Disclaimer: This page is only for reference by staff and students at TEIs operating under the Common Awards scheme. Durham University staff and students should instead refer to the Learning and Teaching Handbook here.The information on this page is reviewed every three months.
Process for Initial Approval
1. Proposals to establish collaborative partnerships relating to taught programmes or research degrees may be initiated by prospective partner organisations; by interested parties in the University; or by both.
2. The University recognises that in order to establish whether there is the potential to pursue the development of a collaborative partnership there is likely to be a need for discussions between the prospective partner and the interested party(ies) in the University before an initial proposal can be developed and submitted for consideration. However, where such discussions are entered into the interested party(ies) from the University must ensure that it is clear to the prospective partner that these discussions constitute an initial sharing of information not negotiations, and that any proposal to establish a collaborative partnership will be subject to approval in accordance with the University's policies and procedures.
3. In order to commence negotiations with a prospective international partner, a department/school must complete the Partnership Approval Form (PAF), available to download from the International Office's International Partnerships page, and submit this to the International Office. In order to commence negotiations with a prospective UK-based partner, a department/school must provide an initial rationale, outlining the appropriateness of the partner for the activity (with reference to the matters noted in 7a-7e), for the consideration of the PVC Education, via the Head of the Academic Quality Service, who will provide initial comment on the proposal.
4. The PAF provides information on the proposed partner, and summary information on the proposed collaborative activity. It is reviewed and approved with comments by the Director of the International Office and Head of AQS, with final approval undertaken by the PVC Global (or nominee). If they feel that an initial proposal raises significant issues of principle or business risk, those issues may be referred to the University Executive Committee for further consideration prior to approval.
5. The initial proposal should be accompanied by a completed initial risk academic assessment for the proposed partnership, using the University's template available in Appendix A9.04. The template will be completed by staff in AQS working with the proposing department. The initial risk assessment will include a provisional analysis of the proposed partner’s financial, legal and regulatory standing. The risk assessment, in conjunction with the type of proposed collaboration (Appendix A9.01), will determine the process to be followed to consider full partnership approval. These documents will also be used to determine whether an independent visit to the potential partner will be required.
6. Once considered, the outcome will be communicated to the proposing department/school by the International Office in the case of international partnerships (copied to AQS) or the Head of the AQS for domestic partnerships.
Requirements for Initial Approval
7. Initial proposals will be considered against the following criteria:
a. the alignment of the proposed collaboration with the University's strategic aims and objectives, and those of the proposing department/school and its faculty;
b. the soundness of the rationale for the proposed collaboration;
c. the legal, financial and regulatory standing of the proposed partner in relation to the proposed activity.
d. the appropriateness of entering into the proposed collaboration given the University's, and proposing department’s, existing collaborative arrangements and other commitments;
e. the commitment and support of senior management in the University and the partner organisation to the proposed collaboration.
8. Once the PAF [Partnership Approval Form] (or equivalent for UK-based partnerships) has been approved, and the academic risk assessment reviewed, the collaborative development process can proceed towards the full approval stage. At the point of PAF approval, AQS will confirm which specific process for approval should be followed (LTH 9.4.2), and whether an independent visit will be required.
9. In each instance, staff in the proposing academic department – with support from the International Office and AQS – will produce the appropriate approval document and a Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) tailored to the proposal (partner templates may also be used subject to additional oversight from Legal Services) which will govern the partnership.
10. In addition, where a proposed collaborative partnership involves the delivery of one or more new or amended programmes, the proposing department/school should initiate the new programme development process in respect of the programme(s) to be offered within the collaborative partnership, with consideration given to the strategic, financial and regulatory requirements of the programme through that process.
Register of collaborative provision
11. If approved, the collaborative partnership shall be included on the University's register of collaborative provision (maintained by the Academic Quality Service, reported annually to QSC). The information held on the register shall include:
a. the name, address and nature of the partner organisation;
b. the date the memorandum of agreement was approved; the period covered by the memorandum of agreement; and the date on which the agreement expires;
c. the University department(s)/school(s) involved in the collaborative partnership;
d. the nature of the collaboration and the programmes and awards involved;
e. the language(s) of delivery and assessment;
12. The register is updated as new partnerships are approved, and is reviewed as a whole on annual basis with departments/schools involved in collaborative partnerships asked to confirm the currency and accuracy of the information on the register.
Transcripts
13. It is important that transcripts do not give a misleading impression of the status of the award because, depending on the nature of the partnership:
a. a Durham award may be given in part on the basis of credits from another institution;
b. a dual award could appear to be two (or more) qualifications.
14. Consequently, degree parchments must make clear the status of a dual award and name the partners.
15. All transcripts for awards which are not provided exclusively in Durham should state:
a. the name of any partners who have collaborated with Durham in the provision;
b. for validated programmes, the name of the provider;
c. the mode and/or location of the provision;
d. in the case of a dual award the fact that this is a dual award delivered in conjunction with the university/ies of .........;
e. where any credits are derived from the provision of a partner organisation, a statement to that effect.
