Jim Dickinson has results of student polling that shows that students need to see more of themselves and their issues reflected for an SU to appear legitimate and representative
This article is more than 3 years old

For many years now, the question in the National Student Survey (NSS) on students’ unions has been a consistent low-performer.
In 2022, for example, just 53 per cent of respondents gave a positive response – some distance behind the wider student voice category on 67 per cent.
From time to time this has posed a national problem – as some in both government and think tanks have argued that SUs should be defunded as a result.
It also can pose a problem for SUs locally in discussions with their university over representativeness, funding, legitimacy or a claim for more seats on committees or more consultation.
So just as happens in the wider university sector over the wider question set, each year attempts have been made to guess, work out or surmise why that number might be so low – and then attempts have been made to either actively decide to address it, or accept that the question’s myriad faults mean it’s not useful metric.
And so the problem has long been that when you look at the top 10 or 15 performers, they appear to share no characteristics, approaches or styles. They’re about as diverse a set of SUs as you can get.
Now if you’ve been following along as we’ve been sharing initial results from our Belong project, you’ll know that we’re particularly interested in qualitative comments as a way of better understanding quantitative scores.
It’s important that we know why students might be thinking of dropping out, or why they’re not confident about the job market, as a way of ensuring that effort to improve metrics that cover those areas isn’t misdirected.
And so as part of our work with our partners at Cibyl and a group of “pioneer” SUs – where we’ve been developing Belong into a new kind of monthly student survey designed to help SUs and their universities not just know students’ opinions, but understand and learn from their lives too – we thought we’d try to find out why students are positive or negative about their SU.
First, a little backstory. Prior to 2016, the NSS included a general question on satisfaction with the students’ union that asked students to think about “all” of all the services it provided “including support, activities and academic representation”.
But when a review concluded that the “core” NSS should focus in on the student academic experience, the old funding council that coordinated the survey initially argued that a) SUs weren’t really about the student learning experience, and b) not all providers had one, so the question would have to go.
SUs at the time were very keen that an imperfect question in the NSS would be better than no question at all, so after endless attempts at finding a question students understood, the compromise was:
To what extent do you agree with the following statement: The students’ union (association or guild) effectively represents students’ academic interest.
That was not ideal. Cognitive testing told HEFCE that students didn’t understand the question, and later research from a consortium of SUs suggested that students thought it meant “aspects of their course they were interested in”.
Plenty of students hadn’t realised that the SU played a role in academic representation at all, viewing it instead as a building or facilitator of clubs and societies.
And the Likert scale used in the NSS meant that students were able to use “Neither Agree nor Disagree” as a way of signalling that they didn’t understand the question or know enough about the SU to make a decision.
That meant – and has meant for all the years the question ran – that Q26 has never been the question that attracted the most negative “active disagree” responses. In fact last summer the question was second from last on positivity – but only 9th for negativity:
Over the past couple of years a review of the NSS has been carried out by the Office for Students on behalf of the whole of the UK, and a number of changes are to be introduced.
Questions were all rephrased, some new questions (on mental health support awareness and free speech) were introduced, and some questions (like the one on community) were killed off.
For SUs, I won’t repeat the story here of how Q26 was handled, suffice to say that the new iteration fared poorly in cognitive testing and seems to suffer from many of the same issues its predecessor did.
How well does the students’ union (association or guild) represent students’ academic interests
But perhaps more importantly, given the “middle” option (“neither agree nor disagree”) has now been abolished from all questions in the survey, the big question was always going to be how that might impact the question with the biggest NAND score – Q26.
With almost 1 in 5 students ticking that box last year, as well as trying to deepen our understanding of how students feel about SUs, we’re sure many have been wondering how students would jump if forced off the fence.
Results here are from January and February, around 90 higher education providers are covered, and the sample of around 1600 has been weighted for gender and age.
We are not claiming that the sample we have is representative of the full population that has completed the NSS this year – not least because OfS includes a much wider range of providers while limiting to final year undergraduates (we include PGs and asked all years). It’s also important to remember that the NSS is a different survey with different questions being asked prior to the SU one, and we’ve removed “does not apply to me” results here.
