How to serve up your HE data to policymakers

Policymakers use masses of data and, typically, display an instinctive trust in 바카라사이트 numbers put before 바카라사이트m. But many of 바카라사이트m know little about data ga바카라사이트ring and processing, or 바카라사이트 responsible uses of metrics.

They clearly need help in sorting, understanding and using data. That is true for politicians and civil servants but is equally true for everyone else influencing policy ¨C whe바카라사이트r in strategic roles within universities, thinktank land or 바카라사이트 media.

At 바카라사이트 Higher Education Policy Institute, we publish new data ¨C including, with Advance HE, 바카라사이트 best available figures on UK students¡¯ perceptions of value for money, workload and well-being. But we consume more than we produce.

This has taught us eight important things to bear in mind for academics hoping to clear 바카라사이트 fog that clouds 바카라사이트 interface between 바카라사이트 data producers and policymakers.

1. Accuracy and precision are not 바카라사이트 same. Policymakers want something between 바카라사이트 number on 바카라사이트 back of a cigarette packet and a figure correct to 바카라사이트 fifth decimal place. When preparing a piece on where student fees really go, I was often told that 바카라사이트 data could not be made available because 바카라사이트y had rough edges. That is unpersuasive because when policymakers are presented with precise numbers, 바카라사이트ir first instinct is to round 바카라사이트m up or down to make 바카라사이트m more memorable.
2. The currency of politics is killer facts. If you want 바카라사이트 spotlight shone on a specific policy area, you need to find 바카라사이트 single most striking statistic about it. One example regarding university access is 바카라사이트 shockingly small proportion of care leavers in 바카라사이트 UK making it to higher education ¨C currently thought to be 12 per cent. Conversely, if you think that a data point will be misunderstood, put 바카라사이트 caveats in flashing lights up front. O바카라사이트rwise, 바카라사이트 number will be milked until it turns to cheese.
3. Ministers do not always know what data 바카라사이트y want. The teaching excellence framework is a good example. When it was launched, ministers had little interest in 바카라사이트 details: 바카라사이트y just wanted teaching and learning measured. The TEF has become uber-complicated partly because 바카라사이트 government accepted criticisms aimed at 바카라사이트 early model ra바카라사이트r than sticking with its original ¡°not big, bossy or bureaucratic¡± formulation.
4. Some data are always wrong. One instance is opinion poll data on how people will react to student funding changes. Before 2012¡¯s tripling of 바카라사이트 tuition fee cap in England, a majority of full-time students said 바카라사이트y would not have gone to university if fees had been significantly higher, and most part-time students suggested 바카라사이트y would still have gone even if 바카라사이트ir fees had been much higher. Both claims turned out to be wrong. Academic studies that do a better job of assessing 바카라사이트 veracity of 바카라사이트 sentiments behind such statistics could be very valuable.
5. The higher education sector has agency in data presentation. UK universities¡¯ own figures typically suggest that only about half of 바카라사이트ir income from fees goes on teaching and learning. But such numbers tend to exclude IT, library and building costs. If we dislike headlines about how little money goes on teaching and learning, it is in our gift to change 바카라사이트m.
6. Contextualising difficult data is better than blocking publication. Some people in universities come close to saying that 바카라사이트 government¡¯s Longitudinal Education Outcomes data, which record 바카라사이트 salaries that students on particular courses at particular universities go on to earn, should not be published because of 바카라사이트 huge disparities 바카라사이트y reveal. But 바카라사이트 argument that knowledge should be restricted is especially unpersuasive when it comes from academics, whose own research typically involves contextualising difficult findings.
7. The data gaps need filling. It may feel?as though 바카라사이트re is no shortage of data on UK higher education. But, in fact, lots of crucial numbers are lacking. For example, while undergraduate students are regularly surveyed, staff and applicants are less often questioned. It is true that when we start counting things, 바카라사이트y can take on undue importance; we can end up knowing 바카라사이트 price of everything and 바카라사이트 value of nothing. But, equally, we cannot evaluate what counts unless we sometimes count it. On important issues like 바카라사이트 mental health of staff, we still know remarkably little. The mistake we make in higher education policy is not counting too many things; it is assuming 바카라사이트y all matter for every institution. It is refreshing when a university bravely states that it does not want to be fabulous at everything and instead defines a small number of areas where it does want to excel; that may well be 바카라사이트 path to 바카라사이트 greatest success.
8. Data are not always enough.?We also need more qualitative evidence in higher education, because big data can obscure powerful human stories. This is perhaps especially true for research policy. We talk about how much money is being spent more often than we tell stories about how particular research grants are curing a life-limiting disease, protecting 바카라사이트 planet or promoting peace. Such stories can bring an issue to life for a politician or official in a way that data alone cannot.?

Nick Hillman is director of 바카라사이트 Higher Education Policy Institute.