Author: admin

  • College presidents’ survey finds alarm over Trump

    College presidents’ survey finds alarm over Trump

    Even before President Donald Trump unleashed a flurry of executive orders involving higher education, college and university presidents expressed serious concerns about his possible impact on the sector and on their own institutions. That’s according to findings released today from Inside Higher Ed’s forthcoming 2025 Survey of College and University Presidents with Hanover Research.

    More than half of presidents surveyed in December and early January—51 percent—at that point believed Trump’s second administration would have a somewhat or significant negative impact on the regulatory environment for higher education. Some 38 percent of respondents said they believed Trump would have a somewhat or significant positive impact on the regulatory environment, while the remainder expected his administration to have no impact. Male presidents were more likely than their female counterparts to express confidence in the Trump administration, with 42 percent of men responding that they expected an at least somewhat positive regulatory environment for the sector compared to 30 percent of women.

    Drilling down into specific concerns, the vast majority of presidents—80 percent—indicated Trump would have a negative impact on DEI across higher education. On an institutional level, 60 percent said he would negatively impact DEI efforts at their own colleges and universities.

    Presidents also expressed concerns about what Trump 2.0 would mean for public perceptions of higher education’s value, the climate for campus speech and the financial outlook for colleges and universities.

    The latest edition of the annual survey of presidents, now in its 15th year, includes responses from 298 leaders from a mix of two- and four-year institutions, public and private nonprofit. It was administered after Trump was elected but before he took office. The findings below are focused exclusively on his new administration and the broader political environment. The full survey, covering a broad range of issues relevant to college leaders, is forthcoming.

    Unpacking the Findings

    Given the timing of the survey and the rapid-fire executive orders and other actions that have followed, which included a temporary freeze on federal funding that created uncertainty and alarm across the sector, some experts believe presidents would respond even more negatively now.

    “I don’t think there’s any question that had this survey been done after Jan. 20, the numbers would be more negative than they were, with what we have seen since: the executive orders flowing out of the White House and funding freezes and just the chaos and uncertainty,” Michael Harris, a professor of higher education at Southern Methodist University, told Inside Higher Ed.

    “The survey indicates that presidents had some sense of what was coming,” Harris said. But he noted their “failure of imagination” to realize how quickly Trump would act.

    Already higher education is feeling the pressure on DEI, an area presidents anticipated would come under fire by the new administration.

    One of Trump’s first executive orders, issued on Jan. 21, called on federal agencies “to enforce our longstanding civil-rights laws and to combat illegal private-sector DEI preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities.” It also tasked Trump’s attorney general and the education secretary with crafting guidance for universities on how to comply with the 2023 Supreme Court ruling that banned the consideration of race in admissions policies.

    Universities have reacted in myriad ways to Trump’s attack on DEI. Last month the Rutgers University Center for Minority Serving Institutions canceled a virtual conference on apprenticeships at historically Black colleges and universities, and Michigan State University called off a lunch to celebrate Lunar New Year (but allowed other related events to go on).

    According to the survey, 71 percent of respondents believe that Trump will have a negative impact on the climate for free inquiry and civil dialogue across higher education. But only 52 percent said their own institution would suffer those negative effects.

    The majority of respondents—71 percent—also said Trump would have a negative financial impact on the sector. But at the institutional level, only 45 percent believe the same is true at their institution. And nearly a quarter of respondents believe he’ll positively affect their finances.

    Harris views with skepticism the belief among many presidents that their institutions will fare better than the rest of the sector. He argues that presidents can be “blinded” by proximity to their institution, which makes them overconfident in its strength.

    “I tend to believe the response around the industry more than the individual institution,” he said.

    But Anne Harris, president of Grinnell College—and no relation to Michael—believes that presidents have a firm grasp on their community “and all of its complexity,” which helps them better understand how a situation may play out on campus. She said that the “direct impact of a federal policy is always going to be negotiated, diffused and maybe absorbed by the multiplicity of constituencies on a campus.”

    While the new Republican president was the cause of concern for many respondents, presidents also expressed dissatisfaction with his Democratic predecessor, Joe Biden, last year.

    In Inside Higher Ed’s 2024 survey of College and University Presidents, only 33 percent of respondents indicated satisfaction with the Biden administration’s record on higher education. Last year’s survey found that 41 percent of respondents were completely or somewhat dissatisfied with Biden, who left behind a mixed legacy on higher education. He was accused of leaving some promises unfulfilled while overreaching in other areas, such as student loan forgiveness.

    Killing the Education Department

    One of Trump’s campaign promises was to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education, a process that he has already taken steps toward but that will likely face an uphill battle given that he would need congressional approval to shut it down, which Democrats have made clear they are unwilling to provide. Even with a Republican majority in the Senate, the move faces highly unlikely odds.

    The majority of presidents surveyed disapprove of shutting down the department: 72 percent opposed the idea and 21 percent indicated uncertainty, while 8 percent voiced support for the effort. Presidents of private, nonprofit institutions were most likely to support the move.

    Harris, the Grinnell College president, questions what role last year’s botched launch of the new Free Application for Federal Student Aid played in draining support from the Department of Education, given the financial pressures felt by countless students, families and institutions.

    “There are going to be very few presidents who are going to cheer what happened with FAFSA,” she said. “So maybe this is some FAFSA lack of confidence saying the Department of Education did not serve higher ed well with the FAFSA debacle last year. So why not try something else?”

    Brad Mortensen, president of Weber State University, offered a similar perspective.

    “It wouldn’t have surprised me if [that number] was higher, just given how rough of a time the Department of Education had in rolling out the new FAFSA,” Mortensen told Inside Higher Ed. “That had real impacts on all types of institutions across the country.”

    Both presidents indicated that the programs housed in ED are more important than the department itself. They are more concerned about the continued flow of federal financial aid, for example, than where it comes from—whether that’s ED or the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

    Ongoing Optimism

    Concerns about Trump notwithstanding, other findings in the forthcoming full survey were positive—including the financial outlook at the institutional level, despite clear signs of strain across the sector. (Financial findings will be covered in depth as part of the full survey release.)

    Some presidents believe that optimism comes with the job.

    “College and university presidents are a funny lot. As I was applying for this job, I had a past president tell me, ‘Brad, you have to be smart enough to get the job and dumb enough to take it.’ I think by nature, we tend to be naïve optimists because it’s a job with a lot of challenges,” Mortensen said.

    Source link

  • West Point disbands student groups for women and minorities

    West Point disbands student groups for women and minorities

    The United States Military Academy in West Point, N.Y., has shut down a dozen student affinity clubs to comply with President Donald Trump’s executive orders to eliminate federal funding for diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives and ensure that no member of the military “be preferred or disadvantaged on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, color, or creed,” The Washington Post reported.

