Tag: change

  • Will Trump’s “anti-wokeism” change DEI in Australian universities?

    Will Trump’s “anti-wokeism” change DEI in Australian universities?

    United States President Donald Trump’s first six weeks of his second term has been defined by 76 executive orders, the disestablishment of the national education department and establishment of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

    One of the most controversial executive orders, which is a written directive signed by a president that orders immediate governmental action, was titled “Ending Radical And Wasteful Government DEI Programs And Preferencing,” signed on President Trump’s first day back in office on January 20, 2025.

    He directed all federal DEI staff be placed on paid leave and, eventually, laid off. He has also signed another Executive Order, titled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.”

    DEI stands for diversity, equity and inclusion, and refers to programs and committees that help people from underrepresented backgrounds (women, Indigenous, Black, for instance) get into, and stay in, jobs or courses those people wouldn’t traditionally participate in. It is largely similar to the strategy of the Australian Universities Accord.

    President Trump has also cut funding to schools and universities that do not cancel DEI programs. He labelled the programs “radical,” “wasteful” and said they demonstrate “immense public waste and shameful discrimination.”

    The full effects of these Executive Orders and DEI changes are yet to be seen because decisions regarding DEI will ultimately be made by the court.

    However, private companies in the US have walked away from internal DEI programs, including Meta (which has worked closely with Trump as of late), Google (which provides some services to the US government), Pepsi, Disney and multiple prominent banks.

    There has been no significant walk away from DEI in Australian private companies, and many universities continue to discuss how to bolster and “future-proof” internal DEI programs.

    Australia’s ambassador to the US from 2020 to 2023, Arthur Sinodinos, told the Universities Australia Solutions Summit last week that institutions are best off making decisions “based off their objectives,” but should enact genuine change, not just tick diversity boxes.

    Arthur Sinodinos said DEI should be about achieving true diversity rather than ticking boxes. Picture: Sam Ruttyn

    “My view on DEI is that [universities should] start from a posture that they want to make the best use of all the talent and resources available to them,” he said.

    “If you’re also interested in trying to expand the reach of higher education to groups that might otherwise be disadvantaged, you have to find ways to do that, but in a way that also addresses the genuine issue.

    “I think access to higher education is still important for a country like Australia, which has to make – given its population – the best use of the resources it’s got.

    “The argument that you can just leave it to the market, the meritocracy will still be there [is wrong]. Frankly, in the market, some people start with a head start with with inbuilt advantages.”

    President Trump’s former White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, who was also on the panel at the UA summit, said he thinks DEI programs in the US have gone “too far to one side.”

    Former Trump White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney said he thinks DEI has gone “too far” in the US. Picture: UA

    “One of the reasons you’re seeing the pushback against it in my country is that it went too far to one side. I don’t know where it is in this country, but at some point it may go too far, and the pushback will come.”

    He also explained why this Trump term is already more action-packed than his first was at this time: the President expected to win in November, 2024, but not in 2016.

    “Not only did [Trump] expect to win, [his team has] been working for four years on what they would do when they won,” he said.

    “What are we gonna do the first day? The first week, the first month, the first 100 days? Which is why we’re seeing all these executive orders. It’s actually four years worth of planning coming forward.”

    Mr Mulvaney said he thinks DEI could survive if its reasoning for existing is communicated in a tailored way.

    He said Trump’s administration is receptive to initiatives that improve efficiency, productivity and merit.

    “You could have a program that is good on on the climate, [for example,] but that’s not your selling pitch. That doesn’t register with the person you’re talking to,” he explained.

    Related stories: “Unis are not Centrelink offices”: Coalition’s pitch to university leaders | Q&A: Bill Shorten talks VC pay cuts and politics in HE | Report card: Accord recommendations 12 months on

    “You have to learn how to speak the language of the person you’re talking to. Don’t change what you’re doing, perhaps just simply change how you explain it.”

    UA chief executive Luke Sheehy was asked after his National Press Club address last Wednesday whether he thinks an “anti-woke” sentiment will affect how universities function.

    Luke Sheehy’s membership body discussed the impact of “Trump 2.0” at last week’s conference. Picture: UA

    “Obviously there’s a major disruption that’s happened in America with Trump 2.0 … One of the things we’ve learned is, once articulated in a certain way, positive sentiment skyrockets for universities,” he responded.

    “If you offer a simple proposition: we have 4,000 fewer teachers than we need today ,and universities are the only way to get those skilled workers into the workforce to support young people; we need 132,000 more nurses, etc.

    “Then remove yourself from what happens on the front pages of newspapers and what occupies political pundits, and think about what the real Australian people need and want from the university sector.

    “My hope is that the more we talk about the important role of universities and our core mission in education and research, the more Australians, irrespective of whether or not they went to university or not, they see the value for us as part of our future.”

    The university sector’s declining “social license” has been a major topic of discussion of late for university leaders.

    There is a growing sentiment that universities, and the knowledge economy, needs to “show” society why they’re worth the funding and enrolments.

    “We always have more work to do. In an era where there is declining trust in institutions, I think it’s really important that universities invest in themselves in terms of how they engage with their communities,” Mr Sheehy continued.

    Source link

  • Policy change can help manage the demand for graduate knowledge and skills

    Policy change can help manage the demand for graduate knowledge and skills

    “Our universities have a paramount place in an economy driven by knowledge and ideas.”

    These are the opening words of the 2016 white paper Success as a Knowledge Economy, which created the funding and regulatory architecture governing English higher education today. The arrangements are founded on a broad faith in the economic benefits of generating and communicating knowledge.

    This vision assumes that an increasing supply of university graduates and research, coupled with open markets that reward enterprise, leads to endogenous economic growth. That can happen anywhere because ideas are boundless and non-rivalrous, but particularly in England because our universities are among the best in the knowledge business.

    English higher education has grown by integrating the development of specific skills for the workplace alongside universally applicable knowledge. This is clear from the progress of most English universities from institutes established for professional and technical training towards university status, the absorption of training for an increasing range of professions within higher education, and the way in which universities can now articulate the workplace capabilities of all graduates, regardless of their discipline.

