The Spending Review

A 'rolling post' on the Spending Review - for the first posts please scroll to the bottom. 

1421  So the analysis now starts as people try to find a little (or any) detail in the numbers just announced.
I am waiting for statements from the various University boards to get more of the detail for HE but my initial feeling is that it is bad maybe not as bad as predicted but that will only be clear in a few months. The teaching budget is down, the research budget is down a little less than feared. That said there is going to have to be some pinching across the sector and research capacity will be reduced. There does seem to be a focus on science rather than the wider subjects available and this may be particularly damaging to the Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities.
More broadly, an interesting review for the politics thrown up. The body language was interesting. Clegg looked uncomfortable - perhaps thinking of how to sell this to his parliamentary and grass routes people. The PM and the Chancellor looked a little more comfortable but the thrust of their argument was 'this is because of what we were left by the last government.' Not completely true as they have always discussed a smaller state (and this is a good opportunity to implement that) but are also wary that this could damage them in the polls too. The shadow chancellor tried to pin this on ideology but faltered - perhaps due to lack of confidence in his brief and perhaps due to a lack of policy. And the Leader of the Opposition did not look happy with his shadow chancellor's performance and wonders if there is a start of another Leader/Chancellor divide in the labour party.
The chips are down and shortly various commentators and the markets will have their verdict. It may be years though before anyone tell if the gamble was worth it.
1400 Twitter @ cjgrinbergs RT@Queen_UK Have put "new Royal Yacht" on the agenda for this afternoon's audience with the PM, just to see the look on his face.
1359 Twitter @ cjgrinbergs Good article on research funding from BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11579949 Not great but maybe better than feared.

1357 Twitter @ cjgrinbergs BBC analysis says freezing science budget with no inflation actually means cut of 10% to research.

1354 Twitter @ cjgrinbergs Assoc of University Research & Industry Links says HE need to shout more & have impact. True but not popular with academics

1349 Twitter @ cjgrinbergs Leader of the Opposition looks unhappy - wonder if he wants to take the stand instead? #csr

1343 Twitter @ cjgrinbergs From Friend via text: "You watching #csr? Clegg's body language is rather special! Fascinating stuff!" Couldn't agree more

1340 Twitter @ cjgrinbergs Not a great performance by the Shadow Chancellor - tad stilted, all politics no economics. #csr

1333 Twitter @ cjgrinbergs RT@AURIL_Office well the devil will be in the research budget detail - so we wont know what until January I think

1321 Twitter @ cjgrinbergs RT@Cardiff_Blogger Benny Women's retirement age should be equal to men. Equality works both ways. #csr

1319 Twitter @ cjgrinbergs RT@AURIL_Office PROTECTING SCIENCE BUDGET AT 4.6 BILL A YEAR

1307 Twitter @ cjgrinbergs RT@AURIL_Office Ha MP's Pensions might get a hammering - cant see too many dry eyes

1305 Twitter @ cjgrinbergs Good to know MPs pensions are affected like the rest of the populations. #csr


1257 Twitter @ cjgrinbergs @journotutor Good to know they have to practice like we had too!

1256 Twitter @ cjgrinbergs RT @journotutor Sounds like rehearsalsRT @Generic_Jammin: "Can somebody get Paul in here" What's up with the live feed on BBC website! We can hear you lady!

1256 Twitter @ cjgrinbergs BBC having issue with feed - very good sound of practicing for the 1pm ... rather than the chancellor #bbs #fail

1254 Twitter @ cjgrinbergs RT @BBCBreaking Chancellor George Osborne says budgets of every main UK government department to be cut by a third

1252 Twitter @ cjgrinbergs @AnthonyMaxwell That's what we fear ...

1251 Twitter @ cjgrinbergs @AnthonyMaxwell But not clear what the science budget will go to now - rumours it may have to cover more things.

1247 Twitter @ cjgrinbergs RT @ AURIL_Office those who earn the most should pay the most? MMMM

 1244 Lots of numbers on how the budget will be reduced and attacks of the opportunity.  Less detail on what is actually to be cut ... yet. 

