Blog

  • UNC Board OKs Definition of What Academic Freedom Is—and Isn’t

    UNC Board OKs Definition of What Academic Freedom Is—and Isn’t

    The UNC system Board of Governors has now defined academic freedom in its policies.

    Ryan Herron/iStock/Getty Images

    The University of North Carolina Board of Governors voted Thursday to approve a lengthy definition of what academic freedom does and doesn’t protect throughout the state university system. It says academic freedom includes the right to teach and research “controversial or unpopular ideas related to the discipline or subject matter,” but also says “academic freedom is not absolute.”

    The move came despite opposition from the American Association of University Professors, which, alongside the American Association of Colleges and Universities, wrote the seminal 1940 definition of the concept. In a statement, AAUP said UNC’s definition “will chill speech on campus and lead to more retaliation against faculty teaching or discussing politically contentious topics. The imprecise language in this policy will open the UNC System to lawsuits when faculty are retaliated against or fired.”

    The feelings of the statewide, elected UNC Faculty Assembly appear more complicated. Assembly chair Wade Maki, along with the UNC system, started the push to write the definition. His body approved sending a definition to the system in October, but the system added extensive language to that, including that “academic freedom is not absolute” and definitions of what academic freedom isn’t.

    After the board put out the latest iteration for public comment last month, it heard feedback both for and against. In response, the system incorporated more edits “mostly proposed by leadership of the Faculty Assembly,” said Andrew Tripp, the system’s senior vice president for legal affairs and general counsel. Among the changes was editing a line that said teaching “clearly unrelated to the course description” wouldn’t be protected to instead say teaching that “lacks pedagogical connection to the course, discipline, or subject matter” wouldn’t be protected.

    Maki told the board Thursday that, “while there was a faculty consensus in our work defining what academic freedom is, there is not faculty consensus on the additions describing what academic freedom is not.” But, he still said, “This has been a bold project, challenging and worthy.”

    “It will serve as a model for other states,” Maki said.

    The board approved the definition in a voice vote, with no dissent heard.

    Peter Hans, the system’s president, said this is the first time the UNC System has adopted “an actual definition of academic freedom.” The system had a two-paragraph “Academic Freedom and Responsibility of Faculty” policy, which the new definition significantly expands.

    Hans said having a definition “as opposed to simply referring to a vague concept” will help to guide the system, which includes 16 public universities.

    “Commonly held definitions help us all share the same reality,” he added. “By strengthening the UNC System Code to include more detail about the purpose and the parameters of academic freedom, we hope to make it easier for everyone to appreciate the privileges and the obligations that come with serving our public universities.”

    The new UNC policy promises many of the same protections found in other descriptions of academic freedom, in addition to the caveat about how “academic freedom is not absolute.” It lists three elements that academic freedom doesn’t include:

    • “Teaching content that lacks pedagogical connection to the course, discipline, or subject matter.”
    • “Using university resources for political activity in violation of university policy.”
    • “Refusing to comply with institutional policies.”

    The policy also stresses that administrators also share in implementing the university’s mission, including, at times, regulating faculty. It says administrators have the responsibility to ensure “faculty activities align with the university’s mission as established under UNC policy and meet accreditation standards” and to “intervene when faculty conduct violates professional norms, creates a hostile learning environment as defined by policy and law, or undermines the institution’s educational objectives.”

    Further, it says, “Management is responsible for resource allocation and program viability,” including approving and eliminating programs and setting “broad curricular frameworks.” It also contains a section on student academic freedom, which says that “students are responsible for learning assigned course content” but are also “free to take reasoned exception to concepts and theories presented in their classes.”

    Maki, who is set to leave his Faculty Assembly chair position after four years, defended his tenure in his presentation to the board, which was complete with references to Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince, his Havanese dogs and the musical artist Prince. (Some faculty have criticized Maki as too deferential to authority.)

    “Representing faculty, the temptation exists to come in and tell the system board and chancellors how it ought to be or what you need to do,” Maki said. “That would’ve been a strategic mistake. The point is that too many of us are focused on the ideal of what ought to be done that we neglect the realities of how things actually work and what is possible.”

    “While some faculty might prefer to have a fight than win one, I believe we have shown how to get a win without a fight,” he said.

    And he wasn’t done suggesting that the UNC board define long-contentious faculty-related topics in its code. He suggested they take up a new quest: defining shared governance.

    “If we don’t clearly define shared governance,” he said, “outsiders will.”

    Source link

  • Podcast: Student finance, graduate premium, mental health

    Podcast: Student finance, graduate premium, mental health

    This week on the podcast the government has struggled to defend its position on Plan 2 student loans in a Westminster Hall debate as opposition parties offer competing sticking plasters – but can any of the proposals survive contact with the maths, and is a proper funding review now inevitable?

    Plus there’s cross-national evidence that suggests Britain’s shrinking graduate premium is a demand-side problem that cutting courses won’t fix, and a new study that finds student mental health services are bigger than ever but the students who need them most can’t afford to reach them.

    With Mary Curnock Cook CBE, independent educationalist and former Chief Executive of UCAS, Martin Priestley, Head of Education at Mills and Reeve, David Kernohan, Associate Editor at Wonkhe and presented by Mark Leach, Editor in Chief at Wonkhe.

    On the site:

    If the graduate premium is falling, supply-side tinkering won’t bring it back.

    Student loan reform is coming. But not without a proper review.

    The support paradox is a poverty problem.

    Transcript (auto generated)

    Source link

  • A Closer Look at Faculty Political Diversity

    A Closer Look at Faculty Political Diversity

    Liberal faculty members consistently outnumber conservative faculty members in faculty surveys, according to a review of faculty political diversity studies published by Heterodox Academy.

