Academic service

An interesting presentation today from a colleague about the work and ethos of the Students’ Union, which prompted a number of more general questions in my mind that might be applicable in the context of positioning and planning academic services in a higher education setting:

• what are you there for? what are you trying to do?
• how do you support/empower/enable students?
• how do you contribute to the University community?
• what are the ‘big issues’ for you/your institution right now and on the horizon?
• how do your constituencies/stakeholders influence your direction/purpose/service?
• how does your structure support delivery of your aims?
• how do you evaluate your impact? how do you benchmark yourself against similar structures and organisations?

Okay, so apologies for the jargon! I winced at least three times at the use of stakeholder and cringed at the empowering….feeling unclean now.

Not intersecting

I have established a new blog, Hinterland, where in future I will be posting – as the name suggests- about my interests outside work: films, art, books, shoes, ranting(!).

I will continue to update Intersecting Sets with posts where the primary focus is upon professional interests and Higher Education. The older posts on wider themes will still be available here, and have also been migrated across to Hinterland.

The bifurcation of content reflects a recognition that I blog for two rather different purposes (professional development and personal amusement) and, potentially, for two very different audiences (yes, people actually read some of this stuff!). I realised that although the starting point for Intersecting Sets was the personal intersection of a range of work, research and social interests, I am now more comfortable with posting to different ‘sets’ in separate places.

And another thing…

…just when I thought the whole audit shoe thing was going to be SO 2008, I get a new job in Newcastle and am about to start the whole process all over again.

Thankfully, I came across Mandarina shoes and am currently reduced to drooling over my keyboard:

Now I just need to choose between the Harris tweed and the tartan ones with the orange lining…

As everyone (well, everyone with a southern accent) keeps telling me, it will be cold up north, and so a nice warm pair of tweed shoes count as a sensible investment…

Stoke 1, Manchester City 0

My first trip to see Stoke play at home in the Premiership…and they won despite being down to ten men and despite the best efforts of a referee who seemed to be watching a different match.

You know you’re in Stoke when:
- the main advertising in the Britannia Stadium is for chlamydia testing;
- a live feed from SkyTV, inviting Stoke fans to show the viewers at home that they were the loudest fans in the Premiership met with a stony silence;
- chants were adapted during the match to taunt Manchester players and supporters – ‘We only needed ten men’ and the less tasteful ‘Rob-in-ho. She said no’.

Storming, and not a cappucino in sight!

What is a University?

A recent post on University Diary about Newman’s Idea of a University led me to reflect on what a university is – a question that relates to previous ponderings on how we project a more positive image of English higher education,  which pre-supposes that we have a clear idea of what we are here to do….

As University Diary argues The Idea of the University may not provide a ‘blueprint’ for a 21st century university, but I think that there are some interesting parallels in terms of the questions we can ask ourselves today:

•  Newman’s espousal of a liberal education was partially a contribution to contemporary debate about calls for university degrees to be more applied and provide a better preparation for professional life (in modern terms, think about the balance we are called upon to strike between general education of students to enquire and to think, and the more specialised demands of the employability agenda – what are we striving to provide in terms of a ’student experience’?);
• the mid-nineteenth century was also a time of debate about the emergence of new academic diciplines and specialisms, such as history and the sciences (today we have diversified beyond those academic disciplines into foundation degrees, work-based learning, applied degrees relating to particular professions and branches of work. What is appropriate subject matter for a degree? How does this higher academic education differ from vocational preparation?);
  -  Newman wrote in the middle of a period of reform and self-conscious professionalisation in English academic life, and amid debate on the roles of the university in research and in teaching (what is the balance between research and teaching? what are the primary roles of academics?);
  - finally, Newman wrote about the role of religion in an academic community (At first glance, this may seem to be less relevant to the 21st century, but in the year of the Darwin bicentenary and seeing that the debate with creationists is far from over in some quarters, there are still relevant questions to be asked about the nature of free academic enquiry and the values that underpin an academic community).

