srhe

The Society for Research into Higher Education

Author Archives: SRHE News Blog


by 1 Comment

Interest rate changes could challenge universities, student loans and post 16 and vocational education

by Sir Adrian Webb

The publication on 13 September 2023 of the House of Lords Industry and Regulators Committee report on the Office for Students drew attention to the financial challenges facing universities in the UK and to the challenges associated with regulating and overseeing these risks.  

This week we look set to see these challenges increase with the possible increase in the  base interest rates by the Bank of England (the “Bank Rate”) to 5.5% when the Monetary Policy Committee next meets on Thursday 21st September (Guardian, Financial Times, 24 August 2023 ). If there is another 0.25% increase in the base rate, as is widely anticipated, this will place government and university finances under further pressure over the next few years with significant negative implications for HE students, the UK Government’s education budget in general and the further education college budget in particular. Furthermore, this anticipated rise in the Bank Rate may not be the last of these increases if Government spending remains high and inflationary pressures persist through the winter months. 

The most immediate and direct effect will be on the interest payments that universities need to pay on short term loans. According to HESA, average HE provider debt as a proportion of turnover stands at 0.16%, but with highs of 454% and lows of 0%, with unrestricted reserves of 204% of income (HESA, 2023). Of course, financial indicators expressed as a percentage of income for institutions of very variable sizes give no feel for the absolute amount of cash owed, or the annual cost of repayments.  

The top 13 higher education providers by percentage of debt are all small private institutions; most have recorded deficits in recent years and appear to have low levels of cash available to cover running costs. The next 35 institutions by scale of debt all have debt levels of over 50% of turnover. Among these institutions there are 22 large pre- and post-92 universities in all parts of the UK.  

The challenges presented by potential increases in interest payments will be exacerbated over the next two years by the continued decline in the real value of student tuition fees, limitations on the recruitment of overseas students with dependants and a decline in the proportion of students applying to low and mid-tariff universities.  

When student tuition fees were first introduced, HE providers were encouraged to set fees at between £6,000 and £9,000 per annum. Some price competition between institutions was expected but in practice the vast majority set their fees at the higher level. Recent analysis by Mark Corver of DataHE, an independent higher education consultancy, indicates that the real level of fees that higher education providers charge students as tuition fees has dropped below £6,000 if the value is deflated by the Retail Prices Index (RPI), slightly higher if other measures of inflation are used.

Over the last five years, many HE providers have been attempting to cover the reduced value of undergraduate home tuition fee income by recruiting larger number of international students, particularly from China, India and Nigeria. This approach has attracted large numbers of students to the most selective universities and those in major cities; many universities now have more than 25% of their students recruited from these sources. The announcement of restrictions on the release of temporary visas to support the dependents of international students has already had an impact on the recruitment of people from overseas who want to study at UK universities.. This impact looks set to continue and increase in 2024. 

To illustrate the issues faced by the more highly indebted institutions with a significant number of international students, consider the composite case of the University of Camberwick Green, with net debt of circa £200m and current loans with a weighted average debt cost of 3.5%. If this institution needed to renew all of its existing debt obligations this would likely double the costs of debt servicing from £7million to at least £14million. This would mean an additional annual outlay as a proportion of turnover in excess of 5%, dependent on the interest rates agreed with lenders and the term of their loan (e.g. revolving credit facility, private placement, bond or bank lending).  For a university like Camberwick Green, which has also recorded large operating deficits in recent years, additional debt is likely to be more expensive and so the short-term options are likely to focus on selling assets or laying off staff; these are not easy or attractive options. Changes to course portfolios and/or increased international student recruitment and transnational operations are unlikely to produce the necessary returns quickly and without undue financial or reputational risk.  

The more prestigious and selective universities in the more affluent parts of the UK are unlikely to face pressures that are likely to bear down hard on those which are, by conventional measures, less prestigious and less selective, in parts of the UK that engaged in levelling up activities with significant HE involvement. The impacts of high indebtedness, declining student recruitment and operating deficits are already being felt with significant redundancies planned at ten universities. 

The next most significant impact of higher interest rates will be on student loan repayments and the arrangements for funding this activity. The student loan book currently stands at £206bn with an additional £20bn of loans being issued each year. The internal real interest rate charged on these loan arrangements by HM Treasury, i.e. the real discount rate (excluding inflation), was set at -0.7% in 2021 at the height of the Covid crisis and remains the rate proposed in the Plan 5 changes scheduled to come into place during 2024. The nominal discount rate taking account of inflation is 1.9%. If Bank of England interest rates and by consequence HM Treasury bond/gilt rates move to 6.25% in 2024, as has been forecast, and the student loan rate is changed as a consequence, this will create an adverse upward movement in real interest rate charges on the loan book of circa 5%. Dependent on the scheduling of the loans this will then feed through into the calculation of the principal debt students are required to repay and also the Resource Allocation Budget (RAB) charge paid by the UK Government on loans that are forecast not to be repaid. Under revised accounting rules introduced in 2021, a proportion of this increased RAB charge will need to be accounted for in the national deficit in the year it is incurred and cannot be delayed until the loan matures. With forecast increases in the scale of the student loan book through to the next decade there are likely to be powerful voices in the Treasury wishing to pay down this debt or reduce the scale of its growth. This in turn is likely to mean a need to revisit the current arrangements in advance of the next HM Treasury Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) in 2025. 

The current loan book is financed in part by the spread (difference) between the notional interest rate charged to students on loans they have taken out, which is currently set with some reference to the Prevailing Market Rate (PMR) for commercial loans, and the lower rate paid by the Treasury for its borrowings. The PMR was set at 7.3% in February 2023 and confirmed at this level for the period between September and November 2023 on 11th August. . At present the Bank of England Bank Rate is 5.3% and so the spread between the student loan rate and the Bank Rate was 2%. If a similar spread is expected if  the base rate rises further to 6.25% the PMR could be 8.25% or even higher. Interest rates at this level would make almost all student loans un-repayable, effectively converting the loan system into a graduate tax confined to new students and also potentially introducing a significant element of “moral hazard” as many students would face little incentive to do anything other than maximise their student loans. Given that they will never repay them; they will face an additional marginal loan repayment (tax) rate of 9% on undergraduate loans and 6% on postgraduate loans, so why not take out as much loan as possible and complete a postgraduate taught or research degree, even when the economic returns to them individually and to the public purse are negative. Beyond this “moral hazard” argument there is also arguably a “moral outrage” argument to be had about imposing an age-related differential income tax rate on younger people who are recent graduates. 

The problems outlined above are then likely to be heightened by forecast increases in the number of prospective undergraduate students entering the system over the next seven years.  In 2021/2022 there were 2.16 million U.K. domiciled students in UK HE institutions and a further 0.68 million students from the EU and other overseas countries. By 2030 the number of UK domiciled students is expected to increase by between 200,000 and 400,000 as a consequence of increases in the number of people in the relevant age groups. This would be at an average additional cost per student of at least £60,000 per three-year undergraduate degree, based on loans for tuition fees of 3 x £9,250 and for maintenance of 3 x up to £13,022 for students living away from home in London. Many students study for longer than three years on foundation and/or masters programmes, hence the forecast of £60,000 per student. This is an additional annual cost of loan outlay of £12bn or more. This seems unlikely to be fundable. 

The implication of these cost pressures would be serious enough if they were confined to HE, but they are not. Far from it. At present the growing costs of HE are being paid for by other parts of the UK Government’s education budget, resulting in real terms cuts to the further education budget, consequent low rates of pay for FE college staff, and cuts to the adult education budget. In adult education, FE and apprenticeship provision pay rates are set locally rather than nationally and so reductions in institutional budgets in this part of the education sector have tended to be accommodated by falling wages and unfilled vacancies rather than through redundancies as has been the case in the university sector. These different parts of the post-school education system are making greater use of part-time and temporary contracts and precarious jobs. This at a time when the need for more and better vocational education is increasingly widely recognised and the need for “industry standard” staff capable of delivering the new and upgraded skills required by rapid technological change has never been greater.  