    Notwithstanding this, the reforms proposed in 2016 emphasised knowledge more than skills. By that time, most of the cost of teaching in English universities had been transferred to student tuition fees backed by income-contingent loans. So, the reforms mostly focused on providing confidence for the investments made by students and the risks carried by the exchequer. This would be delivered through regulation focused on issues important to students and the government, whilst positioning students as the pivotal influence on provision through competition for their choices.

    Universities would compete to increase and improve the supply of graduates. This would then enhance the capacity of businesses and public services to capitalise on innovation and new technologies, which would yield improved productivity and jobs requiring graduates. That is a crude characterisation, but it provides a starting point for understanding the new imperatives for higher education policy, which are influenced by challenges to this vision of nearly a decade ago.

    From market theory to experience in practice

    Despite an expansion of university graduates, the UK has had slow productivity growth since the recession of 2008–09. Rather than the economy growing alongside and absorbing a more highly educated workforce, there are declining returns for some courses compared with other options and concerns that AI technologies will replace roles previously reliant on graduates. Employers report sustained gaps and mismatches between the attributes they need and those embodied in the domestic workforce. Alongside this, ministers appear to be more concerned about people that do not go to university, who are shaping politics in the USA and Europe as well as the UK.

    These are common challenges for countries experiencing increasing higher education participation. The shift from elite to mass higher education is often associated with a “breakdown of consensus” and “permanent state of tension” because established assumptions are challenged by the scale and range of people encountering universities. This is particularly the case when governments place reliance on market forces, which leads to misalignment between the private choices made by individuals and the public expectations for which ministers are held to account. Universities are expected to embody historically elite modes of higher education reflected in media narratives and rankings, whilst also catering for the more diverse circumstances and practical skills needed by a broader population.

    In England, the government has told universities that it wants them to improve access, quality and efficiency, whilst also becoming more closely aligned with the needs of the economy and civil society in their local areas. These priorities may be associated with tensions that have arisen due to the drivers of university behaviour in a mass market.

    In a system driven by demand from young people, there has been improved but unequal access reflecting attainment gaps in schools. This might not be such a problem if increasing participation had been accompanied by a growing economy that improves opportunities for everyone. But governments have relied on market signals, rather than sustained industrial strategies, to align an increasing supply of graduates with the capabilities necessary to capitalise on them in the workplace. This has yielded anaemic growth since the 2007 banking crash, together with suggestions that higher education expansion diminishes the prospects of people and places without universities.

    In a competitive environment, universities may be perceived to focus on recruiting students, rather than providing them with adequate support, and to invest in non-academic services, rather than the quality of teaching. These conditions may also encourage universities to seek global measures of esteem recognised by league tables, rather than serving local people and communities through the civic mission for which most were established.

    Market forces were expected to increase the diversity of provision as universities compete to serve the needs of an expanding student population. But higher education does not work like other markets, even when the price is not controlled as for undergraduates in England. Competition yields convergence around established courses and modes of learning that are understood by potential students, rather than those that may be more efficient or strategically important for the nation as a whole.

    Navigating the new policy environment

    After more than a decade of reforms encouraging competition and choice, there appears to be less faith in well-regulated market forces positioning knowledgeable graduates to drive growth. Universities are now expected to become embedded within local and national growth plans and industrial strategy sectors, which prioritise skills that can be deployed in specific settings ahead of broadly applicable knowledge. This asks universities to consider the particular needs of industry, public services and communities in their local areas, rather than demand from students alone.

    Despite these different imperatives, English higher education will continue to be financed mostly by students’ tuition fees and governed by regulatory powers designed to provide confidence for their choices. We suggest four ingredients for navigating this, which are concerned with strategy, architecture, regulation and funding.

    The government has promised a single strategy for post-16 education and a new body, Skills England, to oversee it. A more unified approach across the different parts of post-compulsory education should encourage pathways between different types of learning, and a more coherent offer for both learners and employers. But it also needs to align factors that influence the demand for graduates, such as research and innovation, with decisions that influence their supply. That requires a new mindset for education policy, which has tended to prioritise national rules ahead of local responsiveness, or indeed coherence with other sectors and parts of government.

    Delivery of a unified strategy is hampered by the fragmented and complex architecture governing post-16 education. Skills England will provide underpinning evidence, both influencing and drawing on Local Skills Improvement Plans (LSIPs), but it remains uncertain how this will be translated into measures that influence provision, particularly in universities. A unified strategy demands structures for convening universities, colleges, employers and local authorities to deliver it in local areas across the country.

    That could be addressed by extending the remit of LSIPs beyond a shopping list of skills requirements and enhancing the role of universities within them. Universities have the expertise to diagnose needs and broker responses, aligning innovation that shapes products and services with the skills needed to work with them. They will, though, only engage this full capability if local structures are accompanied by national regulatory and funding incentives, so there is a unified local body responsible for skills and innovation within a national framework.

    Regulation remains essential for providing confidence to students and taxpayers, but there could be a re-balancing of regulatory duties, so they have regard to place and promote coherence, rather than competition for individual students alone. This could influence regulatory decisions affecting neighbouring universities and colleges, as well as the ways in which university performance is measured in relation to issues such as quality and access. A clear typology of civic impact, together with indicators for measuring it, could shift the incentives for universities, particularly if there is a joined-up approach across the funding and regulation of teaching, research and knowledge exchange.

    Regulation creates the conditions for activity, but funding shapes it. Higher education tends to be a lower priority than schools within the Department for Education, and research will now be balanced alongside digital technologies within the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. A new Lifelong Learning Entitlement and reformed Growth and Skills Levy may provide new opportunities for some universities, but any headroom for higher education spending is likely to be tied to specific goals. This will include place and industry-oriented research and innovation programmes and single-pot allocations for some MSAs, alongside the substantial public and private income universities will continue to generate in sectors such as health and defence. In this context, aligning universities with the post-16 education strategy relies on pooling different sources of finance around common goals.

