It has been very clear from the beginning of my research that the culture of student partnership in universities is becoming well embedded in sectors overseas, and we are fortunate to be able to look to their knowledge and experience. This is reflected in the draft Project report which appears on our website www.studentvoice.uts.edu.au. My work on student partnership in Australia is hugely inspired by the trailblazer – student partnerships in quality Scotland known as sparqs. The presentation of its leader, Eve Lewis, was hugely motivational for those who attended our project final symposium, and this was carried through in the excellent workshops she ran for students and staff the following day. Last week I had the good fortune to attend and present at the sparqs conference in Edinburgh. From the time the conference was opened by the Scottish Minister for Further Education, Higher Education and Science (Shirley-Anne Somerville) there was a buzz among the hundreds of attendees who represented all parts of the higher education sectors of the UK and Europe particularly the very strong student presence. It was great to be an environment in which student partnership is a reality – accepted as ‘way things are done’ by all from the Minister down.
There were so many really valuable sessions I would like to write about here. Many I couldn’t attend as I presented twice myself, so the other Australian attendee, Kate Walsh from Flinders Uni has made notes to brief me on her return. I’ll pass these on in future blogs. A session which left a strong impression with me and gave me lots of food for thought was the student plenary panel. The members gave a range of perspectives – Rebecca McLennan, a former sparqs Associate Trainer, Vonnie Sandlan the current president of NUS Scotland and Adam Gajek of the European Students Union (ESU) and provided such valuable insights. It felt very validating to hear about the role students are playing and their professionalism when they receive the support of universities. Institutions and sectors who aren’t engaging students in partnership are missing a valuable opportunity both in course enhancement through to university strategy, and in the professional development of students. What was particularly clear was the importance of students in the training and support of others to undertake representative roles throughout the institutions (sparqs works with colleges of further education as well as universities), and nationally. The talk of Adam on the value of student partnerships in assisting in the development of citizens in democratic societies resonated strongly with me. Those who are familiar with my work will recognize that as a consistent driving factor.
Touched with a certain amount of incredulity, there was an enthusiasm and keenness to hear about the relative beginnings of student partnership thinking in Australia, New Zealand and Japan. Our sessions were well attended with engaged audiences, and I was involved in some great discussions during the breaks. I have returned with so many ideas and a heap of valuable contacts.
I also took the opportunity to accept the invitation of the student engagement group to visit the University of Edinburgh. More about those discussions in a later blog.
On a finishing note, we visited Teviot Row House (http://www.docs.csg.ed.ac.uk/…/Teviot%20Row%20House%20(EUSA… ) the oldest student union building in the world which made me want to be a student again. However, I may have been almost counted out by the horrifying fact that women have only been admitted there since 1970. The age and layout of the building also poses huge challenges for disability access (as is shown on their webpage). At least we are lifetimes ahead in both these areas.
One of the features of student engagement in university decision-making elsewhere is the presence of sector agencies that support student engagement activities and promote student partnership.
In the UK the national entity which is the forerunner in support of student representation is student partnerships in quality Scotland (sparqs) (sparqs.ac.uk/). In England and Wales in 2011/2012, The Student Engagement Partnership (TSEP) (tsep.org.uk/) was formed between the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) (qaa.ac.uk ), the National Union of Students (NUS), the Association of Colleges (AoC), the Higher Education Academy and the Guild of Higher Education (hea.ac.uk, guildhe.ac.uk/). There is also Wise Wales (wisewales.org.uk ). A couple of examples illustrate the type of support these agencies provide.
In Scotland, sparqs supports students, student associations, universities and colleges to improve the effectiveness of student engagement in quality at the course, institutional and national levels. It provides a national training program and ongoing support, training and resources for institutional trainers, including toolkits for use in developing training. Sparqs also provides representatives with opportunities for collaboration beyond their representative duties and training. Representative forums and conferences allow for exchange of experiences, ideas, clarifications, trouble-shooting and extending knowledge bases. Recent initiatives include supporting the development of student partnership agreements within institutions and reporting of recognition and accreditation of academic representatives.
The Student Engagement Partnership (TSEP) operates in partnership with the sector organisations above to promote students as active partners in their education and student experience. It supports the sector in enabling students to be actively involved in the development, management and governance of their institution, its academic programs and their own learning experience.
An alternative approach is in New Zealand where the National Union of Students Associations (NZUSA) is supported in its student engagement work by the higher education and polytechnic sectors and by the Academic Quality Agency for New Zealand Universities (AQA) (aqa.ac.nz).
In developing a systemic approach to student engagement in decision-making for Australian universities it would be valuable to consider the provision of a sector-supported entity based on one of these models.
The sparqs 2017 conference is fast approaching and I am looking forward to talking there about what we have been doing in Australia, and to hearing about the many exciting initiatives that are taking place in student engagement in Scotland.
