Tag: Framework

  • Framework for GenAI in Graduate Career Development (opinion)

    Framework for GenAI in Graduate Career Development (opinion)

    In Plato’s Phaedrus, King Thamus feared writing would make people forgetful and create the appearance of wisdom without true understanding. His concern was not merely about a new tool, but about a technology that would fundamentally transform how humans think, remember and communicate. Today, we face similar anxieties about generative AI. Like writing before it, generative AI is not just a tool but a transformative technology reshaping how we think, write and work.

    This transformation is particularly consequential in graduate education, where students develop professional competencies while managing competing demands, research deadlines, teaching responsibilities, caregiving obligations and often financial pressures. Generative AI’s appeal is clear; it promises to accelerate tasks that compete for limited time and cognitive resources. Graduate students report using ChatGPT and similar tools for professional development tasks, such as drafting cover letters, preparing for interviews and exploring career options, often without institutional guidance on effective and ethical use.

    Most AI policies focus on coursework and academic integrity; professional development contexts remain largely unaddressed. Faculty and career advisers need practical strategies for guiding students to use generative AI critically and effectively. This article proposes a four-stage framework—explore, build, connect, refine—for guiding students’ generative AI use in professional development.

    Professional Development in the AI Era

    Over the past decade, graduate education has invested significantly in career readiness through dedicated offices, individual development plans and co-curricular programming—for example, the Council of Graduate Schools’ PhD Career Pathways initiative involved 75 U.S. doctoral institutions building data-informed professional development, and the Graduate Career Consortium, representing graduate-focused career staff, grew from roughly 220 members in 2014 to 500-plus members across about 220 institutions by 2022.

    These investments reflect recognition that Ph.D. and master’s students pursue diverse career paths, with fewer than half of STEM Ph.D.s entering tenure-track positions immediately after graduation; the figure for humanities and social sciences also remains below 50 percent over all.

    We now face a different challenge: integrating a technology that touches every part of the knowledge economy. Generative AI adoption among graduate students has been swift and largely unsupervised: At Ohio State University, 48 percent of graduate students reported using ChatGPT in spring 2024. At the University of Maryland, 77 percent of students report using generative AI, and 35 percent use it routinely for academic work, with graduate students more likely than undergraduates to be routine users; among routine student users, 38 percent said they did so without instructor guidance.

    Some subskills, like mechanical formatting, will matter less in this landscape; higher-order capacities—framing problems, tailoring messages to audiences, exercising ethical discernment—will matter more. For example, in a 2025 National Association of Colleges and Employers survey, employers rank communication and critical thinking among the most important competencies for new hires, and in a 2024 LinkedIn report, communication was the most in-demand skill.

    Without structured guidance, students face conflicting messages: Some faculty ban AI use entirely, while others assume so-called digital natives will figure it out independently. This leaves students navigating an ethical and practical minefield with high stakes for their careers. A framework offers consistency and clear principles across advising contexts.

    We propose a four-stage framework that mirrors how professionals actually learn: explore, build, connect, refine. This approach adapts design thinking principles, the iterative cycle of prototyping and testing, to AI-augmented professional development. Students rapidly generate options with AI support, test them in low-stakes environments and refine based on feedback. While we use writing and communication examples throughout for clarity, this framework applies broadly to professional development.

    Explore: Map Possibilities and Surface Gaps

    Exploring begins by mapping career paths, fellowship opportunities and professional norms, then identifying gaps in skills or expectations. A graduate student can ask a generative AI chatbot to infer competencies from their lab work or course projects, then compare those skills to current job postings in their target sector to identify skills they need to develop. They can generate a matrix of fellowship opportunities in their field, including eligibility requirements, deadlines and required materials, and then validate every detail on official websites. They can ask AI to describe communication norms in target sectors, comparing the tone and structure of academic versus industry cover letters—not to memorize a script, but to understand audience expectations they will need to meet.

    Students should not, however, rely on AI-generated job descriptions or program requirements without verification, as the technology may conflate roles, misrepresent qualifications or cite outdated information and sources.

    Build: Learn Through Iterative Practice

    Building turns insight into artifacts and habits. With generative AI as a sounding board, students can experiment with different résumé architectures for the same goal, testing chronological versus skills-based formats or tailoring a CV for academic versus industry positions. They can generate detailed outlines for an individual development plan, breaking down abstract goals into concrete, time-bound actions. They can devise practice tasks that address specific growth areas, such as mock interview questions for teaching-intensive positions or practice pitches tailored to different funding audiences. The point is not to paste in AI text; it is to lower the barriers of uncertainty and blank-page intimidation, making it easier to start building while keeping authorship and evidence squarely in the student’s hands.

    Connect: Communicate and Network With Purpose

    Connecting focuses on communicating with real people. Here, generative AI can lower the stakes for high-pressure interactions. By asking a chatbot to act the part of various audience members, students can rehearse multiple versions of a tailored 60-second elevator pitch, such as for a recruiter at a career fair, a cross-disciplinary faculty member at a poster session or a community partner exploring collaboration. Generative AI can also simulate informational interviews if students prompt the system to ask follow-up questions or even refine user inputs.

    In addition, students can leverage generative AI to draft initial outreach notes to potential mentors that the students then personalize and fact-check. They can explore networking strategies for conferences or professional association events, identifying whom to approach and what questions to ask based on publicly available information about attendees’ work.

    Even just five years ago, completing this nonexhaustive list of networking tasks might have seemed an impossibility for graduate students with already crammed agendas. Generative AI, however, affords graduate students the opportunity to become adept networkers without sacrificing much time from research and scholarship. Crucially, generative AI creates a low-risk space to practice, while it is the student who ultimately supplies credibility and authentic voice. Generative AI cannot build genuine relationships, but it can help students prepare for the human interactions where relationships form.

