Democratic
Universities
A guide to improving university
governance and decision-making
for students and their union
Democratic Universities
Foreword
The idea of democratic universities is something
which excites me greatly. But what is even
more exciting is the thought that students can
help make this idea a reality. This is why I am
delighted to introduce this guide to how
students and their unions can improve
university governance.
Universities are losing sight of the goals and
the values upon which they were founded. The
public mission of a university has been replaced
by the corporate plan. When universities speak
about “outreach”, it is more a question of
marketing and attempting to “sell” higher
education to communities, rather than using
education and research as tools for dealing with
local issues.
It is no coincidence that the retreat from the
righteous, democratic values of the university
has been partnered with a retreat from a
democratic style of decision-making, one which
is transparent, representative and through
which decision-makers can be held to account.
Increasingly, we are seeing decisions being
made by a handful of senior managers, the
majority of them white, middle-class men.
Students, academics and the wider community
within a university’s sphere of influence are
marginalised, left without a meaningful voice in
producing the policy and strategy which drives
their institution forward.
As an organisation we are committed to the
idea of partnership in higher education. But
true partnership cannot happen in an institution
where decisions are restricted to a small,
unrepresentative minority.
Our goal is to support our members to expose
the cynicism of institutional managers who
claim to support the ideals of an academic
community but instead retain a monopoly on
power.
We believe that students can be a
democratising force in higher education,
challenging the insidious encroachment of
corporate values and practices which reduce
education to a market transation. Education is
more than a commodity to be bought and sold.
Universities have a duty to help overcome
social injustices and promote the public good,
and they can only do this if they are governed
by the same democratic values we wish to
model our society on.
Rachel Wenstone
Vice-President (Higher Education)
Democratic Universities
Introduction
The way universities are run has changed
dramatically over the past thirty years. In
response to government pressure and
subsequent marketisation and expansion,
universities are adopting more corporate forms
of governance.
In the document, we provide guidance on how
students and their unions can effectively audit
the governance structures and practices in their
institution with the aim of working in
partnership with the institution to make
improvements where necessary.
It is important that students’ unions understand
these changes, so that they can challenge the
democratic deficit in the current forms of higher
education governance, in particular the wholly
unrepresentative and surreptitious nature of
decision-making, with power being
concentrated in governing bodies and a small
number of senior managers, and where the role
of academics and students in decision-making
is severely diminished and undervalued.
It will often be tough to get managers to
understand why governance needs to change.
It has been easy for many to buy into the idea
that universities need to concentrate power in a
handful of professionals. Convincing them that
democratic governance is both desirable and
necessary will require a potent combination of
robust evidence and effective campaigning. It
will also require students to ramp up their
existing involvement in university governance
and show that students can be productive and
intelligent decision-makers.
Students have a part to play in building more
democratic universities. The concept of student
engagement is now at a tipping point; it is
important student engagement is articulated in
a way which leads to more student participation
in university decision-making.
The following document sets out the higher
education governance landscape from the
perspective of active students’ unions aiming to
positively challenge the democratic deficit in
the way universities make policy decisions.
We are interested in developing ways that
unions can challenge university governance,
exposing the gap between the values in a
university’s mission and the reality of managers
hoarding power and making decisions that
contradict these values. We need to ask the
normative question of who should make
decisions and whether or not the structure of
decision-making in an institution is championing
key democratic themes, such as gender
equality, student engagement and public value.
We are sure that this document will stimulate
important debate around the topics discussed
and help to produce a clear policy direction for
NUS and its membership to work with. Many of
the ideas and concepts that follow are
deliberately left open and vague, because it is
important that students and their unions can fit
them into their own unique institutional
contexts.
Student engagement and partnership in higher
education can only work in practice if the
decisions made at university are conducted in a
transparent and democratic environment in
which students are a pivotal part. We hope that
the following guide will help students unions to
progress with the brilliant work they are already
doing in this area and help build a vibrant
education system which is fair and democratic
for all.
Democratic Universities
Contents
What is governance?
3
Types of Governance
Governance Realities
3
4
Who makes decisions?
6
The academic decision-makers
The rise of the managers
Students as agents of change
The wider community
6
6
7
7
Governance in the nations
9
HE Governance in Scotland
HE Governance in Wales
Building democratic universities
Who should make decisions?
Key Themes
How democratic is your institution?
Introduction
Auditing Governance
Writing an Alternative Strategic Plan
9
10
12
12
12
16
16
16
18
Democratic Universities
What is
governance?