16. These obligations will not apply to any programmes which do not contribute credit towards a Durham award (such as partnerships for Consecutive Programmes or for Partner & Recognised Credit programmes), for programmes permit direct entry or standardised APL/RPL (such as partnerships for Durham Programmes with Recognised Credit) or for study abroad or exchange programmes (which nonetheless may recognise a placement opportunity at modular level, or within the programme title).
Procedure for the consideration of the full proposal
17. The following documentation should be submitted to the relevant Faculty Support Officer in AQS:
a. a copy of the PAF [Partnership Approval Form] or, for UK-based partnerships, a copy of the initial proposal to establish the collaborative partnership, together with the Pro-Vice-Chancellor's decision on this;
b. a completed full proposal form (Appendix A9.06);
c. a draft memorandum of agreement;
d. where relevant, the full business case for the partnership, as considered and approved as part of the new programme approval process;
e. where a review visit has been carried out, a copy of the team's report.
18. The full proposal will be considered by a Partnership Approval Panel consisting of:
The Panel will be serviced by the appropriate Faculty Support Officer.
Note: In accordance with the University’s policy on Conflicts of Interests and Personal Relationships at Work, staff with a material personal interest in the proposed partner organisation may not be members of a Partnership Approval Panel. Similarly where members of any other committee considering the proposal have a declared interest then they will be asked to absent themselves from the relevant discussion and decision-making process.
19. The proposing department/school will be invited to send one or more representatives to the panel meeting.
20. The Panel will proceed as follows:
a. the Panel will meet in the first instance without the proposers present to consider the documentation in light of the criteria in LTH 9.4.1. The Panel will then meet with the proposers to discuss issues arising from the documentation;
b. the Panel may request additional or revised documentation;
c. the Panel will meet without the proposers present to decide on a final recommendation;
d. a recommendation will be made to Education Committee (via Quality and Standards Sub-Committee).
Panel recommendations
21. Panel recommendations may only take the form of:
a. a recommendation to approve the partnership as documented (following or subject to revisions arising from the deliberations of the Panel);
OR
b. a recommendation not to approve the partnership as documented (despite any revisions arising from the deliberations of the Panel).
22. Recommendations shall be considered by Education Committee (having first been considered by Quality and Standards Committee). Where a proposed partnership has been deemed to be low risk by the University's risk assessment tool, the decision on whether to approve the proposed partnership shall be taken by Education Committee and reported to Senate. Where a proposed partnership has been deemed by the University's risk assessment tool to be higher risk, Education Committee shall decide whether to recommend the proposed partnership to Senate for final approval.
23. Once a partnership has been approved, financial due diligence checks on the proposed memorandum of agreement will be undertaken by Legal Services, with amendments if necessary, before the memorandum can be signed. If the memorandum of agreement is not signed by both partners within 12 months of the approval of the partnership, or a programme offered through a collaborative partnership has not recruited any students within 24 months of the agreed start date, the partnership will need to be reconsidered through the collaborative partnership approval process.
24. In addition to its recommendation regarding the approval of the proposed partnership, for collaborative partnerships relating to taught programmes the Panel will state the documentation the proposing department/school will be required to submit annually to the Faculty Collaborative Provision Panel. This will vary with the nature of the partnership approved. In the case of a dual or joint award, or other award in which aspects of learning, teaching or assessment will be delegated to the partner the following will normally be expected:
a. performance indicators for the programme, such as:
b. a commentary on the performance indicators identifying positive and negative issues and stating action points where relevant;
c. the external examiner's report(s) for the last year, any response made and a statement of how the external examiner liaised with the various partners;
d. a report on any specific issues delegated to the partner (e.g. marketing, resource provision);
e. the minutes of the annual review meeting for the partnership;
25. If the partnership relates to research degree provision, the Panel shall, in addition to its recommendation regarding the approval of the proposed partnership, establish the monitoring schedule for the partnership.
26. If approved, the collaborative partnership shall be included on the University's register of collaborative provision (which is maintained by the Head of the Academic Support Office). The information held on the register shall include:
27. The register is updated as new partnerships are approved, and is reviewed as a whole on annual basis with departments/schools involved in collaborative partnerships asked to confirm the currency and accuracy of the information on the register.
28. It is important that transcripts do not give a misleading impression of the status of the award because, depending on the nature of the partnership:
29. Consequently, degree parchments must make clear the status of a dual award and name the partners.
30. All transcripts for awards which are not provided exclusively in Durham should state:
a. the name of any partners with Durham in the provision;
/prod01/prodbucket01/media/durham-university/departments-/common-awards/images-and-logos/theology-images/37247.jpg)