How the Approval Process Works:

Notes for the Guidance of Chairs of Approval Panels

Selection

Chairs of Approval Panels already have considerable experience of the programme approval and review process. Their task is to manage the process which fundamentally underpins the quality of the University’s academic provision. The Chair is expected to liaise closely with the designated officer for the event in Central Quality Office who will provide additional advice and guidance on approval procedures and help resolve any issues that are likely to cause problems (particularly those of an institutional nature). The Chair is expected to be familiar with strategies and processes described in the Quality Assurance Handbook.

The Approval Meeting

At the start of the meeting the Chair should:

  • decide on seating – the ‘confrontational style’ (Panel on one side of the table, Programme Team on the other) is normally best avoided; it is useful for the Chair to sit next to the Central Quality Office representative
  • outline the background to the proposal and the terms of reference of the Approval Panel (e.g. new proposal, joint approval/accreditation event, etc.) and, particularly for the benefit of external members, the Panel’s role and possible outcomes of the event (e.g. approval with or without conditions and/or recommendations/non-approval and confirming that academic standards as set out in the Aide Memoire have been met)
  • set a positive tone for the meeting and make clear that the aim is to encourage a positive and constructive exchange of views
  • provide the opportunity for all participants to introduce themselves and to explain their role at the meetingincluding the student representative
  • go through the programme (which will have been prepared by the Central Quality Office representative prior to the meeting) and ascertain whether any adjustments are needed e.g. if an external member has to catch an early train

Agenda-setting

The Chair will invite Panel members to put forward agenda items, using the Aide Memoire for an Approval Panel as a guide.

The easiest way of doing this is to go round the table but the Chair should ensure that members outline their identified issues briefly at this time and do not enter into a detailed dialogue with the Programme Team.

The Chair may need to make a special effort to encourage industrial and professional representatives, who will probably not have had any experience of similar events, to participate fully in the discussions.

It can be helpful to invite individual members to lead on particular agenda items, ensuring, so far as is possible, that there is a fair division of time and contributions between all Panel members.

Meeting with Programme Team

Of the various components of the event the meeting with the Programme Team is usually the longest and invariably the most demanding for the Chair. It is also usually the most important for determining the outcome of the eventwhich should include confirmation that academic standards have been met. It is likely that the Team and especially the Programme Co-ordinator will feel nervous by the occasion. They are, after all, exposing their professional judgements to critical peer review. It is important for the Chair to establish a relaxed and supportive but businesslike atmosphere; the style of the proceedings should be rigorous but not confrontational and it is vital that the discussions are constructive, otherwise the Programme Team will not do itself justice and the process will be devalued in both the eyes of the Team and the Panel. The Chair should be friendly and courteous, whilst at the same time being purposeful, thorough and fair. Everyone should be given an opportunity to express their views. It is important that the Programme Team has a clear understanding of the main issues of concern (as perceived by the Panel) at the beginning of the meeting and that the agenda which is set addresses these issues as closely as possible thereafter.

The Chair is responsible for ensuring that the Panel completes the agenda. The themes identified should be given enough – but not too much - of an airing and all Panel members should be encouraged to participate in questioning and discussion. The Panel members who raised a particular issue are usually the best ones to pursue it with the Programme Team. The Chair should try to keep the Panel focused on the job in hand and avoid long-winded discussions which contribute little to resolving issues of concern.

The Chair will also be called upon to exercise sensitivity and judgement, for example, if an issue is identified which is not on the Panel’s agenda, but it would appear to be worth pursuing. The Chair must judge, perhaps in consultation with the other Panel members, as to the value of pursuing this line of enquiry at the expense of the other themes which had been identified. Sometimes the Chair must intervene to bring a line of questioning to an end if a Panel member is too persistent and does not accept an alternative point of view or if there appears to be acrimony or confrontation developing.

A complete record of the proceedings will be kept by the representative from Central Quality Office but the Chair must note the key points and potentialinterim conclusions arrived at during discussion in preparation for the summary discussion at the end of the event.

Conclusions and feedback

Towards the end of the meeting the Chair, assisted by the Central Quality Office representative, will summarise the discussions, guide the Panel to make general conclusions and clarify for Panel members the possible alternatives open to them. The Panel must be satisfied that the academic standards, as set out in the Aide Memoire have been met.

If there are conditions attached to the approval these must be carefully thought through and stated clearly. The Panel must agree whether or not the proposal will be given approval. If the recommendation is to approve the proposal, you should assist the Panel members to identify any conditions or recommendations attached to such an approval. The Chair must also decide who will need to review the response to any conditions (whole Panel/particular members/Chair’s action) and the timescale for fulfilling these conditions of approval.

If the outcome is to not approve, the Chair should provide a brief outline of areas, which have been agreed with Panel members’ and which require further improvement / development before the proposal can be reconsidered. Programme Teams must be made aware that further consideration of a revised proposal will need to be agreed by ADPC.

When the Panel has completed its deliberations the Chair should provide a brief but clear oral feedback of the Panel’s conclusions to the Programme Team. The Chair should ensure that praiseworthy points are given due weight together with critical comments and that any criticisms are framed constructively. The feedback should be firm and apart from requests for the clarification of a decision, it is inadvisable to enter into discussions about the justification for a decision at this point.

The Central Quality Office representative will prepare a full report of the outcomeswhich will be circulated to members of the Panel for comment as soon as possible after the meeting. The draft report should be checked carefully to ensure that the Panel’s and Team’s views are properly represented and the decision is correctly stated. In cases where conditions have to be met before approval the Chair will have an ongoing role, assisted by the Central Quality Office representative, in monitoring the Programmes Team’s response and it will only be after the conditions for approval have been met that the programme will be permitted to begin or continue.

Though intellectually demanding and requiring considerable managerial skills there is considerable professional satisfaction in ensuring that a potential academic programme is rigorously and constructively reviewed and evaluated and which meets academic standards as appropriate.

Guidance for Chairs 2017-181