    The Asian-Pacific Forum Club, the National Society of Black Engineers Club and the Latin Cultural Club are among the campus groups ordered to shut down, according to a memo sent Tuesday from Chad Foster, deputy commandant at West Point, to the Directorate of Cadet Activities.

    The memo orders all the identified clubs to “permanently cease all activities” and “unpublish, deactivate, archive or otherwise remove all public facing content.” It also orders the dozens of other clubs at West Point to “cease all activity” until they have been reviewed to ensure compliance with Trump’s executive orders and guidance from the Army and the Department of Defense. 

    Below is the full list of disbanded clubs, including some with decades-long histories at West Point, according to the Post:

    • The Asian-Pacific Forum Club
    • The Contemporary Cultural Affairs Seminar Club
    • The Corbin Forum
    • The Japanese Forum Club
    • The Korean-American Relations Seminar
    • The Latin Cultural Club
    • The Native American Heritage Forum
    • The National Society of Black Engineers (West Point chapter)
    • The Society for Hispanic Professional Engineers (West Point chapter)
    • The Society of Women Engineers (West Point chapter)
    • Spectrum
    • The Vietnamese-American Cadet Association

    Source link

  • The left should reclaim free speech mantle (opinion)

    The left should reclaim free speech mantle (opinion)

    If progressive or even not-so-progressive Jewish students invited comedian Sacha Baron Cohen to their university to perform his riotous parody “In My Country There Is Problem,” with its call-and-pogrom chorus “throw the Jew down the well / so my country can be free,” would Cohen be allowed on campus? If the song were indeed sung, and a few humorless, unthinking listeners were distressed by the lyrics, or at least claimed to be, would the Jewish students face discrimination and harassment charges under the university’s disciplinary code?

    Today, probably. Would they be found responsible for discrimination and harassment based on national origin? Again, probably. And what if a student band wished to parody the parody with a song titled something like, “Throw Chris Rufo Down the Well So My University Can Be Free”? Could the song be sung against the backdrop of students’ sensitivities and the reciprocated rage of today’s young conservative white men?

    In her recently published opinion essay for Inside Higher Ed, Joan W. Scott skewered the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and its vice president for campus advocacy, Alex Morey, for condemning the American Association of University Professors. Scott’s criticism of Morey’s criticism goes like this: Morey lambasted AAUP president Todd Wolfson’s expression of “disappointment” over Donald Trump’s re-election, arguing that Wolfson’s explicit partisanship betrays the AAUP’s purported commitment to academic freedom. Scott countered that FIRE is a libertarian wolf donning academic freedom drag. FIRE, explains Scott, is “dedicated to the absolutist principle of individual free speech,” a principle that is “not,” Scott italicizes, synonymous with academic freedom. In turn, Scott elaborates on academic freedom as “individual and collective rights of faculty as they pursue the mission of higher education in a democracy.”

    We agree with Scott that FIRE—with its many right-wing funding sources as Scott lists them—is unlikely to have our backs if and when the federal government comes to shut down diversity, equity and inclusion programs and cultural studies departments on campus (i.e., queer and Black studies). We respect, too, that Scott knows more about the history and purpose of academic freedom than we do.

    And yet, we worry that the line she draws between free speech and academic freedom—the former ideological and libertarian, the latter true and good—cedes too much. Indeed, her distinction hands “free speech” over to the conservative groups championing their anti-educational causes under its banner, and her dismissal of free speech defenses as apologia for racism lets stand, unnuanced, the left-originating but now right-appropriated proposition that combative, controversial speech is necessarily harmful in an egalitarian university environment. It is the quick conversion of (at times highly provocative) political speech into hate speech that allows “from the river to the sea” to be branded as categorically harassing antisemitism—a conversion that would so quickly ban Jews from sending up antisemitism (“throw the Jew down the well”), ban musicians from joking about drowning Rufo or prohibit, for that matter, marginalized groups from reappropriating slurs to divest them of their injurious force.

    In short, we think there is still good reason—several good reasons—for the academic left to defend speech, both as elemental to academic freedom and as a democratic value unto itself.

    We and nearly every colleague we know have stories of students hastily claiming talk—talk of sex, Israel, Palestine and criticism of affirmative action—as intimidating, harassing or discriminating. It seems to us that a robust defense of academic freedom must include healthy skepticism, but not outright cynicism, of the proposition that words injure. Skepticism, not cynicism, because words may hurt people, further subordinate marginalized groups and erode democratic ideals. David Beaver’s and Jason Stanley’s recently published The Politics of Language draws on critical race and feminist theory to show how some speech acts—affective, nondeliberative and/or racist dog whistles—function to polarize and degrade.

    But we also know, especially in the wake of spurious discrimination claims against campus activists and academics protesting Israel’s military campaigns, that conservative stakeholders are weaponizing the idea of words as weapons, alleging atmospheres of harassment to chill political speech—a project, we must concede, that the left paved the way for.

    Indeed, around 2013, as trigger warnings gained traction on college campuses, the right repackaged “free speech” as the inalienable freedom of anyone to speak on any topic without consequence, especially if that consequence is the loss of a platform. Instead of drawing on the left’s history of free speech advocacy, scholars of “identity knowledges” centered attention on the moral wrongness of offensive speech and the intolerability of feeling unsafe. This shift left progressives defending feelings rather than ideas, collapsing political discord with dehumanization—or, as Sarah Schulman argues, conflict with abuse. Now, with free speech reduced to melodrama, even the Christian right claims to protect its constituents against “harm”—whether from critical race theory or drag shows—rendering the issue a conceit of the culture wars.

    In his much-ridiculed op-ed for The New York Times published last year, linguist John McWhorter lamented that he and his students were unable to listen to John Cage’s silent “4:33” during class, as the silence would have been interrupted by the sound of student protests. The irony that McWhorter chided the protesters for impeding his students from appreciating Cage’s invitation to listen to “the surrounding noise” of the environs was not lost on McWhorter’s critics.

    What was not commented on, though, was McWhorter’s contention that if a group of students had been shouting “DEI has got to die” with the same fervor with which they were shouting for Palestine’s self-determination, then the protests “would have lasted roughly five minutes before masses of students shouted them down and drove them off the campus. Chants like that would have been condemned as a grave rupture of civilized exchange, heralded as threatening resegregation and branded as a form of violence.”

