institutional level student engagement and organisational cultures

Institutional Level StudentEngagement andOrganisational Cultureshequ_521 227..247

Gwen van der Velden, University of Bath,[email protected]

Abstract

Driven by the growing presence of market forces within higher educationworldwide, universities are changing the way they engage with students.Thisarticle explores how a university’s internal culture relates to engagement withstudents and their views. It builds on wider research into student engagementand organisational cultures.The organisational cultures of two universities aremapped against a typology developed by McNay, which was extended bythe author to include aspects of institutional engagement with students.It appears that corporate and bureaucratic institutional cultures that mayrespond well to external pressures on institutions (regulation, performanceindicators, audits and policy pressure) are not conducive to engagementwith student opinion. The stronger preference of students remains a collegial,partnership-based approach for enhancement of the student experience. Thisstudy will be of interest to institutional managers, student (union) leaders,academics and practitioners who seek to improve the student experience througheffective engagement with student views.

The role of the student voice

Universities across the western world are paying closer attention to theviews of (fee-paying) students than ever before. Competitive nationaland international student markets, governmental demands for account-ability for public funding and the presence of national student-experience surveys in fee-driven markets, all contribute to a growingpublic interest in seeing students satisfied with their universityexperience. At national and international levels, surveys are commonlyused for competitive league tables, thereby making the experience ofstudents an indicator for comparison across universities. However,within institutions the educational development and management view is

bs_bs_banner

Higher Education Quarterly, 0951–5224DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2273.2012.00521.xVolume 66, No. 3, July 2012, pp 227–247

© 2012 The Author. Higher Education Quarterly © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4, 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

also that listening closely to student opinions creates opportunities foruniversities to improve the quality of the student experience (Harvey,2001). The assumption is made that increasing student input supportsrelevant and, therefore, effective enhancement of the student experience.Of course, a highly satisfactory student experience may also lead tobetter league table positions that will further benefit the institution andits students.

Whether driven by league tables or pedagogical motivations, institu-tions seek to hear student opinions directly or indirectly through amyriad of routes. In many national contexts there are policy expectationson student participation in the governance of institutions or highereducation more broadly (Persson, 2003). The active and passive pres-ence of the views and consequent influence of students in relation to thestudent’s university experience, is what is referred to in this article asthe student voice. From a student’s point of view engagement may takethe form of filling out surveys, taking part in focus groups, playing a rolein staff-student liaison arrangements, joining teaching enhancementprojects with staff, being a student member on a programme review,becoming a student representative at programme or institutional level orbeing active in the Students’ Union or elected to represent the studentbody in a sabbatical position.

The nature of institutional engagement with the student voice maydepend on the profile of the student body itself: their part-time orfull-time participation, maturity, average employment status, nationaland ethnic background or prior educational experience.

Equally the nature and ethos of the institution itself leads to studentengagement being taken seriously to a lesser or greater extent. An insti-tution may view students as discerning customers, academic apprenticesor units of resource. The interaction between students and their institu-tion may depend on the way that an institution views its role as auniversity, its responsibilities to students, whether it views itself asresponding to the wider student population or regards individual stu-dents as part of the university community. Interaction with the studentvoice may also depend on the way in which the institution takes deci-sions, organises itself or responds to change. Such attitudes, beliefs andnorms of a university are in this paper referred to as the organisationalculture.

This paper explores how the organisational culture of institutionsrelates to the student voice. It also investigates whether there are organi-sational cultures that are more conducive to effective engagement withthe student voice than others. The relevance of these research questions

228 Higher Education Quarterly

© 2012 The Author. Higher Education Quarterly © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

lies in the interest of institutions in ensuring that enhancements of thestudent experience are relevant to student needs and opinions. Analysisof the organisational cultures of two universities and the role of thestudent voice in each of them is then undertaken to establish whethersuch a link can be relevant to institutions in future.

Two research fields meet: student engagement andorganisational culture

Research on the nature of the student voice fits within the wider researchfield of student engagement. A recent literature review by Trowler(2010) captured the breadth of this field, stretching from a pedagogicalfocus on how individual students engage with their learning (Coates,2007; Kuh, 2009), to the engagement of specific student populationswith university life (Pike and Kuh, 2005; Harper and Quaye, 2009) andmany other forms of engagement in between. Most of the studentengagement research focuses on how students interact with their edu-cational environment, rather than the way the institutional environmentengages with them. Where the former is perhaps an approach morecommon to educational literature, the latter is more common in man-agement research or sociological studies. For example, the role of thestudent within the educational context can be seen as the object of acustomer relationship in a business and market context (Jongbloed,2003) but equally as subjects undergoing an academic socialisationprocess in order to be assimilated into the academic culture (Bourdieuand Passeron, 1990).Whilst the latter describes students within a socio-logical and educational context, in Jongbloed’s description, the studentis a selective ‘customer’ in a market environment. Clearly the role of theinstitution and the relationship with its students is substantially differentand dependent on how an institution conceives of the student.

In recent years, there has been new external pressure on institutionsand their engagement with students through the introduction of nation-ally administered student surveys in support of national policies onaccountability for higher education funding. Such large-scale surveyswere introduced in the US (NSSE, 1998) and Australia (Coates, 2010)and in 2005 also in the UK (Richardson et al., 2007).Within the Englishcontext, the effect of the National Student Survey on how institutionshave developed and enhanced operational mechanisms for engagementwith the student voice are well documented, be it from a supportive(Little et al., 2009; Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education(QAA), 2011) or a critical stance (Ng and Forbes, 2009; Naidoo et al.,2011).

Student Engagement and Organisational Cultures 229


A common institutional effort to increase student satisfaction is astronger involvement of students in quality assurance and enhance-ment (Brennan et al., 2003; Quality Assurance Agency for HigherEducation (QAA), 2009) and governance arrangements (Eliophotou-Menon, 2003; Boland, 2005; Frost, 2008; Lizzio and Wilson, 2009).

