).ManagerialismReformed?NewLabourandPublicSectorManagement,SocialPolicyandAdministration,34(3),328-332

Dale,R.(1989).Thestateandeducationpolicy,MiltonKeynes:OpenUniversityPress.

Dearlove,J.(1973).Thepoliticsofpolicyinlocalgovernment,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

deLeon,P.,deLeon,L.(2002).Whateverhappenedtopolicyimplementation?Analternativeapproach.JournalofPublicAdministrationResearchandTheory,J-PART12(4),467-492.

DepartmentforEducation.(2017).HigherEducationandResearchBill,London:DfE,HMSO.

DepartmentforEducation(2017).SRF47/2017ParticipationRatesinHigherEducation:AcademicYears2006/2007-2015/2016,London,DfE.https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/648165/HEIPR_PUBLICATION_2015-16.pdf(accessed14.12.2018)

DepartmentforEducationandEmployment.(1997).Connectingthelearningsociety,NationalGridforLearning,London:DfEE,HMSO.

324

DepartmentforEducationandEmployment.(1997).ExcellenceinSchools,London:DfEE,HMSO.

DepartmentforEducationandSkills(2001).Schoolsachievingsuccess,Nottinghamshire:DfES,HMSO.

DepartmentforEducationandSkills.(2003).TheFutureofHigherEducation,London:DfES,HMSO.

DepartmentforBusiness,InnovationandSkills.(2011).StudentsattheHeartoftheSystem,London:BIS,HMSO.

DepartmentforBusiness,InnovationandSkills.(2016).HigherEducation-SuccessasaKnowledgeEconomy:TeachingExcellence,SocialMobility&StudentChoice.London:BIS,HMSO.

Dery,D.(1999).Policybytheway:Whenpolicyisincidentaltomakingotherpolicies,JournalofPublicPolicy,18(2),163-176.

Dryzek,J.S.(1993).PolicyAnalysisandPlanning:FromSciencetoArgument,inJ.F.FrankFischer,(ed.),TheArgumentativeTurninPolicyAnalysisandPlanning.London:DukeUniversityPress.

Edwards,W.(1954).TheTheoryofDecisionMaking,PsychologicalBulletin,51(4),380-417.

Evans,G.(2018).PassingtheregulatorybatonfromHEFCEtoOfS,12thMarch2018,London:WONKHE.(accessed12.03.2018)

Fairclough,N.(2001).ThediscourseofNewLabour:criticaldiscourseanalysis,inM.Wetherall,S.Taylor,S.Yates,(eds.),Discourseasdata.Aguideforanalysis.London:Sage/OpenUniversity,229–266.

Fairclough,N.(2014).LanguageandPower(thirdedition),London:Longman.

Fenton-O'Creevy,M.(2012).Dothemaths:Cetls'contributionsaddup,29thMarch2012,London:TimesHigherEducationalSupplement,TimesNewspapersLtd.(accessed14.03.2016)

Fereday,J.,Muir-Cochrane,E.(2006).DemonstratingRigorUsingThematicAnalysis:AHybridApproachofInductiveandDeductiveCodingandThemeDevelopment,InternationalJournalofQualitativeMethods,5(1),80-92.

Fischer,F.,Forrester,J.(1993).TheArgumentativeTurninPolicyAnalysisandPlanning.London:DukeUniversityPress.

Flinders,M.(2008).DelegatedgovernanceandtheBritishstate:walkingwithoutorder,Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

FoundationForward(2009).ApprenticeshipsandtheroleofLifelongLearningNetworks,Staffordshire:FoundationForward.

Garrett,R.(2004).TheRealStoryBehindtheFailureofU.K.eUniversity.EducauseQuarterly,4,4-6.

325

Geertz,C.(1973a).TheInterpretationofCultures,NewYork:BasicBooks.

Geertz,C.(1973b).ThickDescription:Towardsaninterpretativetheoryofculture,inC.Geertz,(ed.),Theinterpretationofcultures.NewYork:BasicBooks,3-30.

Giddens,A.(1998).TheThirdWay:TheRenewalofSocialDemocracy,Cambridge:PolityPress.

Gill,J,(2012).Theynevercametotheboil,15thMarch2012,London:TimesHigherEducationalSupplement,TimesNewspapersLtd.(accessed12.03.2016)

Ginsberg,M.(1953).Theideaofprogress:Arevaluation,London:Methuen.

Goddard,A.(2000).Elitelogsoutofe-university,6thOctober2000,TimesHigherEducationalSupplementLondon:TimesNewspapersLtd.(accessed07.07.2015)

Goggin,M.,Bowman,A.,Lester,J.,O'Toole,L.(1990).ImplementationTheoryandPractice:TowardsaThirdGeneration,Glenview:ScottForesman/Little,Brown.

Gore,T.(2011).Review:UnderstandingPolicySuccess:rethinkingpublicpolicy,People,PlaceandPolicyOnline,5(1),46-49.

Gosling,D.(2001).EducationaldevelopmentunitsintheUK-whataretheydoingfiveyearson?TheInternationalJournalforAcademicDevelopment,6(1),74-90.

Gosling,D.(2013).QualityEnhancementinEngland:fromfundedprojectstostudent-leddemand,inG.G.R.Land,(ed.),EnhancingQualityinHigherEducation:InternationalPerspectives.London:Routledge,1-26.

Gosling,D.,Hannan,A.H.(2007a).CentresforExcellenceinTeachingandLearninginEngland:Recognising,celebratingandpromotingexcellence?,inA.Skelton,(ed.),InternationalPerspectivesonTeachingExcellenceinHigherEducation:improvingknowledgeandpractice.Oxford:Routledge,147-166

Gosling,D.,Hannan,A.H.(2007b).Responsestoapolicyinitiative:thecaseofCentresforExcellenceinTeachingandLearning,StudiesinHigherEducation32(5),633-646.

Gosling,D.,Turner,R.(2015).RespondingtocontestationinteachingandlearningprojectsintheCentresforExcellenceinTeachingandLearningintheUnitedKingdom,StudiesinHigherEducation,40(9),1573-1587.

Gove,J.(2012).Cetls'impactassessed:thesectorhardlyfeltathing,15thMarch2012,London:TimesHigherEducationalSupplement,TimesNewspapersLtd.(accessed16.10.2017)

Gray,C.(2011).BookReview:UnderstandingPolicySuccess:rethinkingpublicpolicy(AllanMcConnell),CulturalTrends,20(2),223-224.

Greenbank,P.(2006).TheEvolutionofGovernmentPolicyonWideningParticipation,HigherEducationQuarterly,60(2),141-166.

Greener,I.,Perriton,L.(2005).Thepoliticaleconomyofnetworkedlearningcommunitiesinhighereducation,StudiesinHigherEducation,30(1),67-79.

326

Guest,G.,MacQueen,K.M.,Namey,E.E.(2014).IntroductiontoAppliedThematicAnalysis,ThousandOaks,CA:SagePublicationsInc.

Gupa,E.G.,Lincoln,Y.S.(2005).Paradigmaticcontroversies,contradictionsandemerginginfluences,inN.KDenzin,Y.S.Lincoln(eds.),TheSageHandbookofQualitativeResearch(3rdedition).ThousandOaksCA:SagePublicationsInc.191-215.

Habermas,J.(1989).TheStructuralTransformationofthePublicSphere:AnInquiryintoaCategorisationofBourgeoisSociety,London:PolityPress.

Hagenbuch,W.(1958).Socialeconomics,Welwyn:Nisbet.

Hare,J.(2019).LetterfromAustralia:Stickorcarrot–thevalueofperformance-basedfunds,20thJanuary2019,London,WONKHE.(accessed24.01.2019)

Hargreaves,A.,Fullan,M.(2012).ProfessionalCapital:TransformingTeachinginEverySchool,NewYork:TeachersCollege,ColumbiaUniversity.

Hart,C.(2001).DoingaLiteratureSearch:AComprehensiveGuidefortheSocialSciences,London:SagePublicationsInc.

Heclo,H.(1972).Reviewarticle:Policyanalysis,Britishjournalofpoliticalscience,2,83-108.

Hedberg,J.(2006).E-learningfutures?Speculationsforatimeyettocome,StudiesinContinuingEducation,28(2),171-183.

HigherEducationAcademy,(2011),HEAstrategicplan2012-2016:Championingexcellentlearningandteachinginhighereducation,York:HEA.

ThefollowingHEFCEpublicationswereaccessedviatheHEFCEwebsitebetween2012-2018.Theyarenowavailableintheon-lineNationalArchive

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(1994).C1/94LengthofDegreeCourses,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(1994).C2/94Fundingfor1994-95:CouncilDecision,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(1994).C8/94SpecialInitiativestoEncourageWideningParticipation,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(1994).C9/94AssessmentoftheQualityofInitialTeacherTraining,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(1994).C10/94CoreProposalsfromHEandFEInstitutions:SecondInitiative,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(1994).C29/94MinoritySubjects,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(1994).C33/94QualityAssessmentbetweenApril1995andSeptember1996,Bristol:HEFCE.

327

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(1994).C38/94FundingofTeaching:Part-timeVolumeMeasure,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(1994).M6/94OrganisationoftheAcademicYear-JointConsultationwithCVCP,DENI,SCOP,HEFCE,HEFCW,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(1995).C6/95RecurrentGrantfortheAcademicYear1995-96,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(1995).C29/95FundfortheDevelopmentofTeachingandLearning,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(1995).C32/95FormerSovietandEastEuropeanStudies:InvitationtoBid,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(1996).C2/96Fundingfor1996/97:HEFCEJanuaryBoardMeeting,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(1996).C5/96ModelFinancialMemorandumbetweentheHEFCEandInstitutions,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(1996).C8/96SpecificationforDisabilityStatementsrequiredfromInstitutions,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(1996)C09/96SpecialInitiativetoEncourageHighQualityProvisionforStudentswithLearningDifficultiesandDisabilities,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(1996)C19/96RedistributionofHEFCEFundingforTeachingfortheAcademicYear1996-97,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(1996).C21/96FundingMethodforTeachingfrom1998-99,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(1996)C22/96FundfortheDevelopmentofTeachingandLearning:PhaseTwo,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(1996).C23/96SpecialInitiativetoEncourageHighQualityProvisionforStudentswithLearningDifficultiesandDisabilities(SLDD):FundedProjects,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(1997).Learningandteaching:Strategyandfunding,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(1997).C19/97HoldbackofHEFCEGrant1997-98,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(1997).97/22Improvingpoorestates:invitationtobid,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(1997).C04/97FundingMethodforResearchfrom1997-98,Bristol;HEFCE.

328

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(1997).C06/97RecurrentGrantsfortheAcademicYear1997-98,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(1997).C10/97FundingMethodforTeachingfrom1998-99:AdditionalDecisions,Bristol,HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(1997).C14/97TeachingandLearningTechnologyProgrammePhase3:Invitationtobid,Bristol,HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(1997).97/23RefurbishingResearchLaboratories:Bidsforfunds,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(1998).98/09Recurrentgrantsfor1998-99,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(1998).98/10Fundingofspecialistinstitutions,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(1998).98/13Institutions'corporateplans,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(1998).98/17MetropolitanAreaNetworks(MANs):Bidsforfunds1998-99,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(1998).98/32Strategyforcostingandpricing:Applicationforfunds,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(1998).98/35Wideningparticipation:specialfundingprogramme1998-99,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(1998).98/40Learningandteaching:strategyandfundingproposals(consultation),Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(1998).98/50Improvingpoorestates:invitationtobid,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(1998).98/66Disabilitystatements:Aguidetogoodpractice,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(1999).99/08Improvingprovisionfordisabledstudents:Invitationtobid,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(1999).99/16HigherEducationReach-outtoBusinessandtheCommunityFund,Bristol,HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(1999).99/24Wideningparticipationinhighereducation:Fundingdecisions,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(1999).99/26Learningandteaching:Strategyandfunding,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(1999).99/34RestructuringandCollaborationFund:Progressreportonapprovedprojects,Bristol:HEFCE.

329

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(1999).99/48TeachingQualityEnhancementFund:fundingarrangements,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(1999).99/52Projectcapitalallocations1999-2000to2001-02,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(1999).99/54Developinggoodmanagementpractice:Invitationtobidforfunds,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(1999).99/63HEinFEcolleges:Codeofpracticeonindirectlyfundedpartnerships,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2000).1999-2000AnnualReport:AddingValue,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2000).C13/00Fundsforthedevelopmentoffoundationdegrees,Bristol,HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2000).00/14Facilitiesmanagement:improvingthemanagementofsupportservicesinhighereducation,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2000).C17/00TransparencyReviewreportingrequirements,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2000).00/22HEFCEstrategicplan2000–2005,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2000).00/33Diversityinhighereducation:HEFCEpolicystatement,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2000).00/34Recurrentgrantsfor2000-01:finalallocations,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2000).00/43e-Universityproject:businessmodel,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2000).C00/43e-Universityproject:businessmodel(outcomesofconsultation),Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2000).00/44aBusinessModelforthee-university,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2000).C04/00e-UniversityProject,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2000).EP05/00Updateone-universityproject,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2001).01/06BusinessFellowships:proposals,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2001).01/16Rewardinganddevelopingstaffinhighereducation,Bristol:HEFCE.

330

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2001).01/25BusinessFellowships-Invitationtoapplyforspecialfunding,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2001).01/29Wideningparticipationinhighereducation-Fundingdecisionsfor2001-02to2003-04,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2001).01/47NewTechnologyInstitutes-Invitationtobidforfunds,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2001).C02/01e-University:invitationtonominatedirectorsandcommitteemembers,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2001).C06/01e-University:invitationtoexpressinterestinpilotstodevelope-learningprogrammes,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2001).C07/01e-University:invitationtohighereducationinstitutionstobecomemembersoftheholdingcompany,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2001).01/24Riskmanagement-Abriefingforgovernorsandseniormanagers,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2001).01/73PartnershipsforProgression,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2002).02/15Informationonqualityandstandardsinhighereducation:FinalreportoftheTaskGroup,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2002).02/21Improvingprovisionfordisabledstudents,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2002).02/22Fundingforwideningparticipationinhighereducation,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2002).C08/02eUniversity:Invitationtobidforadditionalstudentplacestomeetpublicserviceobjectives,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2002).C14/02e-University:invitationtoexpressinterestinaprojecttodevelopin-serviceteachertrainingprogrammesforteachersinChina,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2002).C26/2002SecondroundoftheScienceResearchInvestmentFund,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2002).2002/49PartnershipsforProgression:Callforstrategicplanstoreleasefunding,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2003).C05/2003Recoveringthefulleconomiccostsofresearchandotheractivities,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2003).2003/06ScienceResearchInvestmentFund:Roundtwo-invitationtoapplyforfunding,Bristol:HEFCE.

331

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2003).2003/12HEFCEStrategicplan2003-08:Consultation,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2003).C13/2003Specialistsummerschools:invitationtobid,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2003).2003/14Fundingforwideningparticipationinhighereducation:Responsestoconsultationandfundingfor2003-04to2005-06,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2003).2003/22Jointconsultationonthereviewofresearchassessment,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2003).2003/26Projectcapitalroundthree:invitationtoapplyforfunds,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2003).2003/28StrategicDevelopmentFund,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2003).2003/34HigherEducationInnovationFund-round2:Fundingproposals,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2003).2003/35HEFCEstrategicplan2003-08,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2003).2003/36CentresforExcellenceinTeachingandLearning:FormalConsultation,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2003).2003/38Reviewofresearchfundingmethod:consultation,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2003).2003/42Developingthefundingmethodforteachingfrom2004-05,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2003).2003/48Foundationdegrees:Invitationtobidforadditionalplacesanddevelopmentfunds2004-05,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2003).2003/52PublicresourcesforteachingandstudentnumbersinHEFCE-fundedinstitutions:2002-03,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2004).Annualreview2003-04:Turningopportunitiesintosuccess,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2004).MemorandumtotheSelectCommittee21.06.2004,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2004).94thHEFCEBoardMeetingMinutes(17June2004),Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2004).2004/03RewardinganddevelopingstaffinHE-round2:Outcomeofconsultationonfundingfrom2004-05,andrequesttosubmitrevisedHRstrategies,Bristol:HEFCE.

332

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2004).2004/05CentresforExcellenceinTeachingandLearning:Invitationtobidforfunds,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2004).C12/2004LifelongLearningNetworks,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2004).2004/12Recurrentgrantsfor2004-05,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2004).C18/2004Postgraduateresearchdegreeprogrammes:minimumstandardsandfunding,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2004).2004/19HigherEducationActiveCommunityFundround2:guidanceandallocationoffunds,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2004).C21/2004Institutionalwideningparticipationstrategiesandworkingwithinstitutionstowidenparticipation,Bristol,HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2004).2004/26Leadership,GovernanceandManagementFund:responsestoconsultationandinvitationtosubmitapplications,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2005).LifelongLearningNetworks:progressreportandnextsteps,Spring2005,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2005).C02/2005Improvingprovisionfordisabledstudents,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2005).C04/2005TeachingQualityInformationweb-site,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2005).2005/05KnowledgeTransferCapabilityFund:Fundingallocations,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2005).C11/2005Capitalfundingfordirectlyfundedfurthereducationcolleges,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2005).2005/12HEFCEstrategyfore-learning,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2005).2005/14Allocationoffundsforadditionalstudentnumbers2006-08,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2005).C15/2005ChangestotheOverseasResearchStudentsAwardScheme,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2005).C16/2005Newsupportelementforcharitiesresearchincome,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2005).2005/17CentresforExcellenceinTeachingandLearning:Outcomesandfundingallocations,Bristol:HEFCE.

333

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2005).C21/2005OverseasResearchStudentsAwardsScheme(ORSAS):revisedarrangementsinEngland,Bristol:HEFCE

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2005).C28/2005Monitoringinstitutionalsustainability,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2005).C29/2005Continuationofresearchcapabilityfundinguntil2008-09,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2005).2005/35ReviewoftheQualityAssuranceFramework,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2005).2005/36HigherEducationInnovationFundround3:Fundingproposals,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2005).2005/46HigherEducationInnovationFundround3:Invitationandguidanceforinstitutionalplansandcompetitivebids,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2006).HEFCEAnnualreportandaccounts2005-06,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2006).2006/11TeachingQualityEnhancementFund:Fundingarrangements2006-07to2008-09,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2006).2006/12Reviewoftheteachingfundingmethod:outcomesoffirstcycleofconsultation,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2006).2006/21ThehighereducationworkforceinEngland-Aframeworkforthefuture,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2006).C12/2006Changestothemodelfinancialmemorandum,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2006).C20/2006Sharedservices:thebenefitsforhighereducationinstitutions,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2006).2006/30HigherEducationInnovationFundround3:fundingallocations,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2006).2006/49BeaconsforPublicEngagement:invitationtoapplyforfunds,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2007).LifelongLearningNetworks:HEFCEhasinvested£100millionin28networks,June2007,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2007).SectorImpactAssessment-LifelongLearningNetworks,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2007).CriticalReviewofbottom-upapproachestopolicymaking(Phase1report).Bristol:HEFCE.

334

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2007).2007/01TheHEFCEEqualityScheme,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2007).C03/2007Allocationofadditionalstudentnumbersin2008-09foremployerengagement,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2007).C04/2007Allocationoffundsforadditionalstudentnumbersin2008-09,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2007).2007/06Recurrentgrantsfor2007-08,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2007).2007/11Accountabilityforhighereducationinstitutions:newarrangementsfrom2008,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2007).2007/12Highereducationoutreach:targetingdisadvantagedlearners,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2007).C13/2007Additionalfundingforveryhighcostandvulnerablelaboratory-basedsubjects,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2007).2007/23Reviewoftheteachingfundingmethod:outcomesofsecondconsultationonchangestothemethodfrom2008-09,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2008).HEFCEupdateonLifelongLearningNetworksApril2008,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2008).LifelongLearningNetworks:Analysisof2008monitoringreportsbyHEFCE,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2008).2008/02HigherEducationInnovationFundround4:invitationandguidanceforinstitutionalstrategies,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2008).2008/04CapitalInvestmentFund:capitalforlearningandteaching,researchandinfrastructure2008-2011,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2008).C05/2008Allocationoffundsforadditionalstudentnumbersin2009-10and2010-11,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2008).C08/2008Newgrantprogrammetoevaluateinstitutionalpracticerelatingtostudentretention,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2008).2008/10HEFCEwideningparticipationandfairaccessresearchstrategy:2008update,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2008).2008/12Recurrentgrantsfor2008-09,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2008).C12/2008Capitalfundingfordirectlyfundedfurthereducationcollegesfor2008-09,Bristol:HEFCE.

335

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2008).2008/13Withdrawaloffundingforequivalentorlowerqualifications(ELQs):outcomesofconsultation,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2008).C13/2008ResearchExcellenceFramework:outcomesofconsultationandnextsteps,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEnglandHEFCE.(2008).C18/2008Changestofundingpriorities2008-11,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2008).C32/2008Highereducationfinancesfor2009-10and2010-11,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2008).C34/2008UpdateontheResearchExcellenceFramework,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2008).C36/2008Employerengagement-allocationoffunding,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2009).Analysisof2009LLNmonitoringreportsbyHEFCE,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2009).C06/2009Severancepaymentstoseniorstaffinhighereducationinstitutions,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2009).C07/2009Leadingtransformationalchange:additionalaccesstotheLeadership,GovernanceandManagementFundforinstitutionalleaders,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2009).2009/07Anew'UniversityChallenge':Proposalsforhighereducationcentres,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2009).2009/08Recurrentgrantsfor2009-10,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2009).2009/12Enhancinglearningandteachingthroughtheuseoftechnology:ArevisedapproachtoHEFCE'sstrategyfore-learning,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2009).C22/2009Additionalstudentnumbersfor2010-11,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2009).2009/29Attributesofstudentsandnetworks,2006-07and2007-08,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2009).2009/30Futuresupportforteachingenhancementandwideningparticipation:Outcomesofconsultation,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2009).2009/49OutcomesofHEFCEreviewofitspolicyasitrelatestodisabledstudents,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2010).HEFCEresponseto'SummativeevaluationoftheLifelongLearningNetworkprogramme:AreporttoHEFCEbySQW,Bristol:HEFCE.

336

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2010).010/01CarbonreductiontargetandstrategyforhighereducationinEngland,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2010).C04/2010ResearchExcellenceFrameworkconsultationoutcomes,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2010).2010/05Thehighereducationworkforceframework2010:overviewreport,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2010).C07/2010Allocationoffundingforsharedserviceactivitiesin2010-11throughtheUniversityModernisationFund,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2010).2010/08Recurrentgrantsfor2010-11,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2010).2010/09StrategicallyImportantandVulnerableSubjects:theHEFCEadvisorygroup's2009report,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2010).C13/2010Leadership,GovernanceandManagementFund:Endoffundingperiodandevaluation,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2010).C14/2010Highereducationfundingforacademicyears2009-10and2010-11includingnewstudententrants,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2010).2010/17FuturearrangementsforqualityassuranceinEnglandandNorthernIreland:Outcomesofconsultation,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2011).2010-11AnnualReportandAccounts,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2011).2011/07Recurrentgrantsfor2011-12,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2011).C09/2011Changestorecurrentgrantfor2010-11,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2011).2011/10NationalScholarshipProgramme2012-13:guidanceforinstitutions,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2011).C12/2011AsharedstrategyforrelationshipmanagementbetweenHEFCEandinstitutionalgoverningbodies,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2011).C13/2011NationalScholarshipProgramme:Provisionalallocationsfor2012-13,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2011).C16/2011RevolvingGreenFund-invitationtoapplyforasecondphaseoffunding,Bristol:HEFCE.

