SRHE Blog

The Society for Research into Higher Education

Category Archives: Government & Higher Education Policy


by Leave a comment

Doing the dirty work of academia? Ancillary staff in higher education

by Marie-Pierre Moreau and Lucie Wheeler

Cleaning, catering and security staff fulfil an important function in maintaining and enhancing the social and material environment of higher education (HE). Yet this group has attracted limited considerations from researchers and policy-makers alike. Two notable exceptions, both in the US context, are Peter Magolda’s (2016) ethnography of cleaners on two university campuses, The Lives of Campus Custodians, and Verónica Caridad Rabelo and Ramaswami Mahalingam’s (2019) article, reporting on a mixed-method study of cleaners conducted in a single institution. Both pieces are concerned with cleaners’ perspectives, and both also comment on the invisibility of cleaners, which, they contend, goes at times hand in hand with their misrecognition.

A 2022 SRHE research award enabled us to conduct what is, to our knowledge, the first UK-wide study of HE-based ‘ancillary staff’ (a term we use to refer to cleaning, security and catering staff while acknowledging that this category is broader). Working in the evening on campus, I (Marie-Pierre) observed how cleaners would enter the building after most academics and professionals had gone home and worked diligently. I was struck by the contrast between the significance of their work and its relative absence from research and policy discourses. This absence is possibly even more surprising once one considers that ‘elementary occupations’ (under which catering, security and cleaning staff fall) represent 12% of the UK HE non-academic workforce (Wolf and Jenkins, 2020) – a percentage which does not take into account those on outsourced contracts who often experience high levels of precarity.

Against this background, our study sought to explore the experiences of ancillary staff working in UK universities and their contribution to the higher education sector. Of particular interest to the research team were the potential injustices faced by this group, Underpinned by a theoretical framework drawing on Nancy Fraser’s (1997) and Kathleen Lynch’s (2010) multi-level theories of social justice, we explored the economic (distributive), cultural (recognitional), political (representational) and affective in/justices experienced by this group.

The fieldwork for this project involved a search of the literature on ancillary staff in HE and other sectors and some observations of the working environment of ancillary staff. It also involved an online survey of UK HE institutions followed by Freedom of Information (FoI) requests. The original survey generated 24 replies in total, while 110 institutions responded to the FoI request. Finally, we conducted 20 interviews with ancillary staff, recruited through a diversity of routes and with a diversity of backgrounds and roles.

A first set of findings from the project relates to how organisational, administrative and scholarly processes work in ways which render this group invisible. On campus, they are rarely seen or heard, although this also varies based on the nature of their role. Cleaners appear particularly prone to invisibility. Many start their shift once academic and professional staff have left the premises. When ancillary staff have a dedicated workspace, it is often hidden from view. They are also often absent from staff directories, university websites and policy documents. Likewise, their exact numbers are often unknown, including, as we found out, to some universities. This invisibility is further compounded by the fact that, among ancillary staff, many are employed by private corporations. Finally, as noted above, this group is strikingly absent from the research literature, with very few exceptions.

Another set of findings relates to how ancillary staff experience the economic, cultural, political and affective in/justices theorised by Fraser and Lynch. In terms of economic or distributive justice, it is well known that cleaning, catering and security roles tend to attract low salaries compared with other categories of staff in the sector. Our study also highlights, inter alia, a lack of opportunities for career development. Interviewees employed in-house and those in catering and security roles were found to be more likely to be satisfied with their pay and working conditions. It was not unusual for outsourced staff in particular to go to work despite being ill due to being eligible for statutory sick pay only.

In terms of what Fraser refers to as cultural justice, some participants felt valued, while others shared feelings of misrecognition. Such feelings were found to be linked to economic justice. Porters, for example, reflected on how they enjoyed similar working conditions (eg paid leave) to other members of staff and were self-aware of the significance of their work in enabling their college or university to operate. They felt valued in ways many cleaning and outsourced staff did not. In comparison, one of the outsourced security staff we talked to explained how he felt like ‘a number’ to the contractor in charge of his placement, arguing that those employed in-house are ‘looked after’ better. While some participants felt respected by other staff and students, some, often cleaners, felt that some staff and students showed contempt for them. One commented on how ‘they [staff] sort of turn their noses up at people like us’ and on how they ‘look at you as if you’re a bit of muck on their shoe’.

In relation to political justice, the study generated two main findings. First, membership of unions and other professional organisations was rare. Many participants lacked awareness of unions (‘I’ve never heard of a union for the cleaning industry’, stated one). Others held negative views of unions. One participant explained how ‘I would never be a member of a union’, due to having seen them ‘use and abuse’ their power, while also stating, somewhat paradoxically, that they are ‘absolutely useless’. Second, also linked to political justice, the ancillary staff we talked to appeared to have limited input in decision-making at institutional level. Instead, they felt they had to comply with oft changing policies. One shared how they were told: ‘You don’t make decisions, you only follow process’.

Last, the research points to several injustices related to care relationships and what Lynch calls affective equality. In particular, the research shows that ancillary work can be, but is not always, compatible with caring responsibilities. For some, the ability to combine paid and care work had been a key factor in choosing their current job. One of the cleaning supervisors we spoke to, for example, explained how his early start enabled him to be back home in time to take his children to school. For some, their position had been made attractive by predictable working times (for example, one staff in a catering role would work from 7.30 to 3.30pm and then spend time with family). While security staff were overall more satisfied with other aspects of their work, this was different when it came to being able to combine paid work with caring responsibilities, with comments that ‘Security is not good hours, it’s too long’ or that ‘nights are hard’, and some describing their work-life balance as ‘pretty much non-existent’. In some cases, low salary meant that staff did not have any alternative but to work extra hours, which in turn led to limited work-life balance (‘it’s work-sleep-work-sleep basically’). The highest levels of work-life balance were found among those in catering role employed by the students’ union (so outsourced but with very different contractual conditions compared with staff outsourced via a private firm, with the former benefiting from a work timetable built around their teaching timetable). Also related to affective justice, interviews all highly valued collegiality among staff. This was often mentioned spontaneously by interviewees, in contrast with the research we have conducted on other categories of staff in the HE sector, including as part of a previous SRHE award (Moreau and Robertson, 2017, 2019).

Based on the findings from this project, the research report makes a number of recommendations for institutions, national stakeholders and researchers.  We hope that findings from this pilot project will raise awareness of this group, of the injustices they face and of their contribution to the sector.  

References (additional to those hyperlinked)

Fraser, N (1997) ‘After the family wage: A post-industrial thought experiment’ in Fraser, N (ed) Justice interruptus: critical reflections on the ‘post-socialist’ conditions New York: Routledge

Magolda, P (2016) The lives of campus’ custodians: Insights into corporatization and civic disengagement in the academy Sterling, VA: Stylus

Marie-Pierre Moreau is Professor in Sociology of Education, Work and Inequalities and Director of the Centre for Education Research on Identities and Inequalities at Anglia Ruskin University, United Kingdom. She blogs here.

Lucie Wheeler is a Research Assistant in education. They are both based in the School of Education, Faculty of Arts, Humanities, Education and Social Sciences, at Anglia Ruskin University, UK.


by 1 Comment

Teaching and research? Yes, but universities have another important job

by Paul Temple

The easy way to tell authoritarian (or worse) states from ones that are, broadly speaking, liberal democracies is that in the latter you will find a range of public institutions that are significantly independent of the central state: this is what creates a plural society. It is, when you consider it, pretty surprising that we can have institutions largely funded, one way or another, by taxation, yet not controlled by the state. Take the example of Britain’s national cultural institutions: these are mainly state-funded yet guard their independence fiercely. However, we have seen in recent years how government has tried to drag them – the BBC, several major museums – into ludicrous “culture wars” and seeking to appoint to their governing bodies individuals thought to be sympathetic to certain government agendas. It is a sign that we live in a functioning liberal democracy that government does not routinely get its own way in these struggles: under an authoritarian regime, it would not even be a matter for discussion. Liberal-minded people know, almost instinctively, that independent institutions matter.