    Whether correct or not, McWhorter’s speculation is not baseless. We want to insist, though, that there are left, not just libertarian, grounds to defend, for example, a student protest against DEI initiatives. They include: respecting and celebrating the university as a space of open dialogue and debate; the possibility that you might learn something from someone with whom you disagree; the opportunity to lampoon, parody or otherwise countermand whatever worse-than-foolish statement the opposition is making; the opportunity, as John Stuart Mill taught us, to strengthen your own ideas and arguments alongside and against the ideas of others; and finally, avoiding the inevitable backlash of “the cancel,” whereby censored conservatives rebrand themselves as truth-telling victims of the “woke.”

    Granted, some of these grounds for defending speech tilt more liberal or libertarian than pure left, whatever that means, but we nonetheless maintain that it is self-defeating for us to carry the banner for “academic freedom” while consigning “free speech” to the province of white grievance. This is especially true for those of us teaching queer and critical sexuality studies, where classrooms and related spaces of activism and dialogue are increasingly circumscribed, the harm principle ever more unprincipled. Consider the case of Aneil Rallin, who in 2022 was accused by Soka University of America of teaching “triggering” sexual materials to his students in a course called Writing the Body, and whose case—while taken up by FIRE—was met with little alarm from the academic left.

    It also applies to those of us who still recognize satire, irony and social commentary in an age of breathtaking literalism. In 2011, the Dire Straits song “Money for Nothing” (1985) was temporarily banned from Canadian radio for its use of the f-slur, even though the term was intended as a commentary on working-class homophobia. The drive to censor and demonize without regard for social context has arguably gotten stronger in the years since.

    From the recent historical record, it seems to us that the enforcement of bureaucratic speech restrictions often damages campus culture and democratic norms more than the speech acts themselves. Indeed, the better question than is X speech act harmful is, to crib from Wendy Brown, when—if ever and at what costs—are speech restrictions the remedy for injury?

    Debating DEI programs, myths of meritocracy and so on is the stuff of academic freedom. A speech act like “DEI must die” is provocative, abrasive and worth publicly disparaging, but it is not the same as hate speech. Song parodies will not save us from the dark years ahead for public education, academic freedom and egalitarian pedagogies of all kinds. But our battle preparations demand standing up for, not surrendering, free speech.

    Joseph J. Fischel is an associate professor of women’s, gender and sexuality studies at Yale University.

    Kyler Chittick is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Political Science at the University of Alberta.

    Source link

  • Lessons for new leaders from longtime marcomm staff

    Lessons for new leaders from longtime marcomm staff

    Over the past five years of conducting organizational capability assessments of higher education marketing and communications departments, my colleagues and I have interviewed hundreds of internal stakeholders. It’s the most fascinating aspect of the work, hearing directly from campus colleagues both inside and outside the department about their perspectives and experiences related to organizational life and departmental effectiveness.

    Through these conversations, valuable insights have emerged thanks to longtime marcomm staff—those team members who have contributed 10 or more years of professional service to their departments. (Note: I use the term “marcomm” to reflect that a blended marketing and communications structure is the typical model in higher education. The nuance and complexity of marketing and communications as distinct but related functions are topics for another post.)

    These insights, framed as reflection questions below, are especially relevant for leaders beginning a new senior role, such as a cabinet-level VP, CMCO or an executive director leading the marcomm function for an academic college or school.

    1. Is “restructuring” an end or a means?

    When longtime staff members discuss organizational structure changes, their healthy skepticism is palpable. They invariably associate these changes with leadership transitions. A “re-org” happened because there was a new VP (just as strategic plans often coincide with new presidents). The perceived impetus for change is simply having new leadership rather than any larger strategic purpose. We frequently hear some version of, “The structure changes and then eventually changes back with a different VP.”

    I’d much rather staff members describe those structural changes as enabling their function to fulfill a more strategic role and more meaningfully advance the institution’s highest priorities. It’s a reminder to leaders that structure should follow strategy, so the task is to ensure that the strategy is clear, reinforced and reflected in decision-making.

    Moreover, leaders should move beyond thinking in terms of discrete “restructures” or “re-orgs.” Organizational change isn’t a periodic event; top-performing departments are constantly adapting and evolving to best serve their guiding purpose amidst changing conditions.

    1. What is the real value of institutional knowledge?

    We undervalue institutional knowledge. Your longtime staff members possess deep institutional knowledge, which we unfortunately may dismiss as outdated or irrelevant. Instead, think of institutional knowledge as a source for critical context and sense making to help you navigate the road ahead and lead positive change.

    ​​In The Practice of Adaptive Leadership, Heifetz, Linsky and Grashow emphasize that “successful adaptive changes build on the past rather than jettison it.” The challenge for leaders lies in “distinguishing what is essential to preserve from their organization’s heritage from what is expendable.” Long-tenured staff members’ insights and institutional knowledge are invaluable in building this understanding.

    As the authors note, “Successful adaptations are thus both conservative and progressive. They make the best possible use of previous wisdom and know-how. The most effective leadership anchors change in the values, competencies and strategic orientations that should endure in the organization.” New senior leaders, eager to deliver results or serve as change agents, may overlook this crucial balance.

    1. What does upskilling require of the organization?

    The responsibilities of longtime staff members have likely evolved significantly since their initial hiring. New or different types of work are needed as marcomm’s scope expands, audience preferences shift and technologies emerge. Growing these competencies is a shared responsibility requiring genuine organizational commitment. The onus cannot rest solely on individual staff members. Upskilling or reskilling demands adequate time and resources—even when workloads are heavy and budgets are constrained.

    Professional development funding is often the first casualty of budget reductions. But if the organizational approach to professional development has been mostly reactive, then we shouldn’t be surprised by the lack of budget prioritization. This ad hoc approach to professional development points to a larger issue: the absence of formalized talent management practices in marketing and communications.

    Where can you build more intentionality into your organization’s efforts to recruit, develop, support and retain staff? Look to your central human resources team for guidance and learn from your colleagues in advancement, where larger and more mature advancement operations have dedicated talent management functions. Start small by operationalizing your department’s practices in a specific area such as orientation and onboarding. These focused efforts can create momentum for broader talent management initiatives.

    Long-serving staff members serve as both historians and bridges to the future, stewarding institutional values while helping new executives thoughtfully evolve their organizations. When properly engaged and supported, these veteran team members can be catalysts in your efforts to build—or further build—a high-performing department that drives lasting institutional progress. I hope these reflection questions prompt ideas that help your marketing and communications department be people centered and future ready.

    Rob Zinkan is vice president for marketing leadership at RHB, a division of Strata Information Group. He joined RHB in 2019 after more than 20 years in higher education administration with senior positions in marketing and advancement. He also teaches graduate courses as an adjunct in strategic communications and higher education leadership.

    Source link

  • Alumni-in-residence programs aid student development

    Alumni-in-residence programs aid student development

    Alumni-in-residence programs provide career insight and professional skill-building to students.

