c provision and joint a (n ational and … · qualifications and quality assurance (education and...

LIT POLICY on Collaborative Provision and Joint Awards Version: Final

(National and Transnational)

Approved on the 20th June 2014 of 35

COLLABORATIVE PROVISION AND JOINT AWARDS (NATIONAL AND TRANSNATIONAL)

Supplement to the LIT Academic Regulations and Procedures on Policy and Procedures for Collaborative Provision and Joint Awarding Arrangements (National and

Transnational)




Document Control Record Collaborative Provision and Joint Awards (National and Transnational)

Identification No. Revision No. 1

Document Owner: Academic Council

Document Status: Final (for Approval)

Page 2 of 35

Language: English (Ireland)

Date of Approval Academic Council:

Date of Approval Governing Body:

Document Type: Internal Regulations

Contact/Creator: VP Academic Affairs and Registrar

Revision History

Revision No. Date Comments

Sign Off

Document Owner Date

Institute Date




Table of Contents

PREAMBLE ............................................................................................................................................................... 4

1. LIT INTERNATIONALISATION STRATEGY .......................................................................................................... 5

2. SCOPE OF POLICY SUPPLEMENT ON COLLABORATIVE PROVISION AND JOINT AWARDS ............................... 7

3. TRANSNATIONAL COLLABORATIONS - PRECEPTS ......................................................................................... 10

4. INITIATION OF COLLABORATIVE PROGRAMMES AND JOINT AWARDS ........................................................ 11

5. DUE DILIGENCE ............................................................................................................................................. 12

6. FORMAL AGREEMENT OF COLLABORATIVE PROGRAMMES AND JOINT AWARDING ARRANGEMENTS ...... 14

7. ALIGNMENT WITH LIT REGULATIONS, SYSTEMS AND PROCEDURES ............................................................ 17

8. ACADEMIC QUALITY ASSURANCE OF COLLABORATIVE PROGRAMMES AND JOINT AWARDS ..................... 19

9. VALIDATION OF COLLABORATIVE PROGRAMMES AND JOINT AWARDS ...................................................... 20

10. PROCESS FOR VALIDATION OF COLLABORATIVE PROGRAMMES OR JOINT AWARDS – PRECEPTS .............. 20

11. MONITORING OF COLLABORATIVE PROGRAMMES/COLLABORATIVE PROGRAMMES LEADING TO JOINT AWARDS ........................................................................................................................................................ 22

12. PROCESS FOR QUINQUENNIAL REVIEW OF COLLABORATIVE PROGRAMMES AND JOINT AWARDS – PRECEPTS ...................................................................................................................................................... 23

13. REVIEW OF POLICY SUPPLEMENT ON COLLABORATIVE PROGRAMMES AND JOINT AWARDS .................... 24

APPENDIX I: AREAS REQUIRING PARTICULAR ATTENTION IN THE CONTEXT OF DISTANCE AND E-LEARNING PROGRAMMES .............................................................................................................................................. 26

APPENDIX II: RISK AREAS ASSOCIATED WITH INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATIVE ARRANGEMENTS .................... 27

APPENDIX III: GLOSSARY OF TERMS ...................................................................................................................... 29

APPENDIX IV: FLOW CHART .................................................................................................................................. 35

LIT wishes to acknowledge use of the CIT template in the development of this policy.




Preamble

Limerick Institute of Technology (LIT) states, in its Vision and Strategy to 2020, that it

“will develop its network of international partners, thus adding a multinational and multicultural dimension to the learning environment for our future learners.”

In particular

“LIT will maximise its scope for internationalisation through collaborative and transnational provision of degree programmes with preferred international partners as defined under national policy.”

The following policy supports collaborative activity and ensures that programmes delivered in collaboration are consistent with the quality standards expected of all LIT provision.

LIT, as an institution based in Ireland is subject to and observes the requirements of Irish legislation including

• The Qualifications (Education & Training) Act 1999 (the Qualifications Act) • The Institutes of Technology Acts (1992-2006) • The Qualifications and Quality Assurance (Education and Training) Act 2012

LIT observes the requirements and guidance (as appropriate) of the following international agreements:

• Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education in the European Region (the Lisbon Convention), 1997:

• Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG), 2005-9

• Framework For Qualifications in the European Higher Education Area, 2005

LIT also works within the framework of policy, criteria and guidelines that have been developed by its awarding body, Quality and Qualifications Ireland1 (QQI). These include QQI’s:

• Guidelines and Criteria for Quality Assurance Procedures, HETAC, 2011 (HETAC reference H.2.4)

• Criteria and Procedures for the Delegation and Review of Delegation of Authority to Make Awards, HETAC, 2004 (supersedes Supplementary Guidelines for the Delegation and Review of Delegation of Authority to Make Awards, HETAC, 2003.

• Policy on Institutional Review of Providers of Higher Education and Training, HETAC, 2007 • Provider Monitoring Policy and Procedures, HETAC, 2010 • Policy on Registration of Providers, HETAC, 2008 • Policy for collaborative programmes, transnational programmes and joint awards –

accreditation, quality assurance, and delegation of authority, HETAC, December 2008 (HETAC reference E1.3)

• Policy for collaborative programmes, transnational programmes and joint awards – accreditation, quality assurance, and delegation of authority, HETAC, Revised 2012 (HETAC reference E1.3 version 1.2)

1 Since the establishment of Quality and Qualifications Ireland (QQI) on 6 November 2012 under the Qualifications and Quality Assurance (Education and Training) Act 2012, QQI has assumed all the functions of the Further Education and Training Awards Council (FETAC), the Higher Education and Training Awards Council (HETAC), the National Qualifications Authority of Ireland (NQAI) and the Irish Universities Quality Board (IUQB) while also having responsibility for new or newly-statutory responsibilities in particular areas.

http://www.nqai.ie/documents/qualificationsact1999.pdf

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/acts/2006/A2506.pdf

http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13522&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13522&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

http://www.enqa.eu/files/ESG_3edition%20(2).pdf

http://www.bologna-bergen2005.no/Docs/00-Main_doc/050218_QF_EHEA.pdf

http://www.hetac.ie/docs/hetac_guidelines_and_criteria_for_qa_procedures.pdf

http://www.hetac.ie/docs/DA%20Criteria%20and%20Procedures%202004.pdf

http://www.hetac.ie/docs/DA%20Criteria%20and%20Procedures%202004.pdf

http://www.hetac.ie/docs/Supplementary%20Doc%20for%20DA.pdf

http://www.hetac.ie/docs/Supplementary%20Doc%20for%20DA.pdf

http://www.hetac.ie/docs/Policy%20on%20Inst%20Reviews%20December%2007.pdf

http://www.hetac.ie/docs/F.1.2-1.2_Provider_Monitoring_Policy_And_Procedures_2010.pdf

http://www.hetac.ie/docs/Policy%20regarding%20New%20Providers%20of%20HETAC%20Awards.pdf

http://www.hetac.ie/docs/Policy%20for%20collaborative%20programmes,%20transnational%20programmes%20and%20joint%20awards.pdf







• Devolution of Responsibility for Validation Sub-processes, HETAC, 2011 (HETAC Reference E3.5 version 1.2)

• Assessment and Standards. Implementing the National Framework of Qualifications and Applying the European Standards and Guidelines, HETAC, December 2009 (HETAC reference C.1.1 version 1.1)

• Procedure for assessment of applications for Registration as a HETAC Registered Provider, Version 8, January 2010

• Core Validation Policy and Criteria, HETAC, June 2010 (HETAC reference E.1.8, version 1.0) • General Programme Validation Manual, HETAC, July 2010 (HETAC reference E.2.4, version

1.1) • Award Standards, HETAC

LIT also observes the requirements of Quality and Qualifications Ireland (QQI) and particularly its

• Policies, actions and procedures for access, transfer and progression for learners, NQAI, 2003 • Principles and Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of a National Approach to Credit

in Irish Higher Education and Training, NQAI, 2004 • Principles and Operational Guidelines for the Recognition of Prior Learning in Further and

Higher Education and Training NQAI, 2005

LIT uses guidance and recommendations from the following in its collaborative work

• Developing Joint Master's Programmes for Europe. Results of the EUA Joint Master's Project, European University Association, 2004

• Revised Code of Good Practice in the Provision of Transnational Education, UNESCO/Council of Europe, 2007

• Quality in Partnership: 25 Years of the Council of Validating Universities, UK Council of Validating Universities (CVU), 2008 (available from CVU).

• Draft Guidelines for the Approval, Monitoring and Review of Collaborative and Transnational Provision , IHEQN, 24th January 2013

This document applies QQI’s Policy for Collaborative Programmes, Transnational Programmes and Joint Awards (HETAC, Revised 2012) and should also be read in conjunction with that policy.