“Conceptually, governance… can be defined
as the rule of the rulers, typically within a
given set of rules… Thus, understanding
governance requires an identification of the
rulers and the rules, as well as the various
processes by which they are selected,
defined, and linked together and with the
society generally.”
World Bank
Democratic Universities
What is governance?
Governance is the practice of governing. It
describes the way organisations make
decisions, including the mechanisms for
leadership and management, policymaking and
policy implementation, and the delegation of
responsibility and accountability.
In many ways, governance is an art, not a hard
science. It involves the crafting of practice by
agents with varied interests, often in
challenging and tumultuous political
environments, and the university is definitely
an example of a politically-charged
environment where governance is complex.
There are many different forms or models of
governance. We often talk differently about
governance depending on the context. For
instance, talking about the governance
structures of a nation-state (administration of
government, civil service bureaucracy, publicprivate partnerships etc.) is ultimately quite
different from talk of governance in a private
corporation, or a charity, or a democratic
organisation like a trade union.
Governance is the
practice of governing.
It describes the way
organisations make
decisions.
In universities, we are faced with multiple
forms of governance. Some of these are
derived from the overarching context of the
education sector (markets, regulation,
accountability, political pressures); some have
been sedimented in institutions through
tradition and ritual (academic freedom, collegial
democracy, departmental autonomy); and
some are based on local and internal contexts
(strong trade union/students’ union,
transformational vice-chancellor, financial
problems).
In other words, each university will have its
own assembly of governance structures. These
are unlikely to conform to a single model of
governance. There are almost always several
forms of governance which exist in tandem;
sometimes these governance forms will also be
in conflict, or pose tensions and contradictions
in people’s interactions in university structures.
Types of Governance
To help better map how university governance
works, it is worth introducing a simple typology
of governance. The four types of governance
below represent what we feel are the main
governance forms in UK universities.
The university as a bureaucracy
Universities are often very large, unwieldy
organisations which require a vast amount of
administrative procedures to function. A lot of
these procedures appear highly routinized and
controlled by formal policies, rules and
hierarchies. Bureaucratic governance is mainly
found in the elements of “people processing”,
such as registration, record-keeping, human
resources and payroll, academic procedures,
and anything else that is easily routinized
(Baldridge 1971).
The university as an academic community
Academic governance refers to the historical
role academic staff have often played in the
running of a university. Often referred to as the
“collegial” model, it relates to academic
representation in decision-making in
departments and schools, as well as in
governing bodies, senate, and sub-committees.
Academic governance is often perceived as
being democratic, built on consensus.
However, traditional models have often entailed
the maintenance of inequalities, particularly
gender inequality, with male dominance and
hierarchy protected under the pretence of
maintaining academic freedom (Deem 1998).
Democratic Universities
The university as a corporate entity
Since the 1980s, universities have faced
increased pressure from government to
improve their efficiency by being governed
more like businesses. This form of corporate
governance is known as ‘new public
management’ or ‘new managerialism’ and it is
based on the idea that public institutions can be
more efficiently managed by implanting the
fiscal and managerial practices of the private
sector. This entails driving up performance and
efficiency through performance measurement,
setting targets and strategic goals and more
rigid structures of line management and
accountability. It also usually entails an
embrace of market competition and aspects of
privatisation and outsourcing (Tolofari 2005).
produce modes of governance that can
effectively manage existing and seek new
funding streams while also effectively planning
for future expenditure and investment.
The stakeholder university
Stakeholder governance is based on the idea
that the interests of various parties need
representation in the decision-making
structures of a university. Although the final
decision may still lie with the executive of the
university, policies are expected to take into
account the interests and views of the relevant
stakeholders. It is often difficult to determine
which stakeholders should be represented as
well as the manner in which they are involved
in decisions. However, typical stakeholders are
academics, staff, students, and in some cases
political, cultural and business groups in the
local community.
Regulation
Although government bestows a degree of
institutional autonomy on universities, and has
indeed recently severed any commitment to
bailing out a bankrupt university, there are still
a number of regulatory structures in place.
University decisions are affected by a number
of regulations on funding and access, as well as
regulations concerning the quality of
universities, and restrictions on overseas
students.
Governance Realities
Anyone seeking to understand university
governance, particularly those looking to
understand it in order to challenge current
practice and propose alternative forms of
governance, must take into account the context
within which universities now sit. Obviously the
context will look slightly different at each
university, but ultimately there are several
factors which remain important regardless.
These factors we shall call “governance
realities”.
