Universities – it’s about asking the hard questions
I am speaking on Wednesday about innovation in higher education. I thought I might lay out my speech outline today to see if I can grab some useful feedback from readers ahead of the event.
On one level it is odd to imply there is an issue with innovation in HE. Universities are by their nature hotbeds of new thinking. Whether it is UCL opening a new campus in East London, Newcastle’s work on becoming a truly civic institution or Northampton’s decision (working with the RSA) to become ‘a leader in social innovation’, every university can point not only to their best teaching and research but also to significant changes in the ways they work. Furthermore, while the requirement under the Research Assessment Exercise that departments show ‘impact’ from their work has been roundly criticised in some academic circles, my impression is that it is opening up new debates and helping those who have always argued for faculty to engage more fully with the world outside academe.
And yet, while this is to be welcomed, it is also arguably the case that most HE innovation is both incremental and largely constrained by the core assumptions and business models of the sector. Truly ‘social innovation’ involves more fundamental questioning, indeed the starting point for this kind of step change is recognition that key aspects of the current system are increasingly problematic.
I plan to suggest four big challenges which could form the starting point for a more radical process of questioning and – subsequently – innovation. In summary these are:
The essence of the student offer: as Stefan Collini has pointed out, there is fundamental tension between the idea of students as learners (which implies they defer to teachers) and students as customers (which implies their preferences are sovereign). Also, some aspects of the student offer may become less powerful (eg course content in a world of free on-line access to some of the best courses in the world) while others become more important (most obviously, the securing of employment). In the US rising fees in the best universities have been accompanied by escalating investment in things like sports, catering and recreation facilities – is that how we want the taxpayers’ subsidy to fees being channelled in England?
The relationship between universities and their localities: reading a presentation by Newcastle’s John Goddard – one of our leading advocates for the civic university – I came across this quotation from Gerard Delanty ‘The great significance of the university is that it can be the most important site of connectivity in the knowledge society…and…a key institution for the formation of cultural and technological citizenship…and…for reviving the decline of the public sphere’. Yet, generally only a fraction of the capacity that universities could bring to the places they inhabit is explicitly tapped.
The nature of universities: according to John Goddard’s research, local public agencies (like councils) often find the authority structure of universities opaque and diffuse; this is a barrier to collaboration. While the relative autonomy of faculty from the university administration is a virtue, and the tendency of academics to view the hierarchy of their discipline as more important than the hierarchy of university leadership is inevitable, it still leaves the problem for universities of how – as institutions – to mobilise to meet shared challenges and pursue overarching objectives.
The core business model: HE is expensive and like all labour intensive industries its costs comparative to the rest of the economy are continuing to rise. Part of this lies in the complex nature of a university combining the characteristics of a knowledge business (research), a large scale service provider (undergraduate teaching), and a wider public purpose in relation to human development and social capacity. With, among other things, a competitive market, the constant demands for greater efficiency and the growth of international private teaching universities using sophisticated distance learning methods, universities may increasingly need to question their core business model.
Any views on whether these are the right issues to provoke a deeper, broader approach to innovation are most welcome.
Spinners and bangers
‘Sell the sizzle not the sausage’ goes the old advertising phrase. Political strategists too have been creative in exploring the stretchable space between substance and message. As a former member of the New Labour junta I am hardly in a position to complain, but the Coalition publicity machine does seem to have gone into a super-fast spin cycle since the New Year.
There is a good example this morning. Normally in Government when ministers are told there might be a problem they will ask their officials to check the facts closely before admitting anything publicly. It is interesting to see the logic reversed as it has been this morning by Chris Grayling, the employment minister, and Damian Green, the immigration minister. Writing in the Daily Telegraph the ministers give the clear impression that there is a major problem with migrants illegitimately claiming benefits. The ministers’ article gets a predictable front page splash with the implication that this problem of benefit abuse involves 370,000 people.
But as a searching interview of Chris Grayling by John Humphries revealed on the Today Programme, the evidence of actual wrongdoing is much, much smaller. Indeed of the 370,000 only 2% were found to be making fraudulent claims. There is a large batch of cases in which the claimant is yet to be fully identified, but on the surface at least, there isn’t any very strong reason to think the proportion of fiddlers will be much higher in this group.
