University strategy 2010 to 2020 - Green Paper: A discussion document about the development of University strategy 2010 to 2020; for response by ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
University strategy 2010 to 2020 Green Paper: A discussion document about the development of University strategy 2010 to 2020; for response by the University community and to seek the counsel of external partners October 2008
University strategy 2010 to 2020
Green Paper October 2008
Contents
Vice-Chancellor’s introduction 3
Part I 4
Introduction 4
External context and historical background 5
Strategy implementation since 2003 5
The White Paper and the University Strategy 6
Part II 7
1. Enhancing the quality of the student experience 8
2. Research and knowledge transfer 11
3. Employer engagement, employability and the skills challenge 14
4. Civic and community engagement 17
5. Sustainability and infrastructure 21
6. Internationalisation and offshore delivery 24
7. The university community 26
Part III 30
The consultation process 30
Responding to the Green Paper 32
Appendices 33
Appendix A: Staff survey: Future Directions 2020 33
Appendix B: University mission, vision, values to 2010 34
Appendix C: Measures of success 36
| 2 | ContentsVice-Chancellor’s introduction
Oxford Brookes University is one of the great success stories of higher education provision in the UK.
Of the institutions given university title in 1992, it is recognised as leading the field. The outstanding
quality of teaching is a key factor in that success but we also have a growing reputation in research
and knowledge transfer.
We face significant challenges. In the United Kingdom we are squeezed between those universities
who have research programmes significantly greater than we will achieve on current – and prospective –
funding models, and those who are primarily focused on teaching. Very substantial investments are
being made in universities in China and the Middle East, and international competition for both students
and academic staff will intensify over the coming period. As a university that is still building its reputation
internationally, we will need clarity of mission and purpose if we are to compete in an ever-more
challenging environment.
The University must consider its strengths and its values: so, in our determination to focus on the
academic character and nature of the University, we have given prominence to seven strategic themes
that we believe are central to our continued success.
The Brookes 2020 strategy has to define a university that is distinctive in ways that we must articulate
through the strategic consultation process. It has to identify the critical success factors for the University
in achieving its goals and creating a framework for the future.
Universities need to be clear and distinctive in their missions in an ever more crowded marketplace.
This is a significant challenge, and those universities which succeed in competitive environments are
clear about what they offer and deploy their resources in such a way as to do it well. We need to have
confidence in what we are and what we do.
The UK economy will demand higher skills by 2020 to achieve economic success, but this success
cannot be achieved without regard to sustainability and social justice. We also know that employability is
a key driver for most students when deciding to study at university.
In developing a strategy to 2020, this Green Paper does not seek to provide a set of answers. Rather it
seeks to put forward some very tough questions – questions we will collectively need to address about
our purpose and common cause.
Your responses – and contributions from our partners, local, national and international – will feed into the
development of a White Paper in early 2009, after which we will set out the proposed goals for 2020.
This is a critical time for us, but it is also a very exciting time. We have the opportunity to engage in a
serious discussion – across and amongst all members of the University, and with our friends – as we
seek to build on our considerable success in order to meet the challenges of the future.
Janet Beer
October 2008
Vice-Chancellor’s introduction | 3 |Part I
Introduction
This Green Paper has been produced as part of the development of a new university strategy to run
from 2010 to 2020. The Green Paper is a consultation document which will enable all members of
the university community, along with external stakeholders, to participate in a wide ranging discussion
around the future strategic direction and character of the university for the next ten year period
and beyond.
The Green Paper has been informed by the external context, as outlined by the Vice-Chancellor in
her campus talks earlier this year1, and feedback from staff from the Future Directions survey, which ran
over the summer (a summary of responses is given as Appendix A). The paper has been put together
through extensive discussion and contributions from SMT, Governors, Deans, Executive Board, and
University Court.
The paper is organised into three sections:
Part I Background, context and university-wide issues
Part II Seven strategic themes, identified as being of major importance to the university
1. Enhancing the quality of the student experience
2. Research and knowledge transfer
3. Employer engagement, employability and the skills challenge
4. Civic and community engagement
5. Sustainability and infrastructure
6. Internationalisation and offshore delivery
7. The university community
Part III The consultation process
The purpose of the Green Paper is to enable as wide a debate as possible on these major strategic
issues for two important reasons. A wide-ranging debate is needed to ensure that the next stage of the
process, the development of the White Paper, is well informed, but also to give us confidence that the
White Paper takes account of the views of the major stakeholders in the university and externally.
These stakeholders will largely be responsible for the implementation of the strategy, or for supporting its
implementation so their involvement and input is critical.
The White Paper will set out the top level strategy for the university, and decisions about the content and
direction of the White Paper will be taken early next year.
The Green Paper is structured around a number of key questions. Through the consultation process,
members of the university and external partners and friends are being invited to provide responses to
these questions, although comments on any aspect of the paper are also welcome.
