Category: Blog

  • AI Agents for Colleges: Intelligent Systems Uses

    AI Agents for Colleges: Intelligent Systems Uses

    Reading Time: 13 minutes

    Artificial intelligence has rapidly evolved from experimental pilots into practical tools in higher education. Colleges and universities are now adopting AI agents, intelligent, autonomous systems designed to perform tasks, learn continuously from data, and act proactively to support students and staff throughout the entire enrollment and student journey.

    Unlike traditional chatbots that offer scripted responses, AI agents for colleges can analyze behavior, adapt to changing inputs, and take meaningful actions based on goals or context. They can handle tasks like personalized communication, lead nurturing, application guidance, and even predicting student attrition, all with minimal human intervention.

    For higher ed leaders, enrollment managers, and marketing teams, the question is no longer if AI will play a role in education; it’s how to use it strategically, ethically, and effectively. The potential is significant: smarter outreach, streamlined operations, and stronger support for students.

    In this article, we’ll unpack what AI agents are, how they differ from simpler tools, how institutions are using them today, and what practical steps schools can take to get started or scale up AI-powered initiatives.

    Are you prepared for the next evolution of enrollment and student support?

    What Is an AI Agent?

    An AI agent is a dynamic, intelligent system designed to perform tasks autonomously on behalf of users or institutions. Unlike static tools or rule-based chatbots, AI agents can analyze data, interpret complex intent, and act independently in pursuit of defined goals. They are capable of:

    • Understanding and responding to user intent across multiple interactions
    • Taking proactive actions based on predefined goals, real-time context, or behavioral triggers
    • Continuously learning and improving from user inputs and outcomes
    • Integrating with core institutional platforms such as CRMs, student information systems (SIS), learning management systems (LMS), and communication tools

    In a higher education context, AI agents are not simply answering questions; they’re helping institutions solve problems. These agents can assist with lead nurturing, application guidance, appointment scheduling, academic advising, and more. Their ultimate purpose is to support institutional goals such as improving enrollment conversion, enhancing student engagement, and reducing the manual workload on admissions, marketing, and student services teams.

    Key Characteristics of AI Agents in Higher Education

    AI agents for colleges are defined by several core capabilities that set them apart from traditional tools or scripted chatbots:

    • Autonomy: They operate independently, completing tasks or initiating interactions without requiring constant human oversight.
    • Context Awareness: AI agents can recognize a student’s position within the enrollment or academic lifecycle and adjust their responses accordingly.
    • Goal-Oriented Behavior: They are built with specific institutional outcomes in mind, such as increasing conversion rates, reducing summer melt, or improving retention.
    • Continuous Learning: These systems improve over time by analyzing data patterns and learning from past interactions.

    Together, these characteristics enable AI agents to act as proactive, adaptive partners in student engagement, going well beyond static digital assistants to drive meaningful institutional impact.

    AI Agent vs. Chatbot: What’s the Difference?

    A common source of confusion in higher education is the distinction between traditional chatbots and AI agents. While the terms are sometimes used interchangeably, the capabilities and strategic impact of each are vastly different.

    Traditional Chatbots

    Chatbots are typically rule-based or scripted tools that respond to user prompts. They are reactive rather than proactive, meaning they wait for a user to initiate contact. Most chatbots are limited in scope: they may answer FAQs or provide links to resources, but they cannot understand context or evolve. Their utility is often confined to narrow use cases like answering admissions deadlines or sharing campus event information.

    AI Agents

    AI agents, by contrast, are intelligent, goal-driven systems that can operate autonomously across platforms. They are capable of interpreting complex intent, initiating actions, and retaining memory across sessions and channels. These agents integrate with CRMs, SIS, and learning platforms to deliver personalized experiences. More importantly, AI agents can adapt their strategies based on behavioral data and outcomes. For example, an AI agent might detect that an admitted student has not opened key onboarding emails and proactively reach out with a nudge or alternative format.

    The Key Distinction

    What makes an AI agent different from a chatbot? AI agents are autonomous, goal-driven systems that understand context, learn over time, and take proactive actions. Unlike chatbots, which respond to scripted prompts, AI agents can guide users through processes and initiate engagement across multiple platforms. 

    In essence, chatbots answer questions, but AI agents help move students through a process. They not only provide information but also drive outcomes like enrollment completion, financial aid submission, and course registration. As institutions seek to improve service quality and efficiency at scale, AI agents offer a more strategic, integrated approach than chatbots alone.

    Why AI Agents Matter for Colleges Today

    Higher education is undergoing a seismic shift. Institutions are under mounting pressure from multiple directions: growing competition for a shrinking pool of prospective students, fluctuating domestic enrollment in many regions, rising expectations for personalized and digital-first engagement, and increasingly limited internal resources. In this environment, colleges and universities need tools that enable them to do more with less without sacrificing student experience.

    AI agents offer a powerful solution. These intelligent systems enable colleges to shift from reactive service models to proactive, anticipatory engagement across the student lifecycle. Whether guiding prospective applicants through the admissions process or supporting enrolled students with course selection and financial aid navigation, AI agents help scale operations while preserving a sense of personal touch.

    Core Education AI Use Cases for Colleges

    1. AI in Enrollment Management

    One of the most transformative applications of AI agents is in enrollment management. Traditional outreach methods often rely on bulk communications and static timelines. AI agents, by contrast, enable real-time, tailored engagement based on where each student is in the funnel.

    Key functions include:

    • Sending automated, personalized nudges to incomplete applicants
    • Identifying prospects who show signs of disengagement or drop-off
    • Providing 24/7 responses to common admissions questions
    • Supporting post-admit engagement and reducing summer melt

    Rather than replacing admissions professionals, these agents act as digital extensions of the team, helping manage volume while maintaining quality interactions.

    2. Intelligent Assistants in Higher Education Recruitment

    On websites, landing pages, and student portals, intelligent AI assistants for higher ed help convert interest into action. These systems can dynamically guide users to the most relevant content or next steps based on browsing behavior, geography, or persona.

    Use cases include:

    • Directing students to matching academic programs
    • Surfacing key dates and requirements based on applicant type
    • Offering localized content or multilingual support for international visitors
    • Capturing high-intent inquiries for CRM integration and follow-up

    When embedded at strategic touchpoints, these tools improve the prospective student experience and boost lead conversion rates.

    3. Student Services and Academic Support

    Beyond recruitment, AI agents are increasingly being used to reduce administrative burden and expand access to essential student services. This is especially valuable for institutions serving diverse populations, including adult learners, international students, and part-time students who may need help outside of regular office hours.

    Key areas of support:

    • Assisting with course registration logistics and policies
    • Answering financial aid questions and helping students navigate fees
    • Referring students to on-campus services based on need (e.g., mental health, tutoring, IT help)
    • Acting as a triage point for academic advising requests

    By handling routine inquiries, AI agents free up staff to focus on more complex or sensitive cases.

    4. Retention and Student Success

    Student success teams often lack real-time visibility into which students are disengaging. AI agents can analyze signals such as missed logins, dropped classes, or overdue assignments to flag early risk indicators.

    Once identified, agents can:

    • Trigger automated check-ins or reminders
    • Recommend helpful resources (e.g., peer tutoring)
    • Notify academic advisors or success coaches
    • Encourage re-engagement through timely, personalized outreach

    These interventions help prevent attrition by reaching students before they fully disengage.

    5. Marketing and Communications Automation

    AI agents also bring efficiency to enrollment marketing operations. They can support:

    • Real-time content personalization on websites
    • Automated follow-up workflows based on behavior (e.g., abandoned form fill)
    • Cross-channel engagement across email, SMS, and chat
    • Handling campaign-related inquiries or call-to-action responses instantly

    For marketing teams, this means campaigns can scale without losing relevance. AI ensures that prospective students receive the right message, at the right time, via the right channel, improving conversion rates and ROI.

    In short, AI agents are not a future-facing concept. They’re a current strategic advantage. By embedding intelligence and automation into student engagement, colleges can improve outcomes, reduce strain on staff, and create experiences that meet the expectations of today’s digital-native learners.

