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: R.Foskett@soton.ac.uk
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
Ros Foskett
Page 1
18/02/2016
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,
Ros Foskett
Page 2
18/02/2016
Figure 1 Purposive and dimensional sampling frame for the
collaborative curriculum developments
Old
University
New
University
University
College
Programme
Widening
Participation
aim
Workforce
Development
aim
Partners
Foundation Degree
Yes
Yes
HE/ FE/ National,
regional and local
employers
Cert HE/ DipHE
Partly
Yes
HE/National
employers
Foundation Degree
Yes
Yes
HE/ FE/ National,
regional and local
employers
HND
Yes
No
HE/FE/Examination
Board (EdExcel) with
employer involvement
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
Ros Foskett
Page 3
18/02/2016
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
1
2
Barrier
Institutional culture (C)
QA procedures (Q)
Rank
14=
3
4
5
6
16=
7
8
9
Finance (R)
Time constraints (R)
Resources (R)
Lack of understanding
(S)
Lack of expertise (S)
Unequal power (C)
Change of personnel (R)
10
11
Poor communication (Q)
Equity of provision (Q)
23=
12
13
Difficult work (S)
Institutional change (R)
25
18=
20=
Barrier
Overloaded individuals
(R)
Resistance to change (C)
Weak leadership (S)
Lack of trust (C)
Competition (E)
Lack of employer
support (E)
Different priorities (C)
Lack of responsiveness
(C)
Limited student numbers
(E)
HE ivory tower (C)
Difficult to control &
manage(S)
Vulnerable future (E)
C=Cultural barriers Q=QA barriers R=Resource barriers S= Skill
barriers and E=External Environment barriers
Ros Foskett
Page 4
18/02/2016
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.
Ros Foskett
Page 5
18/02/2016
Figure 5 A Model of the Barriers Affecting the Collaborative
Curriculum Development Process
HE Partner
Resource
Barriers
Lack of Money
FE Partner
Lack of Time
Lack of Other
Resources
Change of
personnel
Skill
Barriers
Lack of
Understanding
Employer Partner
Overloaded
Individuals
Institutional
change
Lack of
Expertise
Weak
Leadership
Lack of skill to
Manage
Difficult work
Quality
Assurance
Barriers
QA
Procedures
Inequity of
Provision
Poor
Communication
Cultural
Barriers
Lack of
Trust
Institutional
Culture
Lack of
Responsiveness
HE Ivory
Tower
Unequal
Power
Conservatism
Different
Priorities
Collaborative
Partnership
Competition
Lack of employer
support
Vulnerable
future
Ros Foskett
External Environment Barriers
Page 6
Limited student
numbers
18/02/2016
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
Ros Foskett
Page 7
18/02/2016
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 multifactorial 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
Ros Foskett
Page 8
18/02/2016
the situation and live with the consequences or whether to seek action in
terms of managing workloads or by-passing these individuals.
The third category is the type of barrier which requires action. In this
case the barrier is so fundamental to progress that it cannot be ignored
and action must be taken. An example of this is a lack of expertise.
Curriculum development is complex and requires expert input in terms of
the subject content, the pedagogy and the QA processes. The team will
need to be sure that it has access to all the required expertise at an
early stage or make provisions for obtaining it.
Figure 6 shows this two dimensional typology of barriers with prevalence
shown vertically and the degree of action required shown horizontally.
In Figure 7 the cells in the typology only show the groups to which the
barriers belong.
Figure 6 Two Dimensional Typology of Barriers
PERENNIAL
COMMON
SPECIFIC
ACTION
CONSIDERATION
RECOGNITION
Finance R
QA Procedures Q
Time Constraints R
Lack of Expertise S
Resources R
Lack of
Understanding S
Equity of Provision
Q
Poor Communication
Q
Difficult to control
and Manage S
Weak Leadership S
Unequal Power C
Change of Personnel R
Overloaded individuals R
Different Priorities C
Resistance to Change C
Institutional culture C
Lack of Employer
Support E
Lack of Trust C
Lack of Responsiveness C
Difficult Work S
Limited Student
Numbers E
HE Ivory Tower C
Vulnerable Future E
Institutional Change R
Competition E
Figure 7 Typology of Barriers showing the Barrier Groups
PERENNIAL
COMMON
SPECIFIC
Ros Foskett
ACTION
CONSIDERATION
RECOGNITION
Resources (R)
Quality Assurance
(Q)
Skills (S)
Quality Assurance
Skills
Resources
Culture (C)
Culture
External Environment
Culture
Skills
Culture
External Environment
Skills
Resources
External Environment (E)
Page 9
18/02/2016
Although it is important for teams to be aware of all the potential
barriers, those that require action or consideration of action are of
particular importance. These are where good leadership can mitigate the
worst effects and can facilitate progress.
