Quality Handbook
AQH-I1-16 Oversight of in-country accreditation and
approval requirements
Principles
1. It is essential that the University has oversight of in-country requirements which relates to
its collaborative provision as this carries a reputational risk for the University and may also
carry risks in relation to the student experience, student expectations in terms of
employment and further study, and the financial agreement with the University.
2. Front-line responsibility for conforming with in-country accreditation requirements and
managing the relevant processes rests with the partner and there is therefore a Code of
Practice (attached as appendix 1) to which partners are expected to adhere.
3. The University will carry out independent checks to ensure that in-country requirements are
understood as part of the standard processes relating to partner approval and review and
any changes to partnership arrangements.
4. The University should be made aware by the partner of the relevant processes at
appropriate times, and should provide documentation as required relating to the University
as a whole, to the programmes we offer via the partner and to the nature of the partnership.
5. Contact relating to the process will normally come from the partner to the faculty / faculties
involved and it will often be entirely appropriate for the faculty to handle the provision of
documentation especially where it relates to the detail of the programme. However the
faculty/ies should ensure that where information is required which can better, or more
quickly, be provided centrally this is sought and in any case that the University is informed
of the progress of in-country accreditation and especially of any areas of concern.
6. The main point of contact for faculties should in the first instance be Academic Services
which will include in-country accreditation on its Professional Statutory and Regulatory
Bodies (PSRB) database.
7. This process includes required and optional accreditation and accreditation at both
institutional and programmes levels.
Processes
1. At partner approval
Document1 v3 June 2015
Page 1 of 5
AQH-I1-19 In-Country requirements and Market Information for TNE partnerships must
be submitted to the Due Diligence Panel by the Head of Quality. Academic
Servicestogether with supporting documentation for overseas partnership proposals.
Evidence of in-country approval will always be required before programmes commence
2. At Partner Review
AQH-I1-19 In-Country requirements and market information for TNE partnerships must be
submitted to the Due Diligence Panel with relevant supporting documentation by the Head
of Quality, Academic Services
Evidence of in-country approval will be confirmed at partner review
3. Where there is an addition of a new programme to an existing partnership
AQH-I1-19 In-Country requirements and market information for TNE partnerships must be
submitted with AQH-I1-11 to ADC *with relevant supporting documentation by the Head of
Quality, Academic Services
*if appropriate
Evidence of in-country approval will be required before new programmes commence
4. Process for individual programme accreditation in-country
a) A member of a faculty (often a Centre or Programme Leader) who is informed
by a partner of in-country accreditation activity should inform the Associate
Dean (Student Experience) AD (SE) either directly or via the Faculty Quality
Officer and he/she should inform the Head of Quality in Academic Services.
b) The Associate Dean Student Experience should be made aware of what
information is being sought by the partner and advise Academic Services of any
requests which might be better addressed centrally. The Associate Dean may
contact other services direct for information; Academic Services will contact
other Services if required or advise the Faculty on where to seek further help.
c) Any documentation required by the partner from the faculty should be signed off
by the Associate Dean Student Experience or Chair of Faculty Quality
Management Sub Committee (QMSC) if different. If the Associate Dean has
concerns about any aspects of the documentation he/she should seek advice in
the first instance from Academic Services.
d) Any documentation to be provided centrally should be signed off by the relevant
Director or Associate Dean.
e) Text written by the partner and passed to the University concerning University
programmes or the partnership in general should be reviewed by the Associate
Dean Student Experience and, if it relates to institutional-level activity or issues,
passed to the relevant service for approval or further advice. Academic Services
will contact other Services if required or advise the Faculty on where to seek
further help.
Document1 v3 June 2015
Page 2 of 5
f)
If the in-country accreditation process requires the involvement of one or more
members of university staff this should be approved by the relevant Faculty
Associate Dean or Service Director or Associate Dean. It may be provided by
video-conference or in person (if the latter the partner should meet travel
expenses – see Code of Practice, appendix 1).
g) Any concerns about the progress or outcome of in-country accreditation must be
reported either to the Director of Academic Services or to the Deputy Vice
Chancellor (Academic)) immediately so that the risk can be assessed and the
possibility of further support be considered.
h) The partner is expected to provide the University (often via the faculty) with a
copy of the documentation relevant to the outcome of the in-country
accreditation activity. This may be a report and/or letter and/or certificate etc.
