Quality Handbook Section 10 - Academic Partnerships - Approval
1. Introduction
1.1 The University’s definition of academic collaborations and partnerships is based on that used by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) and is: educational provision leading to a University award, or to specific credit towards a University award, delivered and/or supported and/or assessed through an arrangement with a partner organisation.
1.2 All arrangements delivered with others are specified according to a set of University defined categories.
1.3 The development of any partnership must start with a triage meeting involving the School, and Education, Quality and Partnerships (EQP). The triage meeting will determine the category of partnership.
1.4 The University takes a risk-based approach to the approval of partners and partnerships. The form of approval varies according to the level of risk.
1.5 Not all types of partnership require a partnership approval event. Specific requirements can be found below.
Types of partnership and approval requirements
2. Validation Service
2.1 The partner delivers its own courses to its own students at its own centre. The courses are validated and awarded by NTU.
2.2 The University does not routinely offer Validation Services to partners overseas.
2.3 Serial franchising or sub-contracting is not permitted. This requirement is set out in the written legal agreement between the University and the partner.
Validation Service Approval Requirements:
Business evaluation and due diligence required?
- Yes
Partner approval required?
- Yes
Approval of collaborative arrangements required?
- Yes
Nature of academic approval
- Course approval (if new)
Academic approval method
- Academic Course Approval Sub-Committee (ACASC)
3. Franchise
3.1 The partner delivers and assesses the whole of an existing NTU course to NTU students, at its own centre. On occasions, the arrangement might be for a level or module, rather than a whole course. The partner is approved by NTU.
3.2 The course could, on occasion, be newly designed by the partner or NTU or could be a modified version of an existing NTU course. The course may be designed to ‘top up’ an existing award offered by the partner.
3.3 The University does not franchise its research degree awards.
3.4 The University does not franchise to international institutions.
3.5 Serial franchising or sub-contracting is not permitted. This requirement is set out in the written legal agreement between the University and the partner.
Franchise Approval Requirements
Business evaluation and due diligence required?
- Yes
Partner approval required?
- Yes
Approval of collaborative arrangements required?
- Yes
Nature of academic approval
- Course approval (if new)
Academic approval method
- Academic Course Approval Sub-Committee (ACASC)
4. Joint delivery
4.1 The partner and NTU jointly deliver and assess an existing NTU course (or part of a course, or module) to NTU students.
4.2 The location of delivery may vary according to the precise nature of the relationship and may include some delivery at NTU.
4.3 The course could be a modified version of an existing NTU course to suit the nature of the partnership or a new course that is jointly designed by both partners.
4.4 This category also includes jointly delivered and / or supervised research degrees.
4.5 This category includes School Centred Initial Teacher Training (SCITT) a specific agreement between NTU and a School (or consortium of Schools) by which students complete 60 Level 7 credits at NTU and the equivalent of 60 Level 6 credits. This professional practice study constitutes the Qualified Teacher Status (QTS) element of a Postgraduate Certificate in Education (PGCE).
4.6 This category is different to a joint degree, as NTU is the sole awarding body.
Joint Delivery Approval Requirements
Business evaluation and due diligence required?
- Yes
Partner approval required?
- Yes
Approval of collaborative arrangements required?
- Yes
Nature of academic approval
- Course approval (if new)
Academic approval method
- Academic Course Approval Sub-Committee (ACASC)
5. Joint/double degree
5.1 For a joint degree, NTU collaborates with one or more degree awarding bodies (or equivalent) in order to jointly design and deliver a course which entails formal study periods in two or more centres, leading to a single award made jointly by both partners.
5.2 For a double degree, NTU collaborates with one or more degree awarding bodies (or equivalent) in order to jointly design and deliver a course which entails formal study periods in two or more centres, leading to separate awards from each partner. This category is only used where there is a legal impediment in the partner’s jurisdiction to making a joint award.
5.3 It is the responsibility of the University to ensure that there are no legal or regulatory requirements in the country in which they are operating which may impede the award of a joint or double degree to students.