Funding and financial autonomy
Universities face difficult decisions on how to
secure the necessary funding to survive in a
competitive marketplace. The proportion of
public funding for universities has fallen
considerably over the past twenty years, which
has meant that universities have needed to
Markets and competition
In a highly competitive environment,
universities are becoming increasingly adept at
marketing themselves to students and to
investors in order to secure funding. Market
pressures will have an effect on the policy
decisions universities make and may also help
determine the forms of governance by which
such decisions are made. Commodification of
education also changes the relationships
between decision-making actors, particularly if
students are treated as consumers.
Academic Freedom
There are a number of effects of academic
freedom on governance. Often this will mean
that certain decisions are left to the autonomy
of academics in their departments. In extreme
cases, academic freedom can produce forms of
tribalism or guildism, where academics focus on
serving the scholastic interests of their
discipline rather than the university’s wider
mission (Harkavy 2006). Equally there are
cases where academic freedom can help to
maintain divisions and inequalities in university
structures (Deem 1998).
Anyone seeking to
understand university
governance must take
into account the
context within which
universities now sit.
Democratic Universities
Who makes
decisions?
“At that moment, in the sunset on Watership
Down, there was offered to General
Woundwort the opportunity to show whether
he was really the leader of vision and genius
which he believed himself to be, or whether
he was no more than a tyrant with the
courage and cunning of a pirate.”
Richard Adams
Democratic Universities
Who makes decisions?
Now that we have a clearer understanding of
the typical forms of governance at universities
and the realities that tend to affect them, we
can start to survey the types of agents involved
in the governance process. As explained earlier,
there are a number of different agents with
often competing and conflicting interests. Their
ability to influence university policy will depend
on the forms of governance that are manifest in
the institution.
The academic decision-makers
Traditionally, it was assumed that academics
would be able to govern universities
collectively. As professionals and as
intellectuals, academics were deemed to hold
the technical capability to make the decisions
on how their institution was run.
The ancient universities adopted collegial
models of governance with the aim at coming
democratically to a consensus on university
policy. Oxford and Cambridge still
predominantly use a collegial model of
governance.
Dominance of academics in decision-making
positions has been partly the result of
academics feeling a sense of duty and also
consensus around the trust given to academics
to make effective decisions in the interests of
the university. However, the idea that all
academics work harmoniously together to find a
consensus is idealistic, perhaps even naïve.
Academic decision-making is fraught with
political disagreement and academics will often
battle against each other to secure the interests
of their own discipline. Concerns have also been
raised that academics can allow university goals
to become very inward-looking and focus on
purely academic concerns, rather than financial,
or building partnerships with business and the
wider community.
In the 1980s, academics faced harsh criticism
of their ability to govern universities effectively.
Subsequent legislation helped to empower
university governing bodies and diminish the
role of academics in the direct decision-making
of universities. Despite a decline in their
decision-making power, academics remain an
important voice in the governance of
universities, not least because of their ability to
politicise policy debates and actively resist and
contort certain decisions made by governing
bodies. They also have collective bargaining
power through trade union membership.
The rise of the managers
Government have been pursuing policies of
marketisation and modernisation in higher
education since the 1980s. While markets and
the fall in public funding have pressured
universities to deliver more strategic
governance of finance and investment, there
has also been pressure from government
encouraging universities to behave more like
businesses.
Post-92 universities were created with the
corporate model in mind. The 1988 Education
Reform Act abolished local authority control of
polytechnics, removing democratic
accountability and installing corporate forms of
institutional governance in what would become
new Higher Education Corporations in the 1992
Further and Higher Education Act.
The criticisms of university governance in the
Dearing Report (1997) sparked a widespread
review of institutional governance by
universities. The main result of Dearing was a
concentration of power in the hands of smaller
governing bodies with less academic (and
student) representation. Dearing had
recommended that pre-92 institutions cut the
membership of governing bodies to around 25,
the same as most post-92s. Around 40 pre-92
universities reduced the membership of their
governing bodies between 1997 and 2000 (CUC
2000).
Such reforms continued into the 2000s, further
side-lining academics and students from
decision-making and putting more control into
the hands of non-academic staff and businessminded professionals. Additionally, the role of
Democratic Universities
the vice-chancellor has been transformed. Both
the Jarrett (1985) and Dearing (1997) reports
reinforced the idea that the vice-chancellor
should act as a chief-executive. Some vicechancellors have even adopted the title “chief
executive”.
Students as agents of change
Students have contributed to university
governance and policy in different ways. Some
are formal, where students are represented
within the governance structures of
universities. Some are less formal and may
involve conversations and discussions within
departments, or ad hoc lobbying of institutional
staff.
