Challenges to FE/HE Collaboration in Implementing a Widening
Participation Strategy
Mike Doyle
Cohort 5
Ph D Educational Research
University of Lancaster
PCOD Assignment – January 2001
This is one of a set of papers and work in progress written by research
postgraduates (MPhil and PhD) at Lancaster University's Department of
Educational Research. The papers are primarily offered as examples of work
that others at similar stages of their research careers can refer to and engage
with.
1
The purpose of this paper is investigate organizational and cultural challenges
to universities and Further Education institutions in working through
partnerships to deliver effective widening participation policy implementation
strategies. A case study will be used to consider policy issues and priorities,
strategic approaches adopted, how policy formulation and implementation has
been framed at a local level, and an analysis of how organizational and cultural
issues have influenced policy development and implementation at the
partnership interface.
The case study focuses on a single urban university in Greater Manchester with
strategic links with nine ‘associate’ colleges, and a less formal partnership
arrangement with twenty five other further education colleges (FEC’s) across
the North West (its ‘FE/HE Consortium’). The original motivation for the links
between the institutions was to widen access, and arrangements between the
University and its associate colleges have matured to incorporate memoranda
of co-operation and specific policy formulation on progression protocols,
quality issues, curriculum alignment and student guidance as priorities in a
developing strategy.
This study focuses on the first year of collaboration (1999/2000), in an attempt
to highlight issues that may be relevant to other HE/FE partnerships,
particularly those recently involved in Widening Participation policy
implementation supported by funding from the Higher Education Funding
Council for England (1998-2000), through both formula and special funding, to
a cost of £150 million (HEFCE, 1999a).
Following an outline of the research design the paper contextualises the
partnership being investigated within the broad Widening Participation policy
framework, and considers how such factors as market pressures and funding
methodologies are impacting on intra- and inter-educational sector
collaboration. Information on the case study partners is then provided, followed
by the data and its analysis. Huxham’s (1993) concepts of ‘collaborative
capability’, ‘collaborative advantage’ and ‘meta-strategy’ will be used in the
analysis of the partnership.
Investigating collaborative processes for widening participation
The research involved participation over an academic year with a university in
Greater Manchester and its nine associate colleges. This represents the first
year of the formal associate college relationship, and the process is planned to
2
represent the early stages of a move to a more strategic regional policy by the
University. Sixty percent of the University’s annual intake is from within a fifty
mile radius, and forty percent from the colleges in its FE/HE Consortium.
This consortium was established in 1993 with the aim of enhancing progression
opportunities to HE for ‘non-traditional’ students, largely through Access to
Higher Education courses delivered by the FE partners, and the development
and embedding of procedures for the accreditation of prior learning. In
academic year 1999/2000 over 30% of the University’s annual intake was from
socio-economic groups (SEG) III/IV/V (20% from IV/V), compared to an
average for all Manchester universities of 24% (HEFCE, 2000a). The
University’s strategy was therefore well established before the recent
(1998/2000) HEFCE (1998a) funded policy drive to widen participation. The
strategy emphasis with the associate colleges is to widen participation for all
students, including 16-19 year olds following traditional routes to
matriculation.
Three of the nine colleges have been selected for investigation. The rationale
for this is that they broadly represent college ‘type’. College A is a large mixedeconomy college with approximately 10% of its work classed as HE. College B
is a traditional medium size FE college with a broad spectrum of academic and
vocational courses. College C is a small sixth form college, with a strong
academic tradition, and its focus largely on 16-19 year old students. Each
college has its own Steering Group with the University, to formulate and
oversee the implementation of strategy, and the Steering Groups met twice over
the year (each semester). The researcher attended these meetings. The research
design is modeled in Fig. 1
The University has four faculties, and Curriculum Groups have been set up for
each college with each faculty. These each met three times over the academic
year, and for the purposes of this research two of the four faculties have been
selected. These are Health and Arts, Media and Social Science (AMSS). The
rationale for this selection is that the former represents courses of a highly
professional and vocational nature, while the latter’s courses are traditionally
academic. The researcher participated as an observer in all Curriculum Group
meetings between these two faculties and the three colleges.
The Curriculum Groups were identified by the University as the interface
between the two sectors in policy development and implementation. In
particular the Curriculum Groups, composed of lecturers from similar subject
backgrounds across the two sectors, were briefed to map and align curriculum
3
for widening progression, and identify potential for the enrichment of student
learning. The research design, therefore, has focused on this structure of policy
formulation at strategic levels across the two sectors, and interpretation,
development and implementation of policy through the Curriculum Groups.
4
Fig. 1 RESEARCH DESIGN
Policy Formulation
and Strategy
University
Three Associate Colleges
PVC Teaching & Learning [Interview]
College Vice Principals
[Interviews]
Two Steering Group Meetings per
College [Participation/Observation]
Three Curriculum Group Meetings per
College per Faculty [18 Meetings]
Policy Development
and Implementation
Two Curriculum
Group Chairs [Interviews]
Curriculum Group members
[Focus Groups with Three Colleges]
Faculties
Colleges
 AMSS
Traditional, Academic High Research Focus

A – Large Mixed-Economy

B – Traditional FE: Vocational/Academic

C – Small 6th Form College
 Health
Professional / Vocational
5
As well as observation at strategic and developmental levels, the research
involved semi-structured interviews with staff responsible for strategy within
each of the partners (the PVC for Teaching and Learning at the University, and
Vice Principals at each of the three colleges). Semi-structured interviews were
also used with the chairs of the Curriculum Groups. (The same individuals in
each faculty chaired Curriculum Group meetings with all colleges). Finally, the
researcher conducted focus groups with Curriculum Group members of each of
the three colleges. These were conducted within the colleges and combined
members from both Curriculum Groups (Health and AMSS).
Both interviews and focus groups with the colleges involved a degree of
‘funneling’ (Morgan, 1997) prior to detailed questions on the Curriculum
Groups, facilitating data collection on organizational and cultural issues
relating to policy implementation in the FE sector, particularly since
incorporation in 1993. This was felt necessary in any attempt to understand
conceptual, cultural and organizational similarities and differences at the sector
interface. A similar approach was used in the interviews with the University
staff.
Data selected for analysis for this paper relates to the expectations of the
Curriculum Groups and subsequent perceptions of their effectiveness, from
both strategic and developmental perspectives across both sectors. The analysis
will draw on theory from both organizational and cultural perspectives in an
attempt to highlight issues of significance to inter-sector partnerships in
implementing Widening Participation policy.
The researcher’s role in contributing to the development and implementation of
policy has to be taken into account in interpreting the data. Development and
research roles have been made explicit from the start of the project, to all
parties at all levels. It is acknowledged that in this case the fact that the
researcher was known, to a varying extent, by all of the respondents appears an
advantage in the sense that familiarity with the context and the issues facilitated
a more detailed and open response. However, it also has to be acknowledged
that these advantages have to be set against college staff perceptions, in
particular, of the role of the individual and their experience of him as
‘developer’, as opposed to ‘researcher’.
The focus groups had the advantage of college staff being able to reflect on
expectations and experience within their own environment. Rarely was there
7
disagreement within the groups, and none of the groups were dominated by
particular individuals. This could be interpreted as displays of ‘public
discourse’ (Kitzinger, 1994), as opposed to ‘private views’ expressed in
individual interviews (Temple, 1998). Although the researcher role was
stressed in these sessions, and seemingly accepted, the degree of apparent
consensus might be interpreted as deference to a developer from a more
powerful institution in the partnership. This is to be offset, however, by the
degree of frankness and criticism within the consensus across the focus groups.
Indeed Smithson (2000) argues focus groups should be seen as discourses that
emerge, ‘constructed in social situations’, rather than group opinion or the
opinions of individuals within groups.
Further contextual information about the participating institutions is provided
following an evaluation of the policy context. This has the following structure:
an evaluation of the primacy of partnership in the delivery of policy is
subsequently considered in a context of new public sector management practice
and funding strategy. A brief review of the literature on FE/HE partnerships is
also provided, and Huxham’s concept of ‘collaborative capability ’is then
introduced and subsequently used in the analysis of the case study
Widening participation and regional collaboration through partnership
Coles and Smith (1999, 2) proclaim that:
partnership has become a leitmotiv of higher education,
but that there is no single definition:
…’partnership’, ‘alliances’, ‘networks’ and ‘collaboration’ are often used to
describe broadly similar processes in various contexts
Throughout this paper ‘partnerships’ refers to collaborative arrangements,
local and regional in conception and delivery, between Further and Higher
Education, designed to formalize and simplify regional progression
arrangements, largely to the benefit of those traditionally under-represented in
HE. It is recognized that other agencies, such as Local Authorities, Regional
Development Agencies and Learning and Skills Councils will play a significant
but more marginal and instrumental role in these partnerships.