1
The Vice-Chancellor’s presentation to staff can be downloaded at: www.brookes.ac.uk/2020
| 4 | Part IExternal context and historical background
In developing a new strategy to 2020, an overview of the external context has been presented by the Vice-
Chancellor in a series of staff presentations. In short, what is already a challenging environment is set to
become even tougher. The UK commits a lower proportion of its GDP to higher education than other
developed economies, and yet there is a widespread conviction that the key to future prosperity is an
increasingly skilled population. In 2008, the government announced plans to develop a 10 to 15 year
framework for the development of higher education, but there is still uncertainty around future funding and
tuition fee levels. Demographic trends, particularly the decline in numbers of 18 year olds, are likely to
introduce further uncertainties, as will the increasing competition from universities and private providers
both in the UK and internationally. The publication of this Green Paper coincides with significant and global
financial turmoil.
It is therefore highly likely that the university will need to agree its strategy in the face of great external
uncertainty at a time when successful operation will become even more challenging.
Oxford Brookes University is held in high regard both within and outwith the higher education sector. Its
roots go back to 1865 when the Oxford School of Art was founded in Oxford city centre. The university
today derives its name from John Henry Brookes, Principal of our predecessor institution: the technical
college, one of whose major commitments was to the goal of making education available to all.
Since 1992, Oxford Brookes has developed the reputation as the best ‘modern’ university and has
consistently performed well on many measure of success, including newspaper league tables. However, it
is also true to say that in the public perception, Brookes has not broken through to the next group of
institutions loosely arranged in positions 50 to 25 in league tables. If the university is not to plateau, it is now
important to give consideration to what needs to be done to revitalise the institution’s upward trajectory.
Strategy implementation since 2003
As the university develops its new strategy, work on existing initiatives continues and progress with these
will be an important base on which to build. Following the development of the current strategy to 2010
(Appendix B), the university produced a range of key performance indicators for use as part of the annual
planning cycle. These are used to plan actions to implement strategy, and to measure the success of
initiatives and activities towards the university’s eight goals. Appendix C provides details of the current
indicators, along with a comparison of the earliest and most recently available data, to give a measure
of progress.
The most significant recent strategic initiative was to develop the academic offer and its focus. This was
initiated during the 2006/07 academic year with four main objectives:
I larger academic units with greater critical mass,
I strengthened research,
I a clear and marketable academic offer, and
I reduced complexity and improved efficiency.
The process to achieve these centred on the development of five year plans for each of the academic
schools. These five year plans perform an important function, both as a link to the current strategy – as
they will continue to feature strongly in the annual planning cycle – and as part of the background that
informs the new strategy. The detail of the underpinning initiatives, and the measures which the university
has put in place to monitor these changes are also given in Appendix C.
Part I | 5 |The White Paper and the University Strategy
This Green Paper, and the consultation around it, will inform the development of the White Paper, which
is planned for production in Spring 2009. The White Paper will set out the top level strategy for the
university for the period from 2010 to 2020. The purpose of the Green Paper is therefore to promote as
wide and engaged a debate as possible amongst members of the university community and also with
external stakeholders. It is intended that this debate will give steers and prompts in terms of future
strategic direction and focus, but that final decisions about the content of the White Paper will be taken
at this later stage in the process, and therefore that not all issues which have been discussed as part of
the Green Paper consultation will necessarily become part of the White Paper.
In addition to a top level strategy, the university will need to work on the creation of objectives, which, for
the foreseeable future, will be the reference points for how the strategy will be seen to have made a
mark on the university’s development, as well as performance measures.
While the 2020 strategy will provide a sense of institutional purpose, the university objectives will guide
the operational strategies, plans and major activities of the various component parts of the organisation.
However, strategy delivery may also require institutional strategic projects to better support the university
and the objectives of individual schools. An example of this might be a partnership strategy with major
corporate organisations to develop a range of academic and service activities where engagement would
be expected at an institutional level.
The creation of objectives and measures should be considered as a separate step to provide a more
flexible means of delivering the strategy, such that if changes occur in external factors, the overall
strategy remains valid but the objectives can be realistically adjusted. Performance measures will fulfil the
requirement to monitor how well the organisation is progressing in its mission and objectives.
It is hoped that the Green Paper will encourage wide-ranging debate but there are some key issues that
the White Paper should address for the University as a whole:
Q1. What will be our core values in the period up to 2020? How will these differ from our
current values?
Q2. How should the University best position itself to respond to changes in the next ten
years? How much should it try to plan for these changes, and how much should it try to
refine its internal processes to enable it to be more responsive and flexible? Will this be
reflected by a change in the balance and mix of our activities? How much should this be
based around our ‘Oxford’ location?
Q3. What changes might we make to our internal strategic planning processes in order that
staff become more engaged with the process, and so that the university as a whole is
better able to achieve significant strategic change?
| 6 | Part IPart II
Strategic Themes
Seven strategic themes have been identified as the focus for consultation inside and outside the
university. The White Paper, which will be developed at the end of this consultation, will set out a
strategy that will reflect our ambitions as a university in the years to 2020.