Across the UK 70% of adults have not been to university, but like many older graduates they would benefit from the opportunity to take a course at a local college or other adult education provider. With 20% of the adult working age population (5 million people) currently economically inactive and with chronic skills shortages in all parts of economy it is very worrying that the pay of college lecturers in catering, construction, digital, engineering, health and social care is considerably below the rates paid to comparably skilled people working in the private sector. Employers in the UK spend on average 50% less than their counterparts in mainland Europe on workforce education and training. The combination of reductions in employer spending on training and cuts in UK Government funding for FE and apprenticeships has led to a reduction of over 1 million student places in adult education, apprenticeships and FE per year in the last ten years. This is not the position the UK needs to be in to improve productivity. Indeed, it is the very opposite of what is required to support such mission – let alone to promote inclusive and sustainable economic growth.  

Who is responsible for monitoring and governing this system? At the moment the financial position of individual universities is overseen by their governing bodies, aided by internal and external auditors predominantly drawn in combinations of two of the big four audit firms. The Office for Students (OfS) monitors the financial position of individual higher education providers as part of its regulatory function, but it is not formally required to intervene financially at an early stage to support institutions in difficulties. It may issue a requirement to improve the plans for protecting students, but it is not required to prevent an institution from failing. The Student Loan Company (SLC) is overseen by an independent board and supported by a representative from the sponsoring departments in the UK’s national governments (i.e. Department for Education, Scottish Government, Welsh Government and Northern Ireland Office in the absence of the Northern Ireland Executive). Whether the OfS, national regulators in the devolved nations or the SLC have modelled the scenarios outlined in this note is a moot point. Indeed, it is more of a mute point because no one is publicly talking about these issues and the problems that go with them in a joined-up way with a long-term perspective. It would be helpful if they did, and if there was a debate about the consequences for higher and further education providers and student loans of the return to real interest rates more in-keeping with the long run historical average. Given the commitment of central banks around the world to move in this direction after 15 years of ultra-low interest rates there is a pressing need for a comprehensive review of where we are heading and what needs to be done about it. 

As we approach a General Election in 2024, now is the time for the major political parties in the UK to commit to the appointment of a Royal Commission or equivalent to look at these issues with an impartial, sector neutral and critical eye.  Over the last hundred years all major changes of this type have proceeded in this way (i.e. Smith Report 1919, White Paper on Education 1943, Robbins Review 1964, Dearing Review 1997 and Browne Review 2011). Indeed, in 1997 Gillian Sheppard (Conservative minister) and David Blunkett (prospective Labour minister) agreed in the run up to the General election to respect the Dearing Committee proposals. A similar arrangement was reached regarding the Browne Review between Peter Mandelson (Labour Minister) and George Osborne (prospective Conservative Minister) in the run up to the general election in 2010.  The settlements in 1944 and 1963 were similarly effectively cross-party. This is a fundamental issue for the future of the UK and deserves to be made non-political with recommendations for the long term. Previous reviews have produced long term plans which have been implemented when they had cross-party support and straddled a General election. 

Sir Adrian Webb was an academic at the London School of Economics and Loughborough University; he was Deputy Vice Chancellor at Loughborough and Vice Chancellor at the University of Glamorgan. As well as holding a number of senior management positions and a wide range of public service/consultancy roles in local and central government (including HM Treasury, DHSS, Home Office, DFES, and the Ministry of Justice) and in Wales, he has also held many roles in the Third Sector. Sir Adrian was a member of the Dearing Review committee in the late 1990s and chaired a review of further education colleges and funding in Wales in 2007. 

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of any organisation with which the author is affiliated.  


by 2 Comments

Fair use or copyright infringement? What academic researchers need to know about ChatGPT prompts

by Anita Toh

As scholarly research into and using generative AI tools like ChatGPT becomes more prevalent, it is crucial for researchers to understand the intersections of copyright, fair use, and use of generative AI in research. While there is much discussion about the copyrightability of generative AI outputs and the legality of generative AI companies’ use of copyrighted material as training data (Lucchi, 2023), there has been relatively little discussion about copyright in relation to user prompts. In this post, I share an interesting discovery about the use of copyrighted material in ChatGPT prompts.

Imagine a situation where a researcher wishes to conduct a content analysis on specific YouTube videos for academic research. Does the researcher need to obtain permission from YouTube or the content creators to use these videos?

As per YouTube’s guidelines, researchers do not require explicit copyright permission if they are using the content for “commentary, criticism, research, teaching, or news reporting,”as these activities fall under the umbrella of fair use (Fair Use on YouTube – YouTube Help, 2023).

What about this scenario? A researcher wants to compare the types of questions posed by investors on the reality television series, Shark Tank, with questions generated by ChatGPT as it roleplays an angel investor. The researcher plans to prompt ChatGPT with a summary of each Shark Tank pitch and ask ChatGPT to roleplay as an angel investor and ask questions. In this case, would the researcher need to obtain permission from Shark Tank or its production company, Sony Pictures Television?

In my exploration, I discovered that it is indeed crucial to obtain permission from Sony Pictures Television. ChatGPT’s terms of service emphasise that users should “refrain from using the service in a manner that infringes upon third-party rights. This explicitly means the input should be devoid of copyrighted content unless sanctioned by the respective author or rights holder” (Fiten & Jacobs, 2023).

I therefore initiated communication with Sony Pictures Television, seeking approval to incorporate Shark Tank videos in my research. However, my request was declined by Sony Pictures Television in California, citing “business and legal reasons”. Undeterred, I approached Sony Pictures Singapore, only to receive a reaffirmation that Sony cannot endorse my proposed use of their copyrighted content “at the present moment”. They emphasised that any use of their copyrighted content must strictly align with the Fair Use doctrine.

This evokes the question: Why doesn’t the proposed research align with fair use? My initial understanding is that the fair use doctrine allows re-users to use copyrighted material without permission from the right holders for news reporting, criticism, review, educational and research purposes (Copyright Act 2021 Factsheet, 2022).

In the absence of further responses from Sony Pictures Television, I searched the web for answers.

Two findings emerged which could shed light on Sony’s reservations:

  • ChatGPT’s terms highlight that “user inputs, besides generating corresponding outputs, also serve to augment the service by refining the AI model” (Fiten & Jacobs, 2023; OpenAI Terms of Use, 2023).
  • OpenAI is currently facing legal action from various authors and artists alleging copyright infringement (Milmo, 2023). They contend that OpenAI had utilized their copyrighted content to train ChatGPT without their consent. Adding to this, the New York Times is also contemplating legal action against OpenAI for the same reason (Allyn, 2023).

These revelations point to a potential rationale behind Sony Pictures Television’s reluctance: while use of their copyrighted content for academic research might be considered fair use, introducing this content into ChatGPT could infringe upon the non-commercial stipulations (What Is Fair Use?, 2016) inherent in the fair use doctrine.

In conclusion, the landscape of copyright laws and fair use in relation to generative AI tools is still evolving. While previously researchers could rely on the fair use doctrine for the use of copyrighted material in their research work, the availability of generative AI tools now introduces an additional layer of complexity. This is particularly pertinent when the AI itself might store or use data to refine its own algorithms, which could potentially be considered a violation of the non-commercial use clause in the fair use doctrine. Sony Pictures Television’s reluctance to grant permission for the use of their copyrighted content in association with ChatGPT reflects the caution that content creators and rights holders are exercising in this new frontier. For researchers, this highlights the importance of understanding the terms of use of both the AI tool and the copyrighted material prior to beginning a research project.