    SDI Productions/E+/Getty Images

    A May 2024 Student Voice survey found 29 percent of students believe their college or university should prioritize or focus more on connecting students to alumni and other potential mentors.

    Colleges and universities often have connections to a wide range of successful graduates who can provide insight and support to current students, but creating organic relationships between the two groups can be a challenge.

    One initiative institutions have undertaken is establishing alumni-in-residence programs to offer career development opportunities for current students.

    How it works: Similar to a formal mentoring program, alumni in residence hold one-on-one conversations with learners to address the student’s career goals and answer questions related to work or life after college.

    The alumni-in-residence program, however, asks alums to serve in a variety of functions, including panel presentations, etiquette dinners and a networking reception, as needed.

    What’s the value: Alumni can offer specific insights into career pathways from their alma mater into their current role, helping highlight the student journey in a unique way. Involving former students in career services can also increase funding and support for the institution. A 2024 survey by Gravyty found alumni who have participated in a mentoring program say they are 200 percent more likely to donate in the future.

    Effective career services can also impact a student’s perception of their institution after graduation; 19 percent of alumni reported receiving strong career support from their institution, and those alumni are 2.8 times more likely to say their degree is worth the tuition, according to the 2023 National Alumni Career Mobility Annual Report.

    A 2025 analysis by Gravyty also found 46 percent of alumni rank career support and networking as the most valuable services their alma mater can provide, yet only 40 percent of engagement programs at universities include mentoring opportunities.

    Who’s doing it: Some of the institutions hosting an alumni-in-residence program include:

    Do you have a career prep tip that might help others encourage student success? Tell us about it.

    Source link

  • The case for social action

    The case for social action

    As social action charity Student Hubs closes on 31 January 2025, we have spent the past six months creating resources, toolkits and a report which advocates for growing student social action within universities: we want to share an overview of our case and legacy to the higher education sector.

    Student Hubs was developed by students in 2007, growing across England and Wales to deliver volunteering, events, conferences, training programmes and in-curricular activities. We reached 20,000 students across 10 Hub locations, including engaging 1,200 community organisations and over 16,000 community members. In 2023-24 our activities represented over 8,000 hours contributed to social issues across Bristol, Birmingham, Cambridge, London and Southampton. We are keen for universities to step up to meet the vast gap we will be leaving within the sector.

    A Government definition in 2016 framed social action as ‘people coming together to help improve their lives and solve the problems that are important in their communities’. Our ‘Case for Social Action’ looks through the lens of Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson’s call to the sector in November 2024 outlining what the Labour Government expects universities to achieve moving forward. We summarise how social action can meet these agendas in practice.

    ‘Expanding access and improving outcomes for disadvantaged students’

    Through social action there are opportunities to meet both the needs of young people and our current students, which we saw through delivering tutoring, school clubs, Saturday activity days, library and community-based activities and in-school workshops. We have seen first-hand how social action activities meet university agendas on access, student employability and civic engagement.

    Speaking about Libraries Plus, where students provided tutoring support in libraries in Southampton, our student coordinator Sahiba from the University of Southampton shared:

    Libraries Plus is an extremely rewarding and enriching project. At the start of term, a volunteer who is an international student was wary about their English speaking skills: by the end of term, they let me know how much their confidence and social skills had bloomed … parents constantly let me know how pleased they were with the project and how valuable the tutoring had been for their children, who just needed that little bit of extra help to unlock their full potential.

    Civic roles and economic growth

    Students need to play a much bigger part in universities delivering knowledge exchange, research and civic engagement activities. In our 2022-23 impact data, 71% of partners agreed that working with the Hub had positively changed their perceptions of university students, and 86% agreed that working with the Hub had given them a sense of connection to the student community. In a landscape where ‘only 10% of respondents listed more funding for universities as a priority’ in polling conducted by Public First prior to the 2024 general election, universities need to build stronger relationships with the public and share their expertise and resources.

    For students, engaging with local organisations and community members enriches the in-curricular experience. In 2020-21, Dina, an International Business student at Kingston University, took part in a module that Student Hubs delivered in partnership with academics as part of our Community Engaged Learning approach, which embedded real-life briefs with socially impactful organisations. Dina consulted for a local organisation on adapting their marketing, programmes and outreach to engage a wider community of users in the Greater London area. She said:

    It has been extremely beneficial, mainly because it has given me practical experience in learning more about different cultures. The fact that in this case my team and I were able to deal with issues related to the module whilst being able to communicate with the client directly helped to make a lot of theories and topics come into practice. It has been very inspirational to work directly with a community partner as it allowed me to actually understand the reality behind how some members of society are being integrated and given me insight into details to take into consideration in a professional environment to communicate with clients with confidence and competence.

    Through this module, the partner organisation received research and recommendations they could implement in their local activities: an example of free knowledge exchange and capacity which the Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise (VCSE) sector vitally needs right now. Student social action, facilitating staff volunteering for trusteeships and governorships and partnership activities which fill the funding the VCSE sector is struggling to achieve from elsewhere are all ways in which universities can support their regions to make genuine change. Speaking as a charity ourselves that is closing, we urge universities to do more to support these local organisations and integrate them into the university experience.

    University reform

    Embedding civic activities and social action, alongside the necessity for universities to reform, presents the opportunity to streamline and prioritise what the university experience means. This includes how the community is integrated into teaching, learning and extracurriculars and how graduate skills are embedded into all facets of university life. Social action should be fun, social and engaging, designed to inspire and develop students into individuals with the skills to make change. Our student and graduate cohorts are facing deep systemic social issues which they are desperate to face, but are struggling to know how to do so amidst balancing their commitments for study, work and making connections with their peers and place.

    Social action can provide the space to do this and more for students and communities: what is needed is the long-term investment in our cause by universities themselves, now that Student Hubs are no longer there to champion student social action.

    You can read Student Hubs’ ‘The Case for Social Action’ report here and access Student Hubs’ collected toolkits and resources for universities here and at the Civic University Network website from February 2025 onwards.

    Source link

  • Nils Gilman on Trump’s coming assault on universities (Matthew Sheffield, Theory of Change)

    Nils Gilman on Trump’s coming assault on universities (Matthew Sheffield, Theory of Change)

    The second term of Donald Trump has officially begun, but despite all the things he’s unveiled in the past several weeks, we don’t know fully what his policies are going to be over the next four years. 

    That is in part because Trump himself is a very erratic figure who says things that are nonsensical, even by his own standards. And also because while there are documents such as Project 2025 which were created by Trump’s ideological allies in the reactionary movement, that document itself is not particularly detailed in a number of ways.

