Tag: academic

  • Faculty better get active on AI and academic freedom.

    Faculty better get active on AI and academic freedom.

    Is AI an academic freedom issue?

    Of course.

    Education technology as a whole is an academic freedom issue, unfortunately, the encroachment of technological systems which shape (and in some cases even determine) pedagogy, research and governance have been left in the hands of others, with faculty required to capitulate to a system designed and controlled by others.

    AI is here, rather suddenly, pretty disruptively, and in a big way. Different institutions are adopting different stances and much of the adaptation is falling on faculty, in some cases with minimal guidance. While considering how these tools impact what’s happening at the level of course and pedagogy is a necessity, it also seems clear that faculty concerned about preserving their own rights should be considering some of the institutional/structural issues.

    Personally, I have more questions than answers at this time, but there’s a handful of recent readings that I want to recommend to others to help ground thinking that may lead to better questions and actionable answers.

    A report, Artificial Intelligence and the Academic Professions, just released by the AAUP, should be at the top of anyone’s list. Based on a national survey, the report examines a number of big-picture categories, all of which have a direct relationship to issues of academic freedom.

    1. Improving Professional Development Regarding AI and Technology Harms
    2. Implementing Shared Governance Policies and Professional Oversight
    3. Improving Working and Learning Conditions
    4. Demanding Transparency and the Ability to Opt Out
    5. Protecting Faculty Members and Other Academic Workers.

    The report both summarizes faculty concerns as expressed in the survey and offers recommendations for actions that will protect faculty rights and autonomy. Having read the report, in some cases the recommendations initially seem frustratingly vague but looked at in total, they are essentially a call for active faculty involvement in considering the implications of the intersection of this technology (and the companies developing it) with educational institutions. 

    In a way, the report highlights, in hindsight, how truly absent faculty have been as existing educational technology has been woven into the fabric of our institutions, and that it would be a disaster for that absence to be perpetuated when it comes to AI.

    After checking out the AAUP report, move on to Matt Seybold’s, How Venture Capitalists Built A For-Profit “Micro-University” Inside Our Public Flagships, published at his newsletter, The American Vandal. It’s a long and complicated story about the ways outside service providers conceived in venture capital/private equity have insinuated themselves into our universities in ways that undermine faculty roles and educational quality. 

    It would take a full column to do Seybold’s piece justice, but here are two quotes that I hope induce you to go consider his full argument.

    Here Seybold pulls the lid back on what it means for these third-party provider offerings to exist under a university brand “powered by” the third-party provider:

    The “powered by model” is a truly absurdist role reversal. A private, unaccredited company founded and run by sales and marketing professionals is responsible for the (pseudo)educational coursework, while the accredited university is employed only for its sales and marketing functions, getting paid by commission on the headcount of students who enroll from their branded portal. University partners are incentivized to flex their brand power and use their proprietary data, advertising budgets, and sales forces to maximize this commission, while Ziplines provides cookie-cutter landing pages and highly reproducible microdegrees, the content of which is largely created by gigworkers.

    And here, Seybold pinpoints the downstream effect of these kinds of “partnerships.”

    EdTech is not only always a Trojan horse for elite capture of public resources; it is also always a project in delegitimizing the project of public education itself.

    The applicability of Seybold’s analysis to the “AI partnerships” many institutions are busy signing should be clear.

    As another thought experiment exercise, I recommend making your way through a Hollis Robbins’s piece at her Anecdotal website, How to Deliver CSU’s Gen Ed with AI.

    Robbins, a former university dean, perhaps intends this more as a provocation than an actionable proposal but, as a proposal, it is a comprehensive vision for replacing human labor with AI instruction that relies on a series of interwoven tech applications where humans are “in the loop,” but which largely run autonomously.

    If realized, this sort of vision would obviate academic freedom on two fronts:

    1. The curriculum would be codified and assessed according to a rigid standard and then be delivered primarily through AI.
    2. Faculty would barely exist.

    I read it as a surveillance-driven dystopia from which I would either have to opt-out (if allowed), or more likely have to flee, but you can check the comments to the post itself and find some early enthusiasts. The complexity of the technological vision suggests that such a vision would be difficult to impossible to realize, but the underlying values of increased efficiency, decreased cost and increased standardization are consistent with the direction educational systems have been going for decades.

    Many of the factors that have eroded faculty rights and left institutions vulnerable to the attacks that have been coming were, indeed, foreseeable. Adjunctification is at the top of my list. 

    When it comes to technology and the university, we’ve seen this play before. If faculty aren’t prepared to assert their rights and exercise their power, you won’t see me writing the kinds of lamentations I’ve offered about tenure over the years because there won’t be enough faculty left to worry about such things.

    Source link

  • How to Create an ADHD Academic Community (opinion)

    How to Create an ADHD Academic Community (opinion)

    “Have you ever considered you might have ADHD?” My therapist asked me that during my second year of Ph.D. studies at Cornell University. I had just mentioned my 8-year-old nephew’s diagnosis, adding that both my brother and father had it too. She explained how attention deficit hyperactivity disorder manifests differently in women—less hyperactivity, more internal struggle—and why men and children with more recognizable symptoms are diagnosed earlier.

    The diagnosis, when it finally came, illuminated a lifetime of confusion: why simple tasks felt insurmountable, why my brilliance arrived in unpredictable bursts, why I could hyperfocus for 12 hours on coding but couldn’t remember to pay rent. Then the pandemic hit. Isolated in my apartment, stripped of external structure, I watched my symptoms spiral out of control. My dissertation research stalled. My carefully constructed coping mechanisms crumbled. I wasn’t just struggling with ADHD—I was drowning in it.

    I had been thinking about creating a space specifically for academics with ADHD. In a therapy group, I met another graduate student silently battling the same demons. When I shared my idea, she immediately understood its value. Together, we organized our first meeting, gathering a few friends via Zoom. Our numbers grew after I took a calculated risk during a department seminar—openly discussing my diagnosis and the unique challenges it created in academic life. Private messages trickled in from students across departments, each one a confession of silent, similar struggles.

    My courage to speak openly came from an unexpected source. Months earlier, a successful visiting professor had casually mentioned getting diagnosed with ADHD after their first year on the faculty. Seeing someone in a position I aspired to reach discuss their diagnosis so matter-of-factly gave me hope. This cascade effect—from the professor to me, from me to others—became how our community grew.

    Four years later, our weekly meetings continue, even as many of us have graduated and moved to new institutions. What began as a survival mechanism during isolation has evolved into a sustainable community that transcends institutional boundaries.

    The Challenges of Being an Academic With ADHD

    Academia presents unique challenges for individuals with ADHD that differ from those found in other professional environments. Research requires sustained focus over months or years with minimal external structure—a particularly difficult task for the ADHD brain that thrives on novelty and immediate feedback. Grant deadlines, publication timelines and research planning demand executive functioning skills that many of us struggle with, despite high intelligence and creativity.