Anita Toh is a lecturer at the Centre for English Language Communication (CELC) at the National University of Singapore (NUS). She teaches academic and professional communication skills to undergraduate computing and engineering students.


by Leave a comment

Buddy, can you paradigm?

by Paul Temple

Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is a remarkable academic book in that it remains a best-seller (as academic books go) more than 60 years after its publication. Even more unusually, Kuhn, a theoretical physicist, apparently “spent the rest of his life distressed by its success” according to the science historian Steven Shapin, who knew him, writing in The London Review of Books in March this year. He should have been so lucky, most academic authors would say. Also unusually, Kuhn intended his study as an encyclopaedia entry, not as a stand-alone book at all, and didn’t expect social scientists, historians, and others to latch onto it. But he shouldn’t really have been surprised, as “things are either x or y” claims are often pounced upon by those in search of a neat structuring for an argument. (One of my favourites is, “There are two sorts of people in the world: professional social scientists and amateur ones”.)

Anyway, Kuhn’s distinction between “normal science” and the intellectual revolutions that from time-to-time upend the discipline in question, “shifting” to a new “paradigm” before normal science resumes in a new paradigmatic way, can be applied in many fields. I’ve used it to help think about how management (or leadership) works: mostly it’s in normal-science mode, keeping things ticking over nicely, dealing with minor problems, making a few tweaks here and there; but then something really big comes along, the present methods are found to be inadequate, and a new way of working – a new paradigm – emerges. Then, after a bit, normal science resumes, but differently.

I think you could say a new paradigm for university leadership (or management) arose when league tables came along. These used performance indicators (KPIs, as they became known) which began to be produced in the UK in the late 1980s, following the Jarratt Report of 1985 which argued that university managements needed comparative data in order to become more efficient. Before then, everyone in the trade had a general idea of where their own institution fitted in, but management decisions weren’t made with the idea of becoming better than a particular competitor – just about becoming, if possible, better in some overall sense. League tables changed all that: managers were, often, told to do whatever it took to change the metric for which they were responsible. A new management paradigm had emerged. (HESA announced in 2021 that it was ending the publication of university KPIs – so perhaps that’s a paradigm that, over say 30 years, has run its course.)

When wars begin, effective political leaderships typically remove the peacetime generals who got promoted by being good at normal science – fitting in with the military bureaucracy, writing nice essays at staff college – and finding replacements who understand the new paradigm of war: winning battles isn’t the main task, it’s (almost) the only task. As Ukraine’s army chief of staff, General Zaluzhny (who looks like a man you wouldn’t want to annoy) told The Economist in December 2022, “I trust my generals. Since the start of the war I fired ten of them because they were not up to it. Another one shot himself.”

Which brings us to Mr Tony Chambers, formerly Chief Executive of the Countess of Chester Hospital. I suspect that Mr Chambers had been on a leadership course where your group is given a task that involves manipulating a number of variables, perhaps a game about managing a supermarket to maximise profits: do you cut prices to increase turnover, or increase prices in the hope of more revenue?; do you cut staff numbers to save on wages, or increase them to improve customer service? And so on. (Of course there is an algorithm underlying the game: mathematically-minded team members spend their time trying to crack the algorithm – I could never quite decide if this counted as cheating.) Mr Chambers saw his job at the hospital in this way, juggling variables: “[I had to] balance the competing priorities of the safety of babies and their families, the health and wellbeing of our staff and the reputation of our services…I have not always got the balance right…” (Guardian, 19/08/23). He was, in other words, operating in a normal-science mode based on a long-standing paradigm and, despite a mounting death toll in the neonatal unit, saw no need for a new paradigm. What, I suggest, the hospital needed was a wartime-mode chief executive, with one aim in view: to stop babies dying. The HR and comms issues that were obviously taking up a lot of Mr Chambers’ bandwidth needed, under the new paradigm, to be relegated or delegated. Keeping babies alive shouldn’t have been one priority among many, just as for Ukraine’s generals winning battles isn’t just a priority – it’s the only priority that counts.

Dr Paul Temple is Honorary Associate Professor in the Centre for Higher Education Studies, UCL Institute of Education.


by Leave a comment

New Higher Education Institutions in England: A real chance to innovate?

by Katherine Emms

The 2017 Higher Education and Research Act (HERA) enabled new and innovative HE providers to enter and establish themselves, with the aim of diversifying the HE sector. The HERA reforms enabled institutions to apply to register as HE providers, obtain their own degree awarding powers (DAPs) and finally secure university title and status through a supposedly more streamlined and flexible process overseen by – the then new body – the Office for Students (OfS). At this unique time when many providers have been seizing this opportunity to enter the market, the Edge Foundation wanted to capture the experiences of setting up and developing new HEIs in England. Our subsequent research therefore aimed to explore how vision, pedagogies and approaches to learning are being developed, and what are some of the challenges these HEIs are experiencing in establishing themselves.

To investigate this we conducted a series of semi-structured interviews focusing on six newly established HEIs across England. At the time of the interviews some were in the process of recruiting their first intake of undergraduate students, while others were in their first few years of programme delivery. We spoke to founders, directors, senior leadership team members and those involved in setting up a new university and developing the first programmes. Policymakers were also interviewed.

We found that all the new HEIs set out clear and purposeful visions for their establishment. Many regarded the opportunity as a chance to break the mould of the traditional HE landscape and to help provide solutions to some global issues through preparing students sufficiently for a varied portfolio career in a complex world. Some HEIs were responding to more local needs, whether that be local skills shortages or offering HE opportunities for young people in their locality to help tackle local economic issues and widen participation.

Across many of the institutions’ organisational structures, administrative and academic processes, and physical spaces, they looked to break away from normalised HE structures. For instance, admissions policies and procedures aimed to move away from academic grades as the primary judgement for admitting students. Instead they consider personal attitudes and the potential of the applicant important. They assessed this through use of broader admission measures eg interviews and submission of ‘selfie’ videos. The scalability of such approaches however is uncertain as applications to the new HEIs grow. One of the reasons behind these approaches was to ensure they widened participation to more disadvantaged and diverse groups of students who may struggle to have previously entered HE.

For their staff body, new HEIs wanted to ensure that they recruited not just pure academics but also those with a background in industry. In order to recruit the right staff, they went beyond standard interviewing processes for recruitment, instead using a broader set of methods, such as running a test class. They were particularly looking for engaging and excellent teachers who also have the ethos, creativity and impetus for working in a start-up environment.

All the new HEIs in this research took non-traditional approaches to programme design and delivery, particularly by not relying on lectures and exams to teach students. Instead they wished to use more student-centred approaches to learning and make connections to the real-world through pedagogies such as problem-based learning, whereby students work primarily in teams to tackle issues whilst drawing on knowledge from multiple disciplines. Employers and external partners also are key role players in the design and delivery of these new HEIs, from designing the curriculum to offering real-world and authentic projects for students to work on. Importantly students also interact with these employers whether that be through presenting their ‘product’ from the team projects to the employer or through such interactions as expert lectures or work placements. A disinterest in traditional pedagogies and enthusiasm for external collaboration were understood as key to ensuring the authenticity otherwise suggested to be lacking in some existing HE provision.