337

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2011).2011/18Provisionofinformationabouthighereducation:Outcomesofconsultationandnextsteps,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2011).2011/36Policyforaddressingunsatisfactoryqualityininstitutions:2011update,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2012).C03/2012Fundingforuniversitiesandcollegesfor2012-13:Boarddecisions,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2012).C05/2012CapitalInvestmentFund2:Capitalallocationsforlearningandteaching2012-13,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2012).C11/2012Interimwideningparticipationstrategicstatementsfor2012-13,andarrangementsforfutureyears,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2012).2012/12UKResearchPartnershipInvestmentFund:2012-2015,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2012).C16/2012Publicationofdata:2012NationalStudentSurveyanddevelopmentofthenewofficialUNISTATSwebsite,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2012).c22/2012Collaborations,alliancesandmergersinhighereducation:Outcomesofconsultation.Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2012).2012/27Arisk-basedapproachtoqualityassurance:Outcomesofconsultationandnextsteps,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2012).C29/2012RevolvingGreenFund:Invitationtoapplyforathirdphaseoffunding,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2012).2012/31UKResearchPartnershipInvestmentFund2013-15:Invitationtobid,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2013).2013/02NationalScholarshipProgramme2014-15:Provisionalallocationsandguidanceforinstitutions,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2013).2013/08CapitalInvestmentFund2:Capitalallocationsforlearningandteaching2013-14;Additionalcapitalallocationsforresearch2013-14and2014-15,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2013).2013/09ReviewofTRAC:OutcomesofconsultationandreporttotheHEFCEBoardfromtheTRACReviewGroup,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2013).2013/13Trendsintransitionfromfirstdegreetopostgraduatestudy:Qualifiersbetween2002-03and2010-11,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2013).C14/2013FinancearrangementsforErasmusandotherstudentmobilityyearsabroadfrom2013-14,Bristol:HEFCE.

338

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2013).13/14PostgraduateeducationinEnglandandNorthernIreland:Overviewreport2013,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2013).C15/2013UpdatingHEFCE’spolicyforaddressingunsatisfactoryqualityininstitutions,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2013).2013/16Consultationonopenaccessinthepost-2014ResearchExcellenceFramework,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2013).C24/2013NationalScholarshipProgrammeupdateforparticipatinginstitutions,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2013).C27/2013CostsharinggroupsandVATexemption:Developinggoodpractice,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2013).29/2013UpdatingHEFCE’spolicyforaddressingunsatisfactoryqualityininstitutions:Outcomesofconsultation.Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2013).C30/2013Recurrentteachinggrantfrom2015-16,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2013).C31/2013Strategiesforaccessandstudentsuccess2014-15to2018-19,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2013).C32/2013NationalScholarshipProgramme2014-15,includingimplicationsforthoseinstitutionswith'coreandmargin'places,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2013).2013/35UKResearchPartnershipInvestmentFund2015-16,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2013).153rdHEFCEBoardMeetingMinutes,4July2013,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2014).162ndHEFCEBoardMeetingMinutes(17October2014),Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2014).C02/2014STEMteachingcapitalfundingallocation,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2014).C03/2014Additionalcapitalforlearningandteaching2013-14,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2014).C06/2014Supportingpublicaccountability:Presentingincomeandexpenditureinformationtocurrentstudents,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2014).2014/07Policyforopenaccessinthepost-2014ResearchExcellenceFramework:UpdatedJuly2015,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2014).C16/20142014NationalStudentSurvey:Publicationofdata,Bristol:HEFCE.

339

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2014).2014/17UKResearchPartnershipInvestmentFund:2016-17,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2014).C20/2014Guidancefornationalnetworksforcollaborativeoutreach,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2014).2014/21CatalystFund:Callsforexpressionsofinterestinthreeareas,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2014).C29/2014Recurrentteachinggrantfrom2015-16:Confirmationofarrangements,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2014).C32/2014PostgraduateSupportScheme:Guidanceforinstitutionsreceivingfundingtosupportpostgraduatestudents2015-16,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2015).C03/2015Fundingforuniversitiesandcollegesfor2013-14to2015-16:Boarddecisions,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2015).C05/2015Knowledgeexchange:Formulafunding2015-16,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2015).2015/33UKResearchPartnershipInvestmentFund:2018-19to2019-20,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2016).C03/2016Fundingforuniversitiesandcollegesfor2014-15to2016-17:Boarddecisions,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2016).C06/2016DADFphase1:Invitationtosubmitproposalsforfundingtostimulatedevelopmentofdegreeapprenticeships,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2016).C20/2016CatalystFund:Innovationsinlearningandteaching,andaddressingbarrierstostudentsuccess(twocalls),Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2016).C27/2016BoarddecisionsregardingtheNCOPandteachingfundingforwideningaccess,successfulstudentoutcomesandprogressiontopostgraduatestudy,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2016).C30/2016AnewNationalStudentSurveyfor2017,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2016).C32/2016OpenaccessintheResearchExcellenceFramework:Extensionofflexibility,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2016).34/2016:BoarddecisionsonchangestoQRRDPsupervisionfunding.Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2016).2016/35PolicyforopenaccessinthenextResearchExcellenceFramework:UpdatedNovember2016,Bristol:HEFCE.

340

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2016).2016/39:Fundingtosupportteachinginhighereducation:Outcomesofconsultationonarrangementsforsupportingwideningaccessandsuccessfulstudentoutcomes,includingprogressiontotaughtpostgraduatestudy.Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2016).C36/2016Catalystfund:Studentsafeguardingoncampus,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2017).2017/03:HigherEducationInnovationFunding:ConnectingCapabilityFund,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2017).2017/05Recurrentgrantsfor2017-18,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2017).C07/2017:Formula-basedcapitalallocationsforteachingandresearch2017-18,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2017).08/2017:InstituteofCodingcompetition:Invitationtosubmitapplicationsforfundingtoenhancehigher-leveldigitalskillsprovision.Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2017).C24/2017CatalystFund:Callforbids–closingtheskillsgapandsupportingtheIndustrialStrategythroughcurriculumdevelopment,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2017).2017/24Recurrentgrantsfor2017-18:Finalallocations,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2017).C33/2017InitialdecisionsonREF2021,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2017).C40/2017CatalystFund:Supportingmentalhealthandwellbeingforpostgraduateresearchstudents,Bristol:HEFCE.

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2017).REF2017/01InitialdecisionsontheResearchExcellenceFramework2021(REF2017/01),REF2021,Bristol:HEFCEhttp://www.ref.ac.uk/publications/2017/initialdecisionsontheresearchexcellenceframework2021.html

HigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland.(2018).C03/2018CatalystFund:Tacklingreligious-basedhatecrimeaffectingstudents,Bristol:HEFCE.

Hill,M.(2009).Thepublicpolicyprocess,Harlow:PearsonEducation.

Hill,M.,Hupe,P.(2006).Analysingpolicyprocessesasmultiplegovernance:accountabilityinsocialpolicy,PolicyandPolitics,34(3),557-573.

Hoare,S.(2005).BreakingwithConvention,1stNovember2005,London:GuardianNewspapersLtd.

Hogan,J.(1997).TheHarrisReviewofPostgraduateEducation,Perspectives,1,44-49.

341

HouseofCommons,(2016).Business,InnovationandSkillsCommittee:TheTeachingExcellenceFramework:AssessingQualityinHigherEducation.ThirdReportofSession2015-16,HC573,London:HMSO.

Howlett,M.(2012).Thelessonsoffailure:learningandblameavoidanceinpublicpolicy-making,InternationalPoliticalScienceReview,33(5),539-555.

Howlett,M.,Ramesh,M.(1995).Studyingpublicpolicy,Toronto:OxfordUniversityPress.

Howlett,M.,RameshM.,Perl,A.(2009).StudyingPublicPolicy:PolicyCyclesandPolicySubsystems,Canada:OxfordUniversityPress.

Hyatt,D.(2013).TheCriticalHigherEducationPolicyDiscourseAnalysisFramework,inM.Tight(ed).TheoryandMethodinHigherEducationResearch,InternationalPerspectivesonHigherEducationResearch,Volume9,41-59.

Innovation,Universities,ScienceandSkillsSelectCommittee.(2009).Re-skillingforrecovery:afterLeitch,implementingskillsandtrainingpolicies,London:HMSO

IPP.(2018).PolicyLearning,InnovationPolicyPlatform,Availableat:https://www.innovationpolicyplatform.org/content/policy-learning(accessed14.12.2018)

Jenkins,R.(2007).Themeaningofpolicy/policyasmeaning,inS.M.HodgsonandZ.Irving,(eds.),Policyreconsidered.Bristol:ThePolicyPress,pp.21-36.

Jungblut,J.(2015).Bringingpoliticalpartiesintothepicture:atwo-dimensionalanalyticalframeworkforhighereducationpolicy,HigherEducation,69,867-882.

Kay,A.,Boxall,A.M.(2015).SuccessandFailureinPublicPolicy:TwinImpostersorAvenuesforReform?SelectedEvidencefrom40YearsofHealth-careReforminAustralia,AustralianJournalofPublicAdministration,74(1),33-41.

Kerr,D.(1976).TheLogicof'Policy'andSuccessfulPolicies,PolicySciences,7,351-363.

Kernohan,D.(2015).CETLsandtheghostsofteachingexcellencepast,16thNovember2015,London:WONKHE.(accessed16.04.2016)

Kernohan,D.(2018).HowwillOfSdopolicywhenitsleaversarebroken?,12thFebruary2018,London:WONKHE.(accessed12.02.2018)

Kernohan,D.,Coiffait,L.(2018).Theparticipationgame,27thSeptember2018,London:WONKHE(accessed27.09.2018)

King,V.(2010).Evidencingimpactofeducationaldevelopments:the'influencewheel'anditsuseinaCETLcontext,JournalofFurtherandHigherEducation,34(1),35-46.

King,A.,andCrewe,I.(2013).Theblundersofourgovernments,London:OneWorld.

Kogan,M.,Hanney,S.(2000).ReformingHigherEducation,London:JessicaKingsley.

Lafitte,F.(1962).Socialpolicyinafreesociety,Birmingham:BirminghamUniversityPress.

342

Lasswell,H.D.(1951).Thepolicyorientation,inD.LernerandH.D.Lasswell,(eds.),Thepolicysciences.Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress.

Laswell,H.D.(1971).APre-viewofPolicySciences,NewYork:Elsevier.

Laurillard,D.(2008).Digitaltechnologiesandtheirroleinachievingourambitionsforeducation,London:InstituteofEducation.

Lawton,D.(1984).Thetighteninggrip:Growthofcentralcontroloftheschoolcurriculum,Bedfordwaypapers21,London:HeinemannEducational.

Layer,G.(2005).Closingtheequitygap:Isitsustainable?,inG.Layer,(ed.),Closingtheequitygap:TheimpactofwideningparticipationstrategiesintheUKandtheUSA.Leicester,England:NationalInstituteofAdultContinuingEducation.

Leach,M.(2015).HasHEFCEhaditschips?,14thOctober2015,London:GuardianNewspapersLtd.(accessed08.06.2016)

Leahy,S.M.(2013).Aninvestigationintopartnershipworkingtowidenparticipationinhighereducationinthesouth-westofEngland,withparticularreferencetoLifelongLearningNetworks(LLNs),PhDsubmissiontotheUniversityofBath,Bath:UniversityofBath(accessed12.03.2016)

LearningandSkillsDevelopmentAgency.(2002).Partnershipsforprogressionconsultation:ResponsefromtheLearningandSkillsDevelopmentAgency,London:LSDA

Leitch,S.(2006).LeitchReviewofSkills:Prosperityforallintheglobalage–worldclassskills–FinalReport,December2006,London:HMTreasury.

Lemmens-Krug,K.(2015).CentresforExcellenceinTeachingandLearning(CETL)asgoverninginstrumentsinuniversitiesinEnglandandGermany,Netherlands:CenterforHigherEducationPolicyStudies.

Leon,P.(2003).FearsOfDivisionInBiddingWarForCentresForExcellence,19thDecember2003,London:TimesHigherEducationalSupplement,TimesNewspapersLtd.(accessed04.04.2016)

Lewis,J.,Flynn,R.(1978).TheImplementationofurbanandregionalplanningpolicies:finalreportofafeasibilitystudyforDepartmentoftheEnvironment.London:HMSO.

Lindblom,C.E.(1959).TheScienceof'MuddlingThrough,PublicAdministrativeReview,19(2),79-88.

Lincoln,Y.S.,Guba,E.G.(1985).NaturalisticInquiry,NewburyPark,CA:SagePublications.

Lipsky,M.(1980).Street-LevelBureaucracy:DilemmasoftheIndividualinPublicServices,NewYork:RussellSageFoundation.

Little,B.,ConnorH.(2005).Vocationalladdersorcrazypaving?Makingyourwaytohigherlevels,London:LearningandSkillsDevelopmentAgency.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/42792376_Vocational_ladders_or_crazy_paving_Making_your_way_to_higher_levels(accessed14.12.2018)

343

Little,B.Locke,W.,Parker,J.,Richardson,J.(2007).Excellenceinteachingandlearning:areviewoftheliteraturefortheHigherEducationAcademy,York:CentreforHigherEducationResearchandInformation.https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/litreview_excellence_in_tl_cheri_jul07.pdf(accessed14.12.2018)

Little,B.,Williams,R.(2009).Highereducationpolicyinitiativesandtheirimplementation-thecaseofLifelongLearningNetworksinEngland,JournalofAccessPolicyandPractice,6(2),97-115.

Lowndes,V.,McCaughie,K.(2013).Weatheringtheperfectstorm?Austerityandinstitutionalresilienceinlocalgovernment,PolicyandPolitics,41(4),533-549.

Macbeath,G.(1957).Cansocialpoliciesberationallytested?,HobhouseMemorialTrustlecture.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Malterud,K.(2001).Qualitativeresearch:standards,challenges,andguidelines.TheLancet,358,483-488.

Margetts,H.,6,P.,Hood,C.(2010).ParadoxesofModernization:UnintendedConsequencesofPublicPolicyReform,Oxford:OxfordScholarshipOnline.(accessed04.05.2016)

Marsh,D.,McConnell,A.(2010).TowardsaFrameworkforEstablishingPolicySuccess,PublicAdministration,88(2),564-583.

Marshall,T.H.(1965).Socialpolicy,London:Hutchinson.

May,P.J.(1992).PolicyLearningandFailure,Journalofpublicpolicy,12(4),331-354.

May,S.,vanderSluis,H.,Woodfield,S.(2012).Promotingsocialmobilitybycreatingpathwaystotheprofessionsandvocationalcareers:theroleofprogressionagreements,York:HEA.file:///C:/Users/Sam/AppData/Local/Packages/Microsoft.MicrosoftEdge_8wekyb3d8bbwe/TempState/Downloads/wasrs_may.pdf(accessed14.12.2018)

MacLeod,D.(2004).HefcepullstheplugonUKe-university,4thMarch2004,London:TheGuardianNewspaperLtd.(accessed06.05.2015)

Macleod,D.(2004).E-university'lackedstrategyforsuccess’,26thMay2004TheGuardian,London:GuardianNewspapersLtd.http://www.theguardain.com/education/2004/may/26/elearning.technology(accessed14.12.2018)

McConnell,A.(2010).UnderstandingPolicySuccess:RethinkingPublicPolicy,London:PalgraveMacmillan.

McConnell,A.(2010b).PolicySuccess,PolicyFailureandGreyAreasIn-Between,PublicPolicy,30(3),345-362.

McConnell,A.(2011).Success?Failure?Somethingin-between?Aframeworkforevaluatingcrisismanagement,PolicyandSociety,30,63-76.

344

McConnell,A.(2015).Whatispolicyfailure?Aprimertohelpnavigatethemaze,PublicPolicyandAdministration,30(3-4),221-242.

McConnell,A.(2016).APublicPolicyApproachtoUnderstandingtheNatureandCausesofForeignPolicyFailure,JournalofEuropeanPublicPolicy,23(5),667-684.

McCulloch,G.(2004).DocumentaryResearchinEducation,HistoryandtheSocialSciences,London:RoutledgeFalmer.

Melville,D.(2018).We’relikelytomissHEFCEmorethanweknow,19thMarch2018,London:WONKHE.(accessed19.03.2018)

Merriam,S.B.(1988).CaseStudyResearchinEducation,SanFrancisco,California:Jossey-BassInc.Publishers.

Mieg,H.(2014).TheOrganisationalEmbeddingofExpertise:CentresofExcellence,TalentDevelopmentandExcellence,6(1),71-93.

Mills,D.,Huber,M.T.(2005).AnthropologyandtheEducational'TradingZone':Disciplinary,pedagogyandprofessionalism,Arts&HumanitiesinHigherEducation,4(1),9-32.

MinistryofEducation.(1960).GrantstoStudents.London:HMSO

Mirowski,P.(2014).Thepoliticalmovementthatdarednotspeakitsownname:Theneoliberalthoughtcollectiveundererasure,InstituteforNewEconomicThinking,WorkingPaperNo.23https://www.ineteconomics.org/uploads/papers/WP23-Mirowski.pdf(accessed14.12.2018)

MorBarrak,M.E.(2018).ThePracticeandScienceofSocialGood:EmergingPathstoPositiveSocialImpact,ResearchonSocialWorkPractice,1-12.

Muller,R.,Remdisch,S.,Köhler,K.,Mar,L.,Repo,S.,Yndigegn,C.(2015).Easingaccessforlifelonglearners:acomparisonofEuropeanmodelsforuniversitylifelonglearning,InternationalJournalofLifelongEducation,34(5),530-550.

Nachmias,D.(1979).PublicPolicyEvaluation:ApproachesandMethods,NewYork:StMartin'sPress.

NationalAuditOffice.(2007).OrganisationsinPartnershipsinvolvedinthedeliveryoftheGovernment’sskillsagenda:MemorandumtotheSelectCommitteeonEducationandSkills(March2007),London:HMSO.http://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmeduski/333/333we02.htm(assessed01.03.2019)

NationalCommitteeofInquiryintoHigherEducation(NCIHE)(1997).HigherEducationintheLearningSociety:ReportoftheNationalCommittee,Norwich:HMSO

Naughton,J.(2004),Alittlee-learningisadangerousthing,24thMarch2004,London:GuardianNewspapersLtd.(accessed06.05.2015)

Nemeth,B.(2010).TheAcceleratingRolesofHigherEducationinRegionsthroughtheEuropeanLifelongLearningInitiative,EuropeanJournalofEducation,45(3),451-465.

345

Newby,H.(2005a).ColinBellMemorialLecture:Doingwideningparticipation:Socialinequalityandaccesstohighereducation,inG.Layer,(ed.),Closingtheequitygap:theimpactofwideningparticipationstrategiesintheUKandtheUSA.Leicester:NationalInstituteofAdultandContinuingEducation(NIACE).

Newby,H.(2005b).Lifelonglearningnetworksinhighereducation,JournalofAccessPolicyandPractice,2(2),176-186.

Newman,J.(2013).Performingnewworlds?Policy,politicsandcreativelabourinhardtimes,PolicyandPolitics,41(4),515-532.

Newman,J.(2014).MeasuringPolicySuccess:CaseStudiesfromCanadaandAustralia,AustralianJournalofPublicAdministration,73(2),192-205.

Newman,M.(2007).Centresforexcellencefailtotransformteaching,13thJuly2007,London:TimesHigherEducationalSupplement,TimesNewspapersLtd.(accessed12.07.2016)

Nixon,J.(2007).ExcellenceandtheGoodSociety,inA.Skelton,(ed),InternationalPerspectivesonHigherEducation:improvingknowledgeandpractice.NewYork:Routledge.

Nowell,L.S.,Norris,J.M.,White,D.E.,Moules,N.J.(2017).ThematicAnalysis:StrivingtoMeettheTrustworthinessCriteria,InternationalJournalofQualitativeMethods,16,1-13.

OfficeforFairAccess.(2015).2015/02OFFAStrategicPlan2015-2020,Bristol:OFFA.

O'Reilly,T.(2007).web2.0andeducation,inS.Hargadon,(ed.),www.stevehargadon.com/2007/05/tim-orielly-on-web-20-and-education.html(accessed14.12.2018)

Orsmond,P.(2003).TheNatterReallyDoesMatterInASoloWorld,8thAugust2003,London:TimesHigherEducationalSupplement,TimesNewspapersLtd.(accessed06.05.2015)

Ozga,J.(2000).PolicyResearchinEducationalSettings,Buckingham:OpenUniversityPress.

Palumbo,D.,Nachmias,D.(1983).ThePreconditionsforSuccessfulEvaluation:Isthereanidealparadigm?,PolicyScience,16(1),67-79

Parry,G.(2001).ReformofHigherEducationintheUnitedKingdom,inB.C.Nolan,(ed.),PublicSectorReform.Hampshire:Palgrave,117-132.

Parry,G.(2006).Policy-ParticipationTrajectoriesinEnglishHigherEducation,HigherEducationQuarterly,60(4),392-412.

Parsons,W.(1995).PublicPolicy,Cheltenham,UK:EdwardElgar.

Patton,M.Q.(1999).Enhancingthequalityandcredibilityofqualitativeanalysis,HRS:HealthServicesResearchPartII,34(5),1189-1208.

346

Peters,G.(2011).Howtoensurepartnershipsgowrong,25thAAOUConference:TransformingAsiathroughDistanceLearning(ODL),Penang,Malaysia:OpenUniversity.

Phillips,D.(2007).Policyand'thegoodsociety,’inS.M.HodgsonandZ.Irving,(eds.),Policyreconsidered:Meanings,politicsandpractices.Bristol:ThePolicyPress,37-60.

Pressman,J.L.,Wildavsky,A.B.(1984).Implementation:HowGreatExpectationsinWashingtonareDashedinOakland,Berkeley,USA:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Ramsden,P.(2012).Apoorpolicypoorlymanagedleaveslittletoshowfor£315m,15thMarch2012,London:TimesHigherEducationalSupplement,TimesNewspapersLtd.(accessed06.05.2015)

RAND,(2014)EuropeFocusonResearchImpact,RANDCorporation,https://www.rand.org/randeurope/research/science-technology-innovation/focus-on-research-impact.html(accessed14.12.2018)

Roe,E.(1994).NarrativePolicyAnalysis:TheoryandPractice,Durham,USA:DukeUniversityPress.

Rose,R.(1991).Whatislesson-drawing,PublicPolicy,11(3-30).

Rumble,G.(2001).JustHowRelevantisE-educationtoGlobalEducationalNeeds?,OpenLearning,16(3),223-232.

Sabri,D.(2011).What'swrongwith'thestudentexperience'?,Discoursestudiesintheculturalpoliciesofeducation,32(5),657-667.

Salter,B.,Tapper,T.(1994).TheStateandHigherEducation,Essex,UK:TheWoburnPress.

Sanderson,I.(2002).Evaluation,PolicyLearning,andEvidence-BasedPolicyMaking,PublicAdministration,80(1),1-22.

