Category: higher education

  • How Admissions and Marketing Teams Can Collaborate

    How Admissions and Marketing Teams Can Collaborate

    Fostering Interdepartmental Collaboration to Drive a More Effective and Engaging Student Journey

    Achieving success in your higher education marketing strategy requires seamless collaboration between your admissions and marketing teams to create a connected, consistent student journey experience. When these teams align, they move beyond their isolated efforts and build a unified strategy that not only captures students’ attention but also drives meaningful engagement and enrollments.

    Admissions teams gain critical, real-time insights from their conversations with prospective students, and marketing teams transform those insights into strategies and assets that resonate with the right audiences. By sharing their insights, both teams can better inform campaigns, conversations, and touchpoints, ensuring every interaction feels intentional, relevant, and student-centered.

    However, this alignment doesn’t happen by chance. It requires deliberate collaboration, thoughtful planning, and the strategic use of data at every stage. From discovery interviews and customer relationship management (CRM) data analysis to shared campaign development, each step in the process plays a vital role in delivering a cohesive, engaging experience that guides prospective students from curiosity to commitment.

    The Importance and Benefits of Collaboration Between Admissions and Marketing Teams 

    In an increasingly competitive higher ed landscape, having admissions and marketing teams that collaborate and communicate with each other regularly can make a meaningful difference in the experience that an institution delivers to prospective students, while optimizing its marketing efforts for maximum impact.  

    When admissions and marketing operate in silos, the cohesion breaks down. Collaboration prevents these gaps, ensuring every message, from the first ad to the final admissions call, feels aligned and purposeful.

    Creating a Unified Message

    Students don’t distinguish between “admissions” and “marketing” — they only see the institution. That’s why a unified message is so crucial to every higher education marketing strategy. A consistent and unified message — whether it’s delivered through ads, emails, website visits, or conversations with admissions personnel — builds trust, strengthens the brand, and guides prospective students smoothly through their decision-making journey.

    Building a Powerful Feedback Loop  

    When admissions and marketing teams stay in consistent communication, they create a powerful feedback loop that strengthens the institution’s messaging and better serves its prospective students.

    Admissions teams are on the front lines, having daily conversations with students and hearing their motivations, hesitations, and questions firsthand. These interactions provide invaluable qualitative insights that can flow back into marketing assets and strategies. 

    For example, if students frequently ask about program outcomes — such as what they can do with a certain degree — marketing can develop targeted blog content, alumni video spotlights, or landing page updates showcasing career opportunities, industry connections, and success stories related to the degree. Additionally, if there are common points of confusion that come up in students’ conversations with admissions staff, marketing materials can be created that clearly and directly address these issues. 

    By tapping into this feedback loop, both teams can make meaningful, real-time adjustments that align the institution’s messaging with students’ priorities, enhance engagement, and drive better outcomes.

    Empowering Teams With Critical Insights and Knowledge

    Both admissions and marketing teams bring something unique and valuable to the table when it comes to understanding the institution’s brand, its offerings, and its students. While there are areas of overlap, each team also has its own distinct focal points that allow it to provide useful details the other team can benefit from, creating a richer and more comprehensive appreciation of how each team can best serve the institution’s students.

    Practical Ways to Collaborate 

    Now that we’ve established the importance of collaboration, let’s take a look at some practical ways to bring this strategy to life. 

    Coordinate and Share Learnings During a Discovery Process

    The first step is discovery, the phase where both admissions and marketing teams collaborate to analyze and uncover insights that will make their work more accurate, impactful, and aligned. The discovery process includes in-depth conversations with key university stakeholders; audits of existing school resources, marketing collateral, and program materials; and market research and competitive analysis to understand the institution’s positioning and audience needs.

    Each team adds unique value to the process. Admissions teams gather information about program-specific details, students’ motivations, and nuances that resonate during enrollment conversations, while marketing teams analyze the institution’s competitive positioning, audience behaviors, and key differentiators. By sharing and coordinating these efforts upfront, teams can reduce redundancies, ensure alignment, and create a more cohesive strategy that delivers consistent, tailored messaging. 

    Here are some tactics that can help in coordinating and consolidating discovery efforts:

    • Shared discovery templates
      • Create standardized templates for interviews, audits, and insight summaries to ensure consistency in how findings are gathered and shared across teams.
    • Discovery check-ins
      • Ensure there are opportunities to check in and share progressive findings or learnings with the other team. This not only helps ensure that what is being communicated or uncovered by each team is consistent and in alignment. It also provides each team with valuable information that will help guide deeper conversations or elicit important questions that can be addressed sooner. 
    • Centralized insight repository
      • Use a shared platform (e.g., Asana, Google Docs, or Notion) to compile key findings, data points, and interview notes in one place.
    • Joint stakeholder interviews and meetings
      • Conduct some discovery interviews with stakeholders (e.g., marketing, program directors, faculty, students) jointly. This ensures both teams hear the same information and gain aligned insights.
      • For separate interviews, share questions between teams beforehand to ensure all interviews are exploring complementary areas.

    Schedule Ongoing Check-Ins With Teams

    Consistent communication is critical for collaboration. Regular monthly or quarterly meetings that include both admissions and marketing staff create space for sharing insights, identifying trends, and closing messaging gaps. 

    Admissions teams can spotlight common motivations, pain points, and areas of confusion among students, so marketing teams can update campaigns to address these themes in real time. These sessions ensure all higher education marketing strategies stay aligned and adaptive, making the student experience feel more cohesive.

    Leverage CRM Data

    Every interaction with a student leaves a breadcrumb trail of data. By tapping into call notes and CRM system data, admissions and marketing teams can track students’ questions, motivations, and hesitations. 

    Analyzing this data can reveal trends that marketing can address through website updates, FAQs, and ad campaigns. Sharing actionable summaries allows admissions teams to prepare for upcoming conversations and marketing teams to preemptively answer students’ concerns, creating a more seamless experience for prospects.

    Share and Understand Key Resources

    Developing key marketing resources, such as a Strategic Marketing Guide (SMG), and sharing them across teams can help keep admissions and marketing teams’ collaboration efforts on track. 

    An SMG isn’t just a document — it’s the framework that ensures every team is aligned in understanding the key components of the institution’s brand, story, and students. Personas, unique value propositions (UVPs), brand stories and positioning, and messaging frameworks outlined in an SMG help admissions and marketing teams speak the same language and tell a shared story.  

    Connect Your Admissions and Marketing Teams Through Collaboration With Archer

    At Archer Education, we don’t just build marketing strategies — we build lasting capabilities. Our approach goes beyond campaign launches and lead generation to focus on sustainable online infrastructure that empowers universities to thrive long after our work is done. From aligning admissions and marketing teams to developing data-driven messaging frameworks, we act as a true partner in developing custom higher education marketing strategies that work. 

    Our collaboration is designed to transfer knowledge, not just deliver results. We equip your teams with the tools, training, and insights they need to operate with confidence, ensuring your institution isn’t reliant on outside support to maintain momentum. The result is a marketing engine that runs smoothly long after Archer’s involvement has ended, empowering your teams to lead with agility in an ever-changing higher education landscape. 

    Contact us today to learn more. 

    Subscribe to the Higher Ed Marketing Journal:

    Source link

  • Four Benefits of Attending InsightsEDU

    Four Benefits of Attending InsightsEDU

    Every year, EducationDynamics welcomes marketing, enrollment, admissions, and higher education leaders from across the nation for InsightsEDU—a higher education conference dedicated to uncovering emerging trends and innovative solutions that help colleges and universities enhance reputation and grow revenue. In 2025, InsightsEDU will be hosted in New Orleans, Louisiana at the Ritz Carlton from February 12-14, 2025.

    With 40+ subject matter experts, and 38+ sessions, InsightsEDU is designed to equip attendees with the knowledge, tools, and strategies necessary to successfully engage the Modern Learner. Discover key benefits you will experience by attending InsightsEDU 2025.