Seven of the Deans of School are taking responsibility for articulating and leading discussions on each of
the strategic themes which have been identified. The key challenges and issues facing Oxford Brookes
are set out in each section and detailed questions are posed in order to provide a focus for discussion in
the university and beyond. The themes are:
1. Enhancing the Quality of the Student Experience
2. Research and Knowledge Transfer
3. Employer Engagement, Employability and the Skills Challenge
4. Civic and Community Engagement
5. Sustainability and Infrastructure
6. Internationalisation and Offshore Delivery
7. The University Community
Part II | 7 |1. Enhancing the Quality of the Student Experience Background Central to students’ experience of higher education is teaching and learning: what and how our students learn and are assessed, with what frequency they are taught, and when, and where. Surveys of student satisfaction, the National Student Survey and Brookes’ own survey, research and externally-led audits repeatedly tell us that aspects of learning and teaching are what matter most to our students. Necessarily, though, students’ learning is affected by all the other aspects of their life at university: their accommodation, finances, support services, transport, and the catering and recreational facilities. The recent ‘Brookes Student Learning Experience Strategy’ brought together a consideration of all aspects of a student’s experience at Brookes. While the possible raising or abolishing of the cap on fees might mean universities feel obliged to improve the experience they offer their students commensurately, it could be argued that – regardless of fees and their level – we are obliged to provide our students with the best experience we possibly can. Certainly, it is widely believed that students will increasingly choose those universities which can demonstrably provide them with the best experience, and the best chance of developing to their full potential. Imminent demographic changes will make competition between institutions the more intense, at the same time as competition continues to intensify for international students. It is likely that the student population – which has already been subject to radical change in recent years – will continue to diversify, with part-time and mature students becoming an ever-more significant part of that population. Key challenges and issues Increasingly, we will need to think about ‘students’ experiences’ rather than ‘the student experience’: the needs and desires of a part-time, mature student, perhaps living with their own family, perhaps still having their workplace as their prime social location, differ radically from those of the traditional undergraduate. Currently, our teaching patterns and modes are heavily predicated on the needs of the traditional, full-time, home undergraduate, and this might become more and more inappropriate. We also need to take full account of the increasing emphasis being placed by government (and likely to be continued by future governments) on employability and the teaching of skills, both subject-specific and generic, to students to help them in the employment market. Brookes promotes itself as an institution that focuses on employability, but this merits closer attention as discussed in the theme: Employer engagement, employability and the skills challenge. Brookes has a long-standing reputation for teaching quality; its Teaching Quality Assessment scores rated it amongst the top twenty universities in the UK. Analysis of national data from the National Student Survey (NSS) shows that the factor that has the most significant impact on students' overall satisfaction levels is ‘Teaching and Learning’, that is, how well the subject matter is taught, and whether the delivery is interesting and enthusiastic. The university’s scores in this category are below those of many of our competitors. If we are to achieve a significant increase in overall levels of student satisfaction, this area is the one that needs particular attention. | 8 | Part II
The recent review of the Brookes Student Learning Experience Strategy, conducted by KPMG, suggests
that some students feel there is inconsistency in the standard of teaching offered and in the quality of
feedback, and that they would welcome more personal contact with tutors. In response, we might
investigate more closely the standard of teaching across the institution, in more rigorous and consistent
ways than the variable application of peer review allows, and provide development support where it is
needed; we might standardise assessment feedback forms across the university, and introduce a
consistent maximum period within which all students can expect to receive feedback on their
assignments; and we might increase the amount of contact students have with staff within each module,
in tandem with reviewing and renewing the personal-tutoring system.
At the same time, we would need to consider the possible effects of increased teaching time on
research. This might lead us to employing a number of teaching associates or assistants, whose
contracts would specify more hours supporting teaching than the standard academic contract. We
might also institute an extensive programme of discipline-specific staff development activities in
innovative teaching methods and, with the need for increased flexibility of delivery in mind, further and
systematically extend our use of technology in teaching. This latter would enable us further to develop
distance-learning modules, including to those based in their workplace and to international students in
their home countries.
In terms of responding to the increased need for flexibility for part-time students, we might extend the
teaching week into the evenings and weekends, in effect allowing the needs and availability of part-time
students to drive the timetable. In relation to employability, we might introduce a compulsory element of
work-based learning into each programme; increase the emphasis on transferable skills in our publicity,
delivery and awards, including insisting all our graduates achieve a particular level of literacy and
numeracy; make an element of civic or community engagement a compulsory module within each
programme; and make the following of a personal development planning programme an integral element
of every Brookes degree. We might, though, openly admit that not all of our degree programmes do in
fact lead to greatly enhanced employment prospects – including some of our most popular and
successful ones – and, in a climate of reducing numbers of graduate-entry jobs, instead emphasise all
those benefits of a university education other than an enhanced salary.
As regards the student experience more broadly, Brookes has already integrated student services more
than some other institutions, but it might be that greater integration, and a consideration of students’
needs from the start of the recruitment process until becoming alumni, would enhance their experience
and make them more likely, after graduation, to want to continue to be part of the university community.
Finally we need to consider whether we want to give priority to the establishment of new subject areas
that would be attractive to students.
Part II | 9 |Questions
Q 1.1 How can we best ensure that teaching across Brookes is innovative, inclusive and
consistently of a high standard? How could we increase student contact with academic
staff while protecting research? Should we do more to provide development support for
teaching where it is needed?
Q 1.2 What new subject areas would fit with a successful Brookes in 2020? How would we give
priority within our resources to fund new developments?
Q 1.3 Should we standardise assessment feedback? How can the university more effectively
integrate and benefit from the activities of its HEFCE-funded CETLs?
Q. 1.4 How should we respond to the increased need for flexibility of delivery? What would be
the advantages (and/or disadvantages) of further developing our use of technology in
teaching, of extending the teaching week into evenings and weekends, and of introducing
contracts that prioritise teaching?
