Universities: get ready for the new normal

“Research funding is being restructured. Student lives have fundamentally changed. Yet universities continue planning for minor adjustments to a model that no longer exists. Huw Morris examines two structural shifts institutions must recognise if they are to thrive Across the UK and other anglophone systems (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the USA), universities commonly describe their challenges in familiar terms: declining international recruitment , rising costs , static fees, and uncertain government support . These are real pressures, but they are not the core problem. They are symptoms of deeper structural shifts in both government research funding and student behaviour. Much of the UK university sector’s current thinking assumes that the existing institutional model will survive with minor adjustments : a new recruitment market here, a revised research strategy there and perhaps a round of efficiency savings. Yet two underlying forces are changing the foundations of the university itself. One concerns the changing nature of research funding and what it implies for the academic role. The other concerns the changing lives of students and what this means for teaching, estates, and institutional income. Until these deeper changes are recognised, many institutional strategies will remain forms of wishful thinking. Research funding: what, where and who? In the UK, Europe and other advanced economies, research funding is becoming more targeted and mission oriented. In the UK, government funding is increasingly aligned with industrial strategy priorities such as defence, clean energy, life sciences, digital technologies, advanced manufacturing and health systems. This change in the focus of research funding has been accompanied by announcements from the Minister for Science, Innovation and Research, Patrick Vallance, that future funding will be split between three buckets and a pitcher . The three buckets are 1. curiosity-driven research, where the topics for investigation are chosen by researchers, 2. strategic government priorities linked to the industrial strategy and 3. support for innovative companies. The fourth pitcher is cross-cutting support for infrastructure, facilities, and researcher development. These changes in the priority areas for future funding have consequences for what research is done. But of greater importance is where this money will be spent – and this is still unclear. Will it be spent in universities on research projects designed by academics or will a greater proportion be spent on projects in Public Sector Research Bodies (PSRBs) (such as the Alan Turing Institute and the Francis Crick Institute)? Will it be spent in research centres created by philanthropists (such as the Ellison Technology Institute at the University of Oxford). Or will the money that is spent there be provided by benefactors, meaning that there is more government research funding to be spent elsewhere? Finally, will it matter whether this expenditure benefits some nations and regions of the UK more than others? Rebalancing the academic contract However, as well as changing what research will be done and where, the question of who will be doing that research under this new funding model has significantly wider implications for universities. In many older universities, expectations about academic work reflect a balance between some staff being wholly engaged in research, some being wholly engaged in teaching and many involved in both teaching and research. This model only functions when a substantial proportion of staff can secure external research funding. In the past this was supported by government funds, more recently through institutional cross-subsidies such as international student fee income, accommodation charges or conferences. As these alternative sources of funding come under greater pressure and government funding is more concentrated in the three buckets, specific institutions and particular parts of the country, the number of universities that will be able to sustain this model is likely to reduce. For many institutions, this will require a rebalancing of academic roles. It seems likely that the established trend towards more staff on teaching-only contracts will continue. It is also probable that a growing number of researchers will work in applied or collaborative research settings on projects aligned with government priorities and the interests of philanthropists and private companies. A much smaller proportion than currently, in many subject areas, will remain in research-intensive roles focused on topics they have chosen to research. We must recognise that these are not simply strategic choices about research portfolios; they are structural changes to workloads, contracts, and career expectations. What students want to study and the areas in which government wants to fund research will probably not align. Over time this is likely to lead to changes in the overall staff student ratios in higher education institutions and a move from the current level of approximately 15 to 1 to something closer to 20 to 1. These changes are then likely to have an impact on the work expectations and job aspirations of academics and professional staff in less research-intensive institutions. A triple adjustment The daily lives of students are also changing in ways that undermine the traditional residential, campus-centred model of higher education. Across the UK, around two-thirds of students now undertake paid work during term time, often for more than a dozen hours per week. Similar patterns are visible in Australia, Canada and the United States. Working alongside study affects attendance and engagement. Students with substantial work commitments are more likely to miss scheduled sessions unless timetables are redesigned. Institutions that continue to operate around the rhythms of the traditional full-time residential student risk declining attendance and engagement. Block timetabling, which concentrates teaching into fewer days per week or into intensive single subject blocks has been adopted at Coventry University and Victoria University in Australia. Alongside greater use of online learning, such approaches are likely to spread. Student unions and universities will also need to rethink co curricular and social activities to fit around students’ working lives. In the UK, nearly half of students now commute from home and in comparable countries the proportions are even higher. Rising living costs and tuition fees are encouraging more students to stay in the parental home while studying. This has direct consequences for university finances. Student accommodation, when full, can generate significant surpluses. When occupancy falls , it becomes a financial liability. Universities therefore face a triple adjustment: redesigning timetables for working students, rethinking estates built around residential assumptions and managing income streams that depend on accommodation and campus services. Hard choices Taken together, shifts in research funding and student behaviour challenge the traditional university model in terms of the academic contract and the residential campus. These are not temporary shocks but structural changes. Most institutional strategies, however, still assume a return to older patterns. Pressures on research funding and changing student lives are likely to produce sharper differentiation across the higher education sector. Universities will need to become clearer about what type of institution they are and what economic model sustains them. Analyses of the UK and comparable systems suggest a limited number of viable institutional types: large research-intensive universities, large teaching-focused institutions, specialist providers with enhanced funding, applied and professional universities and online institutions. The greatest risk lies in becoming trapped between models or poorly internally divisionalised between these different business models. Some universities have attempted to pursue research-intensive strategies without the margins required to support them. Others have invested heavily in estates designed for residential students whose numbers are now falling. In both cases, the result has been financial strain. Recent examples across the UK and other countries show how quickly institutions can move from stability to crisis. As income growth slows, institutions will face harder choices. This may involve reducing costs, rebalancing staff roles, shrinking estates, or reconsidering programme portfolios. In some cases, mergers or strategic alliances will become unavoidable. Some of these will strengthen institutional profiles; others will struggle to deliver the promised synergies. Ultimately, the question facing many universities is not simply how to maintain their position, but how to remain viable. Survival will depend on recognising institutional identity, aligning costs with income, and adapting to the new realities of research funding and student life. Main image: Fabrizio Verrecchia on StockSnap This post is opinion-based and does not reflect the views of the London School of Economics and Political Science or any of its constituent departments and divisions. The post Universities: get ready for the new normal first appeared on LSE Higher Education .

Summary generated from the RSS feed of LSE Higher Education Blog. All article rights belong to the original publisher. Click through to read the full piece on blogs.lse.ac.uk/highereducation.