    Benefits of Attending a Higher Education Conference like InsightsEDU

    1. Gain Timely Insights into the Modern Learner

    There is no doubt that higher education is undergoing a shift. The Modern Learner, who increasingly values flexibility, personalization, and cost-effectiveness, is driving much of this transformation.  This year’s conference theme, “The Era of the Modern Learner,” reflects this pivotal moment in education.  

    InsightsEDU will help higher education marketers adapt strategies to meet the needs of these students, by equipping them with practical insights on how Modern Learners interact with enrollment teams, make decisions, and engage with content. Understanding these dynamics will allow higher ed professionals to tailor marketing and enrollment strategies to better address the demands of today’s students, while demonstrating value and personalization.

    2. Network with Fellow Institutional Leaders, Experts, and Professionals Nationwide

    InsightsEDU is more than a learning opportunity; it is also an unparalleled networking opportunity for the higher education community. With over 100 colleges and universities represented, InsightsEDU brings together a diverse group of higher education professionals, including institutional leaders, marketers, admissions professionals, and experts from across the nation and even abroad.

    Throughout the conference, attendees will experience everything from informative sessions and panels to networking events infused with New Orleans’ flair. These interactions will provide attendees with opportunities to build lasting connections with fellow professionals who share a commitment to advancing higher education initiatives. Additionally, attendees will be able to participate in discussion forums and stay connected to professional connections through the conference app, allowing attendees to stay engaged even after the conference ends.

    3. Access Tailored Strategies for All Student Demographics

    InsightsEDU is dedicated to helping professionals connect with today’s diverse student populations through targeted, practical strategies. For traditional students, attendees will explore ways to create personalized outreach and recruitment campaigns that highlight flexibility and value. Sessions focused on online students will uncover data-driven marketing methods and innovative enrollment strategies that address their desire for convenience and personalization. For graduate students, attendees will explore strategies that leverage career-focused messaging and a clear return on investment for advanced degrees.

    Attendees will leave InsightsEDU equipped with powerful, actionable strategies tailored to the unique needs of various student demographics—empowering them to drive success and lead in a changing higher education landscape.

    4. Experience Expert-Led Sessions Focused on Real-World Solutions

    At InsightsEDU, attendees will engage with a stellar line-up of speakers covering the latest trends and challenges in higher education. Our conference agenda features 38+ sessions from industry experts, each with unique and data-backed perspectives on topics such as personalized digital marketing, enrollment management, and student success. With expert perspectives from organizations like Google, Meta, Reddit, EY Parthenon and more, attendees will learn how to apply the latest trends and technologies to enhance their approach. Additionally, attendees will gain exclusive insights to groundbreaking tools and data, including the latest Online College Students Report, giving them a first look at critical insights into today’s students.

    Unlock the Future of Higher Education at InsightsEDU 2025

    InsightsEDU 2025 is the must-attend conference for higher education professionals who are committed to staying ahead of the curve and driving impact within education. Don’t miss the opportunity to be a part of this innovative event, designed to provide you with strategies and insights for success in higher education.   

    We look forward to seeing you at InsightsEDU from February 12-14! Register today and secure your spot.

    Source link

  • Bridging borders in knowledge: the internationalisation of Chinese social sciences

    Bridging borders in knowledge: the internationalisation of Chinese social sciences

    by Márton Demeter, Manuel Goyanes, Gergő Háló and Xin Xu

    The dynamics of Chinese social sciences are shifting rapidly. As policies aim to balance domestic priorities with global integration, the interplay between China’s academic output and its international reception highlights critical challenges and opportunities. In a recent study published in Policy Reviews in Higher Education, we analyzed 8,962 publications by the top 500 most productive China-affiliated scholars in Economics, Education, and Political Science between 2016 and 2020.

    Uneven impacts across disciplines

    Our analysis reveals that most Chinese-authored works in these disciplines are published in Western-edited journals. Political Science publications often focus on China-specific topics, creating what may be interpreted as intellectual silos.

    By contrast, Economics stands out for its significant global impact, with Chinese scholars’ publications frequently outpacing the citation rates of their Western peers. Meanwhile, Education and Political Science publications from China generally attract fewer citations compared to those from the U.S., U.K., and Germany.

    Why does Economics perform so well? The field’s emphasis on data-driven, globally relevant research – addressing topics like economic policy, market dynamics, and financial crises – positions it effectively within international discourse. Substantial funding and resources further strengthen Economics’ visibility and impact.

    In contrast, Education often highlights region-specific practices that may resonate less with a global audience, while Political Science is constrained by political sensitivities and limited opportunities for broad international collaboration.

    Patterns of collaboration

    Collaboration offers another perspective of Chinese academia’s strengths and limitations. Scholars in Economics and Education often engage in diverse partnerships, with strong connections to both Western and Asian institutions. In contrast, Political Science remains more insular, with most co-authorships occurring within mainland China. This inward focus may restrict the field’s integration into global academic conversations.

    At an institutional level, hybrid collaborations – combining domestic and international partnerships – highlight China’s strategic approach to bridging local and global aspirations. However, the predominance of Western collaborators, particularly from the United States, underscores a continued reliance on established academic hubs.

    The duality of “siloed internationalisation”

    A significant finding of our study is the duality evident in Political Science research: while these publications often appear in international journals, their focus on China-specific issues reflects a form of “scientific nationalism”. This approach limits their global engagement, confining them to niche scholarly communities rather than positioning them as contributors to broader, international dialogues.

    The “international in format but national in essence” approach underscores a broader challenge for Chinese academia. It must navigate the tension between adhering to global visibility standards while championing non-Western perspectives and priorities.

    Policy and practical implications

    Our findings also carry critical implications for policymakers, institutions, and global academic networks. For China, fostering more diverse collaborations – beyond traditional Western partners – can reduce overreliance on dominant paradigms and contribute to a more equitable global knowledge production system. Initiatives with an emphasis on partnerships with Asia-Pacific, Africa, and Eastern Europe, could play a key role in reshaping these dynamics.

    We believe that, for the global academic community, greater inclusivity requires deliberate efforts to decenter Western paradigms. Platforms that ensure equitable participation and strategies to protect collaborations from geopolitical tensions are vital for sustaining open and impactful scientific exchange.

    Looking forward

    The field of Economics exemplifies how targeted investment and international integration can amplify visibility and impact. To replicate this success in Education and Political Science, expanding international collaboration and addressing thematic silos are essential. At the same time, global academic networks must also embrace diverse perspectives to ensure that voices from regions like China enrich rather than merely adapt to dominant discourses.

    Importantly, in an era of geopolitical uncertainty, research can serve as a vital conduit for mutual understanding and collaboration. By prioritising equitable partnerships and sustaining global dialogue, we can work toward a more inclusive and, therefore, more resilient academic ecosystem.

    Our study offers practical guidance for addressing the challenges of internationalization in Chinese social sciences, providing valuable tools for scholars, institutions, and policymakers working to advance global knowledge production.

    For more details, explore our full paper:

    Demeter, M, Goyanes, M. Háló, G and Xu, X (2024) ‘The Internationalisation of Chinese Social Sciences Research: Publication, Collaboration, and Citation Patterns in Economics, Education, and Political Science’ https://doi.org/10.1080/23322969.2024.2438240.

    Márton Demeter is a Full Professor at the University of Public Service, Budapest at the Department of Social Communication, and he is the Head of Department for Science Strategy. He has extensively published on academic knowledge production in communication studies and beyond.

    Manuel Goyanes serves as Associate Professor of Research Methods at Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. His interdisciplinary work revolves around theoretically designing, and empirically testing, cutting-edge quantitative and qualitative methodological procedures to scientifically address challenging aspects of social science inquiry 

    Gergő Háló, an assistant professor at the National University of Public Service Budapest, specialises in socio-critical studies of geopolitical and gender inequalities in science, academic performance, research assessment frameworks, and higher education policies.

