Fascinating stuff and extremely useful personally - I’ve been asked to talk for a bit about the future of HE at a meeting of my school’s professoriate on Tuesday, specifically in terms of what the professoriate should do at this time. As you know, I think the Humboldtian model is unsustainable, even within the Russell Group, and the White Paper and the above make clear the need for change in various respects. But another important dimension, in my view, has to do with public profile and increasing public confidence in academics. It’s not enough to be writing esoteric journal articles to be read by a handful of people, especially in parts of the arts, humanities and social sciences where only a few will have a long-term effect on the discipline and wider policy and public life. Academics with broader expertise, on which they can draw to talk on subjects beyond their own very specialised expertise, need to become respected authorities who are regularly consulted on a range of things.
I think universities have a key role in cultural leadership and forming the broader discourse. We need to be more attentive to this role and be part of elevating it.
This is a very helpful summary of the direction of travel for the current government. The speed at which it may be achieved, however, may depend on the resources made available. What sorts of incentives (or penalties) might become available to insitutions under this new regime and how do these compare to the costs of change? Will the government continue see regulation as a change mechanism or it prepared to invest in capacity building pilots to demonstrate possibilities? The risk (based on past experiences) is that there will be too little carrot and, as a result, too much reliance on the stick.
A resounding wake-up call. If universities are listening. Some may. The first point : (1) ‘Clarify your institutional proposition’ is clearly imperative for any business wishing to survive. Doing this could also then subsume (or render not relevant) some of the subsequent points. (E.g. a university strategically focussed on teaching and perhaps some applied research does not have to worry overmuch about UKRI.)
I would wholeheartedly agree that new thinking around (3) ‘ Align with national economic priorities’ is long overdue. Indeed, more imaginative and intelligent thinking around the role of universities in the economy and how to clearly explain that role is much needed. All very well for lofty pronouncements about ‘global economic challenges’; but nice words, parsnips, etc. Universities have a very real role in, and impact on, the economy, particularly at local and regional level. But the sector as a whole appears to have lost the ability to articulate that role in convincing terms. There is a pressing need for a more coherent narrative to be presented. This has to be rooted in hard evidence and rigorous economic analysis to have any chance of winning over those sceptics who may be well-wearied by PR puff.
Point (9) ‘Embed more deeply in local labour markets’ is linked to (3) . Although I would go further to say ‘ embed more deeply in the local community’. If universities really want to be recognised by the ‘public-at-large’ as generators of value ( and having the public-at-large on their side is very important if they want to bring the politicians on board…), they need to be considerably more visible as part of, and visibly engaged with, their host community. That includes seeking to bring their particular university expertise – where it is applicable- to bear on local challenges, be they educational, cultural or labour-market related.
Not so sure about (10) going anywhere. ‘ Scale up Innovation and Commercialisation’. To be honest that’s a hoary old chestnut that has been trotted out in policy paper after policy paper for decades, even pre-dating Dearing ( and Dearing chewed the cud over it as well. ) It has been much debated over the years, including whether or not universities are really the best place for the ‘commercialisation’ bit i.e few universities are cut out for it or really any good at it. Perhaps the fact that they are non-profit making institutions has something to do with it. (i.e the embedded institutional culture is inevitably risk-averse .) And with spin outs particularly there are big questions of absorptive capacity in the surrounding regional economies which pose viability challenges for that route.
I would leave (4) ’ Prepare for continued financial restraint’ without comment as without political or sectoral will to completely and very radically overhaul the financing of the HE system ( including potentially cutting universities free of government altogether) , that is a given.
But in any event your last sentences are absolutely spot-on : “ The institutions that respond early, and with clarity, can shape the next phase of the system. The rest will find the landscape reshaped around them.”. It will be interesting to observe who does the shaping …
This is a very interesting and thoughtful response, thank you so much. I very much agree that associating strategy with evidence and rigorous analysis - particularly of the operating context will be key. I think it is a shortcoming in much HE strategy. On your objection to (10) we would need to discuss. I think universities could be important hubs for commercialisation but accept that this will need new structures and approaches. If universities are more embedded in their local industrial and skills ecosystem I am less worried about absorptive capacity. In any event the White Paper (and the '3 buckets' funding model) place an imperative on us to make an attempt!
Related to your final point about taking the initiative in proactively shaping... just this morning reading extracts from the history of the University of East London ( 'Degrees East' Burgess et al 1995) and this seemed like an apt quote: " Public policy is not weather, requiring only an umbrella-like response: it responds itself to what people and institutions do."
Wow, the part about institutions needing to specialise really grabbed my attention. Such a brilliant roadmap! I just wonder how this drive for specialisation might balance with ensuring equitable access for al students. It's a fascinating challange to consider.
