I’ve been doing some work with the University of London on the past, present, and future of university federations.
I’ve looked at well over 60 kinds of different kinds of university partnerships, alliances, and coalitions, and the idea of a university federation avoids an easy definition. Crudely, it is a group of universities working together to achieve a shared goal but lots of kinds of partnerships would fall in and out of that definition. The University of London is the obvious example – it has seventeen independent members and it defines its mission as expanding access to higher education. Globally, the vast majority of other kinds of federated models do not work like this.
Whose federation is it anyway?
The University of Oxford describes its 36 colleges as operating within a “federal system” which are “independent and self-governing.” It seems odd to suggest a federation within an institution can exist (albeit the legal forms here complicate things) but federations are about the distribution of resources as much as regulatory structures.
On this basis the University of the Arts London would also qualify as a kind of federation. The colleges maintain their own identity with their own expertise and reputation. Their work is framed about the idea of six colleges with one university. Similarly, the University of California has a single legal identity but with nine campuses. They are one institution with a single leadership but diverse enough to operate across different geographies, programmes, and sub-identities.
There is perhaps then a difference between working in a federal way and being federated. This definition would encompass coalitions of universities working toward a single goal with some shared resources like The N8 research partnership. It would also include the University of the Arctic which is an almost entirely federal institution where its direction, governance, and activities, are directed by the shared agreement of its members.
Scales
Governance forms and organisational function are often but not always linked. The University of London’s membership has a formal governance responsibility to direct its activity while the University of London maintains its own strong central purpose and activities. The University of the Highlands and Islands (UHI) is potentially both more centralised and devolved than the University of London. Its degree awarding powers are centrally held by the university but delivery of programmes, in both FE and HE occurs over 70 learning centres. Additionally, the Post-16 Education (Scotland) Act 2013 identifies UHI as a regional strategic body with responsibilities for planning, delivery, monitoring, and efficiency savings in further education across its operating area.
At the slightly less federated end there is somewhere like the University Arts Singapore (UAS) which emerged as an alliance between LASALLE College of the Arts (LASALLE) and Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts (NAFA). UAS has a vice chancellor, each member has its own president (who are the deputy vice chancellors of UAS), and they lean into both their shared capacity and individual identity. As they state:
As an alliance, UAS has the unique advantage of leveraging the strengths of both our founding members, LASALLE and NAFA, while allowing each to remain distinct colleges. UAS will work in close collaboration with the two arts institutions to lead and provide strategic direction, and will validate, confer and award UAS degrees offered by both arts institutions.
There are lots of other examples including Paris Sciences et Lettres University which is a single institution with eleven constituent schools (some of which are several hundred years old.) To the Canadian model where the likes of the University of Toronto hold three religious independent institutions within their group where they share resources and maintain their own identities.
Models
The strictest definition of federation involves a legal form – but there is much in-between. A federation may be a shared brand, an informal network, a federated project with individual or shared ownership, a national or regional mission with shared funds, shared infrastructure with formal governance relationships, a group of universities with a single degree awarder, a coalition of providers with a shared and funded purpose, or an entirely devolved body that only exists through dint of the activities of its members.
If a federation has lots of different forms it by extension has a lot of different purposes. Ideally, the form of the federation should follow the agreed purpose if it is to be successful. The strategic vision has to be big enough to make the difficult compromises that come with working together make sense. Cost-saving is unlikely to be big enough to motivate all the pieces within a federated ecosystem but improving international standing, delivering better teaching, and funding research more effectively, supported by the efficient allocation of resources, might be.
Across federations there is often legislation and regulation that enables the constituent organisations to work together. This was the case with UAS, UHI has a long history of partnerships, funding, and regulation, while there is underpinning legislation in France to encourage the geographic coordination of research assets. It is noticeable that while the OfS has welcomed the idea of closing working together by institutions there isn’t actually a legislative or regulatory underpinning to make that easier.
Success
If a federation has a clear purpose and an accommodating regulatory environment it may have a reasonable chance of success. This still isn’t enough to wish one into being because of the operational complexity that can underpin such arrangements. Strategically, this includes whether it is more efficient, effective, or clear, to have a single governance, quality, and approval regime, whether resources are best shared or kept local, and whether staff should be separate or together. Again, much of this depends on federal form but sharing infrastructure between institutions even within federations is not that common. The sharing of resources should be the second order concern after the purpose of doing so but the practicalities can be complex, expensive, and absorb much organisational attention.
It is therefore difficult to define success but it is possible to improve the chances of federations being successful. Federations should begin with a clear purpose, then look at how the strategic sharing of assets can achieve that purpose, and then work to the practicalities of sharing those assets. A federation is about purpose, governance, finance, and brand, but it is also about creating an ecosystem where partners believe the shared negotiation of purpose, strategy, and execution, is more powerful than a single organisation doing this alone. A federation is about giving something up, whether that is some identities or some resources, in the shared belief the collective gain will outweigh any individual loss.
If federations are to become more of a feature of the higher education landscape the largest challenges may not be structural but cultural. Recent reforms of higher education in England were largely about greater competition between providers. A federation is to acknowledge that agglomeration benefits may be achieved through cooperation, consolidation, and the strategic deprioritisation of some work where others may have greater expertise.
The central plank of the government’s recent white paper is that the homogeneity of the sector is an impediment to the efficient allocation of resources. If it is serious about specialisation, particularly within specific geographies, it should open up more routes to federal structures and the strategic benefits they may bring.
James Coe is chairing a panel on federations at The Festival of Higher Education with the University of London. Tickets can be purchased here.