    But ADHD’s effects on academic life extend far beyond issues of executive function. Rejection sensitive dysphoria—the intense emotional response to perceived criticism—can make grant rejections and peer review feedback devastating rather than constructive. What neurotypical colleagues might process as routine academic critique can trigger profound emotional responses that interrupt work for days or weeks.

    Time blindness affects how we manage projects and deadlines in significant ways. The inability to accurately perceive how much time has passed or how long tasks will take creates a pattern of either last-minute panic work or paralysis when deadlines feel abstractly distant. Poor working memory impacts our ability to hold multiple concepts in mind during writing and research, often leading to fragmented work processes that others misinterpret as lack of focus or commitment.

    Many of us also struggle with auditory processing issues that make departmental meetings, lectures and conferences particularly taxing. The cognitive effort required simply to process spoken information in these settings depletes mental energy.

    Traditional academic support resources rarely address these specific challenges. Time management workshops typically assume neurotypical brain functioning and don’t account for the variable attention and motivation that characterizes ADHD. Productivity advice often focuses on willpower and discipline rather than taking into account neurodivergent traits. Even when disability services are available on campus, they tend to focus on classroom accommodations rather than the holistic challenges of academic life with ADHD, particularly the unstructured aspects of research and writing that often cause the greatest difficulty.

    Building Our Community

    Our initial meetings were simply virtual gatherings to validate frustrations and share strategies. The pandemic actually provided an unexpected advantage—virtual meetings allowed us to participate from our most comfortable environments, pacing or fidgeting as needed.

    While we first attempted a highly structured approach with designated facilitators, we quickly discovered this created more pressure than relief. What worked better was a simple pattern: rounds of updates in which each person shares recent struggles and wins, plus spontaneous advice sharing and time spent setting intentions for what we’ll accomplish next.

    Creating psychological safety was paramount. We established clear confidentiality guidelines—what’s shared in the group stays in the group. Group norms evolved organically: no shame for forgetfulness, no competitiveness with one another, and a focus on solutions rather than just venting. We emphasized how ADHD traits such as hyperfocus and creative thinking can become significant strengths when properly channeled.

    Starting Your Own Group

    Based on our experience, here’s how to create an effective ADHD academic community:

    1. Start small with trusted connections. Begin with three to five people you already know to establish psychological safety before expanding.
    2. Consider independence from institutional structures. Our unofficial status meant less administrative hassle and allowed continuity as members graduated.
    3. Implement minimal structure. Our simple meeting format provided enough structure to be productive while allowing flexibility. A rotating notetaker helped members with memory challenges revisit past discussions.
    4. Embrace accessible, virtual options. We created a shared calendar and Slack channel for regular meetings, but also allowed members to add impromptu co-working sessions.
    5. Share resources collaboratively. Regularly exchange tools and strategies—from productivity apps to therapist recommendations to successful accommodation requests.
    6. Prioritize confidentiality. Some members may not have disclosed their diagnosis in their departments, making the group their only space for open discussion.

    Impact Beyond Expectations

    Members of our group have reported significant improvements in completing dissertations, meeting deadlines and navigating the job market with ADHD. The psychological benefits have been equally profound. Academia’s competitive nature breeds imposter syndrome, amplified for those with ADHD. When peers appear to effortlessly juggle multiple responsibilities while you struggle with basic tasks, the comparison can be crushing.

    In our group, however, we found role models who shared our challenges. Watching fellow ADHD academics successfully defend dissertations or secure positions created a powerful ripple effect of inspiration. These visible successes provided concrete evidence that academic milestones were achievable with ADHD, motivating others to persevere through their own struggles.

    While consistent attendance can be challenging (unsurprisingly, given our shared attention difficulties), we’ve found that maintaining a no-pressure atmosphere works better than strict accountability—members drift in and out as needed, returning without shame.

    Finding Connection Through Shared Neurodiversity

    What I’ve learned through this journey is that sometimes the most powerful communities form around shared neurological experiences rather than departmental affiliations. The regular connection with others who understand your specific challenges can be transformative for wellbeing, productivity and career development.

    By creating these supportive micro-communities, we not only help ourselves navigate existing structures but gradually transform academic culture to better accommodate diverse cognitive styles—ultimately enriching scholarship for everyone.

    If you’re an academic with ADHD, consider initiating a similar group. The effort to create connection amid the isolation of both academia and neurodivergence yields returns far beyond what we initially imagined.

    Maria Akopyan is a National Science Foundation postdoctoral research fellow in the Department of Evolution, Ecology and Organismal Biology at the University of California, Riverside. She uses genomic tools to study how species diverge, adapt and persist across environments through time.

    Source link

  • Either the sector cleans up academic partnerships, or the government does

    Either the sector cleans up academic partnerships, or the government does

    When the franchising scandal first broke, many thought it was going to be a flash in the pan, an airing of the darkest depths of the sector but something that didn’t really impact the mainstream.

    That hasn’t been the case.

    The more it digs, the more concerned the government seems to get, and the proposed reforms to register the largest delivery partners seem unlikely to mark the end of its attention.

    Last orders

    The sector would be foolish to wait for the Government’s response to its consultation, or for the Office for Students to come knocking. Subcontracted provision in England has increased 358 per cent over the past five years: and, for some providers this provision significantly outnumbers the students they teach directly themselves. Franchised business and management provision has grown by 44 per cent, and the number of students from IMD quintile 1 (the most deprived) taught via these arrangements have increased 31 per cent, compared to an overall rise in student numbers of 15 per cent.

    The sector talks a big game about institutional autonomy – and they’re right to do so; it is a vital attribute of the UK sector. But it shouldn’t be taken for granted, and that means demonstrating clear action when practices are scrutinised.

    Front foot

    So today, QAA has released new comprehensive guidance (part of a suite sitting underneath the UK Quality Code) to help the sector get on the front foot. For the first time since the franchising scandal broke, experts from across the UK sector have developed a toolkit for anyone working in partnerships to know what good practice can look like, what questions they should be asking themselves, and how their own provision stacks up against what others are doing.

    The guidance is framed around three discrete principles: all partnerships should add direct value to the staff and student experience and widen learning opportunities; academic standards and the quality of the student experience should not be compromised; and oversight should be as rigorous, secure and open to scrutiny as the provision delivered by a single provider. All partners share responsibility for the student learning experience and the academic standards students are held to, but it is the awarding partner who is ultimately accountable for awards offered in its name.

    If you’re working in partnership management and are concerned about how your institution should be responding to the increased scrutiny coming from government, the guidance talks you through each stage of the partnership lifecycle, with reflective questions and scenarios to prompt consideration of your own practice. And as providers put the guidance and its recommendations into practice, they will be able to tell a more convincing and reassuring story about how they work with their partners to deliver a high quality experience.

    Starter for five

    But the sector getting its house in order will only quell concerns if those scrutinising feel assured of provider action. So for anyone concerned, we’ve distilled five starter questions from the guidance that we’d expect any provider to be able to answer about their partnerships.