[Back to top]

1. LIT Internationalisation Strategy

LIT Internationalisation Strategy is informed by national strategy set out in “Investing in Global Relationships: Ireland’s International Education Strategy 2010-2015”. The Higher Education Authority “National Strategy for Higher Education to 2030” is the wider education context for the LIT Internationalisation Strategy. The contextualisation of the LIT Internationalisation Strategy in this procedure for collaborative and transnational provision flows seamlessly from the above through the LIT Vision and Strategy to 2020.

LIT will build up its network of international partners, thus adding a multinational and multicultural dimension to the learning environment for our future learners. It is essential for our graduates to be equipped with know-how and competencies for the global marketplace. Irish graduates are noted for their employability with international companies and their adaptability at home and abroad, and an increasing capacity to create new indigenous enterprise trading internationally. LIT graduates will be at the forefront of these trends and be enabled to look beyond regional horizons.

http://www.hetac.ie/docs/Assessment_and_Standards_2009%20Published.pdf

http://www.hetac.ie/docs/Assessment_and_Standards_2009%20Published.pdf

http://www.hetac.ie/docs/Procedure%20for%20addressing%20app%20registration%20as%20HETAC%20provider%20jan%202010.pdf

http://www.hetac.ie/docs/E.1.8_1.1Core%20Validation%20Policy%20and%20Criteria%202010.pdf

http://www.hetac.ie/docs/General%20Programme%20Validation%20Manual%2005%2007%202010.pdf

http://www.hetac.ie/publications.cfm?sID=41

http://www.nqai.ie/docs/publications/10.pdf

http://www.nqai.ie/documents/principlesandoperguidelinesgreen.pdf

http://www.nqai.ie/documents/principlesandoperguidelinesgreen.pdf

http://www.nqai.ie/publication_jun2005.html

http://www.nqai.ie/publication_jun2005.html

http://www.eua.be/eua/jsp/en/upload/Joint_Masters_report.1087219975578.pdf

http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/documents/LRC/Code_TNE_rev2007.pdf




Shifts in economic outlook, as well as the evolution in the global workplace, place a requirement on LIT to further internationalise the curriculum. Graduates need to be able to look beyond boundaries and this will be reflected in academic programmes.

LIT‟s approach and development of quality assurance systems and processes is effective and sophisticated. Our Quality Assurance is in line with standards and guidelines for the European Higher Education Area, and with the national guidelines and criteria for QA procedures to be overseen by the integrated agency Quality and Qualifications Ireland (QQI). Staff are aware of national and international best practice in academia and in the profession. As a next step in the development of QA, we will engage in Institutional benchmarking with one or more international partners.

LIT aims to offer a high-quality and supportive learning environment for all types of learners (full-time, part-time, international, priority groups – at all levels of the National Qualifications Framework from apprentices to undergraduates and postgraduates).

Support services available to international students in LIT include induction and mentoring; remedial tuition (subject to staffing resources); coaching; counselling; access; medical; chaplaincy/pastoral care; careers advice; mature students network; international office and language support; sports clubs and societies.

We will continue to implement personal development plans and team development plans under the Performance Management and Development Systems for the sector, in line with strategic and operational priorities. These plans will fit with our academic programme provision, research and development ambitions and requirements with regard to administration and support. Under the LIT Staff Development Policy, individual plans for instance to gain higher qualifications will be supported as well as Institute-wide staff development initiatives such as teaching and learning seminars and international staff mobility.

LIT also enhances the social and economic life of the region by using its international knowledge networks to create opportunities for local enterprises, public bodies and community and voluntary organisations to participate in international projects, thereby enhancing their knowledge base, trading networks and effectiveness.

LIT’s stated mission is to prepare learners for fulfilling and challenging futures, fostering the professional, intellectual, social, cultural and personal development of the individual. The hallmark of our educational philosophy is active learning through a fusion of theory and practice. We provide third and fourth level education, training and research, playing a pivotal role in the economic and socio-cultural development of our region.

LIT is highly committed to supporting the development of the Mid-West Region. In addressing this area of our mission we:

• Maintain our leading position with several niche programmes which attract national and international learners to the Institute and therefore to the region;

• Contribute to the community, both as an educational provider and as a major employer and stakeholder on the Northside of Limerick City and in the wider Mid-West region;

• Take a lead role in collaborating with other third-level providers, thus transforming and optimising the higher education landscape and setting an example to other regions.2

The learner is central to everything we do and our main reason for being is to provide the learner with an excellent educational experience which achieves the mission of the Institute to foster the

2 Charter of Limerick Institute of Technology 2009 - 2014




professional, intellectual, social, cultural and personal development of the individual. The goals and objectives throughout this strategic plan articulate how LIT intends to deliver on this mission.

In particular, in relation to international learners:

• LIT will increase the number of international learners, in line with Government policy (EU and non-EU, on fee-paying as well as exchange schemes). Such learners will be recruited in a targeted manner where there is existing capacity and where links can be forged with international partners. Undergraduate, postgraduate and enterprise incubation support programmes will all be part of the mix of offerings to international learners. As relative latecomers to international recruitment strategy, LIT will take on board lessons learnt elsewhere in the sector.

• Incoming international learners will be adequately supported, for instance through link-ups with local families and a new ‘buddy system’ through the Students Union. LIT learners will also be encouraged to get international experience, e.g. through work placements or study abroad. Our existing bilateral partnerships or networks with institutions in the EU and in Florida, US will be nurtured and deepened; LIT will also seek to expand global horizons with partnerships in China and India.

• LIT will maximise its scope for internationalisation through collaborative and transnational provision of degree programmes with preferred international partners as defined under national policy.3

LIT’s Internationalisation Strategy provides direction to outline how LIT can transition from its current position to one where the internationalisation strategy is informed by a better understanding of market opportunity and risk. Key elements of the strategy include:

• Focusing on defining LIT’s position in all markets in which we operate, prioritising quality and academic impact over volume and income as key strategic goals

• Adopting a focused and systematic approach to the further development of our international activities

• Creating sustainable models of international recruitment

• Embedding internationalisation within Teaching and Learning

• Ensuring engagement by all Schools and Departments

Internationalisation is important for LIT, giving students the benefit of experiencing an educational and social environment that is internationally diverse, helping them to be successful in an increasingly globalised world. LIT students will experience a curriculum that is international in its content and experience and the student experience will be enhanced by opportunities for international work and study placements.

[Back to top]

2. Scope of Policy Supplement on Collaborative Provision and Joint Awards

This policy supplement governs the development and operation of all collaborative programmes and joint awards between Limerick Institute of Technology and other national or transnational providers of higher education and training programmes, whether existing or planned. 3 LIT Vision and Strategy to 2020




2.1 Range of Collaborative Arrangements Covered

This policy supplement covers the following types of collaborative arrangements:

a. collaborative provision of higher education programmes4

b. joint higher education awards5

While the processes for formal agreement, accreditation/validation6 and quality assurance set out hereunder in this policy supplement differ in parts for programmes leading to single awards and those leading to joint awards, the two types of collaboration are not mutually exclusive, and several configurations are possible. For example, collaborative programme provision may lead to a single or joint award; or a joint award may be attached to a programme provided by a single provider or may be attached to a programme jointly provided by a consortium of providers7.

2.2

This policy supplement covers all developmental and operational stages of a planned or existing collaborative programme and/or joint awarding arrangement.

2.3

This supplement also covers programmes and awards which were originally developed and accredited/validated as single-provider programmes or single awards by one of the partner providers, and subsequently converted for joint delivery and/or joint awarding by a national or transnational consortium which includes Limerick Institute of Technology.

Any such converted programme or award requires re-accreditation/revalidation as a collaborative programme or joint award as appropriate. Where a programme leading to an award was originally developed and validated by Limerick Institute of Technology (or another QQI provider) under delegated authority, authority to make the associated award reverts back to QQI on conversion into a collaborative programme/joint award and validation must be re-applied for by the consortium of providers.

2.4

Conversion of a single-provider programme into a collaborative programme may have implications for the continuing recognition/validation of the programme with the relevant professional or regulatory bodies within or outside of Ireland. It is therefore imperative that the relevant bodies are kept abreast of any plans to convert/revalidate a recognised or accredited programme, and are afforded opportunities to provide input as appropriate. In

4 For the purposes of this policy supplement, collaborative provision of a higher education programme in line with Section 2.1.1 of QQI, Policy for collaborative programmes, transnational programmes and joint awards (HETAC Revised 2012) means provision of a programme of higher education and training in which Limerick Institute of Technology is involved with one or more other providers by formal agreement. The term “collaborative programme” shall be construed as an instance of such provision. 5 For the purposes of this document, the interpretation of joint award adopted by QQI in Section 4.1.1 of its Policy for collaborative programmes, transnational programmes and joint awards (HETAC Revised 2012) applies. 6 For the purposes of this policy supplement, the interpretation of accreditation and validation adopted by QQI in Section 1.2 of Policy for collaborative programmes, transnational programmes and joint awards (HETAC Revised 2012) applies. 7 Any references to “collaborative programmes or joint awarding arrangements” or similar throughout this document shall therefore be taken to mean any arrangement which falls within the interpretation of EITHER OR

BOTH of these types of collaboration.




some cases, the provider consortium may have to re-apply for professional or regulatory body validation/recognition of the converted collaborative programme.