Saunders,M.,Matchell,J.,Williams,S.,Allaway,D.,Spencer,A.,Ashwin,P.,Trowler,P.,Fanghanel,J.,Morgan,L.A.,McKee,A.(2008).2005-2010CentresforExcellenceinTeachingandLearning:formativeevaluationreporttoHEFCE,CentreforStudyinEducationandTraining/InstitutionofEducationalTechnologyhttp://www.hefce.ac.uk/data/year/2008/2005-2010,CETL,programme,formative,evaluation/(accessed14.12.2018)

Scott,D.(2000).ReadingEducationalResearchandPolicy,London:RoutledgeFalmer.

Scott,J.(1990).AMatterofRecord,Cambridge:PolityPressinassociationwithBasilBlackwellInc.

Scott,D.(1995).ReadingEducationalResearchandPolicy,London:RoutledgeFalmer.

Selby,J.(2018).HEFCEhistory:Thebirthofwideningparticipation,5thMarch2018,London:WONKHE.(accessed05.03.2018)

347

SelectCommittee.(2005).HC205:UKe-UniversityThirdReportofSession2004-05,HouseofCommons,London:HMSO.Availableat:http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmeduski/205/205.pdf(accessed14.12.2018)

Selwyn,N.(2002).E-stablishinganinclusivesociety?technology,socialexclusionandOKgovernmentpolicymaking.JournalofSocialPolicy,31(1),1-20.

Selwyn,N.(2008).Realisingthepotentialofnewtechnology?AssessingthelegacyofNewLabour'sICTagenda1997-2007,OxfordReviewofEducation,34(6),701-712.

Shattock,M.(2006).PolicyDriversinUKHigherEducationinHistoricalPerspective:'InsideOut','OutsideIn'andtheContributionofResearch,HigherEducationQuarterly,60(2),130-140.

Shattock,M.(2008).TheChangefromPrivatetoPublicGovernanceofBritishHigherEducation:ItsConsequencesforHigherEducationPolicyMaking1980-2006,HigherEducationQuarterly,62(3),181-203.

Shattock,M.(2012).MakingPolicyinBritishHigherEducation1945-2011,Berkshire,England:OpenUniversityPress.

Silverman,D.(1997).IntroducingQualitativeResearch,inD.Silverman,(ed.),QualitativeResearch:Theory,MethodandPractice.London:SagePublicationsLtd.

Simon,H.A.(1991).BoundedRationalityandOrganizationalLearning,OrganizationScience2,125-135.

Skelton,A.(2005).UnderstandingTeachingExcellenceinHigherEducation:towardsacriticalapproach,Oxon:Routledge.

Smith,B.M.(2006).QuestforQuality:TheUKExperience,SpecialIssue:InternationalPolicyPerspectivesonImprovingLearning,113,43-52.

Smith,J.(2005).Fromflowerstopalms:40yearsofpolicyforonlinelearning,ALT-JResearchinLearningTechnology,30(2),93-108.

Stake,R.E.(1995).TheArtofCaseStudyResearch,London:SagePublicationsInc.

Stiles,D.(2002).HigherEducationFundingCouncil(HEFC)Methodsinthe1990s:NationalandRegionalDevelopmentsandPolicyImplications,PublicAdministration,80(4),711-731.

SQWConsultingLtd.(2011).SummativeevaluationoftheCETLprogramme:finalreportbySQWtoHEFCEandDEL.Bristol:HEFCE

SQWConsultingLtd.(2010).SummativeevaluationoftheLifelongLearningNetworkprogramme.London:SQW.

Taggart,G.J.(2003).AcriticalreviewoftheroleoftheEnglishFundingBodyforHigherEducationintherelationshipbetweentheStateandHigherEducationintheperiod1945-2003,Bristol:PhDsubmissiontotheUniversityofBristol.

348

Taylor,I.(2007).PursuedbyExcellence:RewardsandthePerformanceCultureinHigherEducation,SocialWorkEducation,26(5),504-519.

Taylor,S.(2004).Researchingeducationalpolicyandchangein‘newtimes’:usingcriticaldiscourseanalysis,JournalofEducationPolicy,19(4),433-451.

TheOpenUniversity.(2008).OpenUniversity’sresponsetotheSelectCommitteeonEducationandSkills‘Leitchreportreview,MiltonKeynes:TheOpenUniversity.

Tight,M.(2009).TheDevelopmentofHigherEducationintheUnitedKingdomSince1945,Berkshire:OpenUniversityPress.

Tight,M.(2012).ResearchingHigherEducation,Buckingham:OpenUniversityPress.

Tight,M.(2017).UnderstandingCaseStudyResearch:Small-scaleResearchwithMeaning,LosAngeles:SagePublicationsLtd.

Tight,M(2018).HigherEducationResearch:TheDevelopingField,London:BloomsburyPublishingPlc.

TimesHigherEducationalSupplement.(2000).Bigbrandskeytoe-university,16thJune2000,London:TimesNewspapersLtd.(accessed06.05.2015)

TimesHigherEducationalSupplement.(2002).Off,notonmessage,12thApril2002,London:TimesNewspapersLtd.(accessed06.05.2015)

Titmuss,R.M.(1974).Socialpolicy:Anintroduction,London:GeorgeAllen&Unwin.

Tolley,H.(2008).ExternalEvaluationofDevelopmentProjects:FinalReport,Loughborough:ENGCETL.http://www.engcetl.ac.uk/research/evaluation(accessed14.12.2018)

Trowler,P.,Bamber,R.(2005).CompulsoryHigherEducationTeacherTraining:Joined-uppolicies,institutionalarchitecturesandenhancementcultures,InternationalJournalforAcademicDevelopment,10(2),79-93.

Trowler,P.,AshwinP.,Saunders,M.(2013).TheroleofHEFCEinteachingandlearningenhancement:areviewofevaluativeevidence,York:CentreforHigherEducationResearchandEvaluation,TheHigherEducationAcademy.https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/downloads/The_role_of_HEFCE_in_TL_Enhancement_final_report.pdf(accessed14.12.2018)

Turner,D.(2007).UniversityFunding:GovernmentSteerforAutonomousInstitutions,inM.Gokulsing,(ed.),theNewShapeofUniversityEducationinEngland:Interdisciplinaryessays.Lampeter:EdwinMellen,49-64.

Turner,R.,Gosling,D.(2012).RewardingExcellentTeaching:theTranslationofaPolicyInitiativeintheUnitedKingdom,HigherEducationQuarterly,66(4),415-430.

Turner,R.,Young,P.,Menon,S.,Stone,M.(2008).'Inthesunshine':acasestudyexploringtheimpactofaCETLawardscheme,JournalofFurtherandHigherEducation,32(4),441-448.

349

UniversitiesUK.(2014)PatternsandTrendsinUKHigherEducation,London:UUKhttps://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/facts-and-stats/data-and-analysis/Pages/patterns-and-trends-2017.aspx(accessed14.12.2018)

Usoro,A.,Abid.,A.(2008).ConceptualisingQualityE-learninginHigherEducation,E-Learning,5(1),75-88.

VanderSteen,M.,VanTwist,M.,Fenger,M.,LeCointre,S.(2013).Complexcausalityinimprovingunderperformingschools:acomplexadaptivesystemsapproach,PolicyandPolitics,41(4),551-567.

Wager,L.(1995).AThirty-YearPerspective:FromtheSixtiestotheNineties,inT.Schuller,(ed.),TheChangingUniversity?Buckingham,UK:TheSocietyforResearchintoHigherEducationandOpenUniversityPress,15-24.

Wainwright,T.(2005).HEFCEStudiesUkeUFailure,19thAugust2005,TimesHigherEducationalSupplementLondon:TimesNewspapersLtd.(accessed06.05.2015)

Ward,J.(2009).WhatdidLifelongLearningNetworkseverdoforus?,Learning,21(1),30-31.

Ward,J.(2010).Usebeforesummer2011,23rdDecember2010,TimesHigherEducationalSupplement,London:TimesNewspapersLtd.(accessed10.04.2017)

Ward,J.,Rout,A.,Elliott,G.(2012).LifelongLearningNetworks:anintroductiontothespecialissue,ResearchinPost-CompulsoryEducation,17(1),1-4.

Watson,D.(2005).Willlifelonglearningnetworkswork?Aperspectivefromhighereducation,JournalofAccessPolicyandPractice,2(2),187-205.

Waterhouse,R,(2000).WebwiseBuildFromBottomUp,27thOctober2000,TheTimesHigherEducationalSupplement,London:TimesNewspapersLtd.(accessed06.05.2015)

Weber,M.(1958).TheThreeTypesofLegitimateRule(translatedbyHansGerth),BerkeleyPublicationsinSocietyandInstitutions,4(1),1-11.

Weber,M.(1978).Economyandsociety,Berkeley,CA:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Wilcox,P.Dexter,H.,Petch,J.(2004).e-universities:TowardsaCaseStudyoftheUKe-universities(UKeU),PresentedatECEL2004-3rdEuropeanConferenceonE-learningFrance.

Williams,G.(1992).ChangingPatternsofFinanceinHigherEducation,Buckingham,UK:TheSocietyforResearchintoHigherEducationandOpenUniversityPress.

Williams,R.(2008).Evaluatinglifelonglearningnetworks,inR.L.Duffy,(ed.),BringingHigherEducationWithinReach.Brighton,UK:Falmer,194-197.

Wise,J.(2010).PositionPaper:AReviewoftheworkofLifelongLearningNetworks(LLNs)relatedtohospitality,leisure,sportandrelatedsubjects.York:Hospitality,Leisure,SportandTourismNetwork,HEA.

350

https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/lifelonglearningnetworks_position_paper.pdf(accessed14.12.2018)

Ward,J.,Rout,A.,ElliottG.(2012).Introduction:LifelongLearning:anintroductiontothespecialissues,ResearchinPost-CompulsoryEducation,17(1),1-4.

Wise,J.,ShawJ.(2011).ASynopsisofLLNResearch,Staffordshire:LLNNationalForum.

Woodfield,S.M.,vanderSluis,H.(2013).LifelongLearningNetwork(LLN)progressionagreements:aneffectiveandsustainableapproachforpromotingthesocialmobilityofvocationalstudents?,WideningParticipationandLifelongLearning,15(2),6-20.

Yanow,D.(2000).UnderlyingAssumptionsofanInterpretiveApproach:TheImportanceofLocalKnowledge,ConductingInterpretativePolicyAnalysis,ThousandOaks,CA:SAGEResearchMethods,SagePublicationsInc.

Yin,R.K.(2014).CaseStudyResearch:DesignandMethods,London:SAGEPublicationsInc.

Younie,S.(2006).ImplementinggovernmentpolicyonICTineducation:lessonslearnt,EducationandInformationTechnologies,11(3/4),385-400.

351

AppendixA:CASESTUDIESSOURCETEXTS

e-University

Primary:

OriginalproposalandconsultationcircularsreleasedbyHEFCE:

Launchofthee-University:HEFCE04/00(14thFebruary2000)

e-Universitybusinessmodel:HEFCE00/43(October2000)

Updateone-Universityproject:HEFCEEP05/00(21stJune2000)

e-University:invitationtonominatedirectorsandcommitteemembers:HEFCE02/01(15thJanuary2001)

e-University:invitationtoexpressinterestinpilotstodevelope-learningprogrammes:HEFCE06/01(21stMarch2001)

e-University:invitationtohighereducationinstitutionstobecomemembersoftheholdingcompany:HEFCE07/01(12thApril2001)

eUniversity:Invitationtobidforadditionalstudentplacestomeetpublicserviceobjectives:HEFCE08/02(26thMarch2002)

e-University:invitationtoexpressinterestinaprojecttodevelopin-serviceteachertrainingprogrammesforteachersinChina:HEFCE14/02(14thJune2002)

Originalbusinessmodelforthee-university,devisedbyPWC:HEFCE00/44a(October2000)

DavidBlunkett,SecretaryofStateforEducation,landmarkspeechtotheUniversityofGreenwich,23thFebruary2000

SelectCommittee.(2005).HC205:UKe-UniversityThirdReportofSession2004-05,HouseofCommons,London:HMSO.Availableat:http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmeduski/205/205.pdf

HEFCEstrategyfore-learning(2005/12March2005)

Secondary:

LiteratureonthepolicyclimatearoundNewLabour:

Laurillard,D.(2008).Digitaltechnologiesandtheirroleinachievingourambitionsforeducation,London:InstituteofEducation.

352

Rumble,G.(2001).JustHowRelevantisE-educationtoGlobalEducationalNeeds?,OpenLearning,16(3),223-232.

Selwyn,N.(2002).E-stablishinganinclusivesociety?technology,socialexclusionandOKgovernmentpolicymaking,JournalofSocialPolicy,31(1),1-20.

Selwyn,N.(2008).Realisingthepotentialofnewtechnology?AssessingthelegacyofNewLabour'sICTagenda1997-2007,OxfordReviewofEducation,34(6),701-712.

Smith,J.(2005).Fromflowerstopalms:40yearsofpolicyforonlinelearning.ALT-JResearchinLearningTechnology,30(2),93-108.

Literaturefromresearchandcommentariesonthee-universityandUkeU:

Bacsich,P.,FrankBristow,S.(2004).Thee-UniversityCompendiumVolumeOne.London:HigherEducationAcademy.

Bacsich,P.(2005).LessonstobelearnedfromthefailureoftheUKe-university.Availableat:http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.87.3662

Bacsich,P.(2010).LessonstobelearnedfromthefailureofUKeU(UKeUniversitiesWorldwideLimited),MaticMediaLtd,Availableat:http://www.academia.edu/4238152/Lessons_to_be_learned_from_the_failure_of_the_UK_e-University

Cinar,B.(2012).E-University:BritishExperience.Availableat:http://bjes.beder.edu.al/uploads/arch-201311271520385187.pdf

Conole,G.(2007).Distillinglessonsfromacrossdifferenttypesofe-learninginterventions,MiltonKeynes,UK:TheInstituteofEducationalTechnology,TheOpenUniversity.

Conole,G.,Carusi,A.,deLatt,M.,Wilcox,P.,Darby,J.(2006).Managingdifferencesinstakeholderrelationshipsandorganizationalculturesine-learningdevelopment:lessonsfromtheUKeUniversityexperience,StudiesinContinuingEducation,28(2),135-150.

Conole,G.,Carusi,A.,deLaat,M.,Darby,J.(2006a).WhatcanweLearnfromtheDemiseoftheUkeU?EvaluationoftheLessonsLearnt,NetworkedLearning,1-9.

Conole,G.,Carusi,A.,deLaat,M.,Darby,J.,McConnell,D.(ed)(2006b).LearningfromtheUkeUExperience,StudiesinContinuingEducationSpecialEditionone-learning

Garrett,R.(2004).TheRealStoryBehindtheFailureofU.K.eUniversity,EducauseQuarterly,4,4-6.

Greener,I.Perriton,L.(2005).Thepoliticaleconomyofnetworkedlearningcommunitiesinhighereducation,StudiesinHigherEducation,30(1),67-79.

Peters,G.(2011).Howtoensurepartnershipsgowrong,25thAAOUConference:TransformingAsiathroughDistanceLearning(ODL),Penang,Malaysia:OpenUniversity.

353

Wilcox,P.Dexter,H.,Petch,J.(2004).e-universities:TowardsaCaseStudyoftheUKe-universities(UKeU),PresentedatECEL2004-3rdEuropeanConferenceonE-learningFrance.

Comparisonswithothere-universitiesglobally:

Bacsich,P.,FrankBristow,S.(2004).Thee-UniversityCompendiumVolumeOne.London:HigherEducationAcademy.

Christie,M.F.,Jurado,R.G.(2007).UKeUandSweden'sNETUniversity:AComparativeStudy,InternationalConferenceonEngineeringEducationandResearch2-7December,Melbourne,Australia.

Newspaperarticles:

Guardian:4thMarch2004(MacLeod),21stMarch2004,24thMarch2004(Naughton),26thMay2004(Macleod),1stNovember2005(Hoare)

TheChronicleofHigherEducation,Washington:14thMay2004(Carnevale)

THES: 16th June 2000, 6th October 2000 (Goddard), 12th April 2002, 19th August 2005(Wainwright)

CETLs

Primary:

TheDearingreport:NationalCommitteeofInquiryintoHigherEducation(NCIHE)(1997).HigherEducationintheLearningSociety:reportoftheNationalCommittee,Norwich:HMSO

WhitePaperonexcellenceinschools:DepartmentforEducationandEmployment.(1997).ExcellenceinSchools,London:DfEE,HMSO.

Learningandteaching:strategyandfundingproposals(consultation):HEFCE98/40(August1998)

Learningandteaching:strategyandfunding(report):HEFCE99/26(April1999)

FundingarrangementsfortheTeachingQualityEnhancementFund;HEFCE99/48(July1999)

WhitePaperonhighereducation:DepartmentforEducationandSkills.(2003).TheFutureofHigherEducation,London:DfES,HMSO.

FormalconsultationonCETLs:HEFCE2003/36(July2003)

CentresforExcellenceinTeachingandLearning:Invitationtobidforfunds:HEFCE2004/05(January2004)

CETLOutcomesandfundingallocations:HEFCE2005/17(April2005)

354

Saunders,M.,Matchell,J.,Williams,S.,Allaway,D.,Spencer,A.,Ashwin,P.,Trowler,P.,Fanghanel,J.,Morgan,L.A.,McKee,A.(2008).2005-2010CentresforExcellenceinTeachingandLearning:formativeevaluationreporttoHEFCE,CentreforStudyinEducationandTraining/InstitutionofEducationalTechnologyhttp://www.hefce.ac.uk/data/year/2008/2005-2010,CETL,programme,formative,evaluation/(accessed14.12.2018)

SQWConsultingLtd.(2011).SummativeevaluationoftheCETLprogramme:finalreportbySQWtoHEFCEandDEL.Bristol:HEFCE

Secondary:

Developmentofprofessionalisationofteachinginhighereducation:

Gosling,D.(2001).EducationaldevelopmentunitsintheUK-whataretheydoingfiveyearson?,TheInternationalJournalforAcademicDevelopment,6(1),74-90.

Mills,D.,Huber,M.T.(2005).AnthropologyandtheEducational'TradingZone':Disciplinary,pedagogyandprofessionalism,Arts&HumanitiesinHigherEducation,4(1),9-32.

Definingexcellenceineducation:

Allan,K.L.(2007).Excellence:anewkeywordforeducation?,CriticalQuarterly,49(1),54-78.

Barnett,R.(2000).RealisingtheUniversityinanageofSupercomplexity,Buckingham:SRHEandOpenUniversityPress

Lemmens-Krug,K.(2015).CentresforExcellenceinTeachingandLearning(CETL)asgoverninginstrumentsinuniversitiesinEnglandandGermany.Netherlands:CenterforHigherEducationPolicyStudies.

Little,B.Locke,W.,Parker,J.,Richardson,J.(2007).Excellenceinteachingandlearning:areviewoftheliteraturefortheHigherEducationAcademy,York:CentreforHigherEducationResearchandInformation.https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/litreview_excellence_in_tl_cheri_jul07.pdf

Mieg,H.(2014).TheOrganisationalEmbeddingofExpertise:CentresofExcellence,TalentDevelopmentandExcellence,6(1),71-93.

Nixon,J.(2007).ExcellenceandtheGoodSociety,inA.Skelton,(ed),InternationalPerspectivesonHigherEducation:improvingknowledgeandpractice.NewYork:Routledge.

Skelton,A.(2005).UnderstandingTeachingExcellenceinHigherEducation:towardsacriticalapproach,Oxon:Routledge.

Taylor,I.(2007).PursuedbyExcellence:RewardsandthePerformanceCultureinHigherEducation,SocialWorkEducation,26(5),504-519.

355

CETLresearchandcommentaries:

Bluteau,P.,Krumins,A.(2008).Engagingacademicsindevelopingexcellence:releasingcreativitythroughrewardandrecognition,JournalofFurtherandHigherEducation,32(4),415-426.

Clouder,L.,Oliver,M.,Tate,J.2008).EmbeddingCETLsinaperformance-orientatedcultureinhighereducation:reflectionsonfindingcreativespace,BritishEducationalResearchJournal,34(5),635-650.

Cook,J.,Hollie,D.,Andrew,D.(2007).Astakeholderapproachtoimplementinge-learninginauniversity,BritishJournalofEducationalTechnology,38(5),784-794.

Crawford,A.,DickensJ.(2008).TheImpactoftheCentresforExcellenceinTeachingandLearning(CETL)Programme:AperspectivefromtheEngineeringCETL,2008NationalCETLConference,Leicester:TheHigherEducationAcademyEngineeringSubjectCentreandtheUKCentreforMaterialsEducation.

Gosling,D.(2013).QualityEnhancementinEngland:fromfundedprojectstostudent-leddemand,inG.G.RLand,(ed.),EnhancingQualityinHigherEducation:InternationalPerspectives.London:Routledge,1-26.

Gosling,D.,Hannan,A.H.(2007a).CentresforExcellenceinTeachingandLearninginEngland:Recognising,celebratingandpromotingexcellence?,inA.Skelton,(ed.),InternationalPerspectivesonTeachingExcellenceinHigherEducation:improvingknowledgeandpractice.Oxon:Routledge,147-166

Gosling,D.,Hannan,A.H.(2007b).Responsestoapolicyinitiative:theCaseofCentresforExcellenceinTeachingandLearning,StudiesinHigherEducation32(5),633-646.

Gosling,D.,Turner,R.(2015).RespondingtocontestationinteachingandlearningprojectsintheCentresforExcellenceinTeachingandLearningintheUnitedKingdom,StudiesinHigherEducation,40(9),1573-1587.

King,V.(2010).Evidencingimpactofeducationaldevelopments:the'influencewheel'anditsuseinaCETLcontext,JournalofFurtherandHigherEducation,34(1),35-46.

Sabri,D.(2011).What'swrongwith'thestudentexperience'?,Discoursestudiesintheculturalpoliciesofeducation,32(5),657-667.

Tolley,H.(2008).ExternalEvaluationofDevelopmentProjects:FinalReport,Loughborough:ENGCETL.http://www.engcetl.ac.uk/research/evaluation

Turner,R.,Gosling,D.(2012).RewardingExcellentTeaching:theTranslationofaPolicyInitiativeintheUnitedKingdom,HigherEducationQuarterly,66(4),415-430.

Turner,R.,Young,P.,Menon,S.,Stone,M.(2008).'Inthesunshine':acasestudyexploringtheimpactofaCETLawardscheme,JournalofFurtherandHigherEducation,32(4),441-448.

Trowler,P.,Bamber,R.(2005).CompulsoryHigherEducationTeacherTraining:Joined-uppolicies,institutionalarchitecturesandenhancementcultures,InternationalJournalforAcademicDevelopment,10(2),79-93.

356

Trowler,P.,AshwinP.,Saunders,M.(2013).TheroleofHEFCEinteachingandlearningenhancement:areviewofevaluativeevidence,York:CentreforHigherEducationResearchandEvaluation,TheHigherEducationAcademy.https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/downloads/The_role_of_HEFCE_in_TL_Enhancement_final_report.pdf

Internationalperspectives:

Brawley,S.,Mills,K.T.,Timmins,G.(2009).SoTLandNationalDifference:Musingsfromthreehistoriansfromthreecountries,Arts&HumanitiesinHigherEducation,8(1),8-25.