    The report, released Wednesday, found that studies since 2012 range widely when it comes to the ratio of liberal to conservative faculty members, from two to one to 82 to one. Research shows variation across academic disciplines, as well; the humanities and social sciences tended to have larger shares of liberal professors compared to fields like business, economics, political science and STEM. The report also noted that significant minorities of faculty identified as moderate or unaffiliated with a political party.

    “A narrow focus on ratios of only Democrats to Republicans (or liberals to conservatives) obscures the true distribution of political viewpoints in academia by overlooking faculty who are moderate or apolitical and may exacerbate perceptions of polarization within the academy,” the report read.

    The analysis also found that existing research has limits, including low response rates, “imperfect measures” of political views and unmeasured nonresponse bias. But it concluded that the “most rigorous and comprehensive studies” find the lowest estimates of political imbalance.

    Source link

  • Writing Accountability Groups Bring Many Benefits (opinion)

    Writing Accountability Groups Bring Many Benefits (opinion)

    Faculty often struggle to find sustained time and support for scholarly writing. But the barriers many face—competing responsibilities, uneven service burdens, caregiving demands and inefficient institutional processes —are not only individual. They are structural and institutional. This means they are amenable to intervention.

    Writing accountability groups (WAGs) are effective interventions for all faculty. These groups, which can be conducted in person or virtually, are a low-cost, high-impact practice that provides protected writing time, peer accountability and mentorship for faculty.

    Data from a recent empirical evaluation I led, forthcoming in The Journal of Faculty Development, demonstrates that WAG participation is associated with measurable improvements in writing frequency, manuscript and grant submissions, and confidence among early-stage faculty in HIV, drug use and health equity research. Approximately 92 percent of participants reported working on a grant or manuscript during WAG sessions, and we found within-person increases in reported grant and manuscript submissions over time.

    Beyond productivity metrics, WAGs create a consistent, replicable and nonhierarchical space for feedback and encouragement. This, in turn, bolsters peer learning and belonging, and it is especially salient for structurally marginalized faculty who could benefit from such feedback and encouragement. Our WAG group included faculty of color and minoritized faculty based on their sexual orientation, who often report struggling with self-efficacy and self-confidence in academic spaces. Regardless of background, WAGs also can foster a stronger professional identity, reducing impostor syndrome (that is, recurrent self-doubt of skills, talents and accomplishments).

    Writing Accountability Groups as Equity Interventions

    Faculty diversity is usually treated as an employment or compliance issue rather than recognizing its fundamental connection to institutional success and scientifically rigorous knowledge production. WAGs are equity interventions, not solely productivity interventions. WAGs directly counter structural disadvantages in who gets to write, publish and win grants.

    They do this in two main ways. First, WAGs counteract inequity by creating protected time and shared accountability. Structurally marginalized faculty, including faculty of color and first-generation faculty, are disproportionately disadvantaged by structures that presume time, resources and bandwidth they often do not have. In our academic system shaped by privilege, structured writing communities for all faculty are a fairness tool. Second, WAGs reduce social isolation and expand access to mentorship across faculty, which is especially important for scholars outside dominant networks.

    Empirical data underscores the importance of professional networks: A 2016 study in the Journal of General Internal Medicine reveals that network reach, i.e., the number of first- and second-degree co-authors, was positively associated with academic promotion, highlighting the importance of mentorship and networking. However, structurally marginalized faculty often lack thoughtful mentoring opportunities. Consequently, WAGs equalize access to mentorship, networking and productivity-enhancing norms. From this perspective, WAGs are both resilience infrastructure for all faculty and equity interventions that can support structurally marginalized faculty.

    Academic Productivity and the 2025 Intersectional Trauma Pandemic

    Scholarly writing, the primary engine of academic success, is structurally inequitable. The expectation to publish “more, faster” assumes a level playing field that does not exist.

    Faculty face myriad compounding pressures: funding instability, political scrutiny of research areas, burnout, caregiving loads and high service expectations. And the 2025 Intersectional Trauma Pandemic—entailing crises in public health, climate change, global economic stability and so forth—is further deepening the problems of unequal workloads and unequal environments for scholarly productivity.

    Persistent inequities illustrate the extent of an unequal playing field. For example, Black principal investigators are significantly underrepresented among grantees from both the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health, with emerging research examining the determinants of these disparities. Although studies such as the Black Professors Study I lead at Columbia University will address this research gap via purpose-driven knowledge production, interventions are urgently needed now. In turbulent times, institutions specifically require low-cost mechanisms that stabilize research structures and improve community morale and faculty well-being. Because WAGs bolster faculty empowerment under conditions of institutional uncertainty, they are a strategic response to the turbulence and chronic strain that faculty manage.

    A Call to Action

    Institutions should not relegate writing success to individual grit or chance. WAGs provide a concrete mechanism aligned with the daily realities of faculty work. They are aligned with institutional values and require minimal resources (e.g., limited facilitation). Universities should adopt them strategically and intentionally for productivity and equity, not as fringe or optional add-ons. This can increase faculty empowerment and support faculty retention because WAGs increase work satisfaction (through fostering a sense of community) and increase productivity (through time spent on academic products that enable faculty to meet promotion and tenure criteria).

    This spring, Columbia launched a universitywide WAG, informed by lessons from prior WAG implementations. By adopting WAGs as an institutional policy choice, we aim to support all faculty and address unequal workloads. We also will engage in evaluation to contribute to the literature of the effectiveness of WAGs, including as the effects of the 2025 Intersectional Trauma Pandemic continue to be seen. As higher education continues to navigate sustained uncertainty, institutional survival will depend on whether universities take immediate and strategic actions, like WAGs, that protect faculty empowerment and well-being.

    Dustin T. Duncan is the associate dean for health equity research and a professor of epidemiology at Columbia University. His research focuses on the social and spatial determinants of health equity, with particular emphasis on HIV and mental health, especially trauma. He is also the founder of the Dustin Duncan Research Foundation, raising philanthropic support to advance health equity research, leadership development and community partnerships.

