Tag: Capacity

  • Building collective capacity to defend and celebrate HE

    Building collective capacity to defend and celebrate HE

    Higher education continues to grapple with its complicated reputational issues.

    There’s probably never been a period of history in the UK when higher education enjoyed an uncomplicated relationship with the public and policymakers. From “elite to mass” there’s always been a debate about who should go and what universities’ public contribution should be.

    But the current era does feel especially thorny, navigating populist politics, geopolitical uncertainty and, paradoxically, demand for higher education at a scale and diversity that is genuinely hard to satisfy.

    In June, The Venn brought together leaders from across UK higher education to grapple with the complexities of the sector’s reputation – including an “unconference” exploration of a set of particularly thorny problems. Here, some of the convenors of those conversations consider the reputational and public impact questions that are occupying them and put forward some suggestions for building capacity in the sector to “defend and celebrate” the value higher education creates.

    How can universities and government find the space and time to consider the scale and impact of impending demographic, technological and social change?

    Joan Concannon, director of external relations, University of York

    The UK university sector faces critical challenges driven by four interdependent forces, necessitating urgent collaborative action between the sector and government to prevent adverse impacts on future economic growth and social inclusion. The higher education sector, a significant export revenue generator and innovation instigator, is currently experiencing financial instability that will only worsen without system level evaluation.

    Firstly, projections for the next two decades consistently show an increasing demand for skilled and graduate labor in the UK. This growth stems from both replacing existing workers and expanding graduate professions across public and private sectors. Data from Jisc, for instance, indicates substantial growth in UK labor market demand between 2020 and 2035, with the most significant net growth in roles requiring graduate-level qualifications. The UK already faces longstanding shortages in areas like engineering and health and social care.

    Secondly, a major misalignment exists between the skills projected as necessary by the Industrial Strategy, particularly in eight key Industrial Strategy areas, and current student enrollment in those fields. Forthcoming research from University of York and Public First, supported by QS, aims to quantify this mismatch, highlighting a national skills gap that threatens the UK’s ability to capitalise on future economic opportunities in key industrial areas.

    Thirdly, demographic shifts are leading to a projected decline in the overall supply of UK home undergraduates. HEPI forecasts a potential drop of approximately 7 per cent between 2030 and 2035, with an even steeper decline of up to 20 per cent by 2040. While a potential rise in demand for retraining from older adults in the labor market, exacerbated by generative AI and technological advancements, could partially offset this, the current HE funding model appears ill-equipped to handle these profound demographic and technological shifts. The UK also invests less in training compared to many other advanced economies, further complicating the situation.

    Finally, widespread financial constraints within the university sector are forcing institutions to close courses and rationalise subjects to cut costs. As universities undertake these actions independently, a significant risk arises: neighbouring institutions often make similar changes, leading to an aggregate loss of supply in crucial areas. This inefficiency could result in the regional or even national closure of, or loss of access to, key subject areas for undergraduate study, further exacerbating skills shortages.

    Collectively, these four forces are compelling the UK university sector to engage in individual financial “right-sizing” due to budgetary pressures and forthcoming demographic dips in home students. This reactive approach risks stifling economic growth ambitions by failing to adequately supply the high-level graduate skills demanded by the current economy, let alone the future needs of the IS-8 frontier subsectors. Therefore, a major National Commission involving HE, government, and employers is urgently needed to define what the UK requires from its HE sector to achieve economic and social advancement, with this process starting immediately to preempt further turbulence from demographic and technological changes.

    How should universities respond when the political winds shift?

    Rachel Mills, senior vice president academic, King’s College London

    The sector is increasingly exposed to fast changing policy pressure that is getting harder to predict. It is vital we consider how to assert our public value with confidence rather than simply adapt reactively to halt declines in longstanding contributions to society and communities.

    Universities need to reconnect purposefully with the wider public, not just the politicians, especially voters who may not perceive the direct benefits of higher education. Campuses could be more open and porous, inviting local communities into our spaces, and seeking out groups who don’t normally engage with us. Building these bridges can renew understanding and support, essential in turbulent times.