Fascinating stuff and extremely useful personally - I’ve been asked to talk for a bit about the future of HE at a meeting of my school’s professoriate on Tuesday, specifically in terms of what the professoriate should do at this time. As you know, I think the Humboldtian model is unsustainable, even within the Russell Group, and the White Paper and the above make clear the need for change in various respects. But another important dimension, in my view, has to do with public profile and increasing public confidence in academics. It’s not enough to be writing esoteric journal articles to be read by a handful of people, especially in parts of the arts, humanities and social sciences where only a few will have a long-term effect on the discipline and wider policy and public life. Academics with broader expertise, on which they can draw to talk on subjects beyond their own very specialised expertise, need to become respected authorities who are regularly consulted on a range of things.
I think universities have a key role in cultural leadership and forming the broader discourse. We need to be more attentive to this role and be part of elevating it.
This is a very helpful summary of the direction of travel for the current government. The speed at which it may be achieved, however, may depend on the resources made available. What sorts of incentives (or penalties) might become available to insitutions under this new regime and how do these compare to the costs of change? Will the government continue see regulation as a change mechanism or it prepared to invest in capacity building pilots to demonstrate possibilities? The risk (based on past experiences) is that there will be too little carrot and, as a result, too much reliance on the stick.
Yes, with regret, I suspect we will need to do this without additional resources. I certainly agree on the limits of regulation hence https://profserious.substack.com/p/something-must-be-done !
A resounding wake-up call. If universities are listening. Some may. The first point : (1) ‘Clarify your institutional proposition’ is clearly imperative for any business wishing to survive. Doing this could also then subsume (or render not relevant) some of the subsequent points. (E.g. a university strategically focussed on teaching and perhaps some applied research does not have to worry overmuch about UKRI.)
I would wholeheartedly agree that new thinking around (3) ‘ Align with national economic priorities’ is long overdue. Indeed, more imaginative and intelligent thinking around the role of universities in the economy and how to clearly explain that role is much needed. All very well for lofty pronouncements about ‘global economic challenges’; but nice words, parsnips, etc. Universities have a very real role in, and impact on, the economy, particularly at local and regional level. But the sector as a whole appears to have lost the ability to articulate that role in convincing terms. There is a pressing need for a more coherent narrative to be presented. This has to be rooted in hard evidence and rigorous economic analysis to have any chance of winning over those sceptics who may be well-wearied by PR puff.
Point (9) ‘Embed more deeply in local labour markets’ is linked to (3) . Although I would go further to say ‘ embed more deeply in the local community’. If universities really want to be recognised by the ‘public-at-large’ as generators of value ( and having the public-at-large on their side is very important if they want to bring the politicians on board…), they need to be considerably more visible as part of, and visibly engaged with, their host community. That includes seeking to bring their particular university expertise – where it is applicable- to bear on local challenges, be they educational, cultural or labour-market related.
Not so sure about (10) going anywhere. ‘ Scale up Innovation and Commercialisation’. To be honest that’s a hoary old chestnut that has been trotted out in policy paper after policy paper for decades, even pre-dating Dearing ( and Dearing chewed the cud over it as well. ) It has been much debated over the years, including whether or not universities are really the best place for the ‘commercialisation’ bit i.e few universities are cut out for it or really any good at it. Perhaps the fact that they are non-profit making institutions has something to do with it. (i.e the embedded institutional culture is inevitably risk-averse .) And with spin outs particularly there are big questions of absorptive capacity in the surrounding regional economies which pose viability challenges for that route.
I would leave (4) ’ Prepare for continued financial restraint’ without comment as without political or sectoral will to completely and very radically overhaul the financing of the HE system ( including potentially cutting universities free of government altogether) , that is a given.
But in any event your last sentences are absolutely spot-on : “ The institutions that respond early, and with clarity, can shape the next phase of the system. The rest will find the landscape reshaped around them.”. It will be interesting to observe who does the shaping …
This is a very interesting and thoughtful response, thank you so much. I very much agree that associating strategy with evidence and rigorous analysis - particularly of the operating context will be key. I think it is a shortcoming in much HE strategy. On your objection to (10) we would need to discuss. I think universities could be important hubs for commercialisation but accept that this will need new structures and approaches. If universities are more embedded in their local industrial and skills ecosystem I am less worried about absorptive capacity. In any event the White Paper (and the '3 buckets' funding model) place an imperative on us to make an attempt!
Related to your final point about taking the initiative in proactively shaping... just this morning reading extracts from the history of the University of East London ( 'Degrees East' Burgess et al 1995) and this seemed like an apt quote: " Public policy is not weather, requiring only an umbrella-like response: it responds itself to what people and institutions do."
Wow, the part about institutions needing to specialise really grabbed my attention. Such a brilliant roadmap! I just wonder how this drive for specialisation might balance with ensuring equitable access for al students. It's a fascinating challange to consider.