One of sparqs initiatives that will feature in the conference is their student engagement awards. The awards are for:
- An initiative led by a students’ association in partnership with their university which has made the most impact on the enhancement of the student experience
- An initiative led by a students’ association in partnership with their college which has made the most impact on the enhancement of the student experience
- A co-curricular initiative/project (curriculum design/curriculum delivery/assessment) which has had an impact across the college or university
- A student-led initiative across the college or university which demonstrates a clear commitment to equality and diversity and has had an impact across the organisation
- University course rep of the year
- College course rep of the year
This is a great way to promote sharing of ideas through showcasing initiatives. It is also a tangible demonstration that student engagement is an important and valued activity.
During the Student Voice project and now during my Fellowship I have adopted the practice of including students in ‘conversations’ and as individual speakers in my conference sessions. It makes sense that if we are going to talk about student engagement in decision-making, students should play a big part in those discussions. This inclusion of students has been very well received and they have provided valuable insights and ideas. It has also been inspiring to see that it is not just the project team and the Fellowship that has promoted this approach. At recent conferences, there have been other presentations that have enlisted students as part of the presenting team. The most recent event was the Universities Australia Conference in Canberra where I attended three very successful sessions which involved student panellists.
At the satellite events which followed the Conference I conducted three sessions which included students. For the Chairs of Academic Boards session I was joined by Lizzy O’Shea (former President of the UWA Student Guild) who presented her thoughts on processes for, and the value of authentic engagement of student voice at all levels of university decision-making. At the following two events Winson Widarto (President ANUSA International Students Association), James Connolly (President ANUSA) and Rowan Alden (former student representative on CSU’s university council) discussed their initiatives for engagement of student voice; and Peter Derbyshire (President of CAPA), Nina Khairina (President of CISA) and Sophie Johnston (President of NUS), presented their ideas for the role of student leadership working in partnership with universities. At all sessions the strong themes were training and support for student representatives, and the development of capability and knowledge starting with course representation.
Rowan Alden also talked about the particular challenges in engaging student voice at a regional multi-campus university such as Charles Sturt and her experiences with founding a student leadership conference which brought all student representatives together. Because of its success, the university has continued to hold the event yearly.
One of the questions that is raised in relation to initiatives seeking to promote students as partners engaged at all decision-making levels within Australian universities, is what is in it for the institutions? The question presumes that this level of engagement will come at a cost, requiring universities to expend additional resources and possibly face new risks. The question also seems to assume that institutions will only commit to such programs if they see them as enhancing their bottom line. While there may be some readily identifiable costs associated with committing to championing student partnership at individual institutions it is unlikely that there would be a clear direct correlation between resources invested in student partnership and the financial performance of the university. There is likely to be a complex interaction between student partnership and financial performance and other programs that may be operating simultaneously. Challenges with implementing initiatives and the changing landscape in which universities need to operate are also likely to thwart attempts to show such a correlation. Is enhancing student engagement still a good business strategy for universities? There are good arguments why this is the case, whether it is viewed as a competitive strategy, listening to customers or a mechanism for improving internal efficiencies.
Importantly, financial performance is not the only way to measure how effective initiatives are. A university is more than a business. A university can be viewed as a community of scholars; an instrument for national purposes; a representative democracy; as well as a service enterprise embedded in competitive markets (this multifaceted view was promoted by Olsen in Olsen, J.P., (2005) The institutional dynamics of the (European) University Working Paper No. 15, March 2005).
The vision of a university as a representative democracy calls for demonstrable participation in decision making by students as a significant part of the university community whose needs must be represented. Such a position is a real world view that recognises the student body as a significant part of the university’s reason for being. While the business vision may dominate the democratic vision of a university a university is more than simply a business.
When the various personalities of a university are combined there is a clear case for ensuring that student engagement in decision making is more than a token representation at lofty heights where the student voice may be drowned out by board and council members of significant authority. The promotion of student voice has capacity to benefit the business operations of the university as well as fulfilling its obligations as a representative democracy. As a regulated body funded by the state there is also a clear role for student voice in promoting quality. Within a community of scholars, the voice of students should not be dismissed as a junior voice but must be reckoned with as the voice of learning experts.
These other functions are equally as important to the role of student partnership in decision-making to a university. The concept of students engaging fully in university governance is not new. There is abundant evidence of this approach in other countries. Australia lags behind in developing and implementing a coherent approach.
Last week I talked about the need for engagement with students in decision-making to be authentic, with the university putting emphasis on partnership rather than consultation. I also pointed to the need to support that level of engagement.
The first step in this engagement is to provide opportunity for students to participate in decision making processes from early in their university career. A good way to encourage this is to provide for student representation to begin at course, year or subject level, and progress through to faculty and university committees and senior governance roles. The advantage of this approach is that it provides opportunity for many students to participate in a capacity closely matched with their level of experience. It enables them to develop skills in representing fellow students. They gain experience in raising issues with university personnel and understanding how universities work. They can work out if they like representative roles. If they do, the next level might be to engage in a faculty board or discipline society or committee. From there, students may progress to increasingly more senior roles commensurate with expertise and appetite. However, some may be happy to continue from year to year working on representing their course, contributing their increasing experience and sharing it with new representatives.