Perhaps the most important non-state public institution, everywhere, is the judiciary. The outcomes of legal cases where the state is involved in Russia or China, say, are invariably foregone conclusions. A judge’s task in these situations requires presentational skills rather than forensic ones: to frame the predetermined outcome so that it seems as if legal norms were applied, thus allowing the government to claim that the decision was made by an independent judiciary. That show trials continue in Putin’s Russia and elsewhere (why not just throw dissidents into jail, or indeed execute them?) is an implicit recognition that the moral standing of liberal institutions is too high to be simply ignored.

But those of us fortunate enough to live in liberal societies – being, as the poet Douglas Dunn puts it, “on the pleasant side of history” – cannot be complacent: the institutional structures that we all-too-readily take for granted and which underpin pluralism and support our freedoms are, we have seen recently, desperately fragile. The “enemies of the people” assault on the judiciary by the tabloid press in November 2016 over, bizarrely, a legal determination that parliament needed to vote to trigger the process of leaving the EU, showed how a populist frenzy might be worked up. That the attack was not countered immediately and vigorously by the government, because it suited the government’s political purposes at the time, was deeply shameful and worrying.

In most authoritarian states, universities and colleges do not seem to carry the same weight as the judiciary: they are apparently mostly left to get on with their work in peace, providing, naturally, that they don’t cause trouble for the regime. Academics in the former Soviet bloc countries became expert in knowing how far they could push matters (normally, not very far) and still keep their jobs and privileges. The state was a constant – if to outsiders, hidden – presence in university affairs, and university rectors usually saw their jobs in terms of keeping their academics quiet and the secret police out. The Soviet academic observation that the most dangerous university subject was history – because while we could be certain that the future would be a socialist nirvana, the past was full of traps for the unwary – neatly delineated the scope of university work under authoritarian rule. A recent detailed account of governance in Chinese universities today (Liu, 2023) explains that each university has a Communist Party committee which is “the highest authority within the university”, a point not made, in my experience, when western visitors meet the university president. He or she is accountable to a political structure that outsiders do not usually see (and if they do, its role is glossed-over), and which determines how decisions made in Beijing will be applied within the university.

In Britain, by contrast, the state/university divide was once maintained with almost religious fervour. In the days of the University Grants Committee (UGC) – peak liberalism for higher education – I once found myself chatting over coffee in a conference break to an Education Department civil servant. When he learned that I worked in a university, he almost dropped his coffee cup in shock when he realised that he’d sinned against the arms-length principle that meant that the UGC was supposed to be the only means of contact between universities and government departments. Universities, like local authorities, were seen then as autonomous parts of the public realm, each with their own goals and methods, rather than as agencies delivering central government policies. “The department [for Education and Science] dispensed cheques to the University Grants Committee for the universities and to the local authorities for schools and polytechnics with guidelines sometimes attached but virtually nil powers of enforcement…In the 1980s [under the Thatcher government] all that changed” (Hennessey, 1989: 428).

That change meant that the sharp state/university divide has now largely vanished: the role of the OFS is of course utterly different to that of the UGC. The proposal put forward by the then government in the recent general election campaign (have we heard the last of it?), that there would be central direction on which degree courses universities would be allowed to offer – or, in the measured tones of the Department for Education press release, “Crackdown on rip-off university degrees” – would mean that universities should be considered for all practical purposes as central government agencies, just as in China.

Why does this matter? One not-insignificant reason is about effectiveness: largely autonomous institutions – self-governing universities, locally-elected councils, free trade unions, the Whitehaven Harbour Commissioners – responding variously to the needs of the groups they are aiming to serve will almost certainly lead to better outcomes than would be produced by a remote, centrally-directed operation. But the larger reason is that pluralism underpins the freedoms we value in liberal societies, creating the distributed decision-making which you and I might have a chance of influencing. When those decisions are not ones that central government finds to its taste, it is even more important that independent thinking might prevail. The regular attacks on universities by Ministers in the last government, as regularly chronicled in SRHE News, surely had the purpose of undermining autonomous institutions with a commitment to disinterested knowledge production, and so weakening a core element of a liberal society. If this isn’t a fight worth having, I don’t know what is.

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

References

Hennessy, P (1989) Whitehall London: Secker and Warburg

Liu, X (2023) The Development and Governance of Private Universities in China Singapore: Springer Nature

Image of Rob Cuthbert


by Leave a comment

After the election: the end of season awards

by Rob Cuthbert

Within days of the UK’s General Election on 4 July the new Secretary of State for Education, Bridget Phillipson, had acknowledged that university finances need to be ‘stabilised’ as an immediate priority, saying – without further explanation – that there are some measures she could take, but not holding out much hope for a cash injection. London Economics analysed manifesto commitments on 25 June 2024, as did UUK, but, as anticipated, HE did not feature strongly. Universities UK, under the smart stewardship of Vivienne Stern, is focusing on what universities can do for government, launching a ‘blueprint’ on “the role universities can play in powering the new government’s growth strategy and in creating opportunities for millions all over the UK” – much more sensible than another ‘what we’d like the new government to do for higher education’ message. Meanwhile, at the end of every season, win or lose, must come the end of season awards, and SRHE News is happy to play its part in recognising the outstanding HE events of the last 14 years of the previous government.

The most washed-up former politician

There was strong competition in this category, with honourable mentions for Gavin Williamson, Michele Donelan and Gillian Keegan, but the clear winner was Lord Wharton, the chair of the Office for Students. He was ennobled in Boris Johnson’s 2020 Dissolution Honours, an honour said to be for running Johnson’s campaign to become Conservative Party leader. Having been Britain’s youngest MP at 26 when elected in 2010, he lost his very marginal seat in 2017, becoming at 36 the youngest male member of the House of Lords. Without any discernible experience of or interest in HE, except as a student at Durham and UCL, he was appointed OfS chair in 2021, and maintained the tradition of appointments based on connections by making Rachel Houchen, wife of his friend and colleague Teesside Mayor Lord Ben, a member of the OfS Board. Despite, for a time, being the Northern Powerhouse minister he rarely left London, a habit he maintained as OfS chair in visiting surprisingly few HE institutions. Beached when the tide of Johnsonism rushed out.

The most unsuccessful warrior in the culture wars

The clear winner was Michele Donelan, even though her prizewinning performance came after she had left the DfE, where she was HE minister and then, for a day, Secretary of State amid the chaos of ministerial desertions of Boris Johnson. She then not only became Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport under Liz Truss, but Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology under Rishi Sunak. No doubt emboldened by holding three different Cabinet positions in such a short time, she unwisely used a Policy Exchange report as the basis for attacking UKRI’s advisory group on equality, diversity and inclusion, in particular members Dr Kate Sang (Heriot Watt) and Dr Kamna Patel (UCL). Some thought UKRI was pusillanimous in response, suspending the group and mounting an investigation, which found no evidence that either Prof Sang or Dr Patel had breached their roles’ terms of reference or the Nolan principles. Sang sued the Secretary of State and won £15000 damages  – paid not by Donelan but by the government.

The Good Lord Award for the best HE Minister not ennobled by his brother

David Willetts.

The Good Lord! Award for the HE Minister ennobled by his brother

Jo Johnson.