    We could also be much clearer and more unified in our advocacy, instead of fragmented sector voices. Participants argued for better coordination, perhaps even nominating a single strong advocate or developing sector-wide mechanisms for shaping policy. Acknowledging and addressing our sometimes “flabby inefficiency” through better organisational cohesion will make us more potent in policy debates.

    Importantly, we must always foreground the opportunities universities create, from widening access and advancing social mobility to facilitating economic growth. Reinforcing this message and keeping our communication simple and relatable are essential, especially as complex arguments risk being lost amid hostile narratives.

    There is a tension between seeking partnership with government – aligning with priorities like growth – and standing firm on our mission, even if that risks conflict. It’s about strategic balance, not binary choices, but universities do need to be proactive: setting the agenda, identifying solutions, and ensuring that we are heard in national conversations.

    Ultimately, the sector must renew local and national engagement, strengthen collective advocacy, and keep messages focused. If we do so, UK universities can remain resilient, relevant, and able to shape a positive future, no matter which way the political winds blow.

    Why don’t they like us? How universities can be more effective storytellers with the public

    Rachel Sandison, Vice Principal (External Relations) and Deputy Vice Chancellor (External Engagement), University of Glasgow

    The question “Why don’t they like us?” may sound provocative, but it captures a growing unease within the higher education sector. Universities, long seen as bastions of knowledge and progress, increasingly find themselves misunderstood, mistrusted, or even resented by segments of the public, and this is a predicament faced not just by the sector here in the UK but around the world.

    This disconnect is not just a reputational issue; it is a strategic one. In an era of political polarisation, economic uncertainty, and rapid technological change, universities must reassert their relevance and value. That starts with better storytelling.

    We are organisations that often speak in metrics – research outputs, rankings, graduate outcomes – but these do not always resonate with the public’s lived experience. The sector tends to communicate “at” people, not “with” them. There is a tendency to assume that the value of higher education is self-evident, when in fact, it needs to be continually demonstrated in ways that are real and relevant to the publics that we serve.

    This also means we need to do more to avoid echo chambers. To make our case requires listening to, but also engaging with, harder to reach audiences, including those who are not just apathetic but vociferously anti-academy. We have to tell stories that are local, relatable, and emotionally resonant. In essence, we must tension impact with relevance; it is not enough to simply highlight groundbreaking research, we must show how it improves lives.

    This also requires third party advocacy. Our stories can have greater traction and cut-through if they are told by those who have been positively impacted. As a result, we need to think about how we can best galvanise business leaders, our alumni community, city stakeholders and, most importantly, our own student and colleague community.

    To do this we need to:

    1. Invest in narrative capacity: Communications teams should be empowered not just to promote but to listen, curate, and co-create stories with diverse voices. We must also be intentional about content, channel, language and tone of voice.

    2. Humanise impact: Move beyond abstract benefits to showcase real people – students, researchers, community members – whose lives are changed by university work.

    3. Engage consistently, not just in crisis: Trust is built over time. Universities must be present in public discourse not only when defending themselves but when celebrating shared successes.

    Ultimately, storytelling is not a soft skill, it is a strategic imperative. If universities want to be seen as essential, they must speak in ways that are accessible, authentic, and aligned with the public’s hopes and concerns.

    How can universities strengthen relationships with local residents in their communities?

    James Coe, associate editor, Wonkhe

    Universities have never asked permission for what they do. They radically change the populations of their towns and cities, they build enormous housing that local people rarely have a say in, and they skew economies toward a student market. The only reason they can do what they do is because of an implicit bargain which says in return for supporting our success we will make the local economy stronger, create good jobs, and make places better to live in.

    In making this implicit social contract real universities have launched compelling GVA reports, shown their impact through their civic university agreements, and composed the crispest press releases on exports, access, and skills. All of these measures are impactful but ultimately they are not stories for local residents. They are stories for policy makers and politicians already interested in what universities do.

    The challenge in making what universities do feel real is obviously about intent. Fundamentally, is what a university is doing actually make a place better. However, it is also about communicating that intent in a way that reaches local audiences.

