University governing bodies in England should deepen their engagement with institutions’ academic and performance issues, potentially by appointing academics or those with sector knowledge, according to a report for the Higher Education Policy Institute.

The report, , is by Alison Wheaton, recently awarded a doctorate in university governance by the UCL Institute of Education, and until 2016 chief executive of for-profit provider GSM London, which collapsed in 2019.

There have been scandals in university governance and scrutiny of the failings of some university governors in recent years. Notably, the exit of Dominic Shellard as De Montfort University vice-chancellor in 2019 triggered an investigation by the Office for Students that found “significant and systemic” failings in the institution’s governance, following reports in �ճ�����վ������ that he held shares in a holding company run by the then chair of the university’s remuneration committee, which approved his £64,000 pay rise.

The Hepi report notes that “at most universities the role of the executive in university governance is not specified in governing documents. The informality of internally focused governing body support roles may undermine internal – and ultimately external, in the case of some sector scandals – perceptions of legitimacy.”

ɫ��ֱ��

The report uses data sets and interviews gathered by Dr Wheaton during research for her thesis. It looks at how English university governing body roles are characterised at a sector level, and at how English university governing body members perceive their roles.

On academic governance, which the report notes is “a topic of increasing interest to the English regulator”, it says that “virtually all governors acknowledged, sometimes with discomfort, their remit with regard to overseeing academic governance”.

ɫ��ֱ��

An anonymous vice-chancellor is quoted as saying: “The elephant in the room – if you accept that the board fundamentally is custodian in law, then they’ve got to be in a position where they understand it [academic governance].”

On inclusion of academics on governing bodies, the report says: “Numbers of lay academic governors remain low. In a corporate setting, the exclusion of such sector experts is unusual.”

The same anonymous vice-chancellor is quoted as saying: “If you were the board of Rio Tinto, you would have some mining specialists on board as non-execs.”

University governing bodies should, the report recommends, “consider how university governors deepen their assurance of academic and performance issues, which could include appointing lay academic members and/or those with higher education sector knowledge, establishing dedicated committees or ‘task and finish groups’ to build institutional capacity”.

ɫ��ֱ��

Other recommendations in the report include that governing bodies should “clarify and codify governing body member roles, paying particular attention to lay governors internally and externally-facing support roles and internal governors’ oversight roles”.

And they should “review skills matrices to reflect experiences in general and widening roles, including academic governance, data and performance monitoring, supporting the executive and contributing to institutional culture and values”.

john.morgan@timeshighereduation.com