− Market opportunities: expansion of higher skills provision in the workplace offers a relatively new (and potentially lucrative) market for HEIs as well as the opportunity to enhance the appeal of existing courses/provision through greater use of experiential and work based learning. Furthermore, the relationships developed through employer engagement activities may lead to future opportunities for research, teaching and knowledge transfer, as well as providing a mechanism for keeping academics up-to-date with developments in the world of practice. The extent of these market opportunities, however, remains relatively untested in terms of the scale of demand and how much people are willing to pay.
− Autonomy and control: to effectively make use of the opportunities outlined above HEIs will need to shift from a largely supply to a demand-led model of HE. Whilst universities have always been responsive to student demand (through the application and offer process) this has been predominantly focussed on the 18-21 year old, full-time undergraduate market. The employer engagement agenda requires closer collaboration and exchange between HEIs and employers in all stages of higher skills provision from design to delivery and accreditation and, in so doing, erodes some of the autonomy and control to which universities and academics have become familiar.
− Student funding: alongside the steady increase in student numbers forecast by the higher skills agenda is a gradual reduction in government funding per head. Indeed, in order to achieve the targets set out in the Leitch report there is a realisation that additional sources of student funding will be required - in particular it is proposed that this income should come from employer co-funding. Given the unpredictability of the market for higher skills in the workplace it is quite possible that universities will fail to recoup the full cost of provision and, over time, will experience a reduction in funding per capita.
− Student support: as indicated above, there are signifi cant differences between the student bodies arising from higher skills provision in the workplace than for traditional UG provision. Whilst universities are generally well prepared to respond to the needs of 18-21 year old students in full-time education, mature and part-time students offer a less homogenous population with varying needs and diverse backgrounds/experience. Together, this places greater demands on university academics and administrators in tailoring provision and support to the needs of learners. Combined with the fact that mature learners tend to be more vocal and less able to compromise a host of new demands will be placed on HEIs to which they may not be well prepared to respond.
− Flexibility of provision: as study for people in employment needs to fi t around work and family commitments greater fl exibility is required on behalf of the providers, including fl exibility in the timing, location, format, style, content and funding of learning. In particular, WBL tends to be delivered in ‘bite-sized chunks’, often away from the HEI and at evenings and weekends. Despite the best efforts of providers to offer learning at convenient times and locations, actual attendance may well be unpredictable as students are called away to resolve unanticipated crises at work or home. The diversity in background and experience of students can also make it diffi cult to pitch provision at the right level and may require substantial pre-course tailoring/preparation by the tutor – costs that are not always easy to recuperate through course fees alone.
− Pedagogy: whilst the revised teaching and learning approach for WBL offers the potential for new and valuable learning opportunities, it also has the potential to undermine traditional academic values. As greater emphasis is given to vocational and job-specifi c learning there is the possibility that valuable learning processes that are not deemed directly relevant or less interesting for students are excluded from courses. As Nixon et al. (2006) identify, despite a general shift towards process- driven curriculum, a learner-centred approach, self-directed learning, experiential learning, fl exible delivery, and evidence based assessment what works and why remains a poorly understood and contested area.
− Accreditation: a further issue relates to the assessment and accreditation of WBL. Experiential and skills-based learning may well require different assessment processes than traditional academic study. Where students enter a course with substantial prior experience/expertise there is increasing demand for the accreditation of prior learning – from formal study (APL) and work-based experience (APEL) – both areas of some contestation. Also, much current higher skills provision in the workplace that is provided by HEIs is unaccredited – will government objectives in this area drive a demand for increased accreditation and, in so doing, potentially compromise the ability of HEIs to deliver what employers want? Finally, as employers (and students) are increasingly asked to contribute to course design, delivery and funding, is this likely to fuel expectations about successful completion of qualifi cations – will HEIs be able to remain objective and impartial when they are increasingly dependent on funding by those people commissioning and completing a course of study?
− Competing agendas: the employer engagement agenda calls for the expansion of activities traditionally deemed ‘third mission’ by universities. As the necessity for HEIs to excel in this area of activity increase, so to do pressures and tensions with traditional spheres of teaching and research. Increasingly, it seems, HEIs and their staff are being expected to do more with less. Unless we want to place unrealistic expectations on the sector, performance assessment frameworks (for individuals, groups and organisations) need to include meaningful measures of employer engagement that do not simply add to existing demands.
72
− Strategic priorities: one response to the issue highlighted above is greater differentiation of strategic mission between HEIs. This is already happening to some extent with some institutions clearly positioning themselves as business-facing whilst others trade on their profi le for international research. As universities increasingly become squeezed for resources and sense a need to distinguish themselves from the crowd, the employer engagement agenda may become a signifi cant area of strategic differentiation. With the unpredictability of the market, fi nancial pressures on funding and questions over the academic rigour of some aspects of WBL, however, it is possible that this option will only be attractive to those with few other alternatives – a situation that may lead to further fragmentation of the market and WBL becoming perceived as ‘second rate’ provision245.
− Academic motivations: a further challenge for universities is how to maintain the motivation and commitment of academic staff. Much current employer focussed activity is relatively small scale and driven through the research/teaching interests and personal values of academic staff, and the time and effort put into course design and establishing relationships frequently trades on the goodwill of individuals. As universities look to expand and roll-out such provision it may be diffi cult to secure the commitment and involvement of the very academics on which this work is dependent. This is especially likely to be the case when it requires mass delivery (thus becoming perceived as ‘boring’ or ‘mundane’) and engagement with commercial/unethical organisations (whose social values may confl ict with those of liberal-minded academics).
− Building relationships: a similar issue arises when we consider the nature of the relationship between the university and the employer. Often relationships take a long time to develop and are based on informal, personal relations rather than formal, institutionalised arrangements. The multi-faceted nature of relationships means that it is diffi cult for HEIs to maintain a shared and updated client database and that relations are placed at risk when key people move/change role. This is a further challenge to the robustness and predictability of the employer-led higher skills market.
− Interface with other provision: the employer engagement agenda brings a greater requirement for HEIs and other providers to work in partnership. Employers may well need a variety of provision that is sourced from a number of HEIs (and/or other training providers). Furthermore, to ensure an ongoing pipeline of students prepared and able to enter HE, attention must be given to how higher skills provision interfaces with lower level provision within schools and colleges. In particular, attention may need to be given to raising cultural and social expectations about the value of higher skills and preparing people for engaging in lifelong learning.
− The changing role of HE: underlying many of the points outlined above are changing social expectations about the nature of HE. With the need for greater collaboration and partnerships, and growing emphasis on the value of skills and abilities acquired through work, come changes in how universities are perceived. No longer are universities regarded as the sole (or most expert) producer of knowledge – but one of a number of organisations that can contribute towards knowledge capture and exchange. In applied and vocational subjects, academics may become viewed as facilitators of learning; the true knowledge lying with those who are expert in their jobs. UK HE is seeing a gradual shift in the kinds of courses studied (with a general decline in ‘hard’ and an increase in ‘soft’ sciences) and the kinds of expertise required for their delivery and assessment. The current USP of HE is strongly associated to the relative monopoly of universities in the awarding of academic qualifi cations – as award giving powers are extended to other providers and increasing emphasis placed on professional and industry qualifi cations HEIs may need to reconsider their stance.
− Good practice: there are already pockets of good practice in work based higher skills provision, where universities have well developed and mutually benefi cial relationships with employers (for example healthcare and education). Further consideration could be given to whether such models could work for different employers and industries and potential barriers and enablers.