This article is more than 7 years old

University administrators – ‘lovely and well-meaning’ but still below stairs

Anyone who sees administrators as merely as ‘lovely and well-meaning’ but ultimately ineffectual and expendable really does need to think a bit more about how universities really work.
This article is more than 7 years old

Paul Greatrix is an HE expert and was until recently Registrar at the University of Nottingham

In a recent piece in Times Higher Education an academic sought to explain why he was leaving the UK, blaming many aspects of our university system but reserving special criticism for administrators:

Then there’s the administration. Leaving aside the widely pilloried and Sisyphean administrative exercises known as the research excellence framework and now the teaching excellence framework (TEF), to put it simply we have in recent times witnessed an administrative coup in UK academia. In an article focusing on the University of Oxford but painting a picture that will be familiar to most academics, The Spectator wrote that the “university’s central administrative staff is now almost three times what it was 15 years ago. There was no similar increase in full-time academic staff, the people who teach students or do research…”

An administrative “coup”? Really? It’s been a pretty subtle one if so and the author’s inability to distinguish between externally imposed regulation and assessment and the administrative support required to enable universities to deal with this bureaucracy, protect academics from its worst excesses as well as helping keeping everything else moving is unfortunate to say the least.

This line from the Spectator, supplied from the exotic surroundings of the Oxford senior common room is equally off beam. In noting there are more administrators than there used to be at Oxford (and therefore everywhere) the writer finds it easy to conclude that these administrators are unnecessary and, it seems, quite dispensable:

The figures elicited, not for the first time, an exasperated outburst from Peter Oppenheimer, an academic formerly at Christ Church, who vented his spleen in an enjoyable article in the Oxford Magazine. As he observed, ‘A defensible estimate is that at least 500 (of the administrators) are surplus to requirements for the effective running of the university. The corresponding unnecessary annual cost is around £1,500 per Oxford student (all 20,000 of them) per year, plus extensive non-quantifiable academic damage.’ That amounts to £90 million a year for admin — you can buy lots of professors for that.

It gets better:

And the problem of burgeoning bureaucracy helps explain some worrying trends, foremost being a perceptible decline in academic standards over time (it’s evident in grade inflation; there are three times as many Oxford Firsts now as there were 30 years ago).

So there you have it from the Spectator, not only are there too many administrators where there should be academics, they are responsible for grade inflation and the decline in academic standards. It’s difficult not to be irritated by this kind of nonsense. But then to return to the original THE piece, we find even more crass commentary on the growth in the number of administrators:

I won’t speculate here on the many reasons why this might be, rather I’ll merely point out that an increase in administrators – lovely and well-meaning as most of them are as individuals – naturally does not do what you might naively expect, ie, take care of the administration so that academics can focus on academic work. No, instead it breeds ever more complex administrative mazes that are not just difficult to navigate but are de facto becoming the main part of the job. Kafkaesque would not be pushing it too far by any means.

It takes something really special to be quite so exceptionally patronising and professionally insulting in the same paragraph. Fortunately, others were equally appalled by this including Charles Knight who sought to stress how much he loved administrators:

I’m just going to come out and say something that many academics would find shameful and perverted – I love my administrators.

I like interacting with them, I like bouncing ideas off them and I appreciate it when they come to me with ideas about how we can get involved with changes to university policy and process. Like any relationship, we have our ups and downs (“did you not read my flowchart on how to simplify that process?”) but I think overall our administrators (and all the services roles) make me a better academic and give our university a stronger and more vibrant culture.

The piece goes on to note the vital role played by administrators in relation to graduation, exam boards, legal and governance matters as well student recruitment and teaching and learning support. He then concludes:

The real reason I love my administrators, however, is that I truly have never felt that at Edge Hill University there is this hard divide between academics and administrators – and that doesn’t just refer to processes; it’s about culture and values.

Thank you Charles.

Then there was this ramshackle piece in the Guardian very recently which sought to portray much of the work done by professional services staff as “bullshit jobs”, devoid of value or purpose and in need of elimination in order that academic staff can pursue the real work of the university unimpeded. A spectacularly awful article.

Front of the line

Some years ago I wrote a piece for Times Higher Education on the problem with the term ‘back office’ and the often casual, unthinking use of it in order to identify a large group of staff who play a key role in the effective running of universities but who often find themselves treated as second class citizens. These administrators are often regarded as expendable and viewed as if they were Victorian servants who generally remain ‘below stairs’. They would also, I am sure, fit into the category of ‘lovely and well-meaning’.

More recently I posted here on Registrarism on how administrators always seemed to be first in line for the chop and were seen by some as unnecessary overheads and therefore easily removed.