    Closer alignment of this kind should not undermine the importance of knowledge or indeed create divisions with skills that are inconsistent with the character and development of English higher education to date. The shift in emphasis from knowledge towards skills reframes how the contributions of universities are articulated and valued in policy and public debate, but it need not fundamentally change their responsibility for knowledge creation and intellectual development.

    This appears to have been recognised by ministers, given the statements they have made about the positioning of foundational knowledge within strategies for schools, research and the economy. We have, though, entered a new era, which requires greater consideration of the demand for and take-up of graduates and ideas locally and nationally, and a different approach from universities in response to this.

    Source link

  • Research supervision in the context of REF – time for a step change?

    Research supervision in the context of REF – time for a step change?

    At a time when resources within research organisations are stretched, the PGR experience, and the role doctoral supervisors play in supporting that experience, needs closer attention.

    The release of the pilot indicators for the REF People Culture and Environment (PCE) has promoted a flurry of conversations across UK universities as to what ‘counts’. For the first time, institutions may evidence that “infrastructure, processes and mechanisms in place to support the training and supervision of research students are working effectively” and are invited to consider the inclusion of “pre and post training assessments” for supervisors.

    This signals to institutions that research supervision needs to be taken seriously– both in terms of quality and consistency of PGR experience, as well as the support and recognition for supervisors themselves. In doing so it validates the contribution of doctoral research to the research ecosystem.

    Accelerated prioritisation of research supervision shouldn’t come as a complete surprise. This lack of consistency in PGR experience was recognised less than a year ago in the UKRI New Deal for Postgraduate Research, which stated that “All PGR students should have access to high quality supervision and Research Organisations should ensure that everyone in the supervisory team is well supported, including through induction for new supervisors and Continuous Professional Development (CPD)”. That messaging has been repeated in the UKRI Revised Statement of Expectations for Doctoral Training (2024), alongside a call to research organisations to “build supervisor awareness of PGR mental health, wellbeing, bullying and harassment, and equality, diversity and inclusion issues.”

    So, what do we know about research supervision?

    Data from the UK Research Supervision Survey 2024 (UKRSS) confirms that, overwhelmingly, research supervision is considered valuable, rewarding and enjoyable by those who undertake it. Supervision also positively impacts upon their own research. However, a third of respondents reported feeling anxious about supervision and reported their main challenge was fostering student confidence and focus, followed by offering compassionate support to students facing difficult issues ranging from mental health and wellbeing, to finances and funding.

    Lack of time continues to be a barrier to high quality supervision practice, and rising supervisor-to-candidate ratios complicate this further. While early career supervisors were likely to be allocated one to two candidates, those later in their career could be supervising five to ten– only 30 per cent of UKRSS respondents reported that their institution had a policy on maximum candidate numbers. Respondents also made it clear that doctoral research supervision is not being adequately calculated into workload allocations, with a typically described workload model allocating 42 hours per candidate, per year, but supervisors reporting investing an average of 62 hours.

    Time constraints like these contribute greatly to the ability of supervisors to participate in CPD opportunities. This itself is a barrier to good supervision practice, as the UKRSS revealed that supervisors who engage in regular, mandatory CPD reported higher levels of confidence in all areas of supervisory practice. A staggering 91 per cent of respondents who had experienced mandatory induction reported they felt able to enact their institutions’ procedures around supervision– compared to 66 per cent of those for whom induction was not mandatory and 55 per cent who reported no mandatory requirements..

    The data illustrates that supervisors care about and take satisfaction from supporting the next generation of researchers, but they are getting a raw deal from their institutions in terms of time, reward, recognition and opportunities to develop and enhance their own practice. Underscoring this point, just 56 per cent of supervisors reported feeling valued by their institution, compared to 90 per cent who felt valued by their students. Until now this has gone under the radar, making the inclusion of the PCE indicators a welcome sign for those of us working to make changes within the sector.

    Engaging supervisors with high quality Continuing Professional Development

    Focus groups conducted with supervisors at five UK universities as part of the Research England funded Next Generation Research SuperVision Project (RSVP), have provided insight into what CPD is considered useful, meaningful and relevant. Supervisors were well aware of the need to develop and improve their practice, with one participant reflecting “… there isn’t sufficient training for supervision, you have a huge responsibility to another person’s career. So I think the idea that we ‘wing it’ perhaps shouldn’t be acceptable.”

    An overwhelming majority of participants reported that the most important aspects of their supervision practice and development come from interactions with, and support from, their peers and more experienced colleagues. The idea that supervision practice is best developed by watching other supervisors on the job and through communities of practice was repeated by participants across experience levels, genders, disciplines, and institutions– with some even claiming this to be the only way to become a truly good supervisor.

    Far from being reluctant to engage in professional development, many supervisors welcomed the idea of having the space and time to reflect on their practice. What they were less keen on was anything perceived as a ‘tick-box’ exercise– examples given included short courses without time for discussion, and self-directed online modules. There was a recognition by some that these approaches can be useful, but should form part of a more varied approach to CPD.

    Generally speaking, supervisors with less experience were more likely to engage in facilitated workshops and other interventions that help them understand their role and the doctoral journey. Those with more experience expressed a strong preference for discussion-based CPD, including peer reading groups, opportunities for facilitated reflection and mentoring.

    Recognising supervision as part of research culture

    Whatever the final version of the PCE metrics look like, there is now a growing body of empirical evidence to suggest that a revision in the way we manage, reward and recognise research supervision is needed. When government enabled universities to introduce fees for undergraduates the issue of quality assurance quickly surfaced. It was recognised that students should be taught by properly trained staff with a knowledge and understanding of pedagogy and approaches to learning and teaching. Arguably that moment has now come for research supervision.

    If the UK HE sector wishes to attract capable, committed, creative doctoral candidates from a range of backgrounds then those supervising them need to be treated, and trained, as professional practitioners. This means creating the time and space to enable supervisors at all levels of experience to engage in meaningful exchanges about their practice and to refresh their knowledge of policies and new areas as they arise.

    Quick wins?