    Are there clear and shared academic standards? Providers should be able to provide agreed terms on academic standards and quality assurance and plans for continuous improvement.

    Is oversight tailored to risk? Providers who have a large portfolio should be able to demonstrate how they take an agile, proportionate approach to each partnership.

    What are the formal governance and accountability mechanisms? A provider’s governors or board should be able to tell you what decisions have been made and why.

    How is data used to drive performance and mitigate risk? Providers should be able to tell you what data they have and what it tells them about their partnerships and the students’ experience, and any actions they plan to take.

    And finally, how does your relationship enable challenge and improvement? Providers should be able to tell you when they last spoke to each of their partners, what topics were discussed and lead providers should be able to detail what mechanisms they use to hold their partners to account when issues arise.

    Integrity and responsibility

    The government has a duty to prevent misuse of public money and to ensure the integrity of a system that receives significant amounts of it. The regulator has a responsibility to investigate where it suspects there is poor practice and to act accordingly. But the sector has a responsibility – both to its students and, also, to itself – to respond to the legitimate concerns raised around partnership provision and to demonstrate it’s taking action. This lever is just as, if not more, important, because government and regulatory action becomes more necessary and more stringent if we don’t get this right.

    The sector cannot afford not to grasp the nettle on this. Public trust, the sector’s reputation and, most importantly, the learning experience students deserve, are all on the line.

    QAA’s guidance is practical, expert-informed and rooted in shared principles to help providers not only meet expectations but lead the way in restoring confidence. Because if the sector doesn’t demonstrate its commitment to action on this, the government and the regulator surely will.

    Source link

  • Student Success Resources for Academic Advisers

    Student Success Resources for Academic Advisers

    Academic advisers play a key role in helping students navigate higher education.

    Martine Doucet/E+/Getty Images

    Academic advising is key to helping students navigate their institution and critical for student engagement and retention. However, not every student receives high-quality advising.

    A 2023 Student Voice survey by Inside Higher Ed and College Pulse found that just over half (55 percent) of college students said they were advised on their required coursework for graduation. And a 2023 survey by Tyton Partners found that only 65 percent of students were aware of academic advising supports on campus, compared to 98 percent of college employees who said the service was available.

    In a 2024 Student Voice survey, 75 percent of students said they had at least some trust in academic advisers on their campus, while 20 percent said they had not much trust in them.

    High caseloads, a lack of coordination among departments and low student engagement with resources are some of the top challenges advisers face in their work, according to a 2024 report by Tyton Partners.

    Inside Higher Ed compiled five resources to support academic and faculty advisers in their goal of promoting student success.

    1. Advising Journey Map

    NASPA’s Advising Success Network hired a group of student fellows to create advising support resources for colleges and universities that reflect students’ identities and educational goals. One resource, a journey map, was developed by three students and highlights the ideal and lived experiences students had navigating the institution, as well as any gaps in awareness or support. For example, while students expect to feel empowered and supported during their class registration period, in reality, according to the map, they feel confused but ready. In fact, the word “confused” is used four times in the 13 steps along the map, and “scared” appears three times.

    The resource is designed to help college advisers recognize the discrepancies between expectations and reality, as well as the ways nontraditional learners may feel differently about their college experience compared to their traditional-aged peers.

    1. Understanding Generative AI Tools

    While many advisers want to better engage and support students, burnout and high caseloads can reduce the time and ability staff have to work with them.

    Reports from Tyton Partners and EAB find opportunities to implement generative AI tools to help reduce redundancies and increase human-to-human interactions between advisers and advisees.

    Course registration, in particular, is one area ripe for generative AI support, according to Tyton’s report, because the technology can enhance student autonomy, facilitate more informed decisions and allow advisers to focus on issues like safety or financial aid that can’t be addressed by technology. A student survey included in Tyton’s report also shows that students prefer using generative AI for academic advising and course registration, making it a more natural fit.

    The University of Central Florida employed CampusEvolve.AI to aid with course registration and the University of Michigan developed its own tool, U-M Maizey, to provide 24-7 advising resources to students.

    1. Trauma-Informed Support

    College students today are increasingly diverse in their lived experiences, socioeconomic backgrounds, disabilities and racial and ethnic identities. A greater number of students also report trauma and significant mental health challenges, which makes providing student-centered care essential in all settings across the university. Inside Higher Ed’s 2023 Student Voice survey found that 38 percent of respondents believe advisers have a responsibility to help students who are struggling with mental health concerns.

    InsideTrack and the Corporation for a Skilled Workforce created a resource to advise staff on how to reduce trauma and toxic stress at higher education institutions in order to improve employee morale and, in turn, address student outcomes.

    1. Advising Summit

    Campus-specific training supports can also enhance services and ensure staff are confident enough to engage with students.

    The University of Pittsburgh helps upskill its academic advisers and others across the institution with support and awareness for historically marginalized student groups at the Mentoring and Advising Summit.

    The annual conference is a free, one-day experience open to anyone interested to share ideas and explore tools used by departments. In addition to the event, early career staff can join a Pitt Mentoring and Advising Community Circle to receive support and encouragement as they navigate their roles and seek to improve their work.

    1. Digital Courses

    In addition to providing reports and white papers that focus on boosting advising support for a variety of learners, including incarcerated students, HBCU students and student parents, the Advising Success Network offers online course opportunities.

    The six courses are asynchronous and free, providing attendees with evidence-based advising practices focused on equity and closing opportunity gaps for student from racial minorities or low-income backgrounds.

    Course topics include facilitating cross-campus collaboration, holistic advising efforts and leveraging technology, among others.

    We bet your colleague would like this article, too. Send them this link to subscribe to our newsletter on Student Success.

    This article has been updated to reflect the University of Pittsburgh’s advising summit is open to the public, not just campus members.

    Source link

  • Universities struggle to recognise leadership beyond the academic template

    Universities struggle to recognise leadership beyond the academic template

    In the shifting terrain of higher education, the figure of the “pracademic” has become increasingly prominent.

    Straddling the worlds of theory and practice, pracademics bring external insight into the academy along with a restlessness about how knowledge is produced, shared, and valued.

    They offer universities the opportunity to widen their epistemic horizons, but in doing so, they expose the inherent tensions in how academic leadership is defined and performed.

    The rise of the pracademic

    Pracademics rarely fit the established leadership templates; instead, they model heterodox approaches, navigating ambiguity, drawing from diverse methodologies, and unsettling conventional hierarchies. Arguably, this is not an accidental disruption, but a generative one. Pracademics challenge the orthodoxy of university life, and in doing so, they invite us to rethink the paradoxes that shape leadership in higher education.

    As institutions seek to embrace diversity and interdisciplinarity, many still struggle to accommodate those whose career paths have not followed the traditional orthodox academic trajectory.