    A communications strategy which is about leaders meeting residents where they are. Sending the vice chancellor to the local residents association, making representations at planning committees, talking on the local radio about issues of the day so they get a flavour of the university leadership, and working with civic leaders on the events, festivals, cultural celebrations, and the things that bring communities together, to remind people that an education institution in on their doorstep.

    In the end most people do not care about the impact their university has on the country. They care about the impact it has on their lives, their family, and their place. Do not tell them about the university but tell them what it is doing for them in the places they are already listening. This moves the social contract from a fragile agreement to a rich dialogue deepened by all of those who understand its purpose.

    Following the science: just how much do universities and government really want research impacting policy?

    Sarah Chaytor, Director of Research Strategy & Policy, University College London

    Universities are facing increasing pressure in terms of public perceptions of their value. Simply restating our usual “lines” on economic growth, innovation, and the graduate premium is not going to cut it, especially with the government making it clear that it wants universities to demonstrate explicitly and tangible value for citizens.

    An often-overlooked but crucial way in which universities can deliver societal contributions is through academic-policy engagement – connecting research to policymakers in order to inform public policy development and decisions. As policy challenges faced by government across the UK become increasingly complex, access to high-quality evidence and external expertise becomes more important for a policy system which faces ever-greater burdens.

    For many universities, policy engagement is seen in terms of a public affairs agenda which is about advancing individual institutional interest, rather than creating institutional capacity to support evidence use. Operational and cultural barriers, ranging from funding and contractual processes which are insufficiently agile to respond to a faster-paced policy environment to a lack of incentives to spend time on academic-policy engagement rather than grant applications or research publications, persist. Alongside this, uncertain and unpredictable outcomes require a “loss leader” approach – investing time and resource in advance of the “payoff” – and a strong commitment to supporting activity on the basis of public good rather than institutional ROI.

    Academic-policy engagement seems to function on a model that requires a willingness to keep turning the kaleidoscope to adjust the picture and find sufficient levers and incentives to justify activity. At different points in time there may be incentives arising from the public policy system (eg government department areas of research interest or parliamentary thematic research leads) or from research funders (over the past five years, I estimate we’ve seen cumulative funding of at least £100 million for policy-focused research activities such as UKRI policy fellowships, ESRC Local Policy Innovation Partnerships, NIHR Policy Research Units and Health Determinant Research Collaborations, and the Research England Policy Support Fund). But there has not yet been a breakthrough intervention which has established academic-policy engagement as core to university missions.

    So what could be done to shift the dial? There are three possible areas where more action is needed on the part of universities, government and funders:

    • Capacity: institutional structures in both universities and government and policy organisations need to better support the mobilisation and use of research knowledge in public policymaking (for example enhancing structures for engagement and rewarding it as part of the day job).
    • Capabilities: universities need to recognise and support academic-policy capabilities as part of broader research skills programmes, and work with funders and government around co-creating effective training for academic researchers and policymakers
    • Collaboration: universities need to get much better at working together to address policy evidence needs. The necessary expertise for most policy challenges will not be found in only one institution, nor do we look particularly efficient as a sector if individual institutions replicate interactions which could be undertaken collectively

    Registration is now open for The Venn 2026 – find out more here. 

    Source link

  • Research funding requires research capacity

    Research funding requires research capacity

    This year marks 100 years since the Leverhulme Trust was established. It’s a moment for us to reflect on the extraordinary research the Trust has supported over that period – but also to look forward.

    That’s why the Leverhulme Trust Board has decided to commit an additional £100 million to UK university research over the next few years, on top of our usual £120m annual spend.

    Investing in the future

    This is not a nostalgic gesture. It is a deliberate investment in a university sector that continues to deliver world-class research, even as it faces immense financial pressure. The UK’s research base is one of the country’s greatest assets. However, it is under strain, despite the welcome increase in funding for research and development in the recent spending review.

    Universities are grappling with rising costs and uncertainty around international student income. In this context, the Trust’s centenary investment is a celebration of the sector’s excellence and, we hope, a timely contribution to sustaining that excellence.