For these reasons, any potential impact on professional body recognition needs to be investigated at an early stage of the conversion process (see 5.1 on the Outline Statement), to ensure the proposed collaborative arrangement is in the best interest of learners. 2.5 Provider Range Covered

This policy supplement covers collaborative programme provision or joint awarding arrangements between Limerick Institute and Technology and the following types of partner organisation, both within and outside of Ireland:

a. Public higher education providers;

b. Accredited private8 higher education providers;

c. Selected accredited providers of other types of education and training with the capacity to act as co-provider of a higher education programme in the context of consortium provision;

d. Selected non-academic / non-educational organisations with the capacity to act as co-provider of a higher education programme in the context of consortium provision.

2.6 Arrangements Not Covered

The following provision types or arrangements which Limerick Institute of Technology engages in, or may engage in at a future point in time, do NOT come within the scope of this policy supplement:

a. Out-centre provision9

b. Branch campus provision within Ireland10

c. Arrangements for transnational staff and student mobility e.g. under the European Commission’s Lifelong Learning Programme (ERASMUS, LEONARDO or GRUNDTVIG)

2.7 Excluded Arrangements

Under the terms of this policy supplement, Limerick Institute of Technology shall not enter into the following arrangements:

a. ‘Serial collaborations’11

8 Accredited here and in the following section 2.5.c shall be understood as holding current accreditation from a recognised external accreditation agency. 9 Out-centre provision means provision of an LIT programme, delivered, overseen and quality assured by LIT and leading to a LIT or QQI award, in a facility in Ireland other than the Institute’s main and constituent college campuses and which involves a separate named local agency in the provision and maintenance of local teaching facilities, learning resources and learner supports on behalf of LIT. Out-centre provision may be “collaborative”. 10 Branch campus provision is understood as provision of a LIT programme, delivered, overseen and quality assured by LIT and leading to a LIT or QQI award, on a campus other than the Institute’s main and constituent college campuses, and where programme delivery as well as the provision and maintenance of local teaching facilities, learning resources and learner supports are carried out by LIT.




b. Joint awarding arrangements with organisations whose primary function is not provision of programmes of higher education and training. A joint award can only be made with another awarding body, whether a provider of higher education and training or not.

c. Arrangements for collaborative provision of programmes of higher education and training in which LIT does not act as provider or co-provider

2.8 Programmes Delivered Through Blended, Distance and/or E-Learning Mechanisms

Collaborative programmes or joint awarding arrangements delivered predominantly or exclusively through blended, distance and/or e-learning mechanisms give rise to a number of concerns which do not arise to the same extent, or at all, for campus-based programmes largely built around traditional ‘face-to-face’ delivery.

These concerns require appropriate consideration throughout the gestation of a proposed collaborative arrangement, particularly when drawing up the detailed provisions governing the establishment, operation and quality assurance of a distance or e-learning programme.

Significant aspects specific to such programmes which may require particular attention in the context of collaborative provision or joint awarding arrangements are set out in Appendix I. 2.9

QQI policy on collaborative programmes explicitly disallows any further delegation of delegated authority, thereby prohibiting ‘serial collaborations’. This should be borne in mind in due diligence searches (see Para. 4), particularly with regard to potential partners whose financial, legal and academic capacity has not yet been established.

[Back to top]

3. Transnational Collaborations - Precepts

Transnational collaborations carry a number of specific requirements over and beyond those which need to be met in the context of national collaborations:

a. A need to reconcile different legal and regulatory frameworks;

b. A need to involve all relevant national statutory, awarding and quality assurance agencies operating in the country of each partner provider in the establishment, accreditation/validation and quality assurance, as appropriate, of the collaborative arrangement12;

c. A need to develop specific, robust, operable and sustainable oversight and quality assurance mechanisms where co-providers are judged to be physically or culturally remote;

11 Serial collaborations are defined as instances where LIT would enter into a collaborative arrangement with a partner organisation which, in turn, would use that arrangement as a basis for establishing collaborations of its own with third parties. 12 In the absence of delegated authority, QQI is required to be involved in the establishment/approval and quality assurance of all transnational collaborations involving LIT and the accreditation/validation of any associated programme. In a delegated authority context, the conditions attached to such delegated authority must be observed.




d. A need to safeguard the quality of the education and the standard of the awards in cases where a programme, learner support and/or assessment are wholly or partially provided in a language different from the languages in which LIT normally operates (that is, English and Irish).

3.1 Examination in Languages Other than English or Irish

LIT will not engage in assessment of learners in a language other than English or Irish. 3.2 Assessment of Work in Translation

Any intervention between the examiner(s) and the work produced by the student, such as language translation, significantly increases the risk to the reliability and validity of the judgement about student achievement and shall not be permitted.

[Back to top]

4. Initiation of Collaborative Programmes and Joint Awards

It is recognised that collaborative provision and joint awarding arrangements may arise from a multiplicity of sources, including strategic alliances between higher education providers, the emergence of common teaching or research interests in different institutions, and staff mobility schemes.

However, in order to ensure maximum benefit to Limerick Institute of Technology and its partner providers, collaborative programmes and joint awarding arrangements need to be developed, governed and managed strategically and systematically and in full integration with the overall strategic goals and development plan of the Institute.

Therefore, any planned collaborative venture between Limerick Institute of Technology and other national as well as transnational providers shall be notified to the Institute’s Executive Management through the Head of School and requires a positive recommendation from Executive Management, based on the findings of a due diligence search, prior to the drafting of a Joint Awarding Agreement and/or Consortium Agreement as appropriate.

4.1 Outline Statement

In order to determine the appropriate scope and detail of a due diligence search (see Para. 6) and subsequently the potential for further development, the Institute Executive requires clarity on how the envisaged collaboration will impact on LIT.

Notification of a planned collaboration to the Institute Executive therefore entails submission of an outline statement on the parameters of the proposed arrangement.

The outline statement needs to set out what the collaboration will entail in terms of:

a. strategic justification;

b. negotiation and development;

c. management and/or oversight;

d. quality assurance;

e. nature and ownership of programmes and awards;

f. delivery and assessment mechanisms;




g. professional / regulatory body recognition and validation;

h. learner entitlements; and

i. business case and estimate of costs.

While the individual points do not require elaboration in detail, the outline statement needs to provide a sufficient amount of information on each point to allow for an informed decision on the part of the Executive.

[Back to top]

5. Due Diligence

An effective system of internal control is an important feature of modern governance for a higher education institution, with risk management a foremost concern. LIT’s Risk Management Policy provides a framework for risk identification and assessment as well as for the development of strategies to assure the achievement of the Institute’s strategic objectives.

Collaborative provision and joint awarding arrangements open up exciting opportunities for growth and development, but also carry risks for the financial, legal and academic integrity and good standing of an institution and the well-being of its learners and staff. Before entering into any collaborative venture, it is therefore good practice for an institution to implement strategies designed to provide reasonable assurance that the associated risks can be obviated or minimised.

The main strategy to be employed in Limerick Institute of Technology for the management of risk arising from any planned collaborative arrangement is a due diligence search. Whilst it is not mandatory under QQI policy, a time-limited Memorandum of Understanding will be established prior to the conduct of due diligence to set the enabling framework for the sharing of confidential information and the development of a consortium.

5.1 Purpose of a Due Diligence Search

The purpose of a due diligence search is to

a. identify and assess the risks arising from the proposed collaboration, including governance, staffing, students and environmental risks;

b. ensure the collaboration does not expose LIT and its learners to unacceptable risk;

c. ensure LIT’s commitment to its learners including protection against programme closure; and

d. clearly define the nature, magnitude and likely persistence of, and most suitable management strategy for, any acceptable risks.

5.2

The risks incurred will depend on the exact nature of each collaborative venture. Risks may vary even in cases where most of the variables remain the same, e.g. where a known partner provider wishes to enter into a new type of collaboration.

Once the parameters of the proposed collaboration have been sufficiently well determined in the outline statement (see Para. 4.1 above), the necessary scope and level of detail of a due diligence search in five risks areas can be determined. The risk areas to be assessed are:




a. financial risks;

b. legal risks;

c. operational risks;

d. academic risks; and

e. reputational risks.

Significant recurrent aspects which may need to be included in a consideration of each area are listed in Appendix II below. 5.3 Initiation of a Due Diligence Search

The necessary extent of a due diligence search for a particular proposed collaboration will be determined by the Institute Executive following consideration of the parameters of the proposed collaboration. The Executive will then initiate the search with the appropriate Institute functions. 5.4 Conduct and Oversight of a Due Diligence Search

Overall oversight over the due diligence search related to a proposed collaborative arrangement remains with the Institute Executive.