    Source link

  • College Students Want More Work-Based Learning

    College Students Want More Work-Based Learning

    Sumeet Dave always wanted to work in engineering. It just took him 20 years—and an apprenticeship.

    “I had so many closed doors,” he said of the job opportunities that followed a stint in the U.S. Army National Guard, an initial attempt at a bachelor’s degree in aerospace engineering in the ’00s and an eventual bachelor’s degree in allied health administration and management. He’d pivoted to allied health when he didn’t find a job as an MRI tech after a separate two-year program in nuclear medicine technology, he explained. But a viable career path never quite materialized.

    After working as a pharmacy technician, among other jobs, for years, Dave was looking to reskill, again. A chance conversation about apprenticeships with an administrator at Howard Community College in Maryland opened his eyes to a program in information technology with AT&T.

    “I was like, ‘What do you mean, I can actually work and take some classes?’” he recalled. “I didn’t even know there were apprenticeships out there, because I thought it was something of the past.”

    Three years later, Dave has a full-time job, a national credential in IT and a federal security clearance. He’s also looking to pursue a master’s degree with tuition reimbursement from his employer.

    “That was my dream—to go into some field of engineering—so it was great to find something like AT&T, which has an apprenticeship program where you can jump into it, which later becomes software engineering,” he said. “It’s given me a great opportunity to get my foot in the door. You make a difference, contribute to the organization, and then the sky’s the limit.”

    Sumeet Dave, a South Asian man with short black hair, wearing glasses and smiling in a computer lab

    Sumeet Dave

    Dave’s years of underemployment could be read as data points against college in the escalating college-versus-career debate—especially at a time when the hiring edge for college graduates is especially narrow. But study after study shows that college remains worth it for most learners, even when postgraduate earnings are debt-adjusted. So instead of being a simple referendum on college value, Dave’s story captures a broader shift in how career-connected students expect—and need—their college experiences to be.

    About the Survey

    Student Voice is an ongoing survey and reporting series that seeks to elevate the student perspective in institutional student success efforts and in broader conversations about college.

    Some 1,135 two- and four-year students responded to this flash survey about work-integrated learning, conducted in January. Explore the data, captured by our survey partner Generation Lab, here.

    Check out past reports from our 2025–26 survey cycle, Student Voice: Amplified.

    In Inside Higher Ed’s main 2025 Student Voice survey, most students expressed confidence that they have what they need to succeed postcollege, but they also wanted their institutions to stack the deck with more targeted career-readiness efforts. And in a follow-up Student Voice flash survey, out today, on work-integrated learning (WIL), nearly all 1,135 two- and four-year students express interest in engaging in some form of WIL.

    A quarter are interested in apprenticeships, like Dave’s, while half are interested in internships. Part-time work related to their majors, another paid option, also appeals to many students. But pay is not the only motivating factor, nor is extended exposure, as short-term job shadowing ranks relatively highly.

    Students say their top goals for WIL are technical skill development and professional networking.

    Most respondents are confident that their institution will be able to provide WIL experiences, either directly or indirectly—even if they’re not really sure what differentiates, say, an internship from a cooperative education program. But WIL participation gaps and strong interest even among students who’ve already engaged in such experiences show that demand for career-connected learning is outpacing access to it. And for many respondents, there’s new urgency around the rise of AI and automation: More than half say this makes hands-on experience even more important.

    Here are eight takeaways from the survey.

    1. Internships remain the most prevalent form of WIL, but more than a third of students haven’t participated in WIL of any kind.

    The top three models in which students have participated are internships (27 percent of the sample); part-time jobs related to their majors, on or off campus (27 percent); and undergraduate research or research assistantships (20 percent). But 36 percent of all students haven’t participated in any form of WIL, a share that increases to 40 percent for Black students and 49 percent for Hispanic students in the sample (versus 26 percent of Asian American and Pacific Islander students, 31 percent of white students, and 29 percent of those from other racial groups). Adult learners 25 and older also have an elevated nonparticipation rate of 49 percent. By institution type, private nonprofit institutions have an edge: 27 percent of their students have not participated in WIL versus 38 percent of public institution students. In a related finding, community college students were more likely than their four-year counterparts (public or private nonprofit) to signal nonparticipation, at 58 percent versus 30 percent.

    1. Most students who’ve participated in work-integrated learning found it valuable.

    Of the 750 students who have participated in WIL, three in four report that their experiences were highly valuable. Just 3 percent say their experiences had low or no value. This is relatively consistent across the sample, including among two-year students. It’s also somewhat consistent across experience types: Some 80 percent of students who’ve participated in an employer-sponsored project say it was highly valuable, as do 82 percent of internship alums and 77 percent of microinternship participants, for example.

    1. Few students understand the full spectrum of WIL options.

    From internships to co-ops to job shadowing, just 11 percent of students say they understand the differences among various WIL models to explain them very well to someone else. Most of remainder say they could explain them fairly or somewhat well, meaning that students tend to grasp some of the options in this space but could use help understanding them fully. Different forms of WIL offer different—and ideally overlapping—benefits.

    1. Nearly all students want WIL—and those who’ve already experienced it want more.

    Nearly eight in 10 students are somewhat (33 percent) or very (47 percent) interested in engaging in WIL. This is consistent across the sample, including among Hispanic students, who had the lowest participation rate in a previous question, suggesting that these students are not disproportionately missing out for lack of interest. And despite their own relatively low participation rate, 74 percent of community college students are interested in WIL—as are 70 percent of adult learners. In terms of repeat customers, 82 percent of students who’ve already participated in some form of WIL want to engage in more of it in the future.

    1. Part-time jobs and internships are of greatest interest to students.

    Paid work related to their major is the No. 1 model in which students express interest (52 percent of the sample). Internships, perhaps the most widely recognized model, are a very close No. 2, at 51 percent. No. 3 is job shadowing, at 33 percent. Apprenticeships are No. 4, at 25 percent of the sample. Fewer adult learners are interested in internships than in part-time work related to their studies.