    For institutions looking for ways to bolster their supervision support there are some empirically grounded ways to improve practice

    Firstly, tap into existing levers for change. The Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers outlines the need for PIs (many of whom are supervisors) to engage in professional development. Postdoctoral researchers are also required to engage in “10 days of professional development.” Since postdoctoral researchers are often informally involved in doctoral supervision (15% of the UKRSS respondents identified themselves as ‘early career researchers’) their engagement in CPD could also be counted. Actively recognising and celebrating the diversity of doctoral researchers and their supervisors also aligns with Athena Swan.

    Secondly, increase the visibility of provision. Many supervisors in the UKRSS and focus groups didn’t know what CPD was available in their institution. Very few knew about routes to recognition of supervisory practice (e.g.through the UKCGE Research Supervision Recognition Programme). There is little to be lost in an institution showcasing themselves to prospective researchers and funders as one which takes the quality of supervision seriously and actively invests, rewards and recognises supervisors.

    Thirdly, actively enable conversations about supervision. Aside from the formal training it is the time spent together which is often valuable. This may include offering simple opportunities for new and experienced supervisors to come together to talk about their experiences on topics that matter to them. It may mean enlisting a few champions who will speak about their experience. If there is already a mentoring scheme research supervision could be added to the list of topics that can be discussed as part of that relationship. It is also helpful to encourage supervisors to engage with the UKCGE Supervisor’s Network which offers cross-disciplinary and national level value as a community of practice.

    Finally, use existing PGR and supervisor networks and expert spaces to find out what works well and where the gaps are. Including working with RSVP which is designing, with 58 partners, CPD interventions for new and more experienced supervisors around the topics identified above. Following pilots and evaluation these will be made freely available to the sector. Specific resources to support supervisors to engender a *neurodiversity-affirmative culture will be available later this year. Webpages to support mentoring will be available very soon. Join the RSVP mailing list to be kept up to date.

     

    *with thanks to Professor Debi Riby at the centre for Neurodiversity & Development at Durham University

    Source link

  • Using school land to fight climate change

    Using school land to fight climate change

    HOUSTON — When Jefferson Early Learning Center first opened on the corner of a busy intersection in the city’s west side in 2022, school officials started receiving calls from irritated residents.

    It wasn’t the increase in traffic or the noise from loud preschoolers that was the source of the callers’ ire.

    It was the wild, unkempt landscaping.

    Residents wanted to know, “‘Why aren’t you cutting the lawn?’ ‘Why aren’t you keeping the grounds?’” recalled Hilda Rodriguez, the assistant superintendent of support services for the Alief Independent School District, home to Jefferson and nearly 50 other schools west of Houston.

    Although Jefferson’s neighbors didn’t know it, the tall grass surrounding the early learning center was part of a larger strategy to mitigate climate-related issues in a county where a major flood occurs nearly every two years and the number of days at or above 95 degrees has increased significantly over the past 25 years.

    In addition to choosing durable, impact-resistant materials to help the school building withstand natural disasters, Jefferson’s designers focused on the surrounding land. They chose to restore much of the ground’s nearly 20 acres to native prairie lands and wetlands, creating a habitat for more than 200 plant and animal species.

    A sign at the front of Jefferson Early Learning Center teaches children about the surrounding land, which was designed to withstand floods and heat. Credit: Jackie Mader/The Hechinger Report

    That sort of habitat is especially beneficial in an area vulnerable to climate change events such as the torrential rains that regularly hit the city, said Melissa Turnbaugh, senior principal at PBK Architects, which designed Jefferson. “By putting in native prairies and grasses, we can now actually absorb three to four times as much water as if we had manicured grass,” she said.

    Experts who study early learning and climate science say there is growing demand for solutions like these to address challenges related to climate change, such as floods, fires and hotter temperatures. Angie Garling, a senior vice president at the Low Income Investment Fund, which runs initiatives to help build and improve early learning facilities, said that when her organization solicited applications from child care programs needing facilities improvements, the vast majority had to do with climate.

    “They were asking for things like HVAC systems, misting systems, air filtration systems, shade structures, turf … because they couldn’t maintain their lawn anymore because the cost of water was too high,” said Garling. Due to the extreme level of climate-related need, LIIF recently partnered with other organizations to launch a program to help fund renovations for child care providers in Harris County, where Houston is located.

    Alief officials have already noticed benefits from the unconventional use of the school land. During the school year, students can walk on trails that weave through the prairie, learning about insects, plants and flowers. The native plants can withstand Houston’s infamous summers, when the average temperature sits above 90 degrees. That saves work, time and money for Alief’s maintenance team, which rarely needs to mow or water the land at Jefferson.

    Over the next few years, Turnbaugh, the architect, hopes the presence of the prairies and grassland — rather than concrete or other surfaces that are known to reflect heat — will pay long-term dividends in “an overall heat-challenged area.”

    “I think we’re going to see that we’re actually cooling the neighborhood,” she said. “I think there’s not only good carbon capture, but we’re actually being good neighbors.”

    Over time, Jefferson’s neighbors have seemed to realize that, said Alief’s Rodriguez. The calls, for the most part, have stopped. “Once they understood, it became very clear to them that this was purposeful.”

    Contact staff writer Jackie Mader at (212) 678-3562 or [email protected].

    This story about climate change solutions was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    Source link

  • A sea change in student partnership

    A sea change in student partnership

    A few years back now, someone who worked for one of Scotland’s sector agencies liked to draw a comparison when talking about student-centredness.

    They said that conservation charities passionately place wildlife at the heart of everything they do, but crucially would never put representatives of flora and fauna on committees (imagine the mess).

    Therefore, my erstwhile and esteemed colleague would argue, when institutional leaders proudly claim to be “student-centred” it reveals nothing about how they involve students in shaping their experiences.

    Of course, you can diligently monitor wildlife and use your data to make good decisions, in a manner not dissimilar to learning analytics in education, but the difference is that students can then go on to be a part of conversations in a way that wildlife never can.

    Waterproof papers

    My mind was cast back to this parallel when I saw the recent news that the Scottish Association for Marine Science (SAMS), one of our partners here at the University of the Highlands and Islands (UHI), has put The Ocean on its governing body.

    It’s a move that SAMS’ Director Nick Owens admits “could be seen as trivial or ‘greenwashing’”, and we might imagine other specialist institutions making similar gestures in the disciplines they so richly embody and advance.