Q 1.5 To what areas should the university give priority so as most effectively to improve
undergraduate and postgraduate students’ experience at Brookes? How could we make
the student experience at Brookes distinctive, in the face of all institutions advertising
themselves as offering the best? How can the benefits of the proposed new state-of-the-
art student services, library and social learning building be maximised?
Q 1.6 How could support services be further integrated so as to improve their performance and
availability to students, and ensure they meet the needs of part-time, mature, international
and postgraduate students as much as those of traditional undergraduates? How can we
maximise the essential capital investment in the estate to support the delivery of an
improved student experience?
Q 1.7 How can we capture the unique facets of our location in Oxford and our sophisticated
regional economy to enhance our students’ experience, curriculum and employability?
Should we make civic and community engagement a key feature of all our programmes,
and therefore of our recruitment strategies?
Q 1.8 How strong and pervasive should our focus on employability and transferable skills be?
How do we prepare our graduates for technologies that do not yet exist?
| 10 | Part II2. Research and Knowledge Transfer
Background
The university’s current Research and Knowledge Transfer Strategy 2007-12 is ‘investing in excellence’
in research, to ensure that the growing national and international reputation that many of Brookes’
researchers have earned, creates a platform for increasing and sustaining research activity of the highest
quality. The strategy continues to 2012 and is not dependent on the outcome of the RAE 2008.
‘Investing for success’ is the overall aim of the current knowledge transfer strategy and builds on the
success and momentum generated in recent years by sequential HEIF initiatives. The majority of the
successes to date have come from the traditional disciplines most often associated with knowledge
transfer – technology, education and the sciences including health. Almost certainly there is a wealth of
latent talent in other disciplines that may ultimately yield even greater success for the university.
Even before the results of the 2008 RAE are announced in December, the debate intensifies on the exact
nature of the Research Excellence Framework (REF) that will replace it. What does seem certain at
present, however, is that the REF will place greater emphasis on metrics and bibliometrics, such as
citation analysis, in addition to a light-touch peer-review process through expert panels for both science-
based and other subjects. The phased-in use of metrics will be used to allocate the HEFCE research
grant from 2011.
Key challenges and issues
In the light of a new long term strategy for the university, it is timely to review our current strategy for
research and knowledge transfer, to assure ourselves that it forms the best possible platform for
sustainable growth in research excellence, and links strongly into both our undergraduate and
postgraduate programmes, enhancing the student experience to an even greater extent. Can we provide
a research community that equally values research and knowledge transfer, where all externally assessed
research areas attain national, and most international, standards of excellence, and where engagement
with research underpins the student experience in both undergraduate and postgraduate programmes?
The proportion of income to the university from peer-reviewed research is small compared to others in
the sector. For as long as that continues to be a major factor in university rankings, however significant
our successes, there would need to be a considerable change to overtake others in the UK. While this is
only one small part of the role of research, it forms a significant part of most universities’ positioning. The
university needs to have considered this in its 2020 strategy, and to have policies and procedures in
place to maximise success under the new REF regime.
Winning research grants from research councils and similar funding bodies is increasingly competitive.
Although funding for research has increased in real terms, much of the extra is recovered through full
economic costing rather than additional numbers of awards. The current economic climate also indicates
a much tougher funding situation ahead of us. The university must have rigorous policies and
procedures in place to ensure that only high quality applications, which can realistically challenge for
successful funding, are submitted. At the same time, our research community must be encouraged and
supported to increase applications to alternative sources of funding from the wide range of opportunities
available – including contract research from the public and private sector, commissioned research from
government agencies, as well the EU and other overseas funding bodies.
Part II | 11 |Like the majority of universities, our main strengths lie in disciplinary research. However, increasingly policy-makers and funding bodies express the view that many of the major problems facing society today require a multi- or interdisciplinary approach and have modified funding criteria accordingly. Brookes has risen to this challenge by supporting a number of cross-institutional research themes. The challenge for the university is to ensure that traditional disciplinary research of the highest quality continues to be supported and valued, whilst striving to ensure successful outcomes for the interdisciplinary initiatives. There are increasing opportunities for disciplinary or interdisciplinary research collaborations involving overseas researchers, often in large research consortia that may involve public and/or private institutions. As our research success continues, these opportunities will only increase. The university must provide a supportive environment to enable staff to participate in such prestigious partnerships and should review its capacity to host visiting researchers for short to medium term visits. Recruiting and retaining researchers of the highest quality or potential is the key to any successful research strategy. It is therefore important that the university can not only attract and retain such research staff at all levels, but do so across the key subject disciplines. Early Career Fellowships, Research Fellowships and Sabbatical/Research Leave Fellowships, promotion opportunities to reader and professor are all key elements of the current strategy, but the current approach may need further review. For students, we will need to attract high quality applicants into research careers in an increasingly competitive market with other employment opportunities; doctoral and post-doctoral training programmes and career development opportunities will need to be of the highest quality as will other policies, support and investment. Success in research across all disciplines be it pure, applied or user-valued is dependent on the enthusiasm, single-mindedness and initiative of research staff. It also provides increasing burden and challenges for support and administrative staff. The university must ensure that it provides an enabling framework of support across all its directorates and services. Central to this will be support for individual school and department research strategies as well as support for individual and collaborative research initiatives. Much has been done to streamline processes and enhance support in recent years with some success but it is almost certain that further improvements are