    For second-career academics and pracademics, leadership can feel like swimming against the tide. Their experience and outlook can enrich higher education, but too often their value is under-recognised and under-leveraged. To lead in a heterodox community of contradictions, we must not only tolerate difference but structure our systems to nurture and embed it.

    This leads to the question: are today’s universities ready for leaders who do not fit the mould? As Jill Dickinson and colleagues noted in a Wonkhe article, some academics are seen as more proper than others.

    Not fitting the mould

    University ecosystems are not tidy places. They are heterodox ecosystems populated by the idiosyncratic, the idealistic, the quietly radical, the wildly inconsistent. This is perhaps their greatest strength, but also perhaps their greatest challenge.

    For those of us asked to lead within these environments, the traditional managerial playbook may not suffice. Our colleagues are not staff in the conventional sense. They are academics and professionals, each with their own epistemologies, rhythms, and values.

    It may be tempting to assume there are defined academic personalities. A shorthand often emerges: the aloof theorist, the star researcher, the endlessly enthusiastic educator. But these caricatures are too narrow. In reality, we work alongside colleagues who are motivated by very different things. Autonomy, impact, status, security, social justice, or simply the deep and personal satisfaction of learning. Some are collaborative; others prefer to work in isolation. Some want to change the world; others just want to understand it. To lead effectively in this landscape is not to standardise, but to navigate. Thoughtfully, deliberately, and with care.

    Increasingly we share this space with those whose paths into academia were far from linear. As a self-identified pracademic, I followed that linear progression, culminating in a PhD in entrepreneurship in my mid twenties before taking a right turn and transitioning into a career in industry and consultancy. Re-entering the academy many years later, I found myself in an environment which confused, frustrated and excited in equal measure. A world that both welcomed and resisted difference. As a pracademic I sought to blend my experience of industry with my academic credentials and apply this to teaching and scholarship. I thought this would be a straightforward career move, but it has been less than easy. I am not alone in this. I have several colleagues who have travelled similar paths. This is not a new phenomenon, and is highlighted in a previous Wonkhe article by Jacqueline Baxter.

    Where do pracademics fit?

    The academy is not against us; it simply does not yet know how to include us. And at times, we are not sure how to include ourselves. Recruitment, induction and promotion systems often presume conventional trajectories and narrow definitions of success. CVs weighted towards delivery, leadership and impact can sit awkwardly alongside expectations for peer-reviewed outputs and theoretical depth.

    The result is unease.

    Heterodox colleagues from non-traditional backgrounds are welcomed for their distinctiveness but expected to assimilate. Over time, they become weary; their fresh perspective blunted by institutional habits. And so we risk losing them. Or worse, we fail to attract pracademics in the first place.

    This would represent not only a loss of individual talent, but arguably it is a structural failure to evolve. In an era that prizes engagement, interdisciplinarity and real-world relevance, universities cannot afford to cling to a single model of academic identity. Heterodox colleagues are not silver bullets, but they are essential to the richness and resilience of the sector.

    The compliance trap

    Despite the diversity of perspectives and epistemologies, our systems often reward sameness; uniformity in careers, outputs and leadership behaviours. Interdisciplinarity is celebrated rhetorically but stifled procedurally. Innovation is encouraged but only when it conforms to measurable outcomes. Leadership frameworks borrowed from corporate life bring useful tools, but they are not neutral.

    These models often fail to accommodate heterodox approaches, undervaluing forms of leadership that thrive on difference, improvisation, and autonomy. Performance metrics and standardised objectives often marginalise the creative, the hybrid and the experimental.

    If we value diversity and heterodoxy, we must accept that excellence takes many forms: some measurable, others intuitive; some harmonious, others deliberately disruptive. We need frameworks that flex, processes that adapt, and cultures that embrace the very contradictions they generate.

    Herein lies the paradox: universities demand diversity to survive, yet they reward conformity to preserve reputation. They seek innovation but measure it through established norms. This tension is not a flaw, rather it is the condition of the heterodox university. The question is whether our leadership structures are capable of holding that contradiction.

    This reflects the recent call for a new leadership framework in HE, to address the shifting landscape, the advancements in technology, social and regulatory change. Leadership “is now a crucial component in the higher education sector’s efforts to successfully navigate current challenges”.

    Leading with empathy

    So what might leadership look like in this context? It means creating the conditions in which individuals can flourish. It is stewardship not control. It involves being comfortable with ambiguity and openness to challenge. It involves intellectual empathy: understanding how colleagues think, not only what they do and recognising the inherent value in other academics. It is about creating the conditions in which others can flourish, even when their values or methods differ from our own.

    University leadership can carry a heavy emotional load. The balance of advocacy with accountability; innovation with institutional demands; scholarship with scheduling. We were not trained for this; we stepped in because we care. We want to fix what frustrates us; to create space for ideas; to support people we believe in. Through listening we discover a form of leadership that builds a shared capacity and nurtures potential even in those who are manifestly different from ourselves.

    Permission to lead differently

    In spite of all the challenges, there is real opportunity. The best leaders I have worked with were not necessarily the most strategic or the most visible. They were the ones who listened well; who noticed when someone was struggling; who quietly, or even loudly, championed a good idea even when it wasn’t their own. They had the confidence to admit when they did not know the answer to something, and the humility to let others shine.

    Leadership of this kind may be less celebrated in glossy strategy documents, but it is deeply generative.

    We need, perhaps, to give ourselves permission to lead differently. To resist the false dichotomies. To stop trying to fix people and instead start asking what might enable them. To see conflict and contrast not as a threat, but as evidence of a living, thinking, thriving, modern institution. Above all, we must remind ourselves that leadership is not something done to others, it is something enacted with them.

    This is not leadership as compliance. It is leadership as contribution. And it is time we gave ourselves permission to practise it.

    Source link

  • Higher education governance needs the conflict between academic and business imperatives to be successful

    Higher education governance needs the conflict between academic and business imperatives to be successful

    The sector’s financial challenges have shone a spotlight on governance effectiveness in higher education in England.

    When the incoming government tasked the Office for Students (OfS) with directing more of its energy towards financial sustainability in the summer of 2024, it was only a matter of months before director of regulation Philippa Pickford put forward the view that the sector needed “a conversation” about governance, specifically about how robustly boards had tested some of the financial projections they had been prepared to sign off.

    That signal of concern about governance has clearly manifested in the corridors of the Department for Education (DfE), if these words from the Secretary of State to the Commons Education Committee in May are anything to go by:

    The government is clear that there needs to be a focus on and improvement in providers’ governance. Planning and strategy development within higher education providers, including financial planning, should be supported by the highest standards of governance to ensure realistic planning, robust challenge and the development of sustainable business models.

    The sector has not been unresponsive to these cues – Advance HE in partnership with the wider sector is (taking the conversation metaphor literally) curating a “big conversation” about governance and the Committee of University Chairs (CUC) has pledged to review the higher education code of governance – which for a large number of institutions acts as a reference document for compliance with OfS’ conditions of registration on governance.

