Effective Collaborative Curriculum Development: promoting workforce development and widening participation through partnerships between higher education, further education and employers
Rosalind Foskett, School of Education, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton, SO17 1BJ. Email:
1. Introduction
Like any other area of social activity, education goes through phases of change fundamentally affecting how it operates. This paper looks at one element of change affecting higher education – the pressure for institutions to work within partnerships to develop curricula, thus facilitating widening access and workforce development. Research into collaboration, partnership and multi-agency working has been undertaken before (see for example Tett et al 2001; Tett et al, 2003; Wildridge et al, 2004) but this paper focuses specifically on undergraduate curriculum development.
In order to address the government’s agenda for education to work more closely with employers in designing curricula, as outlined, for example, in the prospectus for the new foundation degrees (HEFCE, 2000) and the Dearing Report (Dearing, 1997), partnerships have been developed between HE and FE establishments, and employers (Foskett, 2005a and b). This research paper presents part of a collective case study of curriculum development partnerships. The six undergraduate programmes, all involved collaboration between an HEI and one or more FE colleges. The employer engagement included public, private and voluntary organisations as well as the Sector Skills Councils and national employer groups. In the paper, the barriers encountered by the curriculum development teams are identified and a model framework for the development of effective collaboration is presented.
2. The Research Methodology
The research was undertaken during the academic year 2004-2005. It was designed as a collective case study of collaborative curriculum development and employed a mixed, but predominantly qualitative, methodology, involving documentary analysis, semi-structured interviews and a questionnaire survey. Two undergraduate programmes in each of three HEIs provided the context for the case study and the data was analysed mainly using qualitative data handling (Nvivo) and presentation methods.
People’s behaviour is the main focus and the use of qualitative methodology enhances the possibility of ‘capturing’ the unpredictability of people; one ‘bound to human caprices’ (Burns, 1994, p 120). There are numerous advantages of this methodology in studying how people behave in certain situations. Partnership is about relationships: how they develop and why they do, or don’t, flourish. The relationships are based on people contributing their skills and knowledge to a set of processes as the new curriculum is developed. Blumer (1969) believes that people are deliberate and intentional in their actions: they are creative and make meanings in and through their activities. People’s actions are affected by their perception. They interpret events and situations and they act on the basis of these constructs (Cohen, Manion and Morrison, 2000). Thus, individually constructed realities are an essential part of the environment and by using qualitative research methodology, we can begin to understand the social world through the eyes of the participants (Cohen, Manion and Morrison, 2000).
HE as a sector is diverse and any classification of the sector simplifies this complexity but there are three sub-sectors that typify the nature of the range of HEIs: the pre -1992 institutions; the post -1992 institutions and the university colleges. The HEIs were all located in southern England although the partnership members were spread across the United Kingdom. To be able to consider the multiple perspectives that exist in partnerships, the programmes selected needed to provide an opportunity to study multi-partner collaborative relationships. Each programme involved the HEI working with at least one other educational establishment and with employers, either directly or indirectly. Figure 1 shows the range of programmes sampled. Clearly, this was a purposive sample but it was also dimensional: each programme satisfying the criteria of being representative of the sector; having a relevant undergraduate collaborative programme; and being engaged with widening participation and/or workforce development.
The phases were broadly sequential but clearly some of the actual activities occurred in parallel. Phase 1 involved investigating the literature and key documentary evidence including official reports, strategic documents, validation materials and minutes of meetings. In Phase 2,
Figure 1 Purposive and dimensional sampling frame for the collaborative curriculum developments
Programme / Widening Participation aim / Workforce Development aim / PartnersOld University / Foundation Degree / Yes / Yes / HE/ FE/ National, regional and local employers
Cert HE/ DipHE / Partly / Yes / HE/National employers
New University / Foundation Degree / Yes / Yes / HE/ FE/ National, regional and local employers
HND / Yes / No / HE/FE/Examination Board (EdExcel) with employer involvement
University College / BA/Foundation Degree / Yes / Yes / HE/FE/ National, regional and local employers
Advanced Certificate / Yes / Yes / HE/FE/Local and regional employers
representatives from the programmes in the sample, together with senior staff from the HEI, other education partners and business, were interviewed. During Phase 3 the participants completed a questionnaire to gather factual information about the programmes and partnerships more quickly and effectively than through an interview. The questionnaire returns also provided some quantitative data about the institutions and their programmes and detail about the barriers and facilitators for collaborative curriculum development. Finally, Phase 4 involved the analysis of the data facilitated by the use of Nvivo and Excel.
3. The Barriers to Curriculum Development in Collaborative Partnerships
The interviews provided a rich source of data for analysing the barriers encountered by the curriculum teams. Using the coding and data analysis tools in Nvivo, a full list of barriers was abstracted, and the frequency and volume of text was identified to indicate the relative importance given to each barrier by the respondents. However, the analysis of the questionnaires had shown that a barrier might be present in a partnership but not necessarily significant in hindering progress. Significance of barriers was explored during the interviews. Using this analysis the list of barriers mentioned in the interviews was narrowed down to those which were given most emphasis. These are shown in rank order in Figure 4.