    Refine: Test, Adapt and Verify

    Refining is where judgment becomes visible. Before submitting a fellowship essay, for example, a student can ask the generative AI chatbot to simulate likely reviewer critiques based on published evaluation criteria, then use that feedback to align revisions to scoring rubrics. They can A/B test two AI-generated narrative approaches from the build stage with trusted readers, advisers or peers to determine which is more compelling. Before a campus talk, they can ask the chatbot to identify jargon, unclear transitions or slides with excessive text, then revise for audience accessibility.

    In each case, verification and ownership are nonnegotiable: Students must check references, deadlines and factual claims against primary sources and ensure the final product reflects their authentic voice rather than generic AI prose. A student who submits an AI-refined essay without verification may cite outdated program requirements, misrepresent their own experience or include plausible-sounding but fabricated details, undermining credibility with reviewers and jeopardizing their application.

    Cultivate Expert Caution, Not Technical Proficiency

    The goal is not to train students as prompt engineers but to help them exercise expert caution. This means teaching students to ask: Does this AI-generated text reflect my actual experience? Can I defend every claim in an interview? Does this output sound like me, or like generic professional-speak? Does this align with my values and the impression I want to create? If someone asked, “Tell me more about that,” could I elaborate with specific details?

    Students should view AI as a thought partner for the early stages of professional development work: the brainstorming, the first-draft scaffolding, the low-stakes rehearsal. It cannot replace human judgment, authentic relationships or deep expertise. A generative AI tool can help a student draft three versions of an elevator pitch, but only a trusted adviser can tell them which version sounds most genuine. It can list networking strategies, but only actual humans can become meaningful professional connections.

    Conclusion

    Each graduate student brings unique aptitudes, challenges and starting points. First-generation students navigating unfamiliar professional cultures may use generative AI to explore networking norms and decode unstated expectations. International students can practice U.S. interview conventions and professional correspondence styles. Part-time students with limited campus access can get preliminary feedback before precious advising appointments. Students managing disabilities or mental health challenges can use generative AI to reduce the cognitive load of initial drafting, preserving energy for higher-order revision and relationship-building.

    Used critically and transparently, generative AI can help students at all starting points explore, build, connect and refine their professional paths, alongside faculty advisers and career development professionals—never replacing them, but providing just-in-time feedback and broader access to coaching-style support.

    The question is no longer whether generative AI belongs in professional development. The real question is whether we will guide students to use it thoughtfully or leave them to navigate it alone. The explore-build-connect-refine framework offers one path forward: a structured approach that develops both professional competency and critical judgment. We choose guidance.

    Ioannis Vasileios Chremos is program manager for professional development at the University of Michigan Medical School Office of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies.

    William A. Repetto is a postdoctoral researcher in the Department of English and the research office at the University of Delaware.

    Source link

  • ACE, Other Higher Ed Groups Endorse Strada Framework for Connecting College and Career

    ACE, Other Higher Ed Groups Endorse Strada Framework for Connecting College and Career

    The American Council on Education (ACE) has joined a coalition of higher education organizations—including the American Association of Community Colleges, the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, the Association of American Colleges and Universities, and NASPA—in endorsing Strada Education Foundation’s Principles for Quality Education-to-Career Guidance.

    The framework lays out a clear vision for how colleges and universities can help students connect their education to meaningful careers. It calls for guidance that is equity-centered, driven by student agency, and informed by evidence and labor market data.

    “By centering education-to-career guidance on equity, student agency, and evidence, these principles strengthen ACE’s work in shaping responsive policy, supporting nontraditional learners, and advancing flexible, career-aligned pathways,” said ACE President Ted Mitchell.

    Strada’s five guiding principles are:

    1. Centered on education-to-career outcomes
    2. Driven by student agency
    3. Foundational and universal
    4. Rooted in relationships
    5. Informed by data and evidence

    The framework builds on Strada’s 2024 report Quality Coaching: Helping Students Navigate the Journey from Education to Career, which outlined the essential components of effective coaching to help students persist, complete, and secure college-level jobs after graduation.

    —Hollie Chessman

    If you have any questions or comments about this blog post, please contact us.

    Source link

  • Compass Framework for AI Literacy Integration into Higher Education – Sovorel

    Compass Framework for AI Literacy Integration into Higher Education – Sovorel

    As a way to help all of academia, colleges, universities, and other educational institutions around the world, I introduce the “Compass Framework for AI Literacy Integration into Higher Education.” This is a completely free (Creative Commons 4.0) AI literacy framework for easy and flexible integration of AI literacy into the curriculum. This framework is designed from my experience working with many universities around the world, reviewing other AI frameworks, and from various other research.

    *The full Compass Framework for AI Literacy Integration into Higher Education document, along with detailed explanations, example information, and full references used, is available here: http://sovorelpublishing.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Compass-Framework-for-AI-Literacy-Integration-into-Higher-Education.pdf

    The AI literacy components are made up of: Awareness, Capability (including prompt engineering), Knowledge, and Critical Thinking (to include bias, ethics, environmental impacts, and avoiding overreliance.

    This AI literacy framework also addresses student learning outcomes and provides specific examples of how this framework can be integrated without necessarily increasing credit requirements. Additional information is also presented dealing with needed subskills, advanced AI skills for degree-specific fields, alternative frameworks, and additional actions needed to ensure overall success with AI literacy integration.

    An introductory video on this important and free AI literacy framework is available through the Sovorel Center for Teaching & Learning educational YouTube channel here:

    The Compass Framework for AI Literacy Integration into Higher Education has been designed and made available for free by the Sovorel Center for Teaching & Learning. Please let us know you have used it, it has been helpful for your organization, or if you have any other feedback. Thank you very much, and we appreciate everyone’s ongoing support.