The least successful attempt to give money to the electorate

The HE electorate has rarely been courted by any party, but Prime Minister Theresa May made an exception in 2017 when she raised the repayment threshold for student loans in an ill-conceived attempt at “putting money back into the pockets of graduates with high levels of debt”. The changes made the loan scheme much more expensive than before, and May got no political credit or benefit for it whatsoever; the changes were later reversed.

The most misguided belief in market forces

The Award goes to David Willetts, possibly the only person who thought that, when HE fees rose to £9000, universities would set fees in a range from £6000 to £9000 depending on their competitiveness, demonstrating a comprehensive misunderstanding of how the fierce competition in HE actually works. In the event a handful of universities did set some fees slightly below £9000, but those reductions soon evaporated. This also showed the absence of organisational memory in government (but not in universities): when fees were first introduced at £1000 some HEIs did indeed charge less than £1000, but quickly realised their error. When fees rose to £3000 it was possibly only Leeds Metropolitan University which set fees at £2000, linking this to their sponsorship of Leeds Rhinos Rugby League team with the slogan ‘low charging, high impact’ – a mistake which must have cost the university many £millions.

The least likeable HE Minister

A good number of HE ministers have in fact been fairly likeable; the startlingly unpleasant exception was Andrea Jenkyns, Minister for Skills for a mercifully brief period (just over three months) in 2022, notorious for this gesture.

The least likeable Secretary of State for Education

This Award has now been retired and is held in perpetuity by Sir Gavin Williamson.

The least successful research investment

Bolton VC George Holmes paid Andrea Jenkyns MP £55000 for two years’ work as director of the university-funded Research Institute for Social Mobility and Education, during which period it produced just two papers.

The least successful teaching investment

Buoyed by his experience with Andrea Jenkyns MP, Bolton VC George Holmes went on to pay John Hayes MP about £40000pa for two years helping to develop an online postgraduate politics course for the university, the MA Government, Opposition and Parliamentary Studies, launched in September 2023. Student numbers are unknown.

The most shameless U-turn

Now held in perpetuity by Nick Clegg and Vince Cable for their stance on the pledge by Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg before the 2010 general election to abolish student tuition fees.

Rob Cuthbert is editor of SRHE News and the SRHE Blog, Emeritus Professor of Higher Education Management, University of the West of England and Joint Managing Partner, Practical Academics. Email rob.cuthbert@uwe.ac.uk. Twitter @RobCuthbert.

This editorial in the July 2024 issue of SRHE News was written before it was announced that Lord Wharton had resigned as chair of the OfS Board.


by Leave a comment

Five challenges for policy research on higher education

by William Locke

Higher education research has grown in recent decades. For example, the number of journal articles published on higher education has increased five-fold in the last twenty years (Seeber, 2023). More is known about higher education than ever before, but there does not seem to be a corresponding growth in higher education policymaking being influenced by this expanding evidence base (Schendel and Knobel, 2024). Indeed, higher education seems to be more or less in crisis – and even under attack – in democratic as well as authoritarian systems, and in rich as well as middle- and low-income countries. Here, I offer five interrelated challenges for policy research on higher education. No doubt, there is more to be said about each of these, and there are other challenges that could be added. Perhaps readers might like to make suggestions in the comments.

1. How to expand international connection and collaboration in an increasingly fragmented and divided world?

Schendel and Knobel (2024) argue for greater collaboration among higher education scholars in different countries and regions, and between researchers and policymakers. They also argue for the translation of knowledge from academic discourse to more accessible forms and between languages, especially to and from the lingua franca of English. They call for connections to be made between different evidence bases, contexts and ways of understanding. These collaborations and connections should not just be among scholars from countries in the ‘West’, but arise from the formation of equitable partnerships between researchers based in the Global South and North, and among those based in expanding and emerging systems. These would allow an exchange of non-Western perspectives and indigenous knowledges within the higher education research and policy communities and “a more global, multi-national, transnational or cosmopolitan optic” (Brooks, 2023, Brooks & Waters, 2022).  Journal editors, for example, should be more sensitive to the location of researchers and the substantive focus of their research (Brooks, 2023).

2. How to place local and national research in regional and international contexts for a potentially global readership?

There is also evidence that higher education research has become more international in scope in recent years (Brooks, 2023; Daenekindt & Huisman, 2020; Kehm, 2015; Kwiek, 2021; Tight, 2021). However, it is important to distinguish between an increasing number of studies of the internationalisation of higher education – often limited to student mobility between nations – and an international or comparative perspective, which may focus on national, or even local, issues but place these within a broader context. Clearly, the collaboration of researchers from different countries and regions already mentioned can help this comparative and contextualised approach, provided there is a well-developed understanding of the differences between the objects of study as well as the similarities. Loosening the dominance of the English language in international higher education research networks will help to achieve this contextualised comparison.

3. How to encourage contributions from a wider range of disciplines and theoretical approaches?

Higher education is not just a topic of study for higher education researchers. As an ‘open access’ field (Harland, 2012), it is also a focus for disciplines such as sociology, economics, business studies, political science, psychology and even geography.  As in other porous areas of the social sciences, this is to be welcomed as a way of incorporating new perspectives, concepts, theories and methodologies into the field.  While this may have led to a certain lack of interaction and integration initially (Macfarlane, 2012; Tight, 2014), the trend towards interdisciplinary scholarship can bring these different perspectives together in creative ways. After all, it is likely that more holistic, multi-disciplinary and innovative approaches will be needed to understand and address current and future challenges, such as artificial intelligence, decolonising the curriculum, academic precarity and populist critiques of universities. Topic-based networks of scholars – where the focus of study rather than the discipline is prime – can encourage this. A major task, however, is to provide space for indigenous knowledges and new ways of knowing that may challenge traditional disciplinary hierarchies and ‘Western’ epistemologies.

4. How to focus on deeper, longer-term issues without losing immediate relevance for policymaking?

On the one hand, we might ask how evidence-based higher education research is? Some of what is submitted for publication is description, commentary, impressionistic interpretation and, even, polemic. We might also ask what form might an acceptable evidence base take? Policymakers tend to look for unambiguous findings that provide clear-cut guidance for decision-making – hard data of a quantitative rather than a qualitative kind. Yet, in education, meaningful quantitative studies are harder to accomplish than in some other areas of public policy. Systematic reviews of literature and randomised control trials do not work as well in education as in medicine, for example. Do we actively seek to build the evidence base? Or do we risk creating fragmented knowledge produced by a series of short-term, small-scale, barely connected projects, based on different and incompatible theoretical and conceptual foundations or employing methodologies that cannot be scaled up?

We should also acknowledge that higher education researchers are investigating their own world. They are interested parties in the object of their studies. Their research agendas are likely to be influenced by these ‘interests’. (Many readers will be familiar with doctoral students researching areas relating to their own experiences, for example, as students or higher education employees). Researchers are often on the receiving end of many of the policies and their impacts. As a result, too much research on higher education has been based on the assumption of a golden age which is being dismantled, rather than from a forward-looking perspective that seeks to meet broader, emerging societal needs.

So, we should recognise the limitations of this expanding higher education research. To date, much of it has been small scale, short-term and dependent on consultancy-style funding. It has had a fragmented and weak institutional base. It has tended to focus on the ‘public life’ of higher education, on strategic issues and their impact, rather than the ‘up close and personal’ issues that can be uncomfortable to investigate. Some of it is only just becoming “disinterested research on reasonably long timescales, with open agendas and based on reflective and critical intellectual values and practices” (Scott, 2000: 124).