Research from this angle usefully looks at the operational effectivenessof increased student engagement, or explores the experience of studentsin representative roles but rarely relates to the influence of the organi-sational culture of universities on engagement with the student voice.And yet, depending on the ethos of the university some approaches toengagement may be more or less effective than others. Particularly in theUK environment, where national government policy is moving from astate-funded to a student-funded higher education sector (Browne ofMadingley, 2010; Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS),2011) and where the student voice (through a national survey) providesa publicised indicator of institutional performance, matching effectivestudent engagement to the organisational culture of the institution willgrow in importance.

There are many typologies that aim to capture a cross-section offactors that are typical to different kinds of organisational structures andthe behaviours of those within it. Most of these are not higher-educationspecific and few include a specific role for the beneficiary of theorganisation in this case, the student (Quinn and McGrath, 1985;Trompenaars and Hampden Turner, 1998; Handy, 1999). Because ofthe inclusion of the student angle, its relevance to higher education andreference to how change occurs within the different organisational cul-tures identified, the McNay typology (1995) was chosen to research therelationship between organisational culture and the student voice.

The McNay typology of organisational cultures

Based on earlier work by Weick (1976), Clark (1983), Handy (1999)and Mintzberg (1989), McNay (1995) uses four labels to describeorganisational cultures: the ‘collegium’, ‘bureaucracy’, ‘enterprise’ and‘corporation’. As these are well documented elsewhere, only a summarydescription of the four types of organisational cultures is given alongsideTable 1. The focus of this paper is on extending the typology to give afurther insight into the role of the student voice within the differentcultures.

Cognisant of the students’ status in each of the four types of organi-sational culture, suggestions are made below to expand the typologyto include new factors relating to student engagement. The factors



TAB

LE

1S

umm

ary

char

acte

rist

ics

offo

urun

iver

sity

type

s(M

cNay

,19

95)

Fac

tor

Typ

e

Col

legi

umB

urea

ucra

cyC

orpo

rati

onE

nter

pris

e

Dom

inan

tva

lue

Fre

edom

Equ

ity

Loy

alty

Com

pete

nce

Han

dy’s

orga

nisa

tion

cult

ure

Per

son

Rol

eP

ower

Tas

k

Rol

eof

cent

ral

auth

orit

ies

Per

mis

sive

Reg

ulat

ory

Dir

ecti

veS

uppo

rtiv

e

Dom

inan

tun

itD

epar

tmen

t/in

divi

dual

Fac

ulty

/com

mit

tees

Inst

itut

ion/

seni

orm

anag

emen

tte

amS

ub-u

nit/

proj

ect

team

s

Dec

isio

nar

enas

Info

rmal

grou

psne

twor

ksC

omm

itte

esan

dad

min

istr

ativ

ebr

iefin

gs

Wor

king

part

ies

and

seni

orm

anag

emen

tte

am

Pro

ject

team

s

Man

agem

ent

styl

eC

onse

nsua

lF

orm

al/‘r

atio

nal’

Pol

itic

al/t

acti

cal

Dev

olve

dle

ader

ship

Tim

efr

ame

Lon

gC

yclic

Sho

rt/m

id-t

erm

Inst

ant

Env

iron

men

tal‘

fit’

Evo

luti

onS

tabi

lity

Cri

sis

Tur

bule

nce

How

chan

geta

kes

plac

e(m

etho

dof

chan

ge)

Org

anic

inno

vati

onR

eact

ive

adap

tati

onP

roac

tive

tran

sfor

mat

ion

Tac

tica

lfle

xibi

lity

Poi

ntof

refe

renc

e(e

xter

nal)

Invi

sibl

eco

llege

Reg

ulat

ory

bodi

esP

olic

ymak

ers

asop

inio

nle

ader

sC

lient

s/sp

onso

rs

Poi

ntof

refe

renc

e(i

nter

nal)

The

disc

iplin

eT

heru

les

The

plan

sM

arke

tst

reng

th/

stud

ents

Bas

isfo

rev

alua

tion

Pee

ras

sess

men

tA

udit

ofpr

oced

ures

,e.

g.,

IS90

01P

erfo

rman

cein

dica

tors

Rep

eat

busi

ness

Stu

dent

stat

usA

ppre

ntic

eac

adem

icS

tati

stic

Uni

tof

reso

urce

Cus

tom

ers

Adm

inis

trat

ive

role

sse

rvin

g:T

heco

mm

unit

yT

heco

mm

itte

eT

hech

ief

exec

utiv

eT

hecl

ient

,in

tern

alan

dex

tern

al



proposed by the author to extend the typology are: information provisionto students; most felt presence of the student voice; basis for evaluationof quality; level of most active student engagement; role in enhancementactivity; and the role of the students’ union.

Collegium

McNay states that the key to understanding the collegium is the accep-tance of academic freedom and autonomy. The collegium thrives ondebate amongst perceived equals and direction is set by consensus,although individual voices can rule temporarily. It is a culture that allowsnon-linear change processes and would take its time over change. Therole of the student is as an ‘apprentice academic’.

In theory, an extension of this type intending to include more detailon student engagement should refer to an approach of consensus, col-legiality and direct communication between staff and students. Hence,discussion is likely to occur at departmental level through staff-studentliaison and based on staff and students sharing information directly.Enhancement activity is likely to involve direct student participation.Students’ unions may work in partnership with their university andsupport students’ abilities in relation to student representation.

Bureaucracy

According to McNay, the bureaucratic label relates to organisations withan emphasis on regulation and management through formalised struc-tures such as committees.The student status is that of a ‘statistic’. In thisrational and controlled environment regulatory bodies or audit outcomesrather than students set the tone for change.

The typology might be extended to recognise that in a bureaucracythe student voice is heard mostly in formal committees or throughevaluations and monitoring processes. Thus, student input is ‘received’and passive or indirect in nature. Within such a formal context, a stu-dents’ union might seek formal representation roles and emphasise theirmembership mandate. Direct engagement by students with enhance-ment activity is limited.