To facilitate students taking on these roles support and training needs to be provided. At the course representative level training doesn’t need to be particularly elaborate. We have run a pilot project where the course representatives were provided with a two hour training session which explained the purpose of course representatives, helped students to identify what issues course representatives should engage with (and what issues they shouldn’t), provided some basic training in meeting protocols and communication skills, and provided them with a series of scenarios to discuss to check their understanding of their role. Students were also provided with details of where they could get help if they encountered a problem they didn’t know how to deal with or if the role presented challenges that they needed support with. They were provided with a handbook and contact details for a support officer they could talk to as needed. It was important also to get academic staff on board with the idea of course representatives and to see them as a valuable tool for them in enhancing their courses. I will develop this in a later blog.
We found that the course representatives provided some valuable insights that led to improvement. The course representative engagement also provided an opportunity to disseminate better understanding amongst students as to why some things are done in a particular way. These results were facilitated by the student being prepared for and supported in their role.
As student representatives take on more senior roles their training and support needs may increase but at the same time these more experienced representatives can play an important role in mentoring newer representatives. At the most senior levels, some institutions are already providing opportunity for student representatives to take part in more advanced training such as company director training and financial briefings. This level of investment in student representation is an important indicator that a university is taking its engagement with students in decision making seriously. It is also an investment that can pay dividends though building expertise within the student body that can be shared.
True partnership with students in decision-making takes time and effort and that is undoubtedly a challenge at a time when universities seek to improve their bottom line. However, evidence abroad shows that investing in creating true partnership with students will enhance a university’s success. Student partnership is not just a feel-good exercise but one that makes good sense in a competitive environment. This week I want to focus on what authentic engagement looks like before exploring how it can be implemented and why iut is beneficial for universities.
One of the best tools I have seen for explaining what authentic engagement looks like is Arnstein’s ladder. The ladder comes from a 1969 paper by Sherry R. Arnstein entitled “A Ladder of Citizen Participation”. The citation is JAIP, Vol. 35, No. 4, July 1969, pp. 216-224 and while the paper relates to government rather than education it is well worth reading. The ladder was introduced to me by Professor Gwen van der Velden (Warwick University) and Eve Lewis (sparqs). It looks like this:
The target in university decision making, as in other activities needs to be partnership. Not relinquishing control but empowering those affected by decisions to actively participate in making them. The ladder is also informative for what it reveals about “consultation”. Universities like other institutions may pride themselves on consulting with their constituents but the reality is that often consultation is a tokenistic form of engagement at best. Key problems with consultation relate to who is consulted, when are they consulted, how are they briefed and what is done with their input? True consultation is when affected parties are brought in at the very beginning of the process, or even are asked for their views when ideas for change or innovation are being considered.
Consultation often fails to embrace diverse views, asks for input late in the decision-making process, fails to adequately brief those consulted and disregards views that conflict with the decision that, in reality, has already been made. Not surprisingly this approach actually does more harm than good. Students see this type of engagement for what it is- senseless window-dressing. From a business perspective it makes no sense- it is expensive, time consuming and damages the relationship between institution and constituents.
True partnership is time consuming. It requires investment in ensuring that diverse student voice is captured and listened to. Student voice needs to be part of formulating the brief rather than responding to what the institution has decided. During the OLT project a university shared a great story with us of investing heavily in the development of a student space that nobody used- they hadn’t thought to ask the students what they needed. Ultimately an opportunity arose to redress this situation and students were actively engaged in creating the design brief. They didn’t demand crazy things, they listened to why some things couldn’t be achieved and they vetoed elements that were impractical or a poor use of available funds. The result was a state of the art space that is well used and has become a benchmark that other institutions are striving to emulate.
Australian universities are engaging students in partnership in a wide range of activities. These moves open up valuable and much needed discussions about effectively embedding student partnership in decision making across the sector. One such opportunity was the recent Students as Partners Roundtable held at the University of Tasmania on 31 January 2017 which launched Wendy Green’s Engaging Students as Partners in Global Learning Fellowship. National and international experts including Professor Mick Healey (Healey HE Consultants, UK), Professor Betty Leask (La Trobe University) and Dr Kelly Matthews (University of Queensland) explored how staff and students can work together as partners in learning and teaching.
While the focus of my fellowship extends beyond learning and teaching to embrace decision making at all levels of university activity, the learning and teaching dynamic is clearly an important and central element. Participants provided some thought provoking perspectives.
Betty Leask described the role of education as extending beyond creating economic growth and requiring active and reflective participation, and the development of understanding of the positions adopted by and needs of others in a complex global environment.
Mick Healey reflected on the transformative power of student partnership and its role as a way of doing things rather than an outcome. Mick considers “… it should be the norm, not the exception, that students are engaged as co-partners and co-designers in all university and department learning and teaching initiatives, strategies and practices.”
The skills needed for students to participate as effective partners in learning and teaching processes can be both developed and utilised more broadly in university decision making and governance. Understanding of different perspectives and the complex context in which decisions need to be made is critical to effective engagement of students as partners within processes in institutions – both in the classroom and outside. Building understanding that deep engagement with their university is an important part of student life for all students with far reaching benefits for students as individuals, universities as institutions, and society at large is critical.