On the other hand, how realistic (or idealised) are our conceptions of policymaking and implementation? It is rarely feasible simply to extrapolate the policy implications from a given set of findings, which may simply analyse a problem rather than propose a solution. “It is not a linear, rational-analytical process of examining all the evidence, ‘reading off’ the policy implications of this and then formulating well-designed interventions guaranteed to achieve the outcomes desired” (Locke, 2009: 124). If we are to understand policymaking, and the place of research evidence within it, we have to acknowledge “…the messy realities of influence, pressure, dogma, expediency, conflict, compromise, intransigence, resistance, error, opposition and pragmatism in the policy process” (Ball, 1990: 9). There are many other factors than research findings to take into account in the world of policymaking, not least politics and political expediency (for example, unifying the party, ideology, public opinion and budgets). “A better understanding of the policy-making process and the factors that facilitate or inhibit the take-up of research findings is needed, including the role of the commissioners of research and how findings are presented to, and understood by, policymakers” (Locke, 2009: 125). 

We should also be thinking about the relations between research, policy and practice.  After all, there are gaps between policy and practice: the infamous unintended consequences of policy implementation. However, there is also the danger of slipping into a utilitarian, ‘what works’ frame. The relations between research, policy and practice are empirical matters, themselves open to research and investigation. Studies of policymaking and implementation can enlighten us about the successes and failures of particular policies in specific contexts, and the factors that influence these.  Perhaps we should be aiming for policymaking that is influenced and informed, rather than driven, by evidence? 

5. How to explore the policy implications of research findings in ways that can be useful to policymakers?

The higher education research and policy communities are not always so separate. Research commissioned by policy bodies makes up quite a large proportion of funded higher education research. Most higher education researchers want their research to have impact, and policymakers (at least below ministerial level) want evidence on which to base their policymaking. There is some movement between these worlds, but there should be more and think tanks play a critical role in mediating between the worlds of research and policy. Finally, networked governance suggests we should be looking at audiences beyond government and parliament, to include wider public engagement with research findings, which is essential to democracies.

But how far should this constructive engagement go? It is naïve to think that educational research can solve problems on its own. The relationship between research and policy has been characterized as indirect and more about ‘sensitising’ policymakers to problems than solving them. Research might be seen more as a means of helping policymakers reconsider issues, think differently, reconceptualise what the problem is, and challenge old assumptions. This suggests a more serendipitous and loose relationship between research and policy. So, perhaps we need to be more modest in our aspirations for evidence-informed policy and practice and adopt a greater degree of realism about what can be achieved.

This is an abridged version of the editorial from the latest issue of Policy Reviews in Higher Education.

William Locke is a founding Joint Editor of the journal and a recovering academic. Recently retired, he is a former Director of the Centre for the Study of Higher Education (CSHE) at the University of Melbourne, Director of the Centre for Higher Education Studies (CHES) at the UCL Institute of Education and Deputy Director of the Centre for Global Higher Education (CGHE). He has also had senior policy roles at the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and Universities UK.


by 1 Comment

Unveiling the role of sustainability reporting in UK universities

by Maryna Lakhno

Sustainability reporting in higher education

In the increasingly digital world of higher education, the significance of sustainability reporting has grown, driven by demands for greater transparency and accountability. This evolution reflects a dual expectation: that universities not only commit to sustainable practices but also openly communicate these efforts to their communities.

While many believe that sustainability reports could spearhead substantial changes and lead to the solidification of sustainability within institutional operations, there is a growing scepticism about their efficacy and authenticity. Critics argue that such reporting can sometimes serve as mere green-washing or window-dressing, aimed more at appeasing stakeholders than effecting real change. This criticism is rooted in the tendency of reports to focus predominantly on successes while glossing over areas needing improvement.

Furthermore, current sustainability reports often focus narrowly on environmental and physical aspects of campuses, such as energy efficiency or waste management. Though these are important, they represent only a fraction of what true sustainability encompasses. This limited focus can overshadow crucial areas such as social justice, economic stability, and cultural vitality, which are essential for a comprehensive sustainability strategy.

By analysing reports from UK universities, the paper “Green or green‐washed? Examining sustainability reporting in higher education” published in Higher Education Quarterly (online 1 April 2024) identified a common trend among UK universities: while many universities are quick to highlight their eco-friendly initiatives, there is often a noticeable lack of critical self-evaluation and comprehensive coverage of all sustainability dimensions apart from the attention to green campus space.

More than just green facades?

The findings from the paper reveal a complex picture. In total, 107 reports were collected spanning a 7-year period, covering approximately one-third of the total universities in the UK. 78% of these universities showcase their sustainability performance online. Several universities genuinely integrate sustainability into their operational and educational frameworks.

However, a significant portion of the reports tended to focus heavily on physical and visible interventions, like energy-efficient buildings or campus recycling programs, potentially sidelining the equally crucial aspects of social sustainability, such as inclusivity, economic impact, and community engagement. One of the primary challenges identified is the selective reporting on positive outcomes while neglecting areas that require improvement or failed initiatives. This trend raises concerns about the authenticity of these reports as tools for genuine self-reflection and accountability rather than merely as marketing instruments designed to enhance institutional reputations.

Moving forward: beyond the green mask

Universities should not only address their environmental impacts but also embed sustainability culturally and socially within their institutions. Additionally, there should be a balance between showcasing achievements and critically addressing shortcomings and areas for development. This approach ensures that educational institutions do not merely pursue sustainability as a checkbox exercise but actively integrate it into their core values and operational strategies.

To advance beyond superficial sustainability, UK universities need to develop more rigorous, transparent, and comprehensive reporting mechanisms. These reports should not only serve as reflections of past actions but as genuine, forward-looking documents that guide future sustainable practices across all university operations.

Maryna Lakhno, a PhD candidate at the Department of Public Policy, Central European University, Vienna, specializes in exploring the intersections of policy, education, and sustainable practices within higher education.

Image of Rob Cuthbert


by 4 Comments

Higher education as a politicians’ playground

by Rob Cuthbert

Higher education has always been something of a playground for junior politicians; HE ministers usually serve only short terms, and many are practising for bigger jobs. (Liz Truss and Boris Johnson were both briefly shadow HE ministers.) The Coalition period was an exception, with David Willetts serving for four years and evidently deeply engaged and interested in HE. Since he left in 2014 the political game-playing has sadly degenerated, becoming ever more disconnected from the real issues facing the HE sector.

In 2024 fifty or more universities have declared or are likely to declare redundancies, as their funding position becomes ever more perilous. Student fees have been frozen at £9250 for a decade, and their real value has declined to the extent that they are now worth no more than the £6000 which applied in 2012 before the fee went to £9000. According to Mark Corver of DataHE: “… universities have lost, in real terms, around a third of their income since 2012. Most of that has happened recently. Universities have lost the equivalent of almost £3 billion from their annual UG teaching funding in just the past 18 months.”

The long-running dispute in half the sector over changes to the Universities Superannuation Scheme might have recently been resolved, but there are now major concerns about the cost of the Teachers’ Pension Scheme in the other half. UUK chief executive Vivienne Stern and UCEA chief executive Raj Jethwa wrote to Minister Robert Halfon on 18 March 2024 asking for more flexibility in whether post-92 universities must offer TPS membership to their staff, noting that 27% of post-92s had declared redundancies in 2022-2023 and 46% had done so since August 2023. TPS contributions rose sharply on 1 April 2024 as Tom Williams reported for Times Higher Education on 18 March 2024.