Student protest has clearly been the mode of
political action which has received the most
publicity, and there have been moments when
direct political action by the student body or by
student organisations has been effective in
challenging university policies. It has also been
a catalyst for universities to better consult and
represent students in governance structures, to
avoid conflict and improve the wider
engagement of students with their university
experience.
Although it is clear that direct political action
has won many singular policy aims, the role of
student representatives within university
governance has also been important in
representing the student voice and maintaining
a more pragmatic, gradualist influence on
policy.
Student representation is a longstanding
method by which students can formally engage
with university governance. Most universities
will automatically appoint students’ union
sabbatical officers to relevant committees and
governing bodies. In many cases, academic
senates also have places for students that
aren’t officers of the students’ union and these
student representatives will usually be elected
to represent schools or faculties. Student
representation on boards is usually confined to
the Students’ Union President and sometimes
one or two other officers. Like academics,
students are underrepresented at council level.
The relationship between students and
governance has been confused in recent years
by the increased emphasis on quantified
metrics of student experience, most notably the
National Student Survey. There has been a
trend in some institutions to use student
feedback in surveys as a form of consultation
that bypasses real democratic student
representation.
However, a counter-narrative about student
engagement has picked up over the past few
years, which places greater value on student
representation and contribution within
university governance, particularly around
areas such as teaching and learning. But the
future of student involvement is unclear, as old
ideas of student representation are being
challenged by the idea that individual students
can have their own say and be partners in their
learning. This was made clear in our own
Manifesto for Partnership (NUS 2012). This
model of engagement may well require a
change in university governance to something
more democratic, transparent and dynamic.
The wider community
The community is a diverse stakeholder in a
university and the university will engage
different individuals and groups within the local
community in a number of ways. Also, while
there are certainly engagement activities in the
community by most universities and their
students, the opposite is not always true: the
community is not always so clearly engaged in
the governance of its local higher education
institutions.
In some cases, an antagonistic relationship has
developed between local residents and the
university. Often this has historical contexts,
where universities established themselves in
industrial areas and were perceived as alien to
the surrounding working-class communities.
Other local contexts may have also affected the
relationship, such as social stigmas attached to
an influx of students residing a local area, or a
feeling of exclusion caused by real or perceived
barriers to residents accessing university
facilities.
Democratic Universities
Governance
in the nations
“A University is a trust confided by the State
to certain hands for the common interest of
the nation.”
Sir William Hamilton, 19th century Scottish philosopher
Democratic Universities
Governance in the nations
HE Governance in Scotland
The past two years have seen governance of
Scotland’s universities and colleges become a
serious topic on the public and political agenda.
At its very core, there has been a concerted
focus, led by NUS Scotland, on ensuring that
our institutions are delivering the maximum
public benefit they can for the (rightly) large
sums of public money their receive, and in a
more democratic, transparent, accountable and
inclusive way.
It was a process begun in 2011 by the von
Prondzynski review of university governance, of
which NUS Scotland was a review group
member. That review was relatively ground
breaking at the time, and included a number of
‘radical recommendations’. There were calls for
elected chairs of court at every university,
voted on by staff and students; an end to any
potential ‘bonus culture’ among university
principals and senior managers, and moves
towards a single pay framework across all
levels of staff; fair representation of all groups,
on university courts; and a recognition of the
need to strengthen and amplify the student
voice.
However, while it was fully endorsed by staff
and students, it received a less positive
response from university senior managers and
chairs of courts. As such, it was left to a
steering group, through the Committee of
Scottish Chairs (the representative body for
chairs f university courts), to take forward work
to adapt the review recommendations into a
workable code – a process which NUS Scotland
criticised at the time for failing to include staff
and student representatives.
Around the same time, and following a
government consultation, a major piece of
legislation covering post-16 education was
launched by the Scottish Government. Among
other things it placed a requirement on
universities to adhere to a ‘code of good
governance’ in return for receiving their
Scottish Funding Council grants – a recognition
of the link between public funding and public
benefit which NUS Scotland had long
campaigned for. During the various debate
stages of the draft legislation there were strong
words from ministers round the need for
universities to do more to, particularly, tackle
excessive pay among senior managers and go
much further in increasing the diversity of
courts, both of which were major campaigning
wins, to have these issues so high on the
political agenda.
The code referenced within the Post 16
Education (Scotland) Act was the same one
which was being drawn up by the Committee of
Scottish Chairs. As such, NUS Scotland engaged
thoroughly and robustly with their work, hoping
to see a strong code which would be enshrined
in law, and follow through on the many
progressive recommendations of the original
review.