Leaving aside the fact that many professional staff, for example those involved in student recruitment, careers work, counselling, financial advice, academic support, security and library operations are unequivocally front-line, the idea that the other staff who help the institution function and who support academic staff in their teaching and research are merely unnecessary overheads, ripe for cutting back, is just not credible.

This line would not cut much ice with the academic author of the THE piece nor the Guardian’s organisational behaviour expert who decried “empty administration”, both of whom seem to imagine that the administrators are mainly focused on making life harder for the faculty. However, if academic staff are to deliver on their core responsibilities for teaching and research it is essential that all the services they and the university need are provided efficiently and effectively. There is not much point in hiring a world-leading scholar if she has to do her all her own photocopying, spend a day a week sorting out software updates or washing the windows because there aren’t any other staff to do this work. These services are required and staff are needed to do this work to ensure academics are not unnecessarily distracted from their primary duties. This is what administrators do.

Although provision of such services is not in itself sufficient for institutional success, it is hugely important for creating and sustaining an environment where the best-quality teaching and research can be delivered.

This is not an administrative coup and anyone who sees administrators as merely as ‘lovely and well-meaning’ but ultimately ineffectual and expendable really does need to think a bit more about how universities really work. We are all pulling in the same direction and administrators are dedicated to enabling institutional success not scuppering it. So please, feel the love, join Charles Knight and celebrate the contribution everyone makes, academics and administrators alike, to our wonderful universities.

33 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
University Administrator
7 years ago

Well written. The Guardian piece was especially shocking, I would class it at around the same level as clickbait. Poorly sourced with no real examples or evidence – the point about pensions is especially galling – we’re not all in USS. Nobody is saying, even for a moment, that “empty” administration doesn’t exist. But it is nowhere near as rife as some of these articles suggest. As is hinted above the real reason for the rise in administration is the rise in regulatory requirements. Direct your ire at UKBA. HMRC, HEFCE, HESA, OFFA and the rest. In the meantime we’ll… Read more »

Bill Cooke
7 years ago

Actually, no. This self-serving, victimhood is shocking, and part of the problem. It is a long version of the archetypal ‘academics’ plus eyeroll that prevails. The Guardian article was very specific in where the admin problem was evident – REF, TEF, Ranking implementation, and more generally, in the rise of universities where more than half the white collar staff are administrators. Here’s some things to throw at you in my recent experience of the top of my head. 1) Being told – not asked – by someone with an MA in English in the central registarr- to change module titles… Read more »

Paul
12 days ago
Reply to  Bill Cooke

100% agreed

Carol Burns
7 years ago

I am reminded here of the “pencil skirted administrator” observation in the THE some years ago. As I worked at the time in the institution the perpetrator of this epithet had just left, I can tell you that I had several seriously upset professional services staff in to see me; people who worked hard to support students (and had also supported the offending writer) and believed – rightly – that they were making a difference to student success. None of them would have been seen dead in a pencil skirt by the way. On one level, we can say, heyho;… Read more »

Steven Burnett
7 years ago

Having working in university administration for some years I must say that I find the constant rehearsing of this age-old ‘debate’ to be tedious and enervating. Does the opinion of a single, clearly partial academic really warrant this degree of navel gazing? It would be so much more refreshing if the ‘profession’ had sufficient self-confidence in its worth such that there’s no perceived need to defend a position. It smacks of protesting too much. Yes, administration is necessary and should be valued. Now lets move on.

Steve Fuller (@ProfSteveFuller)
7 years ago

I was going to say more about this, but Bill Cooke gets the point across well. That supposedly ‘ramshackle’ article refers to a laundry list of issues where administrative waste is indeed implicated. I don’t the see the article as calling for the elimination of all administrators — only those who don’t facilitate the university’s mission but who are there for reasons driven exclusively by the administrators themselves. Here the generalised promise of high salaries can create an illusory sense of importance to administrators, which can lead to the pathologies that Spicer identifies in his Guardian piece. However, no one… Read more »

Phil Purnell
7 years ago

Hello? Divide and conquer anyone? First Adonis, now this… yes there’s too much low-value admin but hey – there’s often too much low-value scholarship as well. Can we please try and focus on presenting the things we (note pronoun) do well to the world, and deal internally with improving the effectiveness of the things that they (note pronoun again; works both ways) do to and for us? This barrage of coordinated attacks on academia, be it pillorying VCs, wheeling out of discredited Profs, moronic moaning at ‘them’, REF TEF GEF XEF GJUTFU-EF or whatever is not an accident. Capital is… Read more »