Corporation

A corporate university is strongly led by a senior management teamthrough rational planning activity. Rather than seeking decisions anddirection through committees or consensus, senior staff set policy andexpect loyalty from juniors working to decreed goals.The student statusis that of ‘unit of resource’ befitting an organisational style that concen-trates strongly on planning.



Extrapolating from the concept of students as ‘units of resource’,students are represented using performance indicators in managerialplanning processes. Communication with students will be centrallymanaged and well structured, unless in the case of enhancement activity,where direct involvement with the client in development projects isdesirable. In response to a corporate management approach, a students’union might act as a ‘watchdog’ keeping an eye on students’ entitle-ments, whilst on strategic development matters, the representation ofstudent power provides students’ unions with a stakeholding role.

Enterprise

The entrepreneurial label refers to institutions that work with an instantand tactical anticipation of client and market needs through task groupsand project teams. Management structures are lean and decisions aretactical. The student status is that of a client.

Extending the typology, in an enterprise context client needs might bedetermined through student surveys, focus groups and needs analyses.To support effective enhancement, students are directly invited onto taskgroups to ensure market needs are accurately served. Information isorganised with the customer in mind and in order to meet changingstudent expectations, dynamic in nature. Representing the clients of theinstitution, the Students’ Union will be a stakeholder within the univer-sity organisation, working with the institution on behalf of students.

Reviewing the extended typology in practice

In order to explore the validity of assumptions made about studentengagement in the typology, two British universities were mappedagainst the McNay and the extended typology through documentreviews and a survey of key university leaders. Although no direct com-parison between the universities is made, the institutions were chosenbecause they are largely comparable in size, status and history.They havesimilar missions in that they both seek to balance research intensity withhigh teaching quality and regard each other as peers on these aspects.University X has approximately 17,000 students of which a fifth areinternational and a quarter are postgraduate. University Y has 15,000students of which almost a quarter are international and a third arepostgraduate. Both recruit students from middle to higher socio-economic classes. Though both offer a full range of disciplines, Univer-sity Y has a stronger presence of engineering, whilst University X has astronger presence of humanities subjects.



Document reviews

Document reviews of both institutions were undertaken.The first set ofdocuments were learning and teaching strategies, governance documentsand plans for educational or governance change. These were chosen toevaluate how the institution describes itself against factors in the McNaytypology. To counterbalance potential distortion due to the aspirationalnature of strategic documents, further documentation was chosen thatrecorded the progress, organisation and evaluation of major projectsaimed at achieving cross-institutional change. This allowed for a betterinsight into organisational-values and culture in practice. These twoanalyses were then triangulated with an evaluation against external‘Institutional Audit’ reports. These reports capture the findings of insti-tutional learning and teaching quality audits, performed once every sixyears by peers external to the institution and who are selected andtrained by the UK’s national Quality Assurance Agency for HigherEducation (QAA). By triangulating documentation describing strategicdirection, internal documentation capturing institutional change pro-cesses and external audit documentation, the institutions’ organisationalcultures were assessed using the McNay typology (Table 1) and theauthor’s extended typology (Table 2).

In the documentation evaluations below, assessments against both theMcNay typology and the author’s extended typology factors are given(the ‘type’ against the ‘factor’ from Table 1 or Table 2 is provided inparentheses to illuminate the analysis).

University X on paper: a corporate enterprise culture

The reviewed papers showed that the governance structures in Univer-sity X are built around the assignment of decision-making powers andresponsibilities to those deemed to be competent (Table 1: dominantvalue: enterprise). In this structure, small task groups and project teamsrather than traditional committees (Table 1: Handy’s organisationalculture: enterprise) led by specialised leaders (Table 1: dominant unit,management style: enterprise) are made responsible for achievingfast tactical change (Table 1: decision areas and method of change:enterprise).

At the same time, the documentation shows that senior managementtakes a strongly directive role (Table 1: role of central authorities: cor-porate), for instance by stipulating tasks for the learning and teachingrelated project groups (Table 1: dominant unit, decision areas: enter-prise) and defining strategies for changing the student experience aimed



TAB

LE

2A

utho

r’s

stud

ent

voic

eex

trap

olat

ions

ofM

cNay

’sty

polo

gy

Fac

tor

Typ

e

Col

legi

umB

urea

ucra

cyC

orpo

rati

onE

nter

pris

e

Info

rmat

ion

prov

isio

nto

stud

ents

Lar

gely

unde

rco

ntro

lof

depa

rtm

ents

Cen

tral

lysc

ruti

nise

din

form

atio

n,m

ostl

yst

atic

(han

dboo

ks,

web

site

s)

Inte

rnal

corp

orat

eco

mm

unic

atio

nS

peci

alis

edst

uden

tco

mm

unic

atio

ns:

dyna

mic

info

rmat

ion

prov

isio

nS

tude

ntvo

ice:

mos

tfe

ltpr

esen

ceS

taff

Stu

dent

Lia

ison

com

mit

tee

For

mal

Com

mit

tees

Pla

nnin

gpr

oces

ses

Sur

veys

,fo

cus

grou

ps,

eval

uati

ons

Bas

isfo

rqu

alit

yev

alua

tion

Dir

ect

com

mun

icat

ion

(act

ive

inpu

t)F

orm

alev

alua

tion

and

mon

itor

ing

proc

esse

sP

erfo

rman

ceda

ta(r

eten

tion

,ad

mis

sion

,de

stin

atio

n)

Sat

isfa

ctio

nsu

rvey

s,fo

cus

grou

ps

Lev

elof

mos

tac

tive

enga

gem

ent

(stu

dent

voic

e)

Pro

gram

me/

depa

rtm

ent

Com

mit

tees

/wit

hdi

rect

ors

ofpr

ogra

mm

e(s)