When the final code was released by the
committee, NUS Scotland expressed our
disappointment with it, feeling that it had
changed little from its draft version – which had
been strongly criticised by staff and students and did not do nearly enough to ensure
universities could be held accountable for the
large sums of public money they receive, did
nothing to increase women's representation on
university boards, or to include staff and
students in decisions over university principal's
pay.
As such, over the course of the coming months
and years, we’ll be working locally with
students’ associations to campaign for much
more positive change within their institutions,
in the absence of a strong national code,
particularly around diversity of courts and
senior level pay. At the same time the
government has previously stated a possibility
of bringing forward a second piece of legislation
specifically around university – to implement
the recommendations of the original von
Prondzynski review – and place them in statute
where necessary. NUS Scotland will be
continuing to lobby for this to happen.
Democratic Universities
HE Governance in Wales
Governance in Wales has an interesting history,
owing mainly to the federalised structure of the
University of Wales. Governance within the
federal system has changed considerably over
the 120 year history of the University of Wales.
However, some of the biggest changes to
governance in Wales have occurred since 2011,
when the Welsh Government decided to reduce
the number of universities in Wales by merging
some together.
The decision to merge universities in Wales
brought with it important decisions about how
the new universities would be governed. In
particular, it was important to find a system of
governance to oversee the running of campuses
in multiple locations. There is also, of course,
the issue of harmonising the separate
governing bodies of merging institutions,
including dealing with the duplication of staff
positions and roles within them. This has been
a difficult task as the Welsh government have
attempted to ensure that mergers did not lead
to redundancies for academics and managers.
In terms of student involvement in the
governance of Welsh institutions, the Welsh
Government was particularly vocal on this
under the previous Minister for Education,
Leighton Andrews, who made a request that
HEFCW ‘gather case studies from institutions
which highlight good practice on how the
student voice contributes to governance’. In
response to this, HEFCW published two
documents last year. One looked at why
institutions should involve students in
governance. The other is about the impact and
best practice of involving students in
governance.
HEFCW made the argument that students are
key stakeholders who are directly impacted by
the decisions of governing bodies. It is
therefore crucial that they receive adequate
representation and voice in decision-making.
This echoed the 2011 McCormick review into
higher education governance in Wales, which
recommended that governing bodies should be
‘inclusive of staff and student members’.
It is pleasing to see that the HE sector in Wales
has signed up to the idea of student partnership
and is actively promoting the involvement of
students in governance. Wales now faces a
difficult future in higher education as a result of
the recent mergers and also in terms of funding
decisions. It is therefore crucial that students
are a central part of decision-making in the
sector, to ensure a bright future for Welsh
higher education.
Democratic Universities
Building
democratic
universities
“Research, teaching and the support of
learning, and the development and
application of knowledge are activities that
higher education institutions, and their
staff, engage in for the public good. They
are not primarily profit-making institutions,
nor institutions engaged in competition with
one another.”
University and College Union
Democratic Universities
Building democratic universities
Who should make decisions?
The question of how we build a democratic
institution is a normative one. We’ve seen how
university governance is at present, and the
main agents involved in decision-making. Now
we must ask how governance ought to be and
who has a right to be involved.
In order to do this, we must agree on what the
university is for. What role should universities
play in society? Ultimately decision-making in
universities must reflect the mission and values
we ascribe to such institutions.
The worry is that corporate governance is
based on a neoliberal discourse which reduces
education to a commodity and threatens to
undermine the broader social responsibility and
public value we perceive as being part of
education.
We see universities as holding, at their core, a
democratic mission. This was seen clearly in the
founding missions of large urban research
institutions in the United States, such as Johns
Hopkins and University of Chicago, that there
was once a strong belief that universities must
engage in real-world problems and find ways to
contribute to the development of the ‘good
society’ (Harkavy 2006). The Robbins Report
and the expansion of UK higher education in
the 1960s also shared the idea that universities
could advance social justice.
We see universities as
holding, at their core, a
democratic mission.
So if we are to assume that universities have a
democratic mission to engage in real-world
problems and help build a better society, we
are led to believe that universities should adopt
democratic governance practices which fit the
bill. This means engaging students and other
important stakeholders directly in the policymaking and strategic direction of the
institution.
Of course, there will always be decisions and
policies that will reflect the various governance
realities mentioned earlier. Often these realities
will require decisions that represent practical
steps to ensure the longevity of the institution,
financially or otherwise. Professionals will have
to balance these needs against the democratic
mission of the university. Students should play
an important role in holding these decisionmakers to account and ensuring that there is
always an alternative narrative available to
challenge corporate decision-making.