    Xin Xu is a Departmental Lecturer in Higher/Tertiary Education at the Department of Education, University of Oxford, and the deputy director of the Centre for Skills, Knowledge, and Organisational Performance (SKOPE). Her research focuses on tertiary education and the research on research.

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link

  • Institutional constraints to higher education datafication: an English case study

    Institutional constraints to higher education datafication: an English case study

    by Rachel Brooks

    ‘Intractable’ datafication?

    Over recent years, both policymakers and university leaders have extolled the virtues of moving to a more metricised higher education sector: statistics about student satisfaction with their degree programme are held to improve the decision-making processes of prospective students, while data analytics are purported to help the shift to more personalised learning, for example. Moreover, academic studies have contended that datafication has become an ‘intractable’ part of higher education institutions (HEIs) across the world.

    Nevertheless, our research (conducted in ten English HEIs, funded by TASO) – of data use with respect to widening participation to undergraduate ‘sandwich’ courses (where students spend a year on a work placement, typically during the third year of a four-year degree programme) – indicates that, despite the strong claims about the advantages of making more and better use of data, in this particular area of activity at least, significant constraints operate, limiting the advantages that can accrue through datafication.

    Little evidence of widespread data use

    Our interviewees were those responsible for sandwich course provision in their HEI. While most thought that data could offer useful insights into the effectiveness of their area of activity, there was little evidence of ‘intractable’ data use. This was for three main reasons. First, in some cases, interviewees explained that no relevant data were collected – in relation to access to sandwich courses and/or the outcomes of such courses. Second, in some HEIs, relevant data were collected but not analysed. Such evidence tends to support the contention that ‘data lakes’ are emerging, as HEIs collect more and more data that often remain untapped. Third, in other cases, appropriate data were collected and analysed, but in a very limited manner. For example, one interviewee explained how data were collected and analysed in relation to the participation of students from under-represented ethnic groups, but not with respect to any other widening participation categories. This limited form of datafication, in which only some social characteristics were datafied, was not, therefore, able to inform any action with respect to the participation of widening participation students generally. Indeed, across all ten HEIs, there was only one example of where data were used in a systematic fashion to help analyse who was accessing sandwich courses within the institution, and the extent to which they were representative of the wider student population.

    Constraints on data use

    Lack of institutional capacity

    In explaining this absence of data use, the most commonly identified constraint was the lack of institutional capacity to collect and/or analyse appropriate data. For example, one interviewee commented that they did not have a very good data system for placements – ‘we are still quite Excel- based’. Excel spreadsheets were viewed as limited as they could not be easily shared or updated, and data were relatively hard to manipulate. This, according to the interviewee, made collection of appropriate data laborious, and systematic analysis of the data difficult. Interviewees also pointed to the limited time staff had available to analyse data that the institution had collected.

    Prioritisation of ‘externally-facing’ data

    Several interviewees described how ‘externally-facing data’ – i.e. that required by regulatory bodies and/or that fed into national and international league tables – was commonly prioritised, leaving little time for information officers to devote to generating and/or analysing data for internal purposes. One interviewee, for example, was unclear about what data, if any, were collected about equity gaps but believed that they were generally only pulled together for high-level reports ‘such as for the TEF’.

    Institutional cultures

    A further barrier to using data to analyse access to and outcomes of sandwich courses was perceived to be the wider culture of the institution, including its attitude to risk. An interviewee explained that the data collected in their institution was limited to two main variables – subject of study and fee status (home or international) – because of ‘ongoing cautiousness at the university about how some of that data is used and how it’s shared with different teams’.

    In addition, many participants outlined the struggles they had faced in gaining access to relevant data, and in influencing decisions about what should be collected and what analyses should be run. Several spoke of having to ‘request’ particular analyses to be run (which could be turned down), leading to a fairly ad hoc and inefficient way of proceeding, and illustrating the relative lack of agency accorded to staff – typically occupying mid-level organisational roles – in accessing and manipulating data.

    Reflections

    Examining a discrete set of activities within the UK higher education sector – those relating to sandwich courses – provides a useful lens to examine quotidian practices with respect to the availability and use of data. Despite the strong emphasis on data by government bodies and HEI senior management teams, as well as the claims made about the ‘intractability’ of HEI data use in the academic literature, our research suggests that datafication is perhaps not as widespread as some have claimed. Indeed, it indicates that some areas of activity – even those linked to high profile political and institutional priorities (in this case, employability and widening participation) – have remained largely untouched by ‘intractable’ datafication, with relevant data either not being collected or, where it is collected, not being made available to staff working in pertinent areas.

    As a consequence, the extent to which students from widening participation backgrounds were accessing sandwich courses – and then succeeding on them – relative to their peers typically remained invisible. While the majority of our interviewees were able to speculate on the extent of any under-representation and/or poor experience, this was typically on the basis of anecdotal evidence and their own ‘sense’ of how inequalities were played out in this area. Although reflecting on professional experience is obviously important, many inequalities may not be visible to staff (for example, if a student chooses not to talk about their neurodiversity or first-in-family status), even if they have regular contact with those eligible to take a sandwich course. Moreover, given the status often accorded to quantitative data within the senior management teams of universities, the lack of any statistical reporting about inequalities by social characteristic, as they pertain to sandwich courses, makes it highly likely that such issues will struggle to gain the attention of senior leaders. The barriers to the effective use of metrics highlighted above may thus have a direct impact on HEIs’ capacity to recognise and address inequalities.  

    The research on which this blog is based was carried out with Jill Timms (University of Surrey) and is discussed in more detail in this article Institutional constraints to higher education datafication: an English case study | Higher Education

    Rachel Brooks is Professor of Higher Education at the University of Oxford and current President of the British Sociological Association. She has conducted a wide range of research on the sociology of higher education; her most recent book is Constructing the Higher Education Student: perspectives from across Europe, published (open access) with Policy Press.

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link

  • Professor Farid Alatas on ‘The captive mind and anti-colonial thought’

    Professor Farid Alatas on ‘The captive mind and anti-colonial thought’

    by Ibrar Bhatt

    On Monday 2 December 2024, during the online segment of the 2024 SRHE annual conference, Professor Farid Alatas delivered a thought-provoking keynote address in which he emphasised an urgent need for the decolonisation of knowledge within higher education. His lecture was titled ‘The captive mind and anti-colonial thought’ and drew from the themes of his numerous works including Sociological Theory Beyond the Canon (Alatas, 2017).

    Alatas called for a broader, more inclusive framework for teaching sociological theory and the importance of doing so for contemporary higher education. For Alatas, this framework should move beyond a Eurocentric and androcentric focus of traditional curricula, and integrate framings and concepts from non-Western thinkers (including women) to establish a genuinely international perspective.

    In particular, he discussed his detailed engagement with the neglected social theories of Ibn Khaldun, his efforts to develop a ‘neo-Khaldunian theory of sociology’. He also highlighted another exemplar of non-Western thought, the Filipino theorist José Rizal (see Alatas, 2009, 2017). Alatas discussed how such modes sort of non-Western social theory should be incorporated into social science textbooks and teaching curricula.

    Professor Alatas further argued that continuing to rely on theories and concepts from a limited group of countries—primarily Western European and North American—imposes intellectual constraints that are both limiting and potentially harmful for higher education. Using historical examples, such as the divergent interpretations of the Crusades (viewed as religious wars from a European perspective but as colonial invasions from a Middle Eastern perspective), he illustrated how perspectives confined to the European experience often fail to account for the nuanced framing of such events in other regions. Such epistemic blind spots stress the need for higher education to embrace diverse ways of knowing that have long existed across global traditions.