Lemmens-Krug,K.(2015).CentresforExcellenceinTeachingandLearning(CETL)asgoverninginstrumentsinuniversitiesinEnglandandGermany.Netherlands:CenterforHigherEducationPolicyStudies.

Mills,D.,Huber,M.T.(2005).AnthropologyandtheEducational'TradingZone':Disciplinary,pedagogyandprofessionalism,Arts&HumanitiesinHigherEducation,4(1),9-32.

Newspaperarticlesandonlinemedia:

THES:8thAugust2003(Orsmond),19thDecember2003(Leon),13thJuly2007(Newman),20thJuly2007(Beaty),10thJuly2008(Attwood),15thMarch2012(Gill,Gove,Ramsden),29thMarch2012(Fenton-O'Creevy)

WONKHE:16thNovember2015(Kernohan)

LLNs

Primary:

PartnershipsforProgression:HEFCE01/73(December2001)

LifelongLearningNetworks:HEFCE12/2004(3rdJune2004)

LifelongLearningNetworks:progressreportandnextsteps:HEFCESpring2005

UpdateonLifelongLearningNetworks:HEFCEApril2008

Analysisof2009LLNmonitoringreportsbyHEFCE

Attributesofstudentsandnetworks,2006-07and2007-08:HEFCE2009/29(July2009)

HEFCEresponseto'SummativeevaluationoftheLifelongLearningNetworkprogramme:AreporttoHEFCEbySQW’:HEFCE2010

Newby,H.(2005a).ColinBellMemorialLecture:Doingwideningparticipation:Socialinequalityandaccesstohighereducation,inG.Layer,(ed.),Closingtheequitygap:theimpactofwideningparticipationstrategiesintheUKandtheUSA.Leicester:NationalInstituteofAdultandContinuingEducation(NIACE).

357

Formativeevaluation:CentreforHigherEducationResearchandInformation.(2008).InterimevaluationofLifelongLearningNetworks,MiltonKeynes:CHERI,TheOpenUniversity.

Summativeevaluation:SQWConsultingLtd.(2010).SummativeevaluationoftheLifelongLearningNetworkprogramme.London:SQW.

OfficeforFairAccess.(2015).2015/02OFFAStrategicPlan2015-2020,Bristol:OFFA.

Secondary:

Vocational,skillseducationandprogression:

Layer,G.(2005).Closingtheequitygap:Isitsustainable?,inG.Layer,(ed.),Closingtheequitygap:TheimpactofwideningparticipationstrategiesintheUKandtheUSA.Leicester,England:NationalInstituteofAdultContinuingEducation.

Little,B.,ConnorH.(2005).Vocationalladdersorcrazypaving?Makingyourwaytohigherlevels,London:LearningandSkillsDevelopmentAgency.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/42792376_Vocational_ladders_or_crazy_paving_Making_your_way_to_higher_levels

May,S.,vanderSluis,H.,Woodfield,S.(2012).Promotingsocialmobilitybycreatingpathwaystotheprofessionsandvocationalcareers:theroleofprogressionagreements,York:HEA.file:///C:/Users/Sam/AppData/Local/Packages/Microsoft.MicrosoftEdge_8wekyb3d8bbwe/TempState/Downloads/wasrs_may.pdf

NationalAuditOffice.(2007).OrganisationsinPartnershipsinvolvedinthedeliveryoftheGovernment’sskillsagenda,London:HMSO.

Parry,G.(2006).Policy-ParticipationTrajectoriesinEnglishHigherEducation,HigherEducationQuarterly,60(4),392-412.

LLNresearchandcommentary:

Betts,S.,Burrell,K.(2011).TheProgressionStory.London:LinkingLondon,LifelongLearningNetwork.

FoundationForward(2009).ApprenticeshipsandtheroleofLifelongLearningNetworks,Staffordshire:fdf.

Leahy,S.M.(2013).Aninvestigationintopartnershipworkingtowidenparticipationinhighereducationinthesouth-westofEngland,withparticularreferencetoLifelongLearningNetworks(LLNs),PhDsubmissiontotheUniversityofBath,Bath:UniversityofBath

Little,B.,Williams,R.(2009).Highereducationpolicyinitiativesandtheirimplementation-thecaseofLifelongLearningNetworksinEngland,JournalofAccessPolicyandPractice,6(2),97-115.

358

May,S.,vanderSluis,H.,Woodfield,S.(2012).Promotingsocialmobilitybycreatingpathwaystotheprofessionsandvocationalcareers:theroleofprogressionagreements,York:HEA.file:///C:/Users/Sam/AppData/Local/Packages/Microsoft.MicrosoftEdge_8wekyb3d8bbwe/TempState/Downloads/wasrs_may.pdf

Newby,H.(2005b).Lifelonglearningnetworksinhighereducation,JournalofAccessPolicyandPractice,2(2),176-186.

Ward,J.,Rout,A.,ElliottG.(2012).Introduction:LifelongLearning:anintroductiontothespecialissues,ResearchinPost-CompulsoryEducation,17(1),1-4.

Watson,D.(2005).Willlifelonglearningnetworkswork?Aperspectivefromhighereducation,JournalofAccessPolicyandPractice,2(2),187-205.

Williams,R.(2008).Evaluatinglifelonglearningnetworks,inR.L.Duffy,(ed.),BringingHigherEducationWithinReach.Brighton,UK:Falmer,194-197.

Wise,J.(2010).PositionPaper:AReviewoftheworkofLifelongLearningNetworks(LLNs)relatedtohospitality,leisure,sportandrelatedsubjects.York:Hospitality,Leisure,SportandTourismNetwork,HEA.https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/lifelonglearningnetworks_position_paper.pdf

Wise,J.,ShawJ.(2011).ASynopsisofLLNResearch,Staffordshire:LLNNationalForum.

Woodfield,S.M.,vanderSluis,H.(2013).LifelongLearningNetwork(LLN)progressionagreements:aneffectiveandsustainableapproachforpromotingthesocialmobilityofvocationalstudents?,WideningParticipationandLifelongLearning,15(2),6-20.

Internationalperspectives:

Muller,R.,Remdisch,S.,Köhler,K.,Mar,L.,Repo,S.,Yndigegn,C.(2015).Easingaccessforlifelonglearners:acomparisonofEuropeanmodelsforuniversitylifelonglearning,InternationalJournalofLifelongEducation,34(5),530-550.

Nemeth,B.(2010).TheAcceleratingRolesofHigherEducationinRegionsthroughtheEuropeanLifelongLearningInitiative,EuropeanJournalofEducation,45(3),451-465.

Watson,D.(2005).Willlifelonglearningnetworkswork?Aperspectivefromhighereducation,JournalofAccessPolicyandPractice,2(2),187-205.

Newspaperarticles:

THES:23rdDecember2010(Ward)

359

AppendixB:CODINGESTABLISHEDFROMTHETHEORETICALFRAMEWORK(adaptedfromMcConnell2010p.96-101)

Question Code

1 Doyouwanttoassessprocess,programmeand/orpolitics?

Identificationofelementinrelationto:Process[metobjectives/failed/adapted?]Programme[metobjectives/failed/adapted?]Politics[metobjectives/failed/adapted?]

2 Whattimeperioddoyouwanttoassess? PolicyepisodefirstdeclarationEnddateofpolicy(usuallyendoffunding)NoteextensionstopolicyepisodeNotecurtailingofpolicyepisode

3 Whatbenchmarkwillyouusetoascertainsuccess?Governmentobjectives,Benefittotargetgroup,Before-and-after,Policydomaincriteria,Whosupportsthepolicy,Anotherjurisdiction,Balancesheet,Newnessandinnovation,Ethics,Moralityandthelaw

Ideologicalpositioninlinewithgovernmentpreserved/failed/adapted?]StatedpolicyobjectivesTargetedbenefitgroupsChangestopolicyobjectivesasaresultofconsultationDatainevaluationstosupportmeetingtargetDatainevaluationstosupportfailingtomeettargetWhere/bywhompolicywasinitiallysupported(government/HEFCE)?Where/bywhomtherewassupportforpolicyWhere/bywhompolicywascontestedPoliciesinothercountriesbeingreplicatedCostagainsttargetsClaimsofinnovation/replication

4 Areyouconfidentthatsufficientandcredibleinformationisavailableinordertoreachaconclusion?

ExistenceofformativeandsummativeevaluationreportsIndependentevaluationreportsEvidenceofconsultationwithinstitutionsDatainmeetingorfailingtargetDatasatisfyingtargetgroupMediareports[positive/negative]Academiccommentaries

5 Areyouconfidentthatyoucanisolatethepolicyoutcomesfromallotherinfluencesontheseoutcomes?

IdentificationofpolicyoutcomesinlinewithintendedoutcomesIdentificationofotheroutcomesSupportforcontinuationofpolicyidentifiableattheendoftheepisodeMediareports[positive/negative]Existenceofothercompeting/complementingpolicies

6 Tothebestofyourknowledgeand/orinstincts,doyouconsiderahiddenagendatobeatwork?

EvidenceofconsultationwithinstitutionsMediareports[positive/negative]Academiccommentaries[support/criticism]

7 Doesthesphereofpolicyyouareassessing(process,programme,politics)havemorethanonegoal?

StatedpolicyobjectivesTargetedbenefitgroupsDatainmeetingorfailingtargetDatasatisfyingtargetgroupChangestopolicyobjectivesasaresultofconsultation

8 Arethereanyunintendedconsequences,includingsuccessbeinggreaterthanplanned?

KnowneffectonelectoralprospectsDatainmeeting/failing/exceedingtargetMediareports[positive/negative]

9 Doesthepolicyfallshortofmeetingthetargetsthatwereset?

Statedpolicyobjectives[met/failed]DatainmeetingorfailingtargetDatasatisfyingtargetgroupMediareports[positive/negative]

10 Areyouassessingmorethanonepolicyrealm(process,programmesandpolitics)?

Existenceofothercompeting/complementingpoliciesinHEExistenceofothercompeting/complementingpoliciesinotherrealms(eg.skillsandtraining)

Note:somecodesarerepeatedwherethecodingaddressesmorethanonequestion

360

AppendixC:TIMELINEOFHEFCEPOLICIESANDINITIATIVESANDTHEWIDERPOLICYCONTEXT

SourcedocumentsareavailableintheNationalArchives,viatheHEFCEwebsite(circularsarenumberfollowedbyyear(01/07)andreportsandotherpublicationsareyearfollowedbynumber(28/2004).Thesewereaccessedon-linebetween2012-2018.

Category 1991 1992 1993 1994

SirGraemeDaviesChiefExecutive(1992–1995)Widerpolicycontext

WhitepaperonHigherEducation–aNewFramework(May1991).StudentLoanCompanyfounded1990/91.

ConservativeGovernmentelected.DepartmentforEducationandSciencebecomesDepartmentforEducation.FurtherandHigherEducationAct-HEFCEcreated(June1992).HigherEducationAct1992givespolytechnicsstatusasuniversitiesandhencetheabolitionofthebinarysystem.ResearchCouncilsassumedbyOSTandsciencebudgetmovedtoOST.

Science,EngineeringandTechnologyWhitePaper:RealisingourPotential.FieldenReportonlibrariesreview.

UCASreplacesUCCA,PCAS,SCUE.

HEFCE HEFCEmissionstatementreleasedJuly1992.DFE/HEFCEmemorandumofunderstandingonfundingHE.

HEFCEassumesresponsibilityforfundingHE(April1993).HEQC/HEFCEjointstatementonqualityassurance.

LearningandTeaching

Thefundingofteachingpolicy(1/92)released-coreplusmarginmethodcontinuingarrangementsofUFC/PCFC.QualityandAssessmentCommitteeestablishedandPIsintroduced.

Continuingeducationpolicy(18/93).Developmentofsectorwidefundingmethod(greaterefficiencyasnumbersincrease).Policyonqualityassessmentmethod(self-assessmentbydiscipline,provisionofdatasets

Additionalstudentnumbersandspecialinitiativespolicy(2/94,10/94).Policyonorganisationofacademicyear(M6/94).Policyonlengthofdegreecourses

361

Category 1991 1992 1993 1994

(3/93).Continuationpolicytoproviderecurrentfundingforminoritysubjectsoutsideformulafunding.Policytoconvertmostnonawardbearingeducationtoawardbearingcourses,thusincludedincorefunding(from1995-6)instigated.MaSNintroducedtocontrolstudentnumbersduringaperiodoffundingconsolidationfrom1993-1996.

(C1/94).Policyonnoadditionalmarginalfundingexceptp/tandsubdegreelevel,CSN,andcontrolofMASN(2/94)maintainingintakelevels.Policyonfundingcontinuingeducation(p/tprovisionnoweligible)andCVEactivity(9/94)and£60mfundingover4years.Agreementonunitsofassessmentforqualitymonitoring(14/94,39/94).Nonformulafundingofminoritysubjects-institutionscanbid(29/94).Frameworkforqualityassessmentfor1995-96(33/94).

Wideningparticipation

Introductionofrevisedpolicyonaccessfunds(ug,pg,FE)(29/94).£3mforprojectstosupportaccessforSENstudentsin93/94,94/95(8/94).Changestohowp/tarecountedinfundingmethodforteaching(38/94).

Research RAE1992(changestogreaterselectivityinresearchfundsintroduced.Specificguidanceondefinitionofquality.NumberofUoAsreduced).RAEfundingmethodologycontinuesfromUFC.

Developmentofsectorwidefundingmethod.Policyonfundingforresearch(dualfundingprinciple7/93)–fundingmethodologyincludesQR(quality),GR(generic),DevR(development).

PolicyonallocationofGRgrant(16/94).RAE1996policy(1/94).Policytoreducedifferencesinunitsoffundinginsimilarsubjects.Policyonconvergencetocontinueto96/97(2/94).

362

Category 1991 1992 1993 1994

Continuationoftransitionalfunding(31/94).

Economyandsociety

HEFCEcommitmenttobuildonregional,nationalandinternationalHE.

Finance,estateandassurance

FinancialmemorandumwithHEISestablished. Financialmemorandumwithindividualinstitutionsreleased.Capitalallocationpolicyandestateformulafunds(36/93).Non-formulafundingformuseumscontinuingbutunderreview(5/93).

Policyoncostcentresforstatisticalreturns(6/94).Fundingcapitalequipmentandestateformulafunding(13/94).Librariesreviewimplementationforresearchinhumanities(17/94).Librarycapitalprojectsbid(18/94,35/94).Bidsforbacklogofestatemaintenanceprojects(22/94).

Leadership,managementandgovernance

363

Category 1995 1996 1997 1998

SirGraemeDaviesChiefExecutive(1992–1995)

SirBrianFenderChiefExecutive(1995–2001)

Widerpolicycontext

DisabilityDiscriminationAct1995introduced.SeverereductionincapitalfundingbySecretaryofStateforEducation.DepartmentforEducationbecomesDepartmentforEducationandEmployment.

NationalCommitteeofInquiryintoHigherEducation(Dearing)establishedtoconsiderfundingsustainabilityinmassHEsystem(reducecosts,maintainhighparticipation,findalternativefundingstructures).Publicationofreportonreviewofpostgraduateeducation(Harrisreport).StudentLoansAct.

NewLabourGovernmentelected.Dearing1997-recommendsstudentscontributetocostofuniversityeducation-£20bfundinggapidentified.NewGovernmentimplementsmanyDearingrecommendations.50%participationinHtargetby2010introduced.Harrisreviewofpostgraduateeducation.QAAestablished-HEFCEnolongerdoesqualityassuranceinhouse.

DearingReportpublished–HigherEducationintheLearningSociety.TeachingandHigherEducationAct1998–introductionofmeanstestedtuitionfees(£1kperyear).Studentmaintenancegrantabolishedandreplacedbyloans.TheLearningAgeGreenPaper(inc.developmentofregionalstructuresandlinksbetweenHEandregionalcommunities,andGraduateApprenticeships).Government’scomprehensivespendingreview–additionalfundingforHEannounced.RegionalDevelopmentAgenciescreated.Governmentannouncesanadditional£1.4billionover3yearsforresearch(HEFCEandResearchCouncils).AHRBsetup.

364

Category 1995 1996 1997 1998

AnnouncementoftheUniversityChallengeFund.

HEFCE FundingforITTstudentsnowtheresponsibilityoftheTTA(apartfromaccessfunds)aswellasdatacollection.Provisionofin-servicetrainingINSET,tofalltoTTAfrom1996-7.GovernmentinformsHEFCEtoensurestudentnumbersdonotexceedplannednumbers(participationrateat30%).

Sectorrequiredtodeliverefficiencygainsof7.5%overthreeyearsduetograntreductioninrealtermsof£263mto1999-00.MASNtargetremainsunchanged.

HEFCEnolongerdoesqualityassuranceinhouse.

LearningandTeaching

FundingrelationshipofHEinFEcolleges(1/95).Additionalplacesforcoreproposalsinitiative(2/95).PolicyonconsolidationofMASNscontinuesbutcanover-recruitby1.5%-upby0.5%(6/95).Fundingforp/tstudentnumbersweightedinfavourofscience,engineeringandtechnology(6/95).RevisionofapproachtocalculationofAUCFsforp/tstudents(19/95).Consolidationonsomenon-formulafundingintocorefunding:collegeswithinUniofLondon,mainstreamingfundingforcont.ed.,fundingforacceleratedandintensiveroutes(3/95).Fundingforprovisionofnon-awardbearingcont.ed.continuesto1998-99(4/95,16/95).DevelopmentfundingpolicyforCVEto1998-99(11/95).

Policystatementonequalopportunitiesinqualityassessment(M2/96).Revisedqualityassessmentmethod.PolicyonconsolidationofMASNscontinuesbutcanover-recruitby2%-upby0.5%(2/96).ChangestomethodofcalculationofholdbacktoexcludeseparatemonitoringofcoreproposalinitiativesorDiplomainSocialWorkplacessponsoredbythehomeoffice(13/96).Changestofundingmethodforteachingfrom1998-9:similaractivitiestobefundedatsimilarrates(4pricegroups)additionalfundingforp/t,matureandnon-

Anextra2089MASNsallocated(16/97).Newqualityagencytobesetup(QAA)followingfinalreportofJointPlanningGroupforQualityAssuranceinHigherEducation(3/97).Introductionof£3.5moffundsoverthreeyearsfortheTeachingandLearningTechnologyprogramme(TLTP)(14/97).ChangestopolicyonholdbackofHEFCEgranttomeasurestudentloadratherthanheadcount(19/97).

TransferofresponsibilityforfundingsomehealthcareprofessioncoursesfromHEFCEtoDepartmentforHealth(97/31).Newteachingfundingmethodintroducedwitheffectfrom1998-99(10/97,98/09).WeightedstandardrecoursebasedonHEIsexistingFTEandcomparedwithrecoursefrompreviousyear.Tolerancebandintroduced.StandardpriceforFTEin4re-namedpricebands.Andtakesintoaccounthighercostoftypesofstudentssuchasmatureandp/t.Changestoallocationofeducationandsportsrelatedprovisiontopricebands(38/98).

365

Category 1995 1996 1997 1998

Institutionsaskedtoidentifyallocationofteachingfundingtougandpgseparately(27/95).FundfortheDevelopmentofTeachingandLearningphase1(29/95).Institutionsinvitedtogiveupstudentnumbersinexchangeforretainingpartofcorrespondinggrant(31/95).ReviewofprovisioninformersovietandEastEuropeanStudies,3yearpolicytopartfundacademicposts(32/95).Unifiedsystemintroducedforbandingcourses(previouslyUFC/PCFC)(18/95).

traditional,institutionstobidforASN21/96).FundfortheDevelopmentofTeachingandLearningphase2(22/96).

NewfundingmethodtotakeaccountoffundingspecialistinstitutionsasaresultofrecommendationsfromtheSpecialistInstitutionsAdvisoryPanel(98/10).FundingmethodtakesaccountofrecommendationsinHarrisreport.Additionalstudentnumbers-6000additionalFTEsincluding1000placesonsub-degreelevel(20/97)(2932wereallocatedatsub-degreelevel).Changestoholdbackoffundingprocessduetonewfundingmethod(98/38).Allocatedafurther2354MASNs(98/41).

Wideningparticipation

Continuationof£3mforprojectstosupportaccessforSENstudents(2/95).

Requirementtopublishinstitutionaldisabilitystatements(8/96).£6minitiativeto1998-9toexpandqualityprovisionforstudentswithlearningdifficultiesanddisabilitiesto1998-9(9/96,23/96).

Minoramendmentstotermsandconditionsforallocatedofaccessfunds(18/97).Marginalfundsforadditionalp/tnumbersof5000.

£1.5m(1year)towidenparticipationinHE(regionalpartnerships(98/35).DfEEincreasesfundingavailableforaccessfunds-amendmentsincludefundingforallp/tandf/tstudentsinc.studentswithdisabilities(98/45).

366

Category 1995 1996 1997 1998

InstitutionstoproducedisabilitystatementsasaresultofDisabilityDiscriminationActandasaconditionofcoregrant(98/66).

Research RAE1996guidanceoncriteriaforassessment,submissionsandpanelmembership(1/2/3/95).CRfundingphasedoutandtransferredtoQR(6/95,10/95).UKpilotsitelicenceinitiativesetupandpiloted.

AdjustmentinthewaychangesinQRincomearemoderated(4/96).Jointresearchequipmentinitiative(JREI)bidsforfunding(9/96).

Newfundingmethodforresearchestablished(4/97)inrelationtoQR/GRbasedonRAEscoreandnon-formulafundinginitiatives.UOAsassignedtobandsforfundingandintroductionofpolicyfactor.DevRdroppedfromformula.FEinstitutionsspecificallyexcludedfromQRfunding.

£20mJointResearchEquipmentInitiative(4/97)(revisedto£23.5m).PGRstudentsfundedthroughresearchfundingmodel,notteaching.

Economyandsociety

Sino-UKHigherEducationprogrammeofcollaborationwithChinabegins.

RestructuringandCollaborationFund(£10mperannum)tosupportregionalrestructuringofinstitutions.

RestructuringandCollaborationFund(£15mperannum)tosupportregionalrestructuringofinstitutions.

Finance,estateandassurance

Librariesreviewnon-formulafundingforresearchinhumanities(5/95,14/95).Museums,galleriesandcollectionsnon-formulafundingpolicy(9/95).Equipmentandestateformulafundingmodelscombined(7/95).

ProgrammeofinvestmentinlocalandmetropolitanareanetworksMANs)to1997-98(2/96).RevisedmodelFinancialMemorandum–increaseddecisionmakingresponsibilityforinstitutions(5/96).

Incorporationofcapitalfundswithinrecurrentgrantas1996budgetstatementallocatessinglegrantundifferentiatedbetweenrecurrentandcapitalsums(6/97).RevisiontofinancialmemorandumbetweenHEFCEandinstitutions–inrelationtoshorttermborrowing(15/97).Amendmenttopolicyoncostcentres–newcategoriesintroduced(97/25).GuidanceonPrivateFinanceInitiative

£30minitiativeforimprovingpoorestate(97/22).£30minitiativeforrefurbishingresearchlaboratories(97/23).Introductionofrequirementfor3yearcorporateplanswithfinancialstrategyforinstitutionstoreplaceannualstrategicplanstoreduceinformationrequests(98/13).AdditionalMANsfunding£7.5m

367

Category 1995 1996 1997 1998

(PFI)forprocurement(97/28).Severancepayforseniorstaff-followingTheCommitteeofPublicAccountsreport(7/97).

for2years98/17).Introductionofstrategyforcostingandpricing(JCPSG).Auditcodeofpracticeamended(98/28).£2.5mavailableover3yearstohelpinstitutionsimplementstrategiesforcostingandpricingactivities(98/32).Publicationofenvironmentworkbooktoimproveperformanceonenvironmentalissues(98/62).PolicyonuseofHEFCEfundsinconnectionwithoverseasoperations(33/98).PublicationofHEFCEaccountsdirectiontohighereducationinstitutions(34/98).