necessary. Increasing importance is being placed by research councils and government on knowledge transfer, applied and user-valued research, collaboration with industry and the commercial exploitation of research. Like research, successful knowledge transfer often relies on single-minded determination and motivation of individuals to succeed. More so than research, it also relies on the expertise, enthusiasm and knowledge of others in the technology or knowledge transfer business. The university has a growing reputation in this area and is located at the heart of one of the most successful ‘business’ regions in Europe. Our challenge is to exploit our expertise in subject disciplines not traditionally associated with knowledge transfer, such as ‘social entrepreneurship’. This challenge must be addressed by the newly formed partnership between the university’s Research and Business Development Office and Isis Enterprises Ltd, and the university needs to ensure that appropriate support mechanisms are in place that can respond quickly and effectively to commercial opportunities. As the university embarks on an ambitious refurbishment and building programme for its main campuses, it should consider the needs of researchers, particularly doctoral and post-doctoral researchers and fellows. This includes the provision of a research supportive culture that provides access to facilities and hospitality services beyond the ‘undergraduate teaching year’. Oxford is an attractive location and further support for our research progress could come as the host institution for international conferences in state of the art lecture theatres and accommodation. The attraction of our location, both in terms of the historic city and the local economy, could also suggest that we consider whether to diversify into business, technical or entrepreneurial spaces, which could also link to a CPD offer and employer engagement? | 12 | Part II
Questions
Q 2.1 The current Research and Knowledge Transfer Strategy runs to 2012. How can we build
on this to ensure long-term, sustainable growth in research excellence? What would we
need to do to achieve significant growth in our research activity? Would this be realistic
for us?
Q 2.2 Should the university develop more stringent criteria for selecting the research that it
supports? If so, what criteria should be used and how should such decisions be made?
What should be the balance between supporting disciplinary or cross-disciplinary
research, or should research excellence be the deciding factor above all others?
Q 2.3 How do we become more flexible and responsive to the increasing demands and pace of
the commercial world? How can administrative services be improved to provide the
infrastructure and support necessary to deliver the research and knowledge transfer
strategy?
Q 2.4 As we invest in facilities on campus, should we plan to host more conferences to
showcase Brookes research on the world stage?
Q 2.5 What role do we see for the Graduate School in future? Should it continue as is or expand
its role, particularly if we were to aim to significantly increase interdisciplinary and cross-
disciplinary research?
Q 2.6 How do we maximise the opportunities for engagement with local industry sectors?
Should we further exploit the ‘Oxford’ location to raise the profile of research and
knowledge transfer?
Part II | 13 |3. Employer Engagement, Employability and the Skills Challenge Background The global competitiveness of the UK has been the subject of extensive government consideration. A key conclusion is that as a well-developed economy, the UK can remain competitive only if it can draw on skills at the highest level and the most sophisticated business practices, which means doubling attainment at most levels of skill benchmarked against the upper quartile of the OECD. Responsibility for achieving ambitions will, it is hoped by government, be shared between government, employers and individuals. To achieve the desired goals, the skills level of those already in work will have to be raised, and graduates will need to be equipped to compete in a global economy. Engagement by universities with employers and the employability of university graduates have thus become prominent issues in the context of national policy on skills, (developed through the Leitch reviews), which requires a step change in how universities contribute to the national skills agenda and an increase from 29% to 40% of adults qualified to level 4 (undergraduate certificate level) or above. Given that the majority of the 2020 workforce has already left formal education, the 40% target can only be achieved by engaging with those already in employment, with and through the support of their employers. It is also recognised however, that employer engagement takes different forms according to the strengths of the individual university. Key challenges and issues The university already has a strong record of the kind of employer engagement that is envisaged in the schools of Health and Social Care, and Education through their foundation, undergraduate and CPD programmes, and most academic schools are now involved in foundation degree initiatives. Several existing programmes can be readily aligned for admission purposes with the vocational level 3 qualifications about to be launched. The university, through its various schools, has a track record of knowledge transfer through partnerships, consultancy, and the creation of spin outs. The Business School has become a hub for enterprise education in the region and through its Centre for Creativity and Enterprise Development is working to influence curricula at all levels of education. The majority of university students at undergraduate level are following programmes with a vocational or a professional body accredited outcome. Employer engagement with staff already in the workplace is likely to require new forms of partnership and employer support. It will require increased flexibility with respect to how learning is supported, how teaching is delivered and how assessments are conducted. Academically, it is likely that new forms of responsiveness will be needed to achieve employer-shaped learning opportunities and new credit frameworks, which can facilitate integration of disparate entry qualifications, accreditation of prior experiential learning, and fine grained unitisation of learning. Traditional modes, locations and cycles of learning will need to be changed so that people can learn at home, at the weekends, in the summer, in their places of work or leisure. All of this represents considerable challenge to our assumptions about what it is to be a university and what it is to work in a university. | 14 | Part II
The potential for new learning and new research through interaction with business and the world of work
outside the university also brings potential for new income and the possibility of spread overheads
across a much increased student/client base. The university has already been encouraged to apply for
HEFCE strategic development funding to support its employer engagement initiatives and has based its
application on its history of vocational preparation, its geographical location at the heart of the
knowledge economy, and its already flexible approach to learning. To be successful, universities will need
to show they can provide learning opportunities that are:
I Designed with and/or delivered in partnership with UK employers to meet their particular needs, and
I Predicated on the assumption of a financial contribution from employers over and above the standard
tuition fee.