8
The move to increase participation rates in higher education, following
publication of the Government’s 1991 White Paper Higher Education: A New
Framework, resulted in increased links between Higher and Further Education
institutions. The current policy mantra in the UK of widening participation is
driven by a combination of utilitarian and progressive perspectives: a push to
accelerate the move into a truly mass system of higher education, whilst
attempting to diversify the social mix of its beneficiaries. The formulation and
approaches to the delivery of this policy have stressed the significance of
regional collaboration between Further and Higher Education.
Policy and funding initiatives have increased pressure and incentives to
collaborate. Agendas of lifelong learning, social inclusion, the skills deficit and
the flexibility of labour markets have reinforced the drive to local and regional
collaboration (NCIHE (1997), Fryer (1997), Kennedy (1997), Woodrow
(1998), HEFCE (1998b)). The establishment of Education Action Zones,
Learning and Skills Councils, the powers invested in the Regional
Development Agencies, and policies such as Excellence in Cities (DfEE, 2000),
alongside structural issues such as changes in student funding, have reinforced
the necessity for universities to collaborate locally and regionally with potential
providers of students. The funding of places on sub-degree courses in the FE
sector, validated by HE, such as the new Foundation Degrees have also
reinforced this trend.
The policy discourse is translated into priorities identified by funding agencies
and the consequent policies of FE and HE institutions, as well as other regional
agencies. HEFCE, for example, outlined a broad funding strategy for widening
participation in HEI’s. Amongst key principles envisaged was the need to:
increase collaboration between HEI’s and partners from other education
sectors to improve progression routes to HE from underrepresented groups
(HEFCE 1998a, 14.b)
and a key funding objective linked to this was to:
build partnerships between HEI’s, schools and especially the FE sector to
improve progression rates to HE of previously disadvantaged students
(HEFCE, 1999a, funding objective 2d).
However, HEFCE policy is based on the recognition of the need for
partnerships to address the widening participation agenda. The transition from
9
an elite to a mass system of higher education is now complete (Scott, 1995).
Evidence of this is provided by the Age Participation Index (the percentage of
18 year-olds participating in HE), which between 1988 and 1994 moved from
17 to 31 percent (Robertson and Hillman, 1997).
However, the expansion has largely benefited the middle classes. Fryer, for
example, citing DfEE data on ‘the highest qualifications of adults’ (1998) at the
Association of University Administrators’ Conference in 1998 demonstrated
that while the percentage of SEG I/II with degrees rose from 32% in 1990 to
60% in 1998, during the same period the percentage of SEG IV/V equally
qualified fell from 3 % to 1%. Metcalfe (1997), used the DfEE Qualified
Participation and Qualified Leaver Indices (QPI/QLI) to show that only 16% of
SEG IV/V reached the QLI (qualified to progress to HE) compared to 50% of
SEG I/II, but more significantly, of those qualified, 47% of SEG IV/V
progressed to HE compared to 77% from SEG I/II.
HEFCE’s priority in funding its widening participation strategy is to increase
recruitment and retention of students from underrepresented groups by
targeting two main groups: disabled students and those from ‘disadvantaged
backgrounds’. The consultative paper on widening participation circulated by
HEFCE (1998a) was addressed specifically to managers, defined as those
interested in planning, finance, recruitment, equal opportunities and access. It
proposed a combination of funding approaches to encourage institutions to
develop strategic approaches (Hoy, Kumrai and Webb, 2000), and invitations to
bid for special funds were circulated (HEFCE, 1999a).
Recruitment (defined as increased participation by under-represented groups)
and retention (help for students from under-represented groups) were
prioritized. The most recent HEFCE proposals (2000-01 to 2003-04) place most
stress on recruitment and ‘raising the aspirations of all’, linking this strongly to
Excellence in Cities partnerships and the provision of extra support for students
under 21 in the form of ‘Opportunity Bursaries’ (HEFCE, 2000b).
Hoy, Kumrai and Webb (op.cit) have identified a number of common themes in
the bids funded by HEFCE, the most prevalent being the reference to
partnerships. They comment that
What is interesting is what the organisations’statements, as summarized by
HEFCE, suggest will be the role of partnerships in widening participation. On
this the summaries are relatively silent.
10
They state that where partnership is mentioned there is an implicitness that the
activity itself fosters widening participation:
In other words developing the partnership seems to be the strategy by which
institutions can ‘maximise synergy’ (UNL et. al.), ‘exchange good practice’
(Kingston et. al.), or address ‘understanding of the two cultures’ (Woolwich et.
al.). Similarly, for institutions where such links have not formally developed,
the focus is on building a ‘set of core partners among the FE colleges’
(Imperial College)…
Sectoral and inter-sectoral partnerships, seen as key units in policy delivery, are
expected to and assumed to be able to operate effectively on a regional basis.
HEFCE makes little allowance for local tensions, potential conflict and market
pressures, in particular between FE colleges (competing corporations since
1993), in collaborating with a local HEI (and indeed market conflict between
HEI’s and potential FE partners where competition exists; for example where
sub-degree qualifications are on offer, such as HND’s). The Widening
Participation policy strategy seems essentially functionalist and based on an
approach characterized by instrumental rationality (Sanderson, 1999), premised
on an assumption that partnerships between HEI’s and FEI’s can and will
develop and deliver policy.
Collaboration and Competition?
Collaboration is being driven as the process of policy delivery in an
environment characterized by competition and market values, which has
dominated new public management practice and discourse. Whether these
practices are competing or transitional is not clear. However, public sector
drives towards competitiveness and sustainability are equated with efficiency,
effectiveness and general ‘performativity’ (Lyotard, 1984). This involves the
definition of ‘core activity’, maximizing the return on the ‘unit of resource’,
and minimizing risk. A consequence for both FE and HE sectors for example is
the need to maximize recruitment: funding units for the FE sector depend on
recruiting students in a limited geographical area. Competition has been and is
intense, and colleges have been driven by new public management practice in
an attempt to maximize efficiency. The tension and difficulty this causes in
attempting to formulate working partnerships within a region are illustrated by
the Vice Principal of College A:
…if you look at HEFCE it would encourage us to work with regional partners
to develop a strategic view to HE. But…one thing incorporation did was
11
encourage competition. You can hardly turn around a decade of competition
and say ‘well you know we are not competing any more, we are more partners,
co-operating’, and then still say ‘by the way you have got to meet your funding
targets’.
Competition, funding restrictions and performativity have inhibited the ability
and willingness to ‘take risks’. The Vice Principal of College B commented:
I think there is now an unwillingness to take risks and be creative. Anything
new, I can think of some programmes…if they had been proposed now they
would never have been approved. Anything new that is proposed now has to be
seen as being immediately successful and hit the ground running. There’s no
longer a comfortable trial period. So the risk taking, I would say is almost
negligible really.
Clarke and Newman (1997:147) highlight this tension between collaboration
and ‘performativity’:
Issues of strategy and purpose are posed in terms of a narrow sense of core
business rather than a wider public purpose. This in turn means that being
effective has a narrow definition – it is effectiveness in relation to a narrow set
of goals. The focus on corporate culture can produce an ‘us against the world’
philosophy, which in turn means a lack of capacity to collaborate across
boundaries and a number of deficits in terms of partnership working.
They go on to say that:
The focus on core business linked to outputs, and output based funding mean
there are a number of ‘perverse incentives’ which inhibit inter-organisational
co-operation
and observe an increasing tendency within the public sector towards ‘boundary
management’ and ‘creaming’ and ‘dumping’ strategies in relation to ‘good and
bad risks’. Inter-sectoral policy collaboration between FE and HE is being
promoted by HEFCE in this context.
From a managerial and strategic perspective all three FE colleges involved in
this study are characterised by a dwindling unit of resource coinciding with
increasing strictures on quality. Economy, efficiency, and target related funding
12
linked to recruitment and retention were highlighted by all three senior
managers interviewed.