Leadership,managementandgovernance

368

Category 1999

2000 2001 2002

SirBrianFenderChiefExecutive(1995–2001) SirHowardNewbyChiefExecutive(2001–2006)

Widerpolicycontext

Feelevel£1,025.EstablishmentofInstituteforLearningandTeaching(tosetupaccreditationschemeforHEteachers).ReportofthePerformanceIndicatorsSteeringGroup(Dearingrecommendation).TechnologyIntegrationCentrefundedbyJISCprovidessupporttoacademics.GovernmentsetsupTransparencyandAccountabilityReviewofResearch.IntroductionoftheEuro.BolognaProcesslaunched.

LearningandTeachingSupportNetworkintroduced(genericand24subjectcentres)–managedbytheILT(£6.2mperannum)to2004(99/20).FreedomofInformationAct2000.ScienceandInnovation(ExcellenceandInnovation)Whitepaperpublished.RaceRelations(amendment)Act2000.OpportunityBursariesannouncedbyDfEE(£2kperstudentfromlowincomefamilies).DavidBlunkettGreenwichspeechonHE-announcementofe-UniversityandFoundationDegrees.UniversitiesUKformed(replacesCVCP).

NewLabourGovernmentre-elected.Feelevel£1,075.SpecialEducationalNeedsandDisabilityAct2001.EqualityChallengeUnit(fundedbyUKfundingbodies)founded.AimhighercampaignlaunchedbyGovernment.DepartmentforEducationandSkillsreplacesDEE.

TaskGroup(chairedbySirRonCooke)reportsinqualityandstandardsoflearningandteaching(02/15).Tuitionfeelevel£1,100.GovernmentSpendingReview2002announcedadditionalfundingtosupportscience,engineeringandtechnology.ThinkTank–HigherEducationPolicyinstituteestablished.HEFCEproposestoGovernmentthatMaSNisabolished.DESstatesyounghomelesspeoplearepriorityforsupportfunds.HEFCEsetstargettoreducespecialfundingandconcentrateonblockgrant.

HEFCE HEFCEintroducesregionalconsultants

HEFCEintroducesnationalco-ordinationteam:NationalDisabilityTeamandActiononAccessTeam,NationalCo-ordinationTeam,InnovationsTeam

HEFCEintroducesEnhancingStudentEmployabilityCo-ordinationTeamRe-structureofHEFCEtoinclude4directoratesbasedonstrategicthemes

369

Category 1999

2000 2001 2002

HEFCEreceivesnearly£1binadditionalfundingoverthreeyears,10%inrealterms(additionalfundingforpay,expandingstudentnumbersandincreaseaccess.

GovernmentSpendingReview2002announcedadditionalfundingtosupportrecruitment,retentionanddevelopmentofstaff(£167mover2years).

LearningandTeaching

TransferofresponsibilityforfundingHEprovisionbyFEcollegesfromFEFCtoHEFCE(98/59).UgcollegefeesforOxfordandCambridgenowpartofHEFCErecurrentgrant,notDfEE(99/13).TeachingQualityEnhancementFund(£26m1year)(99/26)mergedfromFDLTandTLTP–allocatedbyformula(FDLTcontinuewithphase3in1999-2000).Fundingschemetorecogniseandrewardindividualacademicslaunched(99/26).£1mperannumover5yearstoexpandprovisionforteachingandresearchinChinesestudies(99/35).OptionsforfundingHEinFE

TeachingQualityEnhancementFund(£26m1year)(99/26).NationalTeachingFellowshipsintroduced.Specialfundingtosupportminoritysubjectsto2004(toincludeformerSovietandEasternEuropeansubjects)£5mperannum(99/47).£9.5mfundtohelpFECsdevelopHE(00/09).PerformanceIndicatorsinHEissued:access,progression&completion,efficiencyofL&Tandresearchoutputs(00/40).E-Universityprojectlaunched-£62mover3years(00/43,00/44).Fundingofspecialisthighereducationinstitutions(00/51).FundingofstudentsinsomeprivateinstitutionsthroughDanceandDramaAwardsScheme.Codeofpracticeforfranchiseandconsortia

GreaterlinksbetweenHEFCEandLSCtobuildHE/FErelations–toincreaseparticipationinHEto50%target.Nationalframeworkofqualificationsbasedonnationalstandards(Dearingrecommendation)–newQAsystemfromQAA.TeachingQualityEnhancementFund(£32m1year)(99/26).Foundationdegreelaunched–bidsforASNs(10m)(00/27).52,000additionalstudentplaces(31,900funded)(01/12).Holdbackoffundingforover-recruitmenttoMaSNabove4%.ChangestofundingforHEqualificationsawardedbyexternalbodiesintroduced.AHRBtakesoverresponsibilityfromHEFCEformuseumsandgalleriesfunding.

ASNforw/p,deliverfoundationdegrees,supportnewTechInstitutes((01/54).NewTechnologyInstitutes(consortiaofHEIsandFECs)£25mcapitalfundingover2years(01/47).Studentpremiumsinfundingallocationconfirmedas:part-time,mature,longcourses.Institutionalpremiumsconfirmedas:London,pensions,specialistinstitutions,smallinstitutions,oldandhistoricbuildings(02/18).TeachingQualityEnhancementFund-£31mperannumfor3yearsforallinstitutions(notbidfor)(02/24).Reportonteachingandlearninginfrastructureinhighereducationpublished(2002/31).NewframeworkforqualityassurancebringssystemofsubjectreviewtoacloseandreplacedbyindependentauditsconductedbyQAA.QAApublishesBenchmarkstatementsforeachsubject.

370

Category 1999

2000 2001 2002

colleges–encouragepartnershipswithHEIsanddevelopmentfund(99/36).Premiumfundingintroducedforspecialistperformingartsinstitutions(99/41).Allocationofadditionalmedicalstudentnumbersincreasingto2005(99/42).Codeofpracticeonindirectlyfundedpartnerships-HEinFEcolleges(99/63).PerformanceIndicatorsinHEintheUKintroduced(99/66/67).ConditionsappliedtoHEFCEgrantinrelationtochargingafeeof<or>than£1,025,imposedbySecretaryofState(c11/99).

arrangements-indirectlyfundedpartnerships(FECsandHEIs)(00/54).AllFEcollegesnetworkedtoJANET.Twonewmedicalschoolssetup-firstformanyyears.AccesstoMedicineprogrammesetupatKingsCollege,London.HEFCEworkingwithNHSandDepartmentforHealthtorecruitadditional1,100studentplacesannually.25000ASNstobidfor,20743allocated(99/56,00/26).

ThirdphaseofTeachingandLearningResearchprogramme£10.5m.Additionaldatarequirementsintroducedtounderstandhowbackgroundeffectsprogression(01/02).Newindicatorsaddedtoperformanceindicators–employmentofgraduates6monthsaftergraduation.ApproachadoptedbyHEFCEandFEFC(tobecomeLearningandSkillsCouncil)inadvisingonapplicationsfortransferbetweenFEandHEpublished(01/05).Changestostudentsupportfunding:Provisionforfundingadmincosts,changestomanagementoffundsfollowingintroductionofChildcareGrant,earlynotificationofminimumallocationsforHardshipandBursaryfunding(01/15,01/49).SetofPIsabouttheemploymentoutcomesofHEproduced(01/21).FundingavailableforthedevelopmentofGraduateapprenticeshipFrameworks(01/41).Changestorecurrentgrant:increasedformulafundingforwp,revisionstofundingASNs,transferofstudent

Performanceindicatorsamendedtoincludeanindicatorofdisability(c13/2002).ReviewofindirectfundingagreementsandarrangementsbetweenHEandFECS(c25/2002).JISCintroducesplagiarismadvisoryservice.SecondphaseoffundingforFECstodevelopHEprogrammes(£18.5mto2003-04(02/02).23,000ASNs.Dept.forEducationandSkillsagreenomaximumstudentnumberforeachinstitution.Fundingmethodstilllimitsstudentnumbers(02/11).ASNbidstoprioritise:foundationdegrees,NewTechnologyinstitutes,newprogrammesinsocialworkeducationandtraining,summerschools,foundationyearsandUfiactivity£22m(2002/39).

371

Category 1999

2000 2001 2002

numbersbetweenHEIsandFECs(01/57).DFLTphasefour2002-05(01/60).

Wideningparticipation

£6mtodevelophighqualityprovisionforstudentswithdisabilitiesover3years(99/08).Fundingofwpforunder-representedgroupsinre-currentgrant(99/13),premiumsforp/tandmaturestudents,feeremissionforp/t–disadvantageddeterminedbyneighbourhoodtypes.35,000ASNstobidfor(44928allocated)(98/56).Disabledstudentstobeincludedinformulafundingoncedatareturnsarerobust(99/24).£7.5m(1year)towidenparticipationinHE(regionalpartnerships(99/24).InstitutionstodevelopOFFAplans(99/24,99/33).Newguidanceonaccessfunds(99/50).

FormerAccessFundnowthreediscretefunds:Accessbursaryfundformaturestudents(£14.69minbursaries)HardshipfundFeewaiverfundforpart-timestudents(00/28).Mainstreamdisabilityfunding–recognitionofincreasedcosts(£5m)(c7/00).FundingforUniversityforIndustryplaces(c28/00).Policystatementondiversityinhighereducation(00/33).Amendmentstorecurrentteachinggrant:increasedallocationsforwp,transferofstudentnumbersandfundingbetweeninstitutionswhereFECsfundeddirectlythroughHEIs(00/34).FoundationDegreequalificationintroduced£5m(c13/00).ASNsandfundstobidfor:-WidenaccesstoHE–postcodepremiumandstateschoolsSupportexpansionofhighqualityinL&TDeliverfoundationdegrees

Fundingforrecruitmentofstudentsfromneighbourhoodswithlowratesofparticipationincreased(01/29).Additionalfundstreamfor3yearstoraiseaspirationsininstitutionswithlessthan80%ofstudentsfromstateschools(01/29).Additionalfundingforsummerschools(01/29).Changestobursary/hardshipfundsforstudentswithpartnersonlowincomesandstudentswithapreviousqualificationapplyingforfeewaiver,unemployedstudentstakingtastermodules(c17/01).OpportunityBursariesmadeavailablefollowingbroadeningofExcellenceChallengeandExcellenceinCities(01/15).NationalMentoringPilotProjectinitiatedbyDfEEandco-sponsoredbyHEFCEEducationAccessZone.

Improvinginfrastructureprovisionfordisabledstudentsfundinginitiative£5.4mover3years-supportedbynationalteam(02/21).FirstpublicationofdataonstudentsreceivingDisabledStudentsAllowance.PartnershipforProgression:Rationalisationofexistingwppolicyallocationoffundingbypostcode.Targetsettingforwpconditionofgrantfrom2003-04.£60mover3yearsjointlywithLSC(02/22,2002/49).PilotExcellenceFellowshipsAwardsSchemeintroduced-teachersworkinginschoolsandFECstoimproveaccess(c04/02).W/pstrategiesandactionplansbecomeaconditionofgrant.

372

Category 1999

2000 2001 2002

Supportgraduateapprenticeships(00/39).5,000summerschoolplacesfundedbyDfEEforsummer2000aspartofExcellenceinCitiesInitiative(EiC),administeredbyHEFCE.Feewaiverfund(12.36m)forstudentswhoqualifyforbenefitsorbecomeunemployedduringstudies(c20/00).

Research ThirdroundofJointResearchEquipmentInitiative(JFEI)(£22m).HEFCEandwelcomeTrustworktogethertodevelopmorestrategicapproachtoinfrastructurefunding(3mover2yearsinmatchedfundingforequipmentover£200k(c2/99).

RevisiontoRAEtofocusonappliedresearchandensuringequalityofopportunityforresearchers.75%ofpanelstoinvolverepresentativesfromindustry,toreviewresearchoutputsotherthanpublications.Morewomenonpanels(20%),RAEtotakeaccountofcircumstancessuchasmaternityleave.HigherEducationandResearchOpportunities(HERO)portalandwebsiteintroduced.

ScienceResearchInvestmentFund(SRIF)fundingavailable£600mtobeallocatedbyformula(01/11)(jointinitiativeHEFCE,DfES,WellcomeTrust)–replacesJIFandJREI(c26/2002).NewstylePhDsintroducedin41coursesat10HEIs.

EndofGRfundingpolicyfordepartmentsrated1,2,3aorb.Reductioninfundsfor5,4,3aand2.5%increasefor5*.Reportonartsandhumanitiesresearchinfrastructurepublished(2002/35).

Economyandsociety

InitiationofthirdstreamofcorefundingthroughHigherEducationReach-outtoBusinessandtheCommunityFundupto£22mperannumtobemadepermanent(99/16)(HEROBC).RestructuringandCollaborationFund(£15mperannum)tosupportregionalrestructuringofinstitutions.

Targetfundingof£100mperannumtosupportlinkswithbusinessandcommunities(HEROBC).£5mtosupportemployeesofSMEstoparticipateinHEasGraduateApprenticeships(ASNs,developmentfunds,feewaivers)(c22/00).

20BusinessFellowshipsintroduced(01/06,01/25)fundedbyHEFCEandDTI.PolicyoncollaborationbetweenHEprovidersineachregionpublished(01/18).HigherEducationInnovationFund(HIEF)buildingonHEROBCsitsalongsideteachingandresearchasthirdstreamgrant,£80mover3years(0/22,0/34).

Benchmarkingtoolintroducedforassessingcontributionstoregion(02/23).

373

Category 1999

2000 2001 2002

FirstsetofmapsanddataonregionalprofilesofHE.ExtensionofinternationalcollaborationsincludespartnershipwithUSAonsharingpolicyobjectives.Principlesforinternationalactivitypublished(c8/99).Guidingprinciplesforinternationalactivitypublished(c8/99).

HigherEducationActiveCommunityFund(HEACF)announced(£27mfor3years)for14,000studentvolunteeringopportunities(01/42,01/65).Additional£10mforRestructuringandCollaborationFund.RegionalMission:regionalcontributionofHElaunchedwithseriesofreports.

Finance,estateandassurance

£105minitiativeforimprovingpoorestateover3years(98/50).KeyEstateRatiosandEstatesdataMatrixestablished(99/18).Capitalinfrastructurefundforlearningandteachingat£90m1999-2002–allocatedbyformula(99/26).Capitalfundingfor1999-2002£150mresearchcapitalprojects(99/52–allocatedbyformula).Annualcorporateplansforinstitutionsreplacedbythreeyearlyplan(c3/99).

ValueforMoneySteeringGroupreportsonfacilitiesmanagementandimprovingthemanagementsofsupportservicesinHE(00/14).Reviewofburdenofaccountabilityforinstitutionsleadstostreamliningrequestsforinformationanddata.FrameworkforinstitutionalreportingarisingfromTransparencyandAccountabilityReviewpublishedandTRACimplemented(c17/00).Pathfinderinitiativecontributestocostofexploringprocurementthroughpublic-privatepartnerships.

Guidanceonriskmanagementintroducedfollowingreviewofaccountabilitymeasures(01/24).

Projectcapitalfundinground2-£214mtoimprovecapitalandITinfrastructuretosupportl&T(£56mtoimproveprovisionforstudentswithdisabilities)2002-04(01/48).Auditcodeofpracticerevised(2002/26).NewwebfacilitytoreturnHESAdatalaunched(2002/38).

374

Category 1999

2000 2001 2002

HEFCEseeksannualoperatingstatementsfrominstitutionsonannualbasis.

Leadership,managementandgovernance

DevelopmentandimplementationofgoodmanagementpracticesinHE:GoodManagementPracticeProgramme(£10mto2003)(99/54).SpendingReviewannounces£50mforinvestmentinstaff–EqualOpportunitiesActiongroupsetupwithsectorrepresentatives’bodies,fundingcouncilsandtradeunions.

Fundingfordevelopmentofhumanresourcestrategies(allocatedinproportiontobasicrecurrentgrant(01/16£330mover3years).

HEFCERaceEqualitySchemeintroduced(2002/29).Managementofsecurityservicesinhigheducationreportpublished(2002/30).Adviceonseverancepaymentstoseniorstaffamended(c21/2002).

375

Category 2003

2004 2005 2006

SirHowardNewbyChiefExecutive(2001–2006)Widerpolicycontext

GovernmentpublishesWhitePaper‘TheFutureofhigherEducation–allowingforfeesofupto£3,000.WhitePaper-TheFutureofHigherEducation-proposescreationofOfficeforfairAccess.LambertReviewonbusiness-universitycollaborationpublished-recommends50%increaseinfundingthirdstreamactivities.Tuitionfeelevel£1,125.InstituteforLearningandTeachinginHE,LearningandTeachingSupportNetworkandNationalCo-ordinationTeamforTeachingtheTeachingQualityEnhancementFundmergetobecomeHigherEducationAcademy.250,000ASNsrequiredtokeep50%participationrateontarget.Currentparticipationrate43%.

HigherEducationAct2004-variablefeesupto£3,000peryearintroducedbyGovernmentfrom2006.Maintenanceloansre-introduced.LeadershipFoundationcreated(UUK,SCOP,CUC)0pumpprimedbyHEFCE.Tuitionfeelevel£1,150.SchwartzAdmissionstoHigherEducationReviewgroupreports.OfficeforfairAccess(OFFA)established.ArtsandHumanitiesResearchCouncilestablished(transitionfromAHRB).EstablishmentofLifelongLearningNetworks.GovernmentSpendingreview2004–focusonachievingefficienciesinthepublicsector.Publicationoften-yearScienceandInnovationInvestmentframework(commitstopermanentthirdstreamfundingand25%increaseinfundscomparedtoHEIF2)..

NewLabourGovernmentre-elected.Tuitionfeelevel£1,175.

Tuitionfeelevel£1,200.LeitchReviewofSkillsreport.OFFAmakes£300mperannumavailableforHEIStoprovidebursaries.SupportingProfessionalisminAdmissionsreport.CharitiesAct2006.WhitePaper‘FurtherEducation:TrainingSkills,ImprovingLifeChances’published.

376

Category 2003

2004 2005 2006

SirHowardNewbyChiefExecutive(2001–2006)FoundationDegreeForward(nationalbody)established.GershonreviewofefficiencyofGovernmentspendingdepartmentspublished.DaviesreportfromHigherEducationResearchForumreports(relationshipbetweenteachingandresearch).

HEFCE BetterRegulationReviewGrouprecommendsmergingseveralspecialinitiativesintoblockgrant.HEFCErevisesinternationalstrategy.

HEFCEroletosecurepublicinterestfollowingintroductionofvariablefees–announcedbySirHowardNewby,ChiefExecutive.NeedtoaddressSTEMandotherstrategicallyimportantsubjects.Growthinstudentnumbersexceedplannedgrowth–financialconsequences.EqualityChallengeUnitfundingextendedto2006.HEFCEandSectorSkillsDevelopmentAgencyestablishmemorandumofunderstanding.

EnhancingStudentEmployabilityCo-ordinationTeamendsandworkpassedtoHigherEducationAcademy.

LearningandTeaching

PolicyforsupportinghighereducationinFECspublished(2003/16).FundforDevelopmentofLearningandTeachingphase5announced£7m(2003/46).

FirstNationalStudentSurveyresultspublished.CreationofCentresforExcellenceinTeachingandLearning-£315mtofundCETLsover5yearsinresponsetoWhitepaper’sintentionstorewardandenhanceexcellence

NationalStudentSurveylaunchedaspartofrevisedqualityassuranceframeworkandpackageofnewpublicinformationonteachingquality–publishedonHERO.HEROgoeslivetothepublic.

NewconditionofgrantrequiredbySecretaryofStateforEducationandSkills:tuitionfeeschargedtoqualifyingpersonsonqualifyingcoursesdonotexceedcertainamounts,institutionscomplywithprovisionsofanyaccessagreementinforceasapprovedby

377

Category 2003

2004 2005 2006

SirHowardNewbyChiefExecutive(2001–2006)FirstpilotofNationalStudentSurveyofrecentgraduates.Asecondpilotwasalsoagreedduetoneedforexternalscrutiny.E-UniversitytechnicalplatforminplacewithportfolioofcoursesdevelopedforlaunchinAutumn2003.Reviewofrecurrentteachingfundingmethod.MaSNabolished(2003/42).Transferofdanceanddramaawardschemetomainstreamfunding(900places)(c09/2003).NationalTeachingFellowshipSchemeexpandedasproposedinWhitePaper.Additional£1.5mtosupportexpansionfrom20to50Fellowshipsperyear(Boardminutes87thmtg).AgreementonrelationshipbetweenOFFAandHEFCE(88thBoardmtg).Supplementarygrantsagreed

inteaching(2004/05).HERO-NationalTeachingQualityInformation(TQI)websitelaunchedforannualinformationonqualityandstandardsofteachingandlearning(2003/51).ExtensionofTeachingQualityEnhancementFundforfurtheryearto2006(2004/18).Changestocoreteachingfundingmethodtoincludecompensationforincreaseonemployers’contributionstotheTeachers’PensionsSchemeandfundingforrewardinganddevelopingstaffincorporated,plussomesubjectandpricebandchanges,10%premiumforp-tandfoundationdegrees(2004/24).UKe-Universitieswoundup.Remaining£62mtobeusedtosupporte-learningpolicythroughtheHEAcademy(94thBoardmtg).Additionalfundedplacesforsocialworkprogrammes–additional500(c24/2003).ContinuationoftransitionalfundingforHigherEducationAcademy.600placesonprivateprovidersofdanceanddramafundedthroughHEFCE,notDfES.Additionalfundingof£4.4mtocontributeto

E-Learningpolicyandstrategyannounced,inc.£33mcapitalformulafundingtosupportinvestmentine-learning(2005/12).Pathfinderprojectstoembede-learning£8m.Reviewoffundingmethodforteachingtobeimplementedin2007-08(2005/21).Robertsreviewofstrategicallyimportantandvulnerablesubjects–HEFCErolenottobeprescriptivebutmanageinterventions(2004/24).Fundingforminoritysubjectsandsomeinheritedleasesabsorbedintomainstreamteachinggrant.SubstantialrevisionstoHEROsite(c04/2005).CETLslaunched.StreamlinedtwintrackapproachtodistributiononASNsintroduced–regionalmanagedgrowthandthroughSDF.£100mforawardsschemefromHEFCEandDepartmentforHealthfor200newseniorlectureshipsovernext10years.