    For instance a conservatoire could put “Music” on their board, or an agricultural college “The Land”.

    Nick explains further, however:

    The Ocean is clearly a metaphor in this context and cannot represent itself in human terms.”

    That point is vital because, if we go back to our parallel, SAMS has already gone much further with its other main cause – students.

    Like all constituent parts of UHI and indeed our university overall, SAMS has student membership on its governing body, not to just sit there and wave like the ocean might, or to flap about disruptively like a bird among a wildlife charity’s trustees.

    Instead, we expect of student governors an informed, constructive and active contribution.

    As my colleague Aimee Cuthbert wrote on Wonkhe a year ago, we have a major project that is making that student membership truly effective and impactful across UHI’s complex governance arrangements.

    On a basic level we want to build on national guidelines such as Scotland’s codes of good governance for colleges and universities and support packages such as those from the College Development Network.

    The wet room

    In our own unique context we want to make sure UHI’s governing bodies do not merely talk about students as an abstract concept or worthy concern, and instead have them in the room to provide meaningful input about students’ diverse and complex experiences and the implications for students of the difficult decisions that must be made.

    That means a lot of work with those involved in our governing bodies, exploration of the key issues on our boards’ desks at a time of change, and helping our local officers impact on their individual partner governing bodies while also working together as a team to impact on decisions that are UHI-wide.

    A core part of our project is therefore that very human process of communication – supporting the networking, sharing practice and informal relationship building that makes student governors truly a part of the process in a way that an ocean can’t be.

    So, when someone tells you their institution is student-centred, that’s arguably the very least we might expect, and in isolation such a declaration risks viewing students in the same way that others might view wildlife.

    The Ocean as governor, therefore, is not only a striking metaphor for SAMS’ important mission, but has added power in benchmarking our perceptions of those we claim to be here for – reminding us that there’s a big difference between caring about students and actively involving them as partners.

    Source link

  • How might HEIs and government build collaborative advantage to address climate change

    How might HEIs and government build collaborative advantage to address climate change

    • By Professor Katy Mason, PVC Dean at the University of Salford’s Business School.

    We’re at a crucial moment in our fight to address climate change, with limited time to end the irreversible damage to our planet. However, higher education institutions (HEIs) could play a more pivotal role on the road to net zero.

    Climate-related challenges are considerable and require both technological innovation and the reorganisation of our society and economy. Universities are in a strong position to drive these transitions, but because of the required pace of change, they need to do so in collaboration with government. For example, universities are well positioned to mobilise the STEM (science, technology, engineering and maths) and technical expertise required to evolve the way energy is generated, stored and distributed, as well as the SHAPE and social practice expertise to support the social transitions required to transform energy production and consumption. This broad range of expertise, uniquely perhaps, sits under one organisational umbrella: the HEI.

    Reducing carbon footprint with research

    HEIs have been working, increasingly over recent years, to structure and support multi, inter and transdisciplinary research, in ways that will ultimately support the reduction of our carbon footprint to deliver net zero.

    The formation of UKRI (UK Research and Innovation) has supported many of these initiatives. In April 2018, UKRI brought together the UK’s seven research councils, Innovate UK, and Research England, into a single organisation to support the distribution of government funding for impactful, interdisciplinary research.

    Accelerating a green growth economy through collaboration

    Climate change mitigation and building the UK’s resilience to climate change impacts has been a central tenant of UKRI’s attention, with funding calls driving collaboration between academics, industry and government. But interdisciplinary research, on its own, is not enough. HEIs and government will have to find new ways of collaborating if we are to accelerate a green growth economy.

    There are examples of successful collaboration. The Government’s Open Innovation Team is a platform that supports academic-policy collaboration, curating academic expertise to support and inform policy initiatives. Similarly, the United Nations PRME (Principles of Responsible Management Education) platform supports and accelerates the sustainability of current and future business leaders in Business and Management education. However, at present, its take-up is piecemeal and patchy.  Much more collaboration is needed if we are to make a difference to climate change. 

    Recognition of the advantages afforded by collaboration is long-standing. As far back as 2000, Vangen and Huxman were developing a theory of collaborative advantage, arguing that goals, trust, culture and leadership had to be aligned enough – despite differences and tensions – if advantages were to be gained.[i] In this regard, collaboration is often inconsistent, with inherent contradictions and mutually exclusive elements caused by inevitable differences between partners. While it is these differences that often generate advantage, they require time and investment in understanding. This is perhaps why we have not invested sufficiently in making such partnerships work.

    Breaking down barriers to collaboration

    The contrasting cultures of academics and policymakers may certainty make collaboration difficult: the epistemologies-in-use (how knowledge, evidence and rigour are framed) are different; the production and use of knowledge objectives is different; and the rules of identity and belonging to the home-culture are different.

    However, as Beech et al. argue, we can take advantage of these significant cultural differences if HEIs develop a new kind of platform that acts as a learning zone in which key cultural rules of academics and policymakers are suspended (not ‘solved’).[ii] This will enable different groups to contribute and extract learning insights as if they were collaborating with shared understanding, when this may only partially be the case.

    In pursuit of creating a new kind of learning platform, HEIs, particularly those leading knowledge exchange and engagement initiatives, might usefully adopt this set of design principles:

    • Valuing difference and not seeking to resolve it;
    • Having the purpose of supporting others’ endeavors in their home-culture by providing knowledge resources;
    • Be willing to aggregate and disaggregate ideas and evidence in novel ways; and
    • Be willing to suspend judgement of the other and the self to encourage people to step outside their normal modes of interaction

    These design principles will likely help knowledge exchange leads catalyse innovation and accelerate the adoption of cutting-edge practice by bringing local, regional and national policymakers together with academics to advance solutions to overcome climate change obstacles.

    ‘Making Britain a clean energy superpower’

    Academics and policymakers are explicit in their ambition to tackle climate change. The UK Government states one of its key missions as ‘making Britain a clean energy superpower’ by ‘creating jobs, cutting bills and boosting energy security with zero-carbon electricity by 2030.’