5.4.1

Executive responsibility for the conduct of due diligence enquiries into Financial and Legal Risks will lie with the Office of the Vice President of Corporate Services and Capital Development, unless otherwise determined by the President.

5.4.2

Executive responsibility for due diligence enquiries into Academic Risks will lie with the Office of the Vice President of Academic Affairs and Registrar, unless otherwise determined by the President.

5.4.3

Responsibility for due diligence enquiries into Operational and Reputational Risks will be determined by the Institute Executive on a case-by-case basis, depending on the nature of the potential risk.

5.4.4

Given the developmental nature of the proposed collaboration, due diligence enquiries should be carried out in consultation with the LIT proposers, and in a manner appropriately respectful of both the proposed partner and the preliminary stage of the discussions.

5.4.5

Where the proposal for a collaborative arrangement arises from within an Institute function which carries executive responsibility for due diligence, the allocation of particular due diligence enquiries should be informed by the need to safeguard the independence of the due diligence process.




5.4.6

LIT will establish more detailed criteria and require prospective partners to conduct a self-evaluation against those criteria. Independent validation of the self-evaluation may be required along with independent investigations.

5.5 Outcome of a Due Diligence Search

The outcomes of the due diligence search will be reported to the Institute Executive in the first instance, in the form of a written report. The written report, which must be retained, shall present the evidence considered along with analysis and conclusions. Based on these outcomes, the Executive will issue a recommendation on the further development of the proposed collaborative arrangement. The Executive may recommend that development of the arrangement should be progressed or terminated or that the parameters of the arrangement should be modified. The Executive will notify the LIT proposers of the reasons for its recommendation through the school structure.

Where the Institute Executive has recommended that the proposed collaboration should be further developed, the LIT proposers in conjunction with the proposed partners should commence preparation of a detailed Consortium Agreement as appropriate. In parallel, the appropriate Institute functions should also engage with the proposed partners and any relevant external awarding or quality assurance agencies (including QQI) on the establishment where necessary of an institutional framework for the proposed collaboration, in line with QQI policy and the provisions of this policy supplement.

Where the Institute Executive, Academic Council or Governing Body has recommended that a proposed collaboration should not be pursued, it would fall to the proposers to transmit this decision to the proposed partner.

[Back to top]

6. Formal Agreement of Collaborative Programmes and Joint Awarding Arrangements

It is envisaged that LIT will adopt a particular model of collaborative provision, through which it will only engage in collaborations where it is the lead partner. The provisions governing the establishment, operation, quality assurance and termination of a collaborative programme or joint awarding arrangement between Limerick Institute of Technology and its partner provider(s) shall be formally set out and agreed between the partner providers and other relevant agencies prior to the accreditation/validation of the associated programme(s) and the commencement of the collaborative activities.

6.1 Approval of Formal Agreements by Academic Council and Governing Body

Within LIT, formal agreement of a collaborative programme or joint award between Limerick Institute of Technology and other providers regarding collaborative provision and joint awards entails the formal approval of the Governing Body, on the recommendation of the Academic Council. The overriding precept is that the agreement is consistent with the strategic plan of the Institute as approved by Governing Body




6.2 Formal Agreement of Collaborative Programmes Leading to Single Awards13

The provisions governing the establishment, operation, quality assurance and termination of a collaborative programme leading to a single award shall be formally established and set out in a Consortium Agreement.

Consortium Agreements for collaborative programmes leading to single-provider awards shall be drawn up in line with the guidelines on drafting Consortium Agreements in the Appendix of QQI’s Policy for collaborative programmes, transnational programmes and joint awards (HETAC, Revised 2012).

As a norm, the provisions of the Consortium Agreement shall be specific and detailed and shall not presuppose or require familiarity with any other regulations, standards or policy provisions in force in LIT or within the partner organisation. However, where particular provisions follow approved quality procedures and arrangements of one of the partner providers, it shall be permissible to refer to the relevant section(s) in that partner’s current approved quality documentation. A copy of this documentation should be appended to the Consortium Agreement, or an electronic link included, as appropriate.

The Consortium Agreement for a collaborative programme leading to single awards requires the signature of the Chief Officer (or her/his legally empowered representative) of each collaborating institution.

6.3 Formal Agreement of Joint Awards

6.3.1 Memoranda of Agreement for Joint Awards

The provisions governing the establishment, operation, quality assurance, time-limitation and termination of a programme leading to a joint award shall, as a rule, be formally established and set out in TWO separate but complementary memoranda of agreement, a Joint Awarding Agreement and a Consortium Agreement. 6.3.2 Joint Awarding Agreement (JAA)

The Joint Awarding Agreement (JAA) for a joint award sets out the provisions governing the institutional relationship established and agreed between the partner providers and any relevant awarding or quality assurance bodies including QQI for entering into, operating and terminating the joint awarding arrangement, as well as the regulations and processes for the making and conferring of awards, the principles governing the accreditation/validation and re-accreditation/re-validation of programmes and the issuing of results.

The JAA provides the institutional parameters with which the detailed programme-level regulations of the Consortium Agreement must dovetail. The Joint Awarding Agreement establishes the overarching framework for the Consortium Agreement, which in turn sets out the specific arrangements for delivery, assessment and quality assurance of a programme leading to a joint award. As a rule, the Joint Awarding Agreement should be in force prior to sign-off on the Consortium Agreement.

The JAA shall be drawn up in accordance with the guidelines on drafting joint awarding agreements contained in QQI’s Policy for collaborative programmes,

13 A Single Award shall be understood to be an award made singly by one of the providers in a consortium. This includes single awards made by Limerick Institute of Technology under delegated authority.




transnational programmes and joint awards (HETAC, Revised 2012), Section 4.5 and Appendix.

The JAA requires the following signatories:

a. The Chief Officer (or her/his legally empowered representative) of every awarding and quality assurance body the involvement of which is required;

b. The Chief Officer (or her/his legally empowered representative) of each collaborating institution.

6.3.3 Consortium Agreement for Programmes Leading to Joint Awards

The Consortium Agreement for a programme leading to a joint award specifies all regulations and provisions governing the accreditation/validation, operation, quality assurance and learning experience of the programme leading to the joint award. As a minimum, it needs to include:

a. A specification of the Marks & Standards and any other regulations governing assessment and examination;

b. Procedures and processes for programme management, operation and quality assurance (including appropriate mechanisms for the involvement of learners);

c. Examination appeals procedures and disciplinary processes;

d. Entitlement of learners on the programme leading to the joint award;

e. Provisions and operating procedures for access, transfer and progression, including the recognition of prior learning where applicable;

f. Provisions regarding programme learning resources and learner supports where applicable;

g. Delivery systems where applicable; and

h. Any other pertinent provisions referenced by QQI guidelines on drafting Consortium Agreements for collaborative programmes which have not been covered in the Joint Awarding Agreement.

The provisions of Consortium Agreements for joint awards shall be specific and detailed. Where particular provisions follow approved quality procedures and arrangements of one of the partner providers, it shall be permissible to refer to the relevant section(s) in that partner’s current approved quality documentation. A copy of this documentation should be appended to the Consortium Agreement, or an electronic link included, as appropriate. Specific consortium governance issues will be addressed within the Consortium Agreement.

The Consortium Agreement for a joint award shall be signed by:

a. The Chief Officer (or her/his legally empowered representative) of each collaborating institution;

b. the head of the discipline area / head of function responsible for operating and overseeing the programme leading to the joint award (or her/his representative) in each collaborating institution.




6.3.4

In cases where a specific joint awarding arrangement arises from a well-established external programme framework which requires the formal agreement to be set out in a format divergent from that determined in 6.3.2 above (including ERASMUS MUNDUS), it shall be ensured that all provisions and points of information inclusion of which is required by this policy supplement are clearly and unambiguously set out either in the main body of the agreement or in supplementary documentation as necessary. The purposes of the Consortium Agreement and whether the Erasmus Mundus model addresses those purposes completely or must be supplemented in order to do so will be addressed on a case by case basis.

[Back to top]

7. Alignment with LIT Regulations, Systems and Procedures

As a rule, it shall be expected that the provisions governing the collaborative programme or joint awarding arrangement as set out in the Joint Awarding Agreement and/or Consortium Agreement shall align themselves as far as possible with the current regulations, systems and procedures operating in Limerick Institute of Technology, including in particular LIT’s Quality Assurance Handbook and the LIT Academic Council Regulations and Procedures for Taught Programmes.