Setting up a new HEI was not an easy feat, with participants reporting a number of challenges including funding and attracting new students. One particular challenge was the registration process and navigating the regulatory system. The process from registering as a HE provider to gaining DAPs was often seen as a slow and, for some, complicated process. Furthermore despite the impetus behind the Higher Education and Research Act (2017) endorsing ideas of innovation, new HEIs felt that external factors restricted the degree to which they could truly be ‘innovative’. For instance, the regulatory frameworks that new HEIs had to work within to register as a provider were based on assumptions about the traditional model of a university. One provider described the experience as ‘trying to fit a square peg into a round hole’. Likewise, some new HEIs discussed similar restrictions applying when working in partnership with existing universities, meaning they were restricted within the parameters of their awarding university. In both cases, some new HEIs stated that this led to mission-drift or a watering down of their ‘innovative’ approaches. 

Nevertheless, these new HEIs were ambitious and keen to achieve their visions through wielding and deploying unorthodox means, whether that be reimagining organisational structures and processes or combining pedological practices that would not necessarily be considered innovative by themselves, such as problem-based learning, interdisciplinary teaching and learning and student-centred teaching. But through presenting these practices together or in different combinations and in new contexts HEIs made ambitious attempts to generate different student outcomes.

The HEIs featured in this research were still in the early stages of conception or delivery. It is difficult therefore to judge their success as HEIs. It is yet to be seen whether many of their current practices, such as their innovative and personable approach to recruitment, are manageable when student applications and intake grows, or whether relationships with employers can be sustained and courses kept up to date. For the new HEIs of today, many of them consider the markers of their success will be in their student numbers over the coming years and the success of their graduates once they enter the workplace. Yet, despite the attention of policymakers looking to clamp down on “low-value degrees”, we may need to look beyond graduates’ salaries as a marker of success and instead delve further into learners’ experiences of HE, innovative and otherwise.

Katherine Emms is a Senior Education and Policy Researcher at the Edge Foundation. You can read the research New Higher Education Institutions in England: A real chance to innovate? here.


by Leave a comment

What do artificial intelligence systems mean for academic practice?

by Mary Davis

I attended and made a presentation at the SRHE Roundtable event ‘What do artificial intelligence systems mean for academic practice?’ on 19 July 2023. The roundtable brought together a wide range of perspectives on artificial intelligence: philosophical questions, problematic results, ethical considerations, the changing face of assessment and practical engagement for learning and teaching. The speakers represented a range of UK HEI contexts, as well as Australia and Spain, and a variety of professional roles including academic integrity leads, lecturers of different disciplines and emeritus professors.

The day began with Ron Barnett’s fierce defence of the value of authorship and the concerns about what it means to be a writer in a Chatbot world. Ron argued that use of AI tools can lead to an erosion of trust; the essential trust relationship between writer and reader in HE and wider social contexts such as law may disintegrate and with it, society. Ron reminded us of the pain and struggle of writing and creating an authorial voice that is necessary for human writing. He urged us to think about the frameworks of learning such as ‘deep learning’ (Ramsden), agency and internal story-making (Archer) and his own ‘Will to Learn’, all of which could be lost. His arguments challenged us to reflect on the far-reaching social consequences of AI use and opened the day of debate very powerfully.

I then presented the advice I have been giving to students at my institution using my analysis of student declarations of AI use which I had categorised using a traffic light system for appropriate use (eg checking and fixing a text before submission); at risk use (eg paraphrasing and summarising); and inappropriate use (eg using assignment briefs as prompts and submitting the output as own work). I got some helpful feedback from the audience that the traffic lights provided useful navigation for students. Coincidentally, the next speaker Angela Brew also used a traffic light system to guide students with AI. She argued for the need to help students develop a scholarly mindset, for staff to stop teaching as in the 18th Century with universities as foundations of knowledge. Instead, she proposed that everyone at university should be a discoverer, a learner and producer of knowledge, as a response to AI use.

Stergios Aidinlis provided an intriguing insight into practical use of AI as part of a law degree. In his view, generative AI can be an opportunity to make assessment currently fit for purpose. He presented a three-stage model of learning with AI comprising: stage 1 as using AI to produce a project pre-mortem to tackle a legal problem as pre-class preparation; stage 2 using AI as a mentor to help students solve a legal problem in class; and stage 3 using AI to evaluate the technology after class. Stergios recommended Mollick and Mollick (2023) for ideas to help students learn to use AI. The presentation by Stergios stood out in terms of practical ideas and made me think about the availability of suitable AI tools for all students to be able to do tasks like this.

The next session by Richard Davies, one of the roundtable convenors, took a philosophical direction in considering what a ‘student’s own work’ actually means, and how we assess a student’s contribution. David Boud returned the theme to assessment and argued that three elements are always necessary: assuring learning outcomes have been met (summative assessment), enabling students to use information to aid learning (formative assessment) and building students’ capacity to evaluate their learning (sustainable assessment). He argued for a major re-design of assessment, that still incorporates these elements but avoids tasks that are no longer viable.

Liz Newton presented guidance for students which emphasized positive ways to use AI such as using it for planning or teaching, which concurred with my session. Maria Burke argued for ethical approaches to the use of AI that incorporate transparency, accountability, fairness and regulation, and promote critical thinking within AI context. Finally, Tania Alonso presented her ChatGPTeaching project with seven student rules for use of ChatGPT, such as proposing use only for areas of the student’s own knowledge.

The roundtable discussion was lively and our varied perspectives and experiences added a lot to the debate; I believe we all came away with new insights and ideas. I especially appreciated the opportunity to look at AI from practical and philosophical viewpoints. I am looking forward to the ongoing sessions and forum discussions. Thanks very much to SRHE for organising this event.

Dr Mary Davis is Academic Integrity Lead and Principal Lecturer (Education and Student Experience) at Oxford Brookes University. She has been a researcher of academic integrity since 2005 and has carried out extensive research on plagiarism, use of text-matching tools, the development of source use, proofreading, educational responses to academic conduct issues and focused her recent research on inclusion in academic integrity. She is on the Board of Directors of the International Center for Academic Integrity and co-chair of the International Day of Action for Academic Integrity.


by Leave a comment

When tending learning landscapes, what matters most?

by Pippa Yeoman

Wednesday June 14 saw the second instalment of the SRHE ‘Landscapes of Learning for Unknown Futures: prospects for space in higher education’ symposia series, delivered in partnership with series co-convenors Professor Sam Elkington and Dr. Jill Dickinson.

Sam drew the second session to a close with a question, “What matters most?”

I wanted to have my say then and there but I was watching delayed at a distance and in that moment, I wanted to say: “It is the care with which we anticipate what is to come and prepare accordingly that matters most”.

The session had been framed in terms of flexibilities. It was an opportunity for us to consider the myriad forces shaping the spaces in which we teach and learn including broadening participation, shifting patterns of attendance, mixed motivations for enrolment, and the blurring of boundaries in which polycontexturality and multi-chronicity now shape a university education.

To flex is to possess physical properties affording bending, a willingness to yield to the opinions of another, or to be characterised as capable of adapting to new or changing circumstance (Merriam-Webster, nd)

The choice of the plural — flexibilities — was intended to invoke multiplicities or an opening up to possibilities. This is an orientation I am ordinarily at home with but in this instance I must confess a reticence based on my preference for avoiding the use of the singular — flexible — when speaking of the built environment for learning. In my role at the University of Sydney, I am tasked with ensuring more than 900 learning spaces support our educational aspirations in the teaching of over 70,000 students and I have grown weary of calls for flexible furnishings and future-proof spaces. Rooms of requirement, however much they may delight our imaginings, are a fiction. At some point, decisions based on underlying educational purposes must be made and a single chair, table, or room cannot be all things to all people concurrently.