    Source link

  • Framework to shape international education – Campus Review

    Framework to shape international education – Campus Review

    An international education framework will shape the “next phase of maturity” of the Albanese government’s vision of a quality-first, managed-growth tertiary education sector.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • Revisiting the Legal Framework for Students’ Unions

    Revisiting the Legal Framework for Students’ Unions

    Author:
    Gary Attle

    Published:

    • This blog was kindly written by Gary Attle, Consultant for Birketts LLP.
    • On Tuesday, HEPI and Cambridge University Press & Assessment will be hosting the UK launch of the OECD’s Education at a Glance. On Wednesday, we will be hosting a webinar on students’ cost of living with TechnologyOne – for more information on booking a free place, see here.
    • Read HEPI’s weekend blogs on governance and the Research Excellence Framework on the HEPI website here.

    The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 came into force, in part, on 1 August 2025. New and strengthened statutory duties were placed on higher education providers which are registered with the Office for Students (OfS), the higher education regulator in England. These duties require the governing bodies of registered higher education providers to take steps to secure freedom of speech (including academic freedom) for staff, students, members and visiting speakers and to promote the importance of freedom of speech/academic freedom. The Office for Students has a direct regulatory jurisdiction towards registered higher education providers under the provisions of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 and as ‘principal regulator’ for those registered providers which are charities.

    The current Government has indicated its intention to repeal the provisions in the 2023 Act which would have placed an express statutory duty on students’ unions for the first time to secure freedom of speech and a new regulatory power for the Office for Students to take enforcement action against students’ unions for breach of that duty. In a detailed statement to the House of Commons on 15 January this year, the Secretary of State noted the following:

    “Student unions are neither equipped nor funded to navigate such a complex regulatory environment, and they are already regulated by the Charity Commission. However, I fully expect student unions to protect lawful free speech, whether they agree with the views expressed or not. I also expect HE providers to work closely with them to ensure that that happens and to act decisively to ensure their student unions comply with their free speech code of conduct.”

    It is likely to be the case that a students’ union of a higher education provider which is a charity will be a separate charitable organisation itself, whether an unincorporated association of its members or an incorporated body. However, it would be prudent to check both the charitable status of the students’ union and its corporate status.

    The Education Act 1994 (sections 20-22) places a statutory duty on the governing body of specified higher education ‘establishments’ in England and Wales to secure certain requirements in respect of students’ unions of those establishments. The duty extends to a range of governance and constitutional requirements, including ensuring that the students’ union operates in a fair and democratic manner, that it has a written constitution and has a complaints procedure. The governing body is required to approve the provisions of the constitution and review the constitution at intervals of not more than five years. In addition, highlighted for the purposes of this note, at least once a year the governing body of the establishment must bring to the attention of its students “any restrictions imposed on the union by the law relating to charities.”

    Here, we turn to case-law of some vintage to illustrate what this might include. In 1971, the High Court in the case of Baldry -v- Feintuck [1972] WLR552 had to decide whether to grant injunctions against a number of individuals connected with the University of Sussex Students’ Union. The students’ union had passed resolutions for payments to be made in support of certain causes, including a campaign to oppose the then Government’s policy for the ending of free milk to school pupils. A student at the university and a member of the union brought legal proceedings against the students’ union officers and a member of staff at the university on the basis that such payments would be ultra vires the students’ union constitution. In granting the injunction against the President and Treasurer of the students’ union (only), the Judge noted as follows:

    “although research, discussion and debate and the reaching of a corporate conclusion on social and economic problems formed part of the educational process, the proposed payments outside of the university, formed no part of that process…and no payment for political purposes could possibly be charitable.”

    The Charity Commission updated its guidance on ‘Campaigning and political activity’ in November 2022 which it defines as follows:

    Campaigning: “awareness raising and efforts to educate or mobilise the public’s support for an issue or to influence / change public attitudes” (including activities which seek to ensure existing laws are observed).

    Political activity: “securing support for, or opposing, a change in the law or policy or decisions of central government, local government, or other public bodies, in this country or abroad”.

    The basic legal position set out in the Charity Commission’s guidance is that campaigning and political activities by charities can be legitimate and valuable provided they are undertaken only in supporting delivery of the charity’s charitable purposes. The guidance helpfully explains this more fully and the factors which the charity trustees should take into account before deciding to undertake campaigning and/or political activities. The Charity Commission noted that its experience had been that charities had been over-cautious in their approach to such matters and that they were inclined to self-censor, although it noted that it would take regulatory action if there had been misuse of charitable resources.

    Source link

  • A Framework for Organizing Student Success Efforts (opinion)

    A Framework for Organizing Student Success Efforts (opinion)

    From declining enrollments to equity gaps and growing concerns about student belonging, the pressures on colleges and universities—especially those serving first-generation and regional student populations—are intense and unrelenting. We have all read about the enrollment cliffs and seen firsthand how small, regional institutions are being asked to do more with less while still delivering transformational experiences to diverse and increasingly nontraditional learners.

    While there is no single solution to these complex and multifaceted challenges, I believe we can and must do better to organize and focus our collective efforts. In my two decades of experience as a mathematics education professor, interim dean, student success leader and first-generation college graduate, I have repeatedly seen the power of synthesizing widely known but often disconnected strategies into coherent, institutionwide models for student success.

    That experience led me to develop the ACCESS framework, a holistic and memorable approach that integrates six core pillars essential to supporting students from recruitment through graduation and beyond. These pillars—affinity, community, career, early alert, support and storytelling—are not novel in isolation. However, woven together, they offer a powerful and practical road map for institutions striving to create environments where students not only persist but thrive. Importantly, ACCESS also addresses what I see as a common and costly issue in higher education: fragmentation. Too often, well-intentioned programs exist in silos, failing to produce the sustained, cross-campus impact we seek. ACCESS offers a way to unify these efforts into a clear, student-centered strategy.