7.1 Operation of Regulations, Systems and Procedures between LIT and Partner Providers

It is recognised that collaborative programmes and joint awarding arrangements (particularly in the context of transnational collaborations) entail a high level of institutional cooperation and are likely to require agreement of the regulations and procedures of each collaborating provider. Accordingly, a Consortium Agreement with another provider may contain provisions which differ from LIT standard practices, regulations and quality systems. This is permissible if:

a. the provisions of the Consortium Agreement do not contravene the statutory obligations of Limerick Institute of Technology including those arising from the Qualifications (Education and Training) Act 1999 and the Institutes of Technology Act 2006; AND

b. the provisions of the Consortium Agreement do not contravene the conditions attached to the continued delegation of authority to Limerick Institute of Technology to make awards; AND

c. the provisions of the Consortium Agreement are adequately aligned with the National Framework of Qualifications and relevant related QQI policies and standards, including NQAI policy on access, transfer and progression and the QQI award standards; AND

d. the provisions of the Consortium Agreement overall are balanced in such a way as to ensure the fair and equitable treatment of learners on the collaborative programme(s) as against other learners on comparable single-provider programmes offered by either LIT or by the other provider(s), where applicable; AND

e. the regulations applying to students of the collaborative programme must be unequivocal - ambiguities and contradictions cannot be tolerated; AND

https://gateway.cit.ie/CITDocuments/Documents/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder=%2FCITDocuments%2FDocuments%2FAcademic%20Affairs%2F1%20Academic%20Quality

https://gateway.cit.ie/CITDocuments/Documents/Academic%20Affairs/1%20Academic%20Quality/2%20Assessment%20and%20Examinations/Regulations_for_Modules_and_Programmes_Updated_May%2013_2009.pdf




f. any significant divergences from LIT standard practices, systems or processes have been specifically notified to and recommended by the Academic Council and approved by the Governing Body of Limerick Institute of Technology.

7.2

Limerick Institute of Technology shall notify its partner providers in a collaborative or joint awarding arrangement of any material changes to its standard practices, regulations or quality systems as soon as is practicable. Equally, it shall be requisite on the other consortium provider(s) to notify Limerick Institute of Technology of any material changes to their standard practices, regulations or quality systems as soon as is practicable.

Any revisions to a Joint Awarding Agreement and/or Consortium Agreement between Limerick Institute of Technology and other providers necessitated by such changes shall be made in accordance with the provisions of this policy supplement.

7.3 Principles and Practices for the Harmonisation of Regulations, Systems and Procedures between Partner Providers

The degree to which the regulations and procedures of collaborating providers require harmonisation depends on a large number of variables, including the precise nature of the envisaged collaboration and the extent of the systematic divergences. As a rule, greater divergence entails greater risk, both for the successful establishment and operation of a collaborative venture and the good standing of the partner institutions.

Intended programme learning outcomes and awards standards should be discussed. Award standards can never be harmonised. Where more than one applies in the context of joint awarding, all must be satisfied.

Appropriate risk identification through a conscientiously conducted due diligence search is therefore an essential prerequisite for any attempt at harmonisation.

The following principles and practices shall guide the harmonisation of regulations and systems:

7.3.1 Agreement on Shared Educational Principles

For collaborations with new partner providers in particular, it is recommended that the partner institutions should agree on a shared set of core educational principles to frame and guide collaborative provision from the outset. These principles need to be compatible with and give due consideration to the mission and vision, statutory role and educational philosophy of each partner institution and may in turn serve to steer decisions on individual provisions of the collaborative agreement.

Where it is not possible to arrive at a shared set of educational principles, the capacity of the intended partner institutions to engage in the envisaged collaboration may be limited and should be carefully reviewed.

7.3.2 Agreed Definitions of Core Terms (Terminological Glossary)

To avoid misinterpretation of central concepts and principles, the precise scope and meaning of all core terms in the usage of each partner institution should be reviewed and established before the exact detail of the collaborative arrangement is worked




out. This is particularly important for widely used terms, where differences in the exact usage between institutions may more easily go unnoticed.

Following this review, shared definitions of all core terms used in the context of the collaborative arrangement should be agreed. These definitions should be set out explicitly and clearly in a terminological glossary included with the Joint Awarding Agreement and/or Consortium Agreement. The shared definitions need to take account of any standardised definitions in relevant external statutes or policy documents. 7.3.3 Collegiality and Partnership

Notwithstanding the fact that one of the partner institutions may take the lead in some aspects of the collaboration, such as delivery or quality assurance, the reconciliation of divergent regulations and systems should be conducted in a spirit of collegiality, partnership and mutual respect. 7.3.4 Greatest Learner Benefit

The determination of award should give due regard to the overarching need to protect the academic standard and quality of the collaborative programme and associated award and the need to safeguard equity of treatment for learners across all programmes provided or awarded by LIT or by a provider consortium of which LIT is a part (see Para. 7.1.d above). Where divergent practices need to be reconciled, the final decision on any and all provisions of the collaborative agreement should be informed by the principle of greatest benefit to the learner as determined by reference to the shared educational principles of the partner institutions (see Para. 7.3.1 above).

[Back to top] 8. Academic Quality Assurance of Collaborative Programmes and Joint Awards

The principles and arrangements for the academic quality assurance of collaborative programmes or joint awards involving Limerick Institute of Technology shall be specified in the Joint Awarding Agreement and/or Consortium Agreement (see Para. 6.2 and 6.3 above) and shall encompass provisions for programme accreditation/validation as well as for the on-going monitoring and quinquennial review of the collaborative programme or programme leading to the joint award. The purposes of the Consortium Agreement and Joint Awarding Agreement and the distinction between them will be detailed on a case by case basis.

All procedures for the quality assurance of collaborative programmes or joint awards as set out in the Consortium Agreement shall be established in accordance with QQI’s Policy for collaborative programmes, transnational programmes and joint awards (HETAC, Revised 2012), with particular reference to Sections 2.3 – 2.5, 3.3 – 3.5, and 4.3 – 4.5.

8.1 Oversight of Academic Programme Quality Assurance for Collaborative Programmes and Joint Awards

Within LIT, oversight of academic quality assurance for collaborative programmes and joint awards lies with the Office of the Vice President of Academic Affairs and Registrar. The Vice President of Academic Affairs and Registrar’s Office shall exercise this oversight in




consultation and/or collaboration with the relevant quality assurance offices of the partner provider or consortium of providers and with any relevant external quality assurance agencies as appropriate. Academic operational management resides in the Vice President of Academic Affairs and Registrar’s Office. Authority rests at the Academic Council, which is executively run through the Vice President of Academic Affairs and Registrar. The President is the accountable officer.

[Back to top]

9. Validation of Collaborative Programmes and Joint Awards

9.1 Validation of Collaborative Programmes Leading to Single Awards

For the validation of collaborative programmes leading to single awards within Ireland, Section 2.5 of QQI’s Policy for collaborative programmes, transnational programmes and joint awards (HETAC, Revised 2012) applies.

9.2 Validation of Transnational Collaborative Programmes

Where a transnational collaboration is proposed, QQI will seek to put in place appropriate agreements on shared external quality procedures with the relevant external quality assurance agencies in the country/jurisdiction of each transnational partner provider(s), which can include provision for the validation of a transnational collaborative programme.

With regard to the application for validation of a transnational collaborative programme involving Limerick Institute of Technology, Section 3.5 of QQI’s Policy for collaborative programmes, transnational programmes and joint awards (HETAC, Revised 2012) applies.

9.3 Validation of Joint Awards

In the case of proposed joint awards involving LIT, a joint awarding agreement between QQI and the relevant awarding institutions and bodies as set out in a Joint Awarding Agreement should as a rule be in place prior to application of the provider or consortium of providers for validation of the programme leading to the joint award (see Para. 6.3.1 above).

With regard to the application for validation of a joint award, Section 4.5 of QQI’s Policy for collaborative programmes, transnational programmes and joint awards (HETAC, Revised 2012) applies.

[Back to top]

10. Process for Validation of Collaborative Programmes or Joint Awards – Precepts

It is important to bear in mind that the validation process for a programme leading to a joint award in particular are likely to deviate from LIT’s or QQI’s standard processes. A bespoke process may be agreed with another awarding body, and this process would be set out in the Joint Awarding Agreement, so that a fixed model cannot be prescribed.

However, it is possible to derive from the mission, institutional role and educational aims of Limerick Institute of Technology a number of precepts for the accreditation/validation of collaborative programmes or programmes leading to joint awards between LIT and its partner providers as follows:

10.1 Aims of the Programme Validation Process




Validation of a collaborative programme or programme leading to a joint award is the process whereby all relevant parties aim to satisfy themselves as to the quality and academic standards of the proposed programme, so that learners may attain knowledge, skill or competence for the purpose of an award made by the awarding body’. 10.2 Self-Evaluation and Peer Review

The procedures for accreditation/validation shall include self-evaluation of the proposed programme by the consortium of partner providers and independent peer accreditation/validation review of the proposed programme by a panel of reviewers jointly appointed by all validating bodies, based in each case on a set of agreed criteria.

