An unfinished experiment: ambiguity and conflict in the implementation of higher skills policy

Abstract

This cover sheet may not be removed from the document.Please scroll down to view the document. The policy aimed to encourage higher education institutions to engage with employers and employer representative bodies to design and deliver higher education provision that reflected the needs of employers. Using key policy documents and evidence submitted to a select committee inquiry, aspects of ambiguity and conflict in the implementation of this policy are explored. This focuses on three specific areas where disagreements amongst parties, or with government, were observed, and ambiguities of policy means and objectives. Although conflict amongst interested parties is evident, this was not extensive within the higher education sector as the policy was not seen as relevant to all institutions. The demonstrable ambiguity enables the policy to be absorbed and made appropriate to the norms and culture of the higher education sector. The experimental structure of the policy, while always ambiguous, lost its rationale with the change of U.K. government in 2010.

Technical degrees and higher vocational education

“…This is implied by the discussion on recognising 'excellence in mission' and on helping universities 'strengthen the dimensions that are priorities for them' (p.49). However, the systemic influences within higher education, at least in the U.K., are encouraging institutional isomorphism rather than differentiation (van Vught 2008;Hordern 2012aHordern , 2015a, with most HEIs seeking to maintain aspects of research, teaching and 'third stream activities'. League tables, the hierarchy of research over teaching, and comparative freedom for institutional leadership to redefine missions and strategies, tend to push all institutions in the same direction.…”

“…Sector Skills Councils) are themselves often poorly supported by employers and by government (Payne 2008), and are largely ill-equipped to participate credibly in programme development, with some exceptions. Previous similar initiatives, such as the Workforce Development Programme discussed below, have made transparent some of the potential areas of conflict between employers, SSCs and higher education institutions (Hordern 2013(Hordern , 2014(Hordern , 2015a.…”

“…Many of the initial workforce development projects have failed to achieve the sustainability that was originally intended (Kewin et al 2011;Hordern 2013Hordern , 2015a, and for many in higher education, and indeed in the 'skills system', the agendas have moved on with the very different modus operandi of the Conservative / Liberal Democrat Government and radical changes to higher education funding. The 'deliberately experimental' approach that aimed to ''encourage the innovative capacity of HE providers' and to 'test and invest in new approaches' (DIUS 2008, 31) remained 'unfinished' (Hordern 2015a), as it could be argued that many of the projects were cut short by the change in government agenda and, fairly quickly afterwards, by the cuts in HEFCE funding. It remains unclear to what extent, under certain conditions, the particular models developed could operate at scale.…”

“…The reasons why HEIs applied for funding in the Workforce Development Programme seem to be more entrepreneurial than anything else (Hordern 2012a;2015a), with certain institutions likely to be concerned about constraints on their core businesses or changes in recruitment. While the 'plan and provide' (IUSS 2008) notion of public sector higher education still retains some currency as an idea within UK HE, the competitive realities and market uncertainties facing individual institutions mean that decisions about whether to expand or contract provision or enter a new market have to be based on a clear contribution to the institution's strategic objectives.…”

Delegation in Hard Times: The Financial Management of Arm's Length Bodies in the UK

“…He identifies an administrative variant, where conflict and ambiguity are both low and implementation is simply a matter of administrative process; an experimental variant with low conflict and high ambiguity leading to experimentation by actors tasked with implementation; a symbolic variant where both conflict and ambiguity are high and so non‐implementation tends to result; and a political variant with high conflict but low ambiguity, leading to clear policy objectives. The theory also hypothesises that conflict is limited by increasing the ambiguity of a policy to be implemented, because if a policy is less clearly defined then it is more open to interpretation and less likely to be perceived to clash with interests (Baier et al., ; Hordern, ; and Matland, ).…”