Com

mun

icat

ew

ith

man

ager

sdi

rect

lyA

nyw

here

,su

bjec

tto

topi

c

Rol

ein

enha

ncem

ent

acti

vity

Stu

dent

sro

utin

ely

invo

lved

inen

hanc

emen

t/de

velo

pmen

tpr

ojec

ts

Stu

dent

view

sor

stud

ent

data

info

rmpl

anne

den

hanc

emen

ts(n

odi

rect

invo

lvem

ent)

No

dire

ctin

volv

emen

t.E

nhan

cem

ent

isin

stig

ated

from

‘abo

ve’

Pro

ject

team

sw

ork

clos

ely

wit

hst

uden

ts,

ascl

ient

s/us

ers

Rol

eof

stud

ents

’un

ion

Par

tner

ship

Mem

bers

hip

repr

esen

tati

onS

tude

ntem

pow

erm

ent

Sta

keho

lder



at proactive transformation (Table 1: role of central authorities, methodof change: corporate). Also, the administrative structures deliver to aremit given by the chief executive (Table 1: administrative role serving:corporate) but with the aims to provide outstanding service to the client,in this case the student (Table 1: administrative role serving: enterprise).

Important factors of different types of organisational cultures are theinternal and external points of reference of a university. Throughoutthe documentation from University X, the internal reference point is thestudent (enterprise) whilst the external reference is the student marketbut with ample reference to national policy and the influence of policy-makers (Table 1: external reference: enterprise and corporate). Studentopinion is sought using institution-led methods ranging from studentsperforming educational research themselves to surveys and focus groups(Table 2: student voice most felt presence, basis for quality evaluation:enterprise). With a student status of customer within the university(Table 1: student status: enterprise) it is interesting that when relating tothe Students’ Union, reference is literally made to ‘partnership’ (Table 2:role of students’ union: collegium) and there is much emphasis on staffand schools working with students on enhancement and development(Table 2: role in enhancement activity: collegium). In the aspect ofenhancement, university X takes a collegial approach rather than anentrepreneurial or corporate one.

The external institutional audit report of University X confirms theorganisational culture as a corporate enterprise, although the externalauditors lean more strongly towards the corporate structure than theuniversity documentation implies. It is noteworthy that this externalreport makes substantial reference to the university’s senior managers’national-level policy influence, which becomes specifically interestingwhen evaluating the survey outcomes (Table 1: external reference points:corporate).

UniversityY on paper: collegial but with corporate leadership

In comparison to university X, university Y is less explicit about itsrationale for the way it organises itself. However, the documentationstresses the supremacy of the academic community with a focus onacademic freedom (Table 1: dominant value: collegium). For academicstaff and in relation to learning and teaching, the individuality of thedisciple is reflected in regulatory and policy documentation (Table 1:internal point of reference: collegium). Yet, documentation describingchange projects and processes show an emphasis on a strongly directiveapproach from senior levels and governance changes show a move



towards more centralised control and diminishing powers of the aca-demic community (Table 1: role of central authorities, dominant unit,administrative role serving: corporate). Typically, the documentationproposing change paints an external context of crisis and pressure tochange (Table 1: environmental fit: corporate) with national policymak-ers as the initiators of change (Table 1: external reference point:corporate). Strongly tactical plans for proactive transformation of thecurrent state of affairs are initially proposed (Table 1: method of change,management style: corporate) but on several occasions consensuscan then not be achieved in the academically led governance process(Table 1: management style, dominant unit: collegium). Informed bypeer comparisons, alternative proposals are subsequently made, whichallow for a more permissive, slower process of change (Table 1: externalpoint of reference, time frame, basis for evaluation and role of centralauthorities: collegium).The externally provided institutional audit docu-mentation corroborates the tension between collegial and corporateapproaches in this institution.

The student status in these processes is one of apprentice: a juniorpeer in the academic community (Table 1: student status: collegium).Students engage with the institution mostly at departmental level and areactively involved in enhancement projects, often on an equal footing withstaff (Table 2: student voice most felt presence, basis for quality evalu-ation, level of most active engagement: collegium).The Students’ Unionis recognised as a force for change and development, working directlywith all levels in the institution and supporting students in taking respon-sibility for enhancement and development in their own departments(Table 2: role of students’ union, role in enhancement activity:collegium).

Survey of key university leaders

In each of the two institutions, four key university leaders filled out asurvey designed to further map the organisational culture of their insti-tution against the typology by McNay (1995) and explore the accuracyand relevance of the student-voice-related factors that the author added.The survey respondents were the central head of administration (aca-demic registrar), a member of the senior management team with respon-sibility for learning and teaching (pro-vice-chancellor), a central servicehead leading educational change processes and the appointed seniormanager of the Student Union.

The choice of respondents was made to ensure that organisationalcultures in relation to learning and teaching were reviewed from some of



the most relevant angles: those who lead the institution and set policy,those who implement and monitor implementation of policy and thosewho can oversee the effect of the organisational culture on the experienceof students.This approach has limitations in that the number of respon-dents is relatively low, yet they are in a senior institutional role, wellpositioned to oversee institutional engagement with students. Arguably,the missing angle is that of those core to the student experience: aca-demic staff and students, However, this study focused on testing initialassumptions about the interaction between the student voice and theinstitutional organisation, rather than the experience of those in thedisciplines; though this is itself an interesting area for further research.

The four key staff in each institution were asked to score their uni-versity by distributing a total of ten points for each factor across thedifferent types of culture (bureaucracy, corporate, enterprise and col-legium) as they felt appropriate. The questions were based on McNay’sdescription of the original survey he used, with one question for eachfactor (Table 1). Questions covering the newly developed studentengagement factors as set out in Table 2 were also added.To test usabil-ity, the draft survey was reviewed by three higher education managerswith relevant experience but without any involvement in the study.

The survey generated scores against the characteristics of all factors(McNay’s and the author’s), bar in one case where one respondent leftone question unanswered. In two cases, respondents awarded nineinstead of ten points to a question.The scores of the four respondents peruniversity were added up and the highest scoring aspect highlighted in atabular representation. In case of two or more close scores (less thanthree points difference), more than one cell was highlighted.