    We are directing this funding where we believe it can make the greatest difference: into blue skies research and supporting the next generation of researchers. These are areas where funding has become increasingly difficult to secure, and where we can therefore add the most value. We are, however, not changing our usual approach, which is to leave academics, who are at the forefront of their fields, to determine the questions that are most important and pressing.

    Blue sky bedrock

    Blue skies research – curiosity-driven, often interdisciplinary, and sometimes high-risk – is the core mission of the Trust. This kind of research is also the bedrock on which much social, technological and economic progress rests. It is easy to identify vitally important blue skies research retrospectively. Much harder to prove its value in advance.

    Our award to Kostya Novoselov early in his career looks prescient – he went on to win the Nobel for his work on graphene. But predicting which of the novel projects we fund will pay off in the long term is very tricky. While the Trust’s support for Chris Stringer’s work with the Natural History Museum completely changed our understanding of early human life in Britain, it’s hard to put a value on that.

    The need to demonstrate likely impact, combined with research funding streams that are more focused on specific economic priorities, has made it harder for some disciplines to pursue discovery research. The value of quality research (QR) funding in England, which was once the major source for discovery research, has also declined by 15 per cent since 2010.

    Yet, it is blue skies research that often leads to the most profound breakthroughs. Charity funding that is patient and takes risks can therefore make a real contribution here.

    Investment at every stage

    To that end, the Trust will use £50m to establish new research centres, each receiving up to £10 million to tackle big questions over a decade. This research centre model has proven to be highly effective, not only in addressing critical issues, but also in building research capacity. Previous Leverhulme Centres have contributed to areas such as climate change, wildfires, the origins of life, ethical AI, and demographic modelling, to name but a few.

    We are also investing in the next generation of researchers. We will commit an additional £20m to doctoral training, doubling our usual spend, to support approximately 200 PhD students. This is another area under financial pressure, particularly in some arts and humanities fields.

    This investment is not just about producing future academics. We know that not all PhD graduates will stay in academia. Nor should they. One of the strengths of the UK’s research system is its ability to develop talent that contributes across a range of sectors. I recently spoke with a Leverhulme-funded doctoral student whose work explores the ethics of algorithmic decision-making. Their research is deeply theoretical, but its implications are hugely practical. Whether they end up in academia, government, or industry, their skills will be vital in tackling the AI-related challenges ahead.

    And funding academics at the beginning of their career is only part of the story. Our centenary awards will support mid-career researchers in building their first research team, a challenging transition given the increasing teaching demands in some institutions. We will also provide funding to support aspiring scholars from underrepresented groups, as well as provide mentoring and networking opportunities. We want to ensure that talented individuals from all backgrounds can access research careers and thrive within them.

    Charity funding as part of a research ecosystem

    Charities like the Leverhulme Trust have long played a significant role in supporting UK research, contributing about £2 billion per annum in total. But charity funding is not designed to support the basic infrastructure of universities. This means that any grant we award to a university also requires a contribution from the institution itself because, like most charities, we do not cover overhead costs, which is undoubtedly a challenge for universities.

    As the Nurse Review highlighted, both domestic student teaching and university research are cross-subsidised from other income streams. Further, while the UK’s research system is one of the most productive and internationally connected in the world, it is also one of the most financially exposed and the model of relying on the cross-subsidy of research with income from international students has come under immense pressure.

    We therefore need to find additional ways to sustain the research capacity that underpins so much of the UK’s economic, social, and cultural life. This is not just about protecting and preserving what we have; it is about shaping what comes next. Research is not a luxury. It is a necessity, especially in a world facing complex challenges, from climate change to economic and technological disruptions.

    To maintain the UK’s position as a global research leader, we need a funding system that provides long-term stability.

    We hope our investment will not only help to sustain the intellectual ambition that defines the UK’s research community but also prompt a wider conversation – one about how we value research, how we fund it, and how we ensure that its benefits are shared as widely as possible.

