At Advance HE Student Governors 2025, Jim Dickinson’s final session stripped away the theoretical niceties to reveal what student governance really involves – navigating power, challenging comfortable assumptions, and suggesting institutions confront uncomfortable truths about student experience.
His presentation title posed a central question: “Rubber stamp or lethal weapon: Can Student Governors lead institutional change?” before diving into the messy reality of making governance work in practice.
Students occupy a unique but precarious position. They possess both “voice power” as members of the academic community and “exit power” as paying customers, yet these roles often conflict with governance expectations.
“You are partly a member of the academic community. You are partly a paying customer,” Dickinson observed, noting how this dual identity creates both opportunities and tensions that other governors don’t face.
The structural challenge is that student governors are simultaneously told they’re “not here to represent students” yet constantly asked “What’s the students’ view on X or Y?” This contradiction creates what Dickinson termed an “impossible position”—student governors are “expected to embody the student voice whilst being forbidden from claiming to represent it.”
Understanding the governance traditions
Dickinson’s analysis of governance traditions illuminated why student governors often feel like outsiders. Universities blend two distinct models – the charitable tradition (run by “the great and the good”) and the mutual tradition (run by members themselves).
Academic governance operates as a mutual – academics governing themselves through senates and academic boards. Corporate governance follows the charitable model – external trustees stewarding the institution for public benefit.
“You are not an academic. You are not a member of the great and the good. You are also not great. You are also not good,” Dickinson noted with his tongue in cheek.
This leaves student governors in limbo – neither fully inside the academic mutual nor accepted into the trustee elite, but expected to contribute meaningfully to both dimensions of institutional governance.
Drawing from extensive feedback from student governors, Dickinson identified recurring problems that undermine effectiveness:
- The consultation trap: Being asked “What’s the students’ view?” transforms student governors into opinion polls rather than strategic contributors.
- Students’ union scrutiny confusion: Governing bodies conflate scrutinising the students’ union with understanding student experience, missing the broader institutional picture.
- The tyranny of politeness: Cultural pressure to be “constructive” and avoid “rocking the boat” neuters critical challenge.
- One question, one answer: Governors get single opportunities to raise issues, with follow-ups frowned upon.
- Performance obsession: Meetings focus on compliance monitoring rather than strategic deliberation about competing interests.
- Age-based legitimacy: Opinion credibility correlates with speaker age, disadvantaging younger governors.
- Process over substance: Complex governance procedures obscure real decision-making, leaving student governors commenting on predetermined outcomes.
Structural solutions
Before behavioural strategies, Dickinson emphasised getting structural support right.
Student governors need:
Numbers: “Two students should be on the board.” Isolation undermines effectiveness.
Support systems: Access to senior staff who can provide context for papers and strategic advice.
Information access: Papers distributed with sufficient time for analysis and consultation.
Regular chair meetings: Direct relationships with governance leadership.
Confidentiality clarity: Understanding what can be discussed with whom, avoiding artificial isolation.
Chunking up and down
One of Dickinson’s most practical techniques involves connecting micro and macro levels of institutional decision-making.
- Chunking up: Moving from specific issues to policy questions. “Is there a policy on that?” forces institutions to articulate strategic frameworks rather than making ad hoc decisions.
- Chunking down: Testing whether specific decisions align with stated policies. “Does that fit the policy we agreed?” holds institutions accountable to their own commitments.
This technique works across scales – from five-year strategic plans down to “the price of a Mars bar” – helping student governors connect student experience to institutional strategy.
The long-term strategy
Dickinson’s ultimate advice balanced pragmatism with ambition. Student governors should “fit in” enough to be heard while working to “move the room” toward more authentic engagement with student experience.
“Enjoy the discomfort,” he concluded, warning that “you’ll be less brave in the future” if governance experiences are too comfortable.
The message was clear: effective student governance requires courage, strategic thinking, and willingness to create productive tension. The alternative – rubber stamp participation that validates institutional complacency – serves neither students nor institutions facing unprecedented challenges.
Student governors who master these approaches can become genuine catalysts for institutional change, forcing universities to confront the gap between their aspirational rhetoric and students’ lived experience. In a sector under financial pressure, this kind of governance accountability isn’t just useful – it’s essential for institutional survival.
Read more
How do student governors perceive power?
Student governors – what do they do and what should they do?
From where student governors sit, Dundee isn’t the only institution with governance challenges
Why are university meetings still so inaccessible?
Student governors face major potential conflicts of interest
A guide to generative governance for SU boards and student governors
Outside on the inside: how to include student governors
We could change the governors, we could change the governance
A code of ethical university governance is overdue
International students do need more of a voice in governance. University Chairs should deliver it