    Affinity: Fostering Belonging From Day One

    Students are more likely to succeed when they feel they belong. This is especially true for first-generation students, underrepresented populations and those navigating higher education in rural or regional settings where campus may feel unfamiliar or disconnected from prior experiences.

    Affinity strategies focus on helping students quickly form meaningful connections with peers, faculty and the institution itself. Examples include first-year experience programs, peer mentorship initiatives, themed housing and proactive advising. Institutions that intentionally create these touch points early and often can increase students’ sense of belonging and purpose, which research has shown to be critical predictors of retention and achievement.

    Affinity is about more than social engagement—it is about students seeing themselves as valued and capable members of the campus community.

    Community: Building Meaningful and Reciprocal Connections

    Beyond personal belonging, students benefit from opportunities to engage in shared purpose.

    Community-focused strategies emphasize service learning, civic engagement, student organizations and collaborative learning experiences that help students feel connected not only to campus but to broader societal goals. Partnerships with local community and nonprofit organizations create reciprocal value: Students gain real-world experience and social capital while institutions strengthen ties with the communities they serve.

    Moreover, community-building activities enhance peer support networks. Students engaged in study groups, cohort models or co-curricular leadership roles often demonstrate higher retention and graduation rates. Creating purposeful, inclusive spaces for students to connect with one another should be viewed as essential, not optional.

    Career: Connecting Learning to Life After College

    Students increasingly expect—and deserve—a clear connection between their academic experience and future opportunities. Career-connected learning, designed to deepen students’ classroom experiences by connecting skills to real-world occupations, has been shown to increase engagement, motivation, broader sense of purpose and sense of preparedness for employment. But career integration must go far beyond the traditional career center model. It should be infused throughout the student journey.

    ACCESS emphasizes career as a core pillar, with a focus on early and ongoing exposure to career pathways, industry partnerships and hands-on learning. Microcredentials, internships, alumni mentoring and project-based courses all help students articulate the value of their degree and build the confidence to pursue their aspirations. When students can see the relevance of their studies to their goals, their motivation, persistence and sense of belonging increase substantially.

    Early Alert: Leveraging Data to Intervene and Support

    While many institutions have adopted early-alert systems, ACCESS emphasizes the importance of using data in intentional, coordinated ways across campus. A study of more than 16,000 students at a regional university found an early-alert system was effective at identifying students at significantly higher risk of dropping out, even when controlling for academic performance and demographic characteristics. Early-alert systems are not simply about identifying struggling students—they are about creating a culture where faculty, advisers and staff collaborate to proactively support students before issues become crises. Effective systems involve mobilizing cross-campus teams to conduct outreach—through emails, phone calls or in-person check-ins—to improve retention rates and remove barriers ranging from financial hardship to emotional stress.

    Early alert requires more than technology. It requires buy-in, training and shared ownership. When done well, it sends a powerful message to students: “You matter, and we are here to help you succeed.”

    Support: Providing Comprehensive, Seamless Services

    Students’ lives are complex, and so are the challenges they face. ACCESS recognizes that academic success cannot be separated from wellness, financial stability and mental health. Institutions must offer robust, coordinated support systems that meet students where they are and that encompass everything from advising, tutoring and accessibility services to counseling, financial aid navigation and basic needs support. Centralized student success centers, coordinated case management models and wraparound services are all effective ways to ensure that no student falls through the cracks.

    Wraparound student support services, especially when delivered through relational, trauma-informed and personalized case management, foster deeper connection and institutional engagement. This in turn supports retention and persistence outcomes. Importantly, support must be framed as a strength, not a deficiency. Normalizing help-seeking behavior and reducing stigma are essential to creating an environment where students feel safe accessing the resources they need.

    Storytelling: Creating a Culture of Pride and Narrative

    Finally, ACCESS includes a pillar that is often overlooked but profoundly impactful: storytelling. Students are more likely to persist and complete their degrees when they can see themselves as protagonists in their own educational journeys.

    Institutions should prioritize sharing student and alumni stories—through social media, newsletters, admissions materials and campus events—to reinforce the value and relevance of the college experience. Equally important is empowering students to reflect on and tell their own stories, helping them make meaning of their experiences and building a sense of pride and ownership. Research suggests that as students reshape their narrative identities, seeing themselves not as outsiders but as capable contributors, they become more engaged and persistent in their academic work.

    In my leadership roles, I have seen how storytelling humanizes data and drives institutional momentum. Donors connect emotionally to stories of transformation. Prospective students see possibilities reflected in the experiences of peers. Faculty and staff are reminded of their purpose. Storytelling, when done authentically, becomes a unifying force.

    Putting ACCESS Into Action

    The ACCESS framework is not prescriptive or rigid. Rather, it is an adaptable model that provides institutions with a common language and conceptual map for aligning efforts across recruitment, retention, student support and advancement.

    I am mindful that the individual strategies embedded in ACCESS are not new. What is new—and, I believe, urgently needed—is a simple, memorable framework that helps institutions avoid fragmented initiatives and instead build integrated, student-centered ecosystems.

    Importantly, ACCESS should not exist outside of the academic mission. Its greatest potential lies in integration with the curriculum. Faculty play a vital role in fostering belonging, connecting coursework to careers, identifying students in need of support and empowering students to reflect on their learning. When academic and co-curricular strategies align, student success becomes not a separate initiative but a seamless and transformative part of the college experience.

    ACCESS can serve as a guide for cabinet-level planning, cross-departmental working groups, strategic enrollment management and assessment. It offers a way to bring together academic affairs, student affairs, advancement and community partners around a shared vision for student success.