    But one thing we can be sure is going to happen in the second Trump administration is that he will conduct a full-scale assault on America’s colleges and universities. As a candidate, he did promise to create taxes on private university endowments. And he also talked about removing the funding for universities that don’t bow to his various censorship demands.

    Unlike a number of other Trumpian boasts and threats, he is very likely to follow through on these ones because Republicans in a number of states and localities have enacted many of the policies that Trump has talked about doing on the campaign trail.

    Joining me today to talk about all this is Nils Gilman, a friend of the show who is the chief operating officer at the Berggruen Institute, a think tank in Southern California that publishes Noema Magazine. He is also the former associate chancellor at the University of California, Berkeley, where he saw first-hand just what the [00:02:00] Republican vision for education in the United States is. He’s also the co-author of a new book called Children of a Modest Star, which we discuss at the end of the episode.
       

    Source link

  • Fairness and protection for students is coming – but not for those that need it now

    Fairness and protection for students is coming – but not for those that need it now

    As well as a new condition of registration on governance (covered elsewhere on the site by my colleague David Kernohan), the Office for Students (OfS) has announced a new approach focussed on providers “treating students fairly”.

    There will be a new condition of registration – replacing existing ones on consumer protection guidance and student protection plans – aimed at institutions providing students with clear, easy to access information about what will happen if changes are made to their course, and fair processes for refunds and compensation and complaints.

    Broadly, OfS will shift from expecting providers to pay “due regard” to guidance from the Competition and Markets Authority towards itself making judgements – both about compliance with consumer law, and some of its own higher standards for fairness.

    It says that students have told the regulator that they want to receive a high quality education that reflects their financial investment and the experience they were promised, and that they want to be treated fairly – but that while many students do not explicitly refer to their experiences as consumers, words such as “fairness” and “honesty” are often used when they describe specific experiences and promises that have not been met.

    As cuts continue across the sector, a heavy focus on financial sustainability both inside providers and the regulator almost certainly means an enhanced risk that students will feel unfairly treated when their courses or wider experiences shoulder the burden of savings reductions. Often those feelings will be legally justified.

    But the jaw-to-the-floor astonishing thing – given OfS’ positioning as a risk-based regulator – is that none of the new proposals in this area will apply to currently regulated providers:

    We recognise that proposing to strengthen protections and ensure consistency of information for students of providers registered under [new] proposed initial condition C5 would mean that different arrangements would be in place for different groups of students, depending on when their provider was registered.

    Changes to ongoing regulatory requirements for registered providers are not within the scope of the current consultation. However our ultimate aim is to strengthen protections and ensure consistency of information for all students at all OfS-registered providers. In doing so, we would aim to align ongoing requirements for all registered providers, and we therefore envisage that having different requirements for different providers would be an interim position.

    Proposals to achieve this alignment, and to ensure that all students are treated fairly on an ongoing basis, would form part of a future consultation on ongoing requirements for currently registered providers.

    That’s right – well over five years since the bones of its new approach were set out in a paper to its board, in a context where the risks to students in this space have intensified significantly, better protecting students inside providers already on the register is parked as an “ultimate aim” with an unspecified date. And so for some, what follows below shifts from “need to get across” to “of mild passing interest for the time being”.

    Doing so much harm, doing so much damage

    The main thrust of the new approach to “fairness” – telegraphed by Director for Fair Access and Participation John Blake last summer – has a couple of key components.

    First, rather than relying on the Competition and Markets Authority, or the courts, or National Trading Standards to take action or make a judgement over an issue, it’s taking that in-house.

    And to go alongside that, it’s taking existing legislation – mainly consumer protection law, but there’s other bits too – and adding to it to form a new mega-definition of what it considers to represent “fairness”, partly to address the cat-nip nature of the “consumer” nomenclature.

    As well as the engagement feedback it’s had from students, it’s doing this based on experience. Examples it has seen include omitting material information, like additional course costs or registration fees, leading students to make uninformed decisions.

    It says it’s come across providers withdrawing offers after acceptance due to over- or under-subscription, leaving students unable to secure alternative options and stuck with financial commitments like accommodation. It has also come across – and referred to trading standards – like contractual terms that limit providers’ obligations during staff industrial disputes that may prevent students from receiving adequate teaching or compensation.

    It’s also seen issues involving complaints processes that impose unreasonable barriers, like short submission windows, which hinder students from seeking redress and compensation.

    And it’s picked up on false or misleading advertising, including claims about financial aid, course accreditation, or a provider’s status as a university, that may mislead students into pursuing programs that fail to deliver expected outcomes – where as a result, students may complete courses only to find that their certificates lack the value or recognition they anticipated.

    One might ask, if it’s seen all of that in its current crop of registered providers, why it’s consulting on souping up its regulation only in newly registered providers for the time being.

    But you don’t wanna get involved

    But on the assumption (which, from experience, is a dangerous one) it gets there in the end, it’s worth looking at what it’s proposing in detail.

    First thing on fairness. Currently, providers have to demonstrate compliance with consumer protection law when they apply to be on the register – but are not required to show how they more broadly ensure “fair treatment” of students.

    This, it says, can result in situations where providers meet regulatory conditions but still have unfair policies or terms affecting students. So the proposed changes aim to better protect students by ensuring that providers’ policies and practices are fair and safeguard consumer interests consistently – avoiding a situation where students end up having to legally challenge unfair terms, and moving towards an approach of requiring providers to act fairly from the outset.

    In that lovely OfS way, it will then assess whether a provider treats students fairly through a requirement that identifies when a provider does not treat students fairly. The old “I don’t know what a seminar is, but a 100 people in a room isn’t one” is the vibe here.

    A bunch of negative behaviours will be set out, and assessments will evaluate whether providers meet the condition by identifying the presence or absence of those negative behaviours – a “streamlined process” that it says will result in a clear “satisfied” or “not satisfied” outcome.

    The specifics of that run like this. If actions (or omissions) either fall within one or more descriptions, which it proposes to set out in a separate “OfS prohibited behaviours list”, or give rise to a likelihood of detriment or actual detriment to the student (except where reasonable in all the relevant circumstances), then the application gets the big red “unfair” stamp.

    The definition of unfair treatment it’s proposing draws on consumer protection law and CMA guidance, which it says are already familiar to higher education providers (notwithstanding that a whole chunk of it is changing, which I looked at earlier on the site here). The key bit is that OfS is aiming to offer an additional layer of protection beyond editing legal requirements – the proposed list of negative behaviours is not confined to those explicitly prohibited by law.