    1. Students are looking to learn technical skills related to their field and to network and build professional relationships.

    Students view WIL as an opportunity to build practical expertise and professional connections and identity. Half say they are most interested in developing technical skills related to their field or industry, while 45 percent cite networking and relationship-building opportunities. Another 37 percent seek to build self-confidence and professional presence, and 36 percent seek stronger problem-solving and critical-thinking skills—which employers consistently rank as a top want.

    1. In the age of generative AI, many students think hands-on experience is more important than ever.

    Some 55 percent of students say this when asked how the rise of AI and automation is influencing their thinking about WIL. Thirty-nine percent are also concerned about job security in certain fields. About a third each are looking for roles that emphasize uniquely human skills and want to understand how AI is being used in their specific field. Just 8 percent say that AI has not influenced how they think about WIL.

    1. Most students express at least some confidence that their institution can offer or help them find WIL opportunities to fit their career goals.

    Some 27 percent are very confident in their colleges’ abilities here, while the majority, 52 percent, are somewhat confident. Just 4 percent of students don’t plan to seek this kind of help from their institution. This is relatively consistent across the sample, and while it’s a vote of confidence, it’s also an expectation.

    While colleges are doing more to meet that expectation, opportunity gaps persist: Nationally, participation in paid internships increased to 37 percent of four-year students graduating in 2025, up from 26 percent of graduates from the classes of 2020 to 2023, according to Strada Education Foundation’s 2025 State Opportunity Index. Those gains are mitigated by Strada’s finding that 70 percent of first-year students intend to do an internship (researchers frame this as an intent-participation gap).

    Like Inside Higher Ed’s survey, Strada has determined that students most value WIL’s ability to boost their technical skills and expand their professional networks. But internships confer particular benefits, with 73 percent of graduates who completed a paid internship landing a first job that actually requires their degree, compared to 44 percent of those who did not complete an internship. And, as in the Student Voice survey, Black and Hispanic students are disproportionately underrepresented in internship participation nationally.

    Looking more broadly, Strada has found that 43 percent of graduating seniors at four-year institutions report having had at least one of five paid, work-based learning experiences: internship, co-op, practicum/clinical/student teaching, undergraduate research and apprenticeship. Among community college students, 17 percent enrolled in 2025 reported engaging in one or more of these.

    Ultimately, participation in work-based learning is growing but uneven, and data tracking participation remains “spotty,” according to the opportunity index.

    At Butler University’s Founders College—where every student completes at least one paid internship and takes career-development courses throughout the academic year—WIL is built into the curriculum, increasing access and compounding its benefits through layering. Carolyn Gentle-Genitty, professor and founding dean of the college, said that the paid internship requirement “ensures students graduate with experiences ready for employment.”

    “Parents gravitate to this outcome,” she continued. “Students welcome the exposure, and for leaders like me, having the one paid internship as the goal, we do a better job of proactively embedding learning, exposure and skills leading up to the goal.” In their first year, for instance, students meet with potential employers and participate in job shadowing. They also engage in project-based learning, work-based communication and networking skills development ahead of their internships.

    How are employers themselves thinking about this rapidly evolving space? A recent study of human resources, learning and technical officers at global firms by the Learning Society at Stanford University found:

    • AI technologies are “transforming demand for human capabilities, and reshaping work and workers as much as they are replacing tasks.”
    • Because traditional talent pipelines are “not adapting quickly enough, workplaces themselves are becoming increasingly important—and innovative—sites of talent development.”
    • Employers are growing “more skeptical of college degrees as proxies for capability and are developing more differentiated ways to understand people’s skills, adaptability and potential.”
    • Continual investment in workers “across lengthening lifespans is becoming more common, reflecting a broader recognition that as lives lengthen, economic resilience matters more—for individuals and for the companies that depend on adaptive, capable workers.”

    Gentle-Genitty said that, in the end, “we are responding to an ever-changing, reshaped society.” And no matter the mode of WIL, “we know it’s here to stay in an AI-enhanced world. But we must define the rules of play and the start and stops—or even the amount of playing time needed for our future workforce to be ready.”

    Speaking for students trying to break through in a job market that feels at once highly competitive and full of new opportunities, Dave, the apprenticeship alum, said, “If they can do the job, give them a chance.”

    This independent editorial project is produced with the Generation Lab and supported by the Gates Foundation.

    Source link

  • 3 Questions for 2U’s Jihan Quail

    3 Questions for 2U’s Jihan Quail

    Last year, Jihan Quail rejoined 2U as global head of growth, higher education, returning to a company she first joined in 2016 and left in early 2020. In the intervening years, Quail held senior business development roles at Pathstream and Honor Education, giving her a broad view of the ed-tech landscape.

    When we met last fall, our conversation kept circling back to an intriguing question: What draws someone back to a company after years away? Her perspective on why she chose to return now—and how her thinking about university partnerships has evolved—struck me as worth sharing more broadly.

    Full disclosure: I am an (unpaid) member of the 2U University Partner Advisory Council.

    Q: What was it about this moment—and this leadership team—that made you want to come back to 2U?

    A: It came down to timing and people. I’ve worked closely with many of these leaders before. I know how they make decisions, how they show up under pressure and what they prioritize. They’re steady, disciplined and focused on building something durable, which is rare in a period of real turbulence across higher education and ed tech.

    Spending time away from 2U, working across other education and ed-tech organizations, gave me a clearer view of the landscape. I saw how different organizations respond to pressure, what they optimize for and how universities have evolved their thinking about partnerships and the services they need.

    This work is also deeply personal for me. My first job out of Yale was teaching English in Brazil, walking into a classroom with no shared language and no real idea what I was doing. It was humbling and exhausting, and it gave me an early appreciation for how complex, personal and vital education really is. That perspective has stayed with me, even as my career took a winding path through renewable energy and technology.