    As higher education faces unprecedented challenges, we must embrace models that are not only evidence-based but also intuitive and human-centered. I invite my colleagues across higher education to consider how ACCESS—or similar integrative models—might provide clarity, cohesion and inspiration as we work collectively to support the students we serve.

    Laura J. Jacobsen is the chair of the Department of Mathematics and Statistics and a professor of mathematics education at Radford University.

    Source link

  • A Framework for Moving Up or Moving On (opinion)

    A Framework for Moving Up or Moving On (opinion)

    Over my 16-plus years in higher education, mostly in administration, I’ve had many colleagues reach out and ask a version of the same question:

    “How do I know if I should stay or move on?”

    They are leaders in their field. Most are excelling on paper, teaching, mentoring, leading committees, serving on task forces and writing grants. But they’re tired, stuck or sense that something in the role, or the institution, no longer fits.

    Lately, I’m finding that we don’t talk enough about what to do when we’ve outgrown a role but aren’t sure what comes next. In academic culture, staying where we are is often seen as loyalty, moving up is luck and leaving can feel like defeat. But I’ve learned that career momentum doesn’t always mean climbing a ladder. Sometimes it means building a bridge or choosing a new path entirely.

    So, what do you do when you hit a fork in the road? I recently saw a post on LinkedIn that outlined a relatively simplistic framework, aligned with the business world, which can help if you find yourself questioning your next move: assess, align, act. I’ve taken the liberty to modify it, without losing the concept: reflect, revise, recommit.

    Reflect: Where Are You?

    Before planning your next move, take an honest look at your current professional state. Start by asking yourself the following:

    • Have I grown in the past year, or am I mostly going through the motions?
    • Am I viewed as a contributor or an afterthought?
    • How do I feel at the end of the day, mostly energized or mostly depleted?
    • Are my ideas welcomed or tolerated?
    • Do I see myself staying here for five more years?

    These questions aren’t about job satisfaction alone. They’re about where you are professionally. Assess your responses to the questions above. If you feel stuck where you are and don’t see changes or opportunities for professional growth in the future, it may be time to shift.

    Revise: Is This Still the Right Place for You?

    Consider how your values and contributions align (or don’t) with your work environment.

    In one of the classes I teach, we spend a considerable amount of time discussing values, both personal and professional. Keeping this in mind, ask yourself whether the following statements are true for you:

    • I can ask difficult questions or present unconventional ideas.
    • I feel heard and my input is valued.
    • I can contribute in ways that reflect my strengths.
    • My work is recognized, and not just when it’s convenient.
    • I feel hopeful about my professional future here.

    If you answer “no” more times than “yes,” it’s not a failure on your part. Instead, look at it as an opportunity to implement changes strategically.

    Recommit: Move Up, Move Over or Move On

    Once you’ve assessed your growth and alignment, you’re ready to make a deliberate decision to go deeper, shift roles or step toward something new. Here are three potential paths, each with concrete next steps:

    1. Move Up (Internal Advancement)

    If you still believe in the institution and want more responsibility:

    • Build your case: Document leadership wins, pilot programs or change initiatives—things that show you’re already operating at the next level.
    • Get visible: Let your supervisor or mentor know you’re open to advancement. Ambition isn’t arrogance; it’s clarity.
    • Ask for expanded roles: Volunteer to chair a new initiative or represent your unit on a strategic planning team.
    • Find advocates: You need more than mentors. Advocates promote and back you behind closed doors.
    1. Move Over (Lateral Change)

    If you like the institution but not the role:

    • Explore cross-campus opportunities in centers, institutes or new initiatives.
    • Consider a hybrid position that merges your skills (e.g., combining research and student success).
    • Talk with human resources or a trusted senior leader about other opportunities within your organization—professionally, quietly and strategically.

    Remember: lateral doesn’t mean lesser. Sometimes a lateral move can be the smartest option for long-term impact (and sanity).

    1. Move On (External Transition)

    If the position and the institution don’t fit your needs anymore:

    • Name what you want next: More autonomy? More responsibility? A different kind of leadership role?
    • Update your materials: Be sure to identify transferable skills. If you’ve led change, managed crises or built programs, remember these skills are valued in most industries.
    • Use your network: Former students, collaborators and conference contacts might hold the key to your next chapter.
    • Leave well: Give your employer sufficient notice. Offer to train your successor. Write a transition plan. Protect your reputation and exit with grace and gratitude.

    A Final Note: You’re Not Alone

    I recently spoke with a colleague who worried her career had stalled over the last several years and that she hadn’t grown in her position. When we discussed her accomplishments, we saw that she’d proposed several new initiatives, launched a new program, mentored students and staff, and learned to navigate the complexity of higher education with professionalism and courage. In short, she hadn’t wasted any time; she’d built resilience and capacity. She also realized she was more ready for change and leadership opportunities.

    If you’re at that fork in the road, know this: Moving on isn’t quitting; it’s choosing. Moving up isn’t selling out; it’s stepping in. And staying where you are is perfectly valid if it still serves your purpose, your values and your professional goals.

    Ask yourself this question: “Am I building a future here or am I just getting by?”

    Either way, you get to choose your next steps.

    Laura Kuizin is director of the master of applied professional studies in the Graduate School at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Laura is a member of the Graduate Career Consortium, an organization providing an international voice for graduate-level career and professional development leaders. Laura dedicates this article to Sadie-dog, who was by her side as she navigated her professional path over the last 16 years.