Reflecting on the purpose of a university education, Jeremy introduced us to Biesta’s (2012) categories of qualification or the acquisition of knowledge and skills, socialisation or enculturation into existing social practices, and subjectification or the individual process of becoming. Applying them to the learning landscape immediately multiplies the contexts in which we can be intentional about supporting students in becoming part of a community, developing as individuals, and working towards a qualification.

But to move from high-level educational purposes to practical plans, we need more than a stable design orientation or purpose. We need clarity about what is open to alteration through design and capable of supporting activity that we value, everything from quiet introspection and still imaginings to strident debate and active co-creation.

Framing activity in terms of emergence is helpful in this regard. Alexander (2001) explains emergence with the help of a whirlpool; a momentary vortex produced by the flow of water through a particular configuration of riverbed, banks and rocks. The vortex is not part of the river in the same way the riverbed, banks and rocks are. Rather, it is induced in the action of the whole. But if this analogy is to be of any use to us, we must identify the educational equivalents of the riverbed, banks and rocks.

We must ask, what are the underlying structures that support what students do, how they do it, and who they do it with on any given day? The framing of this question deliberately references the three dimensions of the Activity-Centred Analysis and Design framework (Goodyear & Carvalho, 2014; Goodyear, Carvalho & Yeoman, 2021) that are open to alteration through design. They are the epistemic design (task eg interview for a report), the set design (tools eg Bring Your Own Device), and the social design (people eg group roles). The fourth is not open to alteration through design. Instead, it is emergent. It is acts of co-creation and co-configuration or what is done with what has been proposed.

I have found this framing helpful in identifying the underlying structures of learning and in tracing students’ responses to them when they are free to do what they must in order to learn (Ilich, 1973). And this is not to mention the freedom that educators experience when they are able to respond to the needs of their students based on their understanding of what really matters and is within the realm of their influence on any given day. Learning to work with these ideas has produced some practical tools (Yeoman & Carvalho, 2019; Carvalho et al, 2023) that offer just enough, but not too much, structure.

Biesta’s (2012) core purposes of education make the task of tending the learning landscapes of unknown futures less fraught by providing a clear and steady orientation. The three purposes persist; it is how we anticipate and support them that varies, all the while honouring their singular multiplicity qualification-socialisation-subjectification. And the analogy of the whirlpool brings us closer to understanding what it means to say that place is produced in the interaction of the whole, neither fully determined in advance nor unyielding to perturbations in the doing.

Thinking through ‘flexibilities’ with the aim of supporting diverse cohorts to flourish as they make their way through the learning landscapes of unknown futures has certainly been productive and, based on my reflection, I will add to my initial response to Sam’s question,

“It is the care with which we anticipate what is to come and prepare accordingly — building the structure and yielding to the flow — that matters most.”

Pippa is a committed educational ethnographer and academic developer, with a deep-rooted passion for instructional and architectural design. As a Senior Lecturer (Learning Spaces) on the Educational Innovation team at the University of Sydney, she takes a central role in translating and implementing strategic initiatives related to the university’s built environment.

Her primary focus lies in the design and development of spaces that support diverse student cohorts throughout the day, across semesters, and throughout various degree programs. Pippa’s ambition is to contribute to the creation of a convivial learning environment – a campus that not only welcomes but also serves a purpose for every student. Her expertise is built on a comprehensive body of observational research, which she enriches through cross-disciplinary collaborations with academic and professional peers.

References

Alexander, C. (2001). The nature of order: an essay on the art of building and the nature of the Universe. Oxford University Press.

Illich, I. (1973). Tools for conviviality. Calder and Boyars.

Further resources from this event including sketch illustrations and a summary of discussions are also available from https://srhe.ac.uk/events/past-events/


by Leave a comment

Landscapes of Learning for Unknown Futures: Prospects for Space in Higher Education – Reflections on Flexibilities Symposium, June 14th, 2023

by Sam Elkington and Jill Dickinson

Wednesday June 14 saw the second instalment of the SRHE ‘Landscapes of Learning for Unknown Futures: prospects for space in higher education’ symposia series, delivered in partnership with series co-convenors Professor Sam Elkington and Dr. Jill Dickinson.

This was the second symposium in the series following on from the April launch, where the inaugural symposium event utilised the lens of ‘Networks’ to elucidate a view of higher education (HE) learning spaces in terms of how such spaces are becoming increasingly connected, permeable, and interwoven (both physically and digitally), revealing increasingly adaptive learning environments.

Flexibilities

The second symposium looked to shift focus, this time utilising a lens of ‘Flexibilities’ as a means of grasping the increasing complexity of learning spaces emerging amidst the flux and flows of contemporary digital educational environments. From this perspective, the framing idea of flexibility was positioned as a critical aspect of how learning is situated relative to the demands of students seeking greater control in fitting their studies around their learning needs and preferences, as well as other aspects of their lives. The presentations and work shared offered a range of theoretical and applied interpretations and perspectives as a basis for generating collaborative, reflexive discussions, and debate.

In his keynote address, Dr Jeremy Knox looked to push beyond the more conventional interpretations of the idea of flexibility in HE settings, with a focus on efficient performance and accessible models of delivery, to a way of thinking about space in terms of its interrelationship with digital technologies that are interwoven into the fabric of the university learning environment, and that constantly shape educational practices. When viewed from this perspective, and drawing on Biesta’s (2013) tenets for democratic education in a globally networked society, Jeremy argued that space is, in practice, ‘enacted, turbulent, entangled and hybrid’ (Edwards et al., 2011) and cannot be productively viewed only in terms of settings for ‘qualification’ (knowledge and skill acquisition). In addition, contemporary spaces for learning are also important vehicles for ‘socialisation’ and the ways in which individuals become part of society through networks for learning and becoming, or ‘subjectification’. In HE, we tend towards the purpose of qualification and how we can design spaces for better learning outcomes at the expense of thinking deeply about how different configurations of spaces can support the more peripheral, but no less important, purposes of socialisation and subjectification. Jeremy drew on his extensive experience of facilitating online courses at scale, particularly MOOCs, to think critically about spatial configurations across different modalities and to point to the underestimation of the complexities of inequalities and structural issues of online learning. We cannot assume that we can deploy digital education and technologies without risk or concern. Indeed, there are certain spatial flexibilities that emerge when institutions are required to be supple in how they respond to an increasingly uncertain and changing HE landscape; modifying what is done to suit the multiple purposes of effective provision through greater student involvement and how teachers negotiate and manage change, amidst shifting ideas of a boundaried university experience.  

In his talk, ‘Spatial fluencies – more than spaces, more than literacies’, Dr. Andrew Middleton made calls for ‘place’ to be moved up the HE agenda through marrying values and philosophies with practical innovation. Andrew defined the underpinning concept of spatial fluencies as ‘an individual’s ability to confidently and critically navigate and negotiate spaces for learning, for professional life, and for lifewide experiences’. He suggested how we can survive and thrive within HE through self-determination, self-responsibilisation, and learned processes around agency, affinity, autonomy, association, agility, and adaptability. Andrew also advocated for multimodal thinking in terms of how we can use, experience, and develop learning environments, recognising how we might occupy liminal spaces and/or cross boundaries as we navigate the transitions within, and between, different spatial ecosystems within HE, and their particular formalities, informalities, non-formalities, and incidentals.

Dr Kevin Merry then gave a talk on ‘Universal Design for Learning Spaces’, suggesting how notions of learner variability, and the removal of environmental barriers, need to be cornerstones in developing future narratives around multimodal learning landscapes. He noted how goals of accessibility, inclusivity, and equitability can only be achieved through the adoption of hyflex approaches. Drawing some alignment with Andrew’s previous talk, Kevin called for students to be provided with meaningful options around UDL principles of engagement, representation, action, and expression. He also noted the impact that particular spatial configurations can have on pedagogical approaches, how some spaces are inherently limited in terms of their adaptability and flexibility to achieve multiple ends, and the need to make the most of multimodal opportunities offered by different spatial configurations to emphasise key messages.

