Poor overseas links damaging British names

The reputation of British higher education continues to be damaged by universities with overseas collaborative arrangements, says an analysis of overseas quality audits by the former universities' quality chief.

Collaborative arrangements suffer from poor quality control, sharp cultural barriers, damaging conflicts of interest and poor oversight, according to an analysis of Higher Education Quality Council audits by Roger Brown, former HEQC chief executive.

Bringing together overseas quality audits across ten countries published before August 1998, Dr Brown's paper concludes that provision is improving after recent scrutiny, but that "many weaknesses remain".

Dr Brown, now principal of Southampton Institute, said: "Some partnerships still lack not merely a formal memorandum or agreement but even a clear underlying rationale. In a few institutions there remains no effective institutional control over what is done in the university's name. There is often a significant gap between senior institutional officers and those actually responsible for individual programmes."

The paper, which will be published next month in the Journal of International Education, says that there were major variations in quality. Only two institutions, De Montfort University and Bolton Institute, receive "very favourable reports".

Seven institutions received "qualified reports", with some weak practice, and three institutions were severely condemned. "The reports on Wolverhampton University, Teesside University, and Thames Valley University contain serious criticisms of nearly every aspect of quality control," Dr Brown said.

"These partnerships do not appear to be a good advertisement for UK higher education."

Dr Brown highlighted four main areas of concern. Some universities continue to see their overseas collaborators as customers rather than as partners. Overseas provision has not been properly integrated into the institutions' wider provision.

There continues to be a "serious tendency" to underestimate the challenges of delivering British higher education programmes and experiences in a different culture. Culture clashes were damaging student feedback mechanisms and staff development.

Over-reliance on committed individuals continues to be a problem. At best, these people are overburdened with work and responsibility, at worst, they are exposed to "damaging conflicts of interest".

Finally, universities, as corporate entities, are not exercising proper oversight of what is being delivered in their name.

New quality control initiatives recommended by Lord Dearing's report into higher education, such as abolishing "serial franchising" and new compliance criteria to be imposed by 2001 by the Quality Assurance Agency, will be helpful, Dr Brown said. But he has urged the QAA into "firm action".