    Source link

  • Applying the Moral Intensity Framework: Ethical Decision-Making for University Reopening During COVID-19

    Applying the Moral Intensity Framework: Ethical Decision-Making for University Reopening During COVID-19

    by Scott McCoy, Jesse Pietz and Joseph H Wilck

    Overview

    In late 2020, universities faced a moral and operational crisis: Should they reopen for in-person learning amid a global pandemic? This decision held profound ethical implications, touching on public health, education, and institutional survival. Using the Moral Intensity Framework (MIF), a multidimensional ethical decision-making model, researchers analysed the reopening choices of 62 US universities to evaluate the ethical considerations and outcomes. Here’s how MIF provides critical insights into this complex scenario.

    Why the Moral Intensity Framework matters

    The Moral Intensity Framework helps assess ethical decisions based on six dimensions:

    1. Magnitude of Consequences: The severity of potential outcomes.
    2. Social Consensus: Agreement on the morality of the decision.
    3. Probability of Effect: Likelihood of outcomes occurring.
    4. Temporal Immediacy: Time between the decision and its consequences.
    5. Proximity: Emotional or social closeness to those affected.
    6. Concentration of Effect: Impact on specific groups versus broader populations.

    This framework offers a structured approach to evaluate ethical trade-offs, especially in high-stakes, uncertain scenarios like the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Universities’ dilemma: in-person -v- remote learning

    The reopening debate boiled down to two primary considerations:

    1. Educational and Financial Pressures: Universities needed to deliver on their educational mission while addressing steep revenue losses from tuition, housing, and auxiliary services. Remote learning threatened educational quality and the financial viability of institutions, especially those with limited endowments.
    2. Public Health Risks: Reopening campuses risked COVID-19 outbreaks, jeopardising the health of students, staff, and surrounding communities. Universities also faced backlash for potential spread to vulnerable populations.

    Critical Findings Through the Moral Intensity Lens

    Magnitude of Consequences

    Reopening for in-person learning presented stark risks: potential illness or death among students, staff, and the community. However, keeping campuses closed threatened jobs, reduced education quality, and caused financial strain. The scale of harm from reopening was considered higher, particularly in densely populated campus settings.

    Social Consensus

    Public opinion and government policies influence decisions. States with stringent public health mandates leaned toward remote learning, while those with lenient regulations often pursued in-person or hybrid models. Administrators balanced community sentiment with institutional needs, highlighting the importance of localized consensus.

    Temporal Immediacy

    Health risks from in-person learning manifested quickly, while financial and educational setbacks from remote learning had longer timelines. This immediacy added ethical weight to public health considerations in reopening decisions.

    Probability of Effect

    The uncertainty surrounding COVID-19 transmission and mitigation complicated ethical judgments. Universities needed more data on the effectiveness of safety protocols, making probability assessments challenging.

    Proximity and Concentration of Effect

    Campus communities are close-knit, amplifying the emotional weight of decisions. Both reopening and remaining remote affected broad populations similarly, lessening these dimensions’ influence.

    Ethical Outcomes and Practical Mitigation Strategies

    Many universities implemented extensive safety measures to align reopening decisions with ethical standards:

    • Testing and Tracing: Pre-arrival testing, on-campus surveillance, and contact tracing reduced outbreak risks.
    • Modified Learning Environments: Hybrid and remote options ensured flexibility, accommodating vulnerable populations.
    • Health Protocols: Social distancing, mask mandates, and enhanced cleaning protocols were widely adopted.

    Despite risks, universities that reopened often avoided large-scale outbreaks, demonstrating the effectiveness of these measures.

    Lessons for Crisis Management

    The COVID-19 reopening experience offers valuable lessons for future crises:

    1. Use Multidimensional Ethical Frameworks: Applying tools like MIF provides structure to navigate complex moral dilemmas.
    2. Prioritize Stakeholder Engagement: Balancing diverse perspectives helps bridge gaps between perceived and actual risks.
    3. Adapt Quickly: Flexibility in implementing mitigation strategies can mitigate harm while achieving core objectives.
    4. Build Resilience: Strengthening financial reserves and digital infrastructure can reduce future vulnerabilities.

    Global Implications

    While this analysis focused on U.S. universities, the findings have worldwide relevance. Institutions globally grappled with similar decisions, balancing public health and education amid diverse cultural and political contexts. The Moral Intensity Framework offers a universal lens to evaluate ethical challenges in higher education and beyond.

    Conclusion

    The reopening decisions of universities during COVID-19 exemplify the intricate balance of ethical, financial, and operational considerations in crisis management. The Moral Intensity Framework provided a robust tool for understanding these complexities, highlighting the need for structured ethical decision-making in future global challenges.

    This blog is based on an article published in Policy Reviews in Higher Education (online 20 September 2024) https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23322969.2024.2404864.

    Scott McCoy is the Vice Dean for Faculty & Academic Affairs and the Richard S. Reynolds, Jr. Professor of Business at William & Mary’s Raymond A. Mason School of Business.  His research interests include human computer interaction, social media, online advertising, and teaching assessment.

    Jesse Pietz is a faculty lead for the OMSBA program at William & Mary’s Raymond A. Mason School of Business.  He has been teaching analytics, operations research, and management since 2013.  His most recent faculty position prior to William & Mary was at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colorado. 

    Joseph Wilck is Associate Professor of the Practice and Business Analytics Capstone Director
    Kenneth W. Freeman College of Management, Bucknell University He has been teaching analytics, operations research, data science, and engineering since 2006. His research is in the area of applied optimization and analytics.

    Author: SRHE News Blog

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

    Source link

  • Leave to Achieve?: A new framework for universities to drive local social mobility

    Leave to Achieve?: A new framework for universities to drive local social mobility

    • By Dani Payne, Senior Researcher and Education Lead at the Social Market Foundation.

    University remains the most effective pathway for disadvantaged individuals to achieve upward social mobility. Graduates earn more, are less likely to be unemployed, and report higher levels of health, happiness and civic engagement. Yet, despite this individual impact, higher education’s benefits often fail to translate into positive outcomes for local communities.