The employability of our graduates is of growing importance to the UK’s economy but also to our
prospective students. The student experience can enhance the employability of our graduates, not only
in the formal teaching and learning settings, but also through work placements, employer contacts,
volunteering, and enhanced study skills, and we will need to find way to capture and record these
experiences.
The university’s teaching quality reputation is high as is the reputation for the quality of our graduates.
However, in recent years Brookes has frequently fallen below the sector average for employability,
and below our immediate competitors. In 2005/6, at 84.3%, Brookes was in the bottom quartile for
graduates in work or study after six months, against the sector median of 88.1%. The statistics in
this area are complex, and our statistics improve when graduate level jobs are considered (it has
been suggested that our students may hold out for a graduate-level job). The university’s current
employability strategy to 2010 aims for 88% of graduates in work or study after six months, which
would mean achieving the sector median if the rest of the sector stands still. Early analysis of 2006/7
shows an improvement to 87.9%. However we need to consider whether achieving the median is an
appropriate target.
To maintain its reputation, the university will need to ensure that our graduates remain highly employable
and are recognised as such in a new skills economy. That is likely to mean greater employer
engagement in horizon scanning, curricula development, career planning and recognition systems for
both the campus and workplace students.
The employability of graduates could become a key outcome of the student experience. The university
could choose to have a balanced portfolio of activities, which sees employer engagement as just an
aspect of its work, or it could choose to be one of those universities that seeks to be defined by the
scope and depth of its work with business and employers. Employer engagement is therefore clearly a
potential strategic driver for the future development of the university. But our response to the market
needs of future students, to national policy and globalisation, as well as our location in a competitive
and sophisticated regional economy, gives us a range of choices.
Part II | 15 |Questions
Q 3.1 Brookes is in a strong position for deeper engagement with employers and employment.
How can we secure and enhance our record for employability in our future portfolio and
curricula?
Q 3.2 How could our market analysis identify the skills being sought and new styles of learning?
How should we respond to the increased need for flexibility of delivery implicated in the
Leitch agenda for 2020?
Q 3.3 Should Brookes prioritise funding for more formal and sustained employer engagement to
address employability and the skills agenda? What can Brookes do to develop leadership
and investment for this agenda from employers? Should Brookes move towards
developing a centre of excellence in professional practice and development (CPD
provision)?
Q 3.4 Should Brookes encourage a wider range of partnerships with sector skills councils,
private sector trainers, FE colleges, for example, to meet the skills agenda and how
should this be managed?
Q 3.5 How strong and pervasive should our focus on employability and transferable skills be?
Should Brookes principally concentrate on working with employers in sectors that already
have strong engagement? How will this contribute to our mission and identity as an
academic institution?
| 16 | Part II4. Civic and Community Engagement
Background
The engagement of universities with their local community and region has become an area of increasing
concern for institutions across the world, and many now highlight this as a clear focus within their
mission and strategic plan. The Association of Commonwealth Universities (ACU) benchmarking for civic
engagement focuses on the following areas:
i) The university’s mission-based commitments to its host society as articulated through its
strategic plan;
ii) The representation of external groups as part of governance and consultation processes, and hence
how engagement influences and informs the university’s range of operations;
iii) How the university is kept informed of the chief economic and social needs of the region and/or
locality, including particular sources;
iv) How the university’s teaching and research activities reflect the needs of the local community and
region, particularly through CPD and knowledge transfer;
v) The extent of university commitment to business and the local community, but specifically in
the areas of:
a. Large business and industrial interests;
b. Small and medium-sized enterprises;
c. Other public services eg health, education, social services;
d. The voluntary sector, community groups and NGOs;
e. Cultural and artistic organisations.
vi) The existence of university policies (eg environmental responsibility, equality of opportunity,
procurement of goods and services) which can act positively or negatively on the region and the
locality;
vii) The extent of, and structures for, student volunteering, work placement opportunities, and work-
based learning;
viii) The extent of dedicated or shared spaces which are community facing, such as libraries,
performance or exhibition space, and sports facilities;
ix) Those staff or departments who take primary responsibility for the university’s work in civic
engagement.
This civic and community agenda can provide the focus in terms of existing activities, and their strategic
development for Brookes.