5.4 The defining feature of a joint or double degree is that it is a distinctive educational programme that none of the partners could offer, in that form, independently of others.
5.5 A joint or double degree course is jointly designed by both partners and is a joint enterprise from the earliest stages.
5.6 All partners in a joint or double degree arrangement must provide substantial contributions to the creation, management and decision making.
5.7 Joint and double degrees usually include mobility between the two institutions, and each partner delivers a substantial proportion of the course. Typically, NTU would expect to deliver 50% or more of the course.
5.8 For joint degrees, decisions will need to be made about which institution issues the certificate and transcript.
Joint/Double Degree Approval Requirements
Business evaluation and due diligence required?
- Yes
Partner approval required?
- Yes
Approval of collaborative arrangements required?
- Yes
Nature of academic approval
- Course approval
Academic approval method
- Academic Course Approval Sub-Committee (ACASC)
6. Dual degree
6.1 NTU collaborates with one or more degree awarding bodies (or equivalent) in order to jointly deliver a course which entails formal study periods in two or more centres, leading to separate and different awards from each partner (which may be at different levels).
6.2 Dual degrees are designed to lock together with overlapping curricula. The period of study and volume of learning (credits) is greater than for either of the individual awards but less than if the courses of study had been undertaken consecutively.
6.3 Where existing courses are being offered on a dual degree basis, mapping is undertaken to ensure that credits undertaken at each partner allow the students to meet the learning outcomes of each award. This may result in amendments to the NTU course, which are considered as part of the academic approval event.
6.4 Dual degrees may be new courses which are designed to articulate. In such cases, approval of the course(s) will form part of the academic approval process.
6.5 The partners need to determine mechanisms for ensuring the two courses continue to articulate; this includes when changes are proposed to either course.
6.6 Each partner retains ultimate responsibility for the oversight and academic standards of its own course.
Dual Degree Approval Requirements
Business evaluation and due diligence required?
- Yes
Partner approval required?
- Yes
Approval of collaborative arrangements required?
- Yes
Nature of academic approval
- Course mapping if existing course
- Course approval and mapping if new course
Academic approval method
- Academic Course Approval Sub-Committee (ACASC)
7. Articulation
7.1 An articulation arrangement facilitates entry for students from another institution into a University course beyond the start of that course to join an existing cohort of students. For example, a 2 + 1 arrangement whereby a student completes two years at another institution, and then attends the University for one year and receives an NTU award.
7.2 Advanced standing is granted to individual students OR cohorts completing a period of study on a named course at a named partner. Articulation agreements do not guarantee that a student who applies to study at NTU will be accepted onto the course (unless it is a condition of the agreement), and additional entry requirements may need to be met.
7.3 Prior to commencing the NTU course, students at the partner institution are not students of NTU and have no access to NTU services or resources.
7.4 This category is different to the procedure whereby advanced standing can be gained by individuals through Accredited Prior Learning (APL) or Accredited Prior Experiential Learning (APEL).
Articulation Approval Requirements
Business evaluation and due diligence required?
- Yes
Partner approval required?
- No
Approval of collaborative arrangements required?
- Yes
Nature of academic approval
- Course mapping if existing course
- Course approval and mapping if new course
Academic approval method
- Academic Course Approval Sub-Committee (ACASC) if new course.
- School Academic Standards and Quality Sub-Committee (SASQC) if existing.
8. Foundation degree progression
8.1 All foundation degrees must have an articulated progression route from a named foundation degree award to a named bachelor’s degree. Progression is not guaranteed. Progression is to level 6 unless there is a robust rationale for not permitting this.
8.2 Foundation degree progression is granted to regular cohorts of students.
8.3 This category is different to the procedure whereby advanced standing can be gained by individuals through APL or APEL.
Foundation Degree Progression Approval Requirements
Business evaluation and due diligence required?
- Yes
Partner approval required?