University X: survey results

The collated scores provided by all four key staff within university X arepresented in Table 3 and the grey boxes indicate the highest scoringcharacteristics.

There is pattern of higher scores for corporate culture characteristicswith some enterprise characteristics. In comparison to the overallimpression raised by the documentation review, it appears the institutionis in its strategic planning moving towards an enterprise culture but thismay be strongly led through a corporate senior management approach.Particularly high scores on the factors ‘role of central units’, ‘dominantunit’ and ‘decision arenas’ indicate that this could be the case.

Scores on characteristics for the role of the student voice differ some-what from those of the overall organisational culture.The organisational



TAB

LE

3U

nive

rsit

yX

agai

nst

McN

ayty

polo

gy(1

995)

:su

rvey

resp

onse

s

Fac

tor

Typ

e

Col

legi

umB

urea

ucra

cyC

orpo

rati

onE

nter

pris

e

Dom

inan

tva

lue

Fre

edom

Equ

ity

Loy

alty

Com

pete

nce

44

1022

Han

dy’s

orga

nisa

tion

cult

ure

Per

son

Rol

eP

ower

Tas

k4

1812

6R

ole

ofce

ntra

lau

thor

itie

sP

erm

issi

veR

egul

ator

yD

irec

tive

Sup

port

ive

22

2214

Dom

inan

tun

itD

epar

tmen

t/in

divi

dual

Fac

ulty

/com

mit

tees

Inst

itut

ion/

seni

orm

anag

emen

tte

amS

ub-u

nit/

proj

ect

team

s

94

232

Dec

isio

nar

enas

Info

rmal

grou

psne

twor

ksC

omm

itte

esan

dad

min

istr

ativ

ebr

iefin

gsW

orki

ngpa

rtie

san

dse

nior

man

agem

ent

team

Pro

ject

team

s

17

248

Man

agem

ent

styl

eC

onse

nsua

lF

orm

al/‘r

atio

nal’

Pol

itic

al/t

acti

cal

Dev

olve

dle

ader

ship

44

1120

Tim

efr

ame

Lon

gC

yclic

Sho

rt/m

id-t

erm

Inst

ant

116

176

How

chan

geta

kes

plac

eO

rgan

icin

nova

tion

Rea

ctiv

ead

apta

tion

Pro

acti

vetr

ansf

orm

atio

nT

acti

cal

flexi

bilit

y8

222

8P

oint

ofre

fere

nce

(ext

erna

l)In

visi

ble

colle

geR

egul

ator

ybo

dies

Pol

icym

aker

sas

opin

ion

lead

ers

Clie

nts/

spon

sors

38

1613

Poi

ntof

refe

renc

e(i

nter

nal)

The

disc

iplin

eT

heru

les

The

plan

sM

arke

tst

reng

th/s

tude

nts

72

1615

Bas

isfo

rev

alua

tion

Pee

ras

sess

men

tA

udit

ofpr

oced

ures

,eg

IS90

01P

erfo

rman

cein

dica

tors

Rep

eat

busi

ness

94

238

Stu

dent

stat

usA

ppre

ntic

eac

adem

icS

tati

stic

Uni

tof

reso

urce

Cus

tom

ers

104

1017

Adm

inis

trat

ive

role

sse

rvin

g:T

heco

mm

unit

yT

heco

mm

itte

eT

hech

ief

exec

utiv

eT

hecl

ient

,in

tern

alan

dex

tern

al10

64

20



culture overall appeared to be a corporate enterprise, whilst in relation tothe student voice scores veer towards collegium-enterprise (Table 4).This was possibly predictable, as this university’s respondents were rea-sonably divided on student status in the McNay typology, where only thebureaucracy characteristic scored low.

In conclusion, in university X the strongly corporate character of theorganisational culture is not reflected in the way the institution engageswith the student voice. Here the culture appears to have more of acollegial emphasis. However, there are still elements of an enterpriseculture present in both the manner of engagement with students and theoverall organisational culture.

UniversityY: survey results

Comparable to the documentation review, the survey results for Univer-sity Y show a combination of collegium and corporate types of organi-sational culture (Table 5), although the documentation review suggestedthe collegium aspect featuring more strongly, particularly on the factors‘dominant unit’ and ‘decision arenas’. On the factors ‘management style’and ‘role of the administrative structure’ a closer spread of scores wasfound. This might suggest that there may be more equally powerfuldemands from senior management and the academic community to bebalanced than the documentation suggested.

Whilst there was a strong shared presence of corporation and col-legium presented for the organisational culture overall (Table 6), thepattern for the role of the student voice is very strongly collegial, withsome higher scores for an enterprise culture, only in the context ofenhancement activity. Clearly the student voice is heard mostly at disci-pline level, directly between students and teaching staff, which ismatched by a collaborative relationship between the institution and theStudents’ Union. This would agree with what was found in the docu-ment review.

One voice in two organisations?

The findings seem to suggest that the document reviews and the organi-sational culture survey results for each of the universities agreed in theiranalyses of the organisational cultures. However, in both cases the sub-sequent student voice survey findings were not congruent with theorganisational cultures established through the McNay-based part of thesurvey. For university X, the document and survey analyses pointed at acombination of the corporation and the enterprise type of organisationalculture and a collegial and enterprise based role for the student voice.