    Source link

  • 5 Years After Reopening, South Carolina Agriculture School is Beyond Capacity – The 74

    5 Years After Reopening, South Carolina Agriculture School is Beyond Capacity – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    McCORMICK — Cows compose the greeting committee at the Governor’s School for Agriculture, flocking to the fence just past the entrance to watch visitors drive past.

    Established in 1797 as a farming school for poor and orphaned children, the campus known for centuries as John de la Howe has changed missions several times. The latest turned it into the nation’s only residential public high school providing an agricultural education.

    Pastures of horses, sheep and cows dot the 1,310-acre property tucked off a rural road in McCormick County inside a national forest.

    The campus’ dozen residential halls are full, and for the first time since the new mission began, officials are having to turn away prospective students because of a lack of space, said Tim Keown, the school’s president.

    Cows graze in a pasture behind a staff house at the Governor’s School for Agriculture on Feb. 21. (Photo by Skylar Laird/SC Daily Gazette)

    Two more halls sit mostly empty as they await decorations from the school’s alumni committee and, next year, a new batch of students to fill them.

    After a rocky start, including findings of ethical and financial mismanagement during the school’s first year after the change, things are looking up, Keown said.

    Last year, the school regained the accreditation it lost in 2016. And for the first time in 25 years, auditors last year found no problems, a rare accomplishment for a state agency, he said.

    Driving through the expansive campus, where classrooms abut greenhouses and open pastures, Keown described a vision for the school’s future, including continuing to expand its capacity and offering more classes to cover the full spectrum of agriculture.

    His ideas have gotten support from the House of Representatives’ budget writers.

    That chamber’s state spending plan for 2025-26, passed last week, includes $2 million for continuing renovations and $4 million for a new meat processing plant.

    “We don’t expect (students) to all go back and be full-time farmers,” Keown said. “But there are hundreds of thousands of jobs across South Carolina that need young people to enter those jobs.”

    Becoming a school for agriculture

    The mission adopted in 2020 is a return to the school’s roots.

    Dr. John de la Howe, a French doctor who immigrated to Charleston in 1764, wrote in his will that he wanted the farm he had purchased to be an agricultural seminary for “12 poor boys and 12 poor girls,” giving preference to orphans, Keown said.

    John de la Howe’s grave at the Governor’s School for Agriculture. (Photo by Skylar Laird/SC Daily Gazette)

    For years, that was what the school was.

    During World War I, John de la Howe became a state agency and a home for orphaned children, which it remained until the 1980s. Then, as orphanages waned in use, its purpose adjusted again to become a public residential school for sixth- through 10-graders with serious behavior problems.

    That, too, fell out of favor over the years, as more counties established programs that kept troubled teens closer to home.

    Attendance dropped, and costs per students skyrocketed.

    In 2003, then-Gov. Mark Sanford recommended, without success, closing the school and sending its students to a military-like public school in West Columbia for at-risk teens. In 2014, Gov. Nikki Haley recommended putting the Department of Juvenile Justice in charge.

    In March 2016, with the school’s accreditation on probation, House budget writers recommended temporarily transferring oversight to Clemson University.

    Weeks later, the state Department of Education made a final decision to yank the school’s accreditation. Deficiencies cited by inspectors included classes taught by uncertified teachers, the school not meeting the needs of students with disabilities, and the lack of online access.

    That forced the Legislature to make a decision.

    Legislators eventually settled on creating a third residential high school offering a specific education. The agriculture school joined existing governor’s schools for the arts and for science and math.

    The year the school was supposed to open its doors to its first new class of students, the COVID-19 pandemic began. Distancing restrictions meant students could no longer share rooms, so the school halved its capacity and began its first year with 33 students.

    The next year, the school’s population doubled.

    At the start of the 2024 school year, 81 students were enrolled, and another 81 had graduated. Once renovations in three dorms are complete, the capacity will increase to 124, plus day students, Keown said.

    “It’s been like putting together a huge puzzle with many missing pieces over the last couple of years,” Keown said. “But we’re finally finding all those pieces, and it’s all making more sense.”

