Our editorial standards
The below principles explain how we endeavour to maintain good standards of practice in writing about issues in, and sharing information about, higher education and the organisations and individuals in and around the higher education sector. We may make reference to these when deciding whether an article is appropriate for the site or in the feedback we give to prospective authors.
Generally speaking, we presume good faith on the part of policy actors, particularly those operating in the HE sector. Disagreement with policy approach, language, or methodology is standard and acceptable, even encouraged; assumption that the actors behind the policy are malign or incompetent is not.
As a corollary, we require all authors when making an argument to critically engage with contrary perspectives in good faith and consider the evidence for the alternative arguments.
As far as possible we endeavour to deploy evidence in the service of argument. Evidence is a broad concept, and can be derived from professional or lived experience and the accumulation of qualitative analysis as well as data, but all authors should be reflective about the strength of the evidence on which their argument rests and be prepared to be challenged on it. Similarly, we maintain a clear distinction between opinion, conjecture, and fact.
On occasion we or one of our authors will cover issues that relate to highly specialist knowledge such as the law, or medicine. We will use every endeavour to be clear about the limits of our knowledge of these matters, avoid drawing conclusions or inferring implications where we do not have the specialist knowledge and, where appropriate, check that our interpretation is accurate with a qualified professional, giving the appropriate attribution at the end of the article.
When quoting material that is in the public domain we will ensure that the quote accurately represents the meaning that a reasonable person would derive from it, including giving attention to the context in which the statement was made. We will avoid cherry-picking quotes to suit our case.
When we solicit commentary from an individual or organisational spokesperson through interview or invitation to comment we will:
- Give sufficient detail of the context for the request to give that individual a good understanding of our intention in writing the article
- Check with the individual for accuracy ahead of publication if we are taking quotes from an interview or verbal comment
Where we are using data to support an argument, we will follow accepted follow good practices in presenting and using data:
- We will link to the source data (or a report describing the source data in detail if it is not public data)
- For survey data, we will specify the sample size (n) and how the sample was recruited (random, representative, convenience, online panel…)
- If we’ve done any weighting or other special statistical treatment, we will tell you what we have done and why.
- If we are talking about a subgroup within a dataset, we will tell you about the number of people or things in the subgroup
- We will endeavour to comment on the limitations of the data somewhere
When we write articles that are strongly critical of an organisational policy or agenda we offer that organisation the opportunity to comment and to offer context that could help us better represent the nuance of the context for that decision or situation.
Generally speaking we only rarely report on individuals or individual higher education institutions, and only where we believe there are implications for the wider higher education sector. Where we do report on such cases – for example, where a legal case could result in a change of policy – we do our utmost to report the facts of the case and their implications for policy, and avoid drawing conclusions about the rights and wrongs of the individuals and organisations involved.
We clearly indicate content that has been developed as part of a commercial partnership with organisations providing services to higher education and on an individual level declare any personal material interest in the issues under discussion that could raise a concern about our editorial independence.
What to do if you think we have fallen short of our standards
Wonkhe is owned and managed by Mark Leach and Debbie McVitty, and we are jointly responsible and accountable for our output.
As such, if you want to raise a complaint about something we have published, please direct your complaint to us in the first instance via team@wonkhe.com and tell us what you are not happy about.
We’ll review the issue, have a chat with the team member or author in question, and may come back to you for clarification. We will do our best to correct any inaccuracies or infelicities as quickly as possible and will generally offer “right of reply” if you want it.