    The implicit underpinning premise from OfS and DfE is fairly stark: the government is disavowing any responsibility it might have to come up with a financial settlement that would shore up higher education finances while retaining the current delivery model; nor is it especially keen to have to deal with institutional bailouts arising from institutional inability to manage the changed funding landscape. The strong signal is that it is up to higher education institutions to work out how to survive in this environment – and if boards are not up to the task of finding the answers then it’s the boards that need reforming.

    Business acumen

    I read this communication as part of a discursive stand off between government and the sector in which the lines between the role of government and role of individual institutions in securing the future of higher education is contested. Within that context, the validity of the implied criticism – that boards are insufficiently businesslike and strategic – needs to be interrogated.

    There was a fascinating piece on The Critic last week by University of Buckingham academic Terence Kealey bemoaning the rise of the managerialist board. In Kealey’s analysis, when the balance of power in governance tilted towards the Senate – the governing body of academics – the institution thrived, as evidenced by strong performance in NSS and a financial surplus. But when the Council flexed its muscles, the university faltered, dropping in the league tables and spending more than it brought in.

    Kealey’s core argument – that academics are best placed to steward the core higher education mission of excellent teaching and research – picks up a longer standing critique of higher education governance that perceives organisational strategic objectives as articulated by institutional boards and executive teams as frequently in opposition to the academic endeavour, being far too concerned with financial efficiency, performance management, reputation/league tables, and capturing market share. Echoes of aspects of this critique appear in the recent Council for the Defence of British Universities’ proposed code of ethical university governance, which urges boards to adhere to high standards of transparent, principled, and public-spirited conduct.

    At the other end of the spectrum, the criticism of higher education governance – including sometimes from governors themselves – is that boards are insufficiently businesslike, fail to articulate long-term strategic objectives that will secure the institution’s sustainability, and have limited entrepreneurial spirit that would allow the institution to adapt to adverse headwinds. A more moderate version of this criticism argues that it is very difficult to convene the diverse skillset that could allow for effective board oversight of the wide range of activities that higher education institutions do.

    Thinking about activities like academic and knowledge exchange partnerships, the creation of new campuses or the erection of new buildings, or civic and international engagement, all of these have the the academic endeavour at their core but are mostly about deploying the knowledge and reputational assets of the institution to generate additional value – and they each carry complicated associated legal and regulatory compliance expectations and reputational risk. It’s not clear that developing those strategies and managing those risks and expectations coheres well with academic professional practice – though some academics will obviously have a keen interest and want to develop knowledge in these areas.

    The worst of both

    There has always been an expectation that higher education institutions need to be simultaneously academically excellent and sufficiently business savvy to make sure the institution remains financially stable. Both academic and institutional governance can fail – the latter often more spectacularly and with greater reputational impact – but the impact of academic governance failure is arguably greater overall both on the long term health of the institution and on the lives of the staff and students affected.

    So you could argue that it’s odd and/or problematic that the sector has witnessed the erosion of the power of senates and academic boards as part of a wider set of trends towards a more executive style of higher education leadership, the rise of metrics, league tables and more managerial approaches to institutional performance, the intensification of regulatory expectations, and the steady withdrawal of direct public funding from the sector. It’s telling that under the current regulatory regime in England institutional boards have had to master new expectations of oversight of academic quality, on the presumption that all institutional accountability should sit in one place, rather than being distributed – suggesting that quality is now seen as part of the wider business imperative rather than a counterweight to it.

    But simply pivoting the balance of power back to senates and the academic community doesn’t necessarily address the problem. It’s possible, I suppose, to imagine a relatively benign or at least predictable funding and regulatory environment in which some of the pressing strategic questions about institutional size and shape, partnerships, or external engagement are answered or moot, and in which knowledge stewardship, academic excellence, and (one would hope) student learning experience are the primary purpose of higher education governance.

    But even if that environment was plausible – I’m not sure it has ever existed – it doesn’t really address the more existential contemporary questions that governments and the public seem to be putting to higher education: how does the country see, and experience the value of all this knowledge stewardship and academic excellence? To realise that value and make it visible in more than an ad hoc way – to be institutionally accountable for the systematic manifestation of public value from academic knowledge – requires knowledge and professional practice beyond individual teaching and research excellence. And, more prosaically but equally importantly, buildings, infrastructure, and systems that create the environment for effective knowledge stewardship. Without a functioning institution there can be no knowledge stewardship.

    There’s a reason, in other words, even if you strip out all the neoliberal value propositions from higher education governance, why higher education institutions need a “business” arm and associated governance structures. And that’s before you confront the actual reality of the current situation where the funding and regulatory environment is neither benign nor predictable – and the need for effective external relationship-building and systematic collaboration is greater than it has been in decades.

    On the other hand, some of the business decisions that are made to secure financial sustainability or long term institutional success put the academic imperative at risk. Rapid growth in student numbers, redundancy programmes, departmental or services cuts or new strategic partnerships can compromise quality, as we have seen in a number of recent cases. There may be mitigations or the impact may be worth the reward, but there can be no meaningful strategic decision without being able to weigh up both.

    Yet where we have ended up, I fear, is in the worst of both worlds – institutional boards that are neither sufficiently academically robust to have a grip of academic excellence nor sufficiently strategic and entrepreneurial to ensure institutions are able to thrive in the current higher education landscape. This is no shade to the immense talent and knowledge of the individuals who take up roles as higher education governors – it is a structural critique.

    Creative tension

    Where I end up is with the question – if there is really an inbuilt tension between the academic and business imperatives of higher education institutions, what would it look like for that tension to be a productive one in higher education governance rather than a source of toxicity?

    I suspect – though I’ve not (yet) asked – many vice chancellors and their executive teams would argue that in their individual experience and team skillset they manifest both academic and business imperatives – that in fact, it is their job to reconcile these two aspects of institutional leadership in their daily practice, decisions, and communications.

    Yet if that reconciliation of two competing imperatives is the job of leadership, arguably it’s not going all that well. While this experience is by no means universal, it’s clear that at times both academic and professional staff can feel sidelined and disempowered in the tug of war for day to day resource – but also at a deeper level for a recognition of their purpose and contribution to the higher education endeavour. Each can feel subordinated to the other in the institutional hierarchy – yet while there are outliers on both sides I’d put money on the majority of individuals on both sides accepting and embracing the value and contribution of the other. Yet at the same time the real tensions and contradictions that manifest in the pursuit of the two parallel imperatives are deeply felt by staff yet not always acknowledged by leadership.

    What if the job of leadership and boards of governors was not to seek to reconcile academic and business imperatives, but to actively manage the conflicts that arise at times? Where strategic questions arise related to either opportunities or risks, boards need to understand the perspective of both “sides” before being able to judge whether the executive team’s decisions are appropriate. And for institutional staff (and students, to the extent they have a role in institutional governance) there needs to be confidence that the governors have the skills and understanding of the value and importance of both imperatives and the relationship between them – so that there is the trust that decisions have been made in the most effective and transparent way possible.