    Recent research from the Sutton Trust ranked constituencies by social mobility. Most interesting is the bottom 20. More than half have at least one university within their immediate locality, and some have as many as 18 in their wider region. Essentially, having a university – or, indeed, many universities – in your region doesn’t guarantee improved local social mobility.

    The need for a new social mobility framework

    The government’s ‘opportunity mission’ is built on the principle that every child, in every community, should have a fair chance to succeed.

    But rising costs, frozen maintenance support, demographic shifts and widening attainment gaps threaten progress made on access. Moreover, targets tend to be institution-specific, creating duplications and silos, and encouraging competition between providers. Selective universities continue to meet access targets by disproportionately recruiting disadvantaged pupils from high-attaining London boroughs, leaving local disadvantaged learners behind – even when world-class institutions are right on their doorstep.

    We must broaden how we assess universities’ social mobility impact. To be able to understand when, why and how the benefits of an institution do or don’t reach into local communities, we must also consider their roles as major employers, civic actors and research hubs.  

    In our new report, Leave to Achieve?, we set out a new framework for how universities can conceptualise and measure their local social mobility contribution. The framework consists of four key pillars, underpinned by the need for regional collaboration and long-term planning.

    1. Educational opportunities for local people

    Access to higher education varies starkly by region: 27% of disadvantaged pupils in London hold an undergraduate degree by age 22, compared to just 10% in the South West.

    Universities must work with local schools and colleges to raise attainment and create alternative entry pathways. They should be considering the extent to which they nurture and recruit talent locally, supporting pupils to progress and succeed. A place-based approach to widening participation, developed collaboratively with other regional providers, ensures local talent is not just nurtured but retained.

    Some existing initiatives show promise. Durham Inspired North East Scholarships, Middlesex’s guaranteed offer scheme for local applicants, and the Warwick Scholar’s program providing financial, academic and practical support to local disadvantaged pupils, all show how targeted programs can work at a local level. However, articulation agreements with local further education providers are underutilised in England, and inconsistent contextual admissions policies limit impact.  

    2. Good jobs for local people

    Universities are often the largest, or among the largest, employers in the local region. This is often cited to give the impression that they are ‘too big to fail’, particularly in the current financial context. But little has been done to look at the extent to which universities are providing good jobs to local people, and whether these are open to people from different socioeconomic backgrounds.

    Academic roles provide an opportunity for social mobility – for those who can secure one. For someone from a lower socioeconomic background to become a lecturer, for example, they have almost certainly experienced upwards occupational social mobility, if not also absolute (income) social mobility, too. Similarly, professional service roles are often well paid and secure, with a reasonable pension, and working within a university comes with a certain amount of cultural and social prestige, too.

    A university performing strongly in this area would be spearheading initiatives to support local people from disadvantaged backgrounds into some of these roles and supporting staff from lower socioeconomic backgrounds whilst they are there. Southampton’s staff social mobility network stands out here, specifically recognising and seeking to tackle barriers in recruitment, retention and career progress for those from working-class backgrounds.  

    3. Using research to address local needs

    Research within institutions should address local needs and tackle inequalities, with outputs shared with local communities. Local residents should have opportunities to be involved in research and should understand why research carried out in their region is valuable.

    There are excellent examples in this area, such as UWE Bristol’s ‘Engagement with Education‘ programme and London Metropolitan’s participatory knowledge exchange projects. But these remain examples of best – not yet standard – practice.

    4. Civic actors: Lead locally, collaborate regionally  

    As civic institutions, universities must be more deeply integrated within their localities. Despite growing attention to civic engagement, activity is often fragmented and lacking an overarching strategy. Participation in local skills planning is inconsistent, and incentives to foster collaboration across providers are weak.

    Great Manchester’s Civic Agreement is a great example of universities coming together with local leaders to work towards shared goals, recognising that collaboration is far more effective than competition, duplication, or silos. The South West Social Mobility Commission takes this a step further, bringing together all education providers (not just higher education), businesses, local leaders and third-sector organisations to promote better social mobility in the region.

    A call to action

    This framework is not a checklist, but a tool for reflection. We do not expect every institution to be a star performer in every pillar, but we do see value in measuring impact more holistically, across the full range of university activity.

    Universities should ask themselves:

    • Are we reaching local disadvantaged students?
    • Are we getting local people into good jobs, and are these jobs available to those from all social class backgrounds?
    • Is our research making a tangible difference to local challenges?
    • Are we truly embedded as civic leaders in our region?

    Only by addressing these questions can we begin to understand how – and when – the presence of a university does improve social mobility in its immediate communities. And only then can we ensure that local people no longer feel that they must leave in order to achieve.

    Source link

  • A new regulatory framework is more than Medr by numbers

    A new regulatory framework is more than Medr by numbers

    Medr, the new-ish regulator of tertiary education in Wales, is consulting on its new regulatory system (including conditions of registration and funding, and a quality framework).

    You have until 5pm 18 July 2025 to offer comments on any of the many ideas or potential requirements contained within – there’s also two consultation events to look forward to in early June.

    Regulatory approach

    As we are already aware from the strategy, Medr intends to be a principles-based regulator (learning, collaboration, inclusion, excellence) but this has been finessed into a regulatory philosophy that:

    integrates the strengths of both rules-based (compliance) and outcome-based regulation (continuous improvement)

    As such we also get (in Annex A) a set of regulatory principles that can support this best-of-both-worlds position. The new regulator commits to providing clear guidance and resources, transparent communication, minimising burden, the collaborative development of regulations and processes, regular engagement, proactive monitoring, legal and directive enforcement action, the promotion of best practice, innovation and “responsiveness”, and resilience.