Finally, Dr. Namrata Rao  and Dr. Patrick Baughan  gave their talk on ‘Blurring the Pedagogical Boundaries in the Postdigital University’. They presented findings from a research project that drew on digital-visual methodology and sociomateriality to explore staff experiences of navigating the complexities and uncertainties presented by emerging HE landscapes. In their talk, Namrata and Patrick highlighted the key role that space and place can play in developing trust, enabling myriad affective connections, fostering wellbeing, encouraging personal development, and creating hope, and illuminated the power and value that such interactions can hold. They also explored some of the differences between pre- and post-pandemic spaces, blurred and muddled private/public spatial boundaries, the significant role that materiality plays, and the value of informal interactions.

Following networking opportunities over the lunch break, both the keynote speaker and the presenters were invited to engage in a panel discussion to continue the conversation through identifying and exploring key themes that had emerged from the morning’s presentations. Chaired by Professor Sam Elkington and framed by a broader concern for the prospects of space in higher education, the discussion was structured around reflections and questions from the audience. Key points arising included:

  • adopting a students-as-partners approach to co-create and co-produce learning spaces.
  • recognising the holistic nature of the student experience that is broader than studying for particular qualifications, and can include a range of formal and informal, physical and digital spaces, and both on- and off-campus.  
  • the potential for reimagining presentee-ism through monitoring different forms of engagement in different ways, through a range of spatial contexts, and using a wide variety of tools, technologies, and platforms.

The keynote, talks, and panel discussions from this second symposium helped to further drive discussions forward around the need for, and the complexities around, working collaboratively to design and use future learning landscapes in ways that best meet individual needs and preferences and at particular points of time.

Within the third, and final, symposium of this series, we will be continuing these conversations through focusing on the theme of ‘Assemblages’. In this event, we will be exploring the expanding spectra of learning spaces (including their architecture and materiality) and the pedagogical approaches that are being adopted within them, against the backdrop of challenges that are presented by traditional decision-making in terms of strategic, long-term, estate planning, resources, and the need for agility in responding to a dynamic HE environment.

Register to attend Symposium 3 (selecting either in-person or remote participation) online: please click here for the booking page.

Alongside driving forward conversations around the future of learning landscapes, the other key purpose of the Symposia Series is to explore the potential for embedding multimodality to foster accessibility and inclusivity and encourage meaningful engagement. Alongside the live streamed keynote, presentations, and panel session, the event was also recorded, and captured through live sketchnoting and social media posts. All of the outputs produced from the Symposia Series so far are available here.

Sam Elkington is Professor of Learning and Teaching at Teesside University where he leads on the University’s learning and teaching enhancement portfolio. Sam is a PFHEA and National Teaching Fellow (NTF, 2021). He has worked in Higher Education for over 15 years and has extensive experience working across teaching, research and academic leadership and policy domains. Most recently Sam worked for Advance HE (formerly the Higher Education Academy) where he was national lead for Assessment and Feedback and Flexible Learning in Higher Education. Sam’s most recent book (with Professor Alastair Irons) explores contemporary themes in formative assessment and feedback in higher education: Irons and Elkington (2021) Enhancing learning through formative assessment and feedback London: Routledge.

Dr Jill Dickinson is an Associate Professor in Law at the University of Leeds. As a SFHEA, Jill was also selected as a Reviewer for the Advance HE Global Teaching Excellence Awards, and she has been shortlisted for National Teaching Fellowship. A former Solicitor, specialising in property portfolio management, Jill’s dual research interests are around place-making and professional development, and her work has been recognised in the Emerald Literati Awards for Excellence. Jill holds a number of editorial roles, including board memberships for Teaching in Higher Education and the Journal of Place Management and Development. She has recently co-edited a collection entitled Professional Development for Practitioners in Academia: Pracademia which involves contributions from the UK and internationally, and is being published by Springer. Jill has also co-founded communities of practice, including Pracademia in collaboration with Advance HE Connect.

Further resources from this event including sketch illustrations and a summary of discussions are also available from https://srhe.ac.uk/events/past-events/

Image of Rob Cuthbert


by 1 Comment

Editorial: The End of the Year Show

by Rob Cuthbert

The UK HE academic year 2022-2023 is coming to an end, or not, amid disputes, unrest and polarised attitudes which seem unprecedented. Recent years have seen previous strikes, days of action, marking and assessment boycotts and more, but nothing quite like this. At the time of writing there seems little prospect of rapprochement between the employers and the Universities and Colleges Union. So the marking and assessment boycott continues, as ‘action short of a strike’ (ASOS). Many students – no-one knows how many – have not received their degrees on time, and there are many reports of swingeing deductions of pay for those involved in the boycott – many, but we don’t know how many, staff and institutions are affected. 

For the students who should by now be graduates this is an unhappy end to a repeatedly troubled period of study in HE and beforehand. Those who took GCSEs in 2018 are the most-assessed school cohort ever, after repeated government policy changes affecting their primary as well as secondary education. They then experienced the disastrous shambles of the A-level algorithm in 2020, before embarking on a mostly locked-down higher education experience which for many was also punctuated by academic staff strikes prompted by low pay, poor conditions and huge reductions in the USS pension entitlement. And then at the end of their three disrupted years of study comes this final blow, as some will not receive marks and therefore final awards before September, October or who knows when. Their progression to further study or employment may also be on hold, if as so often it depends on final results. To make things even worse, universities, under pressure from government, the media, and the regulator OfS, have cut back sharply on the proportion of first class honours to be awarded. Even graduands with first class results for their first two years may be in for future disappointment.

Universities were at pains throughout the lockdowns to argue that the alternative on-line provision they made was of equal value and maintained the same standards; it was convenient and inevitable that government would agree. Many staff worked wonders in redesigning their teaching for lockdown, almost overnight, so that much teaching might indeed have maintained standards. But universities’ marketing in most cases promotes a much broader vision of the student experience involving a range of curricular and extracurricular activities, many of which require physical attendance on campus. The legal situation is unclear, not least because there is no generic university-student contract, despite the best efforts of leading authority and OfS board member David Palfreyman, who has long argued for just such a contract in his definitive work with Dennis Farrington, The Law of Higher Education.

Nevertheless collective action by students is gathering momentum. On 16 March 2023 lawyers Farrer & Co issued advice to universities trying to deal with UCU action in the ongoing dispute. They noted that “… Student Group Claim is already seeking to recover financial compensation for students from leading universities for disruption to academic degrees caused by Covid-19 and strikes by university staff. With the level of industrial action taking place now, it would not be surprising to see similar claims being brought, potentially both in relation to strike action and ASOS.”

Universities face the uncertain but possibly costly outcome to that action as they try to cope with a rapid and massive loss of real income. Mark Corver (DataHE/THE) tweeted on 19 April 2023 about the March 2023 inflation figures, showing a 12-month change of 14%. The real value of fees has fallen 32% since 2012, when £9000 fees were introduced. In 2023 prices, fees should now be £13530; in 2012 prices they are actually now worth only £6150. Universities have lost the equivalent of £2.6billion in less than 18 months. At the same time the USS revaluation implied big cuts for staff and further massive costs for employers, until the latest changes suggested some relief. However universities’ TPS pension bill soared by £125million and Tom Williams reported for Times Higher Education on 30 May 2023 that universities were seeking Treasury relief for the steep increase in TPS payments from April 2024. The government seems disinclined to offer any relief, and is even doubling down by proposing to tighten the rules on international students and their dependants, which seems targeted at limiting the income of universities probably most in need of financial support.