    That time away clarified something else: Universities are under real pressure, and not just operationally. There’s a broader crisis of confidence in higher education itself. I deeply believe in the long-term importance of universities and what they make possible—and in the enduring value of higher education for students. I want to help universities navigate this moment. The right partnerships can help them respond more quickly to market demands and emerging disciplines and deliver stronger outcomes for students. That’s what 2U is built to do, and this is the team I want to do that work with.

    Q: You’ve now seen the partnership landscape from multiple vantage points. What are universities asking for today that they weren’t a few years ago?

    A: The shift has been dramatic, and I find it genuinely exciting.

    When I first joined 2U in 2016, many universities were still going online for the first time. They had confidence in their brand and academic quality, but the mechanics were unfamiliar. They needed a guide—someone who could say, “Here’s how this works, here’s what to expect, here’s how we get you there.” The question was simply: Should we do this at all?

    By 2019, that had shifted to: We’re going online—who should we partner with? Now, in 2026, the conversation is much more sophisticated: We’ve built real capabilities, we understand our strengths and we need a partner who can fill specific gaps.

    That’s a fundamentally different dynamic. Universities aren’t necessarily looking for someone to do everything. They’re looking for a collaborator who can complement what they’ve built. Maybe they have a strong online degree strategy but need a partner to think about how that pairs with lifelong learning and alternative credentials. Maybe they’ve got instructional design covered but need a sophisticated marketing operation they can scale and access to a global learner network like edX. The conversations are more specific, more strategic and frankly more interesting.

    This is healthy for the market. Institutions are more informed, which raises the bar for everyone. And for those of us in business development, it means every conversation is a real problem-solving exercise—not a pitch, but a genuine attempt to figure out what this particular institution needs to reach the learners they’re trying to serve.

    Q: What’s different about how 2U approaches those conversations now versus when you were here the first time?

    A: We’ve always started by listening. That hasn’t changed. You can’t design a good partnership if you don’t understand what someone is actually trying to accomplish. But the tool kit has expanded considerably.

    When I was here before, our model was more comprehensive by default—longer time horizons, a certain way of doing things. That worked well for institutions building online programs from the ground up. But universities have evolved. Many have developed real capabilities over the past decade. They don’t need the same things they needed in 2016.

    Now we’re much more flexible in how we structure partnerships. We can adjust scope, time horizon and financial model—all based on what makes sense for a specific institution and program. If you want to run a clinical psychology program at national scale with placements in all 50 states, that’s a different conversation than launching a smaller cohort-based program where you’ve already got program design covered. Both are legitimate paths, and we can support either.

    That flexibility makes the work more collaborative. You’re genuinely co-designing something rather than fitting a partner into a template. For me, that’s the most rewarding part of this job—the puzzle of figuring out what’s actually going to work for each institution we serve.

    Source link

  • Tackling the contradictions – HEPI

    Tackling the contradictions – HEPI

    This blog was kindly authored by Martin Edmondson, CEO of the Graduate Futures Institute.

    The government states that it has a number of core missions. One is kickstarting growth, and one is breaking down barriers to opportunity. However, the recent growth and youth unemployment figures – (Growth 0.1 per cent ONS latest release, youth unemployment 14.5 per cent) – suggest that neither of these missions are faring especially well. Something that is perhaps not a surprise when some of the headline policies introduced by the government actively mitigate against those goals.

    Put yourself in the shoes of a small business owner – the businesses that make up the vast majority of UK companies. Right now, you have seen the cost of hiring increase through employer NI contributions and through the increase in the National Minimum Wage. In addition, you see the Employment Rights Act coming down the tracks with the introduction of greater day one rights, and a reduction from 24 to 6 months for unfair dismissal rights.

    All of these factors do one thing: increase risk. Running a small business is a constant equation of risk management, and all these factors are more likely to make a business leader risk-averse when committing to hiring someone. In addition, hiring an unproven young person can also be seen as a risk – they often don’t have years of work experience to support their credibility and capability. So, when you make that person more expensive in wages, more expensive in NI and harder to move on in cases of hiring mistakes, you can see why unemployment is increasing and growth is stagnant.

    I say all of this partly in my role as CEO of the Graduate Futures Institute, the body representing everyone who works in careers and employability in HE. Part of my role is to advocate for the positive things a graduate can do for any business – where the evidence is that a higher proportion of graduates in an area and a business increase productivity, innovation and GDP (research by the OECD and UK Treasury analysis suggests that a 1 percentage point increase in the share of graduates in a local workforce is associated with a 0.5 – 1 per cent increase in productivity). I also speak as someone who has run a small business for 20 years – trying to give opportunity to recent graduates whilst also managing all of that risk.

    De-risking youth hiring is not about weakening employment rights; it is about recognising that entry-level recruitment carries different risk dynamics and designing targeted incentives that allow opportunity and protection to sit alongside one another rather than in tension.

    Universities are working hard in this area, and can continue to do more to support the careers and employability of young people. Our members do amazing work, but they are also constrained like all in higher education by current funding pressures and this labour market context. However, the data suggests that our unemployment levels are now running worse than those in the EU – suggesting it is a policy environment issue more than anything else.

    Having said all of that, I don’t want to be someone who just complains without ideas. So here are 3 ideas – one for universities and two for government.

    Government: NI break for hiring young people

    Provide employers – specifically SMEs – with an NI break for hiring any employees under the age of 24. Despite my line of work, this isn’t a graduate-specific initiative, but one for any young person regardless of educational pathway. Giving SMEs Employer NI relief makes it more attractive and less risky to hire young people who don’t necessarily have the sort of experience that comes with age.

    Government: create city graduate schemes across UK cities and regions.