1236 Twitter @ cjgrinbergs  PMQs: Science budget not to be cut - any idea what this means for universities #pmqs #csr

1231 Chancellor on his feet - what will the answers be - though I doubt we will have any real answers even when he sits down again. 

1227 Spending review to start in a few moments though many of the announcements seem to have been made in advance and in PMQs.  There have been announcements on defence, security, benefits, housing, education and a new Green Bank.  In my own field of Higher Education, predictions of £3.2 billion from the teaching budget and £1 billion from the research budget.  That said, in PMQs, it was announced that there will be no cuts in the science budget but what this means is a little clear.

Using the Comprehensive Spending Review to Assess Higher Education's Priorities

There's been a lot in the news about universities and their funding over the last few days.

From the results of the Browne Review and the subsequent increases in student fees to the predictions of £4.2 billion cuts (three quarters of which come from the teaching budget) ahead of the full announcement on Wednesday, much of the focus has been on teaching.

Which brings me back to my old problem with higher education: what do we want it to do and for whom? And that's a question the politicians, the academics, the university administrators, business, students and the wider population should be asking. Much of what has been discussed thus far has focussed on the teaching aspects - and particularly the teaching of those leaving school at 18. Universities have a far broader output - research, knowledge transfer into business/industry or cultural impact on the worlds around them. Yet, when examining the media output, the 'additional' areas are overlooked and their contribution to world-class teaching is not to be underestimated. To have good teachers, you need them to be at the front of their discipline.

There are concerns in the academic world that disciplines that are not obviously having an economic impact (the arts and humanities in particular) will be cut ahead of the sciences and technology areas which are deemed to bring in more money. Now these arguments are well rehearsed but worth remembering: research may not have an obvious or an immediate impact but that is not to say it is worthless.

So what do we want our institutions to do? Some may become teaching only with only a select few carrying out research. Some may want our student population to shrink and in its place a more vocational option for tertiary education developed. In all likelihood we will see a reduction in the number of institutions (with mergers etc.), in the number of students (fees will put off a few) and a rationalising of the subjects available (institutions focussing on a few areas, rather than all subjects).

On Wednesday we will get the broad headlines of how the Comprehensive Spending Review will be making cuts but it may take us some time to find out specifically which budgets are being cut and over what time. Over recent years there have been a number of reports on aspects of Higher Education (from Student Funding to Skills, Business Engagement to Research). All of these have been important and have built on the expansion of the Robbins Report in the 1960s. But few have taken the broader look, simply due to the size and complexity of the sector. Perhaps it is time for that to change and to capitalise on the cuts as a moment to fundamentally examine the sector.

There are not many academics who are interested in researching their own sector (though I hope to add to the number who actually are). But perhaps it would be a good time to use that intellectual capacity to fundamentally discuss the future of Higher Education system whether that be in terms of teaching, research or all the other activities currently undertaken.

Challenges in Global Education

A friend of mine has recently written a short piece for a course in reply to the question “Describe what you think are the main challenges for your institution in terms of competitiveness in and relevance to global education.” She focussed on the cuts to UK education and the need to correctly define & target a market. Though I agreed with the second point, the former I saw as a bit of a red herring as though the cut of 35% to universities’ funding will affect research budgets and slightly UK student numbers rather than international education.  This got me thinking: what would my reply be within the 500 world limit set. So here goes:

Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) have been engaging for years in ‘global education; this is here understood here as the involvement of those from outside the UK in a UK HEI’s education remit. This can take several forms including:
- Mobility of students INTO the UK
- Delivery of Education OUTSIDE the UK by a UK HEI
- Collaborative Education, delivered jointly by UK and international partners
Traditionally, UK universities have a single office mainly focussing on the first of these. Increasingly, ‘international’ is seen as forming part of curriculum, the mobility of students and the exchange of research by academics, all of which is delivered by multiple departments right across an institution. Perhaps, to be truly ‘global’ educators there is a need to focus on the processes behind this (and the process of globalisation) and therefore focus on the off-shore and collaborative education (points 2 and 3 above).