Nevertheless, the results are encouraging. In our sample, the question got an 81 per cent positivity score – broken down as follows:
How well does the students’ union (association or guild) represent students’ academic interests?
If – am I must stress this is a big if – the final result in July is anything close to that, the SU sector will be breaking out the champers to celebrate.
As is now traditional, you’d expect me to interrogate the relationship between community and belonging and SU satisfaction. And as in previous blogs, there appears to be a pretty strong correlation. 88 per cent of students who felt part of a community were positive about the SU, falling to 57 per cent for those that didn’t:
[table id=306 /]
Some speculate that it’s activities and involvement that drives a good score even on a question about academic representation, and to that end one of the things we’re intending to do each month that our “pulse” style survey runs is ask students both about awareness of and satisfaction with the SU (as well as qualitative questions on why, of course).
In this sample it is true that awareness of and satisfaction with activities and opportunities offered via the SU and societies has a strong correlation with the NSS question. But that’s not the whole story:
When we look at the relationship between the NSS question and the four factors above, the pearson correlation scores shake out like this:
That’s right – the runaway winner is students being aware of the things the SU does to represent students’ views and concerns, even if they’re not satisfied with what the SU says on behalf of students.
And again here, when we look at correlations with the community question, it’s representation awareness that comes out strongest.
When we dive into the qualitative comments, it’s unsurprising that of those positive about the SU in that NSS, we get a mixture of views, many of which relate to communications channels and a breadth of activities and participation.
But when we filter and analyse the questions for (academic) representation and voice, two things become apparent. The first is that students really appreciate being obviously and actively consulted and listened to:
The second is that while students obviously like “wins”, it’s seeing and hearing themselves and their issues represented that really matters:
This is interesting because research into effective political communication stresses that citizens favour messaging as follows:
Research also shows that politicians and representatives tend to believe that they should focus on 4 and 5 (talking a lot about themselves, what they are doing and what they are achieving) which appears to be less effective at building affinity and loyalty than demonstrating that citizens have been heard and understood.
When interrogating the negative comments, it’s hard to overestimate the way in which personal negative experiences – often about being ignored or sidelined when approaching the SU or its officers – cloud students’ responses to the wider question.
But again it is clear that talking about the SU itself and its officers generates much more negativity than talking about students and their issues:
And the importance of being seen to be separate from the university – even where that may cause some friction – can’t be overstated either:
As the project continues, there will be further opportunities to analyse the responses, and look in detail at particular characteristics of students. But one thing to note here is that for international students in particular, being “represented” by seeing oneself and one’s issues communicated back appears to be particularly important:
Overall, the findings here could be powerful both in relation to communicating with students and in terms of democratic reform. On the former, we’ve discussed before the way in which the content of social media posts and webpages can tend toward discussing the SU, its officers and their actions and wins rather than students and their issues.
And on the latter, it’s clear that while democratic structures – both elections and other types of structures – ought to be able to prioritise issues facing students, if the scaffolding results in students not feeling represented at all, there’s almost certainly a problem.
Some argue that boosting voter turnout is the way to make SUs more representative. But while voting might prioritise action on cost of living over mental health in a given year, if it’s possible for a nursing student or a Nigerian student (or a Nigerian nursing student) to never see or hear someone talking about placements, immigration and so on, then something has gone wrong.
30,000 students voting for a single set of 5 officers are always going to be disappointed if they’re searching for themselves. What’s clear is that hyper-diverse student communities need SU structures that develop more far leaders that look like them, look like they’re listening and are capable of acting.
You can find out more about Belong and how your SU can get involved in our launch brochure here.
New comments will come back with sign-in later this year.

Rhiannon Ellis | SU Blogs | 12/03/22

Rhiannon Ellis | SU Blogs | 10/03/22

Rhiannon Ellis | SU Blogs | 9/03/22

Rhiannon Ellis | SU Blogs | 1/03/22

Ian Chapman | Comment | 3/10/26

Team Wonkhe | Podcasts | 2/10/26