Pay disputes have led to repeated strikes and action short of strikes, especially marking and assessment boycotts, affecting the whole sector. This, coupled with Covid, has meant increased workloads for academic and professional staff in major and repeated reconstruction of teaching programmes, with many universities relying increasingly on a precariat of staff on short-term contracts. Negotiations between employers and staff are inevitably complicated by the wide range of institutional fortunes, which makes affordable resolution for everyone difficult to achieve. Covid and employment disputes have brought massive disruption for students, with class actions for compensation continuing as an additional looming threat to HE budgets. Problems with student mental health have reached epidemic proportions, affected not only by the pandemic and loan-driven student debt but also the spiralling cost of university and private student accommodation, which is in short supply in many places.

In 2024 we do expect a general election, but we don’t expect the massive problems for UK HE to be an election issue. Voters mostly care much more about cost of living, the energy crisis, climate change, wars in Ukraine and Gaza, the NHS … and even within education, universities rank well behind schools and nursery places as topics for political debate. As Tom Williams reported for Times Higher Education on 16 May 2023, HE Minister Robert Halfon declared that “… the sector was in a “fairly strong” position – compared with much of the economy given the current financial difficulties – and implied management may be to blame at universities faring badly, rather than his government’s funding system.” Halfon resigned unexpectedly on 26 March 2024, so after 14 years of Coalition and  Conservative government we have our ninth new HE Minister, Luke Hall. It is the eleventh such appointment, since both Jo Johnson and Chris Skidmore served twice, and only four of the 11 appointments lasted for more than a year. There is a striking contrast with appointments as Schools Minister, the role in which Nick Gibb has served for most of the last 14 years, despite being sacked and reappointed by successive prime ministers.

For most of the Coalition period the Universities Minister was David (now Lord) Willetts, who was perhaps the main architect of the Higher Education and Research Act (HERA) 2017, eventually steered into law by Jo (now Lord) Johnson. HERA legislated for the HE ‘market’ and created a new regulator, the Office for Students (OfS). The policy sought to drive up quality through competition, with an influx of new ‘alternative’ providers; the Act made extensive provision for failing HE institutions to go out of business. Willetts’ special adviser, Nick Hillman, later became an effective Director of HEPI, but his HEPI blog of 14 February 2024 asked ‘Whatever happened to all those alternative providers?’,  while still defending the policy to which he contributed. A more plausible view is that the HERA version of the ‘market’ in HE had been tried and comprehensively failed. Against the success of a few new providers like the Dyson Institute there have been many more seeking to provide mostly lower-level courses, mostly in business, mostly in London. Operating an HE institution is a complex, difficult and long-term activity, and after relaxing requirements for entry to the higher education ‘market’, government was forced to crack down on the more egregious excesses of some of the new alternative providers. ‘Driving up quality through competition’ has been shown up as a fantasy; what always worked much better was relying on the intrinsic motivation of people in HE to do the best for their students, in what has always been vigorous competition with other institutions. Self-regulation is of course inadequate: HE institutions need external quality assurance and control, but the OfS chose to do away with the QAA, the designated quality body, by setting conditions which jeopardised QAA’s international credibility and forcing QAA to step down. Instead the OfS has set up its own quality arrangements in an apparently long-term plan which goes against all the expectations when HERA was enacted. 

That was the good news. A new government was entitled to try a new policy for HE, as it did. It didn’t work, so what happened next? Not repeal, of course, but neither was it, as we might have hoped, adaptation of the new policy to make it work better. In the chaos and increasingly rapid turnover of the post-Brexit administrations, politicians in the DfE and elsewhere became obsessed with culture wars. They brought forward a major new piece of legislation which had nothing to do with HE finance, staffing issues, student problems, or even the supposed focus of ‘levelling up’. Obsessed by immigration numbers, government even doubled down on HE’s financial problems with visa restrictions seriously affecting international student recruitment, especially for postgraduate recruitment which for many years had underpinned the viability of STEM disciplines. It was convenient for government that the OfS continued to give reassurances about HE finance, but it was hardly surprising, since government had installed a Conservative peer as the OfS chair.

The new legislation was the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, education’s contribution to armaments in the culture wars. There were, of course, problems in some, perhaps even many, HE institutions over what might and might not be said in different contexts. A HEPI blog by Josh Freeman on 13 October 2022 argued that there was a problem with self-censorship and ‘quiet’ no-platforming. In the US some prominent university presidents lost their jobs arguing with politicians about the need to protect diversity in HE debate. The war on woke has not perhaps reached that pitch in the UK yet. But the Act required OfS to appoint a free speech ‘tsar’, as it did, and OfS issued proposals on 14 December 2023 on how the free speech regime will operate, launching a consultation on 26 March 2024. The results are unconvincing to those on the ground in the institutions. Jim Dickinson blogged for Wonkhe on 6 March 2024 about the shambles which government has created with its free speech legislation: “We are literally less than six months away from OfS opening a complaints scheme under which one group of students will say another’s actions amount to antisemitism, while the other will say they are threatening their right to express legally protected anti-Zionist beliefs – both saying their free speech is threatened as a result, both arguing they are being harassed, and both reasonable in asserting that they were assured their free speech and protection from harassment was assured.” The Act may even rival the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 for its unworkability in practice.

The principal cheerleader for the new Act was Education Minister (and for two chaotic days in the fall of Boris Johnson, Secretary of State for Education) Michele Donelan, who continued to champion it even as she moved to become Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology in the Sunak administration. Donelan relied on a press release from right wing think tank Policy Exchange to pick a fight with UKRI about the members of its Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Committee. The release was written by Donelan’s former special adviser Iain Mansfield. UKRI suspended its Committee and their membership pending an inquiry, which exonerated the members, one of whom sued Donelan for libel and won £15000 damages, as Faye Brown reported for Sky News on 12 March 2024. The damages were paid by the government, prompting widespread disbelief; Leader of the House Penny Mordaunt even suggested that we should cut Donelan some slack because she had not taken the £16000 redundancy payment to which she was entitled  from her two days as Secretary of State for Education. It would all be deeply embarrassing, if government ministers were still capable of feeling shame.

The playground urgently needs more grown-ups, to do higher education policy as if higher education mattered.

Rob Cuthbert is Emeritus Professor of Higher Education Management, University of the West of England and Joint Managing Partner, Practical Academics rob.cuthbert@btinternet.com. Twitter @RobCuthbert


by 1 Comment

Graduate outcomes: Beyond numbers, towards quality?

by Tej Nathwani and Ghislaine Dell

with a foreword and afterword by SRHE Network Convenors Tracy Scurry and Daria Luchinskaya

Foreword

As many of us working with graduate employment statistics will know, it’s difficult to find up-to-date large-scale data of graduates’ experiences of work. In the SRHE event Exploring graduate outcomes: Do we need to look beyond earnings and occupation?, Tej Nathwani (HESA) introduced a new graduate outcomes measure capturing subjective aspects of job quality, while Ghislaine Dell (Head of Careers at Bath University and member of the AGCAS Research and Knowledge Committee) reflected on the implications from a practitioner perspective. In this follow-up blog, Tej and Ghislaine comment on the issues in capturing subjective graduate outcomes and outline directions for future research. HESA is keen to get your feedback on its measures: see the end of the blog for how to get in touch.

Capturing job quality in HESA’s Graduate Outcomes survey

Tej Nathwani

Since the financial crisis, there has been a fundamental rethink about the way we measure economic and societal progress, with greater attention now given to subjective forms of data. At the individual or micro level, this has resulted in growing international interest in the quality of work – essentially those parts of our employment that correlate with our wellbeing. From a UK perspective, Scotland led the way in bringing this matter to the forefront with the formation of the Fair Work Convention. Not long after, we saw the Taylor Review of Modern Working Practices published, which recommended the dissemination of regular data on eighteen job quality indicators covering seven broad dimensions.