    How Are Colleges Using AI Agents Today?

    Across Canada, the United States, and internationally, colleges and universities are already deploying AI agents to support critical areas like enrollment, student services, academic advising, and marketing. These are no longer just experimental tools or isolated pilot projects. Instead, many institutions are integrating AI agents into their core strategies, using them to improve responsiveness, personalize outreach, and ease the burden on staff.

    From automating admissions follow-ups to guiding students through financial aid, real-world use cases are multiplying. The focus has shifted from “if” to “how best” to implement these tools.

    (See the curated examples at the end of this article.)

    Do AI Agents Replace College Staff?

    This is a common concern, and the answer is no. AI agents are not designed to replace college staff, but to support them.

    These intelligent tools handle routine, high-volume, and time-sensitive tasks that can overwhelm busy teams. They can respond instantly to frequently asked questions, guide users to resources, and even operate around the clock, especially useful during evenings, weekends, or high-traffic application periods.

    By managing first-line support, AI agents free up staff to concentrate on what matters most: personalized advising, meaningful relationship-building, and strategic planning. They also surface real-time data and student behavior insights that staff can use to make more informed decisions.

    Importantly, human expertise remains essential for nuanced conversations, equity-based support, and complex decision-making. Rather than replacing staff, AI agents extend their capacity, allowing institutions to offer more consistent, timely, and personalized service without adding headcount. When implemented thoughtfully, AI agents strengthen, not diminish, the human touch in education.

    Ethical and Practical Considerations

    As colleges adopt AI agents, ethical implementation is paramount. Institutions must ensure these tools align with institutional values and uphold trust.

    Data Privacy and Security:
    AI agents must comply with relevant privacy laws such as PIPEDA or GDPR. Clear, transparent data usage policies help reassure users and safeguard institutional integrity.

    Bias and Fairness:
    To prevent unintended bias, especially in areas like admissions or advising, institutions should conduct regular audits, use diverse training data, and maintain human oversight in high-stakes decisions.

    Governance and Oversight:
    Successful AI initiatives require clear accountability. Define who owns the AI agent, how it’s monitored, and when human staff should step in.

    Ultimately, AI agents should enhance equitable access, not compromise it. Thoughtful design and oversight are essential.

    How Can Colleges Get Started with AI Agents?

    For colleges and universities exploring AI agents for the first time, a phased and strategic approach ensures alignment with institutional goals while minimizing risks.

    Step 1: Identify High-Impact Use Cases
    Start by targeting clear, high-volume needs where automation delivers immediate value. Common entry points include admissions inquiries, application follow-ups, and frequently asked questions in student services. These areas typically require timely, consistent responses and are ideal for early pilots.

    Step 2: Align with Enrollment and Marketing Strategy
    AI agents should reinforce your institution’s enrollment goals, not operate in a silo. Ensure that the use cases support broader priorities such as inquiry-to-application conversion, yield improvement, or retention. Collaboration between admissions, marketing, and IT is key.

    Step 3: Integrate with Existing Systems
    To be effective, AI agents must connect with your existing technology stack. Integrate them with CRM platforms, student portals, and marketing automation tools to ensure seamless data flow and actionable insights.

    Step 4: Pilot, Measure, Optimize
    Launch a limited-scope pilot with clear objectives. Track metrics like reduced response times, increased application completion, or staff time saved. Use feedback and data to refine both the agent’s responses and its integration with team workflows.

    Step 5: Scale Thoughtfully
    Once the agent has proven value, consider expanding to new functions (e.g., academic support or financial aid). Establish governance policies, ensure ongoing training and monitoring, and communicate transparently with users.

    With the right foundation, AI agents can scale intelligently, becoming a long-term asset for your institution.

    Examples of Higher Education Institutions Demonstrating AI Agent Use

    Georgia State University (USA): Georgia State pioneered an AI chatbot named “Pounce” to assist incoming students with admissions queries, financial aid forms, and other enrollment steps. By answering thousands of questions 24/7 via text messages, Pounce helped reduce “summer melt” (admitted students failing to enroll) by 22% in its first year, meaning hundreds more freshmen made it to campus. This AI assistant continues to guide students through registration and financial processes, improving support for new Panthers.

    HEM BP Image 2HEM BP Image 2

    Source: Georgia State University

    University of Toronto (Canada): U of T is actively exploring AI-driven tools to enhance student advising and services. A university-wide AI task force has recommended integrating AI into student support and administration. Initiatives include pilot projects for AI chatbots and data analytics to assist academic advisors, streamline routine administrative queries, and personalize student services. By embracing these technologies with a human-centric approach, U of T aims to improve how students receive guidance and navigate campus resources.

    HEM BP Image 3HEM BP Image 3

    Source: University of Toronto

    Arizona State University (USA): ASU has implemented AI-enabled digital assistants (including voice-activated tools) to guide prospective and current students. Notably, ASU partnered with Amazon to create a voice-based campus chatbot via Alexa, allowing users to ask the “ASU” skill about campus events, library hours, dining menus, and more. In residence halls, students received Echo Dot devices as part of a smart campus initiative, making it easy to get instant answers about enrollment or campus life. These AI assistants augment student engagement by conversationally providing on-demand information and support.

    HEM BP Image 4HEM BP Image 4

    Source: Arizona State University

    University of British Columbia (Canada): UBC leverages AI in both research and practical applications to improve student experiences. The university deploys AI chatbots and advising assistants to help answer student questions and streamline services. For example, UBC’s “AskCali” project is an AI-driven advising tool that uses generative AI to answer academic planning questions and direct students to resources. UBC Okanagan’s campus also introduced an AI chatbot across departments like IT support and Student Services, automating routine inquiries and reducing wait times by handling ~99% of chats, which frees up staff for complex issues. Through these efforts, UBC enhances student support while improving operational efficiency.

    HEM BP Image 5HEM BP Image 5

    Source: UBC

    Harvard University (USA): Harvard is applying AI systems to enhance academic advising, streamline administrative tasks, and bolster student engagement. The university’s digital strategy encourages responsible use of AI in advising and student services. For example, Harvard has explored AI chatbots for answering routine student questions and experimented with AI tutors to augment academic advising. These AI initiatives are aimed at improving the efficiency of advising processes and enriching how students interact with academic support, all while maintaining a human-centered approach (Harvard’s advisors and faculty guide AI use to ensure it aligns with educational values).

    HEM BP Image 6HEM BP Image 6

    Source: Harvard University

    University of Michigan (USA): U-M has rolled out AI-powered tools to support student services, including conversational assistants for advising and campus information. The College of LSA launched “Maizey,” a 24/7 AI academic advising chatbot that answers questions on course requirements, policies, and study tips, providing a “smart sidekick” for students seeking guidance after hours. Additionally, U-M developed “MiMaizey,” a personalized AI campus assistant that helps students find information on dining, events, organizations, and more in a chat interface. By deploying these AI-supported services, Michigan offers instant help and tailored support to students while complementing its human advisors.

    HEM BP Image 7HEM BP Image 7

    Source: University of Michigan

    University of Alberta (Canada): UAlberta is integrating AI into student services and campus operations to improve efficiency and support. The university’s AI committees explicitly guide the use of AI to “improve university operations, services, resource management, and administrative tasks.” This means deploying AI tools in areas like student advising, where chatbots or predictive analytics can assist with inquiries, and in back-office processes, where automation can streamline workflows. By embracing these technologies, the U of A seeks to enhance the student service experience (faster responses, 24/7 support) and optimize institutional decision-making and resource use.

    HEM BP Image 8HEM BP Image 8

    Source: University of Alberta

    Stanford University (USA): Stanford has been a leader in leveraging AI agents for student support, learning analytics, and administrative innovation. Researchers at Stanford have developed AI systems that detect when students are struggling in digital courses and then recommend interventions to instructors, effectively acting as an AI tutor/assistant to keep students on track. In student services, Stanford has experimented with chatbots and AI-driven data analysis to personalize learning and improve advising. These efforts—from AI “teaching assistants” that answer student questions to predictive models that inform advisors—illustrate Stanford’s use of AI to enhance learning outcomes and streamline academic administration.