UCU continues to assert that universities could afford a more generous pay increase than the offer on the table, but as David Kernohan explained for Wonkhe on 30 January 2023, most of the surpluses for the HE sector as a whole are confined to a handful of elite institutions. The system and structures are hugely complex: “There is a national pay bargaining system in higher education, though not all providers are party to it. National bargaining is fair because it supports equal pay for equal work, but as a consequence it constrains the overall offer to that which can be afforded by the most precarious employer and it can struggle to accommodate specific local issues.” There are arguments on both sides about whether ‘shiny new buildings’ should have been preferred to better staff pay in recent years, but the decline in HE staff pay has gone in step with the much broader decline in public sector pay over the last ten years. The current widespread unrest, with strikes by such improbably militant groups as schoolteachers, nurses, junior doctors and even hospital consultants, is a stark reminder of the precipitous decline in public spending, with its impact on not only pay but the quality of public services and working conditions for public servants. Many, it seems, have simply had enough of putting up with it and decided to draw a line, especially after so many had gone the extra mile to keep things going during the pandemic.

Even in early July the exchange of letters between employers and unions did not suggest that a resolution of the dispute was close. Tom Williams reported for Times Higher Education on 16 May 2023 on the growing pressures on managers, staff and students as the UCU marking and assessment boycott spread. David Kernohan provided a superb explanation on 26 June 2023 of where we are, how we got there, and what might happen next: “What is beginning to emerge at a local level – as exemplified by the joint statement between the UCU branch executive and vice chancellor at the University of York Charlie Jeffery – is a position where it is agreed that staff deserve to be paid more, and the universities need more money to be able to do so. Here we also find a focus on longer term thinking about pay, with both sides of the dispute keen to avoid annual industrial action.”

That may be a necessary precursor to actual negotiation to resolve the dispute, but such resolution still seems distant, and attitudes seem to be hardening as the marking and assessment boycott hits the target and explodes. Jim Dickinson’s blog for Wonkhe on 20 April 2023 speculated about the consequences of universities’ withholding pay for partial performance of academic contracts, and whether notional allowances for marking could be deemed reasonable, in a legal sense. Since then there have been horror stories about universities making very large deductions from pay, 50% or even 100%, for many months. We are in Ashes-Bairstow-stumping territory: deductions may be legal, but would you want to win a dispute this way? Is this the way to treat staff who only very recently moved mountains to keep the show on the road during Covid lockdowns?

The impact of the boycott is not just on staff incomes, nor even just on delays for students in getting their final marks and awards. The situation is a test for university management everywhere in how they respond. There are reports of universities making alternative arrangements for marking which seem to fall well short of a commitment to maintaining academic standards. In some universities some students have not received final grades. Others are reported to be resorting to apparently less-qualified staff or PhD students to mark students’ work to avoid graduation delays. If this is happening it suggests a reckless disregard not only for the long-term maintenance of academic standards, but also for long-term relationships with staff who will think their values are being trashed along with their pay and working conditions.

The producers of those end-of-the-pier shows knew what would play well. The government has produced higher education’s end of the year show and it should have known better, because none of the audiences find it popular or entertaining. Nevertheless, this show might run and run …

Paul Temple


by 1 Comment

No, it doesn’t make sense to me, either

by Paul Temple

I recently gave a cat-oriented friend a framed copy of a New Yorker cartoon showing a vet’s waiting room. A vet is saying to a man sitting there, “About your cat, Mr Schrödinger, there’s good news and there’s bad news…” Linda put the cartoon in her downstairs loo, and says that half her visitors think it’s hilarious while the rest are completely baffled.

The cartoon really summarises the totality of my knowledge of quantum mechanics, but as it seems to be one of those topics where if you think you understand it, you almost certainly don’t (and you’d be in pretty good company, see below), then my almost boundless ignorance doesn’t feel too bad. But as ideas borrowed from quantum mechanics seem to be colonising areas of discourse that were until recently understandable (we thought) to those of us without doctorates in the subject, perhaps we’d better make an effort.

A recent example of its spread is the paper by our colleague Ron Barnett, ‘Only connect: designing university futures’ in Quality in Higher Education, in which Ron uses the idea taken from quantum mechanics of “entanglement” to consider the university’s relationship with other entities. (And this is where it starts to get tricky.) As Ron notes, entanglement implies that the entities involved are mutually constitutive: one entity cannot be understood without examining the other entities with which it is entangled: “It may be true that one cannot give a description of the modern university without also referring to the economy but the reverse situation also holds: one cannot give a proper description of the economy without referring to a society’s universities. The economy is constitutive of universities, certainly; but universities are also constitutive of the economy”.

So far, so just about OK, yes? But the entanglement idea leads us into territory that is beyond weird: Einstein apparently wrote that “no reasonable definition of reality could be expected to permit” what entanglement implies, but – assuming that quantum computing is going to work, and there are some big bets on it doing so – it turns out that even he was mistaken. What Einstein couldn’t accept, it seems, was that two entangled objects, wherever in the universe they may be, become in effect one, after at first assuming opposite states.

Yes, this is way past anything that we’ve learned to accept as normal. One suggestion of how to think about entanglement asks us to imagine you and a friend tossing entangled coins. (How did they become entangled in the first place? Pass.) If, when you look at your coin, it’s heads, then your friend’s coin will, necessarily, be tails. But if your friend now looks at their coin, it will be heads, which means that your coin will now be tails: back to Schrödinger’s cat, simultaneously both dead and alive. (While the bits in normal computing have a value of either zero or one, qubits in quantum computing can have values of zero and one: Schrödinger’s cat is at the computer keyboard, which incidentally needs to be at a temperature close to absolute zero.)

With Einstein, perhaps, you may think this makes no sense, but earlier this year Google announced a breakthrough in creating an “error correction quantum computer”, having spent hundreds of millions of dollars on the project (Microsoft, Amazon, the Chinese, and others are also on the case), so they obviously think this stuff will work, regardless of the normal rules of the universe.

So, to pursue Ron’s suggestion about the university and the economy being mutually constitutive, it seems to follow that they will be – must be, following the theory – in opposite states. If you were looking for an argument for universities needing to be independent of government, might this be it? Next time a minister inveighs about universities being nests of woke, perhaps someone should explain the quantum aspects of the situation to them: the more regressive government policies become, universities will necessarily become more radical – it can’t be helped, it’s just to do with entanglement and the structure of the universe. I’m sure they’d appreciate the clarification.

Dr Paul Temple is Honorary Associate Professor in the Centre for Higher Education Studies, UCL Institute of Education.


by Leave a comment

The ongoing saga of REF 2028: why doesn’t teaching count for impact?

by Ian McNay

Surprise, surprise…or not.

The initial decisions on REF 2028 (REF 2028/23/01 from Research England et al), based on the report on FRAP – the Future Research Assessment Programme – contain one surprise and one non-surprise among nearly 40 decisions. To take the second first, it recommends, through its cost analysis report, that any future exercise ‘should maintain continuity with rules and processes from previous exercises’ and ‘issue the REF guidance in a timely fashion’ (para 82). It then introduces significant discontinuities in rules and processes, and anticipates giving final guidance only in winter 2024-5, when four years (more than half) of the assessment period will have passed.