Graduate outcomes in the UK have historically been assessed solely on the basis of earnings and whether individuals find themselves working in professional or managerial occupations. Yet, research examining the aspirations of higher education students indicates that they want a career that uses their skills, aligns with their ambitions and that can enable them to make impact. Under the Fair Work Convention framework, these aspects embody fulfilling employment. Furthermore, funding and regulatory bodies also want to see all graduates find such work.

With no data currently available on this matter, this clearly represents an information gap in graduate labour market statistics. As an organisation that adheres to the Code of Practice for Statistics, HESA have therefore started to conduct research to fill this space. This has involved using three questions in the Graduate Outcomes questionnaire relating to these features of employment to form a single composite measure that captures fulfilment (or the ‘job design and nature of work’ as it is also commonly referred to). Our ambition is to introduce this into our official statistics/open data in forthcoming years.

Indeed, with the importance of job quality set to grow, one pathway we are currently exploring for the future development of the Graduate Outcomes survey is the addition of new questions on other elements of decent work, as identified by the Measuring Job Quality Working Group.    

Ghislaine Dell

Students make career decisions for very personal and subjective reasons. Recent research from Cibyl shows us that the most frequently looked for qualities in students’ career choices are interesting work, career progression, good work-life balance, and training & development. This matches very well to the proposed new job quality indicator. The Government’s continued emphasis on degrees offering good return on investment is at odds with what the workforce of the future are seeking. Notably, Tej’s analysis showed that, after about £25,000, higher salary does not increase graduates’ reported wellbeing, but more fulfilling work, as captured by the new measures, does. From a governmental and individual perspective, then, knowing what jobs are ‘good jobs’ is important for a thriving society. An indicator which focuses on fulfilment could enable students to make a more informed choice between possible career directions.

However, there is a potential issue around the way in which we can capture this. For example, if we take ‘I am utilising what I learnt in my studies in my work’. Many graduate jobs are discipline-agnostic, and so a chemist, for example, would not be using ‘what they learnt’ in terms of Chemistry, in a financial services job. HESA’s cognitive testing of its survey questions provides a starting point for understanding how respondents are likely to approach these statements. However, further development of the phrasing of these questions is arguably necessary to ensure that the explanation of ‘skills mismatch’ isn’t simply attributable to graduates working in a field different to the one they studied.

 A key challenge will be to work on improving response rates so that each provider can report on this new measure with confidence. Currently, the subjective “graduate voice” questions in Graduate Outcomes are not compulsory, they rarely form part of the official narrative and minimal time is devoted to analysing and understanding the responses. If we are truly to maximise the potential of this measure, these issues need to be addressed.

The new measure both fills an information gap and provides a lever for inclusion of job quality into official statistics augmenting its importance for governments and providers.

Afterword

The lively discussion that followed this SRHE event, organised by the Employability, Enterprise and Work-based Learning Network, reflects the genuine interest and excitement in being able to gather job quality statistics at scale for the first time. HESA is plugging the long-standing information gap, enabling new research directions to take off in practitioner, academic and policy communities and providing better careers information, advice and guidance to students and graduates. There is still work to be done to improve the measures and scope to expand the coverage of job quality indicators in particular extending understanding of how students interpret and understand these questions. Your feedback, whether based on experience or research, can help in the future development of this measure.

Feedback on the types of statistics users would like to see incorporated into HESA open data based on the new measure are most welcome, as are views on potential amendments/additions to the Graduate Outcomes survey. Please send your thoughts to official.statistics@hesa.ac.uk.

For more information about the Employability, Enterprise and Work-based Learning Network and future events please see: Employability, Enterprise and Work-based Learning | SRHE

For more information about AGCAS and the Research and Knowledge Committee please see: Research and Knowledge from AGCAS

Contributors

Tej Nathwani is a Principal Researcher (Economist) at HESA, which is now part of Jisc.

Ghislaine Dell is Head of Careers, University of Bath and member of AGCAS’ Research and Knowledge Committee.

SRHE Network Convenors: Dr Daria Luchinskaya is a Lecturer at the University of Strathclyde Business School and Professor Tracy Scurry is a Professor of Work and Employment at Newcastle University Business School.


by 1 Comment

Narratives at SRHE 2023 – more than just mere rhetoric

by Adam Matthews

It’s January 2024 and I am sitting down to write up my reflections on the SRHE Conference 2023. At the time of writing, the UK news agenda is being dominated by what is being described as one of the biggest miscarriages of justice the country has ever seen – 736 post office workers between 1999 and 2015 were prosecuted for false accounting or theft based on information from an IT system called Horizon. The system was not fit for purpose and the reporting of accounting shortfalls have found to be incorrect. The Post Office scandal has captured the public imagination thanks to a dramatisation of the events on mainstream terrestrial TV.

What has this got to do with an academic conference on higher education?

The power of media, narrative story and the broader humanities have the capacity to convey stories through genres such as drama and comedy in compelling and accessible ways. My own work is concerned with discourse and narratives on the idea and purpose of a university and its role in society. I contributed to two presentations at SRHE 2023 which both involved an analysis of narratives – the first being political party manifestoes from 1945 to 2019 and the second an analysis of Knowledge Exchange Framework policy. Both of these presentations and my wider interests look at discourse and narratives as data in higher education policy and practice.

The telling of the compelling Post Office scandal story in an accessible format has reached millions of screens, sparking conversation in workplaces and around dinner tables. This surge in public feeling has kicked off further investigations into the miscarriage of justice which involves a complex network of state and private actors over many years. This shows how narratives can reach many diverse audiences to begin to unravel the personal stories as well as the complexities involved. The SRHE conference theme for 2023 itself looked to unpick connections and complexity between Higher Education Research, Practice, and Policy.

Connected research, policy and practice was a key theme in both keynotes, the first online from Professor Nicola Dandridge and the second kicked off the in person 3 day event in Birmingham at Aston University – a panel discussion and plenary on re-shaping Tertiary Education with Professors Huw Morris, Ellen Hazelkorn, Chris Millward, and Andy Westwood, chaired by Professor Sir Peter Scott.

The complexity in making connections across research, policy and practice was clear as the speakers challenged researchers of higher education to come up with answers to the sector’s issues and challenges as well as re-shaping the sector into one which is tertiary rather than just higher. Browsing the conference programme at the sessions to come showed hugely diverse topics and methods used in higher education research. It certainly is complex to respond to the challenge of research providing the answers or even more challenging the answer.

The growing direction of travel towards tertiary is thankfully not a singular path. Like other potential futures, the panel showed a plurality of potential paths, all bound up with a plurality of perspectives, values and ambitions as well as the key aspect of funding. The panel on tertiary education came up with at least three perspectives on our tertiary futures, from conservative through to radically progressive.

Research findings cannot be put into a large language model artificial intelligence machine to spit out the answer but there is much more scope for researchers, policy-makers and practitioners to collaborate. Geoff Mulgan’s recent book When Science Meets Power analyses in detail how politics, policy, research and findings are muddled and muddied and lays out how scientists, politicians and bureaucrats need to acknowledge their strengths, knowledge (epistemic humility) and democratic values to make expert knowledge and politics work together.

Narrative might be something that can help to make sense of some of this complexity in both analysis but also in making a change at policy and practice levels.