    HEM BP Image 9HEM BP Image 9

    Source: Stanford University

    The Strategic Opportunity Ahead

    AI agents represent a transformative opportunity for colleges and universities that approach them with purpose and alignment. When embedded within broader strategies for enrollment management, student success, and marketing, these tools can significantly enhance institutional impact.

    By automating high-volume tasks and providing real-time, personalized support, AI agents help institutions engage students earlier in their journey, offer more relevant touchpoints, and deliver a seamless digital experience that today’s learners expect. At the same time, they free up staff to focus on strategic, human-centered work, creating a more agile and efficient institution.

    The real value lies not in simply deploying AI tools, but in how they’re integrated across departments and designed to serve long-term goals. For higher education leaders, this means shifting the conversation from technology for its own sake to technology as an enabler of student-centric transformation. With thoughtful implementation, AI agents can become a cornerstone of modern, resilient, and responsive institutions.

    Are you prepared for the next evolution of enrollment and student support?

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Question: What makes an AI agent different from a chatbot?
    Answer: AI agents are autonomous, goal-driven systems that understand context, learn over time, and take proactive actions. Unlike chatbots, which respond to scripted prompts, AI agents can guide users through processes and initiate engagement across multiple platforms.

    Question: How are colleges using AI agents today?
    Answer: Across Canada, the United States, and internationally, colleges and universities are already deploying AI agents to support critical areas like enrollment, student services, academic advising, and marketing. 

    Question: Do AI agents replace college staff?
    Answer: This is a common concern, and the answer is no. AI agents are not designed to replace college staff, but to support them. These intelligent tools handle routine, high-volume, and time-sensitive tasks that can overwhelm busy teams.

    Source link

  • All I want for Christmas is for policy to align its ambition with its action

    All I want for Christmas is for policy to align its ambition with its action

    This blog was kindly authored by Dr Kate Wicklow, GuildHE Director of Policy and Strategy

    The higher education sector is renowned for its innovation and global standing, with diverse providers consistently delivering great work and immense value. However, the sector could also certainly do with some festive cheer at the moment. There are multiple pressures placed upon us which impact our resilience and threaten our energies and resources to continue to be a global powerhouse. 

    A vision without the tools to deliver it

    The Post-16 White Paper has offered the sector a new vision, one where it asks higher education institutions to govern themselves differently, with greater collaboration between providers, and therefore less market based ideologies within sector activity. But it places all of the responsibility to fix the sector challenges on individual providers rather than offering systems leadership or policy support.

    The recently published new OfS strategy also offers a welcome reset of the regulator-institution relationship to be less combative. However, the actions proposed to underpin the strategic statements seem disconnected from the DfE vision of sector coordination, likely in part due to their unfortunate simultaneous development. The OfS strategy roadmap provides no clarity on how the regulator plans to either reduce the regulatory burden or sustain its current risk-based methodology. Furthermore, it omits measures essential for safeguarding sector diversity, an obligation under the Higher Education and Research Act (HERA), and one that is arguably critical in the current climate.

    The missing piece: financial realism

    Both documents omit the critical financial realities institutions face, which aren’t solely due to governance failings, but rather mounting pressures that are well rehearsed and have forced the sector to do more with less for the last 13 years – which just isn’t sustainable. At some point, the system breaks, and we are seeing cracks widen now. While the White Paper offered a fee uplift, the unexpected international student levy negates this. We are certainly in a critical moment for the future shape of the sector, which makes the forthcoming review of OfS’s Strategic Priority Grant particularly concerning in its potential to destabilise what additional state funding is received.

    A sector whose diversity is its strength – and its vulnerability

    GuildHE represents the UK’s most diverse range of higher education providers, varying in size, location, and operational models. Our members, who include small and large, rural and urban, practice-based and online, specialist and more generalist, and both publicly and privately funded institutions, are renowned for delivering practical, industry-relevant education, research, and innovation. Thanks to this unparalleled diversity, GuildHE acts as a crucial gauge for the higher education sector, offering unique insights into the opportunities and challenges affecting the entire landscape.

    The white paper rightly highlights the immense value that this diverse range of higher education providers brings to students, local economies, and the nation as a whole. Our member institutions are often pioneers in their fields, offering unique courses and producing highly skilled graduates. Yet, despite this declared commitment to diversity, policy mechanisms and funding models always seem to operate with an inevitable bias towards scale and homogenisation.

    The true barrier to sustaining sector excellence and diversity isn’t simply a lack of commitment from institutions, but a contradiction at the heart of policymaking: the very mechanisms of funding and regulation are inadvertently acting as a constraint on the diversity they claim to champion. 

    The current regulatory framework, built for a typical large-scale, multi-faculty provider, often inadvertently penalises innovative and smaller-scale or specialist institutions. A clear example is how the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF), with its emphasis on metrics,  disadvantages, by design, providers with small student cohorts. The core issue is not just which metrics are used, but the inherent volatility of data when applied to small cohort sizes. Offering providers the opportunity to contextualise their quantitative data with other evidence is therefore vital, but adds additional burden on these institutions.

    Funding must recognise the distinctiveness and value of specialist institutions, both in teaching and in research. For research, the White Paper encourages institutions to focus on strengths, specialise, and collaborate, but we must ensure this doesn’t undermine world-leading specialists by overusing the ‘specialist’ term too liberally. Equally, there must be incentives for collaboration, tangible reasons for larger institutions to work with smaller-scale or different partners, and levers pulled to encourage institutions not to simply rinse and repeat the same collaborative arrangements. In addition, innovation funding remains skewed towards larger-scale operations, with thresholds on HEIF remaining a particular barrier for smaller-scale institutions. We need fresh thinking on knowledge exchange and innovation funding to diversify recipients, sustain innovation across all institutions, and enable commercialisation. 

    In teaching funding, the review of SPG will inevitably create winners and losers. There are worries in the sector that the subject prioritisation will not reflect all of the I8 areas. For example, creative skills are at the top of the Industrial Strategy and are regularly cited as being important to all industries. The creative industries are rife with skills shortages and clearly require graduate skills (75% of the industry have degrees,  significantly higher than the UK average of 51%). Yet we are concerned that the forthcoming SPG review will not redress years of creative subject funding cuts to deliver this much-needed pipeline.

    Specialist institutions of all types require state-of-the-art equipment, from professional-grade theatres to medical-grade clinics and working farms. These learning environments come with high fixed costs, regardless of student numbers, which themselves need to remain fairly static to ensure the equipment is accessible to all students for a high-quality experience. If funding is driven solely by student volume, without adequate recognition of the fixed costs of this distinctiveness, the business model for specialist institutions becomes perpetually precarious. This is what we’ve seen materialise over the past 10 years and is why the OfS and DfE recognise the additional financial needs through specialist institution funding. This funding is also under review in the new year.

    Aligning ambition with action

    To genuinely champion institutional diversity, the OfS must do more than offer rhetorical support or simply monitor providers. In line with the white paper’s emphasis on protecting and preserving diversity, the OfS has a duty to ensure its funding proposals reflect this goal. If OfS is serious about safeguarding diversity, its conclusions on funding and its response to the white paper must lead to a review of the regulatory policies and processes that currently encourage uniformity. This is essential to create the conditions necessary for all types of institutions to not just survive, but truly thrive. DfE also has a bigger role to play in thinking about diversity within its policy development and vision for the sector. Moving away from market-style regulatory dynamics offers them new levers and ideas for bringing us all together to collectively support our world-class provision to grow and innovate. 

    GuildHE will continue to push for a regulatory landscape that is proportionate and focused on fostering greater sector collaboration in order to achieve excellence across the widest range of institutions because that is how we deliver for the widest range of students.  

    So our Christmas wish is simple: that policymakers seize more opportunities to make good on HERA and the white paper’s stated ambition to protect the sector’s diversity.

    Source link

  • Why the UK should commercialise research for social good – not just profit

    Why the UK should commercialise research for social good – not just profit

    Author:
    Huw Vasey

    Published:

    This blog was kindly authored by Huw Vasey, a Principal Consultant at Oxentia.