    Beyond critiquing Eurocentrism, Professor Alatas acknowledged the systemic challenges within institutions in the Global South, which also inhibit knowledge production. He urged for inward critical reflection within these contexts, addressing issues like resource constraints, institutional biases, racism, ethnocentrism, and the undervaluing of indigenous epistemologies through the internalisation of a ‘captive mindset’. Only by addressing these intertwined challenges, he concluded, can universities foster a more equitable and inclusive intellectual environment, and one that is more practically relevant and applicable to higher education in former colonised settings.

    This keynote was a call to action for educators, researchers, and institutions to rethink and restructure the ways in which sociological and other academic canons are constructed and taught. But first, there is an important reflection that must be undertaken, and an acknowledgement, grounded in epistemic humility, that there is more to social theory than Eurocentrism.

    There was not enough time to deeply engage with some of the concepts in his keynote; therefore, I hope to invite Professor Farid Alatas for an in-person conversation on these topics during his visit to the UK in 2025. Please look out for this event advertisement.

    The recording of this keynote address is now available from https://youtu.be/4Cf6C9wP6Ac?list=PLZN6b5AbqH3BnyGcdvF5wLCmbQn37cFgr

    Ibrar Bhatt is Senior Lecturer at the School of Social Sciences, Education & Social Work at Queen’s University Belfast (Northern Ireland). His research interests encompass applied linguistics, higher education, and digital humanities. He is also an Executive Editor for the journal ‘Teaching in Higher Education: Critical Perspective’s, and on the Editorial Board for the journal ‘Postdigital Science & Education’.

    His recent books include ‘Critical Perspectives on Teaching in the Multilingual University’ (Routledge), ‘A Semiotics of Muslimness in China’ (with Cambridge University Press), and he is currently writing his next book ‘Heritage Literacy in the Lives of Chinese Muslim’, which will be published next year with Bloomsbury.

    He was a member of the Governing Council of the Society for Research into Higher Education between 2018-2024, convened its Digital University Network between 2015-2022, and is currently the founding convener of the Society’s Multilingual University Network.

    References

    Alatas SF (2009) ‘Religion and reform: Two exemplars for autonomous sociology in the non-Western context’ In: Sujata P (ed) The International Handbook of Diverse Sociological Traditions London: Sage pp 29–39

    Alatas SF (2017) ‘Jose Rizal (1861–1896)’ in Alatas SF and Sinha V (eds) Sociological Theory Beyond the Canon London: Palgrave Macmillan pp 143–170

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link

  • Online Learning Infrastructure: Assessing the Current State

    Online Learning Infrastructure: Assessing the Current State

    How Insight and Evaluation Can Lead to Execution

    Let’s set the stage. You’re a sharp, focused higher education leader staring down the realities of expanding your online and hybrid learning programs. You’ve got big goals: running your online operations in-house, owning the process, and driving growth on your terms. 

    This is where Online Growth Enablement comes in. This isn’t a fancy buzzword. It’s the real work behind sustainable change. It’s the boots-on-the-ground understanding of exactly where you are today so you can figure out how to move forward tomorrow. 

    At Archer, we do this every day — rolling up our sleeves and digging deep to map out the real picture of an institution’s online learning infrastructure. Because, let’s be honest. The only way to grow is to start with the truth about your current state and your place within the landscape of the communities you serve with your programs.

    Why Your Current State Matters 

    Success doesn’t happen in a vacuum — especially not in online learning. Enabling the growth of your online learning infrastructure takes coordination, collaboration, and a whole lot of buy-in from every corner of your university. Marketing, tech, enrollment, financial aid, the registrar, faculty, leadership — if they’re not on the same page as you, you can’t successfully move forward. Period.  

    Driving real growth starts with taking an unflinching look at where you stand today. Questions you should be asking about your online operations include: 

    • Where are you strong? 
    • Where are you struggling? 
    • Where are the untapped opportunities you can scale?  

    This isn’t about a vague, feel-good assessment from 50,000 feet up. It’s about getting into the weeds. Because, until you understand the inner workings of your current infrastructure, you’re not going to build anything sustainable. You’ll just be putting a fresh coat of paint on a crumbling foundation. And that’s not going to cut it in the long run.

    The Power of Deep Insights

    Let’s take a look at a real-world example of why a close examination of your current online learning infrastructure matters. One of our partner universities was taking 14 days to review and process the transcripts of students applying to their online programs. This might work fine for a traditional on-campus program with two or three big start dates a year, but for an online program, the game changes. To stay competitive, you need five or six start dates annually. And that 14-day turnaround? For our partner, it meant missing out on dozens of potential enrollments.  

    Fixing this issue wasn’t about throwing money at the problem. It was about setting a clear benchmark and making it happen. We worked with the institution to rethink its processes, reassign its teams’ responsibilities, and streamline every single step of its transcript review.  

    The effectiveness of every touchpoint you have with a potential student and every handoff between your admissions, financial aid, and academic advising teams affects your ability to deliver an overall positive student experience. Deep operational insights aren’t just nice to have; they’re the key to uncovering bottlenecks so you can clear the way for real, measurable growth. 

    How We Help: The Growth Enablement Assessment

    At Archer, we don’t do guesswork. We help our partners make sense of the current state of their online learning infrastructure through our Growth Enablement Assessment — a no-stone-left-unturned look at every department and operational variable. From enrollment workflows to marketing execution, we get into the details that others overlook to help you figure out where you are and make a plan for where you want to be.

    Our approach is anchored in our Good, Better, Best methodology:  

    • Good: Your processes are functional. They get the job done, but let’s be honest — they need improvement to keep pace in a competitive online marketplace.
    • Better: There’s progress. Your processes are showing alignment, but they’re not quite optimized yet.  
    • Best: This is where you want to be. Your processes are efficient, scalable, and fully aligned with your strategic goals.  

    This isn’t just an audit. It’s a road map. By pinpointing exactly where you stand and where you need to go, we equip you with the insights and strategies to move your online learning operations from functional to thriving. 

    Why It’s All Worth It

    Yes, this takes time. Yes, it’s hard work. But the payoff is undeniable.  

    Fully understanding the current state of your online learning infrastructure isn’t just a box to check — it’s the foundation for every initiative that follows. It gives you the clarity to enhance not only your online learning programs but also the overall health and effectiveness of your institution.  

    When you commit to this process, you’re building something bigger than just operational efficiency. You’re creating alignment across departments, fostering innovation, and embedding collaboration and continuous improvement into your institution’s culture. When every team is in sync, bottlenecks disappear, every touchpoint matters, and your processes deliver on the promise of a strong student experience.  

    It’s not just worth it. It’s transformative.  If you’re ready to take the first step toward long-term success and scalability, contact Archer Education. Let’s build the online learning infrastructure your institution deserves, together.

    Subscribe to the Higher Ed Marketing Journal:


    John Goodwin

    John Goodwin is Archer Education’s EVP of Online Growth Enablement. Archer revolutionizes the student experience by supporting partners through change, helping institutions achieve sustainable growth while fostering self-sufficiency.

    Source link

  • University autonomy and government control by funding

    University autonomy and government control by funding

    by GR Evans

    A change of government has not changed the government’s power to intrude upon the autonomy of providers of higher education, which is constrained chiefly by its being limited to the financial. Government can also issue guidance to the regulator, the Office for Students, and that guidance may be detailed. Recent exchanges give a flavour of the kind of control which politicians may seek, but this may be at odds with the current statutory framework.

    As Secretary of State for Education, Gillian Keegan sent a Letter of Guidance to the Office for Students on 4 April 2024. She stated her priorities, first that ‘students pursue HE studies that enable them to progress into employment, thereby benefitting them as well as the wider economy’. She also thought it ‘important to provide students with different high-quality pathways in HE, notably through higher technical qualifications (HTQs), and degree apprenticeships’ at Levels 4 and 5. These ‘alternatives to three-year degrees’, she said, ‘provide valuable opportunities to progress up the ladder of opportunity’. As a condition of funding providers were to ‘build capacity’ with ‘eligible learners on Level 4 and 5 qualifications via a formula allocation’.  The new Higher Technical Qualifications were to attract ‘an uplift within this formula for learners on HTQ courses’. ‘World leading specialist providers’ were to be encouraged and funded ‘up to a limit’ of £58.1m for FY24/25.

