PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to inform colleagues working in the field of work‐based learning (WBL) about the development of a Post Graduate Certificate in Work Based Learning Facilitation at the University of Chester.Design/methodology/approachThe approach is to describe and comment on the Post Graduate Certificate and to provide comment on the context within which it originated and the rationale for it.FindingsNot applicable other than in the sense that this programme has now been delivered successfully to a number of cohorts.Practical implicationsThis is a model for others to consider and an offer to assist others who may be interested in building their capacity to deliver programmes of WBL.Originality/valueThe university believes that, at the time of its development, there was no similar provision available. It is a model that has proved of value in terms of supporting the quality of the university's WBL provision.

Purpose -The purpose of the paper is to contribute to the debate on the maintenance and enhancement of quality in the emerging landscape of higher education practice and delivery where new kinds of institutional relationships are emerging. Much of the literature describes situations where the risk to quality assurance is relatively low. The example discussed here details how principles of risk management can be used to assure quality where the risk of reputational damage is far greater. Design/methodology/approach -The paper uses a single case study approach. Findings -New and flexible forms of delivery in higher education present opportunities but also the potential for reputational damage so innovative delivery must be matched by a corresponding commitment to quality. This must be embedded at all levels, including tutors. Much of the literature from the perspective of tutors emphasises their experience of quality as a matter of bureaucratic compliance. The case study illustrates that in circumstances where there is a risk of compromise academic tutors can actively engage with a quality enhancement process. Research limitations/implications -Although a case study of specialised practice there is evidence that increasing numbers of universities are seeking to engage in similar methods. The literature on the implications of these initiatives is comprised of case studies so there is a need for more systematic research which examines practices more broadly. The case study also suggests that the search for quality cultures in HE may fruitfully investigate circumstances where quality has to be fought for rather than assumed. Practical implications -The paper demonstrates that universities can deliver in flexible and innovative ways which do not compromise their reputation provided they risk assess the implications of each arrangement and develop appropriate procedures and practices at all levels of operation. Originality/value -The case study is not the first of its kind to be published but it is the first to be published in the context of the quality assurance literature rather than the more specialist work based learning literature. It links developments within that specialist field to more mainstream discourses in the quality assurance literature. It also draws attention of a wider audience to some of the more innovative developments in British HE practice.The traditional pattern of higher education globally is breaking-up and diversifying.The dominant twentieth century model of publicly funded institutions delivering bachelor and postgraduate programmes face-to-face on a full-time basis is unlikely to disappear but we are witnessing rapid changes in the types of provider and patterns of provision for which the central question must be: how can quality be assured so that all students experience a university education worthy of the name?The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to explore, from a practitioner perspective, the tensions in facilitating the “challenging and complex” terrain of co‐delivered work based learning (WBL) – a growing area of practice in the UK, but under‐researched and under‐discussed – and a possible cutting edge resolution which is currently being developed.Design/methodology/approachThe article draws from on‐going practitioner research using a first person action research methodology which uses critical reflection and peer discussion over two years.FindingsAlthough higher education institutions are required (by regulation) to be responsible for the quality of teaching, learning and assessment of the qualifications granted in their name, this becomes problematic in co‐delivery. Three tensions emerged which contest such ownership and responsibility: a perception (or preference) of co‐delivery trainers to be “trainers delivering training” rather than owning/taking responsibility for teaching, learning and assessment; a perceived “legitimacy dilemma” in relation to the relative importance of the training against the assessment elements; and a “displacement” of the academic by her colleagues from an academic position to being part of the training organisation.Research limitations/implicationsWithin a tradition of qualitative practitioner research, this article encourages practitioners to consider these possible tensions in their own practice, and possible resolutions.Practical implicationsThis paper raises on‐going issues in a reportedly “challenging and complex” area of practice, and a possible resolution which is currently being developed.Originality/valueThis paper foregrounds the importance of the practitioner perspective in organisational development and change in the co‐delivery of WBL.

No abstract