    The new mission

    Blake Arias knew he wanted to study plants. Other than that, he had little interest in agriculture when he applied for the governor’s school.

    “If you looked at my application, it was very obvious that I didn’t have a background and that I didn’t know much,” Arias said.

    When he first arrived at the school nearly three hours from his home in Summerton, he wasn’t particularly interested in handling animals. And he really, really didn’t want to learn to weld.

    Three years later, Arias, who graduates this spring, still focuses primarily on plants.

    However, he also spends hours every day after class helping a rabbit, Chunky, lose some weight before he takes her to shows. He’s working on earning a beekeeping certification. And he even learned how to weld.

    A sheep looks over a fence at the Governor’s School for Agriculture on Feb. 21. (Photo by Skylar Laird/SC Daily Gazette)

    “Am I the best welder? Absolutely not,” Arias said. “But I really enjoyed it, and it taught me something new because they gave me the opportunity.”

    Arias is part of about half of the school’s population that comes in with little background in agriculture, Keown said. Applicants must have at least a 2.7 GPA. The goal is to take all kinds of students, whether they grew up on a farm or in a city and show them all sorts of opportunities in agriculture.

    That’s not limited to farming.

    The school offers four designated pathways: agricultural mechanics, horticulture, plant and animal systems, and environmental and natural resources. Students choose a focus, but they’re introduced to a sampler platter of what’s out there, Keown said.

    “It really shows you all the possibilities that there are in each field,” said Emily White, a senior from McCormick.

    Day to day

    The days typically begin long before students report to the cafeteria at 7:45 a.m.

    Like on any farm, horses, pigs and rabbits need feeding and cleaning, and plants need tending.

    Students take a blend of core classes, such as English, math and social studies, and classes focused on agriculture, Keown said.

    Even the core classes, which are all honors-level courses, typically use agriculture as a touch point for students, said Lyle Fulmer, a recent graduate.

    Math problems, for instance, might use real-life examples of balancing a budget on a farm. For students interested in agriculture, that adds excitement to what might usually be their hum-drum classes, he said.

    “Even if it was frustrating and I didn’t know how to solve the problem, I would work through it and I would know that this was something that I very well could be doing someday,” said Fulmer, who is now a freshman at Clemson University.

    Once classes are over, students have the rest of the afternoon to do as they please.

    The inside of a residence hall at the Governor’s School for Agriculture on Feb. 21. (Photo by Skylar Laird/SC Daily Gazette)

    White said she typically goes to the pig barn to clean, feed and work with Hank the Tank, a pig she’s planning to show.

    Other students might practice rodeo riding or clay shooting, two of the sports the school offers. Some gather at the saw mill to help process trees salvaged when Tropical Storm Helene swept through campus last September.

    By 6:15 p.m., students are expected to return to their residence halls or other communal areas for an hour of study time. Like college students, they have the run of their residence halls under the watchful eye of a residential advisor.

    Along with accumulating credits to get ahead in college courses, the freedom Fulmer had as a high school student helped prepare him for living in the dorms and all the challenges that accompany that. He already knew how to keep his space tidy and handle disagreements with roommates, which many incoming freshmen don’t, he said.

    “It really did prepare me a lot for college,” Fulmer said.

    What the future holds

    Standing on the front lawn of the president’s mansion, glimpses of the dining hall visible across an expansive open lawn, Keown described his vision of the school’s future.

    In the next couple of years, the school will start offering classes in culinary arts and hospitality management, which will help students who want to go into the growing industry of agritourism that creates attractions out of farms.

    “Our ag kids learn to grow (the food), our culinary students prepare it, our tourism hospitality students manage the banquets,” Keown said of his vision.

    Also in the near future is the meat processing plant, which Keown hopes to have finished in the next three years. That will give students skills to land high-paying jobs straight out of high school and fill a gap in the agricultural industry, Keown said.

    Timothy Keown, president of the Governor’s School for Agriculture, stands in front of the president’s house on Feb. 21, 2025. (Photo by Skylar Laird/SC Daily Gazette)

    A decade from now, Keown hopes to see 300 students roaming the grounds. He also wants them to grow about half of what they eat, compared with 20% now.