    And for consumer law fans, contract terms that may be regarded as unfair according to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (the so-called “grey list”) will always be unfair in OfS-world – particularly over changes to courses, refund and compensation policies and contract terms and conditions:

    We are proposing to consider documents beyond those that may ordinarily have contractual effect and the condition therefore has a wider scope than consumer protection law. Our initial view is that this is appropriate because students may rely on a wider range of documents in practice.

    Some will regard that as overreach – others will feel reassured that the square peg/round hold of applying consumer law to the relationship between student and university will be properly addressed.

    The other thing in here for consumer law detail fans is that the draft condition proposes that a provider would not be regarded as treating a student fairly if, in OfS’s reasonable opinion, its actions or omissions (including those that are proposed or likely) give rise to a likelihood of detriment or actual detriment to the student.

    That’s odd because, as I explained on the site a few days ago, consumer law and the way the CMA is proposing to apply it is moving away from a “detriment test” and towards banning some behaviours regardless.

    And excuses will be available – whether it is reasonable to argue that the course of action proposed or taken is, or was, necessary in the circumstances; whether those circumstances are, or were, in the control of the provider; and whether the provider is doing, or has done, everything possible to limit the extent of any detriment. That opens up all sorts of “what ifs” – including those on “but we were about to collapse and you told us not to collapse” – that OfS officials will doubtless be fielding on webinars in the coming weeks.

    One curious aspect of the proposal – at least as it’s set out here – concerns the difference between an “initial” condition and an “ongoing” condition of registration. OfS is proposing new C5 on fairness explicitly here as an “initial” condition – so it’s principally proposing to look at a bunch of documents and policies before it lets a provider onto the register.

    Of course not only can those policies change, it’s often the way they’re implemented (or not) and interpreter that matters more – the consultation is oddly silent on whether new C5 will also become an ongoing condition of registration that OfS could intervene on later.

    In fact it feels like OfS is under pressure to get registrations going again, isn’t quite ready on this fairness stuff, and so has half slipped it into an announcement on new registrations for the time being.

    I know you wanna live yourself

    This being OfS, you actually have to fish your way to page 72 of the consultation document at Annex D to see what it’s proposing as prohibited behaviours – and it’s in seven sections, covering key documents, descriptions relating to conduct and omissions, the clarity and legibility of key documents and other information for students, policies on changes to courses, complaints processes, refund and compensation policies and fake reviews.

    The first of those picks up much of the casework that it’s been referring to National Trading Standards – clauses that deny students the ability to offset payments due to provider failures, clauses that allow providers to withdraw offers at their discretion, particularly due to oversubscription, penalties for withdrawing or unmet obligations, and those that give universities the ability to terminate contracts or define terms at will.

    There’s also stuff on contracts that limit students’ access to legal recourse or impose restrictive dispute resolution processes, those that allow providers to transfer their obligations to other entities without student consent, and ones that allow a provider to determine whether the services supplied conform with the contract.

    In the actions and omissions bit, there’s claiming OfS registration or the right to use the term “university” without permission; offering degrees without appropriate authority or contracts; falsely asserting validation, accreditation, or endorsement by another body; displaying unauthorised logos, trust marks, or quality marks; and making definitive claims about future registration, university status, or authorisations that have not been granted.

    Pleasing to these eyes at least is also advertising or promoting courses, services, or facilities without disclosing reasonable doubts about the provider’s ability to deliver them; intending not to deliver what was advertised and/or planning to provide an alternative, and applying pressure to force immediate decisions, such as falsely claiming that an offer or its terms are available for a limited time only, depriving students of the opportunity to make an informed choice.

    There’s also communicating with prospective students in a non-English language without disclosing that services will be provided in English (!), presenting legal rights as unique features of the provider (!!) and using paid media content to promote services without clearly identifying it as advertising (!!!). It all goes on.

    In fact this list gets better as you move down it. Publishing false or inaccurate information about market conditions or competitors to induce students to sign contracts, offering prizes or rewards without delivering them or without disclosing associated costs, and falsely describing services as free when hidden costs exist are in there too – as well as making persistent, unwanted contact with applicants or students through various communication channels – defined partly in reference to harassment legislation.

    Maybe you work in a provider where you assume that the further down that list you get, the less likely it is that any of that happens. If you’re paying agents – either domestically or internationally – I can pretty much assure you that there’s a real iceberg below that tip.

    Clarity and legibility covers off documents that are hard to read or use unclear language, or fail to specify how they apply to different time periods or categories of students. Complaints unfairness includes strict time limits, no clear contact point, a lack of clear and reasonable timescales, and the one derisory mention of the Office of the Independent Adjudicator’s complaints scheme.

    And the section on changes hedges its bets a bit – there has to be clear stuff on the circumstances where changes may occur (like alterations to course content, qualifications, mode of study, teaching location, and fees), measures to address the needs of specific student groups, such as those with accessibility needs, and those policies must ensure that all students are treated fairly if such changes are implemented. Examples of where providers reserve too much of a right to make changes after the fact (“but all of those optional modules that you chose here for were not material”, and so on) are missing in action.

    Oh – and refund and compensation policies have to clearly outline the circumstances under which students are entitled to refunds or compensation (along with the methods used to calculate both!), and picking up some of that DMCC 2024 stuff, fake reviews are called out too – which include falsely claiming authorship by a student, concealing incentives provided for reviews, manipulating reviews by hiding or removing negative ones, and not taking reasonable steps to prevent or remove fake reviews.

    But could you forgive yourself

    Some other aspects of note. OfS expects all providers to comply with the law and as a starter any provider found not to have done so gets that “not fair” stamp. That includes consumer protection law, the Education Reform Act 1988 (unrecognised degrees), the Companies Act 2006 (failure to comply with a Secretary of State direction to change a company name, or a name giving misleading indication of activities).

    It’s also chucking in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 to address circumstances where a provider imposes academic sanctions for non-payment of non-tuition fee debts, the thing that originally led the then Office for Fair Trading to start thinking about the way consumer law applied to students in the first place in the last decade.

    Of particular interest is scope. It covers relationships with current, prospective, and former students – the first and third of that list theoretically pick up rights that they often don’t have now. It obviously applies to all modes and levels of study, including online, face-to-face, or hybrid delivery. It naturally extends to providers operating through partnerships or intending to do so. But it also includes ancillary services and the provision of student information – including marketing and advertising.

    Ancillary services are defined here as services provided between a provider and a student as part of their higher education experience, including library services, disability support, scholarships, accommodation, and sports facilities:

    These services can influence a student’s decision on where to study and their overall higher education experience. Unclear or inaccurate information about these services may affect a student’s choice of provider or course, while unclear or unfair terms of service may negatively impact their experience.