    There might even be a case for institutions to convene internal business strategy boards as part of the governance structure as a counterweight to academic boards – actively empowering both equally as sites of knowledge, expertise and influence – and potentially reducing the strategic burden on institutional boards through creating a more transparent and maybe even more democratic or at least representative forum for internal governance of strategic business development.

    It seems likely that the next academic year will see the higher education sector in England move on from “conversations” about governance into something more systematically developmental, whether that’s via the mechanism of the CUC’s review of the Higher Education Code of Governance, or a policy agenda from one of the sector bodies. This is one of those areas where the sector can help itself with government by taking a lead on reform.

    Yet there’s a risk that the financial pressures on the sector lead to too close a focus on the strategic business imperatives and not enough on the academic excellence imperative. Institutions need both to be successful, and boards and executive teams – as well as any reviewing organisation – need to give deep consideration to how those can – even if not always peacefully – coexist.

    Source link

  • Redefining Academic Success: Why Career Progression Must Look Beyond Research

    Redefining Academic Success: Why Career Progression Must Look Beyond Research

    • By Professor Isabel Lucas, Pro-Vice Chancellor for Education at the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine and outgoing Chair of the national Heads of Educational Development Group (HEDG).

    In higher education, prestige and promotion have long hinged on research output. But with growing numbers of academics focused on teaching, educational leadership and knowledge exchange, the old metrics no longer fit. A report by the European Association for Universities places academic career reform at the heart of its 2030 vision, highlighting the need to recognise impact beyond traditional research publications. This shift is not only about fairness – it’s about organisational effectiveness and employee wellbeing.

    Research has long dominated academic prestige, promotions, and funding. Sterling et al. (2023) argue that current academic career frameworks are weighted heavily toward research, often sidelining innovative teaching and educational leadership. Yet, as the higher education sector evolves, so too must our understanding of what counts as impactful academic work.

    The reality is already shifting. Data from HESA (2022) shows a 10% rise in teaching-only contracts between 2015 and 2022, balanced by a 9% decrease in research-related roles. This suggests a growing academic population for whom the current research-heavy promotion pathways simply don’t apply. However, ‘teaching-only’ staff (a problematic term as it is inevitably not only teaching) often find themselves ineligible – or unrecognised – within traditional academic progression systems. The lack of progression routes for these high-quality staff capable of transforming the education and student experience at a strategic level risks undermining job satisfaction and retention.

    What’s more, staff on Professional Service contracts, including roles like educational developers and academic skills support tutors, are engaged in academic work without the benefits or recognition of an academic title. HESA’s own definitions blur the lines: academic function is tied to the contract, not necessarily the work performed. This disconnect creates a situation where talented, impactful educators are ‘othered’ – excluded from meaningful recognition and progression.

    Key findings from sector analysis undertaken in 2024 via the Heads of Educational Development Group (HEDG) showed some alarming disparities among middle managers with institutional responsibility for learning and teaching:

    • Career Blockages:
      • 100% of academic contract holders in the study had access to promotion to Reader/Professor.
      • Only 39% of Professional Service contract holders had similar access—even when doing the same academic work as peers on academic contracts.
    • Misalignment of Identity and Contract:
      • Staff whose professional identity did not match their contract type (e.g. self-identifying as academic but on a Professional Service contract) reported significantly lower satisfaction and empowerment scores.
    • Promotion Criteria Gaps:
      • Respondents noted they could meet academic promotion criteria, but were ineligible due to contract type.
      • Job satisfaction scores were lowest where staff reported that promotion routes existed but were inaccessible due to the nature of their role.

    So, how can HE evolve its career structures beyond research? Establishing clear, visible academic promotion routes to Reader/Professor that recognise leadership in education, curriculum innovation, and pedagogic research would be a good starting point. Making sure promotion frameworks include non-research excellence – impact on student learning, institutional strategy, and sector-wide education initiatives – would be even more inclusive. Neither of these things should pose a significant operational or cost challenge to universities and would reap significant rewards in staff retention and satisfaction.

    Institutions that fail to adapt risk not just losing talent, but falling behind in impact, innovation, and reputation. It’s time to value all forms of academic excellence. The future of higher education, now more than ever, depends on it.

    Source link

  • With better coordination we can break down barriers to academic policy engagement

    With better coordination we can break down barriers to academic policy engagement

    How can universities best support the UK’s research base to deliver better outcomes for people? This is becoming an ever more urgent challenge for our sector, in the context of a changing geopolitical landscape and the desire of the UK government for research and innovation to better serve the public good.

    One route to deriving greater public benefit from academic research lies in research better connecting with and informing public policy development. Recent years have seen a growing number of universities establishing policy units – at least 46, at the last count, and almost certainly more now. There has also been increased investment in policy-focused activity from research funders, for example, Research England’s Policy Support Fund, UKRI policy fellowships, and ESRC investments to increase policymaker engagement with research. New mechanisms to strengthen evidence use, such as government areas of research interest and parliamentary thematic research leads, have been introduced, alongside an increased focus on building capacity for evidence use across sub-national government.

    Through the Covid-19 pandemic, we saw the myriad ways in which research evidence informed policy to deliver benefits for people, whether understanding and treating the disease, informing the public health response, or mitigating the wider social impacts.

    You can’t always get what you want

    “Academic-policy engagement” is becoming increasingly mainstream, as part of universities’ wider knowledge exchange or civic engagement strategies. However, considerable barriers to engagement between academic researchers and policymakers remain. These include significant cultural differences, lack of incentives and investment, mismatched timescales and approaches, lack of access to academic research, and difficulties in parsing an ever-growing volume of information.

    Policymakers often express a desire for a streamlined, “one stop” interface with academics to enable them to quickly and easily reach the right expertise at the right time. Given such barriers, this is much easier said than done.

    Too often, where interaction does happen, it is short-term, ad hoc, dependent on individual contacts, and enabled through fixed-term funding rather than sustainable approaches. Many institutions lack both the capacity and the necessary capabilities to respond to policy needs.

    There is no systematic mechanism for policymakers to engage with universities in order to identify and access the expertise they need, or for universities and researchers to identify policy needs, still less provide a coordinated response. This means that policymakers do not necessarily have access to the best evidence, only that which is most readily available.

    What is now required is a serious focus on establishing a more systematic and sustainable approach. Such an approach requires organisational capacity and individual capability, alongside greater collaboration and coordination across the academic-policy ecosystem.

    The policy connection cavalry is here

    This is where the Universities Policy Engagement Network (UPEN) comes in. Established in 2018 UPEN is a voluntary network of over 120 universities, research centres, and policy organisations across the UK, currently hosted at UCL. Our university members comprise diverse institutions, from large, research-intensive to small, specialist institutions, across all parts of the UK. UPEN provides an interface between all areas of academic research and public policymaking, with strong relationships with the UK’s four national legislatures and 25 government departments and growing links with local and regional policymakers.