10.3 Programme Submission

The self-evaluation of a proposed programme shall be set out in a programme submission which shall contain, as a minimum, the programme specification (including programme outcomes, schedules and detailed module/subject descriptors) and such other detailed information on the programme and its context (including legislative/regulatory as appropriate), associated resources and supports, and intended learner experience as to allow for a full and satisfactory review based on the criteria agreed.

All statements and projections should be supported by valid, reliable and sufficiently verifiable data. There should be evidence of appropriate consultation with relevant stakeholders, in particular learners and representatives of industry/the professional field. Programme submissions must meet the Minimum Intended Learning Outcomes set down in national standards.

10.4 Independent Peer Review

In line with QQI policy, the independent peer validation review of a proposed collaborative programme or programme leading to a joint award shall be conducted by an appropriately and representative panel of suitably qualified independent experts.

Each and every member of the panel shall be independent of the collaborating providers

Notwithstanding the exact review mechanism, the peer evaluation of the independent expert panel shall be decisive with regard to the overall recommendation on accreditation/validation of the collaborative programme or joint award to the relevant accrediting body or agency. Peer Review Panels will include members with particular knowledge of collaborative and/or transnational provision as relevant. It may be appropriate to have panellists from particular jurisdictions or nominees from national agencies in other jurisdictions, as set out in the Core Validation Policy and Criteria 2010.

10.5 Certificate of Programme Approval

In accordance with QQI policy, each accredited/validated collaborative programme and joint award shall have a certificate of programme approval specifying inter alia:

a. the programme title;

b. the award title(s);

c. the awarding bodies;

d. the providers;




e. the approved locations of provision;

f. the credit awarded;

g. the award level on the National Framework of Qualifications and any other relevant qualifications frameworks, such as the European Qualifications Framework.

[Back to top]

11. Monitoring of Collaborative Programmes/Collaborative Programmes leading to Joint Awards

LIT will obtain the views of the partner provider at bi-annual monitoring meetings. The monitoring meeting will include processes which identify particular risks in collaborative provision and how they are managing to address them. In keeping with the principles expressed in Section 10 above, and giving due regard to possible divergences in the monitoring requirements of different instances of programme delivery if any, any procedures agreed for the on-going monitoring of collaborative programmes and joint awards between Limerick Institute of Technology and a partner provider shall conform to a number of common precepts as follows:

11.1 Programme Feedback Mechanism

Any procedures established between the partner providers for the on-going monitoring of a collaborative programme or programme leading to a joint award shall include an appropriate, formal mechanism for eliciting feedback on the operation and quality of the programme from learners, graduates and industry/the professional field, as well as from external examiners where appropriate.

Programme feedback sought should include appropriate feedback on academic quality and standards (including delivery) as well as on learning resources and student supports. 11.2 Programme Monitoring Report

In accordance with QQI’s Provider Monitoring Policy and Procedures (HETAC, October 2010) and at agreed intervals significantly shorter than those set for the quinquennial review of a programme, the programme board (or equivalent) for a collaborative programme or programme leading to a joint award shall prepare a report on the status and operation of the programme. Persons with specific competence in collaborative or transnational provision will be included in this review process. As a minimum, this report shall comment on:

a. Indicators of programme performance (including enrolments, learner performance, graduate destinations);

b. Programme feedback sought and received;

c. Operational issues arising; and

d. Any other arising circumstances with a significant effect, existing or foreseeable, on the operation, quality and standards of the programme.

All statements should be supported by valid, reliable and sufficiently verifiable data.

A summary record of programme board activity during the reporting period shall also be included.




The programme monitoring report shall be signed off by the person(s) with executive responsibility for operating and overseeing the collaborative programme or joint award in each of the collaborating institutions.

Within Limerick Institute of Technology, copies of the programme monitoring report shall be forwarded to the Office of the Vice President of Academic Affairs and Registrar as well as to the appropriate School Board(s). A summary of findings shall be notified to the LIT Academic Council, and shall be notified to the Institute Executive where appropriate.

[Back to top]

12. Process for Quinquennial Review of Collaborative Programmes and Joint Awards – Precepts

In keeping with the principles expressed in Section 10 above, any procedures agreed for the quinquennial review of collaborative programmes and joint awards between Limerick Institute of Technology and a partner provider shall conform to QQI’s Provider Monitoring Policy and Procedures (HETAC, October 2010) and to a number of common precepts as follows:

12.1 Aims of Quinquennial Review

Quinquennial review is the process by which all relevant parties aim to satisfy themselves that the collaborative programme or programme leading to a joint award retains a sufficiently high quality, academic standard, professional and academic relevance, and alignment with current legislation and awarding/quality assurance body requirements to allow for a renewal of accreditation/validation for a period not exceeding five years.

12.2 Schedule of Quinquennial Reviews

As a norm, every collaborative programme and programme leading to a joint award shall undergo full review at set intervals of no more than five years from the last approval/validation of the collaborative arrangement.

Where considerably shorter intervals are envisaged for periodic review and programme re-accreditation/re-validation, the review mechanisms agreed should be such as to not put undue strain on the operations of Limerick Institute of Technology or the partner provider(s).

12.3 Self-Evaluation and Peer Review

The procedures for the periodic review of a collaborative programme or programme leading to a joint award shall include self-evaluation by the consortium of partner providers and independent peer review by a panel of reviewers jointly appointed by all validating bodies, based in each case on a set of agreed criteria.

12.4 Quinquennial Review Submission

The self-evaluation of a programme for the purpose of quinquennial review and re-accreditation/re-validation shall be set out in a periodic review submission which shall contain, as a minimum:

a. the current programme specification (including programme outcomes, schedules and detailed module/subject descriptors) and the proposed changes to the programme specification if any;




b. an outline of any approved revisions to the programme or any of its component parts since the last approval/validation of the full programme specification; and

c. such other detailed information on the programme and its operation, context (including legislative/regulatory as appropriate), associated resources and supports, and learner experience;

as to allow for a full and satisfactory review based on the criteria agreed.

All statements should be supported by valid, reliable and sufficiently verifiable data. There should be evidence of appropriate consultation with relevant stakeholders, in particular learners and representatives of industry/the professional field. 12.5 Independent Peer Review

In line with QQI policy, the independent quinquennial peer review of a collaborative programme or programme leading to a joint award shall be conducted by an appropriately composed, representative panel of suitably qualified independent experts (including experts in regulatory and quality assurance processes as necessary).

Of these, AT LEAST

a. one academic expert AND

b. one expert drawn from industry/the professional field

shall be external to any of the institutions and bodies involved with the renewal of accreditation/validation.

Notwithstanding the exact review mechanism agreed, the peer evaluation of the external expert panel shall carry decisive weight with regard to the overall recommendation on re-accreditation/re-validation of the collaborative programme or joint award to the relevant accrediting/validating body or agency. The expert panel prepares a written report on its review / evaluation that is forwarded to the Office of the Vice President of Academic Affairs and Registrar and then to the Head of School and Academic Council. The full report of expert panels following quinquennial reviews and the school responses go to Academic Council and the President’s Office for adoption. 12.6 Learner Involvement in Quinquennial Review

The mechanisms agreed for the quinquennial review of a collaborative programme or joint award shall make adequate provision for capturing the views of learners on the standard, quality and relevance of the programme, its associated resources and supports, and the learner experience. Where possible, the learner voice should also be represented on the review panel itself.

[Back to top]

13. Review of Policy Supplement on Collaborative Programmes and Joint Awards

The provisions in this policy supplement shall be reviewed from time to time by Academic Council with the support of the Office of the Vice President of Academic Affairs and Registrar of Limerick Institute of Technology. Any amendments or modifications require the approval of the LIT Academic Council.




13.1 Amendments which affect the functions of Governing Body under this policy also require the approval of the LIT Governing Body.

[Back to top]




Appendix I: Areas Requiring Particular Attention in the Context of Distance and E-Learning Programmes

Aspects which may require particular care and attention in the context of a programme delivered predominantly or exclusively through blended, distance or e-learning mechanisms include, but are not limited to:

1. Adequate learner guidance on the specific requirements of distance learning modes e.g. with regard to time management, required technologies and technical competences, communication modes and protocols, and participation in individual or group activities;

2. Clear learner guidance regarding periods of required or optional attendance at scheduled on-site events;

3. Minimum and optimum levels of technology available to learners;

4. Appropriate mechanisms and timeframes for learner familiarisation with, or training in, the relevant technologies (remotely or locally);

5. The provision and scheduling of adequate academic, technological and pastoral learner supports (remotely or locally);

6. The provision and scheduling of adequate opportunities for learner feedback on the programme (remotely or locally);

7. The quality of distance learning materials;

8. Adequate mechanisms for timely formative assessment and constructive individual feedback on student performance;

9. Clear learner guidance on the expectations for summative assessment;

10. The robustness and security of remote delivery systems for programme and assessment materials, and the provision of alternative delivery formats in case of a failure of the principal system;

11. Adequate mechanisms to confirm safe receipt of programme and assessment materials;

12. Adequate mechanisms for proper attribution of remotely delivered student work and for the prevention and detection of malpractice;

13. The assurance of adequate skills levels for staff involved in programme delivery, assessment, support and quality assurance, including appropriate technical competence and, where relevant, pedagogical expertise; and

14. Robust and workable quality assurance protocols and mechanisms. For further guidance on the collaborative provision of distance and e-learning programmes, the code of practice for collaborative provision and flexible and distributed learning published by the UK’s Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) is a useful reference14.