The first of my own two presentations at the conference looked at political discourse of higher education in UK elections from 1945 to 2019. Debbie McVitty and I looked at the political narratives and discourses of Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat party political manifestoes to track how higher education was written about and in what context. Broadly, the Labour Party used ‘higher education’ more than the other two parties but all three had similar frequency when writing about the sector when it came to the word ‘university’. We observed spikes in frequency of ‘higher education’ and ‘university’ in 1966, 1987, 2001 and 2010. The first three elections were incoming second and third term governments which might hold some clues for 2024 in the UK. The context in which manifestoes talk about higher education has changed and broadened over the 74 year period. In 1945 and for the majority of the remainder of the 20th century, higher education and universities were mentioned in the context of education, health, science and innovation and youth. Progressively following the turn of the millennium in line with growth in student numbers, political parties began broadening the scope and influence of universities. We saw themes linked to universities in the context of lifelong learning, the economy, immigration, the European Union, public services, apprenticeships and equality. In short, as universities have grown in size and number, politics has looked to them do and achieve more for society and adds to the complex role of higher education in society. As we look ahead to 2024 and the biggest election year the world has ever seen it will interesting to see how universities are positioned politically in the UK and all over the world.

Globally, universities are not being depicted in a positive light in a range of contexts. The UK Government has questioned the value of some degrees describing them as ‘rip offs’ to be cracked down on. Politically, polarisation is a key concern for the health of our democracies and those gaining a degree and those that do not has been sighted as a contributing factor in such division, often under the veil of meritocracy. Hostility towards universities has entered into the culture wars with curriculum and pedagogy being attacked by politicians in the US and in Europe. And currently there is controversy on free speech and conflict at prestigious universities in the US as leaders have been forced to stand down over handling of  the Gaza-Israel conflict culminating in allegations of plagiarism in their own research.

More positive narratives could be found in my second presentation with Vanessa Cui from Birmingham City University. We looked at the narratives of the Knowledge Exchange Framework (KEF) – a regulatory policy exercise from UKRI. Universities are required, in a similar way to teaching and research excellence frameworks to submit narrative statements alongside quantitative measures. We looked at these statements to see how universities told the story of knowledge exchange (often described as third mission) outside the more structured activities of teaching and research. We found a wide range of activity carried out by universities which contributed to both the local economy as well as public and community engagement. Characters in these narratives included students and graduates, university staff, local authorities and public services, publics, businesses and other education institutions. Activities ranged from collaborating with local people on research projects and providing learning opportunities to responding to and contributing to large scale events such as the Commonwealth Games and City of Culture organisation. Moreover, universities clearly played an important role during the Covid-19 pandemic, not just in developing vaccines but providing services and support in collaboration with many different organisations and communities.

For both of these projects we are using the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) as a broad methodological framing for policy narratives and responses, assuming:

  • A constructing of social reality
  • A bounded relativity (beliefs, norms, ideas, strategies, context)
  • Narratives have generalizable structural elements
  • Policy narratives operate at three levels (macro, meso, micro)
  • Narratives play a central role in communicating information

In previous work I have analysed similar regulatory narrative responses using computational text analysis (corpus-assisted discourse analysis) as a method of analysing corpora running into the millions of words. This we combined with the NPF and plan to develop this methodological integration in further work.

Objective and positivist measures are a big part of much of the English regulatory landscape, TEF takes data from the national student survey and continuation, completion and progression indicators to evidence student experience and student outcomes. The REF, KEF and TEF ask for narrative statements alongside the numbers as evidence and to ultimately provide outcomes. Vanessa and I concluded with regard to KEF that universities have a narrative challenge in crafting texts which tell the story of the idea and purpose of their institutions to regulators but also then to students and publics.

Narratives play a key role in human communication. This echoes the importance of narrative and story outlined above and the impact of drama and stories to public consciousness. Narratives and storytelling also play a key role in marketing, from BT selling the gift of family communication to the addictive quality of R Whites Lemonade. The marketisation of a higher education in the neoliberal era has been widely researched and theorised. But in responding to the call from the keynotes and others working with the sector at SRHE 2023, to make the case for higher education and universities, maybe we need to adopt some of the narratives used in the big neoliberal marketised machine. Again, how does the university, tell its story and purpose to a wide range of stakeholders?

Researchers in higher education are analysing and crafting narratives in diverse and creative ways. Charlie Davis presented his work on academics of working-class heritage creating narratives through stories and comics. Social science fiction narratives can allow us to explore ideas and different conceptualisations and visions of the future. These approaches are drawing upon research data, literature and theories but in new and futures-orientated and playful ways. Justyna Bandola-Gill presented her study on narrative CVs – a relatively new approach to research funding whereby researchers craft their own story rather than a list of achievements. And Josh Patel got into the detail of the Robbins report pulling out the ambitious and verging on poetic narrative from the neoliberal economist Lionel Robbins’ vision of expanded public university education – Josh urged us all to go and read a very accessible and hopeful narrative from 1960s higher education policy.

Narratives are not going away. In the latest 2023 publication of TEF statements, institutions could submit up to 25 pages as part of their provider submission (up 10 pages from the previous round) and new to the latest set of statements are panel decision narratives and (optional) student submissions. In December 2023 this provided half a million words each from panels and students and 1.8 million words from providers. A by-product of such an exercise is a unique corpus of texts which provide an insight into how a range of institutions are responding to policy in describing their own practice in diverse ways. This provides a huge amount of learning for the sector.

Narratives play a central role in communicating information and constructing reality. From a research perspective we can analyse these texts as policy stories and wider discourse on what is constructed as a social reality. Narratives involve characters, context, morals of a story and plot lines. Rhetoric is the ancient art of persuasion. Aristotle broke this down into ethos (speaker’s status, character, credibility and authority), pathos (appealing to emotions, values and beliefs of the reader) and logos (logic, reasoning and argument).

As well as using these tools for analysis, universities and higher education researchers can use them to create narratives which surface the purpose and ideals of education to politicians, policy-makers, funders and publics. We may need them, as hostilities towards the university grow.

Many people knew about the Post Office Horizon IT system injustices but they were hidden away in reports and information based news articles – telling the personal stories of those involved on prime time TV captured a public imagination and support. Mr Bates vs the Post Office has been viewed almost 15 million times (at the time of writing) and has led to more than 100 new potential victims coming forward.

Maybe higher education needs to tell its stories and narratives to the wider world in equally accessible and creative ways.

Adam is a Senior Research Fellow in education systems and policy at the University of Birmingham. Adam’s work looks at universities as part of tertiary education systems and the role that they play as key sites of knowledge production and dissemination in wider society. This includes how technologies and media have and are shaping, knowledge production and access.


by 2 Comments

Must do better:  making the Office for Students accountable

by GR Evans

The House of Lords Committee on Industry and Regulators pulls no punches in Must do better. This Report on its Inquiry on the Office for Students published on 13 September finds the OfS to be underperforming in a number of respects. It criticises its ‘prescriptive regulatory requirements and time-consuming processes’ and its  ‘inappropriate micromanagement’, with ‘little regard to the need to protect institutional autonomy’. Institutions are found to be reluctant to engage with it ‘for fear of a punitive regulatory response’.

‘The student interest’ in which it was set up is described as ‘defined by the OfS in line with the political priorities of Ministers rather than the priorities of students’. In comparison with its  threatening mass of detailed rules for providers the OfS definition of  required ‘outcomes’ affecting students (student continuation beyond a first year; progression to completion; gaining employment) is found to be ‘simplistic and narrow’.

The Office for Students is a non-departmental ‘arm’s length’ public body with executive functions. These are far more extensive than HEFCE possessed in its role of ‘buffer’ between Government and providers of higher education and Must do Better is concerned that the OfS has been adding to them. Moreover Must do better says that the lack of close attention to the underlying objectives of his statutory duties ‘makes it difficult for the OfS to be held accountable’.

The OfS is a regulator. Must do Better says it ‘should improve its adherence to best regulatory practice through closer alignment with the Regulators’ Code’ dating from 2014. It should do so ‘with respect to how it implements its policies and procedures, as well as how it develops them’. The Regulators’ Code has ‘accountability’ as its overall aim, and emphasises reciprocal and mutual responsibilities between regulator and regulated, a point on which the OfS is now found conspicuously wanting.