TAB

LE

4T

hest

uden

tvo

ice

inor

gani

sati

onal

cult

ures

:un

iver

sity

X

Fac

tor

Typ

e

Col

legi

umB

urea

ucra

cyC

orpo

rati

onE

nter

pris

e

Info

rmat

ion

prov

isio

nto

stud

ents

Lar

gely

unde

rco

ntro

lof

depa

rtm

ents

Cen

tral

lysc

ruti

nise

din

form

atio

n,m

ostl

yst

atic

(han

dboo

ks,

web

site

s)

Inte

rnal

corp

orat

eco

mm

unic

atio

nS

peci

alis

edst

uden

tco

mm

unic

atio

ns:

dyna

mic

info

rmat

ion

prov

isio

n15

55

15S

tude

ntvo

ice:

mos

tfe

ltpr

esen

ceS

taff

stud

ent

liais

onco

mm

itte

eF

orm

alco

mm

itte

esP

lann

ing

proc

esse

sS

urve

ys,

focu

sgr

oups

,ev

alua

tion

s10

610

14B

asis

for

qual

ity

eval

uati

onD

irec

tco

mm

unic

atio

n(a

ctiv

ein

put)

For

mal

eval

uati

onan

dm

onit

orin

gpr

oces

ses

Per

form

ance

data

(ret

enti

on,

adm

issi

on,

dest

inat

ion)

Sat

isfa

ctio

nsu

rvey

s,fo

cus

grou

ps

166

612

Lev

elof

mos

tac

tive

enga

gem

ent

(stu

dent

voic

e)

Pro

gram

me/

depa

rtm

ent

Com

mit

tees

/wit

hdi

rect

ors

ofpr

ogra

mm

e(s)

Com

mun

icat

ew

ith

man

ager

sdi

rect

lyA

nyw

here

,su

bjec

tto

topi

c

72

1219

Rol

ein

enha

ncem

ent

acti

vity

Stu

dent

sro

utin

ely

invo

lved

inen

hanc

emen

t/de

velo

pmen

tpr

ojec

ts

Stu

dent

view

sor

stud

ent

data

info

rmpl

anne

den

hanc

emen

ts(n

odi

rect

invo

lvem

ent)

No

dire

ctin

volv

emen

t.E

nhan

cem

ent

isin

stig

ated

from

‘abo

ve’

Pro

ject

team

sw

ork

clos

ely

wit

hst

uden

ts,

ascl

ient

s/us

ers

186

412

Rol

eof

stud

ents

’un

ion

Par

tner

ship

Mem

bers

hip

repr

esen

tati

onS

tude

ntem

pow

erm

ent

Sta

keho

lder

217

111



TAB

LE

5U

nive

rsit

yY

agai

nst

McN

ayty

polo

gy(1

995)

:su

rvey

resp

onse

s

Fac

tor

Typ

e

Col

legi

umB

urea

ucra

cyC

orpo

rati

onE

nter

pris

e

Dom

inan

tva

lue

Fre

edom

Equ

ity

Loy

alty

Com

pete

nce

184

711

Han

dy’s

Org

anis

atio

ncu

ltur

eP

erso

nR

ole

Pow

erT

ask

2012

53

Rol

eof

Cen

tral

auth

orit

ies

Per

mis

sive

Reg

ulat

ory

Dir

ecti

veS

uppo

rtiv

e10

313

4D

omin

ant

unit

Dep

artm

ent/

indi

vidu

alF

acul

ty/c

omm

itte

esIn

stit

utio

n/S

enio

rM

anag

emen

tTea

mS

ub-u

nit/

proj

ect

team

s

118

201

Dec

isio

nar

enas

Info

rmal

grou

psne

twor

ksC

omm

itte

esan

dad

min

istr

ativ

ebr

iefin

gsW

orki

ngpa

rtie

san

dS

enio

rM

anag

emen

tTea

mP

roje

ctte

ams

612

211

Man

agem

ent

styl

eC

onse

nsua

lF

orm

al/‘R

atio

nal’

Pol

itic

al/T

acti

cal

Dev

olve

dle

ader

ship

139

18X

Tim

efr

ame

Lon

gC

yclic

Sho

rt/m

id-t

erm

Inst

ant

1310

161

How

chan

geta

kes

plac

eO

rgan

icin

nova

tion

Rea

ctiv

ead

apta

tion

Pro

acti

vetr

ansf

orm

atio

nT

acti

cal

flexi

bilit

y15

173

5P

oint

ofre

fere

nce

(ext

erna

l)In

visi

ble

colle

geR

egul

ator

ybo

dies

Pol

icym

aker

sas

opin

ion

lead

ers

Clie

nts/

Spo

nsor

s

1512

67

Poi

ntof

refe

renc

e(i

nter

nal)

The

disc

iplin

eT

heru

les

The

plan

sM

arke

tst

reng

th/S

tude

nts

1810

75

Bas

isfo

rev

alua

tion

Pee

ras

sess

men

tA

udit

ofpr

oced

ures

,eg

IS90

01P

erfo

rman

cein

dica

tors

Rep

eat

busi

ness

212

115

Stu

dent

stat

usA

ppre

ntic

eac

adem

icS

tati

stic

Uni

tof

reso

urce

Cus

tom

ers

1312

123

Adm

inis

trat

ive

role

sse

rvin

g:T

heC

omm

unit

yT

heC

omm

itte

eT

heC

hief

Exe

cuti

veT

hecl

ient

,in

tern

alan

dex

tern

al10

613

11



TAB

LE

6T

hest

uden

tvo

ice

inor

gani

sati

onal

cult

ures

:un

iver

sity

Y

Fac

tor

Typ

e

Col

legi

umB

urea

ucra

cyC

orpo

rati

onE

nter

pris

e

Info

rmat

ion

prov

isio

nto

stud

ents

Lar

gely

unde

rco

ntro

lof

depa

rtm

ents

Cen

tral

lysc

ruti

nise

din

form

atio

n,m

ostl

yst

atic

(han

dboo

ks,

web

site

s)

Inte

rnal

corp

orat

eco

mm

unic

atio

nS

peci

alis

edst

uden

tco

mm

unic

atio

ns:

dyna

mic

info

rmat

ion

prov

isio

n25

91

5S

tude

ntvo

ice:

mos

tfe

ltpr

esen

ceS

taff

Stu

dent

Lia

ison

com

mit

tee

For

mal

Com

mit

tees

Pla

nnin

gpr

oces

ses

Sur

veys

,fo

cus

grou

ps,

eval

uati

ons

206

212

Bas

isfo

rqu

alit

yev

alua

tion

Dir

ect

com

mun

icat

ion

(act

ive

inpu

t)F

orm

alev

alua

tion

and

mon

itor

ing

proc

esse

sP

erfo

rman

ceda

ta(r

eten

tion

,ad

mis

sion

,de

stin

atio

n)