Key Themes
If we agree that higher education stands for
something more than the narrow sense of role
and responsibility assigned to it by the
corporate model of the university, then the
purpose of democratising universities must be
to rebuild the link between higher education
and the public good. In order to do this, we
have identified three key themes to act both as
benchmarks for a university’s democratic
commitment, and as underlying principles
round which new forms of governance can be
assembled.
Gender Equality
The number of women in senior roles at
universities is despicably low. Women continue
to be treated unfairly in terms of pay and
progression in higher education careers.
What is interesting about the gender inequality
at the top in universities is that it doesn’t
reflect the progression of women into
academia. The chart overleaf shows how there
are only minor differences in the proportion of
women academics to that of women in
undergraduate and postgraduate research
courses. The main barriers appear to be erected
once women are in academic careers.
In comparison, the underrepresentation of BME
and disabled persons appears to be triggered
by an earlier lack of progression into academia,
the reasons for which are likely to be complex,
but equally important to tackle.
Democratic Universities
utilises the diversity of agents, their
backgrounds and opinions.
UG
• 47.3% women
• 20.8% BME
• 8.2% disabled
PGR
• 42.4% women
• 17.2% BME
• 5.9% disabled
Academic
Staff
• 44.2% women
• 7.4% BME
• 2.7% disabled
Senior
Managers
• 27.8% women
• 3.9% BME
• 2.9% disabled
Source: HESA 2011-12 data
For university governance to become more
democratic, the decision-makers must be more
representative of the diversity of both staff and
students. Steps must be taken to increase the
number of women being promoted into senior
academic and managerial roles.
Of course, gender equality isn’t merely about
raw numbers. The norms and practices of
institutional governance may well be
unfavourable to women and even if procedures
were enacted to increase the number of women
on governing bodies, their ability to make
decisions on par with men may still be hindered
by the existence of sexist and patriarchal
discourses.
It is important that the traditional sexist and
elitist norms and practices in academic forms of
governance are challenged and removed, as
well as the challenges to equality in more
corporate and managerial forms of governance.
Democratisation of university governance will
involve, at some level, a degree of feminisation
of practice, so that authority in decision-making
is no longer based on displays of masculinity
and ‘toughness’, but instead embraces and
Student Participation
The argument that students need a greater say
in the running of their universities because they
are now the main funders of higher education
through tuition fees is counter-productive, as it
reduces the interests of the student to that of a
self-interested consumer. This argument has
become common in the sector in relation to the
recent student engagement drive. But students
have an important role to play in decisionmaking regardless of their financial stake.
Student engagement is on the agenda in higher
education, but it must not be usurped by those
who believe that student feedback in surveys
and the odd focus group can substitute for real
representation on governing bodies. It is also
important that we do not lose the democratic
nature of student engagement. Universities
appear to be bypassing democracy by hiring
consultants to advise on student engagement,
rather than actually engaging with students.
‘Partnership is about
investing students with
the power to co-create,
not just knowledge or
learning, but the higher
education institution
itself’
NUS Manifesto for Partnership
Building on our ideas in the Manifesto for
Partnership (2012), we believe that meaningful
student engagement will mean enhancing the
role of students in university governance.
Students unions are a powerful actor in making
this possible through democratic
representation, but their role as a governance
partner must be supplemented with a role as a
facilitator of engagement of all students.
Democratic Universities
Public Value
When it comes to promoting the public value of
education, students’ unions are leading the
way. Students are building the connections with
local people, improving relationships between
the university and the community by
volunteering and getting involved in important
local projects and activities.
In fact, if it wasn’t for the hard work of
students, some universities could withdraw
from their community altogether. If market
forces and corporate mind-sets are pulling
institutions away from the wider public interest,
students must intervene and hold their
institutions to account.
It is also time to improve the way universities
represent local interests on their governing
body. Lay members may make up the majority
of most university councils, but most of them
are brought in for their professional or business
backgrounds. Although their expertise as
individuals may be helpful, they are rarely in
the position to represent the community
interest. Creating a sense of local democratic
accountability and representing community
interests will be another important step in
ensuring the university increases the public
value of education.
Academic/Collegial
Governance
Corporate/Neoliberal
Governance
Democratic
Governance
Governing Body
Large governing body, strong
academic representation, loose
control of policy and its
implementation, many aspects of
governance delegated to senate
and departments.
Power centralised in council
and executive, smaller
governing body with majority
external lay members, vicechancellor plays role of chiefexecutive, increased role for
registrar and PVCs.