    For the past six years, I’ve worked across sectors to build an ecosystem that supports the commercialisation of research for social impact – not just profit. While existing schemes don’t exclude social outcomes, they’re primarily designed to attract funding for expensive technological or medical innovations. This often sidelines social value, which rarely offers a high financial return.

    Focusing on SHAPE disciplines – Social Sciences, Humanities, and the Arts for People and the Economy – has opened new possibilities. Unlike tech or biomedical innovations, SHAPE commercialisation typically involves service and process innovation, rarely includes protectable IP, and is often rooted in the deep expertise of a small group of researchers. These ventures are quicker to bring to market and require far fewer resources. This creates a unique opportunity: innovations with high social impact can scale sustainably, as long as they generate enough revenue to support themselves, without needing the kind of mega-investment required for a new drug or device.

    A common counterargument is that SHAPE academics aren’t interested in commercialisation. They see their work as a public good, not something to be monetised. However, recent programmes have shown that interest grows when incentives shift. Initiatives like the UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) Healthy Ageing Catalyst, the ARC Accelerator, the  SHAPE Catalyst, and the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Food Systems Catalyst have drawn hundreds of SHAPE academics into commercialisation by offering a pathway to scale and sustain the impact of their research.

    So, we have a growing pipeline. But why should society at large embrace research commercialisation for social value?

    The case for SHAPE commercialisation: real-world impact at speed and scale

    • Sustaining and scaling impact beyond grants: Academic projects often deliver significant impact while funded, only to fade when grants end. Commercialisation offers a way to extend and grow that impact. For example, Cardiff University spin-out Nisien provides ethical online safeguarding services, and evolved from the ESRC-funded HateLab, a global hub for data and insight into hate speech and crime. The original lab had great success using AI to both measure and counter hate off and online, but it was faced with a familiar problem. How could it sustain its impact after the funding had ended? In particular, how could it retain key staff members who didn’t have university contracts? The answer they found was to commercialise – bringing in paid customers as well as conducting public research. Whilst this was great for the HateLab team, it was also a big win for both public funders of science and the wider public. Why? Because they get the benefits of research impact (better identification and countering of hate) without being saddled with the costs in the long-term, or losing the impact when an impactful project closes down
    • Fixing broken systems: Social ventures can address market failures or dysfunctional systems. For example, One World Together (OWT), a University of Manchester spin-out, aims to reform charitable giving and reshape the aid industry. Its aims are radical, and it addresses system-level change, which is rarely an attractive proposition for businesses. Furthermore, it required the deep knowledge and connections that only come from a long immersion in a problem space. Few outside academia would be able to achieve the type of change OWT seeks to achieve
    • Bottom-up social innovation: Other ventures tackle tangible local issues with scalable solutions – like Arcade, which repurposes disused spaces for community development, or Thin Ice Press, which revives forgotten industries to foster creativity and engagement. Developing such initiatives through commercialisation, rather than solely via grant funding, provides social benefits with a lower associated cost to the taxpayer. Furthermore, it brings academic knowledge and networks into bottom-up social innovation, helping to break down persistent barriers between universities and the communities they serve.

    Why This Matters Now

    This is a powerful mechanism for translating research into real-world change, both at scale and sustainably. Yet, it remains undervalued.

    Policy makers and social scientists often focus on influencing policy as the primary mode of impact. While important, this is an indirect second or third-order influence. Commercialisation, by contrast, allows researchers to do rather than merely influence. It provides the practical demonstration that policy makers often demand: “How do I know this will work in practice?”

    So why aren’t we harnessing this potential to meet our social challenges? Why isn’t it embedded in the UK Government’s missions or industrial strategy?

    We overlook this opportunity at our peril.

    How could we better support SHAPE commercialisation?

    So, what could be done at a practical and policy level? Here are three recommendations on how to keep the sector developing

    Firstly, we need to keep funding SHAPE commercialisation. Few universities have the resources or staff to do this themselves, so this needs to come from elsewhere. That may be funders like UKRI, or it might be utilising models such as shared technology transfer offices (TTOs) to de-risk the cost of SHAPE commercialisation for smaller or less expert institutions. It also means growing and developing the community of scholars and professional support who provide the blood, sweat and tears which get these enterprises off the ground. Whilst the growth potential for SHAPE commercialisation is very high, as demonstrated by Abdul Rahman et al’s latest work, the ecosystem is still at an early stage in its life cycle and is unlikely to grow successfully without nurture.

    Secondly, policymakers and practitioners need to keep celebrating SHAPE commercialisation and focusing its power on societal challenges. Events like RE:SHAPE are a great way of bringing attention to the potential of SHAPE commercialisation and showcasing its successes. Aligning commercialisation programmes to societal missions helps focus the power of SHAPE on our most pressing concerns. Not doing so was a glaring omission from the current configuration of the UK Government’s mission agenda.

    Finally, we need to truly understand the value of commercialisation for social impact, by which I mean we all (researchers, senior university leaders, funders and policymakers) need to start to see social impact as being on a par with income when thinking about research commercialisation. That’s not just a mindset change, but one which also suggests we need to think about how we measure and demonstrate social as well as financial impact. Whilst some may be uncomfortable with yet more metricisation in research history and experience teach that, in order for a new approach to be valued in policy circles, it needs to demonstrate its worth in a way that is comprehensible for policymakers and that will likely require some sort of impact measurements

    Source link

  • In memoriam: John Thompson – HEPI

    In memoriam: John Thompson – HEPI

    A rigorous mind, an uncompromising integrity, and a lasting legacy in higher education analysis.

    John Thompson, who has died after a distinguished career in higher education analysis and public policy, was one of the most intellectually rigorous and ethically uncompromising analysts of his generation. His work fundamentally changed how we understand educational progression, social disadvantage, and widening participation, and it continues to shape policy long after his formal retirement.

    John was born on the Wirral and grew up in circumstances that gave him early insight into inequality. His father died when John was young, and he was brought up by a single parent. Exceptionally for his background and environment, he went on to university, studying chemistry at the University of Leicester, where he graduated with a first-class degree. He remained at Leicester to complete a PhD, winning a prize for the most innovative research of his year – an early indication of the originality and methodological seriousness that would mark his later work.

    After university, John began his professional life as a teacher in a further education college in Liverpool. He taught boys from highly deprived backgrounds, many of whom had little interest in the subject matter or in formal education at all. The experience made a deep and lasting impression on him. Typically, despite his outstanding academic achievements in Chemistry, he considered himself unqualified to teach Mathematics and went on to achieve a first-class degree in Mathematics with the Open University.

    During this period, he joined the Communist Party – an affiliation he did not maintain – but the underlying conviction that injustice must be confronted never left him and became a defining feature of both his personal and professional life.

    John later moved from teaching into analytical work, joining the Inland Revenue as an analyst. While working there, he took yet another degree, completing a Master’s in Operations Research. His experience as an analyst at the Inland Revenue led to a position at GE in its direct marketing department – a role that may not have sat comfortably with his political worldview, but which proved unexpectedly formative. The work gave him a sophisticated understanding of population segmentation and data-driven identification techniques, skills that would later underpin his most influential contributions to education policy, including the the POLAR classification (for identifying disadvantaged students, developed under his guidance by one of his proteges in the course of a PhD.

    Outside work, John was a passionate and formidable cyclist. He cycled everywhere and at one point held the British record for the 100-mile tricycle time trial, recording the fastest time ever achieved in the UK under the auspices of the Road Time Trials Council (RTTC). With his partner Maggie, he shared a tandem bicycle on which they undertook many long and short journeys together, including cycling holidays at home and abroad. Cycling was not merely a pastime for John; it reflected the discipline, endurance, and quiet determination that characterised so much of his life.

    It was in the late-1990s that John undertook the work for which he is probably best known: his research into “who does best at university”. At the time, there was a widely accepted belief that school attainment bore little relationship to performance in higher education. An influential article in the Daily Telegraph even claimed that “A-levels are only slightly better than tossing a coin as a way of predicting who will do well at university”, attributing this conclusion to research by Professor Dylan Wiliam.

