Some musings on COVID-19 academia & beyond

© Andy Maguire

© Andy Maguire

Like every other sector, higher education is suffering the shock of the COVID-19 pandemic. We are still waiting to see whether the emergency transition to online teaching will work out and whether alternative assessments will deliver fair and appropriate results. This will forever be the ‘COVID-19 academic year’, but we still do not really know what it will end up looking like.

We are also yet to understand the deep implications of the pandemic on the functioning and sustainability of universities and academic communities around the world. The UK is perhaps in a particularly strange and vulnerable position due to the marketisation of its higher education sector, the associated waves of strikes over the last two years, the economic dependence on international student fees (mostly from China) and the global mobility of its top talent.

There will be temptations to go back to ‘normal’ or as close as possible to ‘business as usual’ (perhaps with an intervening sector-wide bailout). I would argue that, in many fronts, this should be resisted. The current shock to the way things were done should make us reflect upon what does not work in academia, what scrambling through the challenges of COVID-19 is teaching us, and what we want for the post COVID-19 academia. I have a few thoughts.

First, COVID-19 and the associated collective disorientation, fear and confusion in its immediate aftermath have created massive tensions in the governance of higher education institutions, with many of them displaying levels of dysfunctionality that will only be fully visible in the medium to long term. These challenges in governance and the vacuum or excesses (and sometimes, both) of decision-making and communications (with staff and students alike) have only been partially mitigated by the commitment and the collegiality of most, starting with those on the most precarious contracts, which are at the frontline of interactions with students. Only this attitude will carry us through this, for the unavoidable truth is that the worse is yet to come and it will be with us for quite some time. The sense of community that (the lucky ones, amongst which I am blessed to be) have been experiencing shows us something about the real meaning of academia. We must build on it.

However, making this commitment sustainable will require a very significant rethinking of the system of values and rewards in academia and, importantly, a levelling up of working conditions and an end to casualisation. ‘Citizenship’ is now the gold standard and the only way of keeping Departments/Schools afloat and, with them, the heavier University structures. This is a time where it may be all too easy for some to hide under the efforts of most. More than ever, keeping tabs with everyone’s contribution, demanding that senior colleagues pull our weight, and recompensing those that go above and beyond will be crucial. Only resilient institutions can get to the other end of this (and the next, and the following) crisis and the institution can only be as resilient as the worse-treated, paid and rewarded of its members.

Second, this crisis has shown how most of our lives are unbalanced from a personal/work life perspective and the fragility of the support structures that allow us to overwork, oftentimes to the point of neglecting our closest and dearest, as well as ourselves. The unavoidable ‘reduction in academic productivity’ that has come with the pandemic — except for some, specially in the fields of knowledge of more direct relevance, of course — should make us reflect on whether we are all doing too much, and also perhaps too little. We should take stock of what is it we think is at the core of our function as academics, as members of a scholar community. We should also take stock of all the things we would ordinarily be doing but cannot do anymore due to time constraints, or other reasons. Perhaps the current prioritisation can tell us how to refocus our efforts and how to reshape our jobs — and perhaps our personal lives — so we have a better balance.

Third, the crisis has grounded (almost) everyone. Yet, academic activity has not stopped and we are all getting used to a volume of online activities we would never have dreamt of. From the perspective of the need for academia to get serious about climate change and transitioning to a truly environmentally sustainable model, this can be one of the silver linings. I know it is unrealistic to expect everyone to join me in my pledge not to fly for work, and I understand that the reasons why that would not be feasible or fair remain. However, I think that now that we have all been forced into the exercise of 'trying it out’, we should collectively adopt a position of restarting as few activities requiring travel (and in particular flights) as possible. To a certain degree, this can also apply to distance learning, as we will very soon have accumulated significant experience in online teaching, which should make us rethink the traditional structure of campus-based degrees (not to abandon them, but to consider a better mix of presential and online activities, as well as broadening our horizons to part-time and distance-learning as potentially more inclusive options).

Finally, but this is less new, the crisis has once again brought into sharp relief the inadequacy of the methods of academic research publication and dissemination. When push comes to shove, peer review procedures can be dispensed with or minimised, publication is carried out in open access and dissemination is maximised as a true attempt at discharging the social responsibility of those with the relevant knowledge, a platform and available resources. It has been heartening to see so many specialists team up and work on the modelling and analysis required to inform public health policies, as well as robust scrutiny of political (in)decisions and other valuable interventions. There is plenty that resonates with what the academic mobilisation around Brexit already showed. This really seems to me to be the day of reckoning for the current model. May the movement to make academic textbooks and then parts of the catalogue backlist freely available online by some publishers serve as evidence that knowledge can no longer be kept behind the crumbling paywalls.

There surely is more to reflect upon and many more changes that are desirable for a post COVID-19 turn of the academy for the better but I would be satisfied to see an increase of the sector’s resilience by securing all its members and aligning the systems of incentives and rewards to what makes us collectively strong and puts us in a position to discharge our social mission sustainably; a rebalance of the personal and the professional in a sector where jobs tend to also be people’s passions (at least for the lucky ones, such as myself); a transition to a net zero emissions academia by 2025 at the latest; and a move to open access, agile and quality-assured publication and active and engaging dissemination of academic research.