It is unusual for ministers apparently to seek to alarm the public about an existing policy, but even more odd when the factual basis for the concern seems so tenuous. Two of the Government’s vulnerabilities right now are unemployment (which is high and rising) and immigration (which is also high and rising despite a high profile Coalition commitment to reduce it). In the short term, at least, it isn’t clear Government can do much to put either trend into reverse.
Put the two challenges of rising unemployment and immigration control together and the populist script writes itself. Facing this danger – reinforced by the continued toxic salience of immigration in opinion polls – ministers may well have decided that it was vital to show they were getting a grip on the issue. I will leave others to decide whether presenting the public with alarming, but arguably misleading, statistics is a price worth paying to pre-empt allegations of complacency.
The Grayling/Green article is the second high profile example of the Coalition volunteering concern about its own policies. The first was David Cameron’s recognition of the inequities of removing child benefit from households containing a higher tax payer. I am not for a moment doubting the sincerity of the Prime Minister’s concern but it is noteworthy that not only did the Chancellor almost immediately confirm his intention to implement the change but, as Gavin Kelly pointed out, it is hardly credible that Mr Cameron has only just noticed a flaw (namely that a household with a single income of £45k will lose out while one with a combined income of £80k might not) which must have been apparent from the very first time it was floated by officials.
There is no reason why ministers cannot acknowledge problems with their own policies, indeed it could be seen as welcome candour. But aspects of both cases (the ministers’ apparent indifference to the impression created and Mr Cameron’s ‘discovery’ of the perverse impact of benefit withdrawal) suggest that the Coalition has of late been listening rather too carefully to the spin doctors’ advice.
Given the tough policies it is pursuing the Coalition’s popularity is holding up pretty well and most of the media continues to give it the benefit of the doubt. In these circumstances spinning can feel like an easy game to play. But as the weather of public opinion changes the political wicket takes spin less and less well.
Regardless of disagreements about the pace of spending cuts, there is no question the Coalition is trying to do something tough and brave with its austerity programme. Given the pain being suffered by ordinary folk, the credibility of the Government is important not just to its political aspirations but to national morale.
Modern politics inevitably involves creative communication, but selling a sizzle will stop being such an effective strategy once people start noticing the frequent absence of sausage.
King for a day
Some childhood experiences never leave us. The experience of humiliation is particularly hard to forget. Back in the sixties, at the age of eight, I was the only southerner attending Park Grove Junior School in York. To add to my general discomfort I also had a pronounced lisp. Maybe this was why I had a relatively modest part in that year’s nativity play. I was a wise king and my script in its entirety consisted of the word ’myrrh’. I suspect my father knew this when, barely concealing a snigger, he offered to hear me read my lines.
I only had one word but I appeared in two scenes and it was this that led to my humiliation. The rather unsympathetic deputy head in charge of the production came to visit my class to discuss arrangements. Perhaps to compensate for my various inadequacies (or was it was just an early manifestation of my lifetime habit of talking too much) I always put my hand up when it came to questions:
‘Miss, will we change our costumes between the scenes?’ was my innocent but looking back on it, ridiculous question. Even now I can see the sneer on the Deputy’s face. I can’t recall her precise words but it was something along the line of ‘ oh yes, Matthew, of course, we will and we’ll also have a make up assistant on hand to refresh your face paint, unless that is you want to bring your own staff in your own limousine’.
I thought again about this experience on the way from an event today. I had been asked to contribute to a lunchtime seminar about social innovation at Northampton University (if only those cruel teachers could see me now, oh yes!). It occurred to me too late that we had perhaps been a bit too structural in our account of the barriers to innovation (you can imagine the list: silo working, wrong incentives, lack of capacity etc): Because, in reality, one of the biggest inhibitors to innovation is a fear of humiliation.
The simple truth is that many – and it may even be most – people would rather take the small risk that they have wasted a great idea than the big risk that their idea will be greeted with a mix of indifference, scorn and hilarity.
If this seems unduly pessimistic look at the mauling given today by the health select committee to the idea that Sainsbury’s might use shopping habits to identify customers who have caring roles in order to offer them information and advice. The criticism seems to be based on the lazy and spurious idea that the Department of Health is asking Sainsbury’s to test out this idea instead of professionals using more traditional public service channels.