    John did what he always did: he went back to the sources. Tracing the citations carefully, and then the citations within those citations, he found that no such conclusion was supported by the original research. This episode crystallised another of his enduring frustrations: academics and commentators who cited research they had never actually read.

    Continuing his work, John demonstrated a clear – almost linear – relationship between school attainment and subsequent degree outcomes. More controversially, he showed that students from independent schools performed less well at university than their peers from comprehensive schools who had achieved the same A-level grades. The findings were strongly challenged by the independent schools lobby and were ultimately referred to the Royal Statistical Society. After reviewing the analysis, the Society judged it to be the most robust analysis ever encountered on the topic.

    Although “who does best at university” brought John wide recognition, it rested on a deeper and even more innovative achievement: his pioneering work on linking administrative records from different sources. John was instrumental in making it possible to link individual school records with university records, and later with Inland Revenue data in the context of student finance and loan repayment. Before this work, analysis relied almost entirely on aggregate data, separately collected across schools, universities, and further education colleges. As a result of John’s work, debates about widening participation, student fees, and social mobility could be informed by robust analysis and evidence rather than spurious correlation and conjecture, allowing far more nuanced and effective policymaking.

    Those who worked closely with John will remember two qualities above all others: his honesty and his rigour.

    His honesty meant that he would stand by what he knew to be true, even when it was personally risky to do so. Early in his time at HEFCE, a newly appointed Chief Executive had promised the Open University an increase in funding, justifying this internally on the grounds that the cost of teaching an Open University student was similar to that of a conventional undergraduate. John knew this was not correct and had the evidence to prove it. Despite intense pressure to produce analysis that would support the Chief Executive’s commitment, John refused. A stand-off followed, but John would not compromise. In the end, he prevailed – and in doing so earned the lasting respect of the very person he had challenged.

    His rigour was equally legendary, and at times exasperating to colleagues. He would not permit conclusions to be stated unless they were fully supported by evidence, and he was deeply resistant to claims of causality that could not be definitively established. On more than one occasion, he prevented colleagues from stating conclusions that seemed obvious from the data but could not be proven to the standard he required. It was not always convenient – but it was always right.

    While at HEFCE, John also took great care with the development of others. He sponsored and mentored several junior colleagues through doctoral study, including work that enabled record linkage. These were, in many respects, golden years for HEFCE’s analytical services. Under the leadership of Shekhar Nandy, the unit produced some of the most sophisticated data-driven higher education research in the country and attracted exceptionally talented young statisticians, many of whom stayed on to form the core of the team in subsequent years, and to refine and develop the strands of research that John had initiated.

    After retiring from HEFCE, John continued to work on a number of projects for HEPI. Among these was what may have been the first comprehensive analysis demonstrating the consistently poorer educational performance of boys and young men compared with girls and young women at every stage of the education system. The work was generally well received, although it attracted some idiosyncratic criticism – most memorably from a professor of gender studies who diagnosed ‘castration anxiety’ in the analysis. That suggestion caused great amusement among those who knew John well enough to understand that he was ruthlessly objective and entirely without personal agenda.

    In 2010, again for HEPI, John analysed the White Paper that preceded the introduction of full-cost student fees. He showed that the proposed system rested on flawed assumptions and would almost certainly cost as much as the more benign regime it was replacing. The Minister for Higher Education at the time, David Willetts, dismissed the HEPI analysis in the House of Commons as ‘eccentric’, only to concede a year later before the Commons Select Committee that it had been “right, but for the wrong reasons”!

    John Thompson was a gifted child who overcame the constraints of his background, an analyst of exceptional intellectual honesty, and a colleague whose standards improved everyone around him. He is survived by his partner of many years, Maggie, and by her daughters, Lucy and Clare.

    Those of us who worked with John at HEFCE and later at HEPI benefited not only from his work but also from his demeanour and principled behaviour. His legacy lies not only in the methods he developed and the conclusions he established, but in the example he set: that evidence matters, that integrity is non-negotiable, and that intellectual courage is worth the cost.

    John’s funeral will be at 10 am on 29th December at WOODLAND CHAPEL, WESTERLEIGH CREMATORIUM, WESTERLEIGH ROAD, WESTERLEIGH, BRISTOL BS37 8RF. All who knew John are welcome, but please RSVP to Bahram Bekhradnia at [email protected]

    Source link

  • WEEKEND READING: The changing geography of research

    WEEKEND READING: The changing geography of research

    In November HEPI, with support from Elsevier, hosted a roundtable dinner to discuss the changing geography of research. This blog considers some of the themes that emerged from the discussion.

    Fifty years ago, less than 10 per cent of authors of research articles worked in low and middle-income countries – those in which average annual incomes are below around $14,000. By 2024, the proportion of research authors from these countries had reached 56 per cent. Even excluding China, 28 of them, combined, had more authors than the 27 countries of the European Union plus the UK.

    Meanwhile, since 1990, the number of doctorates awarded in China has gone from a few thousand to more than 80,000, while Brazil and India now graduate approximately 30,000 doctorates per year, compared to the UK’s 25,000.

    What this means for research collaboration, for research funders and for the UK’s future as a leading research nation was the topic of a recent roundtable discussion, hosted by HEPI in conjunction with the academic publishers Elsevier and attended by senior university and research leaders and funders.

    Participants in the roundtable agreed that the research landscape was experiencing major change, with the centre of gravity shifting away from traditional western and northern dominance, to countries including China, India, Brazil, Iran and Mexico, and that the pace of change was accelerating.

    This was not just happening in terms of numbers of researchers and research outputs but also in terms of their quality. Many countries not historically considered strong in research are producing original research at scale, developing cross-disciplinary fields and paying close attention to research culture as well as to convergence with the United Nation’s sustainable development goals.

    Participants suggested that research in European countries, including the UK, France and Germany, may be moving more sluggishly due to out-dated hierarchies, infrastructure and equipment that is expensive to maintain. University and research leaders often feel overlooked by their governments, which face pressures to direct funding elsewhere, in contrast to Low and Middle Income Countries where Governments are actively driving research and innovation growth.

    This shift may not necessarily be negative, participants in the roundtable recognised. Any overall increase in research is a good thing for the advancement of knowledge worldwide, and more postgraduates mean more post-doctorates wanting to travel and more researchers seeking partnerships.

    Participants noted the symbiosis between research strength and economic strength, with one tending to feed off the other. Perhaps it is time for science to move elsewhere, suggested one speaker. “We’ve had a good run.”

    But he questioned what it could mean for the future nature of science. While it may not be worse, it was likely to be different in terms of ideas around disciplines, education and working practices and “we are going to have to live with that world”.

    Many felt that for the UK, a long-time research power, the prospect of relative decline this presented should be ringing alarm bells.

    One speaker asked: “Are we Rome?”

    Others suggested that it wasn’t that simple. Optimists pointed out that the UK still enjoys extensive soft power and respect for its research and education system. It has one of the highest proportions of co-authored research publications in the world and clever people continue to want to work and study here. Even if its share of world research and researchers is declining, the numbers involved remain high.

    On the other hand, pessimists argued that if other countries build up their own university systems, they will have less need to send their students and graduates or even post-doctorates to the UK. One speaker noted the impressive lab equipment he had seen in China.

    Meanwhile, old hierarchies still dominate global research structures, partly helped by the English language. While the UK benefits from that, participants were challenged to consider reform of global research governance to better reflect the new geography of research.

    Some participants expressed concern about UK research becoming increasingly inward-looking, in response to pressures from politicians to concentrate on particular research areas related to Government priorities.

    It was noted that the UK conveys mixed messages around attracting talent from overseas. Other countries make clear they want to be global research players; UK politicians, appealing to anti-immigration sentiment, are more ambivalent. And while the EU presents the only research bloc big enough to compete with China and America, the UK is barely in it.

    Some pointed out that the UK is unusually reliant on its universities since it lacks independent research institutes. Others highlighted the country’s problems with scaling up spin outs.

    What about potential solutions?

    One speaker suggested that while having lots of exciting science happening around the world was wonderful, it threatened what in the UK had become an industry. Perhaps it was therefore time to make more of a case for higher education not as an industry but as a public good.