Greater openness and
transparency of decisionmaking, more diverse
membership of council,
more women in governing
roles, greater
accountability of VC and
executive team.
Senate/academic
board
Large senate with solely academic
membership,
main decision-making body, strong
academic engagement in
governance, departmental
autonomy.
Reduced function of senate,
acts as “rubber stamp” on
policy, some non-academic
and student members,
departments managed more
closely by faculty deans.
Senate plays stronger role
in bringing together
students and staff to codesign learning
environment, driver of
partnership at lower
levels.
Student
Representation
Representation on senate and
council not commonplace until
1970s, development of staffstudent liaison committees,
ancient principle of student
involvement in Scotland.
Limited representation on
council, students given
positions on senate, focus on
student (consumer) feedback
through NSS and internal
surveys, student involvement
in quality assurance.
Students play active role
in decision-making,
students co-producing
with other stakeholders
the university mission and
the learning environment
Educational
discourse
Influence of liberalism and
enlightenment, belief in academic
freedom and institutional
autonomy, education has an
intrinsic value, some elements of
elitism and patriarchy.
Emphasis on efficiency of
organisation, strict
performance management and
embrace of market to drive up
educational standards,
universities serve the
economy and generate skills
needed for economic growth
and competitiveness.
Education a force for
change, universities to
engage in real world
problems and promote
equal opportunities and
social cohesion,
universities as democratic
centres of communities.
Democratic Universities
How democratic
is your
institution?
“The language of neoliberalism and the
emerging corporate university radically alters
the vocabulary available for appraising the
meaning of citizenship, agency, and civic
virtue.”
Henry Giroux – Educational theorist and cultural critic
Democratic Universities
How democratic is your institution?
Introduction
In order for students and their unions to
challenge universities on their governance
practices and to champion the idea of the
democratic university, it is important that we
find ways of mapping out decision-making. If
we understand where decisions made and by
whom, we can better understand the real and
potential influence of students and other actors
in different contexts. This is not as simple as it
sounds, as decisions are often arrived at
outside of formal structures like committees.
Transparency is a problem as many decisions
are made “behind closed doors”. We must
challenge the culture of clandestine decisionmaking.
From knowing where and by whom comes an
ability to scrutinise the ways in which key
decisions are made. Drawing on the three key
themes, students’ unions can try to determine
the level of distance between the ideals in these
themes and the policy and practice at their
institution.
The following is preliminary guidance on how a
students’ union can audit governance at an
institution and develop a strategy for
democratising university decision-making.
Auditing Governance
An ‘audit’ is an evaluation procedure where
evidence is gathered to assess the efficacy of
an organisation, system, or process. A
governance audit will therefore involve the
evaluation of the way decisions are made (and
consequently how policy is decided upon and
managed) at universities by collecting
information on the structure and practice of
decision-making and its assessment against a
set of criteria.
We have determined the criteria for evaluation
by constructing three key themes: gender
equality, student participation, and public
value. These themes will steer the types of
questions that are asked of governance.
By identifying a set of four or five policies and
tracing them through the governance process,
you can, at each stage, ask questions over the
efficacy of decision-making in following the key
themes. We have split the audit into four areas
to help flesh out the central concepts of
democratic governance. These are:
Transparency – relating to the spaces where
decisions are made and whether these spaces,
and the discussions within them, are easily
identified and open to scrutiny.
Representativeness – the assurance that all
relevant stakeholders are engaged in the
decision-making process and that the actors
involved are also balanced fairly in terms of
gender and ethnicity.
Democracy – concerning the mechanisms
through which a decision is made and whether
or not such mechanisms give stakeholders a
say in the outcome of decision-making.
Accountability – the ability for actors to
challenge decisions based on the impact of its
outcomes, and to ensure that decision-makers
take responsibility for their actions.
By answering questions relating to these
concepts of democratic governance, we can
identify the gap between our ideals and the
reality of decision-making on the ground.
Creating a governance audit about a set of
policies or policy issues can also help to
distinguish whether there are problems specific
to decision-making in particular policy areas, or
whether the problems are more systemic. In
either case, a report can be written up,
identifying the areas that the institution does
well and those which require improvement. It
can also make recommendations on the types
of improvement you feel would benefit students
and other stakeholders and generally improve
the governance process.
Democratic Universities
The basic structure of such an audit is set out in
the chart below, providing a simple step-bystep process to the audit.
trace the history of decision-making which led
to enactment of the policy. But equally it could
be an issue which demands a change in policy,
in which case you are looking ahead at what
would likely happen, and you can base such
predictions on either knowledge of similar
scenarios in the past, or by identifying and
speaking to those who would be involved if
such a policy were to be enacted.