The ‘big bang’ approach to management since incorporation in 1993 in FE has
been commented on by Kerfoot and Whitehead (1998), Whitehead (1999,
2000), Prichard (1996) and Ainley and Bailey (1997). Whitehead (1999)
identifies a shift in culture from benign liberal paternalism to a ‘hegemonic
masculinity’, a concept developed by Carrigan, Connell and Lee (1985),
brought about by a drive towards a rational, task oriented, instrumental,
combative and competitive paradigm of management in the FE sector. Ainley
and Bailey (1997) note the force of the maxim ‘the right to manage’ across the
sector. Aggressive managerialism (Jones, 1995) was legitimised through the
dominant discourse which resulted in a 40% growth in the sector between 1993
– 1996 on less funding than in 1992. The discourses of competitiveness and
‘performativity’ have dominated, and coincided with the implementation of
business models across the sector, such as TQM, IIP, BS5750, and Human
Resource Management.
Managerialism has been more pronounced in the FE sector, but it is impacting
on HE, and Galbriath (1999) in advocating the application of systems thinking
to planning processes in HE notes that managerial discourse has increasingly
come to include terms that indicate a tension between ‘dollarship and
scholarship’. Although less intense in the HE sector, Henkel (1997) identifies
the challenge this poses to traditional academic values and practices,
particularly since 1985, with the increasingly utilitarian policy perspective of
universities delivering wider policy agendas, such as ‘empoyability’ and access.
Clarke and Newman’s analysis does illustrate dilemmas facing FE and HE
institutions in delivering the HEFCE Widening Participation policy.
Collaboration within such a market driven, output rewarded environment has to
be seen to have tangible benefits. Public policy, managerial discourse and
funding drivers (for example, the ‘postcode premium’, HEFCE (1998c)),
however, have enabled FEI’s and HEI’s being given opportunities to define an
element of core business within policy frameworks, such as widening
participation and inclusive learning, which necessitates collaboration to
maximize the effectiveness of its delivery. The next section will review
evidence of the effectiveness of collaboration between FE and HE.
13
Processes of FE/HE partnership – organizational and cultural challenges
Griffiths (2000) has noted the difficulties in obtaining data to evaluate how
collaboration across the FE/HE sectors is being conducted, and criticises the
existing research (for example, Hermann et. al., 1996, Postlethwaite and
Haggarty, 1998), for the lack of systematic evidence of the processes of
collaboration itself.
Woodrow et. al. (1998) conducted what amounted to an audit on behalf of
CVCP to identify ‘good practice’ in the area of widening participation. Of 58
proposals submitted 14 case studies were selected as ‘working examples of
effective strategies to widen access’. The report was concerned to identify
performance indicators, evidence-based practice, by which HEI’s could
monitor effectiveness. It also attempted to offer criteria by which effectiveness
in partnership might be achieved. These include: minimizing the number of
partners, clarity of purpose and benefits, effective resource use, ‘shared
ownership’, and effective, cost-effective structures. Although successful, the
case studies featured are small-scale, highly focused, and marginal to
mainstream HEI activity.
Finlay et.al. (1997) in an analysis of FE/HE collaboration in Scotland used Hoy
and Miskel’s (1989) model based on systems theory to evaluate college
motivation for collaboration, and identified environmental uncertainty and
resource dependency as significant factors. This has been particularly relevant
since the incorporation of the FE sector in 1993. Collaboration, which would
increase the perceived security of the institution and give it a wider resource
base would be likely to appeal to a sector unwilling to take risks.
They also applied Alter and Hage’s (1993) theoretical analysis of networks and
partnerships based on organisational network theory to their study, and
concluded that although FEI’s and HEI’s are increasingly forming partnerships,
the degree of partnership is relatively limited. A feature of the ‘symbiotic’
partnerships (usually ‘limited’ rather than ‘broad’ in Alter and Hage’s
categorisation) was that the official memoranda setting up the partnerships
envisaged much broader co-operation, and therefore achievement, than was
actually delivered. Even in the two cases where the partnerships were over
twenty years old, only some features of moderate co-operation were in
evidence.
14
HEFCE’s research (1998b) focused on processes of sub-contractual
partnerships such as franchise arrangements with FEI’s delivering part-awards
(such as Year 0/1 or the first phase of a ‘2+2’ arrangement), or validation of
whole awards delivered in FEI’s. In attempting to identify models of subcontractual partnerships the research found that
the range in the scale and complexity of many schemes, numbers of partners
and programmes involved and the existence of often overlapping (sometimes
competing) rationales for involvement in partnerships reflect a complex and
quite specific history where different or multiple purposes are served at
different times. (p48)
This research also concluded that clear strategic planning involving all colleges
is a factor in the relative effectiveness of partnerships, but that differences in
the relative status of partners can become a source of tension. An interesting
finding was that in pre-1992 universities partnerships were usually formed at
the subject level rather than institutionally. This issue will be considered in the
analysis of this paper’s case study, with particular regard to the significance of
cultural and organizational issues on inter-organisational and inter-sectoral
collaboration.
FE/HE collaboration across Greater Manchester occurs in a variety of ways
that can be categorised as ‘preferred partner’ (for example one college linked to
one university), ‘selected partners’ (one college with a small range of HEI’s
usually linked into progression possibilities, or an HEI with a cluster of
colleges given “associate” status) or ‘multiple partners’ (usually an
opportunistic HEI linked into a wide range of FEI’s, but sometimes a large
mixed-economy college with diverse HE links).
Size and resource base are possible factors in determining the number and
nature of collaborative partnerships. College B’s Vice Principal, for example,
commented:
…four or so years ago there was a series of fragmented links with about five
other institutions. Reading the literature at the time, things like the Dearing
report, it was certainly clear to me that one long-term all encompassing
strategic partnership was better than a series of loose links.
College C’s Vice Principal also stressed the issue of staff time and other
resources as being the factor in focusing links with a specific HEI.
15
However, even where an FEI has the inclination towards multi-partner links,
the external funding and quality audit processes appear to be acting to minimise
the number of HE partners for large FEI’s. Other policies, such as Foundation
Degrees being awarded by the HE sector, are reinforcing this trend. The Vice
Principal of College A appeared reluctantly resigned to this outcome:
I think we are sitting on the cusp of the demise of the HND with the Foundation
Degree…what the Foundation Degree does is force you to link with an HE
institution.
Clearly partnership development across the two sectors is happening, and
policy and funding is likely to reinforce this trend. Evidence of its
effectiveness, however, is limited, and the impetus provided by the incentive of
pump-prime funding is not necessarily sustainable.
The rest of this paper attempts to explore how a relatively mature FE/HE
partnership is attempting to collaborate to move widening participation from a
marginal to an increasingly core activity (particularly for the HEI). This will
involve an analysis of organizational and cultural issues at the partnership
interface, and the impact they have on policy interpretation and
implementation. In the light of the HEFCE research (1998b), which identified
effective partnerships in pre-1992 universities being focused at subject level,
Huxham’s (1993) concept of ‘collaborative capability’ will be used to analyse
the processes of inter-sectoral collaboration being attempted in the development
of the partnership.
Huxham and Vangen (1996) elicited evidence of the costs of partnerships
working and their limited effectiveness in developing co-ordinated strategies.
This raises an issue of assumptions about partnership which underlie the
Widening Participation policy strategy. Huxham (1993) also developed a
systems model for collaboration based on concepts of ‘collaborative
advantage’, ‘meta-strategy’ and ‘collaborative capability’.
Collaborative advantage is where an organisation through collaboration is able
to achieve its own objectives better than it could acting alone. This is applicable
for example to FEI’s wanting to formalize progression arrangements or deliver
sub-degree level teaching. In the case of an HEI access to local communities is
achievable through FE partnerships. The incentives and benefits are clear, and
given FE’s current aversion to risk, this is likely to be an important issue in
partnership development.
16
Meta-strategy is a joint strategy which is “super-ordinate to the strategies of the
collaborating organisations”, and is conceptually coherent with HEFCE’s
functionalist approach to policy.