[Back to top]

14 The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, Code of practice for the assurance of quality and standards in higher education. Collaborative provision and flexible and distributed learning (including e-learning) – Amplified version October 2010.

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/codeOfPractice/section2/collab2010.pdf






Appendix II: Risk Areas Associated with International Collaborative Arrangements

1. Financial Risks

It should be noted that due diligence enquiries regarding financial risks at the institutional level cannot and must not replace appropriate programme-level quality assurance processes.

Pertinent questions which may need to be considered in the context of a proposed collaborative arrangement include:

a. Is the proposed partner organisation in good financial standing and financially stable?

b. Does the proposed partner have the financial ability institutionally to discharge all responsibilities arising for it from the proposed collaboration for its duration?

c. What are the financial contingency provisions of the proposed partner?

d. Does the proposed partner have the financial ability to honour any indemnification agreements as appropriate?

e. Does the proposed partner have the ability to enable completion of study by learners on cessation of the collaboration as appropriate?

f. Does the proposed partner have appropriate safeguards in place against financial temptations which might compromise the quality and standards of any collaborative programme and, by extension, the academic integrity and reputation of LIT?

2. Legal Risks

Questions which may need to be considered include:

a. Is the proposed partner in good public and legal standing in its own jurisdiction?

b. Does the proposed partner have the capacity in law to enter into an agreement regarding the envisaged collaboration with Limerick Institute of Technology? Do other legal entities need to be involved, and what is the nature and extent of the necessary involvement?

c. Are there any legal or statutory requirements on the proposed partner institution which might impact on the collaborative arrangement or on the recognition of any awards made?

d. Are there any significant differences in the legal standing and entitlements of learners in the proposed partner institution (vis-à-vis their standing and entitlements in LIT / Irish higher education institutions generally) which might impact the proposed collaboration?

e. Transnational collaborations: What are the pertinent national legal and regulatory frameworks under which the proposed partner institution operates? What implications do these frameworks have for the envisaged collaboration? Are there legal impediments to LIT providing a collaborative programme in the country/jurisdiction of the proposed partner provider? Is a licence or permission required from relevant national authorities?

f. Transnational collaborations (esp. ‘remote’): Will LIT be able, in the context of the envisaged collaboration, to operate within the legislative and cultural requirements of the country in question while still addressing the requirements and legitimate expectations of the academic, regulatory and cultural frameworks within which it operates by law and custom?




g. Employers: What are the implications of a termination of employment for the legal standing of the work-based learners and for their ability to complete a collaborative programme and receive the award?

3. Operational Risks

Questions which may need to be considered include:

a. Are there any circumstances in the operational environment of the proposed partner which may impact significantly on the operation of the collaborative arrangement or on the safety and well-being of the learners and staff members involved?

4. Academic Risks

As in Appendix II.1 above, due diligence enquiries regarding academic risks at the institutional level cannot and must not supplant the necessary programme-level quality assurance processes.

Questions which might need to be considered in an assessment of academic risks at the institutional level include:

a. Is the proposed partner in good academic standing within its own country and internationally?

b. Are the educational mission, ethos, objectives and methods of the proposed partner sufficiently compatible with those operated in LIT to allow for a successful collaboration?

c. Transnational collaborations: Does the proposed partner have current recognition and accreditation at the appropriate level with the relevant national regulators/statutory bodies and quality assurance agencies, both institutionally and in the specific discipline area(s) targeted by the envisaged collaboration?

d. Transnational collaborations: Are there any linguistic or cultural issues (e.g. lack of a sufficient level of mutual linguistic or cultural proficiency of the relevant staff in each partner institution) which might impact on the quality of the education or the standards of the awards of a collaborative programme?

5. Reputational Risks

Many of the academic, financial and legal risks arising may also have implications for the reputation and good standing of LIT if a collaboration was entered.

Questions which might need to be considered in an assessment of other reputational risks include:

a. Are there any aspects of the proposed partner’s profile, activities, or interests which might constitute a risk to the reputation and good standing of LIT?

b. Are there any aspects of the proposed collaborative arrangement which might constitute a risk to the reputation and good standing of LIT if the collaboration was entered?

[Back to top]




Appendix III: Glossary of Terms

Numbered references in this Glossary are to relevant paragraphs in Quality and Qualifications Ireland15, QQI's 'Policy for collaborative programmes, Transnational Programmes and Joint Awards, HETAC, Revised 2012'16 except where otherwise stated.

Term Statutory or other definition

Access The process by which learners may commence a programme of education and training having received recognition for knowledge, skill or competence required. (See the QQI’s NQAI document Policies, actions and procedures for Access, Transfer and Progression for Learners, 2003.

Accreditation/validation QQI’s Taught and Research Degree Programme Accreditation Policy, Criteria and Processes (HETAC, 2005) has now been rescinded. QQI's current policies use the term validation exclusively and should be followed. See for example, Core Validation Policy and Criteria, HETAC 2010.

Award An award which is conferred, granted or given by an awarding body and which records that a learner has acquired a standard of knowledge, skill or competence. See the Qualifications Act (1999) Section 2.1. See also Policy for collaborative programmes, 1.2.5

Awarding body An awarding body is a body that makes awards. See Policy for collaborative programmes, 1.2.6.

Branch campus A campus of a QQI-registered provider institution established at a location in a receiver country and wholly managed by the provider to enable the latter to deliver programmes leading to QQI awards at that location.

Collaborative provision For the purposes of this document, 'collaborative provision' means two or more providers being involved in the provision of a programme of higher education and training through a formal agreement.

Consortium (plural, consortia) A group of two or more providers that come together to collaborate to provide a programme. A consortium can have as few as two providers or many more. Providers working together in a consortium are usually referred to in QQI documents as 'partner-providers'. For a consortium to offer a programme that leads to a QQI approved award at least one of the participating bodies must be a registered QQI provider.

15 Quality and Qualifications Ireland (QQI) was established on 6 November 2012 under the Qualifications and Quality Assurance (Education and Training) Act 2012. The new Authority is being created by an amalgamation of four bodies that have both awarding and quality assurance responsibilities: the Further Education and Training Awards Council (FETAC), the Higher Education and Training Awards Council (HETAC), the National Qualifications Authority of Ireland (NQAI) and the Irish Universities Quality Board (IUQB). The new Authority assumes all the functions of the four legacy bodies while also having responsibility for new or newly-statutory responsibilities in particular areas. 16 Hereafter, Policy for collaborative programmes












Consortium agreement A formal and legally binding agreement concluded (signed) by two or more partner that meets the requirements of Section 6.1 of QQI’s Policy for collaborative programmes, Transnational Programmes and Joint Awards, HETAC, Revised 2012'' (Policy for collaborative programmes)

A consortium agreement sets out the governing framework for the consortium's provision of higher education and training programme(s).

Collaborating partner-providers are required to establish an appropriate formal agreement and have it approved by QQI before starting a collaborative programme. See Policy for collaborative programmes, 2.1.4.

Country For the purposes of this document a country is a sovereign state, part of a sovereign state or a jurisdiction

Delegated authority In the context of this document, authority delegated by QQI to a recognised institution of the Council (i.e. an institution specified under Section 24 of the Qualifications (Education & Training) Act 1999 to make awards.

Discipline-area A label that indicates the scope of research degree programmes that may be provided by a research group, an academic department or a collaborative research network. The label should precisely represent the breadth of the research activity. Broadly-drawn labels should only be used where they would accurately represent a corresponding breadth of research activity.

Differential Validation QQI's procedures for validation state that programmes must be validated in their entirety. When an existing validated programme is to be provided in a different location, through a consortium, transnationally, or through a combination of these, the new context(s) in which the programme is to be provided requires that it be validated to be offered in them.

The differential validation procedure recognises, however, that in some circumstances it may be possible to re-use some of the findings of the programme's current validation to fulfil part of the validation of the programme that is to be provided in its new context. This enables the expert panel to focus its attention on the changes that are proposed and required by the new context. See General Programme Validation Manual, HETAC, 2010, Appendix 2, "Differential Validation", p. 23.

