The further education (FE) sector is considered vital to the economic security of the UK and key to improving productivity and delivering employment-ready skills for labour markets. FE is also seen as playing a key role in enhancing social justice and promoting social mobility by providing 'second chances' for adult learners (BIS 2015a). Yet FE is widely seen to be underperforming and is currently undergoing extensive restructuring leading to fewer, larger colleges offering increased efficiency and resilience. While rationalisation/merger is a common theme across the UK, this is taking place within an increasingly divergent policy context with key differences in institutional autonomy and funding mechanisms in the 4 UK nations. Such processes can be expected to foster fundamental change which has considerable implications for leadership and governance of colleges. Recognition of the importance of effective governance is evident in the introduction of codes of good governance in England, Wales and Scotland. Yet governance has also been found wanting with many examples of mismanagement attributed to its failures (e.g BIS 2015c, Scottish Government 2016). Much of this can be put down to a lack of understanding by colleges and boards themselves of what governance is or the communicative practices by which it is enacted. Governance is undertheorised with research focusing on structures and procedures in terms of the formal constitution of entities providing accountability mechanisms while little is known about the processes and practices of governing, and relationships between governance, leadership and organisational aims/outcomes. If effective governance is seen as key to securing improvement in FE then better understanding of the processes and practices by which this occurs is imperative. This makes the proposal here both highly significant and timely. The proposed research constitutes an in-depth empirical study of the processes and practices of governing boards in FE colleges in the 4 UK nations leading to knowledge about how boards function in realising the strategic aims of the organisation. This knowledge will be of benefit beyond FE, informing governance in both the private and not-for-profit sectors. We will do this through a highly innovative approach which synthesises two important theoretical strands. First, we draw on a prevalent trend in organisational theorising which views organisations as being constituted through communication ('Communicative Constitution of Organisation', Cooren et al 2011). While offering great utility, this approach has been criticised for its lack of attention to the power/political discourse dimension, in particular to a consideration of the external/policy contexts which serve to position organisations. We therefore augment CCO with social theory (Bourdieu) to examine boards in relation to these complex factors. FE in the UK operates in 4 distinct, though highly interdependent, policy contexts. Hence the UK constitutes a unique crucible for testing the influence of national/local policy contexts on governing. Through an in-depth study of boards in relation to these contexts we will gain insight into the complex processes by which boards are positioned within their respective fields of policy and practice. The research question is: How do processes and practices of governing enable organisations to realise their strategic aims and outcomes? We consider how local/national policy serves to position governing boards within the 4 UK nations; how this positioning influences the performance of boards and enactment of governance; ways in which boards negotiate the tensions and complexities within the FE/skills sector to arrive at 'coherent strategy'; the relationship between the board, leadership and management; and we consider what kind/s of organisation is/are constructed through processes and practices of governing in these different contexts.