Sat

isfa

ctio

nsu

rvey

s,fo

cus

grou

ps

1710

310

Lev

elof

mos

tac

tive

enga

gem

ent

(stu

dent

voic

e)

Pro

gram

me/

depa

rtm

ent

Com

mit

tees

/w

ith

dire

ctor

sof

prog

ram

me(

s)

Com

mun

icat

ew

ith

man

ager

sdi

rect

lyA

nyw

here

,su

bjec

tto

topi

c

159

313

Rol

ein

enha

ncem

ent

acti

vity

Stu

dent

sro

utin

ely

invo

lved

inen

hanc

emen

t/de

velo

pmen

tpr

ojec

ts

Stu

dent

view

sor

stud

ent

data

info

rmpl

anne

den

hanc

emen

ts(n

odi

rect

invo

lvem

ent)

No

dire

ctin

volv

emen

t.E

nhan

cem

ent

isin

stig

ated

from

‘abo

ve’

Pro

ject

team

sw

ork

clos

ely

wit

hst

uden

ts,

ascl

ient

s/us

ers

175

X18

Rol

eof

stud

ents

’un

ion

Par

tner

ship

Mem

bers

hip

repr

esen

tati

onS

tude

ntem

pow

erm

ent

Sta

keho

lder

254

83



The document review and survey for university Y indicated a combina-tion of the corporate and collegial organisational cultures, whilst the roleof the student voice was strongly collegial.

In summary, when exploring the role of the student voice, in bothcases corporate culture aspects disappeared completely, whilst the otherelement of the organisational culture (enterprise for X and collegium forY) remained present. Both universities also saw a strong increase in thepresence of indicators for the collegium.

As in both cases the overall type of the organisational culture stillresonates with the institutions’ patterns of engagement with the studentvoice, this suggests that the characteristics chosen for matching studentvoice factors to organisational culture type are at least to some extentvalid. However, in order to validate or adjust this student voice engage-ment typology, a wider range of universities should be mapped againstthe types, specifically in relation to more strongly corporate and bureau-cratic universities.

The disappearance of the corporate culture in relation to studentengagement might be explained by considering the nature of that culturewith its emphasis on senior management, expectations of loyalty andpolitical engagement or the corporation’s natural interest in performanceindicators, planning and external policy makers.Those are not aspects ofthe institution that students will easily relate to. Hence, the student voiceis unlikely to adhere to characteristics of the corporate culture. Further-more, with students being regarded as ‘units of resource’ in the corporateculture, it is unlikely that the institution will encourage direct engage-ment with the student voice.

Nevertheless, within the UK higher education sector there is a strongfear of increased consumerism by students, describing the role of stu-dents as consuming the educational goods offered by a supplyinginstitution. Suggestions are made that the appearance of new institu-tional roles with responsibility for ‘the student experience’ are a sign ofinstitutions responding to the consumerist demand in what are essen-tially corporate moves. Hence a stronger leaning of the student voicetowards a corporate culture might have been expected.

Another possible explanation of the disappearance of corporate valuesmight be the result of a relatively recent but powerful external interfer-ence in the way universities engage with students. UK universities enjoya high level of autonomy in setting institutional and academic directionand deciding their organisation and governance. However, in 2005, theUK introduced the National Student Survey (NSS), which allows allinstitutions to be ranked by annually collected student satisfaction scores



and thus compares universities that were not previously in competitionwith each other (Richardson et al., 2007). Moreover, NSS scores influ-ence national league tables where teaching quality never had muchimpact previously. Now all universities are ‘exposed’ to direct, annual,external scrutiny both at discipline and at institutional level and thisaffects reputation, standing and student recruitment. As a result almostall institutions focus on increasing student’s appreciation of teachingquality within the disciplines.

The values of the corporation (loyalty) and the bureaucracy (equity orcommonality) may not be conducive to increasing the highly individu-alistic and inequitable nature of students’ opinion of the quality of theirstudies. Both these centralising cultures locate the power of decision-making away from the classroom experience to the committee or seniormanagement level, where detailed or individual student concerns cannotbe considered. If intending to increase NSS-type results, it is seemsmuch more effective to work with one’s Students Union in partnership(collegium), or as a fellow stakeholder (enterprise), either directly orthrough localised, empowered representation. The collegium and theenterprise culture allow for a more direct involvement with students andit is possible that this very recent need for direct engagement is what thesurvey has picked up on.

It appears then, that despite the corporate or bureaucratic nature of theexternal pressures put on institutions (regulation and charters, perfor-mance indicators, audits and policy pressure), which are driven by arationale of ‘putting students at the heart of Higher Education’ (Depart-ment for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS), 2011) these are notcultures that institutions believe the student voice in practice relates bestto. Some elements of a consumer-related culture appear to be morerelevant but the stronger preference of the student voice remains acollegial, partnership-based approach for enhancement of the studentexperience.

Re-reading McNay, it is remarkable to note his suggestion in 1995that the future of higher education is likely to see universities movethrough the enterprise culture towards a new version of the collegiumbut of a more customer-focused kind. Forced by the higher level ofmarket-driven public accountability for teaching and learning thisappears indeed to be what this study has found. Responding to nationalpolicy universities may benefit from taking note of the influence oforganisational culture on engagement with the student voice and viceversa. Indeed, Powell and Dimaggio (1991) described forms of organi-sational learning, including ‘coercive learning’ or organisational change



through external persuasion. In the current climate organisations may‘learn’ to adjust their internal culture coerced by national powers and aresource dependency based on student opinion. Further research onwhich organisational cultures correlate with higher or lower studentsatisfaction could potentially be of interest for those institutions wishingto target the student market, which may help the sector to avoid uncriti-cal copying of the behaviour of successful peer institutions. Withincurrent processes of ‘dissemination of good practice’ between institu-tions there is limited attention to establishing a good ‘fit’ betweenstudent engagement approaches and the organisational culture andbehaviours of the institution. Paying specific attention to this fit may wellhelp to increase effectiveness of educational enhancement activities ininstitutions wishing to influence student opinion regarding the quality ofteaching.