    That’s what the sector gets, but this is a two way thing. In return Medr expects you to offer a commitment to compliance and integrity, to engage with the guidance, act in a transparent way (regarding self-reporting of issues – a “no alarms and no surprises” approach), practice proactive risk management and continuous improvement, collaborate with stakeholders, and respect the authority of Medr and its interventions.

    It’s all nicely aspirational, and (with half an eye on a similar regulator just over Offa’s Dyke) one appropriately based on communication and collaboration. Whatever Medr ends up being, it clearly does not want an antagonistic or suspicious relationship with the sector it regulates.

    Getting stuck in

    The majority of the rest of Annex A deals directly with when and where Medr will intervene. Are you even a regulator if you can’t step in to sort out non-compliance and other outbreaks of outright foolishness? Medr will have conditions of registration and conditions of funding, both of which have statutory scope for intervention – plus other powers to deal with providers it neither registers nor funds (“external providers”, which include those involved in franchise and partnership activities, and are not limited to those in Wales).

    Some of these powers are hangovers from the Higher Education (Wales) 2015 Act, which are already in force – the intention is that the remaining (Tertiary Education and Research Act 2022) powers will largely kick off from 1 August 2026, alongside the new conditions of funding. At this point the TERA 22 powers will supersede the relevant remaining HEW 2015 provision.

    The spurs to intervention are familiar from TERA. The decision to intervene will be primarily based on six factors: seriousness, persistence, provider actions, context, risk, and statutory duties – there’s no set weight accorded to any of them, and the regulator reserves the right to use others as required.

    A range of actions is open in the event of an infraction – ranging from low-level intervention (advice and assistance) to removal from the register and withdrawal of funding. In between these you may see enhanced monitoring, action plans, commissioned reports and other examples of what is euphemistically termed “engagement”. A decision to intervene will be communicated “clearly” to a provider, and Medr “may decide” to publish details of interventions – balancing the potential risks to the provider against the need to promote compliance.

    Specific ongoing registration conditions are also a thing – for registered providers only, obviously – and all of these will be published, as will any variation to conditions. The consultation document bristles with flowcharts and diagrams, setting out clearly the scope for review and appeal for each type of appeal.

    One novelty for those familiar with the English system is the ability of the regulator to refer compliance issues to Welsh Ministers – this specifically applies to governance issues or where a provider is performing “significantly less well than it might in all the circumstances be reasonably expected to perform, or is failing or likely to fail to give an acceptable standard of education or training”. That’s a masterpiece of drafting which offers a lot of scope for government intervention.

    Regulatory framework

    Where would a regulator be without a regulatory framework? Despite a lot of other important aspects in this collection of documents, the statement of conditions of registration in Annex B will likely attract the most attention.

    Financial sustainability is front and centre, with governance and management following close behind. These two also attract supplemental guidance on financial management, financial commitment thresholds, estates management, and charity regulation. Other conditions include quality and continuous improvement, regard to advice and guidance, information provided to prospective students, fee limits, notifications of changes, and charitable status – and there’s further supplemental guidance on reportable events.

    Medr intends to be a risk-based regulator too – and we get an overview of the kinds of monitoring activity that might be in place to support these determinations of risk. There will be an annual assurance return for registered providers, which essentially assures the regulator that the provider’s governing body has done its own assurance of compliance. The rest of the returns are listed as options, but we can feel confident in seeing a financial assurance return, and various data returns, as core – with various other documentation requested on a more adhoc basis.

    And – yes – there will be reportable events: serious incidents that must be reported within five working days, notifiable (less serious) stuff on a “regular basis”. There’s a table in annex B (table 1) but this is broad and non-exhaustive.

    There’s honestly not much in the conditions of registration that is surprising. It is notable that Medr will still need to be told about new financial commitments, either based on a threshold or while in “increased engagement”, and a need to report when it uses assets acquired using public funds as security on financial commitments (it’s comforting to know that exchequer interest is still a thing, in Wales at least).

    The quality and continuous improvement condition is admirably broad – covering the involvement of students in quality assurance processes, with their views taken into account (including a requirement for representation on governing bodies). Responsibility for quality is expected to go all the way up to board level, and the provider is expected to actively engage with external quality assurance. Add in continuous improvement and an expectation of professional development for all staff involved in supporting students and you have an impressively robust framework.

    We need also to discuss the meaning of “guidance” within the Medr expanded universe – providers need to be clear about how they have responded to regulatory guidance and justify any deviation. There’s a specific condition of registration just for that.

    Quality framework

    Annex C provides a quality framework, which underpins and expands on the condition of registration. Medr has a duty to monitor and promote improvement in the quality and standards of quality in tertiary education, and the option in TERA 2022 to publish a framework like this one. It covers the design and delivery of the curriculum, the quality of support offered to learners, arrangements to promote active learner engagement (there’s a learner engagement code out for consultation in the autumn), and the promotion of wellbeing and welfare among learners.

    For now, existing monitoring and engagement plans (Estyn and the QAA) will continue, although Medr has indicated to both that it would like to see methodologies and approaches move closer together across the full regulatory ambit. But:

    In due course we will need to determine whether or not we should formally designate a quality body to assess higher education. Work on this will be carried out to inform the next cycle of external quality assessments. We will also consider whether to adopt a common cycle length for the assessment of all tertiary education.

    There is clarity that the UK Quality Code applies to higher education in Wales, and that internal quality assurance processes need to align to the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance (ESG) – external quality assurance arrangements currently do, and will continue to, align with ESG as well.

    To follow

    Phase two of this series of consultations will come in October 2025 – followed by registrations opening in the spring of 2026 with the register launched in August of that year. As we’ve seen, bits of the conditions of registration kick in from 1 August 2027 – at which point everything pre-Medr fades into the storied history of Welsh tertiary education.

    Source link