Huxham defines ‘collaborative capability’ as “the capacity and readiness of an
organisation to collaborate”, and concludes that if organisations with a
relatively low degree of collaborative capability are deemed
to be central stakeholders in any implementable meta-strategy… it seems
important to find ways to move the collaboration forward which takes account
of the collaborative capability differences (p.25)
Although this concept, as used by Huxham, assumes the whole organization as
the unit of engagement in the process of collaboration, it nevertheless is a
useful conceptual tool in attempting to identify and evaluate the effectiveness
of units or levels of engagement in inter-sectoral partnership, and it will be
used to do this in this paper. The concept of collaborative capability will
therefore be adapted in evaluating FE/HE collaboration at whole organization
and sub-organisational levels in the interests of widening participation policy
implementation.
The partners
Further contextual information about the partners is provided in this section
around themes of environment and organisational structure, management and
organisational culture.
 Environment and organisational structures
The University underwent a merger with a local College of Technology (COT)
in 1998. Before this the two institutions had had strong links, with the COT
being the only Associate College of the University at that time. The COT had
adopted the title ‘University College’ several years prior to merger, and
delivered degrees awarded by the University. A ‘bridging’ unit had been
established between the two institutions in 1993 to develop collaborative links
with the FE sector, with the purpose of widening access to HE. Merger
involved the absorption of the COT into a new institution, which retained the
distinct and strong collegiality of the University. Since the merger the
17
University has been re-organised from eight to four faculties, and thirty eight
departments have been restructured into seventeen schools.
Since incorporation in 1993 the three colleges have experienced a varying
degree of rationalisation of staffing and structures aimed to maximise
effectiveness (defined by a range of indicators including cost, performance and
retention), and responsiveness to local markets and communities, which have
had a marked effect on management style and culture. For example, two years
after incorporation College B saw a major re-organisation. The staffing at the
college was reduced from 150 to 110 full time equivalents. Senior staff were
required to re-apply for their jobs. Middle managers were required to take on
more responsibility, and the perception of senior managers was that they were
responsible for managerial and resource issues, and had little time for
curriculum matters.
Rationalisation, however, was more complicated for College A owing to its
dispersed geographical nature. It still had the same structure and units built
around curriculum areas that existed pre-1993. The Vice Principal referred to
the ‘sixth form college’ throughout the interview, a sub-unit of the college on a
separate site responsible for ‘A’ level teaching.
College C has no natural ‘feed’, the local schools retaining sixth forms. It also
has to compete with two Catholic sixth form colleges of high reputation. These
factors have heightened its awareness of a need to be ‘responsive’. Its core
activity is targeted at the traditional 16-19 curriculum (85-90%), with the
remainder divided between ‘community college’ evening work, and
commercial work geared to employer training.
 Management approach
The University is characterised by a highly dispersed ‘loosely coupled’ (Weick,
1976) managerial framework in keeping with the collegiality characteristic of
pre-1992 universities. The PVC, when interviewed, identified the devolution of
policy ownership into the newly established faculties and schools as the biggest
challenge to management in such an organisation. This challenge is reflected in
his wry comment about faculty staff:
“There’s only one day in the month when they perceive themselves as part of
the university, and that’s when their pay slip arrives”
18
Nevertheless the University is respectful of its collegiality, adopting what Trow
(1994) classifies as a ‘soft managerialism’ approach to developments, involving
an incremental, devolved approach to change.
In contrast all three colleges, from a managerial and strategic perspective, are
more explicitly characterised by a dwindling unit of resource coinciding with
increasing strictures on quality. Economy, efficiency, and target related funding
linked to recruitment and retention were highlighted by all three senior
managers interviewed as defining the priorities of their management.
“I think in curriculum terms the challenge has been the convergence issue of
seeking to hit lower and lower average levels of funding on the one hand while
at the same time having to be far more explicit about target related
recruitment, retention and achievement”
(Vice- Principal, College A)
“We occupy that peculiar limbo of being a business that’s not really a business,
but still judged by educational quality criteria…Our financial viability is very
small. I mean our margin for error is very small, and we can’t afford to do
something which is going to lose us hundreds of thousands of pounds.”
(Vice Principal, College B)
The Vice-Principal at College C reflected the realities within which FE is
operating:
“All the time in the back of your mind is that if we don’t get that extra growth
things are going to suffer…those extra growth units if you like have only
enabled us to maintain our income. Without those we would have had to lose
staffing somewhere.”
The Vice Principal of College B, however, felt that their re-organisation had
had positive outcomes: middle managers from different curriculum areas meet
regularly and have developed an ownership of a college rather than a subject
area perspective on a range of strategic issues. Staff in the focus group
identified a degree of negative feeling throughout the institution as a result of
the process, but acknowledged its effectiveness as an outcome, and its
commitment to providing a comprehensive and responsive service for the
community.
19
 Cultures
Re-organisation at the University has been seen by some staff as an attempt to
respond to funding and quality pressures and make it more manageable. The
Curriculum Group (CG) Chair (AMSS Faculty, and an Associate Head of
School within the faculty), explained the problems he was faced with in
attempting to ‘schoolify’ (his phrase) themes around processes such as
admissions when the ‘academic tribes’ (Becher, 1989) were focused and
grouped around the subject areas previously called departments. In his case the
‘school’ was an attempt to group the former departments of English, Politics
and Contemporary History, and Sociology. He felt the most optimistic scenario
is that academics would be limited to a school perspective on policy issues –
faculties were perceived as bureaucratic and constraining. He claimed that the
reality in most cases is that the academic staff across the faculty, and certainly
in his school had at best a subject group perspective and identity, akin to
Alvesson’s (1994) use of Bourdieu’s (1979) concept of ‘social field’.
“I think there is a real problem in staff being asked to try to work at a strategic
level for an organisation as big as the University...I don't think you can relate
much to the University as a concept. Your department is a primary focus of
your loyalty, especially if it is a single discipline department”
Clearly, although carrying ‘strategic’ and ‘managerial’ responsibilities for the
transition, he still used the concept of department as the ‘base unit’ (Becher and
Kogan, 1992) even though they no longer exist.
The ‘social field’ conception of sub-cultural ‘being’ is transferable to the
Health faculty also, with professional group (such as Physiotherapy,
Occupational Therapy and Radiography) being a significant issue in framing
allegiances, identities and codes. An example of this is the long standing
attempt to introduce multi-professional approaches to learning and teaching
within the faculty. The individuals championing these initiatives within the
faculty consistently cite professional identities as the hurdle.
Managerialism evident within the FE partners has appeared to have a
significant impact on organizational cultures. However, this has to be seen
within a staff identity of professionalism which rationalizes ‘effectiveness’ and
‘responsiveness’, and other examples of the dominant managerial discourse of
the new public sector. In the focus group conducted with staff in College A
they proudly identified their professionalism as teachers as the factor that
enabled them to adapt to the new output driven agenda, which had caused their
20
professional lives to be extremely stressful. Incorporation, competition, and
funding practices have provided conditions which have helped to facilitate the
hegemony of managerialism in FE (Whitehead, 1999, 2000). Its effects are to
be observed in the comments of a Curriculum Group member from College B:
“Perhaps one thing that’s good about our ethos and culture is we do put
products in quickly – to survive.”
College C has a strong and cohesive ethos and mirrors many of the
characteristics of the ‘sixth form college’ evaluated by Robinson and Burke
(1996), and Hodkinson and Bloomer (2000). Staff are aware of the status of
teaching in such an institution, and increased workloads are noticed but
accepted as part of the role. The small size of the college reinforces the
cohesive culture, the focus on the target of individual student achievement, and
the community nature of the professional experience.
It would appear that management in the sense of control is a more
straightforward issue in the FE sector than in HE. Issues of size, organization
and culture pose challenges for inter-sectoral partnership for the
implementation of policy. The University’s ‘multiple cultural configurations’
(Alvesson, 1994) in particular raise questions about its ability to respond
strategically as a single member of a partnership attempting to interpret and
then deliver Widening Participation. Its ‘collaborative capability’ (Huxham,
1993) as an organization would appear to be limited. This issue will be
explored in analyzing the data which follows.
The Curriculum Groups
The research covered a wide range of issues connected to the operation of the
groups, but for the purposes of this paper two have been selected: expectations
of the Curriculum Groups, and perceptions of collaboration through the groups
after the first year. These issues were explored at both strategic and
developmental levels.