    Another suggested learning from other countries about how to work in more equitable and meaningful partnerships with partners around the world and how to conduct research in different – and perhaps more cost effective – ways.

    One warned that higher income countries often fell into the trap of seeing partnerships with lower income countries in terms of offering aid. Collaborations should instead involve both sides recognising each other’s strengths and both benefitting in an equal way.

    Similarly, when it comes to attracting overseas students, the UK should think in terms of how its own students benefit from the arrangement, said another. Curricula may also need to be re-assessed to make them more suitable to the different world future researchers will face.

    One suggestion was to identify where the UK is particularly strong and to become more competitive by developing those specialisms. Another participant pointed out that it was important not only to identify specialisms that others do not have, but to identify areas where others are also strong and where collaboration can therefore be especially productive.

    Work is needed to put in place facilities and mechanisms to enable those researchers who would benefit from working together to find each other, said one participant. Another said it was important to ensure a balance between a centralised system for identifying potential collaborations and allowing individual researchers and departments to find their own partners.

    It is not just about strategies led from the top, one speaker stressed. Those working across global borders need a rich understanding of the context in which institutions in other countries operate and how collaborations are conducted on the ground.

    Researchers also need to be aware that the current world is a hugely unstable one and to be prepared to meet that challenge with equal partners.

    The kind of challenges involved was made clear by one speaker who pointed out that America has recently turned off satellite climate data, which had been free for low and middle income countries to use, and has withdrawn from Antarctica its last ice-breaker ship, which monitored the melting of ice shelves threatening coastal cities.

    The result of this loss of data could affect not only individual countries of all income levels around the world but the very planet they occupy.

    Elsevier’s have produced a useful briefing paper on these issues: The changing geography of research.

    Source link

  • WEEKEND READING: Student working lives: paid work and access and participation

    WEEKEND READING: Student working lives: paid work and access and participation

    This blog was kindly authored by Martin Lowe, Professor Adrian Wright, Dr Mark Wilding and Mary Lawler from the University of Lancashire, authors of Student Working Lives (HEPI report 195).

    The clearest finding of our recent HEPI report, Student Working Lives, was the growing prevalence of paid work among students and its profound impact on their experiences and outcomes.

    This trend is not confined to disadvantaged groups; it is now a reality for the majority of students, with the Advance HE and HEPI Student Academic Experience Survey revealing how 68% of students now work during term time. Yet, despite its significance, paid work remains largely absent from regulatory frameworks designed to promote equality of opportunity in higher education.

    As the Office for Students (OfS) reviews its approach to access and participation, we argue that paid work should be recognised as a distinct risk on the Equality of Opportunity Risk Register (EORR). Doing so would enable providers to respond more effectively to the challenges students face and ensure that widening participation efforts reflect the realities of modern student life.

    A risk-based future for access and participation

    Since taking office, the Labour Government has placed widening participation as a central pillar of its higher education agenda. From the introduction of the Lifelong Learning Entitlement to the creation of a new Access and Participation Task and Finish Group, ministers have signalled their determination to open doors to learners from non-traditional backgrounds.

    This ambition was reiterated in the recent Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper, which proposed a significant shift in the regulatory approach in England:

    We will reform regulation of access and participation plans, moving away from a uniform approach to one where the Office for Students can be more risk-based.

    While this statement attracted less attention than the more headline-grabbing measures on tuition fees and maintenance grants, it represents a potentially transformative change. A risk-based model could allow the OfS to focus on the most pressing barriers to equality of opportunity, provided those risks are accurately identified.

    The existing EORR complements this approach. Having been introduced under the leadership of outgoing Director of Fair Access and Participation at the OfS, John Blake, the register has already been widely welcomed by the sector. By identifying factors that threaten access and success for disadvantaged student groups, it enables providers to design interventions tailored to their own context. Rather than simply seeking to address outcome gaps, the EORR encourages institutions to tackle the underlying causes.

    However, the register is not static. If it is to remain relevant, it must evolve to reflect emerging challenges. One such challenge is the growing necessity of paid work alongside study, a risk that intersects the financial pressures felt by students but extends far beyond them.

    Paid work is more than a financial issue

    The current EORR already identifies ‘Cost Pressures’ as a risk, acknowledging that rising living costs can undermine students’ ability to complete their course or achieve good grades. Yet this framing is too narrow on its own. Paid work is not merely a symptom of financial strain; it’s a complex factor that shapes engagement, attainment, and progression into graduate employment.

    Our research shows that paid work is a necessity for most students, regardless of background, with average hours worked remaining static across each Indices of Deprivation (IMD) quintile. However, its impact is uneven. Students having to work more than 20 hours per week, those employed in particularly demanding sectors and those balancing caring responsibilities may all face challenges due to increased workload. However each should be supported in different ways.

    Figure 1: Likelihood of obtaining a ‘good’ honours degree by work hours

    These patterns matter because they influence both academic performance and participation in enrichment activities that support retention and employability. Paid work is a structural feature of student life that can amplify existing inequalities, but present specific nuances depending on the local context.

    Our analysis highlights how the risks associated with paid work differ across institutions and how regional labour markets shape patterns of student employment. For instance, our survey indicates a higher proportion of students working in health and social care in Lancashire, where the sector represents 15% of total employment. In contrast, Liverpool’s relatively large share of hospitality student workers reflects the sector’s prominence, accounting for around 10% of jobs in the city region. These different contexts can help steer local interventions to reduce risk associated with particular sectors.

    Figure 2: Employment by top four sectors (multiple responses accepted)

    Recognising paid work as a formal risk would help empower institutions to develop context-sensitive strategies. These might include the crediting of paid work within the curriculum, embedding guidance on employment rights within pastoral support, or designing schedules that accommodate students’ working patterns.

    Access and participation – two sides of the same coin

    As the OfS explores separating out the “Access” and “Participation” strands of its regulatory framework – as outlined in their recent quality consultation – paid work should feature prominently in supporting both ambitions. Widening access is not simply about opening the door; it is about ensuring wider groups of students see themselves as being part of that experience. For some mature learners, carers, and those with financial dependencies (who may feel excluded by the traditional delivery model of higher education) the support to balance paid work and study is critical.

    Ignoring this reality risks undermining the very goals of widening participation. Higher education must adapt to the evolving profile of its students, who increasingly diverge from the outdated stereotype of the full-time undergraduate.

    Our recommendation is for the OfS to prioritise paid work as a key aspect of the future of Access and Participation regulation, inserting it as a distinct risk within the Equality of Opportunity Risk Register. Doing so would:

    • signal its importance as a structural factor affecting equality of opportunity;
    • enable targeted interventions that reflect institutional and regional contexts;
    • support innovation in curriculum design, pastoral care, and timetabling;
    • and promote collaboration between universities, employers, and policymakers to improve job quality and flexibility.

    This is not about discouraging students from working. For many, employment provides valuable experience and skills. Instead, it is about recognising that when work becomes a necessity rather than a choice, it can compromise educational outcomes, especially for those already at the margins.

    The OfS has an opportunity to lead the sector in addressing one of the most pressing challenges facing students today. By treating paid work as a formal risk, it can help ensure that access and participation strategies are grounded in the lived realities of learners.

    As we look to the future, one principle should guide the sector: widening participation does not end at the point of entry. It extends throughout the student journey, encompassing the conditions that enable success. Paid work is now not only part of that journey, but a critical factor.

    Source link

  • Not everyone goes home: why inclusive winter planning matters for student success

    Not everyone goes home: why inclusive winter planning matters for student success

    Author:
    Fiona Ellison and Kate Brown

    Published:

    This blog was kindly authored by Fiona Ellison and Kate Brown, Co-Directors, Unite Foundation.

    It is the third blog in HEPI’s series with The Unite Foundation on how to best support care experienced and estranged students. You can find the first blog here and the second blog here.

    Every December, universities flood inboxes with references to “going home” and “family time.” But thousands of students will not go home, because there is no home away from university to go to. For care experienced and estranged students, winter magnifies isolation, financial pressures and risk. This isn’t a welfare sidebar; it’s a retention issue, central to building a sense of belonging for this group of students.