Part II | 17 |Key challenges and issues Currently there is no overall strategy for the university in terms of its engagement with either local or regional communities, although there has been a strong focus on this as part of the strategic plan to 2010 as one of the three strategic goals. It is useful, firstly, to consider existing activities, in terms of the breadth and scope, but also in terms of their strategic role: Interaction with local government The university has well developed relationships with local government, both to assist in understanding the local political agenda and planning requirements, but also in terms of serving the economic and business needs of these communities. Local councillors are members of Court, and Governors. In addition, through its participation in the Oxford Strategic Partnership, the university supports Oxford’s Sustainable Community Strategy 2008-2012, entitled Oxford: A World Class City, with its aims of supporting economic development, particularly in high value tourism and conference markets, social inclusion, health and affordable housing, and making Oxford a safer, greener place. Brookes is also a member of the Oxfordshire Partnership which has developed Oxfordshire’s Sustainable Community Strategy, entitled Oxfordshire 2030. This aims to tackle issues such as community well-being, helping young people to succeed, reducing inequalities and breaking the cycle of deprivation, strengthening the economy and protecting the environment. Interaction with local communities Interaction with local neighbourhoods is an important focus, particularly in terms of the building work being undertaken as part of the campus redevelopment, and the ongoing presence and activities of the student body. There has been positive engagement and publicity around the campus redevelopment, and there is ongoing interaction through neighbourhood and residents’ organisations. Sporting facilities are open to the local community through the Centre for Sport. In addition, there is coaching of students in disadvantaged areas, and a talented athlete scholarship scheme. Engagement with key public services such as health and education There is strong interaction with the Health Service, locally and regionally through the provision of training and education for nurses and other health professionals. In addition, Brookes has strong partnerships in the region with schools (through Westminster Institute of Education and the university’s participation in the academic steering group of the Oxford Academy), further and higher educational institutions (Brookes’ Associate College Partnership), and non-government organisations (including international ones that have a local base, such as Oxfam). Examples of its involvement with partners include outreach community programmes (Oxford Learning Communities), the service offered to local authorities and organisations by the not-for-profit Environmental Information Exchange, and the collaborative work undertaken by the Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development. | 18 | Part II
University commitment to business and industry
The University has forged strong links with a number of industrial clusters located in the region, such as
the motorsport industry and the creative and media industries, and has received sponsorship from
SEEDA for the establishment of the new Motorsport Engineering Centre, aimed at providing education,
training and services, to improve the competitiveness of the sector. In addition, Business Futures has
worked closely with SMEs in the region, providing business and management training.
University involvement with cultural, media and arts organisations
The University has played a key role as a stakeholder in Oxford Inspires, a local initiative for the
development of arts, culture and the public understanding of science in the city. It contributes to the
funding of OVADA, a gallery and visual arts development organisation for local emerging artists, and
also hosts Oxford Contemporary Music, which promotes and develops music in the region. Brookes staff
contribute to the management of each of these organisations, as well as to Culture South East and the
Cultural Forum of Higher Education South East (HESE). In addition, the University produces Brookes TV,
a student TV station, which prepares a weekly programme which is broadcast on SixTV, a local terrestrial
channel.
The extent to which local research, teaching and knowledge
transfer meet the needs of the local and regional community
There are many examples of the engagement between research and knowledge transfer and the local
community, such as the ‘Neighbourhood Policing Project’ undertaken between Social Sciences and
Law, and Thames Valley Police. This has also led to an undergraduate research project, sponsored
through the Reinvention Centre, considering early intervention practice and social inclusion.
Opportunities for volunteering, work placements and
work-based learning
Non-credit bearing voluntary work in the community is available through Students Taking Action for
Community Change (STAX) organised by the Students’ Union, and the Careers Centre, along with
school-based staff, provide support for students and external organisations wanting to engage in or
provide placement opportunities.
A key issue for the university as part of this theme, is the extent to which civic and community
engagement should be more top-down and strategically driven, or continue to be allowed to be bottom-
up and based on the interests and enthusiasms of individuals. For the student, is it part of a recognition
system or a process of their development as a responsible citizen?
Part II | 19 |Questions
Q 4.1 To what extent should the university have a clear strategy about the way in which it
engages with the local and regional community, in order to provide the best positioning in
the future, and ensure that future activities complement and support each other, and our
profile in the region and community?
Q 4.2 Which core values eg social inclusion, widening participation, should this strategy reflect,
and how might this promote the university?
Q 4.3 How much should this engagement be driven centrally, through representations on
particular internal bodies, and by having particular staff with responsibilities for
engagement with the local and regional community?
Q 4.4 To what extent should local engagement and volunteering for students be promoted as
part of the experience of being at Brookes?
Q 4.5 Should the university give priority to the provision of a (shared) performance or exhibition
space for the joint promotion of cultural and artistic activities?
Q 4.6 How might the civic and community agenda support the development of research and
knowledge transfer, and the student experience, through clear objectives in terms of the
nature of opportunities (and with particular organisations) that it chooses to develop
further?
Q 4.7 What role might the university play in supporting the important local priorities identified
by the Oxford Strategic Partnership (through its Sustainable Community Strategy, Oxford:
A World Class City for Everyone), and the Oxfordshire Partnership (through its Sustainable
Community Strategy, Oxfordshire 2030)?
Q 4.8 How can we ensure that we best engage with the local community as part of our
programme of campus redevelopment?
| 20 | Part II5. Sustainability and Infrastructure
Background
In terms of environmental sustainability, Brookes has led the way, introducing an environmental policy
and establishing the Brookes Environmental Forum in 1995. It was one of the first universities to work
with the Carbon Trust on its carbon footprint and is described as ‘leading environmental performance
within the UK Higher Education sector’ along with four other universities. It became the first university in
the world to be awarded Fairtrade status in 2003, has received a succession of Times Higher Green
Gown Awards, has been awarded a first class rating in the Green League of Universities, and was the
first higher education institution to sign Green Education Declaration.
