More research into the impact of higher education policy changes and what they might achieve could help ease widespread concerns about the burden regulations pose to English universities, according to a new report. 

A  authored by Nicola Dandridge, former chief executive of the Office for Students, warns that some higher education policies lack any kind of evaluation, and the reviews that are carried out can be hard to find and may not be used to inform policy decisions.

While evaluations of regulation can provide “robust evidence” of the effectiveness of higher education – a question gaining more prominence in public debates – the ones that do exist are rarely used in this way, according to the paper, which was published by the Social Market Foundation. 

The report reviewed 60 evaluations of English national higher education policy and regulation carried out since 2000 by individual academics, as well as government and independent bodies. 

ߣߣ��Ƶ

Dandridge, who is now a professor of practice in higher education policy at the University of Bristol, told ߣߣ��Ƶ that in her previous roles, “whenever I looked at what evidence there was about what policies and what regulation were effective and what had [the] most impact, it was actually quite hard to find the evidence”. 

“There were specific evaluations of particular policies, particularly in the area of access and participation, but it was not very obvious that there was a sort of coherent set of reviews and evaluations that informed policymakers [of] what worked and what didn’t work.”

ߣߣ��Ƶ

None of the evaluations identified as part of the research focused on value for money – comparing the cost of new regulations with the benefit delivered. 

Dandridge said the lack of information about this was creating “a very one-sided debate that just looks solely at regulatory burden”. 

Higher education providers have long complained they are subject to too much regulation, particularly since the introduction of the OfS. With the regulator set to gain more responsibilities as part of the government’s post-16 White Paper, critics have warned this will increase the strain on universities. 

More information about the impact of these regulations “would frame the debate in…balanced evidence and, I think, make for a much more constructive discussion about regulatory burden”, said Dandridge. 

ߣߣ��Ƶ

The report also finds evaluations relating to teaching quality remain largely qualitative and are limited by a lack of evidence of causation or focus on value for money, while there are few evaluations on graduate outcomes despite the political focus on the topic.

“The Department for Education or another national body…should take or be given responsibility for ensuring that there is a better sense of overall strategic coherence, ambition, and efficiency in the commissioning of national higher education evaluations, so that their value can be maximised,” the report says. 

It adds that learnings from previous research “should be promoted through the creation of a central repository for evaluations” and suggests that these should be explicitly and deliberately used “in the development of all major national policy and regulatory proposals”.

helen.packer@timeshighereducation.com