    For anyone who knows my work backstory, this idea will not come as a surprise, but it is a relatively low-cost way to support growth, improve youth employment levels and catalyse productivity in SMEs around the country. The concept is simple, turn a place into a corporate style graduate scheme – where instead of there being 100 jobs in one employer, there are 100 jobs in 100 local SMEs all hired through a central city/region wide piece of attraction and selection. This model has been well tested in Sheffield (RISE Sheffield – led by the two universities and the council) and showed significant ROI in terms of GDP, productivity and GVA. This would be relatively inexpensive (in Government terms) to roll out, perhaps £10-15m per annum to cover 10 cities, and can be seen in action now in West Yorkshire Combined Authority.

    Universities: accrediting part-time work

    We now know that around 68 per cent of students are working part-time alongside study, and given cost of living pressures this is not likely to decrease. As such universities should find models to capture, assess and accredit the skill and attribute development that is taking place in this work. Many universities are now actively building and deploying skills or attribute models in the curriculum. This will just take some creativity in assessment design to pull in the value from this work. This is an area of big interest for us as well, so we will be running an event on this topic later this year.

    Many of us recognise that this Government faces many challenges, and money and growth are in short supply, but this is not helped by significant macro policies that actively mitigate against the stated Government missions. Whilst some of these policies were well-meaning in spirit, if we actually want to stimulate growth and reduce barriers to opportunity, we should look to implement proactive policies and incentives that foster growth, de-risk hiring,  and support opportunity for all young people.

    Source link

  • Positionality statements are relevant for all research

    Positionality statements are relevant for all research

    Positionality statements are increasingly mandated by some journals and publishers.

    These statements accompany empirical work and invite authors to articulate their social, identity, methodological, and epistemological locations, to provide much-needed context (or “position”) for their research. This practice is becoming more common, and it originates from reflexive qualitative research.

    We would argue that, despite their critics, positionality statements are relevant to all research – whether qualitative, quantitative, or both – because all research is ultimately shaped, coloured, and contextualised by the people who conduct it.

    The value of reflexivity

    Reflexivity is the process by which researchers explicitly and thoughtfully consider how their background, epistemological and ethical positions, worldview, politics, and personal experiences contribute to, shape, and colour their research process. Reflexivity is increasingly recognised as central to responsible and rigorous research practice, because acknowledging one’s subjectivity is seen as a benefit – or even a toolkit and a resource – rather than a detriment, in this context.

    While reflexivity has a long history in qualitative traditions, recent shifts in higher education have encouraged reflexive engagement within quantitative research as well (for example in some work we’ve done, such as this beginner’s guide). This is a promising and important way forward.

    Quantitative approaches and researchers do not exist outside of social context. Therefore, choices about research questions, data sources, analytical techniques, and interpretation are all influenced by researchers’ epistemological commitments, their lived experiences, and subjectivities. After all, every researcher has a story (often a personal one) for how they came to (and through) their research topic.

    Positioning positionality

    One emerging mechanism for expressing and documenting reflexivity is the positionality statement. Positionality statements allow researchers to explicitly reflect on and communicate how their subjectivities, identities, values, experiences, and epistemological positioning shape their research questions, methodological decisions, and interpretation of their findings. We would argue that greater reflexivity and transparency is needed across all methodological traditions, including (and, in some cases, especially) in quantitative research, where assumptions of neutrality or objectivity can obscure the role of the researcher in knowledge production.

    The literature, which we are happy to see is growing rapidly, currently highlights three reasons why positionality statements are useful for higher education researchers.

    The first concerns equality, diversity, and inclusion. By documenting the process of reflexivity, positionality statements encourage researchers to confront how their work may uphold or challenge existing inequalities and to reflect on whose perspectives are centred or marginalised through their research choices. This logic applies, in theory, regardless of whether a study uses interviews, surveys, experiments, or administrative data because decisions about samples, categories, and comparisons are never socially neutral.

    The second reason relates to rigour and transparency. By articulating one’s positionality explicitly, researchers make visible aspects of the research process that are often left implicit (or on the editing room floor). This transparency has been proposed as a way of strengthening rigour, allowing readers to better understand how knowledge claims are produced and how alternative assumptions might lead to different conclusions. Far from weakening research, we argue that this kind of openness supports more robust, accountable, and transparent scholarship.

    And the third reason concerns integrity and ethics. Researchers have argued that positionality statements can support more ethical engagement with research by encouraging ongoing reflection on power, responsibility, and potential harms. Ethics is not confined to formal approval procedures – instead, it should be embedded in everyday research practices, including how findings are framed and communicated. Thinking reflexively can surface some of these considerations.

    Positionality statement in quantitative work

    Despite their growing presence, positionality statements in quantitative research remain inconsistently applied and under-theorised. This is concerning, given that some journals now encourage or mandate their inclusion.

    It is increasingly important, therefore, that positionality statements are done well and researchers are supported adequately. As others have noted, positionality statements are often reduced to brief descriptions or checklists of a researcher’s social identity or background, without deeper engagement with how those positionalities influence the research process. When this happens, positionality risks becoming tokenistic rather than a meaningful reflexive practice.

    Towards reflexive (quantitative) research

    There is growing interest now in better understanding how researchers currently use positionality statements and what functions these statements serve within published research.

    Between us, for example, we are currently running metascience projects that examine how and why positionality statements are used, particularly within quantitative higher education research. This work builds on broader conceptual frameworks for understanding positionality in psychology and related fields, and reflects a wider movement towards more reflexive quantitative methods,

    What this emerging body of work makes clear is that positionality statements are not about personal disclosure for its own, performative sake. They are also, importantly, not about questioning the legitimacy of particular methods or ranking researchers according to identity.

    Instead, positionality statements (if done well) are about situating knowledge claims and acknowledging that research is produced by people working within specific social, institutional, and epistemic contexts. By recognising that positionality statements are relevant to all research, this supports a much more transparent, rigorous, and ethically engaged research culture across disciplines. In this sense, positionality statements are not an optional add-on. If we are clever, they could be an integral part of what it means to do rigorous, thoughtful, ethical research.