Five distinct groups of barrier types emerged from the data. Two of these mirrored the results of the questionnaires (resources (R) and institutional culture (C)). However, the interview data also indicated three further groupings around QA processes (Q), skills (S) and the external environment (E). These barriers are shown in Figure 5. Four of the groups are shown as walls encountered along the curriculum development journey (cultural, QA, skills and resource barriers). The fifth set exists because
Figure 4 The most significant barriers as emphasised by the respondents in the interviews
Rank / Barrier / Rank / Barrier1 / Institutional culture (C) / 14= / Overloaded individuals (R)
Resistance to change (C)
2 / QA procedures (Q)
3 / Finance (R) / 16= / Weak leadership (S)
Lack of trust (C)
4 / Time constraints (R)
5 / Resources (R) / 18= / Competition (E)
Lack of employer support (E)
6 / Lack of understanding (S)
7 / Lack of expertise (S) / 20= / Different priorities (C)
Lack of responsiveness (C)
Limited student numbers (E)
8 / Unequal power (C)
9 / Change of personnel (R)
10 / Poor communication (Q) / 23= / HE ivory tower (C)
Difficult to control & manage(S)
11 / Equity of provision (Q)
12 / Difficult work (S) / 25 / Vulnerable future (E)
13 / Institutional change (R)
C=Cultural barriers Q=QA barriers R=Resource barriers S= Skill barriers and E=External Environment barriers
of the nature of the external political, social and economic environment forming the context of the development. Each of the partners travels on a journey through the collaborative process, overcoming the barriers as they go, and ultimately are drawn much closer together in their work and understanding (shown by the arrows) as the partnership bears fruit.
3.1 Cultural Barriers
These barriers relate to the nature of the institutions in the partnership and the way that their different priorities, attitudes, values and modes of operation affect their ability to work collaboratively. The cultural barriers are shown as a wall with the ‘bricks’ being the different aspects of culture that emerged from the analysis. For example, each organisation has its own distinctive institutional culture that produces an environment where individuals know what is expected of them in different situations within their own institution. When individuals come together from different contexts, each partner needs to reassess how it will operate in the new situation.
3.2 Quality Assurance
The second group of barriers relates to the QA procedures associated with collaborative curriculum development. Development of a new programme requires two QA processes: validation of the programme and accreditation of the delivering institution (if not the HEI). The responsibility and accountability for these processes lies with the HEI, even though the FE colleges have their own QA processes. Both validation and accreditation have been developed to ensure the quality of the programmes and to provide a good experience for the students. All the respondents saw this as important but the interviews revealed that there were some elements of the process (the nature of the QA procedures, mitigating against inequity of provision; and poor communication) that were perceived as barriers to progress.
3.3 Skills Deficits
The third group of barriers is those relating to the skills sets required by the curriculum development team and two groups of skills were seen as important. These either related to the expertise of team members to engage with the curriculum, or related to the ability of the individuals to work as part of a collaborative relationship.
Figure 5 A Model of the Barriers Affecting the Collaborative Curriculum Development Process
3.4 Lack of Resources
As would be expected in any public service arena, the lack of resources to support collaborative curriculum development was seen by all respondents as a major barrier. This was not just money but also included a lack of skilled staff, time and other resources such as books, access to information technology and space. The HE funding model means that new developments have to be financed from existing resources. HEIs can only get funded places on new programmes by viring numbers from closing programmes or by applying for additional student numbers, which at the time of this study, were only available for new foundation degree programmes.
Several respondents said that that they were reassessing whether it was worth continuing with this type of activity despite its importance in delivering both workforce development and widening participation objectives.
‘It is incredibly expensive and I think you have got to ask yourself if it’s worth it and I think the only way you can do it, is actually to take a long cold hard look at how you do things for all your students.’ Partnership Manager, New University. Section 72:238.
This respondent articulates the dilemma that, even if it is valuable educationally, a programme cannot run if it constantly loses money – unless an institution is willing to subsidise it internally for altruistic reasons.
3.5 External Environment
Finally, the external environment is an important element of the context within which the partnership develops and the curriculum development occurs. Part of government policy assumes that employers will become more engaged with education in identifying the need for new programmes as skills gaps in the labour force are identified. This engagement is key but, even though there was evidence of it in most of the programmes, the interviews revealed real problems of getting and maintaining employer support.
The changing nature of the external environment means that all the partners are wary of how viable these programmes will be in the long term. They are largely working in new and untested markets and there was a real concern amongst the respondents that the time and effort required to set up the partnerships and validate the programme would not be repaid through continued buoyant recruitment.
The external environment is a product of the geography and the political, economic and social factors existing at the time. These factors are a key feature of understanding the barriers to collaboration and, even if these particular external factors (lack of employer support; vulnerable future; competition; and limited student numbers) are not present in other case studies, there will be other external contextual barriers which must be taken into account.
The model presented in Figure 5 therefore helps explain the multi-factorial nature of the barriers facing collaborative partnerships but it doesn’t reveal the impact of them or how they can be conceptualised to facilitate the process of collaborative development.
4 The Impact of the Barriers
There is a high degree of commonality between the partners, sectors and programmes in terms of the perceived barriers. However, there are also differences suggested by the evidence which can be used to develop a typology of barriers affecting partnerships of this kind. One dimension of the typology is the prevalence of the barrier. Some of the barriers are specific to a small number of programmes and for which they may be highly significant. Other barriers are perennial in that they are mentioned in every set of programme interviews. Thirdly, there is an intermediate group of barriers which are common (i.e. they are mentioned in the interviews of a majority of the programmes).
There is another dimension to this typology: the degree of action required by the team. In some cases it is enough that there is recognition of the barrier and little or no action is required either because there is nothing that the team can do to influence the barrier (as in the case of the vulnerable future barrier, for example) or because the problems are so intractable that the team can have little impact on them in the time frame of the collaboration (institutional culture for example).
A second category of this dimension is the group of barriers which needs consideration of whether action is needed or not. There is a decision to be taken here which should be discussed openly and the partners should decide what they are going to do. For example, where there are overloaded individuals, the partners will need to decide whether to accept the situation and live with the consequences or whether to seek action in terms of managing workloads or by-passing these individuals.