University Administrator
7 years ago

Fair comment

University Administrator
7 years ago

@Bill Cooke I think we’re arguing many of the same points. I have disdain for the Guardian article because it made little effort to provide citations or back up claims, instead relying on sensationalist language. It would have been more credible if the authors new work wasn’t plugged at the bottom. You took the time to back up some of your claims and that is commendable (and I’m sure cathartic for you). But as Phil Purnell says in comment #6 I’m also sure that many administrators can reel off just as many examples of poor or low-value scholarship. As Phil… Read more »

Homer Simpson
7 years ago

>Being told – not asked – by someone with an MA in English in the central registarr- to change module titles that a team of PhD ECRs to Professors

Regardless of who was right or wrong, the way you phrase this shows intellectual snobbery. “We have PhDs therefore we know better” is an awful attitude to take.

Bill Cooke
7 years ago

No its really not. I mean, if you think the PhDs we offer are worthless and give their holders no ‘extra’ intellectual expertise, then just say so, and we can close the programs down.The whole point of PhDs, is actually, they do show people know better. And if you think a team of specialists with years of training are rightly over-ridden by someone with no specialist knowledge but with the administrative power to do so, and ignore requests for dialogue, then I put it to you, you are the snob. But hey, maybe the person from the registry should teach… Read more »

Bill Cooke
7 years ago

Well, I read it online, and there there were lots of live links to back up the claims made, so it was referenced. Not in hardcopy mind. It was of course a cathartic rant. But written in 10 mins on the train. Imagine if I was sat at my desk. But fundamentally, I am going to call you on your “But as Phil Purnell says in comment #6 I’m also sure that many administrators can reel off just as many examples of poor or low-value scholarship.” For a university’s primary task, there is not the equivalence between admin, and scholarship… Read more »

Frustrated Administrator
7 years ago
Reply to  Bill Cooke

@Bill Cooke You really are losing the run of yourself, here. I sympathise with much of what you say, but a clever polemic doesn’t always make a valid point. We could sling examples back and forth of poor work done by academics and administrators alike. I’ve seen countless examples of academic colleagues taking administrators (with qualifications in accounting, marketing, you name it!) to task on something that they have no qualification in that area themselves to fall back on. The issue there is about mutual respect, and that counts as much for the administrator who falls back on a rule… Read more »

Phil Purnell
7 years ago

The pilots in the RAF deliver what the RAF is for; dropping bombs, shooting down planes and delivering toilet rolls to Camp Bastion. Does this mean that the army (pun intended) of fitters, comms specialists, cooks, stores clerks etc. should have no say in how the payloads are delivered? A crude and ill informed analogy, but hopefully you get the point. I think administrators have as much right to – armed with the proper data – call out poor scholarship as academics have – similarly armed – to call out pointless admin. One would hope that each community would police… Read more »

Mars Vinyl
7 years ago

@ comment #8 “Of course “empty” administration exists, and where a task doesn’t lead to some greater (worthwhile) purpose of course that administration should be eradicated. Given the pressure on budgets I can’t believe there isn’t a University out there that isn’t working on this already. Mine certainly is.” Could you please provide some details about how your University actually identifies/ defines ’empty administration’ and what specifically it is doing in this respect? And what is your opinion on REF and processes such as Professional Development Reviews? I have not seen any evidence that REF has driven up standards of… Read more »

Mars Vinyl
7 years ago

@ comment 12 “I think administrators have as much right to – armed with the proper data – call out poor scholarship as academics have – similarly armed – to call out pointless admin.” This is nonsense and you ought to know it: what exactly is this ‘proper data’ you mention? Where does it come from and how does it look like? Of course, one can look at citations or where something is published but this gives you only a superficial insight into the value. There are quite excellent papers that appear for some reason in poor journals and are… Read more »

Bob
7 years ago

Better in what though? Naming degrees? Knowing student demand data? Knowing what’s best for a to student with mental health issues that you have no qualification for? Managing a team? A PhD shows intellectual rigor, and helps in discussions to ask salient questions, but it doesn’t make you gods gift across the academic spectrum. Likewise, the argument presented to you was flawed too, but still. Have some bloody respect and use your superior mind to ask the right questions if it get’s your goat so much.