DirectorofFairAccess(c15/2006).ChangestoinstitutionalauditbyQAAfollowingreviewofthequalityassuranceframeworkintroduced(2005/35).TeachingQualityandEnhancementFund(158.5mover3years:consolidatesfundingforlearning&teachingstrategies,supportingprofessionalstandards,staffandstudentvolunteering.SupportdevelopmentofCETLs,HEA,nationalTeachingfellowshipScheme(2006/11).Reviewofteachingfundingmethod:implementnationalframeworkforcostingofteachingbasedonTRACmethodology,useTRACtoestablishfullcostsofWP,keepfundingofpart-timeunderreview(2006/12).Additionalcapitalfundingforlearningandteaching2006-08£95mbyformula(2006/27).ReviewoftheQualityassuranceFrameworkevaluatesTQIandNSS.Re-focusofTQIsiteonneedsofapplicantsandadvisersandremovalofqualitativematerialsprovidedbyinstitutions(2006/45).

378

Category 2003

2004 2005 2006

SirHowardNewbyChiefExecutive(2001–2006)fornewmedicalschoolsfrom2002-03to2007-08(88thBoardmtg).

costsofnewconsultants’contractforclinicalacademicstaff(92ndBoardmtg).QAAcontractrenewedtodeliverrevisedqualityassuranceframework(94thBoardmtg).

Pricegroupchangesformediastudiesandsportssciences(98thBoardmtg).26,000ASNsfor2005-06(2005/14).

FECstopublishdataonTQIwebsite(c09/2006).Additionaldentalstudentnumbersannounced(c09/2005).Additionalmedicalstudentnumbersannounced(c25/2005).HEIstoconsultwithHEFCEwhenconsideringclosureofstrategicallyimportantandvulnerablesubjectstoreplaceformalnoticeperiod(c17/2006).£18mpartnershipprogrammetosupportSTEMinitiativesannounced.£4.5mprogrammetopromotelanguagestudies.ProfessionalStandardsframeworkforteachingandsupportingstudentlearningpublished(104thBoardmtg).TraintoGainpathfindersagreed(109thBoardmtg).30,000ASNsfor2006-07tobeallocatedusingnewfundingmethod.

Wideningparticipation

Revisiontomethodforcalculatingwpfundingwhichwilltakeintoaccountprioreducationalachievementand

Neww/papproachbyHEFCEtofocusonembeddingw/pinstrategicplansratherthansubmissionofstrategiesasconditionofgrant.(96thBoardmtg).

Disabilityfundingbecomespartofcorefundingandenhancedfundingfor2005-6(c02/2005).

Upliftedpart-timepremiumandadditional£40mover2yearstoreducedeterrentsforfinanciallydisadvantagedstudents(103rdBoardmtg).

379

Category 2003

2004 2005 2006

SirHowardNewbyChiefExecutive(2001–2006)geodemographics(2003/14).Additionalsummerschoolsfundingconfirmedfor3yearsat£4mperannum(2003/14).Additionalfundingforspecialistsummerschools(£1.5m)(c13/2003).HEFCEissuccessfulinbidfor£9.4mEuropeanSocialFundunderESFObjective3,LifelongLearning.HEIsinvitedtobidunderAimhigher:PartnershipsforProgressioninitiativeforadditional4,500summerschoolplaces(2003/18).FoundationdegreeForwardestablished–nationalbodytosupportdevelopmentandvalidationoffoundationdegrees.Specialfunding£5.5mover2yearstosupportteachingdisabledstudents.Endof‘aspirationfundingpremium’toHEIswith<80%ofstudentsfromstateschools.

PartnershipsforProgressionandExcellenceChallengemergedtoformAimhigher.SummerschoolsfundingintegratedwithAimhigher.Additionalfull-timeandpart-timefoundationdegreeplacesanddevelopmentofnewprogrammes£5.5m(2003/48).Greateremphasisonallocationbyregion.20,000ASNsfor2004-05(2004/12).7,185newplacesatfoundationdegreelevelfundedasspecialinitiativefor2years(2004/15).Changestofundingmethodforw/p–inc.studentsalreadyholdingadegreegivenzeroweighting(ELQ).FundingforwpchangedtobebasedonmethodthatweighsugnewentrantsaccordingtoyoungHEparticipationbywardandaverageeducationalachievementbyward.Formulafundingsplit20%forwp,80%improvingretention.Newpricegroupweightingsintroduced.£1mover5yearsavailabletoAimhighertosupportregionalhealthspecificstrands(c

HEFCEannouncesequalityinfundingpart-timestudentsandadditional£40mwithDfESover2years.Rubinreportonimpactofvariabletuitionfeesonpart-timestudents.

FundingguaranteesforPartnershipsforprogressionandExcellenceChallengeprogrammesend,Aimhigherpartnershipsatareaandregionallevelsbecomeresponsibleforallocationanddistributionoffundstopartners(2006/02).FundingforSupportingProfessionalisminAdmissionsProgramme.

380

Category 2003

2004 2005 2006

SirHowardNewbyChiefExecutive(2001–2006) 06/2004).

£7mfornationaldisseminationofinnovationandgoodpracticeinw/p(c07/2004).W/pstrategiesnolongeraconditionofgrantduetoadditionalrequirementsfromOFFA(c21/2004).

Research SRIFroundtwofunding-£845m(2003/06).£20mResearchCapabilityFundtosupportresearchinspecificemergingsubjectareassuchassocialwork,art&design,media,dance&performingartsandsports-relatedstudies.Robertsreportonreviewoffutureofresearchassessmentpublished.Recommendations:expertjudgement,frequencyofassessment,researchcompetencies,assessmentburden,qualityprofiles,panelstructure,bestfirforsubjects,PIs,jointsubmissions(2003/22).Additional£20mprovidedtosupport‘verybest’departmentswith5*ratingsin1996and2001RAEs.

Additionalfundingprovidedtosupport‘verybest’departmentswith5*ratingsin2001RAE.Capacityfunding£17.5mtosupportresearchinemergingsubjectareas:nursing,subjectsalliedtomedicine,socialwork,art&design,communication,culturalandmediastudies,drama,dance,performingarts,sportsrelatedsubjects.FormatonnextRAEannouncedasaresultofRobertsReviewofresearchassessment.ScienceandInnovationAwardslaunched–fundedbyEPSRCandHEFCE.ResearchLibrariesNetworkestablished.PromisingResearcherFellowshipScheme-£10mover2years,allocatedaspartofcoregrant–restricteddependentuponRAEsuccess(2004/03).SRIFround3£500mayearfrom2006-08

Changestothefundingofpostgraduateresearchstudentsintroduced–notincludedinteachingfundingmethodbutinnewsinglesupportstreamwithinfundingforresearch.Researchcapabilityfund(established2003)tocontinueto2008-09(c29/2005).Specialfundingstreamallocatedasresearchlibraries‘accessstrand’discontinuedandfundsreturnedtomainstreamQR(98thBoardmtg).

38newClinicalSeniorLectureshipAwardsannouncedfor2006upto200postsover5years.ThirdroundofSRIFannounced-£903mover3years.Newelementofrecurrentfundingforresearchintroducedtoprovideadditionalmoneytoinstitutionsundertakingresearchfundedbycharities.£135min2006-07and£180min2007-08(c16/2005).ResearchInformationNetworkoperational.SimplifiedprocessforOverseasResearchStudentsAwardsScheme(c15/2005,21/2005).Policytopublishresearchdegreequalificationrates(c10/2006,2007/29).ScienceandInnovationAwardsthird

381

Category 2003

2004 2005 2006

SirHowardNewbyChiefExecutive(2001–2006)Reviewofresearchfundingmethodandagreementthataformulaicapproachwouldbepreferable.Fundingfor4rateddepartmentstofocusonimprovement(2003/38).Publicationofrecoveringthefulleconomiccostofresearchandotheractivities(c05/2003).Continuationof£4.4mfor‘access’strandofResearchSupportLibrariesProgramme.

announced(c15/2004).£2mprovidedforveterinaryresearchinjointinitiativewithDepartmentforEnvironment,FoodandRuralAffairs.RevisiononQAAcodeofpracticeonpostgraduateresearchdegreeprogrammestolinkminimumstandardsofprovisiontogrant(95thBoardmtg).

roundwithEPSRC(£31m).LanguageBasedareaStudiesInitiativelaunchedwithAHRC.VeterinaryTrainingResearchInitiativeextendedfor2yearsto2008throughpartnershipwithDepartmentforEnvironmentFoodandRuralAffairs.Introductionofmetricstomonitorsustainabilityofresearchbase.RevisiontoQAAcodeonpracticetoincludeminimumstandardsforpostgraduateresearchdegreeprogrammes(c18/2004).CriteriaandworkingmethodsforRAE2008announced.

Economyandsociety

HEIFconsolidatedaspermanentthirdstreamoffunding.HEIF2£187mover3years–collaborationbetweeninstitutionsamajorfeature(2003/34).HEIF2initiatesnetworkof20Knowledgeexchangesfundingfor5years(2003/34).StrategicDevelopmentFundlaunched,replacingthe

SecondRoundofHigherEducationActiveCommunityFund(HEACF2)launched-£10mover2years(2004/19).KnowledgeTransferCapabilityFund£12mover2years(2005/05).

HEIF3£238mover2years–formulafundingallocation(includingcontinuationofcentresforKnowledgeExchangetobeinformedbyannualsurveyofinteractionbetweenHE,businessandthecommunity(2005/36,46,2006/30).ChangestoSDFintroducedinapplication,approvalandmonitoringprocess(2006/15).PilotBeaconsforPublicEngagement

382

Category 2003

2004 2005 2006

SirHowardNewbyChiefExecutive(2001–2006)RestructuringandCollaborationFund£30mperyearover3years(2003/28).

Initiativelaunched-£8mover4years(2006/49).Earlyworkondemonstratingimprovementofknowledgeexchangeinteractionstowardsdemonstratingimprovedimpact.Movetowardspredictablefundingallocationsforthirdstreamactivities–substantiallyformulabased.HEFCEOlympicsStrategyagreed(107thBoardmtg).

Finance,estateandassurance

AnnualMonitoringStatementandCorporatePlanningStatementreplaceAnnualOperatingStatement(2003/19).£494mallocatedtoimprovecapitalandITinfrastructuretosupportL&T(£117mofwhichistoimproveprovisionforstudentswithspecialneedsand£60mforimprovementofscienceandengineeringlabs-capitalprojectround3for2004-06(2003/26).ModelfinancialmemorandumbetweenHEFCEandHEIsrevisedandnewmodelpublished(2003/54).

PrivateFinanceInitiativeguidancerevised(2004/11).Costsofaccountabilitysubstantiallyreducedfrom£250mperannumin2000to£211min2004.NewCodeofPracticeforauditandaccountabilitycomesintoeffect.InternationalreportjointlysponsoredbetweenHEFCEandOECDsuggestsmorecollaborativeapproachisneededbetweeninstitutionsandpolicymakers–‘Ontheedge:securingasustainablefutureforhighereducation’.Reimbursementofinheritedleaseliabilitiesreviewedandwillceasewithin5years.IncomereportedunderTRACaswellas

LaunchofHEFCEsustainabledevelopmentinitiative(2005/01).Institutionstoprovideaframeworksettingoutlongtermsustainabilitymanagement(c28/2005).SpaceManagementGroupreportsonefficientandsustainablespacemanagement,inc.spacecostsanddrivers(2005).Proposaltocollectaccountabilityinformationina‘singleconversation’withHEIs–pilotedin2006androleoutin2007(2006/07).ChangestowayinwhichgrantsarepaidforProjectcapitalandSRIFfundingintroducedtocombinefundingfor

Capitalfundingforlearning&teaching,researchandinfrastructurefunds2006-08.SpaceManagementGroupreportsonpromotingspaceefficiencyandimpactonspaceoffutureHEchanges(2006).HEFCEgrantadjustments:withholdingofgranttoinstitutionsthatexceedcontractrange,donotdelivergrowthinstudentnumbers,under-recruitagainstCFTEsformedicineanddentistry(2006/19).Changestothemodelfinancialmemorandumintroduced:anewsystemforprotectingtheexchequerintereststoprovidegreateraccountabilityandreducingadministrativeburden,

383

Category 2003

2004 2005 2006

SirHowardNewbyChiefExecutive(2001–2006)ChangesinHEFCEapproachtopromotingPublic/PrivatePartnership(PPP)andPrivateFinanceInitiative(PFI)projects(c07/2003).£400k3yearresearchprojecttohelpHEIsunderstandbusinessbenefitsforeffectivemanagementofspace.RevisiontoTRACmethodologytoactivityandprojectlevel(88thBoardmtg).

costs. learning&teachingandresearch(c03/2005).

accountingforimpactofFinancialReportingStandard(retirementbenefits)comeintoeffect(c12/2006).HEIsreceiveformalriskassessments.CapitalfundingfordirectlyfundedFECs(£22m)allocated(c11/2005).HEIsaskedtoconsideruseofsharedservices(c20/2006).

Leadership,managementandgovernance

HESAstaffdatausedasbasisforcalculating‘goldenhello’allocations2003/04)–aimedatshortagesubjectareas(c19/2003).Raceequalitymonitoringintroduced(89thBoardMtg).Adviceonseverancepaymentstoseniorstaffamended(c15/2003).

Consolidationofrewardinganddevelopingstafffundingintocoreteachinggrant(2004/03).Leadership,GovernanceandManagementFund-£10mover3years(2004/26).SupportingProfessionalStandardsFund(for2years)launched.Guidanceonmergerspublished(2004/09).HEFCEInstitutionalSupportStrategyagreed(90thBoardmtg).NewJISCStrategy2004-06agreed(91stBoardmtg).

PolicystatementonsustainabledevelopmentinHE(2005/28).Self-assessmenttoolforpeoplemanagementinHEIsimplemented–tobephasedinover3yearsto2008.TobeusedtomainstreamfundingunderRewardingandDevelopingStaffInitiative(c17/2005).

Issueofthehighereducationworkforceframework(2006/21)–withaviewtomainstreamfundsfromRewardingandDevelopingStaffinitiative.RoleofHEFCEwillbecomelessdirective.EqualityChallengeUnitreviewedwithanewremittoincludestudentsaswellasstaffforembeddingequalityinthesector.SingleEqualitySchemepublished.

384

Category 2007

2008 2009 2010

ProfDavidEastwoodChiefExecutive(2006–2009) SirAlanLanglandsChiefExecutive(2009–2013)

Widerpolicycontext

SainsburyReviewofScienceandInnovation.Variablefeesintroduced-£3,070.HEIDIdatabaselaunched.BurgessreportBeyondtheHonoursdegreepublished.DepartmentofInnovation,UniversitiesandSkillsreplacessomeofDESfunctions.FurtherEducationandTrainingAct

Government’sPublicSectorAgreementworkforcequalificationtargetannounced.GovernmentWhitePaper–InnovativeNationGovernmentpolicyframeworksetoutin‘ANewUniversityChallenge’Governmentlaunches£200mmatchedfundingschemeforvoluntarygiving.Globalfinancialcrisis.

BrowneReviewlaunched(reviewofHEfundingandstudentfinanceincontextofglobalrecession).HigherEducationFramework“HigherAmbitions:thefutureofuniversitiesintheknowledgeeconomy”published.Spendingreview-SecretaryofStateannouncesefficiencysavingsof£180mrequiredtobedeliveredinHE.Globalfinancialcrisiscontinues.UnleashingAspiration:Panelonfairaccesstotheprofessionsreport

NewConservative/LiberalDemocratCoalitionGovernment.EqualityAct2010.BrowneIndependentReviewofHigherEducationFundingandStudentFinancepublished.UniversityModernisationFundannouncedbySecretaryofState(£270m)–toincreaseaccessandincreaseefficiency/reducecosts.GovernmentCoalitionProgrammepublished–intentiontopublishmoreinformationoncosts,graduateearningsandstudentsatisfactiononindividualcourses.BISannouncesNationalScholarshipProgramme(studentpremium).LocalEnterprisePartnershipsestablished(toreplaceRDAs).AdrianSmithreport:Onestepbeyond:makingthemostofpostgraduate

385

Category 2007

2008 2009 2010

education.HEFCE HEFCEbecomesprinciple

regulatorforHEundertheCharitiesAct2006.HEFCEInternationalCollaborationteamdissolved.

HEFCEregionalteamsreplacedbythreeinstitutionalteams

SpendingReview2010-HEFCEfundingreducedby£180mandthenafurther£135m.HEFCEbecomesprincipalregulatorofHEIsthatareexemptcharities.

LearningandTeaching

33,000ASNs+16,000(foundation,co-funded)over2years(2007/06).Policyonperformanceindicators–transferofindicatorstoHESA(2007/14).ChangestoHESAsurvey–requiredtoreportstudentsonnon-standardyears,monitoringASNtargets,monitoringcontractrange(c15/2007).Fundingtosustainchemistry,physics,chemicalengineeringandmineral,metallurgyandmaterialsengineering-£75mover3years(c13/2007).Flexiblelearningpathwayspilotsintroduced–2yearfasttrackhonoursdegrees,part-timestudyoptions.Allocationoffundingforteachingreviewed:introduction

PolicypublishedonphasingoutoffundingforELQs(withexemptionsfor:thoseinreceiptofDSA,ugmedicine,dentistry,nursing,veterinaryscience,allteachertraining,foundationdegree).Additionalfundingavailableforpart-time(2008/13).FundingmethodadjustedtotakeaccountofELQS(2008/12,c07/2008).10,000ASNs(halfofwhichforfoundationdegrees)(2008/12,c04/2007).5,000ASNsonaco-fundedbasiswithemployerengagement(c03/2007).AllocationofASNstobethroughprocessesoftheSDF(40,000places)119thBoardmtg).Increasedfundingforunder-representedgroupsmostatriskornon-completionandadditionalmedicalanddentalstudentnumbers(2008/12).Phase3oftheQualityAssuranceFrameworkpolicy–revisionstomethodsusedbyQAAforauditingcollaborativeprovision,

40,000ASNsfor2009-10,2010-11–tomeetpolicyareas:tomeetSDFplans,foundationdegrees,strategicallyimportantsubjects,STEM,healthcarepriorities,areasfornewHEprovision(andcrosscuttingthemes)–distributionthroughSDF(c05/2008).ASNfor2009-10amendedto10,000followingSecretaryofStatestatementinParliament(c32/2008,130thBoardmtg).10,000ASNsonaco-fundedbasiswithemployerengagement(c03/2007).Institutionsinstructedtoretain2008-09recruitmentlevels+10,000ASNsorelseoverrecruitmentwillresultinclawbackofHEFCEfundstotheTreasurytomeetconsequentunanticipatedstudentsupportcosts(2009/8).Destinationofleavers’surveyextendedtoFECs.InstitutionstoreportonuseofDiplomaSupplementinannualmonitoring

10,000ASNplaces–prioritygiventoSIVSandhealth(c22/2009).Studentnumbercontrolspecificationspublished–settingspecificnumbersforinstitutions(2010/08).PolicyguidanceforHEIsthatover-recruittoensurethatthereisnooverallfeeincomeadvantagetoinstitutions(c11/2010).Teachinggrantreducedthroughwithdrawaloffundingfor:oldandhistoricbuildings,acceleratedandintensivetaughtpostgraduateprovisioninpricegroupD,phasingoutadditionalsupportforfoundationdegrees(2010/08,131stBoardmtg).HEARintroduced.Policyonstrategicallyimportantandvulnerablesubjectsreviewedandalignedinlightofgovernment’sNewIndustry,NewJobs,HigherAmbitions,andSkillsforgrowthagendas(2010/09).

386

Category 2007

2008 2009 2010

oftargetedallocationstocontributetowardsadditionalcostsoffoundationdegrees,old&historicbuildingsandpart-timestudy,countingmodulescompletedtosupportflexiblestudypatterns,usedatafromTRACtounderstandcostofteaching(2007/23).Recurrentgrantchangesintroduced:revisionstofundingASNs,w/p,transferofstudentnos.andfundingbetweeninstitutions,changestoadditionalfundingforhighcostandvulnerablesciencesubjects(2007/32).ImplementationofnewmethodofreviewforHEinFECs(IntegratedQualityandEnhancementReviewwithQAA.NewpolicyonfundingHEinFECsannouncedwithpilotscheme(c27/2007,115thBoardmtg).Re-launchofTQI(HERO)sitetotakeintoaccountimprovementsasaresultoffeedback(c08/2007).Re-profilingoflearningand

improvedcommunicationbetweenQAAandotherreviewingagencies(2008/21).NewcreditframeworkandguidelinespublishedbyQAA.Policyonapproachtowardsstrategicallyimportantsubjects:STEM,MiddleEastern,formerSovietUnionandCentralAsianstudies,Japanese,ChineseandotherFareasternlanguages,EasternEuropeandBalticRegionstudies,MFL,quantitativesocialscience(2008/38).NSSresultspublishedonnewUnistatswebsite(replacesTQIwebsite)anddevelopedbyUCAS(c19/2007).NSSextendedtoincludestudentsstudyingatFECs(c28/2007).Smallandspecialistpremiumsoflessthan10%addedtoinstitutionsmainstreamgrants–someinstitutionstorecruitmoretoremainwithincontractrange.Landbasedstudiesnolongerconsideredvulnerablesubject.Pilotforopeneducationalcontent£5.7m(123rdBoardmtg).

statementsaspartofBolognaProcess.£5.7mpilotprogrammeestablishedtodevelopdigitalrepositoryoflearningmaterials–startofmajorprojecttocreativedigitalbankofopeneducationalmaterialby2013.Publicationofpolicyonsupportinghighereducationinfurthereducationcolleges(2009/5).£25mforveryhighcostlaboratory-basedsubjectsbecomepermanentrecurrenttargetallocationinrecurrentgrants(2009/8).Revisionofapproachtoe-learningstrategyandpolicy–enhancinglearningandteachingthroughtheuseoftechnologypublished(2009/12).Policyforengagingwithinstitutionsthatdemonstrateunsatisfactorymanagementofqualityoflearningopportunitiesand/oracademicstandardsasestablishedbyQAAauditpublished(2009/31).Policyinfundingpartialcompletionthroughintroductionofflexiblestudymeasurepublished(c12/2009).OnlineLearningTaskForceestablishedtohelpHEsectormaintainandextendpositionasworldleaderinonline

Newpolicyonqualityassurancesystemforinstitutionalauditpublished(2010/17).£10mtosupportmovementof3000-6000studentsprovisiontoSIVS(science,technology,engineering,mathsandMFLs)throughUniversityModernisationFund(c06/2010).20,000ASNsprovidedforthroughUniversityModernisationFund.FundedforfirstyearbutHEIsexpectedtofundremaining2yearsofstudythroughefficiencysavings(£250m(whichincludes£10mforstudentsnotedabove(c08/2010).UniversityModernisationFundreducedfrom£270mto£152m.Reductioninbaselineof£82m–foundthroughreductioninteachingblockgrantandteachingcapital(c14/2010).InstitutionstodevelopemployabilitystatementsforUnistatswebsite(c12/2010).Changestoconditionsofgrantforco-fundedASNplacestoalignwithASNsthoughmainstreamteachingfundingmethod(c20/2010).ChangestoHESESandHEIFES

387

Category 2007

2008 2009 2010

teachinggranttotakeaccountoftuitionfeesfromStudentLoansCompanytobepaidintwotranchesinFebandMay(c07/2007).Highcostlaboratorybasedsubjectstoreceive£75mtimelimitedfundingtosupportstrategicandvulnerablesubjects(111thBoardmtg).HEFCEfundingofPrimeMinister’sInitiativeonInternationalEducation£750kfor4years(114thBoardmtg).£1msupportforIslamicStudiessupport(116thBoardmtg).

technology.HEFCE,HEA,NUSjointfundingofstudentengagementproject.Changestofundingmethodwithtargetedallocationtosupportteachingenhancementandstudentsuccess(125thBoardmtg).Graduateinternshipsschemeintroduced-£13.6m,8,500places(131stBoardmtg).

introduced:inclusionofinformationtomonitorstudentnumbercontrol,co-fundedemployerprovision,amendmenttodefinitionofstudentcompletion(c10/2010).