The purpose of the Curriculum Group meetings has been to bring subject
specialists from the two sectors together to form a working relationship. Broad
objectives linked to curriculum mapping, progression arrangements, curriculum
enrichment and student guidance have been agreed to frame discussions.
All meetings were held at the University in prestigious accommodation, and
were formally conducted and minuted. College representatives usually involved
the individual responsible for the curriculum area plus teaching colleagues.
21
University staff included the appropriate Associate Dean (who chaired the
group) and members of lecturing staff.
Expectations of Curriculum Groups
Respondents were asked to recall their expectations of the Curriculum Groups
when they were established.
At a strategic level the colleges viewed the Curriculum Groups as the fora for
the delivery of a ‘meta-strategy’ (Huxham, 1993), which would offer the
‘collaborative advantages’ of significantly enhancing the reputation of their
individual institutions, as well as the range of opportunities they could provide
both to existing students, and those targeted as the beneficiaries of widening
participation policy.
“…we would like to be a very focused provider of HE and obviously we went
into this …to provide HE within the area…some of which may be top up or a
full degree. It’s the idea of HE not being delivered just regionally, but locally
as well, and students staying at home.”
(Vice Principal, College B)
This was reinforced by the priorities identified by the Vice Principal of College
A:
“It is actually to develop HE programmes, whether they are (the University’s)
own HND’s or whether they are more clearly defined progression opportunities
for HND; you know the 2 + 2.”
The primary driver for this is the college’s policy and commitment to
‘inclusivity’. Partnership (from a meta-strategic perspective) will enable the
University
“…to say ‘well look, there are thousands of people in (community A) who for
reasons of travel, time, funds, access will never go to the University, but they
will go to the college, whether evening classes, Saturdays, they will do
something…Let’s be imaginative, offer (College A) the opportunity to run the
degree in ‘under-water netting’ which isn’t run at the University’.”
(Vice Principal, College A)
22
It is not just about HE delivery for College A, however. It is seen as an
opportunity to influence policy on appropriate assessment strategies for
students who are categorized as ‘non-traditional’. This need is based on
previous experience of running a ‘2 + 2’ programme with the University when
the majority of students who progressed achieved only third class honours. The
Vice Principal attributed this to the traditional assessment methods used on the
particular ‘top up’ route at the University, and compared arrangements with
another university which offered students of similar ability more assessment of
course work, resulting in the achievement of higher average degree
classification.
At the developmental level of the Curriculum Group the FE staff were also
keen to embrace widening participation policy:
“There are people who won’t travel to institutions, who are probably on the
doorstep. We do have a very static staff, let alone students, and there are a lot
of people who would not go down the traditional HE route and be prepared to
travel”
(College B, CG member 2)
The FE staff also saw the sharing of staff expertise and the development of
higher level teaching experience as priorities:
“The students that you get in higher education are the most stimulating…”
(College A, CG member 1)
“I’ve got some great staff, all of which (sic) are qualified up to the bloody
eyeballs…the expectation of all the team is that they’re going to get some
higher level work, and they’re sort of champing at the bit”.
(College B CG member 1)
Expectations of College C’s staff were more limited, and focused on
progression for students, access to facilities and curriculum enrichment. They
saw the process as an opportunity to “challenge the gatekeepers” and negotiate
preferred progression criteria, although one member strongly opposed this on
grounds of quality and equity, and raised the issue of a potential undermining
of ‘standards’.
23
Across the three colleges opportunities for staff exchanges and other forms of
professional development, as well as tracking student performance were also
identified as expectations.
From the University’s strategic perspective the Curriculum Groups, according
to the Pro Vice Chancellor, were the interface between the two sectors in the
strategy. He saw widening participation and retention as inseparable issues, and
therefore the “process of transition” from FE to HE for the individual ‘nontraditional’ student as crucial, and potentially traumatic. The Curriculum
Groups, therefore, for him provide the fora to address issues of curriculum,
guidance and cultural capital in the interests of ‘non-traditional students’. This
categorization is to be interpreted broadly, to include widening participation
target students on traditional routes.
The Chair of the CG Health saw potential for:
“…a focus for a whole variety of changes to the way in which we deliver our
programmes, think about new programmes, think about new methods of
teaching…and how we work with not only FE, but with employers, to take
forward this whole agenda. It is one that is not going to go away.”
His commitment, however, was tempered with caution:
“..the policy… is looking for a relationship between further and higher
education. And relationships take time, and they take effort. And I’m not sure
that we, as an institution, and the structure of that institution, have really taken
on board the commitment involved with any partnership with further
education…We’ve got to be careful that we don’t build up an expectation in the
eyes of further education, and in the eyes of students. So if we are going out to
champion widening participation, then we have to ensure that back at the base
the staff have taken on board that commitment…I feel that…our commitment to
what we think we can do is in advance of what we are actually able to deliver.”
The fact that his faculty consists of one school that ‘recruits’ and another that
‘selects’ offers an possible insight into this caution, and illustrates the challenge
referred to by the Pro Vice Chancellor in establishing the ownership of policy
at the level most significant in its implementation.
In contrast to this cautious idealism the Chair of the CG AMSS saw recruitment
as a significant expectation. However he expressed a number of concerns
24
including what he termed the “hand me downism” of University strategy on
this policy, raising questions about the choice of particular colleges. He also
stressed the ambivalence he and his colleagues felt about the priority being
given to local and regional contacts when their research standing demanded that
their focus be global:
“The tension is …that we would not feel comfortable being in a university that
embraced admissions being solely a local, American style approach. That
would really break us in terms of our morale.”
Embracing the policy to some degree, however, has become a necessity,
because regardless of starred ratings in the Research Assessment Exercise,
changes in student funding and unclear employment prospects have
significantly eroded recruitment to their purely academic courses.
The challenge to the implementation of policy can be seen in the relative clarity
and consensus in the expectations of the colleges compared to the range of
interests and priorities in the University.
Experience and Perceptions of the Curriculum Groups
All parties acknowledged the benefits of the exercise in terms of sharing
information and curriculum mapping, but the overwhelming perception, even
from the Pro-Vice Chancellor, was that progress had been slow. He attributed
this to the scale of the task (linking with 9 colleges), the aftermath at the
University of re-organisation, and the challenge of creating a critical mass of
opinion in the University which accepted the principle on which the policy is
based. This last point illustrates the organizational and cultural challenge, and
he contrasted the power of senior management teams in the colleges with the
need to manage by consent in the University, illustrating the point by referring
to the Senate’s recent rejection of the Vice Chancellor’s selection of deans to
the new faculties.
He also felt that because of the scale of the task mechanisms and appropriate
collaborative structures to support the Curriculum Groups have not yet been
fully established. He was keen to stress that systems had to be academically led,
and that the network will be organic, and therefore evolutionary. This reflects
the consensual, collegial culture of the University.
Frustration with the pace of development was particularly felt by the FE staff.
College A’s staff were very positive about the outcomes of their experiences
25
with their University equivalents in the Curriculum Groups, but felt that the
problem was higher up the management hierarchy in both institutions:
“We tend to pass it on to them (college management) and the University staff
pass it on to their senior management. We never come together as a group. It
gets passed on through the Curriculum Groups, and then it seems to
disappear…My perception is that we have got quite far with the discussions
now, I would say as far as we can go…” (College A, CG member 1)
This summarised a frustration which illuminates issues of policy
implementation, and ‘top-down/bottom-up strategies’ which will be developed
later. As agents of development there was a limit to what could be achieved,
and this was reinforced by College A’s Vice Principal:
“When that (Steering) group breaks up and you get down to the curriculum
sub-groups…both at the college and at the University we have not conveyed to
the curriculum groups what it is we expect from them…I think the issue there is
who on those sub-groups (Curriculum Groups) feels that they have the
authority to take things further?”
In contrast to the Pro-Vice Chancellor’s commitment to an organic strategy, the
perception of the college staff in particular was that there was a need for a more
strategic and managerial approach. Indeed the previous quote which refers to
‘sub-groups’ and ‘what it is we expect from them’ reveals the instinctive
managerialism in the FE.
Vice Principal College B compared this experience with a previous venture
with a post 1992 university:
“…having done a bit of work with (post 1992 university)… is that things will
only improve and move more quickly if there is a forum which can speak for the
University with authority, and say ‘this university’s policy is to engage in
collaborative arrangements with FE colleges to develop widening
participation…but there is too much discretion, I expect, left to individual
departments.”