    The change of Government in July 2024 brought a new Secretary of State in the person of Bridget Phillipson but no fresh Letter of Guidance before she spoke in the Commons in a Higher Education debate on 4 November, 2024. Recognising that many universities were in dire financial straits, she  suggested that there should be ‘reform’ in exchange for a rise in tuition fees for undergraduates which had just been announced. That, she suggested, would be needed to ensure that universities would be ‘there for them to attend’ in future.

    However, commentators quickly pointed out that Phillipson’s announcement that there would be a small rise in undergraduate tuition fees from £9,250 to £9,535 a year would not be anywhere near enough to fill the gap in higher education funding. The resulting risks were recognised. When the Office for Students reviewed the Financial sustainability of higher education  providers in England in 2024 in May 2024 it had looked at the ‘risks relating to student recruitment’ by providers in relation to the income from their tuition fees.

    Phillipson was ‘determined to reform the sector’. She called for ‘tough decisions to restore stability to higher education, to fix the foundations and to deliver change’ with a key role for Government.  Ministers across Government must work together, she said, especially the Secretary for Education and the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology in order to ‘deliver a reformed and strengthened higher education system’. This would be ‘rooted in partnership’ between the DfE, the Office for Students and UK Research and Innovation’.

    “… greater work around economic growth, around spin-offs and much more besides—I will be working with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology on precisely those questions.”

    In the debate it was commented that she was ‘light on the details’ of the Government’s role’.  She promised those for the future, ‘To build a higher education system fit for the challenges not just of today but of tomorrow’. She undertook to publish proposals for ‘major reform’.  There were some hints at what those might include. She saw benefits in providers ‘sharing support services with other universities and colleges’. Governing bodies, she said, should be asking ‘difficult strategic questions’, given the population ‘changing patterns of learning’ of their prospective students. The ‘optimistic bias’ she believed, needed to be ‘replaced by hard-headed realism’. ‘Some institutions that may need to shrink or partner, but is a price worth paying as part of a properly funded, coherent tertiary education system.’ She saw a considerable role for Government. ‘The government has started that job – it should now finish it.’

    Like her predecessor she wanted ‘courses’ to provide individual students as well as the nation with ‘an economic return’. She expected providers to ‘ensure that all students get good value for money’. Other MPs speaking in the debate pressed the same link. Vikki Slade too defined economic benefit in terms of the ‘value for money’ the individual student got for the fee paid.  Laura Trott was another who wanted ‘courses’ to provide individual students as well as the nation with ‘an economic return’. Shaun Davies asked for ‘a bit more detail’ on ‘the accountability’ to which ‘these university vice-chancellors’ were to be held in delivering ‘teaching contact time, helping vulnerable students and ensuring that universities play a huge part in the wider communities of the towns and cities in which they are anchor institutions’.

    Government enforcement sits uncomfortably with the autonomy of higher education providers insisted on by the 2017 Higher Education and Research Act. This Act created the Office for Students as ‘a non-departmental public body’, ‘accountable to Parliament’ and receiving ‘guidance on strategic priorities from the Department for Education’. Its ‘operations are independent of government’, but its ‘guidance’ to providers as Regulator is also heavily restricted at s.2 (5) which prevents intrusion on teaching and research. That guidance may not relate to ‘particular parts of courses of study’; ‘the content of such courses’; ’the manner in which they are taught, supervised or assessed’; ‘the criteria for the selection, appointment or dismissal of academic staff, or how they are applied’; or ‘the criteria for the admission of students, or how they are applied’.

    This leaves the Office for Students responsible only for monitoring the financial sustainability of higher education providers ‘to identify those that may be exposed to material financial risks’. Again its powers of enforcement are limited. If it finds such a case it ‘works with’ the provider in a manner respecting its autonomy, namely ‘to understand and assess the extent of the issues’ and seek to help.

    Listed in providers’ annual Financial Statements may be a number of sources of funding to which universities may look. These chiefly aim to fund research rather than teaching and include: grants and contracts for research projects; investment income; donations and endowments. The Government has a funding relationship with Research England within UKRI (UK Research and Innovation). UKRI is another Government-funded non-departmental public body, though it is subject to some Government policy shifts in the scale of the funding it provides through the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology.

    Donations and endowments may come with conditions attached by the funder, limiting them for example to named scholarships or professorships or specific new buildings. However  they may provide a considerable degree of financial security which is not under Government control. The endowments of Oxford and Cambridge Universities are substantial. Those made separately for their Colleges. may be very large, partly as a result of the growth in value of land given to them centuries ago. Oxford University has endowments of £1.3 billion and its colleges taken together have endowments of £5.06 billion. Cambridge University has a published endowment of  £2.47 billion, though Cambridge’s Statement for the Knowledge Exchange Framework puts ‘the university’s endowment ‘at nearly £6 billion’.  Cambridge’s richest College, Trinity, declares endowments of £2.19 billion.

    The big city universities created at the end of the nineteenth century are far less well-endowed.  Birmingham had an endowment of £142.5 million in 2023, Bristol of £86 million. Of the twentieth and twenty-first century foundations, Oxford Brookes University notes donations and endowments of £385,000 and Anglia Ruskin University of £335,300. The private ‘alternative’ providers of higher multiplying in recent decades have tended to have a variety of business and commercial partnerships supporting their funding. Categories of funding provided by such gifting remain independent of Government interference.

    The Review of Post-18 Education and Funding (May 2019) chaired by Philip Augur stated ‘Principles’ including that ‘organisations providing education and training must be accountable for the public subsidy they receive’, and that ‘Government has a responsibility to ensure that its investment in tertiary education is appropriately spent and directed’. ‘Universities must do more to raise their impact beyond their gates’, Phillipson said, so as ‘to drive the growth that this country sorely needs’ including by ‘joining with Skills England, employers and partners in further education to deliver the skills that people and businesses need’.

    In the same Commons debate of 4 November Ian Roome, MP for North Devon, was confident that in his constituency ‘universities work in collaboration with FE sector institutions such as Petroc college’. Petroc College offers qualifications from Level 3 upwards, including HNCs, higher-level apprenticeships, Access to HE diplomas, foundation degrees and honours degrees (validated by the University of Plymouth) and ‘in subjects that meet the demands of industry – both locally and nationally’. Roome saw this (HC 4 November 2024) as meeting a need for ‘a viable and accessible option, particularly in rural areas such as mine, for people to access university courses?’ Phillipson took up his point, to urge such ‘collaboration between further education and higher education providers’. Shaun Davies spoke of the £300 million the Government had put into further education, ‘alongside a £300 million capital allocation’, invested in further education colleges’.  

    However in an article in the Guardian on 4 November 2024,Philip Augur recognised that ‘the systems used by government to finance higher and further education are very different’. ‘Universities are funded largely through fees which follow enrolments’, in the form of student loans of £9,250, now raised to £9,535. ‘Unpaid loans are written off against the Department for Education’s balance sheet’. At first that would not be visible in the full  government accounts until 30 years after the loan was taken out. Government steering had become more visible following the Augur Report, with the cost of student loans being recorded ‘in the period loans are issued to students’, rather than after 30 years.  

    By contrast the funding of individual FE colleges is based on annual contracts from the Education and Skills Funding Agency, an executive agency of the DFE for post-18 education. They may then spend only within the terms of the contract and up to its limit. The full cost of such contracts is recorded immediately in the public accounts. This makes a flexible response to demand by FE colleges far from easy. Colleges may find they cannot afford to run even popular courses such as construction, engineering, digital, health and social care, without waiting lists for places. The HE reform Phillipson considered in return for a rise in tuition fees had no immediate place in FE.