    The Unite Foundation supports All of Us – the UK-wide community for all care experienced and estranged students – where students can find friends who get it and allies to organise with. We know first-hand from students how challenging this time of year can be. That’s why we’re re-issuing our winter guide with practical examples of how you can support care experienced and estranged students this winter.

    Why does it matter?

    The – perhaps forgotten – Office for Students’ Equality of Opportunity Risk Register (EORR) identified risks that disproportionately affect under‑represented groups – including care experienced and estranged students – across access, continuation, and progression. These include insufficient academic and personal support, mental health challenges, cost pressures, and lack of suitable accommodation. All of which were shown to be particularly key for care experienced and estranged students – and which ,as we approach the winter period, are even more at the forefront. There are even more reasons:

    Three quick wins

    Your institution’s winter break is a stress test for belonging. When libraries close, halls empty and festive messaging assumes family gatherings care experienced and estranged students can feel invisible. There are three foundational moves that every provider should implement immediately:

    1. Mind your language – Drop “going home for Christmas” and family‑centric messaging; use inclusive language (“winter break,” “happy holidays”) across all channels.
    2. Keep the place alive – Maintain open, warm spaces (library, SU, study hubs) with skeleton staff and programmed activities for residents; publish clear opening hours and what’s on.
    3. Proactively signpost specifics – Put support routes (welfare, counselling, emergency contacts, hardship funds) in email signatures, posters and social media – not buried webpages.

    Everyone’s role

    Supporting care experienced and estranged students during the winter break isn’t just a widening participation problem – activity should run through everyone within the university. Here are a few suggestions of what you could be doing:

    • Academics: Make proactive check-ins part of your routine, ask students where they’ll be during the break and whether they need support. Clearly publish extenuating circumstances routes and deadlines, and consider scheduling optional study drop-ins for those staying on campus.
    • Estates and Library teams: Keep central, warm spaces open on a rota so students have somewhere to study and socialise. Publish opening hours well in advance and ensure signage at entrances makes this information visible.
    • Residence Life: Maintain a skeleton support service throughout the holiday period and actively include care experienced and estranged students in any events planned for international students, making it clear they are welcome.
    • Security: Brief your team on the heightened risks these students may face, such as harassment or stalking, and incorporate welfare checks into your holiday protocols.
    • Students’ Union: Organise inclusive social events to reduce loneliness, advertise them relentlessly across channels, and partner with local food banks or community projects to provide essential support.
    • Welfare, Counselling, and Mental Health services: Keep services running, even at reduced capacity, and promote crisis lines and emergency contacts prominently so students know help is available.
    • Widening Participation and APP leads: Ensure term-time employment opportunities continue into the break, name – a real person – as a designated contact for care experienced and estranged students.

    We need everyone to be proactive with their intentions – could you forward this to three people to encourage them to take action?

    Act now

    • If you’re a senior leader in your institution, how can you fund at least one visible, winter‑specific intervention? It could be a staffed warm hub, hardship vouchers, or a winter get-together.
    • Choose one immediate change and implement it this week. Whether it’s using inclusive language in your emails, ensuring a key space stays open, or adding support details to your signature, small actions make a big difference. Belonging is built through everyday signals of care.
    • Make sure students know about existing sources of communities. Connect peers to All of Us, the  community for care experienced and estranged students. Peer networks reduce isolation and create a sense of solidarity – especially during the winter break when loneliness can peak.

    If you’re working in higher education and want to explore this work more, so you’re not making last minute plans next year – why not join our HE Peer Professionals network – a member curated, termly meeting of fellow professionals.

    When you’re thinking about going ‘home for Christmas’ have you thought about what you can do to support a home for care experienced and estranged students? Find out more about the wider work of the Unite Foundation and how we can support you through our  Blueprint framework – to support your institution in building a safe and stable home for care experienced and estranged students, improving retention and attainment outcomes.  

    Source link

  • Ethical AI in higher education: boosting learning, retention and progression

    Ethical AI in higher education: boosting learning, retention and progression

    This blog was kindly authored by Isabelle Bambury, Managing Director UK and Europe at Studiosity, a HEPI Partner

    New research highlights a vital policy window: deploying Artificial Intelligence (AI) not as a policing tool but as a powerful mechanism to support student learning and academic persistence.

    Evidence from independent researcher Dr Rebecca Mace, drawing on data generated by a mix of high, middle and low-tariff UK universities, suggests a compelling, positive correlation between the use of ethically embedded ‘AI for Learning’ tools and student retention, academic skill development and confidence. The findings challenge the predominant narrative that focuses solely on AI detection and academic misconduct, advocating instead for a clear and supportive policy framework to harness AI’s educational benefits.

    Redefining the AI conversation: from threat to partner

    The initial response of higher education institutions to generative AI has been, understandably, centred on fear of disruption. However, this focus overlooks its immense potential to address perennial challenges in the sector, particularly those related to retention and academic preparedness.

    Understanding the purpose and pedagogical role of different types of AI – distinguishing between AI for learning, AI for correction, and AI for content generation – is crucial for their responsible and effective use in higher education, shaping institutional policy and student experience.

    As Professor Rebecca Bunting, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Bedfordshire, notes in her Foreword to the new research:

    The real conversation we should be having is not about whether students should use AI, but how it can be used ethically and effectively to improve learning outcomes for our students.

    This sentiment was echoed in a recent webinar discussing the findings, where guest panelists argued that framing AI as a constant threat leads to a fundamental misunderstanding of how students perceive and use the technology.

    HEPI’s Director, Nick Hillman OBE, reinforces the policy relevance of this shift in his own contribution to the new report:

    The roll-out of AI is a great opportunity to improve all that higher education institutions do.

    Building on research published in HEPI’s recent collection of essays on AI, he also urges policymakers to move away from simplistic binary thinking:

    It is now becoming increasingly clear that AI is a tool for use by humans rather than a simple replacement for humans.

    The measurable impact: confidence, skills, and retention

    The new research focuses on a specific AI for Learning tool from Studiosity in which the AI acts as a learning partner, prompting reflection and supporting students in developing their own ideas, as opposed to generating content on their behalf.

    The quantitative findings are striking:

    • Retention: There is a positive correlation on retention and progression for students using Studiosity . Students accessing this formative feedback were significantly more likely to continue their studies than those who did not. For high-risk students, in particular, higher engagement with Studiosity correlated with greater persistence. This suggests the tool acts as a ‘stabilising scaffold’, addressing not just academic gaps but also the psychological barriers (like low self-efficacy) that lead to attrition.
    • Academic skills development: Students showed measurable improvement across academic writing types, with the most significant gains observed in text analysis, scientific reports and essays. Critically, lower-performing students improved fastest, suggesting an equalising effect. This is because the Studiosity tool supports higher-order thinking skills like criticality, use of sources and complexity of language, not just mechanics.
    • Student voice and belonging: Students frequently said the Studiosity tool helped them ‘articulate their ideas more clearly’ and to ‘say it right’ rather than generating thoughts for them. During one of the focus groups, as one student said, ‘It’s not the ideas I struggled with; it’s how to start writing them down in the right way’. This function, sometimes called academic code-switching, is crucial for students from underrepresented backgrounds and is vital to fostering a sense of academic belonging.

    Bridging the policy-practice divide and the need for equity

    However, the research revealed a ‘concerning discrepancy’ between student perception and institutional regulation. A ‘low-trust culture’ appears to be developing, driven by vague institutional messaging, which sees students hiding their use of AI even when it is for legitimate support.

    Staff often centre their concerns on policy enforcement and ‘spotting misuse’ while students focus on the personal anxiety of unintentionally crossing ‘ill-defined ethical lines’. As one student explained, ‘I would feel so guilty’ even if the AI would make their life easier, a sign that the guilt is ‘not rooted purely in fear of being caught, but in a deeper discomfort about presenting work as their own’.

    Moreover, there is a clear equity issue. Paywalled AI tools risk deepening the digital divide and penalising students from lower-income backgrounds. Students with low AI literacy are more likely to be flagged for misconduct because they use AI clumsily, while digitally fluent students can blend AI support more subtly.