By studying the tables in Figure 6 and 7, it is evident that the categories
of barriers tend to occur in some of the cells and not others. Their
position in the typology are shown in Figure 8. The diagram for Resources
(8a) shows that these barriers are perennial and in each case the
resource barrier requires action or consideration of action. Decisions
need to be taken at an early stage about how the curriculum development
and the partnership will be resourced. They may need to be financed upfront through a development fund or they may need to be provided by
goodwill by the partners. These decisions need to be overt and
understood.
Figure 8 The Position of each Barrier Group within the Typology
(a) Resources (R)
A
P
C
S
C
(b) Quality Assurance (Q)
A
C
P
C
S
(c) Skills (S)
A
P
C
S
Ros Foskett
C
(d) Culture (C)
A
P
C
S
R
C
R
(e) External Environment (E)
A
C
R
P
C
S
R
R
Page 10
18/02/2016
Figure 8b shows the position of the QA barriers. These are present in all
programmes to some degree. Inspection frameworks require that institutions
comply with QA guidelines and, therefore, these must be overcome. It would
assist collaboration if these issues were explicitly understood and dealt with
from the start. The position of the Skills barriers (8c) also indicates that they
are always present and, more importantly, they require action or consideration
of action. Skills deficits in curriculum development, partnership work or team
working are critical to a successful outcome.
Cultural barriers (8d) are always present and are often significant but, in most
cases, there is little to be done to mitigate their effects. For some (eg unequal
power or resistance to change) the barrier should be discussed and a decision
taken but in most cases nothing can be done apart from recognising that cultural
differences might cause difficulty. It is a case of being forewarned and,
therefore, forearmed. Finally, there are the External Environment barriers
(8e) which need to be recognised but over which the partnership has little
control. Some specific factors may require a consideration of action (as in the
case of competition) but they form the political, economic and social context
within which all the partners have to work.
As we saw earlier, a third element needs to be added to the typology: the
significance of the barrier i.e. its impact on progress according to the
respondents. For example, the perennial group of barriers can be split into two;
those that are perennial and significant (i.e. they are always present and in the
top ten list of barriers for the majority of programmes) and those that are
perennial but less significant (ie they are always present but do not necessarily
rate very highly). Figure 9 shows the barriers in each of these groups.
Figure 9: The Significance of the Perennial Barriers
ACTION
PERENNIAL AND
SIGNIFICANT
PERENNIAL AND
LESS
SIGNIFICANT
Ros Foskett
Finance R
QA Procedures Q
Time Constraints R
Lack of Expertise
S
Resources R
Lack of
Understanding S
Equity of Provision
Q
CONSIDERATION
RECOGNITION
Institutional culture C
Unequal Power C
Change of Personnel R
Overloaded individuals R
Different Priorities C
Resistance to Change C
Page 11
Lack of Employer
Support E
Lack of Trust C
18/02/2016
The significance of the barrier will affect the importance of the decisions
taken by the partnership to overcome it. Even for barriers that are highly
specific and affect only one programme, the barrier may have a high
significance in its impact on progress. Conceptually, therefore, the typology
needs to show this third dimension (Figure 10).
The cube demonstrates the interrelationship between the three dimensions of
the typology. The location of two barriers has been shown as an example.
Finance is a perennial barrier of high significance which needs to be acted upon
to ensure the curriculum development can proceed whereas Lack of Trust is a
barrier which is perennial, of lower significance and needs to be recognised as a
barrier that could impact on progress. Clearly this is a conceptual model and
assists in understanding the interplay of the three dimensions and provides a
better understanding of the potential impact of barriers.
Figure 10: A Conceptual Model of Barriers in Collaborative Curriculum
Development
+
+
Ros Foskett
Page 12
18/02/2016
5 Developing a Model for Effective Partnership Working
This research project was also concerned with examining how partnerships can
be made more effective in the development of a needs-led curriculum. Further
analysis of the interviews revealed the ways that the partnerships overcame
the barriers that faced them. These can be grouped into four clusters and are
shown in Figure 11 under the heading ‘Solutions’ . The first set (clarity of
purpose, commitment to aims, viability, and experience) relate to why the
programme and partnership was set up. Evidence from the data suggests that
being clear about the purpose and committed to the aims is essential for
success. The partners will only persevere to overcome barriers if the resultant
programme is perceived to be viable. A further factor in this group is
experience – more successful collaborations tend to be those where there is
experience of successful partnership working, where partners have worked
together before, and where the people already have the necessary skills. All of
these factors provide answers to the questions posed in the second column of
the model ‘Questions’ which define the first ‘Stage’ of the process (the
PURPOSE). Thus, from the outset, everyone should be clear about why the
programme is being developed, why it’s being done in partnership and who the
partners are.