    Government funding control maintains a pragmatic but very limited means of means of giving orders to universities. This depends on regulating access to taxpayer-funded student loans. The Office for Students measures a provider’s teaching in terms of its ‘positive outcomes’. These are set out in the OfS ‘Conditions’ for its Registration, which are required to make a provider’s students eligible for loans from the Student Loans Company. Condition B3 requires that a provider’s ‘outcomes’ meet ‘numerical thresholds’ measured against ‘indicators’: whether students continue in a course after their first year of study; complete their studies and progress into managerial or professional employment.

    An Independent Review of the Office for Students: Fit for the Future: Higher Education Regulation towards 2035 appeared in July 2024. The Review relies on ‘positive outcomes’ as defined by the OfS’s ‘judgement’,  that ‘the outcome data for each of the indicators and split indicators are at or above the relevant numerical thresholds’. When such data are not available the OfS itself ‘otherwise judges’.

    The government’s power to intrude upon the autonomy of providers of higher education continues to be constrained, but chiefly by its being limited to the financial, with many providers potentially at risk from their dependence on government permitting a level of tuition fee high enough to sustain them.

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

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link

  • A new mission for higher education policy reviews

    A new mission for higher education policy reviews

    by Ellen Hazelkorn, Hamish Coates, Hans de Wit & Tessa Delaquil

    Making research relevant to policy

    In recent years there has been heightened attention being given to the importance of scholarly endeavour making a real impact on and for society. Yet, despite a five-fold increase in journal articles published on higher education in the last twenty years, the OECD warns of a serious “disconnect between education policy, research and practice”.

    As higher education systems have grown and diversified, it appears with ever increasing frequency that policy is made on the slow, on the run, or not at all. Even in the most regulated systems, gone is the decades-long approach of lifetime civil servants advancing copperplate notes on papyrus through governmental machines designed to sustain flow and augment harmony. In the era of 24-hour deliberation, reporting and muddling through, it may seem that conceptually rooted analysis of policy and policymaking is on the nose or has been replaced by political expediency.

    Nothing could be further from the truth. There has never been a more important time to analyse, design, evaluate, critique, integrate, compare and innovate higher education policy. Fast policy invokes a swift need for imaginative reflection. Light policy demands counterbalancing shovel loads of intellectual backfilling. Comparative analysis is solvent for parochial policy. Policy stasis, when it stalks, must be cured by ingenious, ironic, and incisive admonition.

    Governments worldwide expect research to provide leaders and policymakers with evidence that will improve the quality of teaching and education, learning outcomes and skills development, regional innovation and knowledge diffusion, and help solve society’s problems. Yet, efforts to enhance the research-policy-practice nexus fall far short of this ambition.

    Policy influencers are more likely to be ministerial advisory boards and commissioned reports than journal articles and monographs, exactly opposite to what incentivizes academics. Rankings haven’t helped, measuring ‘impact’ in terms of discredited citation scores despite lots of research and efforts to the contrary.

    Academics continue to argue the purpose of academic research is to produce ‘pure’ fundamental research, rather than undertake public-funded research. And despite universities promoting impactful research of public value, scholars complain of many barriers to entry.

    The policy reviews solution

    Policy Reviews in Higher Education (PRiHE) aims to push out the boundaries and encourage scholars to explore a wide range of policy themes. Despite higher education sitting within a complex knowledge-research-innovation ecosystem, touching on all elements from macro-economic to foreign policy to environmental policy, our research lens and interests are far too narrow. We seem to be asking the same questions. But the policy and public lens is changing.

    Concerns are less about elites and building ‘world-class universities’ for a tiny minority, and much more about pressing social issues such as: regional disparities and ‘left-behind communities’, technical and vocational education and training, non-university pathways, skills and skills mismatch, flexible learning opportunities given new demographies, sustainable regional development, funding and efficiency, and technological capability and artificial intelligence. Of course, all of this carries implications for governance and system design, an area in which much more evidence-based research is required.

    As joint editors we are especially keen to encourage submissions which can help address such issues, and to draw on research to produce solutions rather than simply critique. We encourage potential authors to ask questions outside the box, and explore how these different issues play out in different countries, and accordingly discuss the experiences, the lessons, and the implications from which others can learn.

    Solutions for policy reviews

    Coming into its ninth year, PRiHE is platform for people in and around government to learn about the sector they govern, for professionals in the sector to keep abreast of genuinely relevant developments, and for interested people around the world to learn about what is often (including for insiders!) a genuinely opaque and complex and certainly sui generis environment.

    As our above remarks contend, the nature of contemporary higher education politics, policy and practice cannot be simplified or taken for granted. Journal topics, contributions, and interlocutors must also change and keep pace. Indeed, the very idea of an ‘academic journal’ must itself be reconsidered within a truly global and fully online education and research environment. Rightly, therefore, PRiHE keeps moving.

    With renewed vim and vigour, the Society for Research into Higher Education (SRHE) has refreshed the Editorial Office and Editorial Board, and charged PRiHE to grow even more into a world-leading journal of mark and impact. Many further improvements have been made. For instance, the Editorial Office has worked with SRHE and the publisher Taylor and Francis to make several enhancements to editorial and journal processes and content.

    We encourage people to submit research articles or proposals for an article – which will be reviewed by the Editors and feedback provided in return. We also encourage people to submit commentary and book reviews – where the authors have sought to interrogate and discuss a key issue through a policy-oriented lens. See the ‘instructions for authors’ for details.

    Read, engage, and contribute

    This second bumper 2024 issue provides six intellectual slices into ideas, data and practices relevant to higher education policy. We smartly and optimistically advise that you download and perhaps even print out all papers, power off computers and phones, and spend a few hours reading these wonderful contributions. We particularly recommend this to aspiring policy researchers, researchers and consultants in the midst of their careers, and perhaps most especially to civil servants and related experts embedded in the world of policy itself.

    SRHE and the Editorial Office are looking ahead to a vibrant and strong future period of growth for PRiHE. A raft of direct and public promotion activities are planned. PRiHE is a journal designed to make a difference to policy and practice. The most important forms of academic engagement, of course, include reading, writing and reviewing. We welcome your contribution in these and other ways to the global PRiHE community.

    This blog is based on the editorial published in Policy Reviews in Higher Education (online 16 November 2024) A new mission for higher education policy reviews

    Professor Ellen Hazelkorn is Joint Managing Partner, BH Associates. She is Professor Emeritus, Technological University Dublin.

    Hamish Coates is professor of public policy, director of the Higher Education Futures Lab, and global tertiary education expert.

    Hans de Wit is Professor Emeritus and Distinguished Fellow of the Boston College Center for International Higher Education, Senior Fellow of the international Association of Universities.

    Tessa DeLaquil is postdoctoral research fellow at the School of Education at University College Dublin.

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link

  • Escape Velocity: The Power of Your Multi-Year Growth Roadmap

    Escape Velocity: The Power of Your Multi-Year Growth Roadmap

    Applying a Strategic Framework to Your Organizational Plan

    “It’s Groundhog Day … again,” said Phil Connors, a disgruntled weatherman.  

    In the movie “Groundhog Day,” Phil Connors knew what it was like to experience life as an endless series of tedious events that recur in the same way day after day. And many of us working in online education management — especially in a highly competitive environment — can begin to feel like Phil did. 

    Receive enrollment targets. Develop and launch annual marketing campaigns. Pursue prospective students. Track students’ applications to completion. Onboard students. Repeat. 

    But when do you have time to reflect and analyze? When do you pause long enough to identify areas in need of improvement? How do you plan for innovation, growth, or testing when all of your time is spent on the status quo? 