- No
Approval of collaborative arrangements required?
- Yes
Nature of academic approval
- Course mapping
Academic approval method
- Academic Course Approval Sub-Committee (ACASC)
9. Nottingham Trent International College progression and Kaplan International College London progression
9.1 Nottingham Trent International College (NTIC) and Kaplan International College London (KICL) deliver courses to prepare students for transition to courses at NTU.
9.2 Successful completion of an NTIC/KICL course guarantees progression to an NTU course through established progression routes (subject to progression requirements being met).
9.3 These include:
- Foundation Certificates progressing to the start of an undergraduate course at NTU;
- International Year One courses progressing to level 5 at NTU; and
- Pre-Master’s courses progressing to the start of a master’s course at NTU.
Nottingham Trent International College Progression and Kaplan International College London Progression Approval Requirements
Business evaluation and due diligence required?
- No
Partner approval required?
- No
Approval of collaborative arrangements required?
- No
Nature of academic approval
- Checking of academic appropriateness, course alignment and student experience.
Academic approval method
- SASQC.
- Ratified by JAAB and JSMB
Further information
10. Progression agreements
10.1 Progression agreements facilitate entry of students to the start of a course (including to a level 6 ‘top-up’). Progression agreements are primarily a recruitment tool. They require business approval but do not require academic approval as standard course entry requirements need to be met. For more information on progression agreements, please speak to EQP.
Progression Agreements Approval Requirements
Business evaluation and due diligence required?
- No
Partner approval required?
- No
Approval of collaborative arrangements required?
- No
Nature of academic approval
- None
Academic approval method
- N/A
11. Delivery under Pearson licence
11.1 Nottingham Trent University deliver, award, assess and quality assure Higher National qualifications under an Intellectual Property Licence agreement with Pearson Education Ltd. This means NTU is granted permission to use the title and intellectual property from certain Pearson BTEC Higher National qualifications in order to provide its own Higher National qualifications.
Further information
- Higher National is a registered trademark of Pearson Education Ltd.
Delivery under Pearson Licence Approval Requirements
Business evaluation and due diligence required?
- Yes
Partner approval required?
- No
Approval of collaborative arrangements required?
- No
Nature of academic approval
- Course approval
Academic approval method
- ACASC
Further information
- Notify Pearson prior to NTU approval and then submit formal approval documentation to Pearson if needed.
12. Joint/double/dual doctoral awards
12.1 NTU collaborates with another degree awarding body to jointly supervise a programme of doctoral study for an individual student. These awards entail formal periods of study and research at each institution.
12.2 For a joint doctoral award, a single award is made jointly by both partners.
12.3 For a double or dual doctoral award, separate awards are made by each partner. Double award qualifications are generally developed due to legal impediments, in some jurisdictions, to a single joint qualification.
12.4 It is the responsibility of the University to ensure that there are no legal or regulatory requirements in the country in which they are operating which may impede the award of a doctorate degree to doctoral candidates.
12.5 The following requirements apply to all collaborative doctoral awards:
- A full-time doctoral candidate must spend at least 12 months at NTU, either as a single block or as multiple blocks across the programme of research.
- The thesis must be written in English.
- The viva voce examination must be conducted in English and the examination team must include a member of staff from NTU.
- The supervisory team must include a Director of Studies (or equivalent) from each institution and must meet or exceed the NTU minimum requirements for supervision as set out in Quality Handbook (QH) Section 11.
12.6 This category does not cover arrangements where there is joint supervision of a student that does not lead to a joint, double or dual award.
Joint/Double/Dual Doctoral Awards Approval Requirements
Business evaluation and due diligence required?
- Yes. Research degree collaborations are subject to bespoke business planning that is proportionate to the type of arrangement.
Partner approval required?
- N/A
Approval of collaborative arrangements required?