I know the Coalition is a bit tight with money and can even sometimes seem a little unsympathetic to the plight of the disadvantaged, but can you really imagine a Departmental letter to GPs along these lines:
‘Dear colleague, instead of the usual policy of seeking to notice when patients have major informal caring roles and offering them support we would like you to ignore people’s needs on the basis that they might get spotted at the local supermarket’.
That shop assistants could be given a bit of training to spot the shopping habits of carers and then offer these customers information about local services is only a small idea but it is sound, it is free and (unlike many other policy initiatives) it is difficult to see it doing any harm. But judging by the reaction of the select committee perhaps whoever developed the initiative in Government and Sainsbury’s may be tempted in future to keep their good ideas to themselves.
Part of the reason I feel defensive for this scheme is that RSA is itself soon to publish a report about the role that B and Q stores are playing in increasing social capital and engagement in localities. We’re just waiting for a foreward from a minister or Government policy advisor. Let’s just hope they aren’t now put off for fear of being made to look trivial or uncaring.
And on the subject of compassion it may be that the staff of Park Grove weren’t quite as cruel as I paint them: with my speech impediment it must have been tempting to make me the king who proffers the frankincense.
What’s my line?
The comedian Jimmy Carr was on the radio on Saturday explaining how his audience helps to write his material. Sometimes he feels tentative about a new joke, but when the audience react well it becomes a firm part of the routine. Other times he will love a new line, but try as he might, however much he builds up to it, the audience is left cold. There comes a point where a comedian has to face facts, dig a hole, say a few words and bury the brilliant but unappreciated gag in an unmarked grave.
A while ago in search of speech lines which combine humour with something superficially clever I had an idea. Recent audiences have heard me say, ‘the world is divided up into two kinds of people; those who rely on false dichotomies and those who don’t ‘. Sadly, despite my high hopes, this has gone down like down like a feminist poetry reading at a rugby club social.
I have written in the past about the danger of mistaking a typology for substantive theory, but still I am attracted to dichotomies (true and false) as a way of illustrating ideas. I think I may have stumbled upon another one; it concerns the nature of the RSA.
The early findings of our Fellowship survey are very positive. Particularly heartening were answers to a question about what being a Fellow means to people. Here are some of the responses:
An incentive to use my profession to serve my community and humanity more.
It is a recognition that I am a ’rounded’ person professionally. Having worked in public service as a professional engineer, a manager and an educator, I did not want to be seen as one who was too deeply entrenched in any one discipline.
Being a Fellow of the RSA means being a part of a network of local and international change-makers who are working to improve our communities, cities, and nations – for one, for all.
The survey comes on top of what we already knew; more Fellows are more active and in ways more closely aligned to our charitable mission that even before. As well as many new local groups, there are more common interest networks like that on social entrepreneurs, public service reform or corporate responsibility. And nearly all our major research and development projects are now designed to engage Fellows. Indeed when we won a recent bid to provide community based support to people recovering from addiction, practical support from local Fellows was part of our offer.
But still I sense in certain quarters some concerns about the RSA’s direction of travel. One possible reason takes me back to false dichotomies.
We often think of third sector groups dividing into two: On the one hand, professional organisations, members’ clubs or learned societies. Many do good work including of a charitable nature, but still, at heart, these are organisations run for the interests of their members. On the other hand, there are NGOs. Again, these take many forms and often the bulk of their work involves service delivery, but in essence, NGOs (and to them I would add politically-aligned think tanks) tend to hold to a relatively fixed view of the world and what about it needs to change.
Roger Scruton – whose new book ‘Green Philosophy’ helped me name this distinction – says of NGO’s that ‘they often exist purely for the sake of their goals’ and, he alleges, they are ‘unable to discuss the validity of their goals since they are defined by them’.
While I am not nearly as sweepingly critical of NGOs as Scruton, it occurred to me that some of the opposition to the process of turning the Fellowship outward and engaging Fellows in the RSA’s charitable mission lies in a fear that the Society is being set on the road to becoming an NGO?
