Embedding collaborative innovations in Universities - the potential and the possibilities

Bright minds, future thinking, reflecting not just what is, but on what might be. Universities are the perfect environment for cultivating innovation in collaboration. However, after a short time working in an organisational development capacity at London School of Economics (LSE), one of the world’s premier social science institutions, I’ve recognised this potential is often not realised.?

Universities are victim to the same paralysis inflicting wider society which operate in an outdated industrial model. Centralised decision making, operating in silos, competition over collaboration, all working contrary to the goals and values of the institutions they serve. A way of working entrenched through habit, and an institutionalised inability to envisage other alternatives.?

However, there is another way. One which is starting to take root across the globe, and to a smaller extent in universities themselves. The dual process of sortition and deliberation – a lottery to select a representative cross section of the public, then giving them time and space to discuss and make decisions.?

This article will first outline why these organisational innovations are particularly suited to universities. After this, I’ll touch on examples and opportunities for applying this approach within universities.?

Before proceeding I’d like to credit Simon Pek and Jeffrey Kennedy and their work in pushing these innovations in universities. For a more detailed, academic analysis picking up on many of the same themes, check out their article ‘Mini-publics, deliberation and universities’ deliberative capacity’.?

Why Universities are the perfect place for this model of organisational innovation??

1. Decision making in collaboration

Students are the heart of any institution. There are many mechanisms of governance that are in place to ensure they are represented including student governments, consultative fora, departmental reps. However, often their purpose is about persuading decision makers, their power relegated to that of a pressure group. Whether the motivation is financial, ethical, or academic, it makes sense to engage the primary stakeholder in a more effective, collaborative capacity. Therefore, by enabling permanent participatory capacity involving both staff and students across different departments and divisions, decisions?become grounded in possibilities not concessions.?

2. Solving complex problems??

Stripping away inaccessible ‘-tion’ terminology, at its core, these processes are defined by the ability to solve complex problems. Much like the wider world it wants to impact, universities are beset with deep-rooted problems. The crisis of student mental health, staff striking over better working conditions and the future of teaching and learning in response to AI technology, to name but a few. Rather than cower in the face of their intractability or resort to a business-as-usual approach, there is an opportunity to direct these concerns through a productive forum to learn and decide together.?

3. Widening participation??

There has been a welcome push towards “widening participation” in the higher education sector, responding to calls to make institutions more accessible to those from underrepresented backgrounds. Enriching the educational environment through increasing diversity of thought and practice. The next step should go beyond getting students into universities and to involve them in the decision-making that affects them. Greater use of stratified random selection brings in the contribution beyond your usual suspects, in both character and demography. Additionally, the selection can be amended to fit the needs of the voices you want to represent. For example, when there are decisions to be made about access for disabled students, you can frame the selection to prioritise the voices of those who would be most impacted by the decisions.??

4. Building personal capacity and political culture?

Elections for student unions, societies and class representatives favour the popular, charismatic and ambitious. The small section of society confident enough to stick up their hand and say, “I represent you”. This gives developmental opportunities for those who evidently need it least. Reinforcing a political culture based on collaboration not competition will develop the personal capacity of a greater proportion of students. Additionally, it will foster an environment of increasingly engaged citizens, as deliberation begets more deliberation. Productive communication permeating the wider culture of the university.?

5. Forefront of democratic experimentation??

Universities should be at the forefront of experimenting with ways to optimise human organisation. Rather than replicating the ills of wider society, places which exist to create knowledge fit for the future shouldn’t be hampered by an industrial era model of governance. There’s an opportunity to foster the environment for students and staff to think collaboratively, critically and creatively about what they want and how they might get there. Not only providing an environment for universities to thrive but setting a precedent for the leaders of tomorrow to be more engaged in building a groundwork for empowered citizens.??

In summary, applying these practices can have positive impacts for university at all levels, be it personal, cultural, and institutional. So, with that in mind, how can it be applied in practice? I look at three levels and provide some case studies for each.?

?

Coproduction??

There are increasing calls for coproduction of with students to improve engagement and outcomes in both academia and student services. In March, I set-up and facilitated a ‘Student Wellbeing Services Panel’ at LSE, a conscious effort to move away from the dehumanising ‘service-user’ terminology. We used sortition selection to engage a diverse range of students in discussions on how to improve the service. This will feed into a wider strategy to bring in students to coproduce the departments that are set-up to give them the best possible experience. Once this has become more concrete, I will share learnings and practice steps, in the meantime, for those curious, I’m happy to pick up a conversation regarding this.?

There are parallels here to the ‘Student’s Jury on Pandemic Learning’ at Queen Mary University of London School of Law. This process being much more in depth, spread over five sessions, supported with expert testimonies, and producing thirteen recommendations.??

Admittedly, there is work to be done to adapt models to increase the quality and quantity of this type of approach. However, as long as there is an agreement of why, the practice of bringing together students and staff to design and deliver better outcomes can become common place.??

?

Student government?

This is the most obvious target is improving the democratic process of student government. In the spring of 2022, London School of Economics Student Union launched a Democracy Summit facilitated by Dem Soc and Sortition Foundation based on the premise that - “LSESU is a democratic organisation run by students for students. Many students feel that the Union doesn’t represent them as well as it could. How can we reimagine and strengthen the future of LSESU democracy so it can work better for everyone?”.??

It brought together 25 randomly selected students, representative of the student population to learn, deliberate and decide. They unanimously approved 15 recommendations, including embedding a deliberative structure in the Student Union.??

This builds on examples from Liverpool Guild and Leeds Trinity Student Union, which used adopted versions of this practice to better engage students in decision making process. At Liverpool Guild, they allowed students to submit ideas on a ‘change it’ form, submissions vetted by secretaries and controversial motions referred to a quarterly ‘Guild Summit’. Over 50 students were randomly selected and representative of the student body, to determine what ideas the officers will implement. Leeds Trinity Student Union also adopted the Guild Summit model to decide on how to spend its budget.??

Cross university collaboration??

The final case study is from Germany where five universities from the state of Saxony-Anhalt have come together to put together a joint strategy to achieve net-zero. The process will engage students in sortition and deliberation to elicit ideas and to inform the collective strategy.?

A climate strategy is one example, but there is an opportunity to cover a whole range of issues that exist across different institutions. This will require leadership to be put in place, however, all it takes is to build on established networks and alliances. This might be based on geography, status or type.?

Admittedly, the number of case studies here are limited. However, the purpose here is to illustrate the possibilities. Proof of concept exists in the hundreds of examples of successful civic processes from across the world. Universities should engage in the potential of these processes, not only as democratic but organisational innovations, facilitating the environment for students to thrive, setting the positive precedent for applying this approach across wider society.

SORTED: A Collaboration Consultancy is set up to harness innovations in participatory approaches to accelerate the shift towards more human centred organisations, fit for the future. If you want to explore these ideas further please reach out via LinkedIn or [email protected].