Is it wise to let the lunatics have their say on the running of the asylum?

As part of the TECH4ALL#2 research project, I have had the unique opportunity to interview several key personnel at the University of Northampton (UoN). I say unique as it is not common practice at higher learning institutions to allow undergraduate students to conduct in-depth, probing semi-structured interviews with department heads regarding potentially sensitive issues. Protected by the commitment to anonymity, the majority of those interviewed stepped outside of the PR crafted lines to provide their honest thoughts and perceptions, when quizzed.

 

Why would any learning institution not only allow, but actively promote such foolishness? The answer was in fact provided by one of those interviewed. The interviewee, a senior member of academic staff, stated that “UoN is not risk-averse and this applies to both teaching and other aspects such as professional services”. They went on to make the argument that for any institution to avoid rushing into mediocrity they must have a risk appetite. This is promoted by creating an environment where lecturers and students are openly encouraged to be willing to take a risk without fear of failure or retribution. Learning is about stimulating curiosity and curiosity is about not leaving things as “business as usual”. To do this, boundaries need to be pushed, fingers need to get burnt and on occasion, the institution needs to be willing to get it wrong.

This attitude has translated, in this instance, to the TECH4ALL#2 research study looking at the digital assumptions and realities of students, academic staff and service provision teams in a 21^st century higher education environment. Delivering a win, win, win situation.

Win number one, I a year 1b foundation student got to grow and develop my skills, abilities and confidence by developing a semi-structured interview template, working in conjunction with a postgraduate student to conduct and document in-depth interviews as well as develop skills regarding qualitative data analyses using the interview data.

Win number 2, Key personnel were provided with a space to speak openly and honestly on an important issue, airing their personal opinions, perceptions and proposed solutions. The one to one environment meant they felt no peer pressure to stick to “the party line” or be concerned to offend any of their colleagues.

Win number 3, the combination of the vital data gathered from these interviews can be married up and compared to the data gathered from a student survey that received over 600 responses as well as data from an online staff survey. This will drive further workshop material with the aim to provide a document the UoN and other institutions can use to create the development of a “Best of Breed” digital skills environment for 21^st-century learners.

 

In answer to my title question, being willing to take the risk of allowing students real and meaningful opportunities to influence the way their institution is run provides a powerful sense of autonomy fuelling the desire to learn and provides the institution with a unique insight into how best to develop the academic environment in order to produce the highest level of graduates to go out and change the world. After all its just a matter of time before the lunatics are running the asylum.

By Neill Friedman