1. Institution’s Self-Evaluation Report (SER)
The Self Evaluation Report should be submitted to the Partnerships Office in an agreed electronic format at least four weeks in advance of the institutional review event. An electronic briefing pack containing relevant documentation is sent to members of the institutional review Panel two to three weeks in advance of the event.
The SER will include information relating to the Institution’s internal structures and procedures. It is expected that most of the documentary evidence required will already be available within the institution, and that the SER will summarise the annual monitoring data provided over the previous three years.
2. Consultation with Students and Graduates
Members of the University’s academic and senior administrative staff will consult with a sample of HE students and recent graduates drawn from the whole HE student body at the institution. Where appropriate, staff might also meet with a range of employers. Any themes emerging from the discussions will be referred to the review panel for its consideration.
3. Institutional Review Panel
An institutional review panel will be formed, with membership typically comprising:
Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Academic) or nominee (Chair);
Academic Director of Partnerships (UEA);
External academic with appropriate experience in collaborative provision;
At least one experienced member of academic staff from UEA;
A member of senior staff representing the prospective institution;
Partnerships Office representative;
- Secretary to the Panel
The exact membership of the panel for each event will be subject to approval by Academic Director of Partnerships. In the absence of any panel members on the day of the event, the decision as to whether the institutional review event should proceed is at the Chair’s discretion. Panel members should normally meet with students and/or recent graduates of the prospective institution as part of the institutional review event.
4. Institutional Review Event
The institutional review panel will meet at the partner institution. The review event usually takes place over a full day and the agenda is based on a template which may be modified if appropriate for a specific review event. The review event may include a tour of relevant facilities. An example of a typical agenda for an Institutional Review event can be used for guidance.
Members of the panel from the institution under review are present for all the panel’s discussions, except meetings with students and graduates of the institution where this is felt to be inappropriate.
The agenda will include one or more blocks of time in which the panel may discuss the partnership in detail with members of the senior management team of the institution, and in which members of the institution will have the opportunity to respond to points raised.
The Chair is responsible for highlighting positive aspects of the partnership and raising issues in a constructive manner. After debate, it is usual for the senior management team at the institution to depart to allow the panel members to determine their recommendations. The Chair normally commences this second private meeting of the panel by summarising the issues and the Institution’s responses and s/he will conclude the meeting by agreeing the outcome of the event with the panel before inviting members of the institution back for verbal feedback. Where the decision of the Panel is not unanimous, the decision of the Chair is final.
During the concluding feedback session, the Chair will announce the outcome of the event and notify the senior management team of any conditions, requirements and/or recommendations that must be addressed or considered. A deadline will be set by which conditions and/or recommendations must be met and/or responded to, and a decision made by the Chair as to whether the conditions should be met via a conditions meeting or by correspondence. The Chair and Secretary will liaise to ensure that draft conditions and recommendations are circulated to the senior management team normally within five working days of the event.
There are three possible outcomes from an event:
decision to reapprove the institution, in which case no further action by the senior management team is required;
not to reapprove the institution;
- decision to reapprove the institution with conditions and/or requirements and/or recommendations, in which case the senior management team must provide the Chair with evidence, within agreed timescales, that the conditions and/or requirements have been met, and must respond to any recommendations.
Commendations allow the panel a chance to congratulate the partner institution on aspects of good practice.
Conditions are those issues that must be addressed to the satisfaction of the panel prior to an institutional re-approval, by agreed deadlines.
Requirements are those issues on which action will be expected once institutional re-approval has started, by agreed deadlines, and progress will be monitored through the relevant Joint Board of Study/Joint Committee.
Recommendations are those issues on which action is to be considered by the partner institution, possibly after institutional re-approval has commenced and are considered by the Joint Board of Study/Joint Committee.
During the feedback session the Chair will announce the outcome of the event and notify the partner institution of any conditions, requirements and/or recommendations for the institution and/or the University and partner institutions to action or to consider. A deadline will be set by which conditions, requirements and/or recommendations should be met and/or responded to, and the Chair and Secretary will liaise to ensure that draft conditions and recommendations are circulated within five working days of the event.
5. Institutional Review Report and Action Plan
The secretary to the review panel will prepare an institutional review report and action plan, which will be passed to the Chair for confirmation. The report and action plan may contain matters for the institution and/or the University and/or the institution and University jointly to action or to consider.
a brief summary of how each condition and/or requirement has been met with reference to the amended documents;
how each recommendation has been considered;
- any other appropriate evidence.
Any revisions and amendments to the documentation should be mapped and cross-referenced to the new documentation by the partner institution.
The panel will then make a formal recommendation to LTC for approval of the continuation of the partnership. The relevant Joint Board of Study will be responsible for monitoring subsequent progress against the report and action plan.
6. Conditions Sign Off
Conditions are signed off by correspondence under Chair’s Action, in consultation with Panel members as necessary.
If the conditions have been met, the Chair will recommend Institutional Approval. If in the Chair’s opinion any condition has not been met or further evidence is required, the Chair will consider the further documentation which will address only the outstanding issues, in consultation with Panel members as necessary. If the conditions are not able to be met, the matter should be referred back to LTC to determine whether to request that the prospective institution undertake further work on the proposal and proceed to a further Institutional Approval or to withdraw altogether.