    In my recent article on building online student services, we discussed the importance of assessing your organizational design and effectiveness to identify improvement opportunities and facilitate high-quality growth. My latest article on the organizational development journey took the discussion a step further to describe the steps involved in developing a multiyear approach to stakeholder engagement around strategic initiatives.

    With this article, we address the concept of escape velocity. We’ll show you how a multiyear strategic growth road map can help your organization break free from its Groundhog Day cycle and launch it into tomorrow. 

    Why a Multiyear Strategic Road Map Matters

    In higher education, we’re accustomed to having a university-level strategic plan with broad themes and objectives. These plans are useful in that they allow academic and service units to identify areas of contribution or special projects.

    Less common, however, is a performance road map for the unit-level organization itself. Specific programs and functions may have goals, targets, or expected outcomes, but do they collectively add up to something more than the sum of parts? Are teams competing against one another for resources or prospects? Have the true bottlenecks in processes and infrastructure been identified so that teams can tackle them together, or are they each working on problems in a silo?

    A multiyear strategic road map aligns the work you and your colleagues are doing today with the work to be done next year — and the year after that — to reach new levels of achievement, performance, and value. This means moving beyond “keeping the lights on” to building a true organizational vision where day-to-day tasks and operations contribute to a larger mission. 

    The multiyear road map also works to keep everyone accountable, so that the organization can escape the gravitational pull of mere survival, instead moving up through the atmosphere into new spaces and opportunities. 

    Importantly, the road map is not developed by a small group of people and then handed down from organizational leadership. It requires a strategic conversation across the organization that identifies what winning looks like and how all parties will win together.   

    Introducing the Hoshin Kanri Strategic Framework

    A simple search for “strategic framework” in your browser or artificial intelligence tool will bring up 25 to 50 options, which can feel overwhelming. As you dig into the variety of frameworks, you realize that each has a specific purpose and most are not interchangeable. For example, a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis can be used to understand your organization’s general position in the current environment, while the Ansoff matrix can help you dive into your individual products and their specific markets. 

    In our opinion, if you want to develop an organization-wide multiyear strategic road map, the Hoshin Kanri framework is a powerful tool.  

    The Hoshin Kanri framework originated in Japan after World War II and was historically used in the manufacturing and technology industries (think Toyota). However, the framework can apply to any industry including higher education. The words “hoshin” and “kanri” mean direction and administration, which in this context refers to identifying the most important strategic focus areas for the next three to five years, and then managing activities and delivering against annual objectives in those focus areas. 

    To fully engage with the framework, there are seven steps that move from vision development to planning and execution to bidirectional feedback management, which makes this framework different from those that only focus on one of those aspects. 

    At its core, the framework is an iterative blueprint for escape velocity — where everyone’s contributions align and where individuals are responsible for providing direct, productive, and sometimes even uncomfortable feedback about progress, barriers, and how the plans are working. This feedback loop is one of the most powerful parts of the model for organization-wide deep listening and trust-building. 

    In the next section, we will discuss each part of the framework.

    Breaking Down the Hoshin Kanri Model Components

    As we walk through the components of the Hoshin Kanri model, remember that models and frameworks are suggestions or guidelines on how to organize a strategy, not directives. Every organization is different, and you should feel free to make the model your own.

    Step 1: Establish (or Revisit and Refine) Your Organizational Vision

    A multiyear road map, by definition, requires a vision for where your organization could or should be three to five years from now. While it’s easy to understand what you want your organization to “escape” from in terms of the status quo, it’s more work to determine the opportunity space, the direction of progress, and the velocity at which the organization should move there. 

    This is often the point where organizations need external support: fresh eyes to assess the market opportunities and the organizational development opportunities (e.g., a good, better, best model). Once the organizational vision is defined, communication and socialization of that vision to every individual in the organization is critical for feedback, engagement, and buy-in.

    Step 2: Establish Strategic Focus Areas (aka Stretch Goals)

    Here’s where your organization places its bets. What are the three to five focus areas that define how your organization will escape the status quo and strategically move into a new level of opportunity, performance, or achievement? 

    Think big swings that are a stretch but still possible. Think about what would get individuals in your organization excited about the work. 

    Remember, these strategic focus areas flow from the organizational vision. Some of the areas will be quantitative in nature (e.g., grow enrollments by 20% year over year; improve satisfaction scores by 40%), and some may be more qualitative (e.g., develop an organizational decision-making framework and process). All areas should be measurable.

    Step 3: Break Strategic Areas of Focus Into Annual Objectives

    In this stage of the process, your organization works backward from those strategic focus areas to plot the annual steps of achievement and progress. These objectives are established at the organizational level.

    Step 4: Cascade Annual Objectives Into Programmatic and Functional Objectives

    In this stage, program and function leaders develop their annual objectives based on the annual organizational-level objectives and begin to determine the key performance indicators for their teams. 

    This is also the step where the organization agrees upon an objective-level primary plan owner. Which individual is accountable for progress against the objective, for escalations when progress is impeded, and for communication of wins? Does that individual agree that the resource base to support the objective is sufficient?    

    Step 5: Execute

    In this implementation stage, plans are deployed and progress is measured. 

    Steps 6 and 7: Conduct Monthly and Annual Reviews

    The Hoshin Kanri model builds in regular strategic road map and annual plan feedback loops to ensure bidirectional feedback and iteration are employed where needed.

    The frequency of your periodic reviews within an annual cycle may depend on the size and structure of your organization. The model suggests monthly plan reviews. But for some organizations, monthly reviews are too frequent and quarterly reviews are preferred. For other organizations, such as start-ups, monthly reviews are not frequent enough and biweekly sprint-level reviews may be needed. 

    The core idea is to ensure that those who are implementing against annual plans have the opportunity to discuss progress, blockers, resource concerns, and more so that leadership can determine if adjustments to the plans are necessary. 

    The annual review is the time to consider progress against the multiyear vision. Is the organization on target? Does the team need to be even more ambitious given evolving market conditions, the competitive landscape, or technological advances? Does the organization need to adjust its resource planning or design to support progress?

    Organizational Strategic Road Map: An At-a-Glance View

    As you can see from the seven steps detailed above, the Hoshin Kanri model is basically a series of embedded to-do lists with metrics and owners attached to them. The plan can be created in a document that displays the action items in a sequential order with as many words as it takes to describe the holistic plan. There is nothing wrong with this approach, as long as the organization can access, understand, and execute against the plan. 

    However, there is a way to develop a visual tool — without fancy applications or systems — that summarizes the entirety of the plan so that everyone can see themselves aligned with both the long-term and immediate objectives. This method is called the X-matrix. It works well with a spreadsheet tool, for example. In our graphic example below, we’ve replaced the “X” with a compass visual, but an X works just as well.

    Within a box in your spreadsheet, create your “X” by inserting crossed lines. This creates four quadrants. In Hoshin Kanri, these quadrants are classified with compass directions: north, south, east, and west (hence our graphical treatment). 

    An organization starts with the south quadrant (or bottom of the X). This is where you list the three to five strategic areas of focus. Each area of focus has its own row. In our graphic, these are the bottom three rows in the light blue, orange, and dark blue colors.

    In the west quadrant, you can list the high-level annual objectives for the year. Use the spreadsheet rows to enter an “x” where the strategic area of focus (on the bottom) matches the individual high-level annual objective (shown here as columns to the left that correspond in color). 

    Then, move to the north quadrant. This is where you list the business-level objectives that flow from the annual objectives. What are the specific tasks for each program and function? You can use the spreadsheet rows to enter an “x” where the business-level objective aligns with the high-level annual objective. In our example here, all three business-level objectives in the top rows correspond to the strategic focus area and the high-level annual objective color-coded in light blue. 

    Keep the east quadrant blank for a moment. This is where key targets or key performance indicators (KPIs) will go, and again, once you complete these, you can use the spreadsheet model to put an “x” where the target aligns with the individual business-level objective. In our version, we’ve used slightly different shades of light blue to show which KPIs go with which business-level objectives. 