    In Keown’s mind, the school presents a bright spot for the future of agriculture. While the number of farmers under the age of 35 has grown slightly in recent years, the average age of farmers is 58, according to the U.S Department of Agriculture.

    Photos of recent alumni hung from flagpoles on campus. Driving under them, Keown named each graduate and where they went to school. Many go to Clemson, though some went to schools in other states.

    Most are still pursuing degrees in agriculture.

    “They are making us really proud,” Keown said.

    SC Daily Gazette is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. SC Daily Gazette maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Seanna Adcox for questions: [email protected].


    Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Source link

  • Five keys to success in Evaluation Capacity Building for widening participation

    Five keys to success in Evaluation Capacity Building for widening participation

    Evaluate, evaluate, evaluate is a mantra that those engaged in widening participation in recent years will be all too familiar with.

    Over the past decade and particularly in the latest round of Access and Participation Plans (APP), the importance of evaluation and evidencing best practice have risen up the agenda, becoming integral parts of the intervention strategies that institutions are committing to in order to address inequality.

    This new focus on evaluation raises fundamental questions about the sector’s capacity to sustainably deliver high-quality, rigorous and appropriate evaluations, particularly given its other regulatory and assessment demands (e.g. REF, TEF, KEF etc.).

    For many, the more exacting standards of evidence have triggered a scramble to deliver evaluation projects, often facilitated by external organisations, consultancies and experts, often at considerable expense, to deliver what the Office for Students’ (OfS) guidance has defined as Type 2 or 3 evidence (capable of correlative or causal inference).

    The need to demonstrate impact is one we can all agree is worthy, given the importance of addressing the deep rooted and pervasive inequalities baked into the UK HE sector. It is therefore crucial that the resources available are deployed wisely and equitably.

    In the rush for higher standards, it is easy to be lured in by “success” and forget the steps necessary to embed evaluation in institutions, ensuring a plurality of voices can contribute to the conversation, leading to a wider shift in culture and practice.

    We risk, in only listening to those well placed to deliver large-scale evaluation projects and communicate the findings loudest, of overlooking a huge amount of impactful and important work.

    Feeling a part of it

    There is no quick fix. The answer lies in the sustained work of embedding evaluative practice and culture within institutions, and across teams and individuals – a culture that imbues values of learning, growth and reflection over and above accountability and league tables.

    Evaluation Capacity Building (ECB) offers a model or approach to help address these ongoing challenges. It has a rich associated literature, which for brevity’s sake we will not delve into here.

    In essence, it describes the process of improving the ability of organisations to do and use evaluation, through supporting individuals, teams and decision makers to prioritise evaluation in planning and strategy and invest time and resources into improving knowledge and competency in this area.

    The following “keys to success” are the product of what we learned while applying this approach across widening participation and student success initiatives at Lancaster University.

    Identify why

    We could not have garnered the interest of those we worked with without having a clear idea of the reasons we were taking the approach we did. Critically, this has to work both ways: “why should you bother evaluating?” and “why are we trying to build evaluation capacity?”

    Unhelpfully, evaluation has a bad reputation.

    It is very often seen by those tasked to undertake it as an imposition, driven by external agendas and accountability mandates – not helped by the jargon laden and technical nature of the discipline.

    If you don’t take the time to identify and communicate your motivations for taking this approach, you risk falling at the first hurdle. People will be hesitant to invest their time in attending your training, understanding the challenging concepts and investing their limited resources into evaluation, unless they have a good reason to do so.

    “Because I told you so” does not amount to a very convincing reason either. When identifying “why”, it is best you do so collaboratively and consider the specific needs, values and aspirations of those you are working with. To those ends, you might want to consider developing a Theory of Change for your own ECB initiative.

    Consider the context

    When developing resources or a series of interventions to support ECB at your institution, you should at all times consider the specific context in which you find yourself. There are many models, methods and resources available in the evaluation space, including those provided by organisations such as TASO, the UK Evaluation Society (UKES) or the Global Evaluation Initiative (BetterEvaluation.org), not to mention the vast literature on evaluation methods and methodologies. The possibilities are both endless and potentially overwhelming.