    UPEN has until now been powered by the contributions of our members: both financial and, crucially, time. With a new funding award from Research England and ESRC, we now have the opportunity to build a national “connective infrastructure” which can respond to growing policy demand, at multiple levels of government, for academic expertise and evidence.

    Enhancing UPEN’s ability to provide this interface will enable us as a sector to work in a more coordinated and efficient way. It will also foster greater diversity in academic-policy engagement by ensuring a greater breadth of evidence and voices are heard. And it will build on previous UKRI investments to underpin stronger collaboration and collective action to harness the full potential of the university research base.

    Our new programmes of work will focus on three key areas. First, supporting universities to strengthen their academic engagement with public policy by enhancing individual and organisational capabilities. Second, strengthening place-based approaches to academic-policy engagement. Third, developing a national knowledge brokerage function to mobilise academic expertise to respond at the point of policy need.

    The UK government is grappling with multiple complex and cross-cutting policy challenges – from bolstering a weak economy, to improving energy security and sustainability, to tackling problems with the health service, to addressing housing needs. It is time for us, as a sector, to better leverage the knowledge of universities to address these challenges in order to deliver better outcomes for citizens across the UK.

    Source link

  • From Intuition to Intelligence: Leveraging Data to Guide Academic Portfolio Strategy

    From Intuition to Intelligence: Leveraging Data to Guide Academic Portfolio Strategy

    In today’s competitive higher education landscape, institutions can no longer afford to rely on instinct alone when it comes to academic program planning. The stakes are too high and the margin for error too slim. 

    Leaders are facing increasing pressure to align their portfolios with market demand, institutional mission, and student expectations — all while navigating constrained resources and shifting demographics. 

    The good news? You don’t have to guess. Market intelligence offers a smarter, more strategic foundation for building and refining your academic program mix. 

    Why program optimization matters now more than ever 

    Most institutions have at least one program that’s no longer pulling its weight — whether due to declining enrollment, outdated relevance, or oversaturated competition. At the same time, there are often untapped opportunities for growth in emerging or underserved fields. 

    But how do you decide which programs to scale, sustain, or sunset? 

    Optimizing your portfolio requires more than internal performance metrics. It calls for an external lens — one that brings into view national and regional trends, labor market signals, and consumer behavior. When done effectively, academic portfolio strategy becomes less about trial and error, and more about clarity and confidence. 

    The first step: Start with the market 

    The strongest portfolio strategies begin with robust external data. At Collegis Education, we draw from sources like the National Center for Education Statistics (IPEDS), Lightcast labor market analytics, and Google search trends to assess program performance, student demand, and employment outlooks. 

    National trends give us the big picture and a foundation to start from. But for our partners, we prioritize regional analysis — because institutions ultimately compete and serve in specific geographic contexts, even with fully online programs. Understanding what’s growing in your state or region is often more actionable than knowing what’s growing nationwide. 

    Our proprietary methodology filters for: 

    • Five-year conferral growth with positive year-over-year trends 
    • Programs offered by a sufficient number of institutions (to avoid anomalies) 
    • Competitive dynamics and saturation thresholds 
    • Job postings and projected employment growth 

    This data-driven process helps institutions avoid chasing short-term trends and instead focus on sustainable growth areas. 

    Ready for a Smarter Way Forward?

    Higher ed is hard — but you don’t have to figure it out alone. We can help you transform challenges into opportunities.

    Data in action: Insights from today’s growth programs 

    Collegis’ latest program growth analyses — drawing from 2023 conferral data — surface a diverse mix of high-opportunity programs. While we won’t detail every entry here, a few trends stand out: 

    • Technology and healthcare programs remain strong at the undergraduate level, with degrees like Computer Science and Health Sciences showing continued growth. 
    • Graduate credentials in education and nursing reflect both workforce need and strong student interest. 
    • Laddering potential is especially evident in fields like psychology and health sciences, where institutions can design seamless transitions from associate to bachelor’s. In fields such as education, options to ladder from certificate to master’s programs are growing in demand. 

    What’s most important isn’t the specific programs, it’s what they reveal: external data can confirm intuition, challenge assumptions, and unlock new strategic direction. And when paired with regional insights, these findings become even more powerful. 

    How to turn insight into strategy 

    Having market data is just the beginning. The true value lies in how institutions use it. At Collegis, we help our partners translate insight into action through a structured portfolio development process that includes the following: 

    1. Market analysis: Analyzing external data to identify growth areas, saturation risks, and demand signals — regionally and nationally. 
    1. Gap analysis: Identifying misalignments between current offerings and market opportunity. 
    1. Institutional alignment: Layering in internal metrics — enrollment, outcomes, mission fit, modality, and margin. 
    1. Strategic decisions: Prioritizing programs to expand, launch, refine, or sunset. 
    1. Implementation support: Developing go-to-market plans, supporting change management, and measuring results. 

    By grounding these decisions in both internal and external intelligence, institutions can future-proof their portfolios — driving enrollment, meeting workforce needs, and staying mission-aligned. 

    Put data to work for your portfolio 

    Program portfolio strategy doesn’t have to be a guessing game. With the right data and a trusted partner, institutions can make bold, confident moves that fuel growth and student success. 

    Whether you’re validating your instincts or exploring new academic directions, Collegis can help. Our market research and portfolio development services are built to support institutions at every step of the process — with national insights and regional specificity to guide your next move. 

    Innovation Starts Here

    Higher ed is evolving — don’t get left behind. Explore how Collegis can help your institution thrive.

    Source link

  • Five Science-Backed Ways to Improve Academic Writing (opinion)

    Five Science-Backed Ways to Improve Academic Writing (opinion)

    I vividly recall when an editor in chief invited me to publish in a well-known journal. Fresh from defending my dissertation, I still grappled with understanding how publishing worked in academia—like whether I should try to imitate the densely written, abstract sentences that appeared in the journal he edited. I thumbed the latest issue and looked at him. “Do you have a house style I should use?”

    He shuddered and gave a response I’ve since heard echoed by other editors in chief of similarly well-respected journals: “Please don’t! We publish manuscripts despite how they’re written.”

    But this candid advice leaves most graduate students and even seasoned faculty members with another dilemma. If you can’t imitate articles published in the best journals, how do you write up your research so it gets published?

    During my early years of teaching writing courses, I discovered that students seldom revised their work significantly, even when they received extensive feedback from both me and their peers. In fact, students failed to revise even when they received feedback and grades from their peers.

    All writing students also struggle with the idea that both feedback and grades on their writing are subjective, a reflection of how a particular instructor prefers students to write in a specific course. In addition, English literature and creative writing courses teach students that writing is a combination of mystery and art.

    In contrast, researchers in cognitive neuroscience and psycholinguistics identified the features that make sentences easy or difficult to read decades ago. As a result, we can teach students how to make their sentences clear—no matter how complex the subject—by teaching science-based writing methods. And as a graduate student or faculty member, you can improve your own academic writing—and your chances for publication—by focusing on the five basic principles that cause readers to perceive sentences as clear.