As the chart shows, one of the most productive
ways of evaluating governance is by taking a
particular policy or issue and mapping out the
way it would be dealt with in the governance
structures of the university. This can be a policy
that is already in place, in which case you can
A policy-focused democratic audit of governance in higher education institutions
Identify a key
policy
(Policy X)
Where are
the decisions
made?
Who are the
main actors
involved?
What is the
process of
decision
making?
How are the
outcomes of
decision-making
monitored?
Transparency
Representativeness
Democracy
Accountability
Can students
identify the
spaces
where they
can
influence
Policy X?
Are
discussions
over policy X
formally
recorded or
minuted?
Are all
relevent
stakeholders
involved in
the decision
on Policy X?
Is there equal
representation
of women in
decisionmaking?
In the absense
of a
consensus,
how would a
final decision
be made?
Is there a
consultation
process
whereby
feedback on
proposals is
discussed?
Are there
formal
processes
through
decision-makers
can be held to
account?
Who is
involved in
revieiwing
the impact
of Policy X?
Democratic Universities
Writing an Alternative Strategic
Plan
Strategic planning is a way for organisations
such as universities (or indeed students’
unions) to manage their direction over a fixed
period. The benefit of a strategic plan is that it
is renewed every few years, allowing an
organisation to reconfigure its aims in relation
to changing internal and external contexts.
University strategic plans are usually linked in
some way to the university’s mission, vision
and identity, where the underlying values and
principles are laid out for the strategy. These
elements tend to remain constant over time,
allowing the strategy to interpret the mission,
values and identity within changing social,
political and financial contexts.
However, what we often find is that strategic
plans have a particularly corporate feel to
them. In all the financial imperatives, efficiency
drives and quantified measures of performance;
it is often hard to see how strategy relates to
the core mission and values. Indeed, the gap
between how one might expect a university to
act and react based on their mission and
values, and the reality of their strategy and its
impact on students, staff and the wider
community, can seem a chasm in some cases.
Case study: Exeter Students’ Guild
Exeter Students’ Guild wrote their Vision
for the Future of Education back in 2011
in consultation with students at the
university. The document recommended
ways that the university could tackle the
key challenges facing higher education.
It was well received by the university
and led to a number of important
changes for students. Since then, the
Guild has created a number of other
“visions” for different colleges and
schools within the university. This year,
the Guild produced a vision for
Postgraduate Research Students which
has been critical in their negotiations
with the university of the pay and
conditions of postgraduates employed as
teachers.
For this reason, we feel it pertinent that
students’ unions hold their institutions to
account where they feel that they have strayed
from their underlying mission, vision and
identity, and indeed where the policies and
direction of the institution are not living up to
either the student interest or the wider public
interest.
One persuasive and formal way of achieving
this is by producing an alternative strategic
plan for the university. This can take a number
of different forms and will probably end up
looking very different to your institution’s actual
strategic plan in both style and content.
What you should look to achieve is a critical
evaluation of the institution’s direction based on
your reading of its mission, vision, identity, and
above all its values. Students’ unions have
already had success through challenging their
institutions from this angle (see case study).
Showing the governing body of a university that
students can put together sound and
reasonable judgements on the way the
university is run and its strategic focus will help
to prove the case for greater student
representation and influence within the
governance structures of the institution.
References
Baldridge, V.J. (1971) ‘Models of university
Macadam House
275 Gray’s Inn Road
London WC1X 8QB
t 0845 5210 262
f 020 7380 0794
e [email protected]
www.nus.org.uk
governance: bureaucratic, collegial, and political’,
Research and Development Memorandum No. 77,
Stanford Centre for Research and Development in
Teaching
Deem, R. (1998) ‘‘New Managerialism’ and Higher
Education: the management of performances and
cultures in universities in the United Kingdom’
International Studies in the Sociology of Education,
8(1): 47-70
Giroux, H.A. (2002) ‘Neoliberalism, Corporate
Culture, and the Promise of Higher Education: The
University as a Democratic Public Sphere’ Harvard
Educational Review, 72(4): 425-63
Harkavy, I. (2006) ‘The role of universities in
advancing citizenship and social justice in the 21st
century’ Education, citizenship and social justice 1(1):
5-37
NUS (2012) A Manifesto for Partnership, London: NUS
Tolofari, S. (2005) ‘New Public Management and
Education’ Policy Futures in Education, 3(1): 75-89
1
9