The second cluster of solutions (senior management involvement, partnership
involvement etc) is about developing the partnership in such a way that it is
ready to do its task. It involves relationship building and getting senior
management endorsement. It is about developing trust and mutual
understanding and ensuring that the key people have time for the project. The
questions at this stage are about COMMITMENT to the project in practice as
well as in theory. Stages one and two (Purpose and Commitment) can take a long
time and, the evidence in this research suggests that it is time well-spent. Even
at the expense of some frustration at slow initial progress, getting the purpose
defined well and ensuring that all partners are committed to providing the
resources necessary is essential to a successful outcome.
The third cluster (leadership, strong management, etc) relates to the project
moving forward. It involves putting in place the processes and systems which
facilitate the MANAGEMENT of the curriculum development across the whole
partnership. The questions relate to both leadership and management.
Ros Foskett
Page 13
18/02/2016
Figure 11 A Model of Effective Partnership Development
Clarity of purpose
Commitment to aims
Viability
Experience
Why are we doing this project?
Why do this in partnership?
Senior management involvement
Partnership involvement
Mutual understanding
Trust
Getting the right team
Budgeting time
Are we committed to the project and
partnership?
Can we work together?
Can we commit the resources?
Have we got the right leadership?
Have we got the management skills?
How do we manage the processes?
Leadership
Strong management
Communication
Memorandum of Agreement
Quality Assurance
How can we make it better?
Evaluate success
Staff development
Develop student support
Outreach
Ros Foskett
Page 14
18/02/2016
The final cluster (evaluate success, staff development, etc) relates to
evaluation and enhancement. The key question here is, now that the process
is underway, how can we make it better for the partners and for students?
This stage I have called DEVELOPMENT and it represents a circular process
of implementation, evaluation and implementation of further changes as
necessary.
The model framework therefore consists of four stages:
PURPOSE  COMMITMENT  MANAGEMENT  DEVELOPMENT.
At each stage, there are key questions to be asked by the partnership in
order to strengthen the process and to pre-empt many of the barriers seen
in the earlier section. The solutions draw on the combined experience from
the six collaborative partnerships and provide a model of effective
partnership development.
6 Conclusion
The respondents in this case study have all been involved in collaborative
curriculum development and this paper draws on their experience in overcoming the barriers which beset such partnerships. In most cases, they have
learned by trial and effort and have expended energy in finding a way
through the problems. The solutions proposed here have therefore come
from experience. The model framework proposed in section 5 is drawn from
this experience and it identifies four critical stages at which questions can
be asked and solutions put in place to anticipate potential barriers and
alleviate difficulties if they have already surfaced. In this way, more
effective partnerships can be forged to develop relevant and responsive
programmes and the barriers can be anticipated and overcome before
problems surface.
Ros Foskett
Page 15
18/02/2016
References
Blumer, H., 1969, Symbolic Interactionism, Englewood Cliffs, NJ:PrenticeHall.
Burns, R.B., 1994, Introduction to Research Methods in Education, 2nd
Edition, Melbourne Longman Cheshire.
Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K., 2000, Research Methods in
Education, (fifth edition), London and New York: Routledge Falmer.
Dearing, R. (1997) Higher Education in the Learning Society: Report of
the National Committee of Inquiry in Higher Education, London: HMSO.
Department for Education and Employment/HEFCE (2000) Foundation
Degree Prospectus, Bristol: HEFCE.
Foskett, R., 2005b, Collaborative Partnership in the Higher Education
Curriculum: a cross sector case study of foundation degree development,
Research in Post-Compulsory Education, Vol 10 (3), 351-372.
Foskett, R., 2005a Collaborative Partnerships between HE and Employers: a
study of workforce development, Journal of Further and Higher Education,
Vol 29(3) pp 251-264.
Tett, L., Crowther, J. and O’Hara, P. (2003) Collaborative partnerships in
community education, Journal of Education Policy, 18(1), pp. 37-51.
Tett, L., Munn, P., Blair, A., Kay, H., Martin, I., Martin, J., and Ranson, S.
(2001) Collaboration between schools and community education agencies in
tackling social exclusion, Research Papers in Education, 16(1), pp. 1-19.
Wildridge, V., Childs, S., Cawthra, L. and Madge, B. (2004) How to create
successful partnerships – a review of the literature, Health Information
and Libraries Journal, 21, pp 3-19.
Ros Foskett
Page 16
18/02/2016