    Source link

  • EDI and free speech are not opposing forces

    EDI and free speech are not opposing forces

    A recent report published by Alumni for Free Speech may well be the most significant report published to date about free speech, recent legislation requiring universities to promote it, and the impact that doing so might have on our higher education institutions.

    Its significance, of course, isn’t to be found in its spurious claims about how universities’ EDI spending undermines free speech, but rather in its bare-faced promotion of obvious falsehoods that advance a right-wing agenda – and a post-truth disregard for facts in favour of creating talking points with no grounding in reality.

    This debate isn’t abstract or merely rhetorical – it arrives at a moment of real vulnerability and uncertainty for UK universities, shaped by recent free speech legislation, intensified regulatory scrutiny, and heightened political anxiety across the sector.

    The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act has changed the risk environment in which universities operate, introducing new statutory duties, potential financial penalties, and personal liability for institutional leaders. In that climate, reports like the AFFS’s gain outsized traction – not because of their evidential rigour, but because they offer simple explanations and scapegoats when institutions are running scared.

    Universities are also contending with declining resources, the culture-war politicisation of higher education, and growing hostility towards equity-oriented work – framed as ideological excess rather than the legal, pedagogical, and ethical necessity it actually is. The current moment demands clarity rather than caution, and engaging with this debate isn’t about defending EDI as a programme – it’s about defending the university as a space for pluralism, knowledge production, and social responsibility.

    Upon reading the AFFS report, any academic worth their salt will immediately spot the methodological and conceptual flaws, the careless – perhaps even deliberate – overestimation of the credence of its data sets, and the ideologically informed, dubious assumptions it relies upon throughout. It’s barely worth patronising readers with a critique of these things.

    But the very existence of the report, and the fact that it’s now widely circulated, warrants a response from those of us who work to promote equity in higher education and face sustained efforts to undermine what we do.

    Credibility tests

    Despite the report’s scholastic shortcomings, what the AFFS has to say brings into sharper focus a dilemma EDI professionals and critical scholars have faced for decades – do we risk countering anti-EDI claims like those in the AFFS report, even though this might confer on it a credibility it doesn’t deserve? And do we inadvertently end up defending EDI initiatives that we know can sometimes reinforce, rather than challenge, the very inequalities they aim to address?

    We only need to look at recent writings by scholars and activists genuinely committed to social justice to understand the legitimate concerns they raise – that EDI initiatives can operate as largely ineffective equity window-dressing, used to maintain an inequitable status quo while giving the impression of doing the opposite.

    Does engaging with this report, in one way or another, play into its authors’ hands – either by providing them with undeserved scholarly credibility, or by promoting the very EDI initiatives that might be undercutting our own social justice agenda?

    Perhaps the least desirable option is to ignore the AFFS report entirely – we might avoid elevating it to the status of a credible research piece and prevent the spread of its conclusions, but this leaves it free to circulate unchallenged, which will itself be considered a victory of sorts for its authors. Just another piece of landfill, pseudo-academic “research”, drifting around the internet as a populist counterbalance to genuine efforts to make lives better for some of the most marginalised in society.

    So, here we find ourselves again, having to defend the work that we do, despite being our own worst critics and wishing this was work that didn’t need doing.

    More positively, it would be remiss of us as scholars with specific responsibility for EDI initiatives within our own university not to welcome scrutiny, alternative perspectives, and the opportunity for debate. Despite our obvious misgivings about what the AFFS has produced, it’s worth responding – not just to justify the EDI work we do, but to expose the broader political and ideological agenda of these self-styled defenders of free speech.

    With that in mind, and at the risk of patronising our readers, here are some thoughts about why we shouldn’t take the AFFS report seriously – and why we should be sceptical of arguments that position a commitment to freedom of speech and to equity, diversity, and inclusion as somehow incompatible.

    Where it falls apart

    The report presents a table comparing university EDI expenditure with free-speech compliance ratings and asserts a statistically significant relationship. But correlation alone doesn’t demonstrate causation – institutions with higher EDI investment are overwhelmingly large, research-intensive universities with more complex staffing structures and regulatory exposure. Without controlling for size, student demographics, international recruitment, award-bearing research portfolios, or existing infrastructure, it’s analytically unsound to suggest that EDI spend drives non-compliance.

    At best, the data demonstrates juxtaposition, not causality – and before sector policy responds to such findings, deeper inquiry and a transparent methodology are essential.

    The report also recommends that higher EDI spend should be matched with parallel investment in free-speech protections, including dedicated free-speech officers and institutional neutrality. This framing subtly positions EDI work as a partisan agenda that needs balancing, rather than a statutory duty and moral commitment to fairness – implying that equity threatens academic freedom rather than enables it.

    Here we see the AFFS report’s internal logic and ideological assumptions promoting a fundamental misunderstanding of what EDI work is for. To set the record straight – EDI work doesn’t exist to police ideas. Its purpose is to eliminate barriers to participation, address awarding and progression inequalities, prevent discrimination and harassment, and improve students’ sense of belonging within the university.

    It’s also about improving retention and student success, and diversifying leadership and knowledge production to create a more effective institution that’s representative of all the demographics contributing to its operation. EDI expands the pool of voices that get to participate in free speech, who gets to benefit from a university education, and who ultimately goes on to thrive in our society. Freedom of speech has little substance or value if it’s limited to relatively privileged groups who already feel at home within university cultures.

    Equity isn’t censorship

    Reflecting on our decades of experience in higher education, it’s important to state clearly that a commitment to promoting equity is not a form of censorship. Decolonising the curriculum doesn’t silence academic debate, and promoting belonging for all students – including those from under-represented groups – doesn’t reduce intellectual rigour. The opposite is true. When marginalised staff and students are empowered, universities gain new knowledge, new debate, and expanded intellectual horizons.