Higher education is expected to play an influential, even pioneering, role in helping to shape a
sustainable future, which other sectors can follow. HEFCE sets out the vision that ‘within the next 10
years, the higher education sector in this country will be recognised as a major contributor to society’s
efforts to achieve sustainability – through the skills and knowledge that its graduates learn and put into
practice, and through its own strategies and operations’ (HEFCE, 2005, Sustainable Development in
Higher Education. HEFCE Report 2005/28).
This is further echoed by the UK government’s Sustainable Development Strategy, and a review of
Sustainable Development in Higher Education undertaken by the Policy Studies Institute. So, there are
clearly pressures for universities to behave in an environmentally sustainable and socially responsible
manner, and ensure that the programmes that are offered include education for sustainability.
As well as considering environmental sustainability and the way in which Brookes might address this as
part of its future strategy, it is particularly important to consider the sustainability of the institution itself.
This is primarily in terms of financial sustainability, but also in terms of the suitability of its infrastructure
and internal processes. A key consideration here is the increasingly difficult higher education financial
environment and the financial constraints imposed by HEFCE in terms of the generation of surplus and
the ratio of current assets to liabilities; but also the need for Brookes to generate a greater surplus in
order to finance improvements in the student experience, development of research, essential estates
redevelopment projects such as campus development, and new strategic objectives.
Alongside this, there is a pressing need to review the appropriateness of the internal infrastructure of the
university, in terms of internal processes and their consistency, and also in terms of the internal
deliberative structures, and whether these are fit for purpose.
Key challenges and issues
Providing education for sustainability throughout its undergraduate programmes could be one way in
which the university would be able to differentiate itself in an ever increasingly competitive higher
education market. More emphasis on environmentally sustainable and socially responsible issues in
terms of our research activities could also help to differentiate the institution.
Through its teaching (such as placements, work-based learning, civic and community activities and
undergraduate research projects), research, training and consultancy as well as its involvement in
networks and partnerships, Brookes has the opportunity to play a much greater role in promoting local
and regional sustainable communities.
In terms of the sustainability of the institution, Brookes will need to continue to reduce its carbon
footprint, minimising energy consumption and carbon emissions, and continuing to increase energy
Part II | 21 |efficiency of existing buildings. It could ensure the built environment complies with legislation by, or before, target dates such as, for example, all new non-domestic buildings becoming carbon neutral by 2019. Brookes has a long-held commitment to increase the use of environmentally-friendly means of transport by staff, students and visitors, and will need to renew its Sustainable Travel Plan from 2010. Other environmental considerations are approaches to procurement of goods and services, ethical investment, reduced water consumption, waste management, maintenance and enhancement of the estate. The campus redevelopment will deliver a higher quality estate and could present a visible manifestation of the university’s commitment to sustainability, helping students, staff and visitors understand how sustainability can be put into practice. The aim is to meet our current and future needs with a smaller, higher quality academic estate, maintained to a higher standard, used more intensively, and designed for flexibility and adaptability. Improved energy efficiency and reductions in overall energy consumption will generate financial savings for the university, which can then be invested in meeting the university’s goals and strategic objectives. To ensure the achievement of its goals and strategic objectives, the university’s financial strategy needs to be financially self sustaining. In the last five years, the university has invested in, and continues to invest in, the development of research, support for students (eg Upgrade), recruitment of students from a wider variety of backgrounds, provision of additional student numbers (and extra staff) in selected areas of excellence, replacement of capital equipment, and the opening phase of the campus redevelopment. It currently subsidises the provision of virtually all home/EU undergraduate students and a high proportion of home/EU postgraduate students. Student-led or dependent income accounts for 86% of total university income but over the next 10 years, it is likely that the higher education financial environment will become increasingly difficult as competition for international and publicly funded students increases (in response to global pressures and the demographic downturn), and public funding levels stagnate or fall. We will need to consider what income streams we can grow that will generate a surplus for future investment, as well as to consider what current activities are of less importance from which resources can be diverted. The current financial strategy includes targets such as achieving a surplus of £4.5 million from 2008/9 onwards and containing staff costs below 65% of income, aiming for 60%. Pressures on income and costs mean that even to stand still, cost reductions of between 1% and 3% per annum will be necessary. Once the new Brookes 2020 vision and strategy are agreed, the key financial indicators will be reviewed and targets set at the appropriate level. In addition, key facets of the new strategy will be supported through a development and fundraising campaign. Further discussion is needed to look at which features of the strategy can realistically be expected to attract philanthropic support. To do so they will have to be articulated as central to the new values and goals of the university, and supported at the highest levels. The sustainability of the university is also dependent on the suitability of its internal processes. Following the recent review of the governing body to evaluate its effectiveness and that of its committees, it may be timely to review the role of Executive Board, Academic Board and the committee structure of the university in general. The aims of the review would be to clarify the role of Executive Board, Academic Board and its sub-committees, sub-structures within academic schools, and the reporting relationships between them. In reviewing effectiveness to achieve the university’s goals and strategic objectives, the key questions include: Is the current system too unwieldy? How effective is communication ‘across’ and from ‘bottom to top’ and ‘top to bottom’? Is the university able to make academic decisions quickly enough to meet internal and external demands? Should we rely less on formal committees and more on time-limited, task-based working groups? Is it clear where decisions are taken and to whom responsibility is given for particular areas? | 22 | Part II
You can also read