Due diligence Undertaking enquiries before entering into a commitment or transaction that will enable the party making the enquiries (or having them made on its behalf) to make a fair assessment of the positive and negative factors involved, and reach a judgement on whether to proceed or not.

ECTS The European Credit Accumulation and Transfer System (ECTS) assigns credits to course components based on the learning outcomes of the course and the competences to be acquired. In ECTS the workload of a full-time student during one academic year is calculated to be 60 ECTS credits. Workload refers to the average time a learner might be expected to contribute to reach




http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/doc48_en.htm




the required learning outcomes.

QQI 'Code of Good Practice in the Provision of Transnational Higher Education (HETAC Revised 2012')'

QQI has adopted the revised Council of Europe/UNESCO Code of Good Practice in the Provision of Transnational Education (2007). QQI's requirements derive from its own experience and from the incorporation of the recommendations of the Council of Europe document into its Policy for collaborative programmes, transnational programmes and joint awards – accreditation, quality assurance, and delegation of authority.

QQI registered provider A 'QQI Registered Provider' is a body that provides, organises or procures programmes of higher education and training that has had one or more such programmes validated by QQI, that has agreed quality assurance procedures with QQI, and that remains in good standing with QQI following any institutional review organised by QQI.

Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs)

In general, the knowledge, skill and competences that the learner is certified to have attained if they successfully complete a specified set of learning and/or training activities. See Core Validation Policy and Criteria, HETAC, 2010, 3.2.1, p. 6.

Joint award A higher education qualification issued jointly 'by two or more higher education institutions or jointly by one or more higher education institutions and other awarding bodies, on the basis of a study programme developed and/or provided jointly by the higher education institutions, possibly also in cooperation with other institutions'. This definition follows that adopted in Recommendation on the Recognition of Joint Degrees adopted by the Committee of the Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education in the European Region on 9 June 2004.

Joint Awarding Agreement The formal agreement between two or more awarding bodies setting out the terms under which they agree to jointly validate a programme of higher education and training to lead to a joint award and to make a joint award.

Joint validation A validation process operated jointly by two or more awarding bodies.

A validation process operated on behalf of two or more awarding bodies by one awarding body, the outcome of which has been agreed in advance shall be regarded as the equivalent of a joint validation.

Learner/student In Section 2.1 of the Qualifications (Education & Training) Act 1999 a 'learner' is defined as 'a person who is acquiring or who has acquired knowledge, skill or competence'. For the purposes of the present document 'student' and 'learner' are to be read as synonymous.

Minimum Intended Programme Learning Outcomes

The minimum achievement (in terms of knowledge, skill and programme learning competence) that the learner is certified to have attained if he/she successfully completes a particular programme. For further information see 'Core Validation Policy and Criteria', p. 18.

http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/highereducation/recognition/code%20of%20good%20practice_EN.asp

http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/highereducation/recognition/code%20of%20good%20practice_EN.asp



https://wcd.coe.int/wcd/com.instranet.InstraServlet?command=com.instranet.CmdBlobGet&InstranetImage=320284&SecMode=1&DocId=822138&Usage=2









Minor award Minor awards are multipurpose awards that are linked to specific major awards and recognise the attainment of part of a major award which has relevance in its own right. In appropriate circumstances a minor award may be made to recognise the achievements of a student who is unable to complete their programme and achieve the major award for which they were preparing.

Module A programme of education and training of small volume. It is designed to be capable of being integrated with other modules into larger programmes. A module can be shared by different programmes. See QQI’s Assessment and Standards (HETAC 2009) p.53 for a full definition.

NQAI National Qualifications Authority of Ireland .

An agency of the Department of Education and Skills and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation, NQAI was set up in February 2001. It has responsibility for developing and maintaining the National Framework of Qualifications and has three principal objects which are set out in the Qualifications (Education & Training) Act 1999.

• the establishment and maintenance of a framework of qualifications for the development, recognition and award of qualifications based on standards of knowledge, skill or competence to be acquired by learners

• the establishment and promotion of the maintenance and improvement of the standards of awards of the further and higher education and training sector, other than in the existing universities.

• the promotion and facilitation of access, transfer and progression throughout the span of education and training provision.

Since the establishment of Quality and Qualifications Ireland (QQI) on 6 November 2012 under the Qualifications and Quality Assurance (Education and Training) Act 2012, QQI has assumed all the functions of NQAI.

See QQI below.

Partner-provider In the context of this document a 'partner-provider' is any institution participating in a consortium that provides a programme under QQI's auspices (that is, directly validated by QQI or validated on behalf of QQI by an institution to which QQI has delegated the necessary authority).

QQI expects that all bodies participating in a consortium would become QQI-registered providers unless they were already an awarding body in their own right. A consortium can become a registered provider in its own right. See also (QQI) registered provider.

Programme accreditation The term used in some European countries to refer to the process of programme validation.

The term may also refer to the processes through which some statutory, regulatory and professional bodies determine whether

http://www.nqai.ie/about.html






a programme of education and training meets their own requirements to lead to their qualifications and/or registration. See Policy for collaborative programmes, 1.2.4.

Programme agreement A formal agreement that governs the operation of a programme. It may be embedded in the consortium agreement or appended to it. It includes the detailed programme description that forms the basis for the validation of the programme. The programme agreement document sets out

• when the programme is first to be offered

• the duration of the programme's approval by the awarding body or bodies

• how the programme is governed, led and managed, including representation arrangements for students

• the learning resources, including staff, required to deliver the programme

• the language(s) through which the programme is provided and through which students' work is assessed

• arrangements for gathering, analysing and acting on feedback from students and other stakeholders

• how the quality of the provision is assured through reporting the outcomes of monitoring and periodic reviews and the bodies to which these reports are addressed.

For the programme description, see General Programme Validation Manual, HETAC, July 2010 (HETAC reference E.2.4, version 1.1)

Programme of education and training

The Qualifications (Education & Training) Act 1999, 2.1 defines a 'programme of education and training' as meaning 'any process by which learners may acquire knowledge, skill or competence and includes courses of study or instruction, apprenticeships, training and employment....'

Provider A 'provider of a programme of education and training' is a person who, or body which, provides, organises or procures a programme of education and training.

See also 'partner provider', 'service provider' and QQI Registered Provider.

Provider Country The country in which a provider is based. See Policy for collaborative programmes, 3.1.1

Provider, QQI Registered See 'QQI Registered Provider' and Policy for collaborative programmes, 1.1.

QQI Quality and Qualifications Ireland was established on 6 November 2012 under the Qualifications and Quality Assurance (Education and Training) Act 2012. The new Authority is being created by an amalgamation of four bodies that have both awarding and quality assurance responsibilities: the Further Education and Training Awards Council (FETAC), the Higher Education and Training Awards Council (HETAC), the National Qualifications Authority of Ireland (NQAI) and the Irish












Universities Quality Board (IUQB). The new Authority assumes all the functions of the four legacy bodies while also having responsibility for new or newly-statutory responsibilities in particular areas.

Qualifications Act The short title for the Qualifications (Education & Training) Act 1999. See Policy for collaborative programmes, 1.1.1

Receiver Country The country in which learners are based. See Policy for collaborative programmes, 3.1.1

Recognised institution An institution specified under section 24 of the Qualifications [Education and Training] Act (1999) to make awards. See Policy for collaborative programmes, 1.2.7

Research degree programme A research degree programme is a process by which learners develop and demonstrate

Service provider A body, including a higher education institution that provides services to support the provision of a programme. These might include premises, reprographics and other services but not tuition, learning support or quality assurance. In some contexts whether a provider is a 'partner-provider' or a 'service provider is a matter for judgement and is to be stated in the consortium agreement.

Transnational provision The provision or partial provision of a programme of education in one country by a provider that is based in another country.

Validation The Qualifications (Education & Training) Act 1999 Section 2.1 defines validation as '...the process by which an awarding body shall satisfy itself that a learner may attain knowledge, skill or competence for the purpose of an award made by the awarding body....' See QQI 'Core Validation Policy and Criteria', 1, p. 3











Appendix IV: Flow Chart

LIT Proposer: International Office, President, Vice President, School, External Proposal

Head of School

Executive Management

VP Finance & Corporative AffairsVP Academic Affairs & Registrar



Head of School

LIT Proposers

End of Venture

Local & Relevant External Awarding

& QA Bodies

Academic Council

Proposed Partner Governing Body

Agreement to be signed by Chief

Officers

Signed Agreement

Submits Outline Statement

Notifies

Grants Approval to Perform Due Diligence Search

Presents Due Diligence Report

Makes Recommendation

Informs of Recommendation

MOU

NotRecommended

Proceed with CollaborationRecommended

Seeks Agreement(s) Approval

Grants Approval

Signs Agreement(s)

Informs

Presents Agreement(s)

Engages with

Establishes Due Diligence SearchPerforms

Outline StatementPrepares

Consortium Agreement and/or

Joint Award Agreement

Prepares