Wideningparticipation

Guidanceonhighereducationoutreach:targetingdisadvantagedlearners(2007/12).SummerSchools’programmeextendedto2010.WithDFE,implementedprogrammetoassistinstitutionswithengagingwithnewdiplomasfor14-19yearolds.Aimhigherfundingextendedto2011totargetlowersocio-

Policypublishedonwideningparticipationandfairaccessresearchstrategy.Themestoinclude:betterlinkswithschoolsandcolleges,partnershipsbetweenHEIsandcommunities,HEIstosubmitwpstrategicassessments(2008/10).£1moverthreeyearstofundprojectstodisseminategoodpracticeinstudentretention(c08/2008).£21mAimhigherAssociatesSchemeannounced.

PolicyonHEFCEsupportfordisabledstudentspublished.WillcontinuetofundadditionalcoststhroughmainstreamdisabilityallocationandfundspecialistdisabilitysupportservicesthroughActiononAccess,HEAandEqualitychallengeUnit(2009/49).Frameworkforthesubmissionofw/pstrategiespublished(2009/01).Changestofundingmethodtoimprovesupportforteachingenhancementandw/p.Combinedfundingforimprovingretention,learning,teachingand

388

Category 2007

2008 2009 2010

economicgroups,areasofdeprivation,careleavers,SENs.

assessmentstrategies,teachinginformedandenrichedbyresearchtocreatenewtargetedallocationtosupportteachingenhancementandstudentsuccess(TESS).Increasedfundingtorecognisecostsofworkingwithschoolsinmostdisadvantagedareas.Incorporatedintofundingmethodsfrom2009-10(2009/30).

Research Recurrentgrantsmethodologyrevisedtoincludebusinessresearchandcharityelements(2007/06).ReviewofResearchInformationNetworkleadstoadditionalfundingof£2.4mto2011.£6mtransitionalfundingfor8medicalschoolstobuildresearchcapacity.NewarrangementsforOverseasResearchStudentsAwardsScheme(c12/2007).Policyonopenaccesstoresearchpublicationsagreed(112thBoardmtg).PolicyonencouragingresearchcollaborationatstrategiclevelbetweenHEIsagreed(114thBoardmtg).

RAE2008tousequalityprofile.RAE2008resultspublished.AnnouncementofframeworkforREFasasingleunifiedframeworkforassessingandfundingresearchacrossalldisciplinesusingbibliometrictechniquesandassessingimpact(c13/2008,34/2008).FundingterminatedfortheOverseasResearchStudentsAwardsSchemefrom2010.HEFCEandResearchCouncilslaunchrevisedUKConcordatandCodeofPracticeforresearchers.PolicyonpurposeandfundingofQRrevised(120thBoardmtg).

£25mofSRIFfundingfrom2010-11broughtforwardduetopre-budgetmeasures(c35/2008).RecurrentgrantforresearchbasedonqualityprofileoutcomesofRAE2008(125thBoardmtg).Fundingelementfor‘bestfivestar’departmentsdiscontinued(125thBoardmtg).

ORSASfundingceases(c18/2008).Recurrentresearchgrantweightingsforactivityamendedtofavourmoreresearchconcentration.EnhancedfundingforgeographyandpsychologytofitwithSTEMdisciplines(2010/08).PublicationofREFdesign–configurationofpanels,methodforassessingimpact,weightingsbetweenoutputs,impactandenvironment(c04/2010).

389

Category 2007

2008 2009 2010

Economyandsociety

PolicyonHEeducation-businessandcommunityinteractionproduced(2007/17).StrategicDevelopmentFundprocessesandoperationofthefundrevised(2007/22).Publicationofstrategyonemployerengagementtosupportflexiblelearningintheworkplace.BeaconsforPublicEngagementfundedfrom2007for4years.

HEIF4announced(from2008-11£396m)(2008/02).HEIFfundingtobeincorporatedintorecurrentgrantallocationstosupportallformsofknowledgeexchange(2008/12).Programmefordevelopmentandemployerco-funding.Movetowardsperformanceasbasisforallocationoffunds(£100m).SDFfundingre-focussedtoprioritiseemployerengagement,NewUniversityChallenge(c18/2008).Announcementthattherewillbenomorefundingforemployerengagementactivities(c36/2008).

Finalallocationof£8mforCentresforKnowledgeExchangefor2008-09(2008/02).Publicationofpolicyonsustainabledevelopmentinhighereducation(2009/3).EconomicChallengeInvestmentFundannounced–aspartofemployerengagementprogramme-£25mofmatchedfundingasareprioritisationofSDFforoneyear(c03/2009,109thBoardmtg).

Guidingprinciplesforinternationalactivityamendedasaresultofallegationsofirregularitiesintheuseoffundsforinternationaltravelandpublished(c21/2010).Reviewoffundingformuseumsandgalleries(134thboardmtg).

Finance,estateandassurance

SpaceManagementGroupguidancepublished(2007/30).Newcapitalinvestmentframeworkpublished–movesawayfromprojectbasedmethodstoevaluationoflongertermsustainability(c11/2007,21/2007).HEFCEassurancereviewlaunched–every5years(c25/2006).FundingforProc-HEceased.Procurewebcontinuedfundingwithmanagementtransferred

Singleconversationprocessimplementedforallinstitutionsfollowingpilot(2008/31,c15/2008).Newaccountabilityframeworkcomesintoeffectlinkedtoassessmentofinstitutionalrisk(2007/11).FrameworkofVATpartialexemptionmethodsbecomesoperational.CapitalInvestmentFund(byformula)-£1,085masLearning&TeachingCapitalInvestmentFundand£1,276mResearchCapitalInvestmentFundfor3years(permanentmainstream)(2008/04).

CapitalfundingfordirectlyfundedFECsputonhold(c12/2008).RevolvingGreenFund£5mtosupportcarbonsavingprojects(c04/2009).Institutionsaskedtore-examinecapitalinvestmentplanstobringforwardfurtherexpenditureto2009-10toenableHEFCEtobringforward£200mofcapitalfunding(c05/2009).£9.8msupportforHElibrariesforPhase2ofUKResearchReservelaunched.

Policyoncarbonreductiontargetandstrategyforhighereducationpublished(2010/01).£20mtodeliverefficiencyandvalueformoneythroughsharedservicesthroughUniversityModernisationFund(c07/2010).£5mofabovefundingtoestablishane-ProcurementFundand£1mtodevelope-Marketplaces(c16/2010).CapitalInvestmentFrameworkassessmentarrangementspublished.Newareastobeaddressed–reducingcarbonemissionsandimprovingspace

390

Category 2007

2008 2009 2010

toJISC(c05/2007). CapitalInvestmentFramework:securingvalueformoneyguidanceissued(c09/2008).Matchedfundingschemeforvoluntarygivingtorunfor3yearsandadministeredbyHEFCE(c11/2008).HECFEintroducesnewKPIandtoincludereductionincarbonemissionsasfactorincapitalfundingallocations.RevolvingGreenFundannounced-£30mforcarbonsavingprojects(c20/2008).Followingpre-budgetreportbytheChancellortoaddresscurrenteconomicposition,HEIsaskedtobringforwardcapitalspendingfrom2010-11(c35/2008).

usage(c19/2010).RevisionstoHEFCEsAccountsDirectionintroduced(c19/2010).ChangestotheFinancialmemorandumwithHEISintroduced(c18/2010).

Leadership,managementandgovernance

PolicyonEqualitySchemelaunchedtopromoterace,disabilityandgenderequality(2007/1).FurtherfundingofLeadershipFoundationuntil2012(4.5m).Leadership,GovernanceandmanagementFundextendedto2010with£10m(c26/2007)inpartnershipwithLeadershipFoundation(fundingforFoundationextendedto2012).

PublicationofpolicyandprocessfordevelopingnewHEcentresoruniversitycampus–inthelightofGovernmentpolicyframeworksetoutin‘ANewUniversityChallenge’publishedMarch2008(2009/7).AmendmentstopolicyonseverancepaymentstoseniorstaffinHEIspublished(c06/2009).AnnouncementofadditionalaccesstoLeadership,GovernanceandManagementFundtosupportprojectstodeliver‘leadingtransformationalchange’incurrenteconomicclimate(c07/2009).

Leadership,GovernanceandManagementFundends(c13/2010).HEWorkforceFramework(revisedguidance)published(2010/05).EqualityChallengeUnitfundingextendedfor5years.

391

Category 2011 2012 2013 2014

SirAlanLanglandsChiefExecutive(2009–2013) ProfMadeleineAtkinsChiefExecutive(2014–Present)

Widerpolicycontext

WhitePaper‘StudentsattheHeartoftheSystem’published(shiftinfundingfromHEFCE,introductionofcompetitionthroughdynamism,coreandmarginandAAB,HEFCEasleadregulatorandpromotionofinterestsofstudents).RegulatoryPartnershipgroupestablishedbyHEFCEandStudentLoansCompany.SubjectcentresinLTSNclose.Openingdoors,breakingbarriers:astrategyforsocialmobilitypublished.CharitiesAct2011.

Participationrate49%.Newtuitionfeelevelsallowsinstitutionstochargeupto£9,000.Verysignificantreductioninthenumberofnewpart-timeentrants.RegionalDevelopmentAgenciesabolished.ChangestoHEFCEorganisationalstructureinlightofnewfundingarrangements.NewframeworkbetweenHEFCEandBISintroduced.JISCbecomesanindependentorganisation.

Participationratedropsto43%.SpendingReview2013.IntroductionofEUVATdirectiveimplementedbyFinanceAct2012toallowforestablishmentofcostsharinggroupstoprovideVAT-exemptservicestomemberorganisations–HEFCEguidanceforHEIs.GovernmentannounceschangestoNationalScholarshipProgramme.

GovernmentScienceandInnovationStrategyannounced.Governmentannounces£200minmatchcapitalfundingforscienceandengineering.

HEFCE BIS-SLC-HEFCEforumestablishedforjointpolicyinterests.

HEFCEannounceschangeoffocustoinvestonbehalfofstudentscoststhatcannotbecoveredbytuitionfeesaloneandtoprovideopportunitiesforparticipation.

HEFCEaskedtotakeonregulatoryoversightroleaspartofprogrammeofhighereducationfundingandregulatoryreform.HEFCEgivenresponsibilityforoperatingnewsystemofspecificcoursedesignationforalternative

Launchofdatamapsofhighereducationprovision.Newstudentnumbercontrolsystemintroduced.

392

Category 2011 2012 2013 2014

providersandextendingSNCtoalternativeproviders.HEFCEproducesstrategicstatementonitsroleinthestudentinterest.GovernmentasksHEFCEtoreviewparticipationatpostgraduatelevel.

LearningandTeaching

20,000ASNsonaco-fundedbasiswithemployerengagement-partofWorkforcedevelopmentprogramme(c03/2007).10,000FTEadditionalplacesagreed(138thBoardmtg).ChangestoHESESandHEIFESintroduced:clarificationoftreatmentoffoundationyears(c10/2010).Allelementsofteachinggrant(withexceptionofw/pandimprovingretention)subjectto4.28%cashreduction.UMFwithdrawn(2011/07).FurtherallocationoffundingtosupportmovingFTEstoSIVS(2011/11).Policyonprovisionofinformationabouthigher

Newfundingregimecomesintopractice–HEFCETmainstreamfundingbeginstodecreaseandpubliclyfundedloadsintroduced.Policyonallocationofmarginplacespublished(portfolio/performingartssubjectscanoptoutofAAB+andcore/marginprocess,exclusionofSIVSfromcalculationofmargin,studentnumberlimittobeequaltoatleast20%oflimitfor2011-12(2011/30).Studentswithentryqualifications=or>thatAABnolongerincludedinSNC.Marginof20,000placescreatedbyreducing‘core’residualSNC–onlyredistributedtoinstitutionscharginglessthan£7,500.FocusonsupportingMFLaspartofSIVSpolicy.FirstsetofKISdatapublicallyavailable.NSStointroducequestiononstudentsatisfactionwithStudents’Union(25/2011).

Morestudentplacesfreedfromcontrol,5,000marginplacesavailable.Studentswithentryqualifications=or>ABB(highgradespolicy)nolongerincludedinSNC,Revisedlistofexemptqualifications,topupstudentsfromfoundationnolongercounttowardsSNC(12/2012,30/2012).NSSintroducesnewsurveyaskingforstudentintentionsfollowinggraduation(24/2012).DestinationsofLeaversfromHigherEducationsurveyinfurthereducationcolleges–collegestofundsurveythemselvesfrom2014-15aftertransitionyearoffunding(28/2012,08/2013,26/2013).Fundingfornew-regimestudentsinhighcostsubjectsextendedtomoresubjectsinpricegroupCandconsolidatesfundingforPGT(2013/05).

Newallocationoffundingforstudentstakingstudyabroad(inouroutofErasmusScheme)tosupportparticipationinexchangeprogrammes(14/2013).ChangestoSNC:HEISrecruitingsignificantlybelowSNClooseplacesandwillbere-allocated,applicationprocessfornewpubliclyfundedproviderstoapplyforstudentnumbersfrom2015-16,highgradespolicyextendedtoincludecertaincombinationsofqualifications(2013/20).£20mreductionInrecurrentteachingfundinggrant-butbalancedbyincreaseincapitalL&Tgrantof£20m(04/2014).Recurrentgranttosupportanincreaseofupto30,000full-timeplaces,absorptionoftheAccesstoLearningFundandsupportforaNationalCollaborativeOutreachNetwork(£25m)soreductionof5.85%inmostteachinggrantswiththeexceptionofhighcosts,wpandspecialistinstitutions.Recalculatedfunding

393

Category 2011 2012 2013 2014

education:establishmentofKISandprovisionofdataavailablefromNSSandDLHEsurveys,institutionstoprovidewiderinformationsets(2011/18).Studentnumbercontrolpolicyfor2011-12published,maintainedSNClevelat2010-11,deductionofUMFplaces(c02/2011,26/2011).SubjectlevelgraduatesalaryinformationtobeprovidedonUnistatswebsite(c03/2011).HESESandHEIFESsurveysmerged(17/2011).KISmethodologyapproved(104thBoardmtg).PublicationofKIStechnicalguidance(23/2011).Newqualityassurancearrangementscomeintoforce.Guidanceondefinitionsof‘oldregime’and‘newregime’studentsannounced(24/2011).

Fundingforco-fundingwithemployersphasedout.Workforcedevelopmentnolongerapolicypriority.RevisiontopolicyonKISdata–nowtobeprovidedonnewUNISTATSweb-site,notoninstitutionswebsite(16/2012).ChangestoHESESandHEIFESdatacollectiontonolongeraccountfornonHEFCEfundedstudents(15/2012).FinalpolicyonKISandUnistatspublished(2012/15).ConformationofpolicyforSNCfundingfrom2013-14,inc:supportforhighcostsubjects,transitionalapproachtosupportPGTprovision,TACTapproachtoinformfuturefunding,part-timesupportonlyinhighcostsubjects,SIVssupport.Calculationofreductioningrantduetoexcessrecruitment(2012/17,19).ChangestoSIVSpolicytosupportanydisciplineconsideredtobevulnerable(144thBoardmtg).Newrisk-basedapproachtoQAagreedtotargetQAAefforts,tailorexternalreviewtoprovider,andensuretransparency(2012/27).

AmendmentstoILRfundingcalculationmethodforFECs(06/2013).Transitionalarrangementsforfinancialarrangementsforstudentstakingyearabroadwithnewfinancialarrangementsfrom2014-15–newregulatedfeelimitof15%offeeinErasmusschemeor30%outsidescheme(14/2013).RevisiontoHEFCEpolicyforaddressingunsatisfactoryqualityininstitutionsinlinewithstartofrisk-basedHigherEducationReviewmethod(15/2013,29/2013).UpdatetotheKIS‘widget’(17/2013).£25mforpilotprojectstotestoptionsforfinanceandactivityaimedatstimulatingprogressionintoPGT(2013/13).IntroductionofHEAPES,surveyofstudentsoncoursesprovidedbyalternativeproviders(2013/14).ModifiedversionofTRAC(T)methodologyintroduced.

allocationsforold-regimestudentsandrevisedscalingfactor(04/2014,2014/27).Fundingfornationalfacilitiesandinitiatives(specialfunding)reducedby£13m(04/2014).HigherEducationAccessTracker(HEAT)rolledout(04/2014).StudentOpportunityFundreducedby5.85%(04/2014).InstitutionstoprovidemoretransparentinformationonincomeandexpendituretostudentsaspartofGovernment’ssupportingpublicaccountabilityinitiative(06/2014).InstitutionsgivenincreasedflexibilitytorecruitaboveSNCby6%.Exceptionslistexpanded(2014/05).Guidanceonprovidinginformationforprospectivepostgraduatetaughtstudents((10/2014).NSSresultsdisseminationweb-sitechangedandismanagedbyTexunaTechnologiesLtd(16/2014).£50minmatchedfundingtoenable10,000PGTstudentstoreceive£10kcontributiontocostofstudiesaspartofPostgraduateSupportScheme(32/2014).

394

Category 2011 2012 2013 2014

20,000marginplacesagreedfor2012-13andpolicyforapplicationstothemarginagreed(142ndBoardmtg).Highcostfundingformediaandsportsstudiesdiscontinued(144thBoardmtg).

QualityAssessmentReviewinitiated.ELQpolicyrelaxedforsomeSTEMsubjects(154thBoardmtg).Institutionswith<1000STEMFTEscanentercompetitiveelementofSTEMteachingandcapitalfund(161stBoardmtg).AgriculturaltechnologyandsomesportssciencetobeincludedinSTEMclassifications(161stBoardmtg).

Wideningparticipation

GrantlettertoHEFCErequeststopprioritiesfortargetfundingaresupportingwpandfairaccessandensuringadequateprovisionforstrategicallyimportantandvulnerablesubjects.NationalScholarshipProgrammeallocationsannounced–tobematchedfundingbyinstitutions(£300mover3years)tosupportstudentswithhouseholdincome<£25k(13/2011).Aimhigherfundingends.‘Opportunity,choiceandexcellenceinHE’published

Changestowideningparticipationstrategicassessments(WPSAs)tointerimwpstrategicassessmentstoidentifykeyprioritiesfor2012-13-inpreparationfornewapproachwherestrategieswillneedtoprovideaframeworkofaccountabilityforfunding(11/2012).NationalScholarshipProgrammeas‘studentpremium’tobenefitstudentsfromdisadvantagedbackgrounds(£50min2012,£100min2013£150min2014.Institutionsexpectedtomatchfundingto100%ifcharging>£6kfee,or50%ifless(2011/10).

JointguidancefromHEFCEandOFFAonproductionofintegratedWPSSsandaccessagreements(31/2013).FundingallocationsforNationalScholarshipProgrammecalculatedbynewmethodfocussedoninstitutionswithhigherproportionfromlow-incomebackgrounds,institutionalfinancialcontributionswillonlyberequiredfromthosewithanaccessagreement,part-timestudentseligible(2013/02).NationalScholarshipProgrammereductioninfundingto£50m–rulesrelatingtouseoffundsamendedaccordingly(32/2013).£25mfundingofNationalOutreachNetwork(calledNationalNetworksfor

395

Category 2011 2012 2013 2014

(2011/22). CollaborativeOutreach(NNCO)forFEandHE–£22mover2years-£3mforanationaltrackingsystem(20/2014).

Research Recurrentresearchgrantreducedby1.1%(2011/07).

Discontinuationofresearchactivitysurvey–calculationoffundingofQRinrelationtoresearchdegreeprogrammesupervisionfundandcharitysupportprovision–usingHESAdatatoinformfundingelements(c10/2010,19/2011).InstitutionstosubmitcodeofpracticeonfairandtransparentselectionofstaffforREFsubmission(27/2011).ShiftfrommainstreamQRtoRDPsupervisionfundingof£35m.2*RAEresearchnolongerfunded(03/2012).£120mtosupportPGT.£240mtosupportPGRwithinvestmenttargetedonthebasisofqualityofresearch.Newapproachtomeasuringratesofqualificationfromresearchdegreestudypublished(2012/10).Additionalallocationofresearchcapitalfund(£100m)over3yearstosupportresearchfacilities(researchinfrastructurefund)(2012/12).PublicationofstatementonstandardsandintegrityinUKresearchbyHEFCE,

UKResearchPartnershipInvestmentFund(additionalallocationofresearchcapitalfunding(£80m)(2012/31).HEIseligibleforHEFCEresearchfundingtocomplywithresearchintegrityconcordatpublishedbyUniversitiesUK(2012/32,21/2013).CompliancewiththeConcordattoSupportResearchIntegritymadeconditionofHEFCEgrant(153rdBoardmtg).Implementationofanopenaccessframeworkinpost-2014REF(2013/16,2014/07).

FirstREF.PublicationofintendeduseofimpactcasestudiessubmittedtoREF2014(26/2014).UKPISGagreecurrentsetofresearchUKPIsarediscontinuedandnewUKPIstobedeveloped(21/2014).

396

Category 2011 2012 2013 2014

UniversitiesUK,ResearchCouncilsUK,WellcomeTrustandGovernmentdepartments.

Economyandsociety

HEIFfundinglevelsmaintained(2011/07).HIEFfundingfor2011-15announced-£2150mperyear.NewpolicyonHEIFpublished–fundingcalculatedonperformancemetricsonly,fundingforstaffnumbersasameasurediscontinued,doubleweightingsforincomefromsmall/mediumsizedcompanies,maxcapof£2.85mtoanyinstitution(2011/16,c04/2011).

NewCatalystFundlaunchedtoreplaceStrategicDevelopmentFund(143rdBoardmtg).CatalystfundingavailableforprojectstoenhanceHE’scontributiontoeconomicgrowth(£50m).

£5mofCatalystFundtosupportNUSStudents’GreenFundto2015(2013/12).

BidsforCatalystfundingforuniversitiesasanchors,technicaleducationathigherlevels,innovativeknowledgeexchangedevelopmentsinspecialistinstitutions(2014/21).