However, the ‘bottom-up’ strategy of allowing the Curriculum Groups to
develop policy organically was seen as valuable by Vice Principal College C,
who had been involved in a similar arrangement with another university which
had been driven by senior staff. This had made no progress and had
degenerated into a ‘talking shop’.
26
Experience in FE with its emphasis on managerialism reinforced these
perceptual and cultural differences:
“I think we share more views than at the University, where they don’t meet
each other it seems to me. They have their rooms, their sites, their world…it
makes it difficult to deal with an animal with so many different heads” (College
C, CG member 3)
“It has been like moving through set concrete…Are we getting the right
people? For this you need ‘movers’ and ‘shakers’. I don’t think I’ve met a
‘mover’ and ‘shaker’ yet…if you want me to summarise my perception I got the
perception they were trying to ‘cherry pick’ our best students…Why doesn’t
your Chancellor control it by funding? ” (College B CG member 1)
This illustrates a lack of awareness of university management and organization,
comparing the ‘Chancellor’ with a chief executive, someone who can select
‘movers and shakers’ to expedite policy. The issue of ‘cherry picking’, of
beginning to consider motives and institutional interests was also expressed by
Vice Principal, College C:
“I feel as if the University in a sense is trying to build a foundation for itself,
and to secure an intake for itself…and…by building a relationship with
institutions like us it enables you to know more about the students who are
coming to you, and the background they are coming from…”
However, from a managerial perspective the Vice Principal College C was
aware that a faster pace might create demands that his small institution would
struggle to cope with:
“…we have allowed, I think to some extent, the University to be in the driving
seat, partly because of energies at this end, and havn’t pushed very hard for
things to go that we…we have been happy to let things go at the pace.”
These comments of frustration are symptomatic of the need to address the issue
of mutual understanding, and especially the need for awareness of
organizational cultures. This challenge was stressed by the CG Chair, Health in
his comment :
“…the whole culture of higher education is one where staff feel empowered to
modify, adapt and recodify policies.”
27
This interpretation echoes Ball’s (1994) distinction between the ‘discourse’ of
policy at formation and strategic levels, and ‘textual’ interpretations at delivery
levels. It poses problems for organizations such as the colleges, which are
highly managerial, and raises questions about the ‘collaborative capability’ of
organizations such as the University. It leads the CG Chair, Health to state that:
“With many HEI’s what’s promised sometimes is at variance with reality…so if
we are going out to champion widening participation, then we have to ensure
that back at the base the staff have taken on board that commitment”
These comments echo the caution he expressed in his expectations of the
Curriculum Groups.
Awareness of the Curriculum Groups’ potential was balanced by an equivalent
sense of frustration on the part of the chairs. Uncertainty over whether the right
people from the colleges had attended the meetings was highlighted. The
Curriculum Groups had been an effective forum for information exchange, but
the CG Chair (AMSS) felt that with Colleges A and B
“…we are treading water; we have gone as far as we can. We need to move
through some Chinese wall to a new level”
His perception of College C was that they had made little effort:
“I can only speculate that they have plenty of routes to place their
students…They appear from their end not to be moving the agenda along very
much.”
The reality for this college is that its resources limit the contributions it is able
to make to the Curriculum Groups. The Languages Department, for example,
has 1.5 full time equivalent staff.
In contrast to perceptual differences with FE staff the CG Chair (AMSS) agreed
with College B, member 1 on action required, stating:
“I think there needs to be an intensive working couple of sessions between the
teaching staff of the same subjects, followed by an agreed set of procedural
outcomes which might include three or four meetings a year. But I think it
needs to be once there are agreed objectives, which I’m not sure there are yet.”
28
The CG Chair Health reflected that widening participation was not seen as a
policy by many of his colleagues, but as a means to an end; this being
recruitment to ‘hard to fill’courses, whilst for the colleges it is progression for
their students onto high profile courses:
“…the last thing we want are more students applying for Physiotherapy. So we
spend a lot of our meetings cooling out the interest and trying to attract
students to our less popular courses. And I think the FE colleges have spotted
this. So I think the FE colleges think ‘Is this a real commitment to widening
participation?’…I have some sympathy with the view that we created an
expectation, and yet our system for selecting students for various parts of the
University programme still has not changed.”
In terms of Curriculum Group structure and format CG Chair AMSS
acknowledged the formality and potential significance of the semiotic effects of
this, but felt that with Colleges A and B they had achieved as much as they
could. CG Chair Health was also aware of these issues, and felt that the groups
over the year had ‘satisfied rather than maximised’, but he felt that in this first
year this was appropriate given the stress on information exchange. He felt:
“If we are going to develop those Curriculum Groups into other forms of
relationships, then I think we need to drill down into the organization a bit
further, and think about admissions tutor involvement.”
Development would also require, he felt, a greater recognition of mutuality, a
joint chairing of meetings and Colleges hosting meetings: an interdependence
in strategy building for policy delivery, which is in keeping with Huxham’s
(op. cit.) concept of ‘meta-strategy’. This is also a recognition of the unequal
power relationship in collaboration highlighted by Griffiths’ (2000) critique of
liberal humanist assumptions in broader widening participation policy.
Griffiths asserts that orthodox approaches to collaboration are based on a liberal
humanist position. The essence of this is a Rawlsian perspective of an
unencumbered self, able to take part in a social contract, which would be
between partners considered equals in an open, honest relationship, and
working to results based on consensus, and providing a rational basis for action.
Partners, however, are not unencumbered, and are situated in particular
circumstances, and influenced by organisational priorities. Griffiths asserts on
this basis that it is impossible to operate on a liberal humanist framework; that
it is impossible to deal with diversity of perspectives through rationally agreed,
29
universally applicable procedures, and that equality needs to be of respect for
the other, and an equality of awareness of the inescapability of all perspectives
being partial.
The inequality is acknowledged by the colleges, but there is a respectful
deference at this stage, as illustrated by Vice Principal, College B:
“…we were worried about the time commitment for you (referring to the
number of Curriculum Groups being run by the University), but the thing is
when it comes to us advising the University, we have such a limited experience
at this stage I think it would be presumptuous. We know how we work, but we
don’t know how the University works as a whole’”
Even allowing for cultural and organizational differences, however, the CG
Chair, Health, was critical of the University’s management of the Curriculum
Group strategy over the year:
“…I don’t think that I was well prepared for what was expected of the
Curriculum Groups. I won’t put words in their mouths, but I think my Associate
Heads of School would be actually concerned that they might not have said the
right things. At our level in our organization, you shouldn’t have to have a
script that you can read from; you should be able to improvise. I don’t think we
had guidelines. I don’t think we had objectives as to what it was we were
meeting for, other than this broad widening participation strategy. At least it
made us read about it.”
Cultural and organisational differences between the sectors are revealed
through these comments, which highlight the extent of the challenges to
developing a synergy which will lead to the ‘seamless robe’ of progression that
the University and its partners wish to weave.
Analysis
After only one year of collaboration there is the likelihood that expectations of
the widening participation strategy at the local level may not be completely
fulfilled unless there is further change. There is still an overwhelming
commitment from all parties, despite the frustration. To use Huxham’s (op.
cit.,) terminology the collaborative advantages are embraced enthusiastically by
all parties in their commitment to the potential offered by the meta-strategy.
However, at face value the collaborative capability, particularly of the
University, appears to be limited, owing to organizational and cultural factors.
30
This certainly appears to be the case if the analysis is based on a whole
organization systems approach, which Huxham uses. However, the
organizational and cultural complexity of the University, and the fact that this
exercise is only one year into its development, need to be taken into account in
analyzing where, at whole organization and intra-organizational levels,
capability of collaboration (or the potential for its emergence) exists for the
purpose of effective inter-sectoral policy development and implementation.
Issues of power, perspective and lack of organisational synergy are evident at
this early stage of development. However, Fullan (2000) asserts that successful
cross-sector collaboration requires the development of mutual empathy and
relationships across diverse groups, which take time. Success therefore
depends, according to Fullan on the development of meaningful relationships
and partnerships at micro, macro, and in particular meso levels. Application of
this model to the partnership suggests a need to ensure these relationships are
developing at strategic and developmental levels. The Curriculum Groups may
offer potential at micro and meso levels to provide a forum for the development
of mutual understanding on policy and practice. Sparrow (1998) has argued that
even within organisations:
There needs to be a recognition that insights into each other’s perceptions are
necessary in modern organisations…Workgroups can often have particular
‘mindsets’…the views that workgroups hold about each other depend on
available data, subjective preferences and willingness to reconsider a view held
about another person.