The provisions for its accountability seem inadequate to address the potential abuse of power arising from a failure of the OfS to engage appropriately with the providers it regulates. If it decides a provider ‘must do better’ in meeting its ‘outcomes’ requirements, the Office for Students can remove it from its Register, take away its degree-awarding powers and its university title or impose a monetary penalty, with the provider paying the costs of its investigation, with internal appeal only against the scale of the costs.

Appeal against an OfS decision on such matters lies to the First-tier Tribunal Health, Education and Social Care Chamber (Care Standards). It must be made within 28 days of the issue of the decision by the OfS, on the grounds that the decision was based on an error of fact; was wrong in law, or unreasonable, except where the decision was to revoke degree-awarding powers or University title. In that case the grounds of appeal are not specified and the decision may be made afresh. The Tribunal will take into account evidence that was not available to the Office for Students when it made its decision.

A landmark case was brought by Bloomsbury Institute Ltd, formerly the London School of Business and Management, after its application for Registration was refused by the OfS in May 2019 under Registration Condition B3, namely  that ‘student continuation rates from year one to year two (“continuation rates”) and rates of progression to professional employment or post-graduate study (“progression rates”). First came an attempt at judicial review on a several grounds. That was unsuccessful but an appeal succeeded on two grounds, ‘delegation’ and the failure of ‘publication and consultation’. Bloomsbury is now on the Register subject to an Ongoing Condition about student ‘continuation’ (R. v. Bloomsbury Institute Ltd. and The Office for Students [2020] EWCA Civ 1074).

Must do better points to the agreed accountability ‘framework’, not between OfS and providers but between OfS and Government. The current Framework document between the Department for Education and the Office for Students is dated January 2023. This promises ‘reviews’ to ‘ensure intra alia that the OfS is delivering effectively’ against the ‘aims and objectives’ of the Public Bodies Review Programme, but ‘The date of the next review is yet to be determined’. 

It may take some time to arrange. Must do Better notes the National Audit Office’s recent criticism in its Central Oversight of Arm’s Length Bodies that ‘review programmes’ had ‘failed to meet their ambition of reviewing every ALB [Arms Length Body] within a Parliament’. Must do better notes ‘that the Government is committed to a public body review of the OfS’, but calls for that to go beyond the ‘considering whether the OfS’ work remains useful and necessary’ by placing ‘ its work in a wider context, focusing on the strategic issues facing the sector’.

In any case the Office for Students’ Framework Document provides accountability only through the Secretary of State (ultimate accountability to Parliament) and the Minister for Higher Education (day-to-day responsibility). The DfE’s Senior Sponsor for OfS will ‘hold quarterly performance reviews with the leadership of the OfS as part of performance monitoring and accountability’. These do not seem to be on published record. Government ‘recognition of the problems created by regulatory duplication in the higher education sector’ is welcomed but Must do better  wants  the DfE to ‘set out in further detail the steps it is taking to streamline regulatory responsibilities within the sector, including its proposed timetable for this’.

There is published self-criticism. The OfS’s Annual Report for 2022-3 took stock of its own performance expressly in terms of the requirements of its Framework relationship with the DfE:

This year we experienced some resource challenges, which had implications for some business plan activities. Our Performance analysis report identifies where this was the case.

OfS accordingly tracked its ‘performance against’ its eleven Key Performance Measures and Operational Measures and ‘reported to the DfE’ on its ‘progress’. KPM 11 covers ‘Efficient Regulation’ and lists under the headings: ‘Minimum and maximum number of OfS data and information returns for providers’; ‘Average number of OfS conditions of registration subject to enhanced monitoring per registered provider’; Amount of regulatory fees paid by providers per student’. The Operational Measures count Reportable Events; Notifications; Registration; Degree awarding powers, and time taken to resolve these. The OfS Annual Report adds that its ‘performance against budget’ is ‘monitored and reported each month’ and its ‘performance against financial target’ on an in-year basis. It has monitored  its performance in paying its creditors, ‘greening’, the Cabinet Office’s Functional Standards for Counter Fraud and salaries.

Must do better makes recommendations but it is far from clear how accountability can be insisted on. Must do better finds it ‘worrying that some institutions would be unwilling to engage with the OfS’ particularly ‘in the early stages of falling into financial difficulty for fear of a punitive regulatory response’. The 2022-3 Annual Report looks towards the  individual providers with which the OfS has a regulatory relationship, but chiefly in terms of their ‘Financial sustainability and governance’. It had required 250 providers to complete their annual financial return for the 2020/2021 financial year:

Of these, 117 were subject to further assessment, there was informal monitoring of 51 providers, of which 31 were subject to additional formal monitoring. Three providers were subject to Student Protection Directions, which enable the OfS to intervene “quickly and in a targeted way” where there is a material risk of market exit. One provider exited the market.

 It was recognised before the burden was increased with the creation of the OfS that already  ‘the accountability burden in the higher education sector is out of proportion to the risk of financial or academic mismanagement.’ This may no longer be true, and if so that matters in connection with the full title of Must do better: the Office for Students and the looming crisis facing higher education.  The Report outlines this crisis in terms of the diminishing value of the tuition fee against the expanding institutional cost of teaching an undergraduate and the growing reliance on income from international students.

It expresses concerns about the adequacy of OfS’s checking of financial sustainability especially with reference to the latter. It finds it too trusting, which is especially a concern in the light of the recognition that providers in financial difficulties are afraid to raise their concerns with the OfS. The OfS Register defines the providers whose students are entitled to loans from the Student Loans Company. It currently lists 425, in two categories, those which may charge fees up to £9,250 and those without a ‘fee cap’ to which the SLC will lend only £6125, less if the provider has no TEF rating. There is perhaps a further growing concern which Must do better fails to pick up and that is the multiplication of alternative providers not all of which have degree awarding powers or university title and not all of which are offering courses above Levels 4 and 5.

How badly is the Office for Students failing? Can it improve sufficiently to help protect the future of English higher education? It has been publishing reassurance that it is making efforts to connect better with the providers of higher education it now regulates. It has published the findings of two assessment visits on Business and Management courses and celebrates ‘positive engagement’ from local graduates on an OfS programme. It is ‘advising’ on ‘what works in supporting disabled students’. This is all a warrant of a wish to repair flaws and to improve what it does but the criticisms of Must do Better may not be easy to meet piecemeal.

A letter to the Chair of the House of Commons Education Select Committee from the chief executives of the Russell Group, GuildHE, MillionPlus and the University Alliance in January 2023, suggesting that the OfS was failing to comply with the Regulators Code  helped to prompt concerns that this was encouraging providers to resort to litigation. That led to further concerns in March about the lack of ‘basic safeguards around transparency, fairness and accountability’ in the conduct of the OfS.

The Lords’ Industry and Regulators Committee began its inquiry in March and the now published evidence submitted to it fully supports the conclusions of Must do Better. If the Office for Students is beyond reform could it be abolished? That would require fresh legislation. The Higher Education and Research Act (2017) depends heavily on the belief that, with the block grant shrunk to vanishing point for teaching and tuition fees a chief source of university income, HEFCE’s allocation of a block grant in the capacity of a buffer between Government and providers would no longer be enough. When providers were attracting their funding directly, institutional autonomy was no longer to be trusted without a new Regulator. The drawbacks of this policy change are now apparent. Perhaps it is time for a radical rethink.

SRHE member GR Evans is Emeritus Professor of Medieval Theology and Intellectual History in the University of Cambridge.