Universities and public value

By Martin Vogel

test card
BBC Test Card image.

Higher education’s status as a not-for-profit public service operating in a globally competitive market is unusual. There are not many comparable institutions – and this can make HE’s travails, as it contemplates regulatory change, seem like a lonely struggle. But HE is not alone. An analogous institution is the BBC. There are affinities in terms of cultural role, independence and longevity. But the most striking is the exposure to competition while pursuing public purposes. This creates a tendency towards managerialism and instrumentalism that can be counter-productive. To keep this tendency in check, and retain public support, the BBC turned to the concept of public value. Universities are now exploring the same avenue, as they try to regain public connection, revealed by the Brexit vote to be threadbare.

HE has suffered some significant defeats recently – not just on Brexit but the closely related topic of immigration policy and also an HE Bill which undermines universities’ independence. But it’s in a relatively strong financial position. The BBC, while securing a reasonable charter for the next 11 years, has never been less confident. What can higher education learn from the BBC’s successes and its mistakes?

Both higher education and the BBC have traditions of practitioner independence which inform how they are regulated. In the BBC’s case, it is editorial autonomy; for higher education, academic freedom. As higher education has become more business focussed, it has become more like the BBC in bringing the tension between practitioner independence and managerialism to the fore.

In HE, this is heightened by the complicating factor of loyalty to discipline. While journalists and management within the BBC may clash, they assume a shared loyalty to the institution. In higher education, loyalty to discipline probably trumps loyalty to institution. Consequently, there’s more mature engagement with the managerial impetus in the BBC. There’s a long history of strategic conversation. This extends back at least to the leadership in the 1990s of John Birt. He engaged staff in the existential threat to the BBC that was arising from marketisation and technological change as well as the self-inflicted wounds caused by what had become a flabby editorial culture.

In transactional terms, the BBC’s strategic conversation – about why change is proposed – is conducted as an adult-to-adult discourse. Staff understand the rationale even if they’re not on-side. In higher education, this conversation is still immature and more likely to be conducted as parent-to-child. Consequently there’s less ownership.

The BBC developed the narrative of public value in the middle of the last decade. Adopted from the work of Mark Moore at the Kennedy School of Government, this was seen as a means of winning charter renewal. But it also shifted the discourse inside the BBC from the producer interest to the public interest – outcomes rather than outputs. So, for instance, the purpose of the BBC with respect to journalism was not to produce hours of news and current affairs every day but to enable people to participate in democracy as informed citizens. This has been diluted somewhat in the new draft charter, but it still informs how the BBC’s five purposes are expressed.

The public interest is harder to argue in higher education. There are many applications of academic scholarship and teaching that create obvious benefits to society. Bill Rammell, vice-chancellor at Bedfordshire, has provided an excellent analysis of these, together with the policy implications that flow from them, in his recent paper for HEPI. But, at its core, the purpose of academic research lies in the intrinsic value of knowledge. By definition, the societal benefits that arise from this are speculative and, in many instances, may accrue only to subsequent generations. But it’s entirely possible to define the public value of HE in ways that recognise this aspect.

An analogy from the BBC is its investment in current affairs. Many viewers watch a programme such as Panorama occasionally, if at all. But they understand its contribution to the public realm and are content for their licence fees to fund it. The BBC used its public value narrative to secure an advantageous charter 10 years ago. Although its financial position has declined since, the corporation has still been remarkably effective in the latest charter negotiations. Its purposes remain recognised and it has gained the predictable income stream of compulsory licence fee funding for another decade. In fact, it’s been given an 11-year charter instead of the usual 10 to give it some protection from the electoral cycle. During the charter just finishing, public value analysis secured a framework for the BBC to set the foundations for the current era of broadcasting, characterised by on-demand viewing by iPlayer and HDTV.

Insofar as the BBC has lost its way, it could be argued that this is because it has strayed from the thinking of public purposes. More attention by management to the public purposes would have clarified the BBC’s interest in broadcasting its findings about Jimmy Saville. Its purpose to inform citizenship might have encouraged it to take a more robust view of its independence and impartiality in the referendum campaign, with more testing on behalf of audiences of conflicting and sometimes untrue claims.

On the face of it, HE is in a weaker position than the BBC. It has to overcome the disadvantage of its fragmentation to present a robust voice to policy makers and the wider public. Compared with other sectors, it has enjoyed a good financial settlement through austerity – but at what cost? Marketisation and commodification of education and research anchored to instrumental aims.

As universities contemplate the gulf between themselves and the public that Brexit has revealed, public value thinking could help them get closer to their communities and articulate purposes that the public would get behind. This in turn could help diffuse tension between academics and leaderships, since the management project would be mobilised in the service of a project that academics might find more inspiring. Clarity of purpose would allow for greater differentiation between universities – research-intensives, balanced, teaching-focussed – and, more importantly, provide a more robust foundation for dealing with government and the new regulator, the OfS.

Originally published at Wonkhe.

Image courtesy Wikimedia.