    This is very good news for students who, from experience, are often told that stuff on or adjacent to that list can be cut because it’s not “part of the contract” or “on the CMA material information list” (it’s in the footnotes, actually). It should make it much harder to slash that intercampus bus, or cut 24 hour libraries down to 12.

    I stand in front of you

    What’s that you say? What happens to student protection plans? I’ve written extensively on the failure of that regime on the site before, suffice to say that the Higher Education and Research Act still mentions them, and OfS’ way around that is to argue that Condition C4, introduced in 2021, allows it to issue student protection directions if there is a material risk of a provider ceasing higher education provision – so C3 (have an SPP) is being deleted, and instead the suite of documents it will look at in pursuit of all of the above will, in effect, constitute a provider’s student protection plan.

    This makes lots of sense – SPPs were inconsistent, protections were assessed on OfS’ judgement of provider risk rather than the granularity pockets of students face in a large provider, and in theory means consistency from their point of view.

    So the silly SPP “risk assessment” goes – the one that right now probably says your university is swimming in cash as it announces a round of redundancies – and instead all of the above will have to appear on a single webpage to allow a “one stop shop” for students.

    You might also wonder where that strategy proposal has gone – the one that Jo Johnson proposed before OfS was born, and the one that Gavin Williamson proposed too – a “model contract” that sets out students’ rights and obligations, alongside the obligations of providers. It’s being parked for now as a potential addition:

    We may therefore explore development work in this area through further discussion and engagement with the sector, outside the current consultation process and alongside, rather than instead of, the introduction of a new initial condition of registration.

    On reflection, one glaring omission in here concerns what a provider can and can’t do when it comes to fee increases for continuing students – a cynic might argue that that’s controversial enough right now without OfS wading in and… protecting students. But given Ofcom has now banned in-contract price increases altogether, it does look like a huge hole.

    The other thing I’m surprised to see missing is the protection aspects of progression. There are plenty of providers that advertise a “BA in Wonkhe studies with an integrated foundation year” which technically and internally consists of an FY and a degree course – where the closure of the degree course seems to not trigger the same protections for those left high and dry as a second or third year disappearing. See also students who were “sold” a UG on the basis of progression to a vital PGT qualification.

    It’s also disappointing to see little mention of the sort of pressure that students can be under to make what the CMA, in its draft guidance on the DMCC, would call a “transactional decision” like agreeing to a (contract) variation. CMA’s definition of consumer vulnerability and its insistence than in practice, offering students the chance to exit a contract if they’re not happy with changes is not one most can make is a huge issue across the sector right now – and both is and will be a big driver of those “dishonesty” and “unfairness” perceptions that OfS leads the consultation off with. The lack of mention of the issues in the ongoing Student Group Claim – especially when OfS was pontificating about those issues during Covid – is wild.

    The single mention of the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA) is also one to ponder on – partly because it’s the OIA that has tended to take the lead on judging (conceptually at least) fairness for students. Even if we set aside the politics, it won’t help for two sets of guidance to be floating around on what “fairness” means in practice – and students surely deserve these two grown-ups getting in a room to reconcile their advice on rights.

    One other thing that continues to vex me about the proposals and the approach is the obsession with OfS’ powers over student power. Some of this sort of stuff is about providers doing the right thing – but so much of it is about students understanding their rights, so that when someone says “well all those optional modules aren’t contractual”, they can put up a fight.

    It really wouldn’t be hard for OfS to write in something similar to that which we saw in Poland recently – where it’s the law that SUs are given the support to tell students about their rights (and responsibilities) in a way that barely goes near the catnip of consumerism. Beyond the wording of policies, some students are going to be treated unfairly sometimes – steps that ensure they know it beyond a feeling are surely a precursor to effective regulation. It’s hard to ever accept OfS announcements about student focus or student empowerment without that shift in approach that other regulators seem to understand.

    As such, the framing of it all is a bit odd given, as I say, this is being proposed as an initial rather than an ongoing condition of registration at this stage – sat within this need to announce what it’s doing about a growing backlog of applications. Some of the wording only really makes sense in terms of what providers do in practice, not what some PDF says on a website. We’re left assuming that what’s in here will, at some later date, apply beyond the day OfS says yes or no to a new provider – but even critiquing that appears to be outside of the scope of the consultation.

    It’s certainly interesting for OfS to be consulting providers, SUs and students and students on stuff that won’t apply to most of them, but might, in a slightly different way, apply them at an unspecified future time.

    Overall, this looks like great news for students – finally, an education regulator properly thinking through the ways in which students are treated unfairly. But to return to the astonishing aspect of all of this – what is being proposed here is one set of rights for students in a new(ly registering) provider, and another set of much weaker ones for everyone else, all in the name of “fairness”, at just the point that providers are under pressure to not deliver on some of the promises they made to students.

    The lack of justification or explanation for that is alarming – and while I often do my best to not speculate or attribute motive, it would be hard for students braving a read of this to conclude anything other than OfS has resolved that the financial sustainability horse needs to have fully bolted before the regulatory framework stable door is closed in their interests.

    Source link

  • The US Will Lose To China If It Doesn’t Stop (Rogue Rocket)

    The US Will Lose To China If It Doesn’t Stop (Rogue Rocket)

    Source link

  • Another way of thinking about the national assessment of people, culture, and environment

    Another way of thinking about the national assessment of people, culture, and environment

    There is a multi-directional relationship between research culture and research assessment.

    Poor research assessment can lead to poor research cultures. The Wellcome Trust survey in 2020 made this very clear.

    Assessing the wrong things (such as a narrow focus on publication indicators), or the right things in the wrong way (such as societal impact rankings based on bibliometrics) is having a catalogue of negative effects on the scholarly enterprise.

    Assessing the assessment

    In a similar way, too much research assessment can also lead to poor research cultures. Researchers are one of the most heavily assessed professions in the world. They are assessed for promotion, recruitment, probation, appraisal, tenure, grant proposals, fellowships, and output peer review. Their lives and work are constantly under scrutiny, creating competitive and high-stress environments.

    But there is also a logic (Campbell’s Law) that tells us that if we assess research culture it can lead to greater investment into improving it. And it is this logic that the UK Joint HE funding bodies have drawn on in their drive to increase the weighting given to the assessment of People, Culture & Environment in REF 2029. This makes perfect sense: given the evidence that positive and healthy research cultures are a thriving element of Research Excellence, it would be remiss of any Research Excellence Framework not to attempt to assess, and therefore incentivise them.

    The challenge we have comes back to my first two points. Even assessing the right things, but in the wrong way, can be counterproductive, as may increasing the volume of assessment. Given research culture is such a multi-faceted concept, the worry is that the assessment job will become so huge that it quickly becomes burdensome, thus having a negative impact on those research cultures we want to improve.