    Driven by government monies directed towards UKRI for this purpose and by researchers’ concerns, passions, and expertise, some universities have built up significant industrial and third-sector networks to support the development and transformation of our greening economy.

    For example, researchers at Lancaster, Swansea, Imperial, and Salford have been studying the farming sector and its potential transformation through agrivoltaics. Agrivoltaics co-locate high-quality food and green energy production on the same land while simultaneously aiming to secure biodiversity net gain. This is a complex and ambitious agenda that will contribute to more than the ‘clean energy’ challenge.

    Agrivoltaics requires expertise in physics to understand solar panel efficiency, reliability and maintenance, while plant science knowledge is essential to understand food nutrition and biodiversity complexities. In addition, social science expertise is required to understand the design and transformation of the farming sector, the development of a circular economy for solar panels, and how the proliferation of markets might reconnect across the entire food and energy production and consumption systems to ensure sustainability.

    To uncover ‘what works’ will ultimately require us to collaborate with those seeking to use agrivoltaics and all those involved in solar panel production and management upstream and downstream of the supply network.

    My involvement in this project has been exciting, frustrating and demanding. I suspect that we could have significantly accelerated our impact if we had not lacked access to a platform that systematically supported policy-academic engagement. In line with our research that shows the desire and difficulty for policymakers to engage with researchers, it seems there is much more we can do, as HEIs to support this.

    [i] Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (2013). Managing to collaborate: The theory and practice of collaborative advantage. Routledge.

    [ii] Beech, N., Mason, K. J., MacIntosh, R., & Beech, D. (2022). Learning from each other: Why and how business schools need to create a “paradox box” for academic–policy impact. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 21(3), 487-502

    Source link

  • The Power of Storytelling: Women Shaping Leadership and Change

    The Power of Storytelling: Women Shaping Leadership and Change

    By Dr Monika Nangia, Academic Registrar and Director of Student & Academic Services at Durham University.

    In a world increasingly aware of the value of diversity, the role of women in leadership is more critical – and undervalued – than ever. Despite encouraging strides, women, particularly women of colour, continue to face systemic barriers to advancement. This is a story of resilience, inequity, and hope.

    The conversation around diversity and inclusion is urgent, and storytelling has emerged as one of the most potent tools to address these challenges. It connects us on a human level, fosters empathy, and confronts biases. At its best, storytelling is transformational.

    In my career, I have witnessed the transformative power of storytelling in ushering in meaningful change. The stories we carry as women – of resilience, determination, and overcoming barriers – are far more powerful than any statistic or corporate policy. These personal narratives, shared boldly, have the potential to inspire, to challenge, and to reshape how we think about leadership.

    Why We Need Women in Leadership

    The benefits of gender-diverse leadership are unequivocal. According to Deloitte’s Global Human Capital Trends, organisations with inclusive cultures achieve 2.3 times higher cash flow per employee, 1.4 times more revenue, and are 120% more capable of meeting financial targets. Diverse boards, particularly those with greater gender and ethnic representation, also demonstrate better resilience and crisis management – evident during the COVID-19 pandemic.

    But beyond numbers lies the human impact. Women leaders bring ‘cognitive diversity’, which accelerates learning and performance in complex and uncertain situations. Their leadership fosters a sense of belonging, improves employee engagement, and reduces turnover.

    Yet, despite the clear advantages, women remain underrepresented at every level of leadership.

    The “Broken Rung” and Barriers to Progress

    The journey to leadership for women is fraught with challenges. The ‘broken rung’ effect—where women are less likely than men to be hired or promoted into entry-level managerial roles – creates a bottleneck that compounds over time. For every 100 men promoted to manager, only 81 women make the same leap, with even fewer opportunities for women of colour.

    Racial inequalities exacerbate this gap. McKinsey’s 2020 report highlights that women of colour face the steepest drop-off in career advancement at the transition from middle to senior management. Cultural expectations and resistance to authority further hinder their progress.

    These systemic inequities are reflected starkly in higher education. According to the HEPI Report 2020, Mind the Gap: Gender differences in HE, while women now constitute 55% of university staff in the UK, they occupy only 29% of vice-chancellor roles. Among professors, women account for 29.7%, but Black women make up less than 1%.

    The Power of Storytelling

    Stories have a unique ability to amplify voices, challenge biases, and inspire inclusivity. Neuroscience tells us that engaging narratives release oxytocin in the brain, promoting empathy and altruistic behaviour. More than data or policy, storytelling humanises diverse experiences and catalyses change.

    I’ve seen firsthand how storytelling transforms workplaces. Women leaders who share their personal journeys of resilience and ambition inspire others to envision new possibilities. Their stories break down preconceived notions, fostering an inclusive mindset that leads to behavioural change.

    One colleague who spoke candidly about her experience being the only woman of colour in a senior leadership team. She described how, despite excelling in her role, her authority was often questioned, and she had to work twice as hard to gain the same respect as her peers.

    Her story resonated deeply, not just because of the challenges she faced, but because of the hope and strength she embodied. By sharing her experience, she is creating a ripple effect – encouraging others to speak up, address inequities, and push for change.

    Storytelling is also about accountability. In fact, it is far more important to confront the untold stories, the contributions of women whose voices have been silenced or overlooked. This is especially true for women of colour, whose experiences often fall at the intersection of gender and race-based inequities.

    Mending the ‘Broken Rung’

    A combination of stories like hers, with corresponding datasets as evidence, expose the structural barriers that continue to hold women back. The ‘broken rung’ is a vivid example of this.

    Another story that sticks with me is from a woman in higher education, who spoke about being overlooked for a leadership role despite being the most qualified candidate. She later discovered that her ambition had been perceived as ‘sharp-elbowed’ and intimidating – a stark contrast to how her male counterparts were described.

    Hearing her story compelled me to reflect on how ambition in women is often misinterpreted, reinforcing stereotypes that undermine their credibility. At a recent workshop, a senior leader shared her journey of overcoming immense personal and professional obstacles to lead a major organisational transformation. Her authenticity and vulnerability moved the room, sparking conversations about resilience, leadership, and the need for systemic change.