    Recommendations for an ethical AI strategy

    The solution is not to resist AI but to integrate it with intentionality, strategy and clarity. The research offers clear and constructive policy proposals for the sector:

    1. Choose the right tool for the job: Focus on dedicated AI for Learning tools that develop skills and maintain academic integrity, rather than all-purpose content-generating chatbots.
    2. Design clear and consistent policy: Develop nuanced policies that move beyond a binary definition of ‘cheating’ to reflect the complex and iterative ways students are now using AI, ensuring consistency across the institution.
    3. Promote transparency: Educators should disclose their own appropriate AI use to remove stigma and foster a culture of critical engagement, allowing students to speak openly about their support needs.
    4. Prioritise equitable access: Institutions should invest in institutionally funded tools to mitigate the digital literacy and economic divides, ensuring all students – especially those most at risk – have fair and transparent access to academic support.

    In conclusion

    The report concludes that AI offers a substantial policy opportunity to boost a student’s sense of legitimacy and belonging, directly contributing to one of the sector’s most pressing concerns: student success and retention. Policymakers should now shift their attention from policing to pedagogy. You can access a copy of the full report here.

    Studiosity is writing feedback and assessment security to support students and validate learning outcomes at hundreds of universities across five continents, with research-backed evidence of impact.

    www.studiosity.com

    Source link

  • The civic university movement at an inflection point: reflecting on the National Civic Impact Accelerator’s legacy

    The civic university movement at an inflection point: reflecting on the National Civic Impact Accelerator’s legacy

    This blog was kindly authored by Adam Leach, Programme Director and John Fell, Policy and Partnerships Manager, at the National Civic Impact Accelerator at Sheffield Hallam University.

    As the National Civic Impact Accelerator (NCIA) programme concludes this month, we find ourselves at a critical juncture for the civic university movement. After three years of intensive work gathering evidence, developing tools, and supporting universities to deepen their civic engagement, we have learnt a profound lesson: no single formula produces civic university success, but there are proven waypoints that can guide institutions through challenging terrain.

    The timing could not be more important

    The conclusion of the NCIA arrives at a moment of acute tension. On one hand, the Secretary of State for Education has made civic engagement one of her five top priorities for higher education reform. Bridget Phillipson’s November 2024 letter to university leaders was unequivocal: institutions must:

    play a full part in both civic engagement, ensuring local communities and businesses benefit fully from your work; and in regional development, working in partnership with local government and employers.

    On the other hand, many higher education institutions are facing deficit, and NCIA research has revealed the fragility of civic infrastructure within universities. Civic teams are being disbanded, staff on short-term contracts are not being renewed, and years of carefully built community partnerships are at risk. As one participant in our research observed:

    If you are sitting in rooms with leaders of councils and hospitals, for that to be a junior role is a big ask, especially if it is a junior role on a temporary contract.

    This paradox – increased civic responsibility amid deepening financial pressures – represents perhaps the most significant challenge facing the civic university movement.

    What the NCIA has delivered

    The NCIA programme, led by Sheffield Hallam University in partnership with the National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement (NCCPE), the Institute for Community Studies, City-REDI at the University of Birmingham, and Queen Mary University of London, set out to answer a fundamental question: what works in civic engagement, for whom, and in what contexts?

    Our flagship output is the Civic Field Guide, which distils three years of evidence gathering into 14 practical waypoints organised across seven terrains: People, Place, Partnership, Policy, Practice, Purpose and Process. These waypoints emerged not from theory alone but from the generous sharing of universities across England, who were honest about both their successes and setbacks. Think of our waypoints as signs on a coastal path – they help you understand where you are and what direction you are heading, but they do not walk the path for you.

    Each waypoint addresses critical challenges. One focuses on embedding civic engagement as a core university mission, rather than leaving it to a few passionate individuals – what we call the ‘passion trap’. Another waypoint explores measuring civic impact through both quantitative metrics and qualitative narratives, recognising that numbers alone cannot capture how civic initiatives transform real lives. A third encourages universities to position communities as equal partners through co-design and lived experience, rather than as passive recipients of university expertise.

    Beyond the Field Guide, we have created a wealth of freely accessible evidence, tools and resources. Our Action Learning Programme brought together civic practitioners from across the UK. We have funded innovative civic projects testing new approaches, and we have produced a comprehensive Civic Impact Framework identifying seven domains where universities can make a difference.

    The honest answer

    After three years and significant investment, have we finally cracked civic university success? No. The legacy of the NCIA will not be our outputs and guidance, but what people do with them, and how they use them to  make changes in their places and communities. Civic work is highly place-responsive and context-specific. What succeeds in Sheffield may not work in Southampton. The power to change lies with practitioners and academics applying these insights to their unique contexts.

    Looking ahead: policy proposals for sustainability

    As the NCIA concludes, new structures are emerging to sustain the momentum. Following six years of leadership from Sheffield Hallam University, the NCCPE will steward the Civic University Network into its next phase, ensuring that NCIA resources remain accessible. The Civic 2.0 initiative establishes a consortium of UK universities with the University of Birmingham hosting a national policy hub.

    Yet sustainability requires concrete policy action at institutional, regional and national levels:

    For universities: Civic engagement must move from the margins to the core of institutional strategy. This means long-term budgets for civic teams, senior leadership accountability for delivering civic commitments, and treating community relationships as strategic assets, not expendable add-ons.

    For Government: The devolution agenda and creation of combined authorities create opportunities to embed universities as anchor institutions in regional policy frameworks. Universities should be crucial partners in regional development strategies, with dedicated funding streams for civic infrastructure.

    For funders: Research England and UK Research and Innovation should maintain dedicated civic capacity funding beyond individual programme cycles. The civic infrastructure requires sustained investment, not stop-start project funding.

    The Government’s explicit political support for universities’ civic role creates opportunities that were unimaginable a decade ago. But opportunity must translate into sustainable structures. Universities that demonstrate clear local value will have stronger voices in regional and national policy discussions and stronger support during crises.

    Keeping civic central

    The NCIA has provided navigation tools. Universities now possess comprehensive evidence about what works, practical frameworks for action, and a growing community of civic practitioners willing to share their learning. The question facing the sector is whether institutions will commit to using them despite financial pressures.

    The future of civic engagement depends on universities recognising that their purpose is about contributing meaningfully to the places they call home and the communities they serve. The civic university movement has moved from the margins to the mainstream. Now comes the hard work of keeping it there.

    Source link

  • New HEPI Debate Paper: ‘A Baker’s Dozen: Thirteen years of book reviews on higher education, 2013 to 2025’

    New HEPI Debate Paper: ‘A Baker’s Dozen: Thirteen years of book reviews on higher education, 2013 to 2025’

    Author:
    Nick Hillman

    Published:

    HEPI’s final publication of 2025 takes a timely look back to reflect on a period of profound change in higher education policy and debate.

    A Baker’s Dozen: Thirteen years of book reviews on higher education, 2013 to 2025 (HEPI Debate Paper 42), written by HEPI’s Director Nick Hillman OBE, brings together 30 book reviews published since higher undergraduate tuition fees first came into effect in 2012/13. This moment marked the beginning of an era that reshaped higher education across the UK: from the removal of student number controls to the creation of the Office for Students, with lasting consequences for the sector.

    The collection spans books by leading academics, politicians, commentators and international figures, as well as a cultural perspective from beyond the policy world. Authors reviewed include Peter Mandler, Alison Scott-Baumann, David Cameron, Wes Streeting, David Goodhart, Sam Freedman, Richard Corcoran, Ben Wildavsky and David Baddiel. Together, the reviews chart how debates about higher education, the state, students, institutions and free speech have evolved over more than a decade.

    Organised into five thematic sections, the debate paper offers both a historical record and a platform for renewed discussion. With further reform on the horizon, new leadership at the Office for Students and elections in Wales and Scotland approaching, this Debate Paper offers an important moment to consider how we arrived at the current policy landscape and how debate should develop next.

    You can read the press release and access the full debate paper here.

    Source link