    It ain’t what you do, it’s the way that you do it

    Just as research culture is not so much about the research that you do but the way that you do it, so research culture assessment should concern itself not so much with the outcomes of that assessment but with the way the assessment takes place.

    This is really important to get right.

    I’ve argued before that research culture is a hygiene factor. Most dimensions of culture relate to standards that it’s critically important we all get right: enabling open research, dealing with misconduct, building community, supporting collaboration, and giving researchers the time to actually do research. These aren’t things for which we should offer gold stars but basic thresholds we all should meet. And to my mind they should be assessed as such.

    Indeed this is exactly how the REF assessed open research in 2021 (and will do so again in 2029). They set an expectation that 95 per cent of qualifying outputs should be open access, and if you failed to hit the threshold, excess closed outputs were simply unclassified. End of. There were no GPAs for open access.

    In the tender for the PCE indicator project, the nature of research culture as a hygiene factor was recognised by proposing “barrier to entry” measures. The expectation seemed to be that for some research culture elements institutions would be expected to meet a certain threshold, and if they failed they would be ineligible to even submit to REF.

    Better use of codes of practice

    This proposal did not make it into the current PCE assessment pilot. However, the REF already has a “barrier to entry” mechanism, of course, which is the completion of an acceptable REF Code of Practice (CoP).

    An institution’s REF CoP is about how they propose to deliver their REF, not how they deliver their research (although there are obvious crossovers). And REF have distinguished between the two in their latest CoP Policy module governing the writing of these codes.

    But given that REF Codes of Practice are now supposed to be ongoing, living documents, I don’t see why they shouldn’t take the form of more research-focussed (rather than REF-focussed) codes. It certainly wouldn’t harm research culture if all research performing organisations had a thorough research code of practice (most do of course) and one that covers a uniform range of topics that we all agree are critical to good research culture. This could be a step beyond the current Terms & Conditions associated with QR funding in England. And it would be a means of incentivising positive research cultures without ‘grading’ them. With your REF CoP, it’s pass or fail. And if you don’t pass first time, you get another attempt.

    Enhanced use of culture and environment data

    The other way of assessing culture to incentivise behaviours without it leading to any particular rating or ranking is to simply start collecting & surfacing data on things we care about. For example, the requirement to share gender pay gap data and to report misconduct cases, has focussed institutional minds on those things without there being any associated assessment mechanism. If you check out the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) data on proportion of male:female professors, in most UK institutions you can see the ratio heading in the right direction year on year. This is the power of sharing data, even when there’s no gold or glory on offer for doing so.

    And of course, the REF already has a mechanism to share data to inform, but not directly make an assessment, in the form of ’Environment Data’. In REF 2021, Section 4 of an institution’s submission was essentially completed for them by the REF team by extracting from the HESA data, the number of doctoral degrees awarded (4a) and the volume of research income (4b); and from the Research Councils, the volume of research income in kind (4c).

    This data was provided to add context to environment assessments, but not to replace them. And it would seem entirely sensible to me that we identify a range of additional data – such as the gender & ethnicity of research-performing staff groups at various grades – to better contextualise the assessment of PCE, and to get matters other than the volume of research funding up the agendas of senior university committees.

    Context-sensitive research culture assessment

    That is not to say that Codes of Practice and data sharing should be the only means of incentivising research culture of course. Culture was a significant element of REF Environment statements in 2021, and we shouldn’t row back on it now. Indeed, given that healthy research cultures are an integral part of research excellence, it would be remiss not to allocate some credit to those who do this well.

    Of course there are significant challenges to making such assessments robust and fair in the current climate. The first of these is the complex nature of research culture – and the fact that no framework is going to cover every aspect that might matter to individual institutions. Placing boundaries around what counts as research culture could mean institutions cease working on agendas that are important to them, because they ostensibly don’t matter to REF.

    The second challenge is the severe and uncertain financial constraints currently faced by the majority of UK HEIs. Making the case for a happy and collaborative workforce when half are facing redundancy is a tough ask. A related issue here is the hugely varying levels of research (culture) capital across the sector as I’ve argued before. Those in receipt of a £1 million ‘Enhancing Research Culture’ fund from Research England, are likely to make a much better showing than those doing research culture on a shoe-string.

    The third is that we are already half-way through this assessment period and we’re only expected to get the final guidance in 2026 – two years prior to submission. And given the financial challenges outlined above, this is going to make this new element of our submission especially difficult. It was partly for this reason that some early work to consider the assessment of research culture was clear that this should celebrate the ‘journey travelled’, rather than a ‘destination achieved’.

    For this reason, to my mind, the only thing we can reasonably expect all HEIs to do right now with regards to research culture is to:

    • Identify the strengths and challenges inherent within your existing research culture;
    • Develop a strategy and action plan(s) by which to celebrate those strengths and address those challenges;
    • Agree a set of measures by which to monitor your progress against your research culture ambitions. These could be inspired by some of the suggestions resulting from the Vitae & Technopolis PCE workshops & Pilot exercise;
    • Describe your progress against those ambitions and measures. This could be demonstrated both qualitatively and quantitatively, through data and narratives.

    Once again, there is an existing REF assessment mechanism open to us here, and that is the use of the case study. We assess research impact by effectively asking HEIs to tell us their best stories – I don’t see why we shouldn’t make the same ask of PCE, at least for this REF.

    Stepping stone REF

    The UK joint funding bodies have made a bold and sector-leading move to focus research performing organisations’ attention on the people and cultures that make for world-leading research endeavours through the mechanism of assessment. Given the challenges we face as a society, ensuring we attract, train, and retain high quality research talent is critical to our success. However, the assessment of research culture has the power both to make things better or worse: to incentivise positive research cultures or to increase burdensome and competitive cultures that don’t tackle all the issues that really matter to institutions.

    To my mind, given the broad range of topics that are being worked on by institutions in the name of improving research culture, and where we are in the REF cycle, and the financial constraints facing the sector, we might benefit from a shift in the mechanisms proposed to assess research culture in 2029 and to see this as a stepping stone REF.

    Making better use of existing mechanisms such as a Codes of Practice and Environment and Culture data would assess the “hygiene factor” elements of culture without unhelpfully associating any star ratings to them. Ratings should be better applied to the efforts taken by institutions to understand, plan, monitor, and demonstrate progress against their own, mission-driven research culture ambitions. This is where the real work is and where real differentiations between institutions can be made, when contextually assessed. Then, in 2036, when we can hope that the sector will be in a financially more stable place, and with ten years of research culture improvement time behind us, we can assess institutions against their own ambitions, as to whether they are starting to move the dial on this important work.

    Source link