    Building a Legacy of Inclusive Leadership

    The path to inclusive leadership requires intentionality. It means addressing both visible and invisible barriers, from hiring practices to cultural attitudes. The stories we share today will shape the leadership landscape of tomorrow. As women, we have the opportunity – and the responsibility – to use our narratives to drive change.

    Organisations with diverse leadership teams outperform their peers not just financially but also in innovation and problem-solving. The evidence is clear: diversity is not just a moral imperative – it is a strategic advantage. But the true value of diversity goes beyond metrics. It’s about creating workplaces where everyone feels they belong, where their contributions are valued, and where they can thrive.

    Source link

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Source link

  • WEEKEND READING: Change is our ally by Professor Sir Chris Husbands

    WEEKEND READING: Change is our ally by Professor Sir Chris Husbands

    This blog has been kindly written for HEPI by Professor Sir Chris Husbands, who was Vice-Chancellor of Sheffield Hallam University between 2016 and 2023, and is now a Director of  Higher Futures, working with university leaders to lead sustainable solutions to institutional challenges.

    The scale of the funding challenge in higher education is widely known, though almost every week brings news of fresh challenges and responses. Real term funding for undergraduate teaching in 2025 is close to 1997 levels – levels which led the Blair government to introduce £1,000 top-up fees. Some commentators have argued that the scale of the challenge now is as great as the 1981 cuts in government funding for universities, which reduced spending on universities by 15%, and saw Salford University lose 44% of its income.

    As contemporary funding challenges have intensified, growth options have become more difficult:

    • international student numbers have either stalled or declined;
    • undergraduate growth, although evident, has not tracked demographic trends;
    • the Office for Students has identified persistent optimism bias in the sector’s funding projections; and
    • competitive pressures are multiplying.

    In many countries, flexible for-profit providers are growing fast, especially in professional and post-graduate education. Many of these are backed by funds with deep investment pockets; some UK for-profit providers are growing very quickly and the expansion of private provision in Germany, France and Canada has been remarkable. In summary, the funding challenge is not only real but increasingly profound.

    Institutional responses to these challenges have been extensive. Almost all universities are now undertaking significant change programmes. There have been major strides in revising operating models, especially for professional and support services, and the impact has been significant. On the other hand, although portfolio reviews are widespread, there have been fewer developments in reshaping business models for teaching and research, though some do exist. Core delivery arrangements largely remain based on a two-semester or three-term model. Staff-student ratios which, as the King’s College Vice-Chancellor Shitij Kapur has repeatedly emphasised are low by international standards, have not been significantly shifted. Undergraduate study remains relatively inflexible. Module sharing and simplified credit transfer arrangements remain small scale. Estate use has not been significantly intensified. All this suggests that individual institutions are finding it difficult to look at the challenge strategically with an eye to the longer term shape, size, structure and nature of the university. There is a lot happening in individual change plans, but probably not enough. Without a secure and sustainable core academic model, institutions will be forced into repeated restructurings, which will not be comfortable for them or for the sector more generally.  

    This is the background to the important Jisc-KPMG report Collaboration for a sustainable future, which was the subject of a this week’s HEPI / Jisc webinar. For all the evidence of individual institutional change, the report argues that a collaborative approach is needed to secure sustainability and reshape the sector. Institutions need to find ways to work together, in back-office functions, in professional services and perhaps in academic delivery. The report acknowledges that there are technical difficulties to overcome, including the requirement to pay VAT on shared services and the need to navigate competition law, though these need to be genuinely tested in practice, but it also argues that the deeper barriers to effective collaboration are cultural. 

    The ingrained habit of individual autonomy, even and perhaps especially in non-competitive services (as Nick Hillman reinforced, no one chooses their undergraduate degree based on the university’s finance system) is a major barrier to significant change.  Moreover, the report acknowledges that collaboration and shared service arrangements are unlikely to deliver cost savings in the short-term – and just now a good deal of thinking in the sector seems to be shaped by Keynes’ dictum that ‘in the long-run we are all dead’. Institutions are caught between the economic realities of the funding challenge and the cultural challenges of collaboration.

    In Four Futures, my HEPI paper published in June last year, I argued that the financial and funding circumstances which produced the sector we have no longer exist. Government is unwilling or unable to pay for the sector most university leaders would like. I argued that there were some policy choices for higher education, and that the sector will almost certainly be different in the future. There are public policy questions here, but there are also questions and challenges for institutions. That means strategic choices for leaders, with universities being much clearer about the things they can do well, and do well sustainably, and building different relationships with other institutions. Leadership matters. As the Jisc / KPMG report observes:

    Given the current trajectory, there is a window of opportunity for institutions to act now and help drive this forward before they are compelled into action by necessity.

    Competition over the past decade has undoubtedly delivered benefits, and we should not understate those, especially in estate investment, student experience, teaching quality and research performance. But competition has also delivered homogeneity, duplication and overlap, and that needs to change.   And for that, as the Jisc / KPMG report identifies, the leadership culture needs to change. Hyper-competitiveness has driven institutionally focused leadership behaviours and associated performance indicators, targets and rewards. But there have been different leadership assumptions in higher education in the past, and other sectors have grappled with the challenge of changing leadership culture. The most successful school improvement initiative of the past generation was London Challenge, in which the performance of schools across the capital was significantly raised. One of the most important shifts was a cultural one, persuading headteachers to think not about ‘my school’ but about ‘[all] our children’: success across the system was a leadership challenge for all.

    The Jisc / KPMG Report is strong on the potential for collaboration to shape the future of the system, though it also makes painful reading on the challenges which have bedevilled this in the past. In the current context, government is unlikely to provide additional funding. The private sector could no doubt provide standardised sector-wide services, but the risks of a single supplier for key services are enormous. If government is not the solution, if the private sector is not the solution, if the status quo is not sustainable, the answer must be imaginative and engaged leadership which is not simply about ‘my institution’ but also about ‘our future’.

    This week’s HEPI / Jisc webinar on ‘Competition or collaboration? Opportunities for the future of the higher education sector’ can be watched back here.

