Analysis 3 (political)

In SSM the focus of Analysis 3 is, (Checkland and Poulter 2006:35)

“to find out the disposition of power in a situation and the processes for containing it” or in other words “what does or does not get done”

In a later stage of SSM this can translate into, what is feasible? As mentioned earlier, the political issues relating to PDP are important to me in my work role as they can set agendas and help decide priorities that I can then present to both the University senior management for strategy and direction as well as to discipline-based colleagues for delivery to students. Over the period of my project there have been some key sector-wide ‘events’ which have influenced the importance that PDP has been given. These events have greatly influenced me but have had less impact on colleagues with discipline areas.

4.1.1.1 Sector and institutional context

Chronologically I can identify my project as starting at the beginning of the academic year 2005/6. In terms of professional doctorate studies all I had done at that stage was successfully apply to the programme. However within this application I had already identified the community of practice and the institutional context for my work. I had also stated that I hoped two outcomes would be: to critically examine staff perceptions of the design and delivery of personal development planning and to explore and develop appropriate theoretical models which unpacked the interface between design and delivery and institutional policy to bring about an improved experience of personal development planning.

2005/06 was also a key year across the HE sector in terms of PDP. In section 40 of the QAA et al Guidelines (2001) the following is stated,

“Institutions are expected to develop their own PDP policies and practice within these Guidelines:

• Universities and colleges should be responsible for providing opportunities for PDP and for guidance to support the process. • The nature, scope and extent of opportunities and support for PDP

should be determined by each institution (influenced by Professional and Statutory Regulatory Bodies where appropriate). • The ultimate responsibility for deriving benefit from PDP should

rest with each student: although institutions will influence this. • QAA should, through its development and review activities,

support the introduction of policy and, when practice is established, be responsible for providing public assurance that institutional policies are being implemented effectively1.

1 Explanation

During the development phase (until 2005) institutions that are involved in the Academic Review process could signal in their self-evaluation document the progress they are making in creating opportunities for PDP. Academic Reviewers could encourage and promote this development by reporting on but not judging the practice seen. This could be an area where ‘exemplary’ features might be identified by reviewers. Encouragement for the development of institutional practice could also be provided through subject benchmarking”.

The explanation at the end was interpreted by most HEI’s as meaning that from the start of the academic year 2005/06 institutions could be judged on their provision during quality audits. This understanding was universally held by those who attended the CRA seminar events during 2002/03/04 and even into 2005. It was only as the academic year 2005/06 began that clarification was given by QAA that there would be no judgement of an institution’s PDP provision. The context at the start of my project thus was one in which PDP had a high profile and high priority for many HEI’s. However, over the life span of my project this has waned. In practical terms I have observed the reduction of posts specifically created to implement PDP. At an ePortfolio/PDP event in April 2010 four of the delegates with PDP in the role titles were either being made redundant or were being redeployed.

By the start of 2005/06 my University had already embedded its response to the QAA et al guidelines (2001) by locating PDP within the Institutional Learning and Teaching Strategy 2002-05 with a one year extension for 2005/06. The strategy aimed to:

“Develop the quality, relevance, effectiveness and efficiency of our learning environment, so as to enhance the educational experience of students across the whole institution”.

It had three main priorities:

Staff: to develop our intellectually responsive learning community Students: to develop the independent learner

Technology: to develop the interactive learning environment

Although PDP is not explicitly mentioned our understanding of developing an independent learner would have to include a PDP process. This view is also one that the QAA et al (2001: point 35) offer,

“PDP will help academic staff:

• by helping students to be more independent/autonomous learners; • improve the quality of experience for tutors and tutees when it is

linked to personal tutoring systems;

• make more effective use of off-campus opportunities for learning like work placements or study abroad;

• by creating a mechanism through which career-related skills and capabilities can be recorded;

• by improving their understanding of the development of individual students and their ability to provide more meaningful employment references on their behalf”.

In my opinion, a key factor in promoting institutional delivery of the Learning and Teaching Strategy was that it required ring-fenced funding. This funding primarily allowed the creation of fractional School-based Co-ordinators. Each co- ordinator was a discipline specialist with an additional role linked to learning and teaching. The fractional appointments included a responsibility to engage with the central department that I worked for. This created the Learning and Teaching Holon of like-minded people from different disciplines who were brought together to operationalise the strategy within their own disciplines. For the School-based Student Development and Support (SDS) Co-ordinators and myself this related specifically to the student priorities. During 2005/06 a new Learning and Teaching Strategy for the period 2006-2010 was developed that set out the following main aim:

“to embed the quality, relevance, effectiveness and efficiency of our learning environments into the mainstream processes and procedures of university planning and implementation, so to enhance the lives, the educational experience and employability of our students”

To achieve this there were two strategic priorities, one aimed at the student experience and the other at staff expertise:

“STUDENTS: Strategic Priority One: To enable our diverse students to access and achieve a set of understandings, skills and personal attributes which will enhance their achievement and employability.

STAFF: Strategic Priority Two: To enable our staff to develop their learning and teaching expertise in order to enhance the student learning experience”

Whilst PDP is not mentioned explicitly the PDP process supports the access and achievement of the stated aims. The institution has a PDP framework - PACE (Figure 8: 36) and it has an implementation strategy. The context of my project is therefore based on supporting discipline-based staff who are the ones who

ultimately put any policy or practice into the real life learning and teaching environment. It could be argued that by having a strategy in place the notion of academic freedom is curtailed. However, as a large and diverse institution one of our concerns expressed in such places as the Student Affairs Committee is that there remains an inconsistency between student experiences. A strategic approach within my context is seen as setting a minimum standard that all students should expect.

Over the time of my project there have been other key developments at sector level. It was anticipated that during 2006/7 the QAA et al policy statement (2000) would go through a consultation and review process with key stakeholders. In the CRA residential 2007 a representative from QAA asked for feedback from delegates. There was an appeal from delegates that QAA et al should not water-down any comments regarding institutional responsibilities and potential consequences. This will be picked up again in Chapter 5 Project findings and analysis: 138. While the consultations were taking place I was involved in key SSM stages such as conceptual modelling and real world comparisons.

My project finishes at a time when the HE sector should have been implementing the new Higher Education Achievement Reports (HEAR’s). During my project an initial 18 HEI’s across the UK piloted HEAR’s. These included a full range of institutional backgrounds, size and focus. From these pilots it was expected that guidelines would be circulated. In 2009 this number grew to 30 HEI’s however there has yet to be any indications from these pilots as to what a sector-wide policy might look like.