- Yes
Nature of academic approval
- Proposal review
Academic approval method
- University Research Degree Committee
Approval process (non-doctoral awards)
13. Triage
13.1 Triage considers the strategic fit of the proposal and defines the category of partnership. Triage discussions include a mix of academic and non-academic representatives with the expertise in the proposed partnerships. Ordinarily this will include:
- The Collaborations and Partnerships Team Leader,
- School representatives and/or
- International Partnerships Unit representative.
14. Due Diligence and Business Evaluation
All provision delivered with others is subject to proportionate business evaluation and due diligence processes. Business evaluation must be complete before any other approval process begins.
14.1 Business evaluation and due diligence is led by EQP, supported by:
- School(s)
- Strategic Planning
- Marketing
- Finance
14.2 Business evaluation must be completed using the approved templates, available from EQP.
14.3 The business case for a new partnership is considered and approved by:
- School Executive Team (SET) (must be received before the business case proceeds to University-level approval)
- UK Business Evaluation Group (UK BEG)
- International Business Approval Group
15. Approval of the partner and of operational arrangements
Form of approval
15.1 The approval process for new partnerships will be tailored for each partnership and will focus on:
- Identified areas of risk
- Areas of mutual opportunity and how these can be realised.
15.2 The approval process is divided between the approval of the partner (where relevant); and the approval of the operation of the collaboration.
A partner approval event will not be required in the following circumstances, where due diligence criteria are otherwise satisfied. In these circumstances, approval will focus on the arrangements for the operation of the collaboration.
- The organisation falls within the remit of an external quality assurance agency for higher education that is on the European Quality Assurance Register (EQAR) and no concerns have been raised in the most recent review.
- The organisation falls within the remit of an external quality assurance agency for higher education that is internationally recognised, (for example, the Malaysian Qualifications Agency or the ANVUR, Italy) and no concerns have been raised during the most recent review.
- The organisation is a UK-based organisation which is registered with the OfS and where there are no concerns about ongoing registration.
- The organisation is a UK-based organisation which is registered with Ofsted, where the latest Ofsted report raised no concerns and the organisation has three or more years’ experience in delivering higher education, supported by satisfactory references.
A paper-based exercise is likely to suffice in the following circumstances:
- The organisation is a UK-based organisation which is registered with Ofsted and where the latest Ofsted report raised no concerns. The organisation’s ability to deliver Higher Education must still be tested where the organisation has less than three years’ experience delivering higher education, or we have not been able to obtain satisfactory references.
- The organisation is an experienced training provider delivering professional qualifications for registered professions, for example, nursing and no concerns have been raised by the regulatory body. The organisation’s ability to deliver Higher Education must still be tested where the organisation has less than three years’ experience delivering higher education, or we have not been able to obtain satisfactory references.
In all other cases, an in-person approval event will be required. Where the event is in-person, there must be representation from all partners involved.
These arrangements will be approved by a sub-group of the School Academic Standards and Quality Committee (SASQC) with additional representation from EQP and an external member from another School. Additional members may be suggested by EQP.
Outcomes of approval
The approval process may result in:
- Conditions: set where approval criteria are not met. Conditions must be met before delivery commences.
- Recommendations: made by the Panel where it has identified areas for enhancement. These should be considered but action is not required.
- Commendations: excellent, shareable practice that the Panel wishes to draw attention to.
New partnerships are initially approved for a maximum period of three years. The length of the initial approval period is based on the findings of the business evaluation, and academic approval process, and the associated risk of the collaboration.
Approval Criteria
Approval criteria will be tested through a desk-based review of evidence, and where, necessary, a partner approval event. The University must be satisfied that the expectations are met and will continue to be met.
The expectations include the relevant B conditions of the OfS Ongoing Conditions of Registration. The expectations relate not just to the partner but to the partnership as a whole.
There are separate approval criteria for:
- Validation service and Franchise provision;
- Dual degrees
- Joint/double degrees,
- Joint delivery arrangements (with a non-degree awarding body);
- Distance delivery arrangements;
- Foundation degree progression and articulation agreements.