There is no one answer to each of these questions – the debate was robust enough in Newman’s day – just think of the variety of answers that can emerge from a considerably larger and more diverse sector today – but it would be a fitting tribute to the spirit of Newman and Darwin to at least attempt to ask ourselves the questions.

Postscript: for a different take on this type of question , see also David Watson’s recent QAA briefing paper on ‘Who owns the university?’

It’s good to talk…

…or rather to communicate.

The challenges of good internal communication and how to secure engagement within a community were among my learning points from a recent major project. With that in mind, I noted with interest the following:

• HEFCE-funded project on internal communications in Higher Education, Helix;
• the Cabinet Office Employee Engagement Kit (thanks to Casey for her post on this).

With these in mind, I also found food for thought in a presentation from the Head of Web Services at a recent team meeting. She talked through the approach she and her team were taking to the provision of web services across the University:

• the identification of core values for her team, e.g. aspiring to be seen as expert, professional, forward-looking;
• the identification of core institutional themes to which all projects were aligned and all activity directed/focused, e.g. improving recruitment, growing reputation, exposing research, enhancing (student) experience;
• positioning – knowing how her service fits (working with staff and working for students);
• being able to express what these values, direction and themes mean for key audiences and stakeholders, and managing expectations accordingly.

Hamlet, Novello Theatre, London

I managed to forget to blog about this before Christmas – all the excitement of an Institutional Audit….

The picture is, of course, a little misleading – I got to see Hamlet but not with David Tennant. I mention this because as good as his understudy, Edward Bennett, undoubtedly was, I find it impossible to review his performance on its own terms. Bennett really did give an excellent performance but not memorable in its own right – there were gaps where the almost maniacal and mesmerising edge that Tennant can bring to a performance would have fitted.

It wasn’t a one-man show – Oliver Ford Davies as Polonius was beautiful, touching and funny. Patrick Stewart was magnificant (it being entirely understandable that an otherwise drippy and forgettable Ophelia should try to rip his clothes off at one point…:-) )

The set design was stunning with mirrored surfaces on the floor and backdrop. This was put to use from the very first scene, with the actors bouncing beams of light off the floor to illuminate each other’s faces in an eery opening scene. As the audience looked at its own reflection, the set became the embodiment of Shakespeare’s injunction to ‘hold the mirror up to nature’.

A problem defined is a problem solved…?

In a roundabout way I came across a post on using problem definition techniques to support effective problem-solving. I’m usually a little suspicious of some of the management and personal development material that is floating around, but when I thought through some of the following ideas in the context of recent projects, some of these made a degree of sense…and some would probably engage me in endless procrastination!

• rephrase the problem in order to change your perception
• expose and challenge assumptions by making them explicit and scrutinising them
• chunk up (this sounds unpleasant!) – play with ‘altitudes’ -  (loving the jargon!) – ask  ”what is this an example of?”, “what’s the intention behind this?”, “what’s this part of?”
• chunk down (I’m really starting to get flashbacks of misspent nights out) – ask “what are the parts of this problem?”, “what are the examples of it?”
• look at it from multiple perspectives
• use effective language constructs (assume a myriad of solutions, e.g.  ”In what ways might I…?, make it positive, frame the problem in the form of a question “In what ways (action)(object)(qualifier)(end result)?
• make it engaging
• reverse the problem e.g. if you want to win, what would make ou lose?
• gather facts
• …erm, actually get on with solving it…..?

Be careful who you get into bed with….

…to quote an academic colleague on quality management of collaborative provision (his hanging preposition, not mine!).

I attended a really engaging presentation from Kathleen Kwan of Mills and Reeve to the Quality Practitioners Group of the Academic Registrars Council on due diligence for collaborative provision in higher education with some useful general principles and some helpful items to consider:

• recognise that collaboration takes time – a relationship and trust needs time to grow (like dating!);
• trust is expensive- work things out for all eventualities while you are on good terms at the start rather than trying to deal with them when the relationship breaks down (think pre-nup!);
• don’t rest a collaboration on one person, make sure it is multi-layered or multi-stranded.