In the light of CG Chair’s (AMSS) comments on subject group perspectives
and ‘departments’, this is clearly the case for the University. However, this is
not exclusive to the University: witness the reference by the Vice Principal,
College A to the ‘sixth form college’, effectively the perpetuation of a separate
organizational entity on a separate site within a large mixed economy college.
College B CG member 1 felt frustrated as a ‘mover and shaker’ in his dealings
with the University, and the CG Chair (AMSS) believed:
“…they may well be more managerial. They are used to things being handed
down rather than making them happen. Three months is a long time for them
whereas it’s nothing at all for us. On the other hand, I’m not entirely sure that
they’ve come to the meetings buzzing with ideas of how to make things happen
either.”
31
This absence of ‘ideas’ might be explained by the apparent deference of the
smaller partners, exemplified by the reluctance to appear ‘presumptuous’
referred to earlier by Vice Principal, College B, as well as discursive factors
potentially acting as reinforcers of relative status, such as the prestigious
settings and the determining of agendas and chairing of meetings by the
University.
The perceptual frames, however, reveal the challenge. There appears to be a
need to develop mutual understanding. Separate experiences of different sectors
of education have had their influence in shaping perspectives and priorities on
the processes of collaboration, with consequences for policy formulation and
implementation. Structures and discourse in the institutions have influenced
identity; for example, the image of ‘movers and shakers’ fits comfortably
within the hegemonic, managerialist discourse of the FE sector (Whitehead,
1999). This links into theory on the social and situated nature of learning.
The Curriculum Groups are effectively the bringing together of two different
communities of practice. Lave and Wenger (1991), Brown and Duguid (1991),
Eckert (1993), and Zucchermaglio (1996), have conceptualised the community
of practice as an informal aggregation defined by membership and the shared
manner in which they do things and interpret events. There is resonance in this
concept with Bourdieu’s (1979) ‘habitus’, and Blackler’s (1993) activity
system theory. The emphases on ‘knowing’ rather than ‘knowledge’, and
learning as a social process through activity help identify a means of analysing
the tensions and barriers in the process of collaboration. This is consistent with
the requirements of developing understanding stressed by Fullan (op. cit.,).
The community of practice concept helps to understand the process by which
the transmission of tacit knowledge and of ‘knowledge-in-action’ takes place:
the processes are at once social and cognitive:
…a community of practice is an intrinsic condition for the existence of
knowledge, not least because it provides the interpretive support necessary for
making sense of its heritage. (Lave and Wenger, 1991:98)
While the concept is helpful in understanding the dimension of social processes
that need to be explored in the formulation of a shared understanding of policy
across the sectors, it has to be acknowledged, particularly, but not exclusively
for the University, that there are within its devolved organizational and cultural
framework a plurality of communities. In the case of the University it would
32
seem that the most ‘collaboratively capable’ unit of organization would be at
Fullan’s (op. cit.,) ‘micro’ level; the subject group level. This would appear to
fit with the findings of the HEFCE (1998b) research on collaboration between
FE and pre-1992 universities. In terms of the Pro Vice Chancellor’s comment,
of the biggest challenge to the implementation of policy being the acceptance
of its ownership at local levels within the organization, it also indicates that the
policy, within a broad discursive framework, is most likely to be given textual
(Ball, 1994) meaning at the local, subject specialist interface.
Gherardi et. al. (1998) use the concept of legitimate peripheral participation as
the process through which members go to enter the communities. It
focuses on the relationship between learning and the organisational situation
in which it occurs…the journey through the different levels of learning can only
take place in connection with the institutionalisation of the journey, which
reaffirms that the process is social and not simply cognitive in character
(Gherardi et. al. 1998)
The Curriculum Groups are providing a forum for mutual legitimate peripheral
participation at a micro-organisational level. Griffiths’ (op. cit.) critique of
liberal humanist assumptions about the ability of ‘collaborators’ to deliver
policy reveals that issues of power differentials, interests, and perspectives need
to be at least acknowledged in the process of ‘coming to know’ (Trowler and
Knight, 2000). To varying degrees the college representatives at strategic and
developmental levels are aware, and at this stage of the development apparently
accepting, of the power and status differentials in the relationship, but as CG
Chair Health says:
“…if we are going to take this forward we need to meet our FE colleagues,
sooner rather than later,I think, to evaluate where we are…And to do it in a
way that they feel empowered and able to say what they really think about it…
As an organisation if we don’t do something about that (both the processes and
objectives of collaboration) it’ll fall into disregard very quickly.”
This indicates a recognition of a need to move the process forward.
The University appears aware of its dependence on its partners in formulating
and delivering its widening participation strategy. The potential for the
development of mutual understanding through the Curriculum Groups to
further the widening participation strategy, over time, and through attention to
processes of policy development, exists. An issue is whether this process of
mutual understanding needs to be made an explicit objective of the groups,
33
In which practitioners are conceptualised as actively engaged with the process
of policy making, in ways that may modify its forms and messages. (Ozga,
1999)
However, comments from the FE sector and indeed the CG Chairs, might
indicate that the Curriculum Groups have achieved what they can within the
limited strategic guidance provided. The strategy over the year has effectively
been devolved; ‘bottom-up’. This has achieved a significant amount in terms of
what the Curriculum Groups were originally tasked to do over the year, such as
curriculum mapping and alignment, enrichment and moves to staff
development. However, in terms of strategy it would appear the Curriculum
Groups have felt the need for clearer structures and steers.
This is certainly the case for the FE staff, used to a more managerial approach
to policy development. This is not to suggest that a ‘top down’ approach is
appropriate. However, Oakes et. al (1998) recognise that while top–down
initiatives tend not to work, there is still a need for the direction provided by
top-down mandates. At issue for the University is the tension of an institutional
strategy within a collegial organization and culture.
Fullan (2000), in theorising inter-organisational collaborative processes,
stresses the significance of the ‘inside-outside’ as well as the ‘top-down,
bottom-up’ dimension, and highlights the role of ‘boundary spanners’:
…especially in alliances and partnerships where knowledge utilisation depends
on understanding the cultures and knowledge of both partners (p. 44).
The Curriculum Groups provide an opportunity for ‘inside-outside’ knowledge
development. However, the satisfaction and enthusiasm of College A’s
experience of the Curriculum Groups was tempered with the sense of
frustration and lack of power that constrained the progress that they felt they
could make. It was felt that this progress was conditional on decisions higher
up the strategic ladder of the partnership, and that progress at Curriculum
Group level was ahead of formal policy formulation and development.
After only one year it is possible only to offer a picture of what the partners feel
of their attempts to collaborate to develop and implement a widening
participation strategy. Partnerships between FE and HE are assumed by policy
makers and funding bodies to be agents of that policy, and capable of
collaboration. All parties in this study are committed to the meta-strategy and
34
embrace the collaborative advantages it offers. At issue is the collaborative
capability of the partnership, predominantly owing to organizational and
cultural differences within and between the partners. The Vice Principal
College A commented that formalisation of the relationship through association
has resulted in a reduction of the speed and spontaneity of collaborative links,
citing the relative speed with which a ‘2 + 2’ programme in Information
Technology had previously been established.
However, this illustrates that HE is capable of collaboration with FE partners.
At issue in these early stages of the partnership is the appropriate ‘unit of
engagement’. The case study illustrates that for this pre-1992 university, the
most productive outcomes have been links between subject specialists across
the sectors through the Curriculum Groups (reinforcing HEFCE’s (1998b)
findings). Attempts at institutional level have been less successful. Yet this
process is emergent; policy and the processes of its delivery are developing and
being shaped as the relationships develop. In so doing it will be interesting to
study whether the developing relationships enhance the capability of the
partnership to collaborate to widen access to Higher Education.
35
REFERENCES
Ainley, P. & Bailey, (1997) The Business of Learning: Staff and Student
Experiences of Further Education in the 1990’s. London: Cassell Education
Alvesson, M (1994) Cultural perspectives on organisations Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press
Alter, C and Hage, J (1993) Organisations Working Together London: Sage
Ball, S. J., (1994) Education Reform: A Critical and Post-structural Approach.