The Partnership Development and Approval group will exercise professional judgement, at a threshold level, to assure themselves that the following expectations are met.
Approval of the partner (if required)
Where approval of the partner is required, the following criteria will apply regardless of the category of partnership.
The partner has an appropriate educational infrastructure:
- The partner has an appropriate forum for planning, target setting and devising implementation strategies to enhance the quality of teaching and learning. This includes the learning environment and the provision of adequate learning resources, for the delivery of courses.
- The partner effectively supports the success of all students and minimises gaps in attainment between groups of students with common characteristics.
The partner has an appropriate organisational infrastructure:
- Executive, administrative and academic responsibilities for the delivery of the courses are assigned to individuals and groups and are clearly defined and understood.
- There is an appropriate forum and, where relevant, appropriate processes in place to support the quality management and enhancement of the course or courses.
Approval of the operation of the collaboration
- Reasonable expectations for the provision of staff development on an annual basis have been defined.
- Appropriate resources and support have been identified by the School and the partner and responsibilities for the provision of these have been defined.
- There is appropriate student support in place, both academic and pastoral, including English language support where applicable.
- The partner has appropriately qualified and experienced staff in place to deliver and manage the course or courses.
- Methods have been identified by the partner and the School for effective engagement with students and responsibilities for engagement have been clearly defined.
- The responsibility for the analysis of student achievement and graduate outcomes and mechanisms for using the data to inform course development are clearly defined and appropriate.
- Where relevant, academic regulations are at least as rigorous as those of the University, are designed to ensure that relevant awards are credible and are designed to ensure effective assessment of technical proficiency in the English language in a manner that appropriately reflects the level and content of the course.
- Responsibilities for the management of appeals and complaints have been agreed and are appropriate.
- Effective arrangements are in place for monitoring and reporting.
- The proposed governance arrangements are effective for maintaining oversight of the provision.
- A collaborative academic lead (there will be one role title covering all partnerships) is in place, their role has been scoped and defined and it is clear how they will be supported to undertake their role, including through appropriate time allocation.
- Arrangements for the production and approval of marketing and promotion materials are defined.
- There are policies and processes in place to prevent and address sexual harassment and misconduct affecting students.
Further information
- Quality Handbook Supplement CP1 contains guidance on the approval process and how each criterion will be tested/where the evidence is likely to be found.
Approval of the operation of the collaboration
- The partner has appropriately qualified and experienced staff in place to deliver and manage the course or courses.
- Appropriate resources and support have been identified by the School and the partner and responsibilities for the provision of these have been defined.
- There is appropriate student support in place, both academic and pastoral, including English language support where applicable.
- Methods have been identified by the partner and the School for effective engagement with students and responsibilities for engagement have been clearly defined.
- The responsibility for the analysis of student achievement and graduate outcomes and mechanisms for using the data to inform course development are clearly defined and appropriate.
- Effective arrangements are in place for monitoring and reporting.
- The proposed governance arrangements are effective for maintaining oversight of the provision.
- A collaborative academic lead (there will be one role title covering all partnerships) is in place, their role has been scoped and defined and it is clear how they will be supported to undertake their role, including through appropriate time allocation.
- Arrangements for the production and approval of marketing and promotion materials are defined.
- There are policies and processes in place to prevent and address sexual harassment and misconduct affecting students.
Approval of the operation of the collaboration
- The partner has appropriately qualified and experienced staff in place to deliver and manage the course or courses.
- Appropriate resources and support have been identified by the School and the partner and responsibilities for the provision of these have been defined.
- There is appropriate student support in place, both academic and pastoral, including English language support where applicable.
- Methods have been identified by the partner and the School for effective engagement with students and responsibilities for engagement have been clearly defined.
- The responsibility for the analysis of student achievement and graduate outcomes and mechanisms for using the data to inform course development are clearly defined and appropriate.