    Go to the Resources section of the spreadsheet. Here you can document the accountable owner of the business-level objective, and use the spreadsheet rows to note with an “x” which owner is aligned with the particular initiative. You can use primary and secondary owners or just stick with primary owners, depending on your organization’s size and structure. These owners can then finalize the east quadrant with the specific KPIs in coordination with organizational leadership.  

    Depending on your organization’s size and structure, you can develop one master-level version of this multiyear plan, or you can develop one per program or function for ease of use. If spreadsheets are not of interest, there are online applications and services (some are free; some are fee-based) that serve as an interactive platform on which you and your teams can manage the development and tracking of objectives and progress.

    Build Your Multiyear Growth Road Map

    Engineering your escape velocity from Groundhog Day to the future takes introspection, time, iteration, and communication in all directions. Strategic tools and frameworks, like Hoshin Kanri, are not always necessary, but they can help your teams organize against a vision with plans, processes, and performance conversations. 

    No matter the tool, framework, or steps you take, the payoff of using introspection and planning to achieve your multiyear targets is escape velocity from the tethers of winter doldrums into a spring of new growth.

    The strategy and development team at Archer Education can help you develop and achieve your multiyear strategic road map goals. Contact us today.

    Subscribe to the Higher Ed Marketing Journal:

    Source link

  • Gaps in sustainability literacy in non-STEM higher education programmes

    Gaps in sustainability literacy in non-STEM higher education programmes

    by Erika Kalocsányiová and Rania Hassan

    Promoting sustainability literacy in higher education is crucial for deepening students’ pro-environmental behaviour and mindset (Buckler & Creech, 2014; UNESCO, 1997), while also fostering social transformation by embedding sustainability at the core of the student experience. In 2022, our group received an SRHE Scoping Award to synthesise the literature on the development, teaching, and assessment of sustainability literacy in non-STEM higher education programmes. We conducted a multilingual systematic review of post-2010 publications from the European Higher Education Area (EHEA), with the results summarised in Kalocsányiová et al (2024).

    Out of 6,161 articles that we identified as potentially relevant, 92 studies met the inclusion criteria and are reviewed in the report. These studies involved a total of 11,790 participants and assessed 9,992 university programmes and courses. Our results suggest a significant growth in research interest in sustainability in non-STEM fields since 2017, with 75 studies published compared to just 17 in the preceding seven years. Our analysis also showed that Spain, the United Kingdom, Germany, Turkey, and Austria had the highest concentration of publications, with 25 EHEA countries represented in total. The 92 reviewed studies were characterised by high methodological diversity: nearly half employed quantitative methods (47%), followed by qualitative studies (40%) and mixed methods research (13%). Curriculum assessments using quantitative content analysis of degree and course descriptors were among the most common study types, followed by surveys and intervention or pilot studies. Curriculum assessments provided a systematic way to evaluate the presence or absence of sustainability concepts within curricula at both single HE institutions and in comparative frameworks. However, they often captured only surface-level indications of sustainability integration into undergraduate and postgraduate programmes, without providing evidence on actual implementation and/or the effectiveness of different initiatives. Qualitative methods, including descriptive case studies and interviews that focused on barriers, challenges, implementation strategies, and the acceptability of new sustainability literacy initiatives, made up 40% of the current research. Mixed methods studies accounted for 13% of the reviewed articles, often applying multiple assessment tools simultaneously, including quantitative sustainability competency assessment instruments combined with open-ended interviews or learning journals.

    In terms of disciplines, Economics, Business, and Administrative Studies held the largest share of reviewed studies (26%), followed by Education (23%). Multiple disciplines accounted for 22% of the reviewed publications, reflecting the interconnected nature of sustainability. Finance and Accounting contributed only 6%, indicating a need for further research. Similarly, Language and Linguistics, Mass Communication and Documentation, and Social Sciences collectively represented only 12% of the reviewed studies. Creative Arts and Design with just 2% was also a niche area. Although caution should be exercised when drawing conclusions from these results, they highlight the need for more research within the underrepresented disciplines. This in turn can help promote awareness among non-STEM students, stimulate ethical discussions on the cultural dimensions of sustainability, and encourage creative solutions through interdisciplinary dialogue.

    Regarding factors and themes explored, the studies focused primarily on the acquisition of sustainability knowledge and competencies (27%), curriculum assessment (23%), challenges and barriers to sustainability integration (10%), implementation and evaluation research (10%), changes in students’ mindset (9%), key competences in sustainability literacy (5%), and active student participation in Education for Sustainable Development (5%). In terms of studies discussing acquisition processes, key focus areas included the teaching of Sustainable Development Goals, awareness of macro-sustainability trends, and knowledge of local sustainability issues. Studies on sustainability competencies focussed on systems thinking, critical thinking, problem-solving skills, ethical awareness, interdisciplinary knowledge, global awareness and citizenship, communication skills, and action-oriented mindset. These competencies and knowledge, which are generally considered crucial for addressing the multifaceted challenges of sustainability (Wiek et al., 2011), were often introduced to non-STEM students through stand-alone lectures, workshops, or pilot studies involving new cross-disciplinary curricula.

    Our review also highlighted a broad range of pedagogical approaches adopted for sustainability teaching and learning within non-STEM disciplines. These covered case and project-based learning, experiential learning methods, problem-based learning, collaborative learning, reflection groups, pedagogical dialogue, flipped classroom approaches, game-based learning, and service learning. While there is strong research interest in the documentation and implementation of these pedagogical approaches, few studies have so far attempted to assess learning outcomes, particularly regarding discipline-specific sustainability expertise and real-world problem-solving skills.

    Many of the reviewed studies relied on single-method approaches, meaning valuable insights into sustainability-focused teaching and learning may have been missed. For instance, studies often failed to capture the complexities surrounding sustainability integration into non-STEM programs, either by presenting positivist results that require further contextualisation or by offering rich context limited to a single course or study group, which cannot be generalised. The assessment tools currently used also seemed to lack consistency, making it difficult to compare outcomes across programmes and institutions to promote best practices. More robust evaluation designs, such as longitudinal studies, controlled intervention studies, and mixed methods approaches (Gopalan et al, 2020; Ponce & Pagán-Maldonado, 2015), are needed to explore and demonstrate the pedagogical effectiveness of various sustainability literacy initiatives in non-STEM disciplines and their impact on student outcomes and societal change.

    In summary, our review suggests good progress in integrating sustainability knowledge and competencies into some core non-STEM disciplines, while also highlighting gaps. Based on the results we have formulated some questions that may help steer future research:

    • Are there systemic barriers hindering the integration of sustainability themes, challenges and competencies into specific non-STEM fields?
    • Are certain disciplines receiving disproportionate research attention at the expense of others?
    • How do different pedagogical approaches compare in terms of effectiveness for fostering sustainability literacy in and across HE fields?
    • What new educational practices are emerging, and how can we fairly assess them and evidence their benefits for students and the environment?

    We also would like to encourage other researchers to engage with knowledge produced in a variety of languages and educational contexts. The multilingual search and screening strategy implemented in our review enabled us to identify and retrieve evidence from 25 EHEA countries and 24 non-English publications. If reviews of education research remain monolingual (English-only), important findings and insights will go unnoticed hindering knowledge exchange, creativity, and innovation in HE.

    Dr. Erika Kalocsányiová is a Senior Research Fellow with the Institute for Lifecourse Development at the University of Greenwich, with research centering on public health and sustainability communication, migration and multilingualism, refugee integration, and the implications of these areas for higher education policies.

    Rania Hassan is a PhD student and a research assistant at the University of Greenwich. Her research centres on exploring enterprise development activities within emerging economies. As a multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary researcher, Rania is passionate about advancing academia and promoting knowledge exchange in higher education.

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link