Institutions are challenged currently by their very understanding of ‘global education’; many have international policies which are often bureaucratic statements of utopic aspiration or false reviews of activity and do not really understand the situation. Part of the challenge facing a University is engaging and educating staff in this broader sense of ‘international’; at a time when staff are squeezed, there will be fewer staff to cover ‘core’ teaching and learning activity and not the broader set of activities needed to deliver a truly global education. Institutions need to be careful in defining a market which makes them stand out and the current practice of institutions delivering nearly all subjects should not continue: specialist and unique should become more important.

I see three medium-term threats to global education:
- Economic: With less funds available, will students have the money to travel or governments to support them (take the cancelling of Chevening Scholarships and various British Council streams).
- Security (terrorism will remain a risk and increased border security will make it harder for physical mobility to take place).
- Environmental (probably the longest issue but increases in air fares and fuel insecurities will threaten travel).
To combat this, HEIs need to plan that in the long term physical mobility may be limited or impossible and should invest in technology & remote provision in anticipation. What is key is that this will take imagination and creativity as well as an understanding that there will be failures. The main challenge for institutions with regard to global education may be learning to take a risk.

410 rather broad words but in a time when spending reviews are about to be announced, a new way needs to be found into Higher education.

Listening to Administrators about the Future of Universities

At a recent team meeting, my head of department pointed out that the University of Westminster was unusual in that the ratio of academics to administrators fell in the academic’s favour.

Now I can hear academics everywhere starting to spin at the suggestion that they do not universally dominate the staff at Higher Education Institutions. There would be multiple reasons for this not least that they are the intellectual capital in terms of research and teaching. And in many ways it surprised me in that I have always believed that we cannot deliver projects as that is the role of the academic.

However, perhaps I am being a little unduly subservient. The reason that there are often more administrators is partially down to the changing roll of academics: as Bruce Macfarlane points out much of the soft skills (‘careers advice’, ‘study skills’, ‘counselling’ etc.) is being heavily supported by non-academic staff. Also, much of the mark processing, research administration and financial work which used to be primarily focussed on the academic now needs to be supported. Also, society more widely has become more bureaucratic and to ensure legal compliance, Quality/Standards Assurance, Human Resources and Finance Departments have needed to expand. However, not least of this is that we are asking academics to do more as new areas within the university have also grown up, not least my own of research/enterprise/knowledge transfer/business development which requires specialist support. All of this requires detailed knowledge and understanding of universities, how they work and knowledge across a whole host of different disciplines which an individual academic or administrator cannot hold.

And yet, both professionally when discussing projects (‘you can’t understand you’re not an academic’) and academically (‘you struggle to move between your professional and academic lives’), I have been criticised for seeing the world through an administrator’s eyes. Whilst I would agree that I have to be careful in how I see the world, not allowing me to see it and analyse it as an administrator is almost impossible. Just, as I argued at a recent seminar, as it is impossible to ask a Muslim student not to see the world, universities and research through the paradigm of their faith so it is impossible to see the world through anything but the paradigm of an administrator. Humans cannot easily compartmentalise like that. By condemning the administrative aspect of my work, people are limiting the world I can analyse and participate in by reducing and condemning the field within which I operate.
Not only is not possible, it may not be desirable. One of the best academics I know founded the academic enterprise department at Roehampton and has gone on to internationalise Fontys OSO whilst not sacrificing her academic values or quality. By limiting the perspectives with which the world is analysed we risk cutting out cross-sector work and really seeing how Higher Education could work. At a time of budget cuts perhaps all visions are needed rather than one particular type of vision. I have been lucky to be listened to but perhaps this antagonism between academic and non-academic needs to move forward: both sides need to learn.
So, as part of my research I need to find a paradigm that allows for individual perspectives and views of the world, that allows and acknowledges me as a researcher and administrator. In my last blog I mentioned Newman’s ‘Idea of a University’ and he said in this work:

“Nothing is more common than for men to think that because they are familiar with words they understand the ideas they stand for.” (Newman)

Perhaps with some re-thinking I can show that academics alone are not the right people to decide what words stand for.