    1. Active voice makes sentences easier to read.

    In studies, researchers have discovered that readers comprehend sentences more rapidly when sentences reflect cause and effect. We can trace this to two factors. First, our brains naturally perceive cause and effect, which evolved as a survival mechanism. Research shows, for instance, that infants as young as 6 months old may identify cause and effect.

    Second, English sentence structure reflects causes and effects in its ordering of words: subject-verb-object. As researchers discovered, participants read sentences with active voice at speeds one-third faster than they read sentences in passive voice. Moreover, these same participants misunderstood even simple sentences in passive voice about one-quarter of the time. While many writing instructors require students to use active voice, few alert students to the specific benefits of active sentences that make them easier to read. These sentences are shorter, more efficient and more concrete, while sharpening readers’ sense of cause and effect.

    Consider the differences between the first example below, which relies on passive voice, and the second, which uses active voice.

    Passive: It has been reported that satiety may be induced by the distention of the gastric antrum due to the release of dissolved gas from carbonated water, which may improve gastric motility, thereby reducing hunger.

    Active: Cuomo, Savarese, Sarnelli et al. reported that drinking carbonated water distends the gastric antrum through the release of dissolved gas, inducing satiety and improving gastric motility, all of which reduce hunger.

    1. Actors or concrete objects turn sentences into microstories.

    Academic writing naturally tackles complex content that can prove challenging even to subject matter experts. However, writers can make even challenging content comprehensible to nonexperts by making cause and effect clear in their sentences by using nouns that readers can easily identify as subjects. When the grammatical subjects in sentences are nouns clearly capable of performing actions, readers process sentences with greater speed and less effort. For actors, use people, organizations or publications—any individual, group or item created with intention that generates impact.

    We unconsciously perceive these sentences as easier to read and recall because identifying actors and actions in sentences aids readers in fixing both a word’s meaning and the role it plays in sentence structure. Furthermore, these nouns enhance the efficiency of any sentence by paring down its words. Take these examples below:

    Abstract noun as subject: Virginia Woolf’s examination of the social and economic obstacles female writers faced, due to the presumption that women had no place in literary professions and so were instead relegated to the household, particularly resonated with her audience of young women who had struggled to fight for their right to study at their colleges, even after the political successes of the suffragettes.

    Actor as subject: In A Room of One’s Own, Virginia Woolf examined social and economic obstacles female writers faced. Despite the political success of the suffragettes, writers like Woolf battled the perception that women had no place in the literary professions. Thus Woolf’s book resonated with her audience, young women who had to fight for the right to study at their colleges.

    1. Pronouns send readers backward, but readers make sense of sentences by anticipating what comes next.

    If writers imitate the academic writing they see in print, they typically rely on pronouns as the subjects of sentences, especially “this,” “that,” “these,” “those” and “it.” However, pronouns save writers time but cost readers significantly, for two reasons.

    First, readers typically assume that pronouns refer to a single noun rather than a cluster of nouns, a phrase or even an entire sentence. Second, when writers use these pronouns without nouns to anchor their meaning, readers slow down and frequently misidentify the meanings of pronouns. Moreover, readers rated writing samples with higher numbers of pronouns as less well-written than sentences that relied on actors as subjects—or even pronouns like “this” anchored by nouns like “outcome.”

    Pronoun as subject: Due to the potential confounding detrimental effects of sulfonylureas and insulin in the comparator arms of the trials evaluating anticancer effects of metformin/thiazolidinediones, it is difficult to draw any firm conclusions from prior studies.

    Actor as subject: In trials to assess the anticancer effects of metformin/thiazolidinediones, we had difficulty drawing any firm conclusions from prior studies due to potential confounding detrimental effects from sulfonylureas and insulin.

    1. Action verbs make sentences more concrete, efficient and memorable.

    Open any newspaper or magazine and, even in just-the-facts-ma’am hard news stories, you’ll find action verbs, like “argues,” “reinvents,” “writes” and “remakes.” In contrast, most writers overrely on nonaction verbs. These verbs include “is,” “has been,” “seems,” “appears,” “becomes,” “represents” and that evergreen staple of academic writing, “tends.”

    Action verbs enable readers to immediately identify verbs, a process central to comprehending sentence structure and understanding meaning alike. Furthermore, action verbs make sentences more efficient, more concrete and more memorable. In one study of verbs and memory, readers recalled concrete verbs more accurately than nonaction verbs.

    When we read action verbs, our brains recruit the sensory-motor system, generating faster reaction times than with abstract or nonaction verbs, which are processed outside that system. Even in patients with dementia, action verbs remain among words patients with advanced disease can identify due to the semantic richness of connections action verbs recruit in the brain.

    Nonaction verbs: Claiming the promotion of research “excellence” and priding oneself in the record of “excellence” has become commonplace, but what this excellence is concretely about is unclear.

    Action verbs: Research institutions claim to promote faculty on the basis of research “excellence,” but institutions define “excellence” in many ways, with few clear definitions.

    1. Place subjects and verbs close together.

    When we read, we understand sentences’ meaning based on our predictions of how sentences unfold. We unconsciously make these predictions from our encounters with thousands of sentences. Most important, these predictions rely on our ability to identify grammatical subjects and verbs.

    We make these predictions easily when writers place subjects and verbs close together. In contrast, we struggle when writers separate subjects and verbs. With each increase in distance between subjects and verbs, readers exert greater effort, while reading speeds slow down. More strikingly, readers also make more errors in identifying subjects and verbs with increases in the number of words between subjects and verbs—even in relatively short sentences.

    For example, in this sentence, readers must stumble through two adjective clauses, noted in orange below, before encountering the verb “decreases,” paired with the underlined subject, “rule”:

    Specifically, a rule that indicates a reduction in delay that precedes an aversive consequence decreases procrastination in university students.

    But this separation strains working memory, as readers rely on subject-verb-object order to identify sentence structure. Ironically, as academic writers gain sophistication in their subject-matter expertise, they frustrate readers’ mechanisms for comprehension. Your urge to immediately modify the subject of your sentence with phrases and clauses slows reading and increases readers’ sense of conscious effort.

    On the other hand, reading speeds increase while effort decreases when subjects and verbs appear close together. Introduce your main point with a subject and verb, then modify them with clauses or phrases:

    Specifically, university students decrease procrastination when they face aversive consequences immediately for failure to meet deadlines.

    These principles will work in any discipline, enabling writers to control how editors and peer reviewers respond to their manuscripts and proposals. These changes can help make an academic career successful, crucial in today’s competitive environment.

    Yellowlees Douglas is a former professor of English at Holy Names University and was a director of five writing programs at universities including the City University of New York and the University of Florida. She is the author, most recently, of Writing for the Reader’s Brain: A Science-Based Guide (Cambridge University Press, 2024).

    Source link