The second surprise is, finally, the open recognition of the negative effects on research culture and staff careers of the REF and its predecessors (para 24), identified by respondents to the FRAP consultation about the 2028 exercise. For me, this new humility is a double edged sword: many of the defects identified have been highlighted in my evidence-based articles (McNay, 2016, McNay, 2022), and, indeed, by the report commissioned by HEFCE (McNay, 1997) on the impact on individual and institutional behaviour of the 1992 exercise:

  • Lack of recognition of a diversity of excellences including work on local or regional issues because of the geographical interpretation of national/international excellence (para 37). Such local work involves different criteria of excellence, perhaps recognised in references to partnership and wider impact.
  • The need for outreach beyond the academic community, such as a dual publication strategy – one article in an academic journal matched with one in a professional journal in practical language and close to utility and application of a project’s findings.
  • Deficient arrangements for assessing interdisciplinary work (paras 60 and 61)
  • The need for a different, ‘refreshed’, approach to appointments to assessment panels (para 28)
  • The ‘negative impact on the authenticity and novelty of research, with individuals’ agendas being shaped by perceptions of what is more suitable to the exercise: favouring short-term inputs and impacts at the expense of longer-term projects…staying away from areas perceived to be less likely to perform well’. ‘The REF encourages …focus on ‘exceptional’ impacts and those which are easily measurable, [with] researchers given ‘no safe space to fail’ when it came to impact’.
  • That last negative arises in major part because of the internal management of the exercise, yet the report proposes an even greater corporate approach in future. The evidence-based articles and reports, and innovative processes and artefacts that arise from our research will have a reduced contribution to published assessments on the quality of research, though there is encouragement of a wider diversity of research outputs. More emphasis will be placed on institutional and unit ‘culture’ (para 28), so individuals disappear, uncoupled from consideration of culture-based quality. That culture is controlled by management; I spent several years as a Head of School trying to protect and develop further a collegial enterprise culture, which encouraged research and innovative activities in teaching. The senior management wanted a corporate bureaucracy approach with targets and constant monitoring, which work at Exeter has shown leads to lower output, poorer quality and higher costs (Franco-Santos et al, 2014).

At least 20 per cent of the People, Culture and Environment sub-profile for a unit will be based on an assessment of the Institutional Level (IL) culture, and this element will make up 25 per cent of a unit’s overall quality profile, up from 15 percent from 2021. This proposed culture-based approach will favour Russell Group universities even further – their accumulated capital has led to them outscoring other universities on ‘environment’ in recent exercises, even when the output scores have been the other way round. Elizabeth Gadd, of Loughborough, had a good piece on this issue in Wonkhe on 28 June 2023. The future may see research-based universities recruiting strongly in the international market to provide subsidy to research from higher student fees, leaving the rest of us to offer access and quality teaching to UK students on fees not adjusted for inflation. Some recognition of excellent research in unsupportive environment would be welcome, as would reward for improvement as operated when the polytechnics and colleges joined research assessment exercises.

The culture of units will be judged by the panels – a separate panel will assess IL cultures – and will be based on a ‘structured statement’ from the management, assessing itself, plus a questionnaire submission. I have two concerns here: can academic panels competent to peer-assess research also judge the quality and contribution of management; and, given behaviours in the first round of impact assessment (Oancea, 2016), how far can we rely on the integrity of these statements?

The sub-profile on Contribution to Knowledge and Understanding sub-profile will make up 50 per cent of a unit’s quality profile – down from 60 per cent last time and 65 per cent in 2014. At least 10 per cent will be based on the structured statement, so Outputs – the one thing that researchers may have a significant role in – are down to only 40 per cent, at most, of what is meant by overall research quality (the FRAP International Committee recommended 33 per cent). Individuals will not be submitted. HESA data will be used to quantify staff and the number of research outputs that can be submitted will be an average of 2.5 per FTE. There is no upper limit for an individual, and staff with no outputs can be included, as well as those who support research by others, or technicians who publish. Research England (and this is mainly about England; the other three countries may do better and certainly will do things differently) is firm that the HESA numbers will not be used as the volume multiplier for funding (still a main purpose of the REF), though it is not clear where that will come from – Research England is reviewing their approach to strategic institutional research funding. Perhaps staff figures submitted to HESA will have an indicator of individuals’ engagement with research.

Engagement and Impact broadens the previous element of simply impact. Our masters have discovered that early engagement of external partners in research, and 6 months attachment at 0.2 contract level allows them to be included, and enhances impact. Wow! Who knew? The work that has impact can be of any level to avoid the current quality level designations stopping local projects being acknowledged.

The three sub-profiles have fuzzy boundaries and overlap. Not just in a linear connection – environment, output, impact – but, because, as noted above, for example, engagement comes from the external environment but becomes part of the internal culture. It becomes more of a Venn diagram, that allows the adoption of an ‘holistic’ approach to ‘responsible research assessment’. We wait to see what those both mean in practice.

What is clear in that holistic approach is that research has nothing to do with teaching, and impact on teaching still does not count. That has created an issue for me in the past since my research feeds (not leads) my teaching and vice versa. I use discovery learning and students’ critical incidents as curriculum organisers, and they produce ‘evidence’ similar to that gathered through more formal interview and observation methods. An example. I recently led a workshop for a small private HEI on academic governance. There was a newly appointed CEO. I used a model of institutional and departmental cultures which influence decision making and ‘governance’ at different levels. That model, developed to help my teaching is now regarded by some as a theoretical framework and used as a basis for research. Does it therefore qualify for inclusion in impact? The session asked participants to consider the balance among four cultures of collegial, bureaucratic, corporate, entrepreneurial, relating to the degrees of central control of policy development and of policy delivery (McNay, 1995).  It then dealt with some issues more didactically, moving to the concept of the learning organisation where I distributed a 20 item questionnaire, (not yet published, but available on request for you to use) to allow scoring out of 10 per item, of behaviours relating to capacity to change, innovate and learn, leading to improved quality. Only one person scored more than 100 in total and across the group the modal score was in the low 70s, or just over 35%. That gave the new CEO an agenda with some issues more easily pursued than others and scores indicating levels of concern and priority. So my role moved into consultancy. There will be impact, but is the research base sufficient, was it even research, and does the use of teaching as a research transmission process (Boyer, 1990) disqualify it?

I hope this shows that the report contains a big agenda, with more to come. SRHE members need to consider what it means to them, but also what it means for research into institutions and departments to help define culture and its characteristics. I will not be doing it, but I hope some of you will. We need to continue to provide an evidence base to inform decisions even if it takes up to 20 years for the findings to have an impact.

SRHE itself might say several things in response to the report:

  • welcome the recognition of previous weaknesses, but note that a major one has not been recorded: the impact of RAE/REF on teaching, when excellent research has gained extra money, but excellent teaching has not, leading to an imbalancing of effort within the HE system. The research-teaching nexus also needs incorporating into the holistic view of research. Teaching is a major element in dissemination of research (Boyer, 1990) and so a conduit to impact, and should be recognised as such. That is because the relationship between researcher/teacher and those gaining new knowledge and understanding is more intimate and interactive than a reader of an article experiences. Discovery learning, drawing on learners’ experiences in CPD programmes can be a source of evidence, enhancing the knowledge and understanding of the researcher to incorporate in further work and research publications.
  • welcome the commitment to more diversity of excellences. In particular, welcome the commitment to recognise local and regionally directed research and its significant impact. The arguments about intimacy and interaction apply here, too. Research in partnership is typical of such work and different criteria are needed to evaluate excellence in this context.
  • welcome the intention to review panel membership to reflect the wider view of research now to be adopted.
  • urge an earlier clarification on panel criteria to avoid another 18 months, at least, trying, without clarity or guidance, to do work that will fit with the framework of judgement within which that work will be judged.
  • be wary of losing the voice of the researchers in the reduction of emphasis on research and its outputs in favour of presentations on corporate culture.

References

McNay, I (1997) The Impact of the 1992 RAE on Institutional and Individual Behaviour in English HE: the evidence from a research project Bristol HEFCE