The university policy adviser is now a fixture in higher education. At least, there are enough of us that we’re now getting organised. There’s a large Political Affairs Network under the auspices of UUK that brings together policy, comms, strategy and related staff as well as a smaller, more informal collective of VCs’ policy advisers and exec officers, now named the Lighthouse Group (after Plymouth’s Caroline Chipperfield handed the attendees of the first get-together snazzy lighthouse phone charms).
We work to very different VCs with very different institutional aims, but in practice the similarities are surprisingly many. One of the main similarities is also the source of one of the main challenges: we work in VCs’ offices. Maybe not in physical terms that far from where the core business of the university happens, but sometimes it may as well be. It would be relatively easy to stay in the bubble of the ‘top corridor’ and only interact with other parts of the university when we need a ‘crunchy’ case study for an MP’s briefing note, some figures for a speech or an amenable group of students for a ministerial visit. That is of course a crude characterisation (all the HE policy advisers I’ve met have genuine dedication to their institutions). And we do need access to – and the trust of – the executive team to be effective. But I wonder if that’s only half the argument.
Would we be better policy advisers if we were also part of ‘core business’? More aware of operational realities, more part of the fabric of the place and more able to bridge the corporate and academic ‘levels’, both as advisers and advocates?
Some could get involved in teaching and supervision, building on (or developing) their academic credentials or team teaching to integrate their professional expertise on politics, government, journalism or management. Others have come by different routes and could contribute to student administration, marketing or recruitment. Of course, some of these roles would need significant commitment – a genuinely dual or hybrid role – whereas others could be fulfilled on a less formal basis. And there would need to be mutual benefit and a collaborative approach – no-one would want a tokenistic effort that involved more trouble to accommodate than it was worth.
Personally, the best and most fulfilling thing I have done has been taking on an academic role. It has clarified my sense of self and opened up a whole new future. But even if you’re a dedicated follower of policy, getting some experience of ‘core business’ has got to be worth considering. From the university’s perspective, why shouldn’t policy advisers be expected to ‘practise what they brief’, if only to make them better advisers and advocates? From the adviser’s perspective, we can develop that rare combination of profile and substance that is often lacking in politics (with the well-established special adviser route to ministerial status).
As I’ve argued before, it’s a shame that university systems and structures create parallel tracks for staff that make any such innovation difficult. Making it happen relies on the entrepreneurship and enthusiasm of those involved (on both sides). But maybe working on the ‘top corridor’ is only worth it if you also know how to work outside it.