    To help navigate this abundance, you should use the institutional context in which you are intending to deliver ECB as your guide. For whom are you developing the resources? What are their needs? What is appropriate? What is feasible? How much time, money and expertise does this require? Who is the audience for the evaluation? Why are they choosing to evaluate their work at this time and in this way?

    In answering these and other similar questions, the “why” you identified above, will be particularly helpful. Ensuring the resources and training you provide are suitable and accessible is not easy, so don’t be perturbed if you get it wrong. The key is to be reflective and seek feedback from those you are working with.

    Surround yourself with researchers, educationalists and practitioners

    Doing and using evaluation are highly prized skills that require specific knowledge and expertise. The same applies to developing training and educational resources to support effective learning and development outcomes.

    Evaluation is difficult enough for specialists to get their heads around. Imagine how it must feel for those for whom this is not an area of expertise, nor even a primary area of responsibility. Too often the training and support available assumes high levels of knowledge and does not take the time to explain its terms.

    How do we expect someone to understand the difference between correlative and causal evidence of impact, if we haven’t explained what we mean by evaluation, evidence or impact, not to mention correlation or causation? How do we expect people to implement an experimental evaluation design, if we haven’t explained what an evaluation design is, how you might implement it or how “experimental” differs from other kinds of design and when it is or isn’t appropriate?

    So, surround yourself with researchers, educators and practitioners who have a deep understanding of their respective domains and can help you to develop accessible and appropriate resources.

    Create outlets for evaluation insight

    Publishing findings can be daunting, time-consuming and risky. For this reason, it’s a good idea to create more localised outlets for the evaluation insights being generated by the ECB work you’ve been doing. This will allow the opportunity to hone presentations, interrogate findings and refine language in a more forgiving and collaborative space.

    At Lancaster University, we launched our Social Mobility Symposium in September 2023 with this purpose in mind. It provided a space for colleagues from across the University engaged in widening participation initiatives and with interests in wider issues of social mobility and inequality to come together and share the findings they generated through evaluation and research.

    As the title suggests, the event was not purely about evaluation, which helped to engage diverse audiences with the insights arising from our capacity building work. “Evaluation by stealth,” or couching evaluative insights in discussions of subjects that have wider appeal, can be an effective way of communicating your findings. It also encourages those who have conducted the evaluations to present their results in an accessible and applied manner.

    Establish leadership buy in

    Finally, if you are planning to explore ECB as an approach to embedding and nurturing evaluation at an institutional level (i.e. beyond the level of individual interventions), then it is critical to have the buy in of senior managers, leaders and decision makers.

    Part of the why for the teams you are working with will no doubt include some approximation of the following: that your efforts will be recognised, the insights generated will inform decision making, the analyses you do will make a difference, and will be shared widely to support learning and sharing of best practice.

    As someone who is supporting capacity building endeavours you might not be able to guarantee these objectives. It is important therefore to focus equal attention on building the evaluation capacity and literacy of those who can.

    This can be challenging and difficult to control for. It depends on, among other things: the established culture and personnel in leadership positions, their receptiveness to new ideas, the flexibility and courage they have to explore new ways of doing things, and the capacity of the institution to utilise the insights generated through more diverse evaluative practices. The rewards are potentially significant, both in supporting the institution to continuously improve and meet its ongoing regulatory requirements.

    There is great potential in the field of evaluation to empower and elevate voices that are sometimes overlooked, but there is an equal and opposite risk of disempowerment and exclusion. Reductive models of evaluation, preferencing certain methods over others, risk impoverishing our understanding of the world around us and the impact we are having. It is crucial to have at our disposal a repertoire of approaches that are appropriate to the situation at hand and that fosters learning as well as value assessment.

    Done well, ECB provides a means of enriching the narrative in widening participation, as well as many other areas, though it requires a coherent institutional and sectoral approach to be truly successful.

    Source link