    If a commitment to freedom of speech means that already powerful voices speak without challenge while marginalised communities must debate their humanity or endure hostilities unprotected, then what’s being defended isn’t freedom – it’s dominance. A healthy academic environment is one where contentious ideas can be debated within a culture of respect, criticality, and safety – not one where harm is tolerated in the name of neutrality.

    We must resist misleading narratives that present EDI work as overreach or ideological imposition. Universities invest in EDI because it’s a legal responsibility under the Equality Act, because it improves student achievement and wellbeing, because it’s central to global competitiveness and institutional reputation, because it strengthens research cultures, and because it helps build a university culture where everyone feels they belong.

    We don’t pursue equity work as an optional programme – we do it because excellence without inclusion is exclusionary, and because a modern university can’t thrive while inequity persists. An equitable, inclusive university isn’t a constrained intellectual space. It’s a more expansive one.

    Over to the sector

    The AFFS report is representative of a broader public conversation about the role and legitimacy of EDI strategies in UK higher education – one shaped less by evidence than by political anxiety, culture-war framing, and regulatory fear. Rather than retreating into defensive postures, universities committed to equity and fairness need a proactive and principled response built on clarity, confidence, and institutional courage.

    The first priority is communication – institutions must move beyond vague or managerial language and articulate, in plain and accessible terms, what EDI actually does, why it exists, and how it’s evaluated, transparently linking it to legal obligations, student outcomes, staff wellbeing, retention, and academic excellence. Clear narrative coherence is essential to counter caricatures that frame EDI as ideological overreach rather than core institutional infrastructure.

    Universities should also explicitly reject the framing that positions free speech and equity as opposing forces, and instead assert that equity is the condition that makes meaningful free speech possible – by expanding who can safely speak, participate, and be heard. At a time when equity initiatives are increasingly politicised, institutional hesitation risks legitimising bad-faith critique, and universities should continue to invest openly and unapologetically in strategies that build belonging, address structural racism, and challenge epistemic exclusion – while remaining critically reflexive about effectiveness and impact.

    The sector urgently needs high-quality, methodologically sound research examining not only incidents of speech regulation but the political, legal, and ideological drivers behind the current resurgence of “free speech” discourse – including who defines speech harms, whose speech is protected, and how power operates within debates framed as neutral or universal.

    Universities must also ensure that those most affected by speech regulation, harassment, and exclusion are meaningfully involved in shaping institutional responses – moving beyond consultation towards shared governance models that recognise lived experience as a form of expertise, particularly in relation to race, disability, migration status, gender, and faith.

    The question facing the sector isn’t whether universities spend too much on EDI, but whether they’re yet investing sufficiently – politically, intellectually, and materially – to transform the structures that continue to reproduce inequality. Retreat, silence, or strategic ambiguity won’t protect universities from attack.

    Standing firm

    Freedom of speech and EDI are not opposing forces. When done with integrity, accountability, and courage, EDI is the very mechanism that enables free speech – by extending voice, participation, and dignity to those historically excluded from it. Yet this work is already deeply complex and emotionally demanding in a sector where structural inequalities persist, resources are finite, and progress requires sustained cultural change rather than performative gestures or reactionary policy cycles.

    Reports like the AFFS’s don’t simply misrepresent the purpose of EDI – they actively undermine it, generating distraction, confusion, and manufactured controversy that forces practitioners to waste time rebutting poorly evidenced claims rather than progressing tangible work that improves the experiences of students and staff.

    EDI professionals already face uphill battles – institutional resistance, inconsistent leadership commitment, racism fatigue, emotional labour, and the expectation to deliver transformation without redistribution of power or resource. The last thing the sector needs is yet another bad-faith intervention masquerading as concern for free speech while in practice bolstering those who want to dilute or roll back equity work entirely.

    Challenging such narratives isn’t optional – it’s a necessary act of protection, not only of EDI programmes, but of the very principle of a university as a place where knowledge, justice, and pluralism matter.

    Our task now is to respond with clarity and resolve. We refuse the false binary that pits equity against free speech and instead reaffirm that equity is the condition that makes free speech meaningful – not a threat to it. We’ll continue building a university where inclusion isn’t seen as a concession but as foundational to academic freedom, knowledge production, and social purpose.

    Our commitment remains unwavering – to build an institution that is anti-racist, decolonial, inclusive, and intellectually ambitious for everyone, and to do so despite those who seek to derail or discredit this work.

    Source link

  • New HEPI and London Economics Report: ‘Assessing potential manifesto commitments on higher education funding in Wales’

    New HEPI and London Economics Report: ‘Assessing potential manifesto commitments on higher education funding in Wales’

    Author:
    Dr Gavan Conlon, Maike Halterbeck, and Jack Booth

    Published:

    With the 2026 Senedd elections approaching, a new HEPI and London Economics report sets out what different higher education funding reforms in Wales could mean in practice.

    Assessing potential manifesto commitments on higher education funding in Wales models the financial and distributional impact of three prominent policy options linked to the parties currently leading the polls, offering rare clarity in a debate where formal manifesto commitments have yet to appear.

    The analysis examines the consequences of keeping Plan 2 loans, reducing maintenance grants for Welsh students studying elsewhere in the UK and abolishing loan interest while extending repayment terms to 45 years. The modelling shows starkly different outcomes. Cutting maintenance grants would reduce Exchequer costs but leave affected students worse off upfront, while eliminating interest rates would significantly increase public spending while lowering repayments for many graduates. The report also highlights how fiscal constraints imposed by the UK Treasury may sharply limit what any incoming Welsh Government can realistically deliver.

    At a time when Wales’s funding settlement is under mounting pressure, this evidence-based assessment provides essential insight into who would gain, who would lose and how sustainable each option would be. For anyone seeking to understand the real trade-offs facing policymakers – and the likely direction of travel after May’s election – this is essential reading. Click here to read the press release and find a link to the full report.

    Source link