References

Boland, J. A. (2005) Student Participation in Shared Governance: A Means of AdvancingDemocratic Values? Tertiary Education and Management, 11, pp. 199–217.

Bourdieu, P. and Passeron, J. C. (1990) Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture.London: Sage.

Brennan, J., Brighton, R., Moon, N., Richardson, J.T. E., Rindl, J. and Williams, R. (2003)Collecting and Using Student Feedback on Quality and Standards of Learning andTeaching in HE. Bristol.

Browne of Madingley, J. (2010) Securing a Sustainable Future for Higher Education. London:Department for Business, innovation and Skills, Available: http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/corporate/docs/s/10-1208-securing-sustainable-higher-education-browne-report.pdf, last accessed 8 February 2012.

Clark, B. R. (1983) The Higher Education System: Academic Organisation in Cross-NationalPerspective. Berkely: University of California Press.

Coates, H. (2007) A Model for Online and General Campus-Based Student Engagement.Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 32, pp. 121–141.

Coates, H. (2010) Development of the Australasian Survey of Student Engagement(AUSSE). Higher Education, 60, pp. 1–17.

Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) (2011) Students at the Heart of theSystem: Consulting on the Future of Higher Education. London: Department for BusinessInnovation and Skills. http://discuss.bis.gov.uk/hereform/white-paper/ last accessed 29March 20102.

Eliophotou-Menon, M. (2003) Student Involvement in University Governance: A Needfor Negotiated Engagement. Tertiary Education and Management, 9, pp. 233–246.

Frost, R. (2008) Developing Student Participation, Research and Leadership: the HCDStudent Partnership. School Leadership and Management, 28, pp. 353–368.

Handy, C. (1999) Understanding Organizations. London: Penguin.Harper, S. R. and Quaye, S. J. (2009) Beyond Sameness, with Engagement and Outcomes

for All. In S. R. Harper and S. J. Quaye (eds.), Student Engagement in Higher Education.New York and London: Routledge, pp. 1–15.

Harvey, L. (2001) Student Feedback a Report to the Higher Education Funding Council forEngland. Birmingham: Centre for Research into Quality.

Jongbloed, B. (2003) Marketisation in Higher Education, Clark’s Triangle and the Essen-tial Ingredients of Markets. Higher Education Quarterly, 57, pp. 110–135.



Kuh, G. D. (2009) What Student Affairs Professionals Need to Know about StudentEngagement. Journal of College Student Development, 50, pp. 683–706.

Little, B., Locke, W., Scesa, A. and Williams, R. (2009) Report to HEFCE on StudentEngagement. London: Centre for Higher Education Research Information, OpenUniversity.

Lizzio, A. and Wilson, K. (2009) Student Participation in University Governance: the RoleConceptions and Sense of Efficacy of Student Representatives on DepartmentalCommittees. Studies in Higher Education, 34, pp. 69–84.

McNay, I. (1995) From the Collegial Academy to the Corporate Enterprise: the ChangingCultures of Universities. In T. Schuller (ed.), The Changing University? Buckingham:Open University Press, pp. 105–115.

Mintzberg, H. (1989) Mintzberg on Management: Inside Our StrangeWorld of Organizations.New York: Free Press.

Naidoo, R., Shankar, A. and Veer, E. (2011) The Consumerist Turn in Higher Education:Policy Aspirations and Outcomes. Journal of Marketing Management, 27, pp. 1142–1162.

National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) (1998) National Survey of StudentEngagement [Online]. Bloomington, Indiana: Trustees of Indiana University, Available:http://nsse.iub.edu/, last accessed 16 February 2011.

Ng, I. C. L. and Forbes, J. (2009) Education as Service:The Understanding of UniversityExperience through the Service Logic. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 19, pp.38–64.

Persson, A. (2003) Student Participation in the Governance of Higher Education in Europe: ACouncil of Europe Survey. Directorate General IV Education, Culture and Heritage,Youth and Sport. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, pp. 1–15.

Pike, G. R. and Kuh, G. D. (2005) A Typology of Student Engagement for AmericanColleges and Universities. Research in Higher Education, 46, pp. 185–209.

Powell, W. W. and Dimaggio, P. J. (eds.) (1991) The New Institutionalism in OrganisationalAnalysis. Chicago, Ill.: The University of Chigaco Press.

Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) (2009) Outcomes from InstitutionalAudit. Student Representation and Feedback Arrangements. Sharing Good Practice. SecondSeries. Gloucester: Quality Assurance Agency.

Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) (2011) Outcomes from InstitutionalAudit—Student Representation and Support. Gloucester: Quality Assurance Agency.

Quinn, R. E. and Mcgrath, M. R. (1985) The Transformation of Organizational Cultures:A Competing Values Perspective. In P. J. Frost (ed.), Organizational Culture. BeverlyHills, Calif.: Sage Publications, pp. 315–334.

Richardson, J. T. E., Slater, J. B. and Wilson, J. (2007) The National Student Survey:Development, Findings and Implications. Studies in Higher Education, 32, pp. 557–580.

Trompenaars, F. and Hampden Turner, C. (1998) Riding theWaves of Culture: Understand-ing Diversity in Global Business. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Trowler, V. (2010) Student Engagement Literature Review. York: Higher EducationAcademy.

Weick, K. (1976) Educational Organisations as Loosely-Coupled Systems. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 21, pp. 1–19.



institutional level student engagement and organisational cultures

Documents