Buckingham: Open University Press
Becher, T (1989) Academic Tribes and Territories: intellectual enquiry and the
cultures of disciplines Bristol: SRHE
Becher, T & Kogan, M. (1992) Process and Structure in Higher Education
London: Routledge
Blackler, F. (1993) ‘Knowledge and the Theory of Organisations:
Organisations as Activity Systems and the Reframing of Management’ Journal
of Management Studies vol. 30 (6) pp.865-883.
Bourdieu, P (1979) Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press
Brown, J.S. & Duguid, P (1991) ‘Organisational Learning and Communities of
Practice: toward a Unified View of Working, Learning and Innovation’.
Organisation Science 2(1) 40-57
Carrigan, T., Connell, R.W. and Lee. J. (1985) ‘Toward A New Sociology of
Masculinity’ Theory, Culture and Society, 4(5): 551-604
Clarke, J and Newman, J (1997) The Managerial State London: Sage
Coles, J and Smith, D (1999) ‘Universities and regional partnerships for
learning: reinterpretating the ‘local’ in the education of adults’. Paper
presented at SCUTREA Annual Conference, University of Warwick
36
DFEE (2000) ‘Standards and improved access for bright students central to
university agenda – Blunkett.’ News 394/00 14 September 2000
www.dfee.gov.uk/news/news.cfm?PR_ID=996
DFEE (1998) Research Report no. 63: Working in partnership: lessons from
the literature. London DFEE
Department of Education and Science (1991) Higher Education: A New
Framework HMSO
Finlay, I, Holmes, S and Kydd, L (1997) Institutional boundary experiences of
Scottish colleges since incorporation management: in Levacic, R and Glatter,
R. (eds.) Managing change in further education, FEDA, London
Fryer, R (1997 Learning for the Twenty-first Century: First Report of the
National Advisory Group for Continuing Education and Lifelong Learning,
London:SO
Fullan, M (2000) Change Forces: The Sequel, London, Falmer Press
Galbraith, P.L. (1999) ‘Systems thinking: a missing component in higher
educational planning?’ Higher Education Policy 12, 141-157
Gherardi, S., Nicolini, D. & Odella, F. (1998) Toward a Social Understanding
of How People Learn in Organisations. Management Learning Journal, vol. 29
(3) pp. 273-297
Griffiths, M (2000) Collaboration and Partnership in Question: Knowledge,
Politics and Practice. Journal of Education Policy 15, (4), 383-396
HEFCE (1998a) Widening Participation in Higher Education Consultation
98/39
HEFCE (1998b) The nature of higher and further education sub-contractual
partnerships Report 98/58
HEFCE (1998c) Widening participation in higher education: funding
proposals. HEFCE 98/39
HEFCE (1999a) Widening Participation in Higher Education: Invitation to Bid
for Special Funds May 99/33
37
HEFCE (1999b) Widening Participation in Higher Education: Funding
Decisions Report 99/24
HEFCE (2000b) The Greater Manchester Widening Participation Partnership:
Final Report. March 2000, Pion Economics Ref pe487/tor.doc
HEFCE (2000b) Funding for widening participation in higher education. New
proposals 2000-01 to 2003-04. Consultation 00/50
HEFCE Press release 10.7.2000 HEFCE invites proposals for the development
of foundation degrees HEFCE: London
Herrmann, B, Beaudin, L., Bird, B., Pierce, L., Draper, L. and Dewitt, P. (1996)
School-based collaborative inquiry: creating communities of inquiring learners.
Paper presented at American Educational Research Association, New York
Henkel, M (1997) ‘Academic values and the University as corporate
enterprise.’ Higher Education Quarterly, 51,2, 134-143
Hodkinson, P., & Bloomer, M. (2000) ‘Stokingham Sixth Form College:
institutional culture and dispositions to learning’. British Journal of Sociology
of Education. Vol. 21 (2) pp. 187-201.
Hoy, J., Kumrai, R., & Webb, S. (2000) Practitioner research with a difference:
widening participation projects. SCUTREA 30th Annual Conference, University
of Nottingham
Hoy, W.K., & Miskel, G.G. (1989) ‘Schools and their External Environments’
in Glatter R. (ed.) Educational Institutions and their Environments Milton
Keynes: OUP
Huxham, C and Vangen, S (1996) ‘Key themes in the management of
relationships between public and non-profit organisations.’ Paper presented to
the International Research Symposium on Public Services Management. Aston
Business School, March
Huxham, C (1993) ‘Collaborative capability: an intra-organisational
perspective on competitive advantage’ Public Money and Management JulySeptember pp. 21-28
38
Jones, S., (1995), FE Focus, The Times Educational Supplement, 24 November
Kennedy, H (1997) Learning Works:Widening Participation in Further
Education, Coventry: FEFC
Kerfoot, D & Whitehead, S (1998) ‘Boys own ‘ stuff: masculinity and the
management of further education. Sociological Review vol.46 (3), 436-457
Kerfoot, D & Whitehead, S (2000) ‘Keeping all the Balls in the Air: further
education and the masculine/managerial subject’ Journal of Further and
Higher Education, vol. 24 (2) pp.181-201
Kitzinger, J. (1994) The methodology of focus groups: the importance of
interaction between research participants. Sociology of Health and Illness, 16,
103-121
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning. Legitimate Peripheral
Participation
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Lyotard, J-F (1984) The Postmodern Condition: a Report on Knowledge,
University of Manchester
Metcalfe, H (1997) Class and Higher Education: The Participation of Young
People from Lower Social Classes, London: Policy Studies Institute
Morgan, D. L., (1997) Focus Groups as Qualitative Research 2nd. Edition.
Thousand Oaks, California. Sage
National Committee of Enquiry into Higher Education (1997). Higher
Education in the learning society (The Dearing Report), London: SO
Oakes, J., Welner, K., Yonezawn, S & Allen, R (1998) ‘Norms and politics of
equity-minded change’ in A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D.
Hopkins (eds), International Handbook of Educational Change, Dondrecht:
Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 952-73
Ozga, J. (1999) Policy Research in Educational Settings. Buckingham:Open
University Press
39
Postlethwaite, K., & Haggarty, L (1998) Toward effective transferable learning
in secondary school: the development of an approach based on mastery
learning. British Educational Research Journal, 24 (3), 331-340
Robertson, D & Hillman, J (1997) ‘Widening Participation in Higher
Education for Students from Lower Socio-economic Groups and Students with
Disabilities’, Report 6 National Committee of Enquiry into Higher Education.
London: SO
Robinson, J. & Burke, C. (1996) ‘Tradition, culture and ethos: the impact of
the Further and Higher Education Act (1992) on sixth form colleges and their
futures’
Evaluation and Research in Education, 10(1), 3-21
Sanderson, I. (1999) Participation and democratic renewal: from ‘instrumental’
to ‘communicative rationality’ ? Policy and Politics 27, (3), 325-341
Scott, P (1995) The Meanings of Mass Higher Education Buckingham, Open
University Press/SRHE
Smithson, J (2000) Using and analyzing focus groups: limitations and
possibilities. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 3, 2, 103119
Sparrow, J (1998) Knowledge in Organisations London: Sage
Temple, B. (1998) A fair trial? Judging quality in qualitative research.
International Journal of Social Research Methodology, Theory and Practice
1, 205-215
Trow, M (1994) Managerialism and the academic profession: the case of
England. Higher Education Policy, 7 (2), 11-18
Trowler, P & Knight, P (2000) Coming to Know in Higher Education:
theorizing faculty entry to new work contexts. Higher Education Research and
development , 19, 1, 27-41
Weick, K. E. (1976) ‘Educational Organisations as Loosely Coupled Systems’
Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 21, March, pp. 1-19
40
Whitehead, S (1999) ‘From Paternalism to Entrepreneurialism: the experience
of men managers in UK postcompulsory education.’ Discourse: studies in the
cultural politics of education, vol. 20 (1) pp. 57-72
Woodrow, M., Foong Lee, M., McGrane, J., Osborne, B., Pudner, H., Trotman,
C. (1998) From elitism to inclusion: good practice in widening access to higher
education. London: CVCP
Zucchermaglio, C (1996) Vygotskij in Azienda. Rome: La Nuova Italia
Scientifica
41