- Academic regulations are at least as rigorous as those of the University, are designed to ensure that relevant awards are credible and are designed to ensure effective assessment of technical proficiency in the English language in a manner that appropriately reflects the level and content of the course.
- Responsibilities for the management of appeals and complaints have been agreed and are appropriate.
- Effective arrangements are in place for monitoring and reporting.
- The proposed governance arrangements are effective for maintaining oversight of the provision.
- A collaborative academic lead (there will be one role title covering all partnerships) is in place, their role has been scoped and defined and it is clear how they will be supported to undertake their role, including through appropriate time allocation.
- Arrangements for the production and approval of marketing and promotion materials are defined.
- There are policies and processes in place to prevent and address sexual harassment and misconduct affecting students.
Academic approval of a distance delivery arrangement will consider whether:
- The proposed delivery premises are suitable for the delivery of an NTU award, including the support of any specialist course requirements, for example the use of laboratories.
- The proposed arrangements for teaching, learning and assessment are sound, and will allow students to achieve the course learning outcomes.
- The proposed arrangements for student support, both academic and pastoral, are appropriate to ensure that student learning opportunities are maintained.
Academic approval of articulation agreements and foundation degree progression routes is designed to ensure that students entering a course with advanced standing are enabled to succeed. As such approval will consider:
- whether there is reasonable equivalence between the curricula and learning outcomes of the foundation degree and those of a level or stage of the NTU course(s) the student is entering;
- the justification for any additional entry criteria that a student is required to meet, for example, work experience requirements or Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Body (PSRB) requirements.
- the level of entry to the bachelor’s degree proposed;
- how students entering with advanced standing will be supported in their transition to NTU;
Further information
- Progression must not be conditional upon a bridging course or a specific pass result unless there is a robust rationale, which must be considered at approval.
Approval documentation
- A Collaborative Operational Document (COD) must be prepared for approval. The COD represents a shared understanding by the University and the partner of the mechanisms through which the collaboration will operate and the roles and responsibilities of each party. It is considered and approved by the PDAG or by URDC in the case of PhD collaborations.
- Other than the COD, the University does not specify documentation required for partnership approval. It is for the partner and the School to determine how to evidence that the approval criteria are met, and for the approval group to use their professional judgement to decide whether the information provided is sufficient evidence that the criteria is met. Guidance can be found on the Academic Quality Hub.
- A desk-based review of evidence is undertaken by EQP before submission to the Panel.
Further information
- Guidance on evidence to be provided for approval, and templates for Collaborative Operational Documents are available on the Academic Quality Hub
- Proposal Document: The proposal document sets out the rationale for the partnership, and includes details on arrangements for teaching, learning, assessment, resources and student support. The proposal document is prepared by the School.
- Delivery Site Assessment template: completed by the School, following a site visit to the delivery premises. Provides details about the appropriateness of the proposed premises for delivery of NTU provision. The School is responsible for, and bears the cost of, any travel and accommodation associated with completion of the assessment. A template for the assessment is available under Collaborations and Partnerships templates on the Academic Quality Hub.
- Proposal Document: the proposal document must include:
- the rationale for the proposed progression route;
- the amount of advanced standing the external course will provide, expressed in credit and level values, i.e. 80 credits at Level 5. The amount of advanced standing must not exceed two thirds of the credits required for the NTU award, i.e. 240 credits maximum of a 360 credit course;
- for foundation degrees: a rationale for the level of entry where this is not to level 6;
- details of how the students will be supported in their transition to NTU;
- details of any additional entry criteria such as work experience or English language requirements. Where the mapping process identifies gaps in the student’s prior knowledge or skills, the proposal document may also need to include details of any bridging modules or dedicated induction required
- Mapping document: evidence of the mapping exercise undertaken, to show the alignment of learning outcomes;
The approval documentation is proportionate to the level of risk involved in the proposal. For example, entry to Level 5 of an NTU course will not require as extensive mapping as entry to Level 6.
The NTU CourseLoop entry must be updated as appropriate.