Reputation

• get references and read between the lines. Do informal follow-up to probe further;
• don’t take the claims at face value (they may say they own the land for the proposed new campus – ask to see evidence);
• ask an existing or past partner ‘knowing what you know now, would you do it again?’;
• check to see if the partner is the subject of adverse press or litigation (this can be as simple as googling them);
• is the professional accreditation of the proposed partner current or pending? Is there a difference between being accredited or a member of an accrediting body?;
• spot check information being provided to students to to check on use of institutional name and logo.

Costing/resources

• small things add up. Cost out the running costs, e.g. annual visits;
• recognise that a new partnership will not earn its keep in the first year;
• know the local restrictions e.g. on transfer of money outside a country;
• find out if the other party has the resources to deal with a termination of agreement.

Due diligence varies in each case:

• learn about the country (politics, economic climate, culture, impact of local laws on tax works and data protection, look at the national systems of QA, know what government approvals and permits are required e.g. permission to operate in India);
• look at partners’ objectives and how they align with your own institution;
• know the organisation – their understanding of quality, their strengths and weaknesses, sources of funding and how secure/conditional it is, ask for their strategy for developing staff;
• small student numbers does not reduce the need for due diligence;
• tailor questions to find out what the risks are and identify how they will be managed – be specific and focused.

Managing risk

•  ask yourself what the foreseeable risks are and what can be done in response, e.g. when sending students abroad as part of a programme, there is an assumption of a different duty of care because they are going outside the environment they might have anticipated when registering. Much of the institution’s obligation can be discharged through giving clear advance information to students to enable them to make informed choices about the environment into which they are entering.

Case study worth noting: Warwick have a single form for covering all the aspects of a collaborative provision proposal. One key question that they ask of potential overseas partners is ‘Do they have the legal capacity to engage with us in the way that they wish to?’ (e.g. Greece – no joint degrees permitted). They also have experience of setting variable validation fees to cover the particular level of support an individual partner might require; of lighter touch variants for collaboration on a module or for an award of another University; and of dealing with partners who are also clients.

Quality assurance: current events and future developments

Some bullet points from a  presentation by Peter Williams, head of the QAA, to the meeting of the Quality Practitioners Group of the Academic Registrar’s Council, December 2008:

In light of recent/current political media debates, the questions he encouraged HE institutions to be considering:

• is there really only one degree standard for UK higher education?
• is degree classification working? How are we recording student achievement?
• what is the impact is the reliance on international student recruitment having on teaching and learning?
• are students being short-changed by not having enough contact hours? (On this he advised that the debate really needed to be re-directed towards a more meaningful consideration of learning hours rather than contact hours)

He pointed to the work that was being done at national level:

• the reinforcement of the QAA’s causes for concern process;
• the investigation of some of the highlighted themes (e.g. assessment, plagiarism, admissions, external examiners) to test out how far the anecdotal concerns that were being expressed were well-founded in practice;
• HEFCE sub-group to examine the way in which it was discharging its statutory responsibilities on quality of higher education;
• joint activity with UUK and GuildHE to provide a route for identify patterns emerging from audits across the sector and relay information about those within the sector in order to prompt action.

Key factors for the future:

• with standards high on the government agenda, the QAA was under pressure to concentrate upon standards and accountability and to be careful in its approach to enhancement;
• changes on the horizon: some related to key national personnel (e.g. Heads of UUK and QAA), some related to planned review (e.g. Institutional Audit methodology) and some related to the debate on the independence of the QAA;
• the implications of increasing UK activity overseas upon quality management – with the expectation from some overseas governments and some politicians of far greater regulation of UK HE activity overseas, such as certification or accreditation.

Interesting times.