Finance,estateandassurance

CapitalInvestmentFund(CIF2)£49mforLearningandTeachingCapitalInvestmentFund(1year)and£549mResearchCapitalInvestmentFund(4years)(2011/08).Note:reinstatementoffundingwithdrawninJune2010.CapitalfundingfordirectlyfundedFECs£6.3mover2years(10/2011).RevolvingGreenFundphase2

ResearchCapitalInvestmentFunding(RCIF2)broughtforwardfrom2012-13to2011-12(01/2012).Moderationfundingtosmoothchangesnolongerprovided(03/2012).Specialfundinginitiativesreducedfrom£208mto£125m.Shifttochannelmorefundingthroughcoreroutes(03/2012).CapitalInvestmentFund2forL&Tincreasedfrom£49mto£52.5m(05/2012).Publicationofreviewofinstitution-specific

SecondL&TCapitalInvestmentFund(TCIF2)£33m(2013/08)aspartofCIF(CapitalInvestmentFramework).RCIF2increasedby£3m(2013/08).RevisiontoTRACfollowingconsultationtostreamlinerequirementsforreportingforallHEprovidersinreceiptofHEFCEfunding.StrongobjectiontousingTRACfortransparencyofinformationforstudents(2013/09).£250,000fundingfordevelopingand

RevisiontofinancialmemorandumbetweenHEFCEandHEIstoaccommodaterequirementstomanageriskaroundfinancialcommitmentsandotherminoramendments–nowcalledMemorandumofAssuranceandAccountability(2013/21,2014/09,2014/12).£200mfundforinvestmentinSTEMscienceandteachingfacilities(tobematchedfundingbyinstitutions)(02/2014).Increaseof£20madditionalcapitalfor

397

Category 2011 2012 2013 2014

fundingannounced(£10mperannumfor2years–projectsthatreducecarbonemissions(16/2011).JISCreviewed138thBoardmtg).Policyforextrapolationoffundingadjustmentsagreed(139thBoardmtg).

fundinginlightofnewfundingarrangements(2012/16).RevolvingGreenFundphase3(£20m)(29/2012).Receiptofcapitalfundingconditionaluponsatisfactorycarbonmanagementplansandimprovedenvironmentalperformance.ChangetothefinancialmemorandumtorequireHEIsreceivingresearchgrantsfromtheCounciltocomplywithtermsofaResearchIntegrityConcordat(146thBoardmtg).

disseminatinggoodpracticeinsharedservices(27/2013).

learningandteaching(TCIF2)(03/2014).Newfinancialcommitmentsthresholdintroduced(11/2014).FourthroundofRevolvingGreenFund(RGF4)providedinpartnershipwithSalixFinanceLtd-£34mtoachievecostsavingsandreducecarbonemissions(18/2014).Sustainabledevelopmentframeworkintroduced(162ndBoardmtg).

Leadership,managementandgovernance

Revisedpolicyforaddressingunsatisfactoryqualityininstitutionsafterchangestoinstitutionalreview(2011/36).SharedstrategyforrelationshipmanagementbetweenHEFCEandinstitutionalgoverningbodies(12/2011).

Collaboration,alliancesandmergersinHEguidancepublished(22/2012).InnovationandTransformationFund–jointLFHE.HEFCEinitiativetosupportefficienciesinHE(£1mover2years).HEFCEEqualityandDiversityScheme2012-14announced(2012/03).

Firstregisterofhighereducationproviderspublishedon-line(19/2014).

398

Category 2015 2016 2017 2018

ProfMadeleineAtkinsChiefExecutive(2014–2018)

Widerpolicycontext

ConservativeGovernmentelected.BISintroducesnewcontrolsandstandardsforalternativeproviders.GovernmentintendstointroduceaTeachingExcellenceFramework.GreenpaperonHEtoannounceclosureofHEFCEandcreationofOfficeforStudents,TeachingExcellenceFramework,enhancedWP,studentprotection,implicationsforresearch(consultationtorunto2016).NurseReviewReportonresearchfundingstructure.Counter-TerrorismandSecurityAct2015.

17percentfundingreductioninrealtermsforBIS.TheHEWhitePaper:SuccessasaKnowledgeEconomy:TeachingExcellence,SocialMobility&StudentChoicepublishedMay2016.TheHigherEducationandResearchBill2016-17haditsfirstreadingintheHouseofCommons19thMay2016.SternReviewofResearchexcellenceFramework.SainsburyReviewofskillspathwaysandqualifications.McMillanReview–internationalcompetitivenessofUKuniversitytechnologytransferpractice.

ConservativeGovernmentre-elected.HigherEducationandResearchBill2016-17agreedbyHouseofCommonsandHouseofLordsandreceivesRoyalAssentMay2017.InstituteofApprenticeshipsandTechnicalEducationannouncedinBill.UUKBellReviewofsectoragenciesrecommendsmergerofLeadershipFoundation,HEAcademyandEqualityChallengeUnit.Governmentlaunchesindustrialstrategytoboostproductivityandearningpower.Governmentsellspartofstudentloanbook.

OfficeforStudentslaunched.UKRIlaunched.HESAdatatobereplacedbyDataFutures(providinginyearanalysis)2019-20.Increaseinfeecapto£9,250.AdvanceHElaunched–mergerofHEA,EqualityChallengeUnitandLeadershipFoundation.

HEFCE Spendingreview:HEFCEtomakesavingsof£120mby2019-20inteachinggrantaspartofGovernmentmeasurestobringdownpublicdebt,but

HEFCEreportstoDfE,notBEIS(July2016).YearoneofTeachingExcellenceFramework.

YeartwoofTeachingExcellenceFramework.

‘Transition’offormulafinding,QAandregulatorresponsibilitiestoOfS.‘Transition’offormulafindingtoRCUK.YearthreeofTeachingExcellence

399

Category 2015 2016 2017 2018

protecthighcostsubjects.CounterTerrorismActandSecurityAct2015-HEFCEbecomesHEregulator.

Framework.

LearningandTeaching

Simplificationofrecurrentteachingfundsmethodandprocesses:nolonger3stagerecalculationprocess,willbeinformedbypreviousyear’sstudentnumbers,mainallocationforhigh-costsubjectsandsupplementaryallocationforLondonweighting,transitionalallocationonforecastsofold-regimestudentstobephasedout,changestopricegroupsforITTleadingtoQTS(30/2013,29/2014).SNCremovedfromHEFCEfundedproviders.Publiclyfundedfurthereducationandsixth-formcollegesinvitedtobecomedirectlyfundedbyHEFCE(2014/11).£1mtosupportprojectsinevaluatingmeasuresoflearninggain(04/2015).AmendmentstoKIS/NSSdata

LoanschemeforPGTstudentsintroduced,upto£10,000.ReducedoverallfundingofHEFCEgrantof£150mfor2015-16forrecurrentgrants(03/2016).Teachingrecurrentfundingreducedby£21m–STEMremainsapriority,newstreamoffundingforgeographicallyfocussednationaloutreachprogramme£30m2016-17,£60m2017-18tomeetPMsgoalof100%increaseinparticipationfromdisadvantagedbackgrounds(03/2016).Revisedoperatingmodelforqualityassessment–consistentwithEuropeanStandardsandGuidelines–moretailoredtoinstitution’scontext.SixyearreviewstobereplacedbyAnnualProviderReviewlighttouchreviews,withmorepowertointervene(2016/03,c13/2016,13/2016,18/2016,25/2016,2016/29).Tfundingof£80mby2019-20requiredtosupportthetransferofsubjectsalliedtomedicinefromDoHtoBIS(71stBoardmeeting).

DADFPhase2:fundingtostimulatedevelopmentofdegreeapprenticeships(£5mfor2017-8)(6/2016).

ChangestoKISsuchthatitbecomesUnistatsDataCollection,somechangestodatasettoaccommodateCMAadvice(04/2017).

ChangestoquestionsetforNSStoaccommodateTEFandalternativeprovidersnowrequiredtoparticipate(30/2016).

HEFCEbecomesresponsibleforsupportingstudentscompletingugcoursesinnursing,midwiferyandsomealliedhealthprofessionsprofessionalregistrationthroughHEfinancesystem(£32m)(06/2017).

£20mannouncedforaninstituteofnationalfocustoimprovedigitalskillsprovisionatlevels6&7for2017-19(08/2017).

ChangestosupportingPGTstudentsrevised(£1,100supplementforhighcostsubjectsre-considered)(2016/39).CatalystFund:Focusontacklingreligious-basedhatecrimeaffectingstudents(3/2018).HealthEducationChallengeFund-£200k(2018/02).

400

Category 2015 2016 2017 2018

collection–loweredheadcountthresholdfortpublicationofstudentleveldatato10(11/2015,12/2015).HESACACHEDprogramme–newwayofpresentingandusingHESAdata.HEFCEtousedatainregulatoryrole(196thBoardminutes).GuidanceonreportingstudentsindatareturnsforHEprovidersofferingcoursesthroughpartnershiparrangements(18/2015).HEatFECs,6thformcollegesandalternativeproviderstobeincludedinUKperformanceindicators(17/2015).StepstoPostgraduateStudy–on-linedecisionmakingtoollaunched.£150minteachinggrantsavingsfromnoincreaseinexpectedstudentnumbers,reductionin£10mforCatalystFund,grantreductionsforHEIsthatover-recruitedagainstSNCin2014-15(19/2015).Scalingfactorforhighcost

£8millionDegreeApprenticeshipsDevelopmentFund(DADF)forprogrammesreadyfor2017-18(c06/2016).

Recurrentfunding:maintaininginrealtermsthetotalteachinggrantbudgetsformainhigh-costsubjectallocationandforthetargetedallocationforveryhigh-costSTEMsubjects(physics;chemistry;chemicalengineering;andmineral,metallurgyandmaterialsengineering).Theamountofrecurrentteachinggrantcontinuestodecline,predominantlyasaresultofthecontinuingphase-outoffundingforold-regimestudents(thosestudents.Thesupplementforold-regimestudentsdeclinesby£54millionfrom£91millionin2015-16to£37millionin2016-17.(2016/09).

ChangestoKISdatacollection(9/2016)

DADFPhase1:fundingtostimulatedevelopmentofdegreeapprenticeships(£3mfor2016-17)(6/2016).

RevisedoperatingmodelforqualityassessmentsfollowingintroductionofTEF.TEFyear2guidanceannounced(2016/32).

HEFCEBoardconsiderrevisionstoT-fundingstrategytotargetfundingonsectorpriorities(access,studentsuccess,

PrinciplesforselectionofUKperformanceindicatorfactors(16/2017).

Trecurrentgrantreducedby£40m.£32mtosupportstudentsonnursing,midwiferyandothermedicinealignedcourses.£60mfornationalcollaborativeoutreachprogramme.£40(2016-17and2017-18)forstudentpremiums(f/t,p/t,disabledstudents(especiallymentalhealth)–doubledfunding(2017/05).

CatalystFund:focusonclosingtheskillsgapandsupportingtheindustrialstrategythroughcurriculumdevelopment(24/2017).NSStoincludequestionsoneffectivenessofstudents’unionsinsupportingstudentswiththeirstudies(09.11.2017Boardminutes).

Expansionofundergraduatemedicaleducationplaces:callforbidsforplaces(2017/20).

401

Category 2015 2016 2017 2018

fundingofnewregimestudentsreducedandscalingfactorforLondonstudentsreduced,allocationsrelatedtostudentopportunityfundfordisabledstudentsreducedby2.4%-tomakefurthersavings(19/2015).Fundingforemployerco-fundedoldregimestudentsceases(157thBoardmtg).£50mforPGRprovision(163rdBoardmtg).Additionalmeasuresintroducedforthecontrolandstandardsofalternativeproviders(164thBoardmtg).£1.5mavailablefordevelopmentofconversioncoursesinengineering(25/2015).LearningGainprogrammefundingextendedextensionoftheprogrammebudgetto£4million,2015-16to2017-18(169thBoardminutes).ChangestoNSSproposedincludingnewquestionsonstudentengagement(169thBoardminutes).

progressiontoPGT),reducedatareporting,needforvalueformoneyandfundingquality(Boardmtg11.05.2016).

CatalystFund-focusoninnovationsinL&T:addressingbarrierstostudentsuccess,studentsaveguarding(20/201636/2016).

402

Category 2015 2016 2017 2018

ConsultationonnewQAsysteminlinewithTEF.

Wideningparticipation

NationalScholarshipProgrammeceasesasundergraduatesupportprogrammewithre-focustosupportpostgraduatestudentsfromdis-advantagedbackgrounds(24/2013).PhasedinchangestoDisabledStudentsAllowance.NewsetofprinciplesforUKPIs-includesincreasedWPandresearchUKPIs(31/2015).

WPindicatorbasedonNationalStatisticsSocialEconomicClassifications4-7tobediscontinuedinUKperformanceindicatorsandwillberevised(17/2015).Recurrentgrantnewstreamoffundingforgeographicallyfocussednationaloutreachprogramme(NCOP)£30m2016-17,£60m2017-18tomeetPMsgoalof100%increaseinparticipationfromdisadvantagedbackgroundsandwhitemales,aswellasdoubleproportionofstudentsfromdisadvantagedbackgroundsandethnicminoritygroups(03/2016).Scoperevisedtoincludeincreasinginclusivity(27/2016).FormuladrivengrantsforWPreducedbudgetto£54mfrom£68m(03/2016).Disabledstudentsfundingdoublesto£40m-withdifferentfundingweightingstoimproveprovisionfordisabledstudentsin2016-17to£40million.Theincreaseistosupportinstitutionstomeettherapidriseinthenumberofstudentsreportingmentalhealthproblemsandtotransitiontowardsaninclusivesocialmodelofsupportfordisabledstudents.(03/2016,2016/06,2016/09).

Formulabasedwideningaccesstargetedallocationdiscontinued,nowincludedinNCOP(2016/39).StudentpremiumfordisabledstudentsandstudentsfromdisadvantagedbackgroundstoincludePOLARquintiles1and2andpart-timestudents(2016/39).

Discontinuedformulabasedwideningaccesstargetedallocationinrecurrentfunding(2017/05).

ChangestoPOLAR4classificationintroduced(2017/29).

Research Researchpartnership FourthroundofUKResearchPartnership MethodologyforQRResearch UKResearchPartnershipInvestmentFund

403

Category 2015 2016 2017 2018

investmentFund3rdround(£100m)(2013/35,2015/33).ParametersofresearchfundingmethodreviewedinlightofREF2014results.FundingforQRdisaggregatedaccordingtohowsub-profilescontributedtooverallqualityprofile,STEMadjustmentsandremovalofSTEMprotection,increaserelativequalityratingbetween4*and3*from3:1to4:1(03/2015).£52msavingsfromone-offtransitionalresearchallocationswhicharenolongerprovided(19/2015).ChangestopolicyonopenaccessinnextREF(20/2015).Removalofcaponsupervisionfundingratesperstudent(164thBoardmtg).NewsetofprinciplesforUKPIs-includesincreasedWPandresearchUKPIs(31/2015).

InvestmentFund(UKRPIF)£200mofmatchedfundingover2years(2014/17).2016-17recurrentgrantforresearch(QR)increasedby£20mto£1070m.Otherresearchrecurrentstreamsremainatthesamelevel(03/2016).

OpenaccesspolicyforREFupdated(32/2016,2016/35).

DegreeProgrammesupervisionfundingchangestotakeaccountofsupervisionacrossdualinstitutions(34/2016).ChangeinmethodforcountingPGRstudentsthatinformRDPsupervisiontoincludeonlyyear1-3(p/t1-6)(34/2016).Increaseinmainstreamresearchfundingof£17mtoincludeallocationfromGlobalChallengesResearchFundandfurther£11minOctober(24/2017).InitialdecisionsonREF2021frameworkpublished(33/2017/REF2017/01).CatalystFund:focusonsupportingmentalhealthandwellbeingforpostgraduateresearchstudents(40/2017).REFproceduralguidancepublishedOctober2017(2017/25).

(£220min2020-21)–researchcapabilityfunding6thround(2017/05).

Economyandsociety

HEIFfundingextendedforfurtheryearwith£10msupplement.£150mformainfundingmethod(03/2015,

HEIF£160mfor2016-17.Newapproachtoannualallocationsandannualmodifier(2016/16,176thBoard).

£100mannouncedtoincentiviseuniversitycollaborationinresearchcommercialisation,basedonHIEFmethodologycalledConnecting

404

Category 2015 2016 2017 2018

05/2015). CapacityFund.£15mformulafundingfor2017-18and£85mcompetitiveprojects2017-21(2017/03).RecurrentfundingforKnowledgeExchangeFundremainsat£160m(2017/05).CatalystFund:focusontacklinghatecrimeandonlineharassmentoncampus(20/2017).HEIF:additionalfundingforknowledgeexchangetodeliverGovernment’sindustrialstrategy£40m2017-18plus£25mrecurrentfunding(25/2017,(2017/24)).HEIF:Connectingcapabilityfund(secondround)fromexistingfunding(34/2017).

Finance,estateandassurance

ChangestofinancialreportingtomodelSORPpractices(02/2015).Changestomethodologyforformulateachingandresearchcapitalallocations(09/2015).

Reviewofinstitutionspecificfunding–newcriteriaintroduced(06/2015).ChangestotheMemorandumofAssuranceandAccountability0triggersforExchequerinterestrepayment(15/2016).Re-developmentofvalueformoneyreportingtorecognisechanginglandscapeforHEregulationandpolicy(alienswithDiamondReview)(23/2016).Museum,galleriesandcollectionsreview

CapitalInvestmentFrameworkfundingfor2017-18announcedbasedonpreviousfundingmethodology(£135mforteaching,£189mforresearch)(07/2017).Changetoinstitutionalfinancialstatementstoincludecorporategovernanceandinternalcontrol(27/2017).

405

Category 2015 2016 2017 2018

£10.7m.

Leadership,managementandgovernance

Preventduty:MonitoringFrameworkforthehighereducationsector(2015/32)CollegesgivenopportunitytoenterintoadirectfundingrelationshipwithHEFCEfor2016-17(169thBoardminutes).

RevisedframeworkforPreventduty(2016/24).

ChangestoframeworkformonitoringofPreventdutyinhighereducationinEnglandproducedfor2017(2017/10).HEFCEpublishesguidanceonseverancepayandremunerationofseniorstaff(June2017).

406

AppendixD:PERCEPTIONSOFCETLPARTICIPANTS,PRACTITIONERSANDPVCs

TheperceptionsofCETLparticipants,practitionersandPVCsforLearning&Teachingarecollatedfromthestatisticaldataprovidedinthesummativereport,andprovidesomeinsightintohowtheCETLprogrammewasviewed(seeChapter6).(SQW2011)©HEFCE

Pro-Vice-Chancellors %stronglyagreeoragree

%stronglydisagreeordisagree

B1 AsaresultoftheCETLprogramme,wehaveimprovedteachingandlearningpracticeinourinstitution

67% 7%

B2 AsaresultoftheCETLprogramme,wehaveintroduced(orimproved)processesforrecognisingandrewardingstaffexcellenceinteachingandlearning

54% 7%

B3 AsaresultoftheCETLprogramme,staffinourinstitutionnowhavemoretimeandopportunitytoreflectontheirteaching

47% 7%

B4 AsaresultoftheCETLprogramme,wehavebetterfacilitiesforteachingatouruniversity

53% 7%

B5 AsaresultoftheCETLprogramme,wehaveincreasedopportunitiesforbetterstaff-studentinteractionatourinstitution

46% 7%

B6 AsaresultoftheCETLprogramme,wehavedevelopedinnovativeapproachestoteachingandlearningatourinstitution

53% 7%

B7 AsaresultoftheCETLprogramme,staffatourinstitutionhavemoreopportunitiestoengageinpedagogicalresearchandscholarship

40% 7%

B8 IfyourinstitutionisinvolvedinmorethanoneCETL,ashostand/orpartner,pleasesaytowhatextenttheseCETLshaveworkedwelltogethertobenefityourinstitutionasawhole

20% -

C1 WhetherornotyouaredirectlyinvolvedinaCETL,areyouawareofanydevelopmentswithinspecificsubjectareasthathavearisenfromtheCETLprogramme?

47%Yes

40%No

-

D1 GoodpracticeandinnovationinlearningandteachinghavebeensharedbetweenCETLsandnon-CETLinstitutions

73% 13%

D2 CETLshavecontributedtoimprovementsinstudentretention,achievementandemployability

33% 13%

D3 TherehasbeeneffectiveworkingbetweenCETLs,theHigherEducationAcademyandotherorganisationsandnetworkstodevelopanddisseminatefindingsandgoodpracticemorewidely

60% 13%

D4 ThelevelofcollaborationbetweenandacrossCETLshasbeengood 40% 7%E3 ReflectingontheCETLprogrammeasawhole,doyouagreethat

theapproachtaketodevelopingandfundingtheprogrammewasthemosteffectivewaytorecogniseanddisseminateexcellenceinteachingandlearninginHE?

37% 33%

F1 WehaveputformalprocessesinplaceforreviewingCETLimpactsandincorporatingtheresultsintoourinstitutionalplanning

53% -

F2 DevelopmentsarisingfromourCETLarereflectedinourinstitution’sstrategicandoperationalplansandembeddedinourongoingprocessesandactivities

53% -

F3 TeachingandlearninghaveahigherstatusandprofileinourinstitutionasaresultoftheCETL

40% -

407

Pro-Vice-Chancellors %stronglyagreeoragree

%stronglydisagreeordisagree

F4

NowthatexternalCETLfundinghasceased,ourinstitutionisprovidinginternalresourcestosupportfurtherinnovationinlearningandteaching

60% -

F5 Ourinstitutionprovidesresourcesforstaffdevelopmenttoembednewapproachesinteachingandlearning

60% -

F6 OurinstitutioniscontinuingtocollaboratewithCETLpartnersandothernon-CETLinstitutionstosupportthedevelopmentofteachingandlearning

34% 13%

Participantsandpractitionersresponses %CETLemployees

%non-CETLemployees

B1 AsaresultoftheCETLprogramme,myoverallteachingandlearninghasimproved

91% 69%

B2 AsaresultoftheCETLprogramme,myexcellenceinteachingandlearninghasbeenrecognisedviapromotionorsomeotherformofrecognitionandreward

63% 28%

B3 AsaresultoftheCETLprogramme,Ihavehadmoretimeandopportunitytoreflectonmyteaching

70% 33%

B4 AsaresultoftheCETLprogramme,Ihavedevelopedinnovativeapproachestoteachingandlearning

90% 68%

B5 AsaresultoftheCETLprogramme,Ihavehadopportunitiestoengageinpedagogicalresearchandscholarship

81% 60%

C1 TheCETLprogrammehascontributedtoimprovedteachingandlearningpracticeinmyinstitution

92% 74%

C2 TheCETLprogrammehasencouragedmyinstitutiontorecogniseandrewardstaffforexcellenceinteachingandlearning

64% 47%

C3 TheCETLprogrammehasresultedinmoretimeandopportunitytoreflectonteachinginmyinstitution

69% 53%

C4 TheCETLprogrammehascontributedtotheadoptionofinnovativeapproachestoteachingandlearninginmyinstitution

86% 75%

C5 TheCETLprogrammehasresultedinmoreopportunitiestoengageinpedagogicalresearchandscholarshipatmyinstitution

87% 68%

C7 TheCETLsinwhichweareinvolvedhaveworkedwelltogethertobenefitourinstitutionasawhole(forrespondentswhoseinstitutionsareinvolvedinmorethanoneCETL)

34% 42%

D1 WhetherornotyouareorhavebeeninvolvedinaCETL.AreyouawareofanydevelopmentswithinspecificsubjectareasthathavearisenfromtheCETLprogramme?

76%Yes

5%No

56%Yes

24%NoE1 Goodpracticeandinnovationinteachingandlearninghavebeen

sharedbetweenCETLsandnon-CETLinstitutions61% 51%

E2 CETLshavecontributedtoimprovementsinstudentretention,achievementandemployability

76% 35%

E3 TherehasbeeneffectiveworkingbetweenCETLs,theHigherEducationAcademyandotherorganisationsandnetworkstodevelopanddisseminateCETLactivitiesandgoodpracticemorewidelyacrossthesector

56% 42%

E4 ThelevelofcollaborationbetweenandacrossCETLshasbeengood 51% 22%