    Source link

  • How to Build a Dynamic Student Enrollment Plan That Thrives Amid Change

    How to Build a Dynamic Student Enrollment Plan That Thrives Amid Change

    Key Takeaways:

    • Evolving student enrollment strategies require proactive, data-informed approaches that adapt to demographic shifts, economic pressures, and market dynamics.
    • Real-time metrics and prescriptive analytics enable institutions to refine recruitment strategies, address challenges quickly, and optimize enrollment outcomes.
    • Flexible tools and predictive modeling help mitigate disruptions, align team efforts, and support personalized student engagement.
    • Continuous refinement ensures institutions can navigate uncertainties, maintain competitive student enrollment plans, and prepare for future challenges.

    Higher education is in constant flux, primarily driven by student demographic shifts, economic pressures, and rapid technological advancements. For institutions to stay competitive in this environment, student enrollment strategies must evolve. By embracing a consistent, data-informed, and adaptable enrollment management approach, institutions can navigate current and unforeseen uncertainties and meet their enrollment goals.

    A Forward-Looking Approach to Enrollment Strategies

    Traditional enrollment strategies often rely on rearview analyses, evaluating successes and missteps only at the end of an enrollment cycle. However, the dynamic nature of student recruitment today demands a more proactive approach. Institutions must adopt prescriptive analytics to “look through the windshield,” using real-time data to understand how current strategies are performing and make adjustments on the fly. This forward-thinking approach allows enrollment managers to:

    • Identify what is working and what needs refinement during the current recruitment cycle.
    • Test potential strategies against historical data to predict their effectiveness before implementation.
    • Address emerging challenges quickly, such as unexpected FAFSA delays or shifts in application behavior.
    • Develop broad tactics to adapt to changes throughout the enrollment cycle as well as adjust to shifting dynamics with individual students.

    Such adaptability requires not just access to the right data but also the tools and expertise to act on it effectively. The combination of robust technology platforms, such as Liaison’s predictive analytics tool Othot, and experienced partners who understand the nuances of higher education can make all the difference. By integrating analytics and expert guidance, institutions can respond to challenges with precision and agility.

    Data-Informed Metrics for Strategic Refinement

    To optimize their student enrollment plans, institutions must evaluate specific metrics at each stage of the recruitment process. This means aligning data evaluation with the student journey, focusing on key performance indicators (KPIs) that matter most at each stage:

    · Search phase | Metrics such as inquiry volume, lead conversion rates, and source effectiveness provide insight into initial interest in the institution and the success of outreach efforts.

    · Application phase | Metrics such as application volume, completion rates, and demographic trends help institutions understand the reach and appeal of their efforts.

    · Yield phase | Yield rates and admitted student feedback provide insights into how students perceive the institution’s value.

    · Enrollment phase | Deposit rates and engagement tracking reveal which admitted students are likely to matriculate, enabling targeted follow-ups.

    Different variables also emerge during the cycle that require immediate action. For example, when unexpected disruptions such as a sudden change in application deadlines or a major shift in funding policies occur, enrollment leaders must have the tools and knowledge to not only pivot their strategies to address the issues at hand but also effectively predict the results of those changing approaches in real-time. This requires a flexible data infrastructure that can accommodate real-time adjustments.

    Overcoming Challenges Through Continuous Adaptation

    Flexibility is a nonnegotiable trait for enrollment management teams. The new realities of a post-pandemic world, declining high school graduating classes, and a highly competitive marketplace are significantly challenging existing strategies. The pressure to meet enrollment goals often comes with internal changes—such as staff turnover or shifts in leadership priorities—and external pressures like economic downturns or new legislation.

    • Turnover and continuity | Staff turnover can disrupt institutional momentum, particularly when strategies are person-dependent rather than system-driven. Tools such as Othot provide consistency by embedding critical data insights and processes into the institution’s framework, reducing the impact of turnover and fostering a culture of data-informed decision-making.
    • Adapting to unexpected variables | Challenges like sudden changes in funding or board directives require immediate adjustments. By leveraging “what-if” scenario modeling, institutions can simulate the impact of potential changes and make informed decisions quickly.

    Strategies to Increase Student Enrollment

    Strategic flexibility can make the difference between hitting enrollment targets and falling short. Institutions can take several steps to continuously refine their strategies:

    1. Monitor trends in real-time | Stay ahead of shifts in student behavior by regularly reviewing metrics such as engagement rates, application trends, and deposit patterns.

    2. Incorporate scenario planning | Use predictive tools to simulate how changes in funding, messaging, or outreach might impact enrollment outcomes.

    3. Align collaboration across teams | Align data and strategy efforts across departments to create a unified approach to enrollment management.

    4. Personalize student engagement | Tailor communication based on individual student data, ensuring that messaging resonates with their unique needs and interests.

    By integrating these strategies into their student enrollment plans, institutions can adapt to changing circumstances while maintaining a steady focus on meeting their overall long-term enrollment goals.

    Staying Ahead in a Dynamic Environment

    Continuous refinement isn’t just about meeting immediate needs—it’s about preparing for the future. Institutions that embrace adaptability, leverage data strategically, and invest in both technology and expertise are better positioned to succeed in today’s competitive higher education market.

    Whether it’s managing the challenges of staff turnover, responding to external pressures, aligning all your enrollment tools at hand, or identifying the most effective ways to engage prospective students, institutions must prioritize flexibility and innovation.

    With Liaison’s advanced tools and expert partnership, institutions can confidently navigate the complexities of data-driven enrollment management and set the stage for sustained success. Contact us today to get started.

    About the Author

    Craig Cornell is the Vice President for Enrollment Strategy at Liaison. In that capacity, he oversees a team of enrollment strategists and brings best practices, consultation, and data trends to campuses across the country in all things enrollment management. Craig also serves as the dedicated resource to NASH (National Association of Higher Education Systems) and works closely with the higher education system that Liaison supports. Before joining Liaison in 2023, Craig served for over 30 years in multiple higher education executive enrollment management positions. During his tenure, the campuses he served often received national recognition for enrollment growth, effective financial aid leveraging, marketing enhancements, and innovative enrollment strategies.

    Source link