Homer Simpson
7 years ago

@Bill Cooke

It should be irrelevant whether the person in central registry has an MA, PhD, or 3 CSEs. All that should matter is whether they’re right or wrong. You should be angry that they didn’t have the knowledge to make the decision and did, not angry that they were able to make the decision while having a “lesser” qualification than you.

farah3
7 years ago

“the author’s inability to distinguish between externally imposed regulation and assessment and the administrative support required to enable universities to deal with this bureaucracy, protect academics from its worst excesses as well as helping keeping everything else moving is unfortunate to say the least.” My reaction exactly. We have one basic customer and they impose huge compliance regs. I remember the days when academics had to try to meet them… not good.

Phil Purnell
7 years ago

RE #14: I wrote “poor scholarship”, not “systematic evaluation of the quality of research outputs”. There is more to scholarship than pumping out REF-able papers. I’m talking about calling out the academics – may of them senior – who do not make a full contribution to the scholarly ambitions of the University; those who shirk teaching, those who do not respond to students, those who repeatedly submit doomed research proposals, those who refuse to engage with the everyday academic drudgery necessary to oil the gears of a department. In short, those who make my life difficult and set up a… Read more »

Matthias Feist
7 years ago

Lively discussion, yet with an at times slightly narky tone. A couple of observations: Many administrators are highly academically qualified, either before they took on their roles, or do qualify further while they work in HE. Some teach, some write and run modules. Some hold PhDs. Some pursued them and broke them off (like me), only then to find out that working on the non-academic side actually meant less paperwork than working as an academic – which is why I gladly stay on the non-academic side. Hasn’t stopped me from teaching and getting feedback from academic colleagues, learning how to… Read more »

Jessicat
7 years ago

There’s a lot I could say about this, but to pick up on this idea of what universities are ‘for’, I wonder whether it’s too simplistic to characterise the purpose of higher education as just delivering teaching and research. I mean, *yes*, teaching and research inasmuch as no-one is claiming the purpose of a university is to conduct administrative exercises, but from a student perspective higher education is about a lot more than just learning, and whilst administration supports the core institutional mission of delivering teaching and facilitating research, it also fulfils an array of other functions that are less… Read more »

kay
7 years ago

bravo.

Katie Akerman
7 years ago

“Non-academic”? Ouch! I prefer to define myself in terms of what I am, rather than what I am not i.e. an administrator!

Jessicat
7 years ago

I’m not sure if your comment was directed at me, but I used that term to encompass all staff working in higher education in a capacity that isn’t academic, many of whom aren’t administrators, but, if we’re talking about a perceived divide between those who perform the function of the university and those who support it, are allied or associated with administrative colleagues rather than academic ones. Perhaps I should have used our new ‘professional services’ branding but I think it still carries associations of office-based staff and perhaps doesn’t bring to mind those working in/as hospitality, catering, conferencing, security,… Read more »

Jessicat
7 years ago

Sorry, comment 23 was directed at comment 22… I used the ‘reply’ function but it doesn’t seem to indicate that now it’s posted.

Ex-uni manager
7 years ago

Well said.

Matt
7 years ago

It sounds very much as though you’re describing cultural problems within your own University. This is problematic (as with the case highlighted above with the Oxford SCR) when you extrapolate this out to include all administrators/Universities. The most senior leadership of the University (who are almost universally from academia) have to take some of the responsibility for perpetuating an “audit culture”, excessive direction and monitoring from the centre. Quite a few administrators have “had careers outside of the University” and understand where value is added. Some of them have even worked in academia! A significant problem could be the perception… Read more »

Dr Admin
7 years ago

As someone who has spent their entire career in ‘middle-admin’ roles, albeit, with some teaching & research on the side, I find Bill Cooke’s comments rather offensive. In my experience, the admin/academic divide is usually perpetuated by individuals on both sides who don’t have the confidence and/or credibility in their own identify within the HE Sector. Thankfully I work at a University where my colleagues in the Professoriate welcome my contribution to academic discussion and, when confronted with ‘admin-as-second-class-citizens’ attitudes, gleefully point out to the perpetrators that I’m a really useful expert in my field of admin and “also have… Read more »

anon
6 years ago

I mean depending on the area of administration in which they are working quite a lot of administrators have PhDs…

JLC
3 years ago

I have worked on both sides and i have found excellence and low-quality standards on both, academics and administrators. Now, what i do not agree is that within a HE environment, an administrator can earn more than a senior academic, i think this is sending the wrong message for the university culture and it also shows that governance di not know the effort and money it takes to become a senior academic. When academics get annoyed with this and other issues, is not the fault of administrators, after all they just applied to an advert. It is the university governance… Read more »

n/a
2 years ago
Reply to  JLC

I fully agree with the Spectator and THE articles, admins/managers are destroying academia with pointless tasks that exist silly to keep you lot in jobs.

n/a
2 years ago

Administrators are mostly pointless