Academic regulation in UK higher education: part I ‐ the concept of collaborative regulation
| Date | 01 September 1997 |
| Pages | 120-135 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/09684889710174459 |
| Published date | 01 September 1997 |
| Author | Norman Jackson |
| Subject Matter | Education |
Introduction
Context for regulation
Unlike the financial management of higher
education institutions (HEI), which is subject
to statutory regulatory control, the academic
and educational activities in UK HEIs are
(except for a few specific areas like medicine
and allied professions and teacher training)
not subject to statutory regulation. This has
not always been the case though as, prior to
1992, the educational activities of the former
polytechnics and some colleges of higher
education (CHEs) were regulated through the
programme validation and institutional
accreditation procedures of the Council for
National Academic Awards (CNAA) (Alder-
man, 1996a, 1996b; Silver, 1990) and, until
the mid-1980s, the programme approval
procedures of the Regional Advisory Councils
(Silver, 1990). The CNAA was removed from
the regulatory framework following the 1992
HE Education Act, but two new regulatory
authorities (Higher Education Quality Coun-
cil and the Funding Councils of England,
Wales and Scotland) were established.
Changes in the nature and purpose of
higher education, and the socio-economic/
political environment within which it is pro-
vided, have progressively moved the British
university system from one founded on the
notion of autonomous self-regulation – the
right of institutions to decide freely and inde-
pendently how to perform their tasks (John-
120
Academic regulation in
UK higher education:
part I – the concept of
collaborative regulation
Norman Jackson
The author
Norman Jackson is Assistant Director of the Quality
Enhancement Group, Higher Education Quality Council,
London, UK.
Abstract
The first of a series of three articles which map the dimen-
sions and evolution of academic regulation in the UK.
Argues that regulation is an important and substantial
concept and set of activities which is far more comprehen-
sive in scope and substance than the concept of quality
assurance which it subsumes; that it involves the act of
regulating (controlling and adjusting behaviour and
practice against explicit or implicit rules) and the state of
being regulated (practising within a framework of rules
and accepted professional norms). Describes three basic
types of regulatory regime – self-regulation, external
regulation and mixed regimes – and concludes that the
size, complexity, diversity, history, public investment and
interests in the UK higher education sector make it neces-
sary to operate a mixed regime which incorporates
elements of both external regulation and institutional self-
regulation. When viewed at the system level, the continu-
ous interaction of external regulators with HE institutions,
which have considerable autonomy over their internal
regulatory mechanisms, is consistent with the concept of
collaborative regulation (where co-operation is both
voluntary and mandatory).
The paper is offered as a contribution to the debate
on the strategic direction of academic regulation in
UK HE. It has been prepared in the context of an
HEQC development project which aims to support
higher education institutions in their endeavours to
improve their own capacity to regulate themselves.
The author is very grateful to the following col-
leagues who provided critical comments and
helpful suggestions for improvement at various
stages during the preparation of the article – Peter
Barrett, Bob Boucher, Roger Brown, Jim Graham,
Mary Henkel, Robin Jackson, David Law, Robin
Middlehurst, David Parry, Mike Pittilo, Gavin
Ross, Silvia Wickes, Gethin Williams, Peter
Wright, Ranald Macdonald and anonymous
colleagues at Sheffield Hallam University. The
article was also informed by discussions in a series
of workshops on “the future of self-regulation”
convened during the HEQC December 1996
conference (HEQC Update number 10). The
article is published with the permission of the
Higher Education Council but the views expressed
are the author’s own.
Quality Assurance in Education
Volume 5 · Number 3 · 1997 · pp. 120–135
© MCB University Press · ISSN 0968-4883
son, 1994) – to a notion of self-regulation
which is founded on a set of expectations
promoted through the quality review activities
of HEQC and the Funding Councils (see, for
example, Alderman, 1996a, 1996b; Graham
and Barnet, 1996). UK higher education
institutions are now operating within an
increasingly specified framework of expecta-
tions and codes of practice which effectively
comprise a non-statutory regulatory frame-
work. This condition has been brought about
by the progressive convergence of institutional
quality assurance mechanisms through a
combination of compliance with the expecta-
tions and requirements of external quality
review processes, and through the sharing of
practices through a range of mechanisms (e.g.
codes of practice, survey reports, conferences,
practitioners forums and networks).
Regulation is an emotive and difficult
concept when used in academic communities
which value “above all other values” the
concept of freedom and professional autono-
my. Consequently, the academic community
is reluctant to engage with the concept in
order to avoid any notion that autonomous
institutions should lose control or self-deter-
mination in the way they conduct their inter-
nal affairs. While recognizing the sensitivity of
HE colleagues to the concept of regulation,
the paper is constructed from the premiss that
the reluctance of UK HEs to engage with the
concept hinders our ability to provide the
public, politicians and policy makers with a
comprehensive and analytical account of the
extent and diversity of regulatory mechanisms
now employed within HE to protect the full
range of stakeholder interests. The absence of
appropriate conceptual frameworks, within
which the panoply of quality-related activities
can be located and interpreted, also hinders
the capacity of higher education to formulate
a strategic view as to how the overall balance
of activities within the regulatory framework
might evolve.
Several contemporary developments,
notably the establishment of the Quality
Assurance Agency for Higher Education and
the integrated external review process it will
operate (CVCP, 1996), the outcomes of
HEQC’s Graduate Standards Programme
(HEQC, 1996a, 1997a) and the report of the
Dearing Committee of Inquiry (to be pub-
lished in mid-1997), now make this an urgent
priority since they are all likely to have consid-
erable impact on the way higher education is
regulated. Understanding the present regula-
tory regime and the concepts, assumptions
and ideologies on which it is based, is crucial
to identifying the most appropriate strategic
direction for development.
Meaning of regulation
The word “regulate” is derived from the Latin
words regulare to control and regula ruler. The
latter has embedded within it notions of
ruling and measurement. The concept of
regulation embraces the action or process of
regulating and the state of being regulated.
Dictionary definitions reveal a whole vocabu-
lary of meanings within the term including:
• making rules (defining principles, proce-
dures, expectations or accepted practices);
• ruling (controlling, governing, directing or
subjecting to guidance or restrictions);
• conforming to rules (principles, proce-
dures, expectations or accepted practices);
• measurement (of activities or performance
relative to appropriate parameters in order
to judge conformance to the rules);
• adjustment (adaptation to changing cir-
cumstances to ensure closer alignment
with rules, more effective operation or even
changing the rules).
A regulatory regime is based on explicit
“rules”, i.e. principles, formal requirements,
procedures, specifications, standards, char-
ters, codes of practice or best practice guide-
lines, frameworks for external quality review.
But it is also influenced by implicit “unwritten
rules” which are embedded in the accepted
norms of behaviour, values, standards, tradi-
tions and conventions. In professional con-
texts effective regulation depends on the
mutually reinforcing actions within harder
more formalized contexts (written rules,
specifications, etc.) and softer, more informal
contexts (unwritten rules, professional norms
and values, etc.). In practice, a regulatory
regime which is capable of embracing a large
and complex public service (like higher edu-
cation) will contain both explicit and implicit
rules and be underpinned by both formal and
informal approaches. While not wishing to
reduce the importance of the informal
approach to regulation in UK HE, this paper
is primarily concerned with describing and
understanding the formal approach.
The creation of a formal regulatory frame-
work requires the definition of the:
121
Academic regulation in UK higher education: part I
Norman Jackson
Quality Assurance in Education
Volume 5 · Number 3 · 1997 · 120–135
To continue reading
Request your trial