If so, I hope I can offer some reassurance. The RSA is much closer to what Scruton refers to a ‘civic association’, one which has a charitable mission but sees the delivery of this mission lying as much in what it is as a collective endeavour as in its capacity to achieve some specific change in society and policy.
The distinction is subtle and far from clear cut; across its history the RSA has from time to time tried hard to convince Government to change course. Also, although civic organisations are often small and local the RSA is international and has many strings to its bow; including our growing Family of Academy schools and the millions of people who watch our lectures on-line. So perhaps it is better to say we are a ‘civic organisation plus’.
Recently it has become a cliche to quote Ghandi; ‘be the change you want to see in the world’. In the multi-disciplinary, problem solving way we work, and in the expectations Fellows have of themselves and each other, as well as the support we try to give, the RSA seeks to exemplify ways of thinking and being needed in the face of modern challenges.
On a few occasions I have described an ambition that the RSA becomes ‘the kind of organisation the twenty first century needs’. So far it hasn’t really struck a chord with audiences but I think I’ll give it a few more goes before reading the last rites.
Roll out the rotten barrel
In these hard times a free meal is always welcome so I hope it won’t be considered churlish of me to describe a recent dinner – one of the regular gatherings of a somewhat secretive members’ club – at which I was kindly hosted by some corporate friends of the RSA. As well as food, wine and good company, I overcame my aversion to black tie dress code because David Miliband was the keynote speaker.
David’s speech focused on foreign affairs and was a powerful combination of insight, experience and conviction. Whilst avoiding political knockabout, the former Foreign Secretary didn’t hide his concerns that the UK seems virtually alone in thinking that it is possible to operate effectively on the international stage without cultivating strong relationships with our neighbours.
With so much content in the speech I was looking forward to the question and answer session. A couple of hands shot up straight away. The first question was along these lines: ‘given that you are so impressive and your brother less so, do you think the Labour Party will simply accept defeat in the next election or be brave enough to commit regicide?’. I was about to remark to the person next to me how completely inappropriate this was when the second questioner chirped up with; ‘how do you respond to the news that voters apparently think you’re better looking than your brother, and when are you going to come back and seize the leadership of your Party?’.
With most people in the room squirming, it was not a time to hesitate. Even though I was only a guest, up shot my hand for the third question. Picking up one small reference in the speech I asked him about my favourite subject; how can politicians help close the social aspiration gap by persuading people to think and act in ways which help to build a better future out of our current difficulties.
If I had been David I don’t know how I would have handled the situation. He simply said ‘That’s why it’s always good to take questions in threes’ and ignored the first two (just one reason he’s a politician and I’m not). His response to me went straight to the biggest flaw with my argument: it sounds both judgemental and unrealistic.
As David said, most people have no choice but to rise to the challenge created by economic stagnation and public sector austerity. They are working as hard as they can to keep their head above water and, through individual caring and contributing to their community, doing their best to make up for the withdrawal of state support. Just now they probably don’t need pious lectures from politicians.
Of course, this is right. It must be some flaw in my character (one of many) which tends me towards making the case in judgemental terms. The reasons for a lack of engagement, resourcefulness and social responsibility in the general population lie much less in the individual failings of people than the nature of politics and political discourse, the design of policy and the organisation and culture of public services.
Our tendency to blame people when things go wrong rather than deeper structure and culture is an understandable but impeding cognitive frailty. Thus we express our ire towards bankers not the financial system, expense-fiddling MPs not our flawed democratic system, even journalists rather the puerile obsessions of celebrity culture. Sometimes the initial blame fest gives way to a more reflective approach, such as we may see emerge from the Leveson inquiry, but other times we pluck out the rotten apples but ignore the rotten barrel.
So I won’t blame the two rather over-excited gentlemen for the embarrassing questions the other night. Instead I surmise it may be something about wearing slightly silly clothes and breathing an atmosphere of intense mutual appreciation that beings out the worst in people.
RSA Animate
RSA Mobile
RSA Comment- RSA Projects Blogs
- Twitter @RSAMatthew
RSA Bookshop
The RSA Bookshop, in partnership with Blackwell's the UK's leading academic bookseller, offers Fellows and friends an opportunity to purchase books and to explore our speakers’ ideas in greater detail. Visit the RSA Bookshop.