This should be lodged with the Faculty Office and a copy provided to Academic
Services which will log the outcomes on the database and ensure that Quality
Management Sub Committee (QMSC) is informed. Quality Management Sub
Committee (QMSC) will receive a copy of in-country accreditation reports.
i)
If the University is involved in responding to the recommendations of a report:
a. faculty responses and any supporting documentation must be approved
by the Associate Dean Student Experience (or Chair of Faculty Quality
Management Sub Committee (QMSC) if different);
b. the Associate Dean Student Experience (or Chair of Faculty Quality
Management Sub Committee (QMSC) if different) must ensure that any
issues which would be better responded to or supported by a central
service are appropriately referred. Academic Services will contact other
Services if required or advise the Faculty on where to seek further help;
c. faculty responses must be sent to Academic Services before being
forwarded to the partner for confirmation that no university-level issues
are involved. Any issues of concern will be discussed as appropriate with
senior colleagues;
d. Quality Management Sub Committee (QMSC) will receive a copy of the
relevant responses and will oversee any follow-up required to address
the recommendations as indicated in the responses;
e. where the recommendations indicate that there is a risk to the provision
or to the partnership Academic Services will inform the Deputy Vice
Chancellor (DVC) Academic who may require further intervention.
Document1 v3 June 2015
Page 3 of 5
Appendix 1
CODE OF PRACTICE FOR COLLABORATIVE PARTNERS ON IN-COUNTRY ACCREDITATION
The University of Sunderland wishes to support partners who have to seek in-country accreditation
of their programmes or of their institution as a whole to operate in collaboration with the University
and is willing to offer help to ensure that the most appropriate and up-to-date information is passed
on to accrediting bodies. Such activities carry risk not only for our partners but also for ourselves
and we wish to ensure that every opportunity is given to make a strong submission to an
accrediting body.
Where a partner organisation is required or chooses to seek accreditation either of the institution or
of specific programmes offered in conjunction with the University of Sunderland the partner is
asked to inform the University of the process and to seek advice and help in providing
documentation relevant to the University’s programmes. Contact may be made either with the
Faculty / Faculties concerned (normally via the Centre Leader) or with Academic Services
(normally via the Head of Quality ).
The University expects the partner to:
 understand local accreditation requirements and share information about this with the
University;
 make the University aware of the significance of the accreditation (e.g. whether it is
essential to allow programmes to run or provides some value-added);
 meet the costs of accreditation;
 take responsibility for managing in-country accreditation activities including liaising with the
accrediting body, planning meetings, meeting deadlines and assembling documentation;
 tell colleagues at the University in reasonable time that an accreditation is planned and
explain the scope and expected timescale of the accreditation;
 ask the University in reasonable time for documentation relating to its programmes and
procedures to ensure that copies of standard documentation used are the most up-to-date
and that any material which has to be provided specifically for the accreditation activity are
prepared by the most appropriate colleagues;
 ask the University to provide documentation or to approve text written by the partner
describing the relationship between the partner and the University;
 where appropriate and required, invite University colleagues to attend accreditation events
either in person or by video-conference. The partner will be expected to meet the costs of
travel and subsistence where applicable;
 keep the University informed of the progress of accreditation and alert the University
immediately to any concern which may suggest that accreditation might be withheld or that
there is a possibility of any other kind of risk;
 provide the University with a copy of any accreditation report or certificate or letter of
confirmation as applicable once this is received from the accrediting body;
 involve the University as appropriate in addressing any recommendations made by the
accrediting body. It is important that no assurances should be given to the accrediting body
in relation to programme developments or to the nature of the partnership without
consulting the University.
Document1 v3 June 2015
Page 4 of 5
Version 3.0 June 2015
VERSION HISTORY
Version
1.0
2.0
3.0
Occasion of
Change
Original placed in
Academic Quality
Handbook
Annual review of
Academic Quality
Handbook
Change
author
S Sutcliffe
Date of
modification
May 2011
Modifications made
A Carlton
August 2013
Clarification of acronyms
Implementation of
enhancement to
process – form
AQH-I1-19
J Greenlees
June 2015
Changes to process
Document1 v3 June 2015
Page 5 of 5