Course Approval
The course will be approved through the Academic Course Approval Sub-Committee (ACASC). Outcomes from the approval of collaborative arrangements will be included in the EQP report to the ACASC.
Further information
Please see Quality Handbook Section 5.
16. Approval process: Doctoral awards
The approval process is designed to ensure that arrangements only progress where there is strategic advantage, likelihood of continuity, and where the quality of an NTU doctoral award is enhanced by the partnership.
Please see NTU Global SharePoint site: Proposal Form, Guidance and Process Overview. The approval process takes part in 3 stages.
Stage 1: Approval to progress
16.1 Stage 1: approval to progress, takes place in two parts:
- Part 1: approval to progress must be received from:
- Director of Research Centre who will consider research alignment and supervisory capacity;
- Associate Dean of Research who will consider strategic fit with School Research Plans and resource;
- Director of Doctoral School and Research Operations who will consider the suitability of the proposed programme and broad strategic suitability;
- NTU Global Associate Director who will consider partner suitability.
- Part 2: once approval to progress is received, the following documentation must be prepared to move to Stage 2:
- Proposal Form
- International Partner Assessment Form
- Financial Due Diligence (International Business Partner)
- Research Environment Checklist (School)
Stage 2: Academic approval by the School Research Degrees Committee
16.2 The Chair of the School Research Degrees Committee (SRDC) appoints a Development Group (DG) to lead on full approval. The DG is comprised of:
- School Postgraduate Research Tutor (PGRT)
- The Proposer
- Assigned representative of EQP
- NTU Doctoral School Quality Manager
- Relevant NTU Global Associate Director
- Finance Business Partner
16.3 As part of the SRDC approval process, two meetings are required:
- Building understanding: this involves the full DG and the partner and its purpose is to explore synergies, compatible processes and areas of regulatory difference that will need to be negotiated.
- Proposal review: this takes place without the partner and will consider the supporting documentation, including the Collaborative Operational Document which sets out the principles by which the collaboration will operate.
16.4 Following meetings with the partner and scrutiny of the supporting recommendation, SRDC will make a recommendation to the University Research Degrees Committee (URDC) to progress to Stage 3.
Documentation requirements
- Proposal Form
- International Partner Assessment Form
- Financial Due Diligence (International Business Partner)
- Research Environment Checklist (School)
- Collaborative Operational Document (School)
- Financial Evaluation (School Finance Business Partner)
Stage 3: Academic Approval by URDC
16.5 Final approval of proposals for joint, dual/double doctoral awards is given by URDC. URDC will consider all of the documentation prepared for scrutiny by the SRDC DG.
16. 6 If the proposal is approved, URDC will instruct a Legal Agreement to be drafted.
16.7 The collaboration as a whole is approved for five years and is subject to periodic collaborative review before approval is renewed by URDC.
17. Legal Agreements
Provision delivered with others is subject to a proportionate agreement between the partner institution and the University. Agreements are signed after academic approval has taken place and before the arrangment commences.
17.1 Institutional agreements are drawn up by Legal Services using a standard template in liaison with EQP/the School.
17.2 For all partnerships with the exception of Validation Service, the School is expected to begin discussions with Legal Services to draw up the contract.
17.3 Agreements must not be signed until after academic approval is complete; however, they should be negotiated beforehand to ensure that commencement of the arrangement is not delayed.
17.4 A collaboration or partnership must not commence until an agreement has been signed.
17.5 Collaborative agreements are signed by the University approved signatories as set out in the University’s Scheme of Delegation, with the exception of agreements for Validation Service provision which must be signed by the Vice-Chancellor or Deputy Vice-Chancellor.
Additional requirements for doctoral awards
17.6 The Collaborative Operational Document forms the basis of the agreement.
17.7 The cotutelle agreement must be signed by the doctoral candidate in addition to the partner and NTU.
Change History
Approval date:
01.09.2026
Nature of revisions:
- New section
Implementation date:
01.09.2026