University governing bodies are often ¡°cliquish¡± and ¡°intimidating¡±, with ¡°business realists¡± dominating and chairs ¡°a bit too matey with senior management¡±, creating a ¡°corporate boardroom ideology¡± disconnected from academics and students, according to a report based on interviews with members.

The report for the Council for the Defence of British Universities, , by Steven Jones and Diane Harris of the University of Manchester¡¯s Manchester Institute of Education, is based on interviews with 47 current and former members of English university governing bodies who responded to a ¡°general call on social media¡±.

It identifies ¡°serious shortcomings¡± in?university governance, with some governing bodies ¡°reported to be stratified, cliquish and even intimidating¡±.

Professor Jones, who is professor of higher education at Manchester, said the aim of the report was to ¡°find out what governance is?really?like: who gets to do it; how things are talked about; what the relationship is like between the senior managers and the ordinary board members¡±.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

¡°The key finding for me is that many governors have a deep personal commitment to the role but find themselves feeling frustrated because their ideas aren¡¯t acted upon,¡± he said.

Recent years have seen some high-profile university governance scandals, such as at De Montfort University, where the 2019 exit of former vice-chancellor Dominic Shellard triggered an Office for Students investigation finding?¡°significant and systemic¡±?governance failings, with the university?accepting that its governing body?¡°did not provide sufficient and robust oversight of the university¡¯s leadership, in particular the vice-chancellor¡±.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

The CDBU report highlights in English university governance ¡°hierarchies within board membership and lack of transparency about process¡±.

¡°Interviewees reported that governors with favoured demographic profiles relating to age, gender, ethnicity and socioeconomic status tended to dominate discussions, and that some chairs (both of the main board/council and of its subcommittees) were ¡®probably a bit too matey with senior management¡¯,¡± the report continues.

¡°For student governors and female members in particular, the atmosphere was said to be daunting at times: ¡®I always felt like I had to make allies because I was young, because I was a woman, because I was the only student governor.¡¯¡±

Though some governors were ¡°keen to reenergise debates about higher education as a public good, to advocate more explicitly on behalf of staff and students¡±, interviews suggested ¡°a small cadre of ¡®business realists¡¯ with close links to management often controlled discussions and normalised market-based approaches¡±, the report says.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

And a ¡°growing focus on financial matters means that governors tend to be recruited disproportionately from narrower backgrounds¡±, it adds, and discussions ¡°continue to be dominated by retired white men, mostly from a business background¡±, which ¡°tends to reproduce an ideology that mirrors that of a corporate boardroom and can lead to a counter-productive separation of the governing body from campus communities¡±.

Professor Jones said the resources available to universities in their governors ¡°are staggering: you have lay members that bring experience and skills from other sectors, sitting alongside staff governors with access to cutting-edge research and student governors who know what it¡¯s like to be in the HE system right now.

¡°The challenge is to carry on with the regulatory and legal compliance, but also to see the university as something more than a corporate entity. Ideally, governing bodies would form a protective shield around their campus while working with each other to secure a stronger future for the whole sector.¡±

john.morgan@timeshighereducation.com