Are English Universities likely to stop having to comply with EU public procurement law?

One of the elements implicit in the on-going discussion about higher education reform in England concerns the extent to which changes in the funding and governance structure of HEFCE (to be transformed into the Office for Students, or any other format that results from the consultation run by BIS) can free English universities from their duty to comply with EU public procurement law. 

The issue is recurring in the subsequent waves of higher education reform in England, and the same debate arouse last summer following BIS statements that the most recent reform (lifting the cap on student numbers) would relieve English universities of their duty to comply with EU public procurement law (see discussion here).

Overall, then, there is a clear need to clarify to what extent English universities are actually and currently obliged to comply with EU public procurement rules, both as buyers and as providers of services. That analysis can then inform the extent to which in the future English universities are likely to remain under a duty to comply with EU public procurement rules.

In this study we provide an up-to-date assessment of situations in which universities are bound by public procurement rules, as well as the combined changes that market-based university financing mechanisms can bring about in relation to the regulation of university procurement and to the treatment of the financial support they receive under the EU State aid rules. National differences in funding schemes are likely to trigger different answers in different EU jurisdictions. This study uses the situation of English universities as a case study.
The first part focuses on the role of universities as buyers. The traditional position has been to consider universities bound by EU public procurement rules either as state authorities, or because they receive more than 50% public funding. In the latter case, recent changes in the funding structure can create opportunities for universities to free themselves from compliance with EU public procurement rules.
In the second part, we assess the position of universities as providers. Here the traditional position has been that the State can directly mandate universities to conduct teaching and research activities. However, new EU legislation contains specific provisions about how and when teaching and research need to be procured if they are of an economic nature. Thus, accepting the exclusion of university services from procurement requirements as a rule of thumb is increasingly open to legal challenge.
Finally, the study assesses if and in how far universities can benefit from exemptions for public-public cooperation or in-house arrangements either as sellers or buyers. 
The full paper is available on SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2692966.

We have submitted our piece of research to BIS as part of the consultation on the green paper. We hope that our research and the insights it sheds can inform the discussion on the new mechanisms for the allocation of the teaching grant to English universities (and particularly the discussion around Q18 of the consultation).

The elusiveness of academic integrity and its value: some musings against any relaxation of standards

One of the most complicated and elusive elements in the day to day of a professional academic have to do with some form of academic integrity and, particularly, with the keeping of academic standards. This is a fundamental part of our role in two main dimensions: peer review and student assessment.

In the peer review area, this relates to editorial functions (such as the blind review of manuscripts before publication in academic journals, or the publication of book reviews) as well as to the active participation in research debates (such as conferences, seminars or, these days, twitter and blog platforms).

In student assessment, the array of activities is even broader, from marking (and second marking) of undergraduate work, to external examining in other institutions, to supervision of postgraduate students and, maybe with the highest significance, the examination of PhD theses. The indivisible connection between assessment and academic standards can hardly be overstated (see The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education's position here).
 
In my view and (still limited) experience, all these processes feed into each other and the only sensible strategy for a professional academic concerned with academic integrity and the keeping of academic standards (which are the only value that universities should really protect above any other) is to try to remain actively involved in both dimensions (ie peer review and assessment) and to resist the permanent pressures to lower standards here and there. It may sound slightly self-important, but I think that professional academic need to perceive ourselfs as a gatekeepers and resist calls to open the doors too often or too easily.
 
 
It is also very important for us, as a community, to be able to communicate to society that this is the core, most fundamental function that we develop and the most significant value we add in return for the (always too limited, always too insecure) funding of our activities. Hence, when there are debates about the purpose and function of higher education institutions and their (core) employees, we should always make sure to stress that we uphold academic integrity and enforce academic standards. It may sound too vague, but this is the most important function we can possibly perform. And it is also the most distinctive.
 
Otherwise, if we fail to keep academic integrity, the ensuing dillution of academic standards will end up resulting in a scenario where academic qualifications are completely irrelevant because they no longer tell anyone how much of an expert somebody is, or how qualified to develop activities in a field that requires scientific knowledge. It will also be impossible to distinguish one university from another on the basis of any valuable merits-based metric and, in the end, academic excellency will fade away.
 
Of course, keeping academic integrity is difficult to do and usually comes (sooner or later) at a personal cost. Nobody likes to tell someone else that their work/research is not up to the applicable standard and we all tend to get upset when we hear it. Nobody likes rejection or failure. However, professional academics need to be able to swallow that bitter pill every now and then, and make sure that standards are kept despite colleagues, peers or students getting upset or frustrated. Hopefully, their (academic) maturity will make those feelings go away and the objectiveness of the academic assessment will be recognised sooner or later.
 
In this time of the year, with so many assessments going on and so many pressures coming from rakings based on student satisfaction as yesterday's Guardian 2015 University Guide tables, it is worth reminding ourselves of the value and long-term relevance of what we do. We cannot always please everyone if that means that academic integrity is jeopardised. And, most importantly, we must not do it. If we sacrifice academic standards in the altar of satisfaction, the importance and long-term viability of higher education institutions will be doomed. Clearly, a bitter pill to swallow.