The Idea of a University

As you will know, I have written about some academics looking at the universities of the past with rose tinted glasses and looking to create a golden past that doesn’t really exist. Thus, when I learnt of Roehampton’s conference on ‘The Idea of a University’ (John Henry Newman’s work on academia) I was intrigued as to what they would present and what vision would come forward.

Now, sadly, I was unable to attend despite a number of the papers sounding interesting. In a blog about the event (which includes a variety of discussions on Catholic-related issues), there is an engaging summary. The conference seems to have discussed the changing face of the university and the challenges to it in the face of ‘globalisation, commodification and bureaucratisation’. Yet, as they point out on the blog, the man who inspired the conference (Newman) did himself not hold sufficient ‘financial or administrative acumen’ (dare one suggest ‘bureaucratic’ traits) to be a University Rector. However, one can easily see the thrust of the argument: that the number of forms, checks and balances in existence can distract from the true job of researching & educating; that defining academic importance on financial income (either to the university or society) can mean the loss of certain disciplines & contributions to civilisation.
This ties into a recent seminar I attended at the University of Westminster where 2 sociologists had analysed their changing student body. Though a little thin on actual data or analysis from the interviews, there did seem to be a feeling that things were better ‘in their day’. They quoted Churchman & King (who I must look up) as saying that there is a difference between what the public and what the academic perceive as their role (the public do not see academics as teachers rather as researchers). They went on to challenge the fact that the public sector is expected to learn from the private and, indeed stated that, central control is “not what the public that requires this at all”
I mentioned both Ken Robinson (who argues that our education system is designed to create professors and not educate the mainstream) and Bruce Macfarlane (who argues some administration is part of ‘academic citizenship’ and should not be shunned). Just as with the ‘Idea of a University Conference’, I felt that academics sometimes we feel comfortable in the idealised university of yesteryear or the utopic vision of the university of tomorrow. We are educating far more students than a generation ago (about five times as many) and institutions which were originally about teaching a few to be researchers, lawyers or clergymen, are now teaching thousands in a whole variety of careers. Universities, once institutions of academe, have been forced to take on the ‘teaching and learning’ agenda and skills have taken over knowledge.

My argument would be, far from being a bad thing, this realignment could be positive. Now I am sure the academics would say that they are not defending the past and that their view of how academia should be is for the sake of the sector rather than anything else. But, if done correctly, this shift can bring knowledge and skills to a new population. The skills gained need to be in today’s context rather than yesterdays (else institutions would only teach law, the humanities and theology as they did in the middle ages).

All this has left me wondering if a pro-modern university argument/thesis exists. When I was at the AURIL event chaired by my line manager, I was impressed by the innovative activities out there but the majority of the speakers were non-academics. Most of the academic papers produced in this area adopt a stance which questions (if not down-right condemns) certain aspects of the modern university with few suggestions on how things could be changed or what alternative courses could be taken.

You see, there are common themes I feel between these ‘Ideas of a University’; at the conference it is reported that Mike Castelli spoke on “The Idea of faith Dialogue in the University” and highlighted four pedagogical qualities for such dialogue:

- Seriousness with regard to meaning making
- Humility in our approach to dialogue and learning
- Hesitation which arises from the realization that our knowledge is partial and contingent
- Articulation in being literate and able to communicate well about our subject and ideas

The blog goes on to point out that these work for all academic disciplines and the more one things about it is true. What I would like to do is prove that these are not damaged by current trends in academia. Indeed, that these ‘skills’ and ‘attitudes to knowledge’ still prevail in academia and that the modern university brings them to a wider cross-section of society.
Now I am not well versed (yet) in the discussions around the university but I would like to see if a justified, logical and convincing argument can be made in favour of the modern, business linked, student focussed university with its insensitivities and bureaucracy. Does a pro-neo-liberal history need to be written? Do 21st century and not 18th century values need to be used to define the modern ‘Idea of a University’?