This week, The Herald is collaborating with Scottish Affairs - Scotland’s longest running journal on contemporary political and social issues - published by Edinburgh University Press. Each day, academics from across Scotland's universities will be giving their thoughts on Scotland's university crisis: the battle for survival. From finances to management, what is going on behind the scenes at our institutions? What is needed to secure their futures?

Here, Walter Humes asks if universities have lost their way. Our articles are a shortened version of full academic papers, all of which can be found at Scottish Affairs.

This article questions the current values, direction and leadership of Scotland’s universities. It is partly inspired by Stefan Collini’s book, What are universities for? published more than a decade ago.  But it is also informed by the writer’s personal experience of working in different types of Scottish universities over a period of nearly 50 years.

Collini was concerned that the intellectual, educational, scientific and cultural rationale of higher education had been progressively subverted. The issues that disturbed him have, if anything, intensified, as governments have sought to define the primary function of universities in terms of their contribution to economic growth. Ironically, this has taken place at a time when the financial sustainability of some institutions has become uncertain.

The case that is being advanced here is that, although leading universities continue to show up well on the metrics that are currently employed – some of which might be challenged – there are underlying trends that have not been properly addressed by politicians or university leaders.

These include the steady incursion of corporate thinking into institutions that have traditionally been committed to a different value system; a growing divide between senior managers and front-line academic staff; performance management practices that tend to demoralise rather than incentivise; governance arrangements that fail to ensure adequate accountability for financial and strategic decisions.

In advancing this critical perspective, two cautionary qualifications should be noted. Firstly, it is important to avoid ‘Golden Age’ lamentations invoking a rather romantic picture of the past, in which all academics had brilliant creative minds and all students were dedicated to their studies. And secondly, account must be taken of the massive expansion of the sector: a system that now caters for around 50% of the population is bound to be very different to one that admitted fewer than 5% in the early 1960s.

Scottish universities face crisis of purpose and funding

The university funding review that dodges the biggest question of all

Strathclyde University staff vote on strike action over job cuts

Fears of job losses amid Aberdeen University restructuring bid

Against this background, it is not surprising that new styles of management have been introduced.  The question is whether these have had some negative consequences. Are knowledge and truth still primary values within universities? Has the principle of academic freedom been weakened? To what extent should the strategic plans of universities be shaped by government? How transparent and democratic are decision-making processes within universities? Have academics mounted a challenge to the corporate takeover, or is there a sense in which they have been complicit in their own containment? Does recent unrest and adverse publicity suggest that issues of leadership need to be addressed? Not all of these questions can be tackled in this short piece: fuller coverage can be found in the Scottish Affairs special issue.

Corporate culture: The rise of business schools

In the 1970s, a number of right-wing ‘think-tanks’ began to publish reports on perceived weaknesses in the public sector. The topics included the role of the state, economic policy, industrial relations and growing bureaucracy. When the Conservatives came to power in the 1970s, there was an opportunity to implement what came to be called ‘neoliberal’ policies on a number of fronts, including education. The intention was that the importation of management practices common in the private sector would lead to greater efficiencies in the public sector. One manifestation of this was the creation of Business Schools within universities.

'To what extent should the strategic plans of universities be shaped by government?' (Image: Getty)

These were often funded by successful entrepreneurs who believed that they could promote new thinking, stimulate change and help to encourage economic growth. Business and management courses became very popular and, according to the British Academy, have now reached the point where they attract more students than any other subject group in UK higher education.  It can be argued that the rise of Business Schools has been an important factor in the ideological capture of universities, reshaping their rationale and altering the way in which operate.

What is the evidence for this? An important study published by the Policy Institute in 2021, Managers and Academics in a Centralising Sector: The New Staffing Patterns in UK Higher Education, showed that academics are now in a minority in most higher education institutions. At the same time, there has been a substantial increase in the appointment of non-academic professionals, with centralised roles in such areas as recruitment, marketing, public relations and human resources.  This has created a serious divide between senior management and front-line teaching and research staff.  Centralisation has reduced the autonomy of academic departments, a process intensified by exercises in restructuring, sometimes involving clumsy amalgamations.  

Scrutiny of individual academics has involved regular appraisals.  On the face of it, this seems perfectly reasonable: in pre-corporate days there were certainly cases of academics who, once they had secured tenure, were not particularly productive.  But some of the methods employed are of questionable value.   It is now common for academics to fill in an annual review form which then provides a basis for discussion with their line manager, with the aim of setting targets for the next year.  

Topics covered will vary depending on seniority, but typically include the following: teaching commitments; research activity and impact; research supervision; income generation; public profile: mentoring of colleagues; leadership responsibilities.  The corporate approach favours SMART targets: these are goals that are specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound. Sometimes the targets set are unrealistic, especially in the case of staff in newer universities.  They start at a disadvantage when competing for research grants against high-status institutions with a strong track record of income-generation. Serious academics, who are generally self-motivated and strongly committed to their academic discipline, are not motivated by this process.  On the contrary, they find it time-wasting and demoralising.  For many, it has become an unproductive bureaucratic exercise, feeding a corporate machine that is never satisfied.  

Legislation and governance

The legislative framework for the governance of universities in Scotland is set out in the Higher Education Governance (Scotland) Act 2016, supported by a Code of Good HE Governance, which is subject to regular review. The key relationship is between the Scottish Government (SG) and the Scottish Funding Council (SFC). A Framework Document drawn up by the SG, in consultation with the SFC, sets out the role and functions of the SFC, its powers and duties, as well as the responsibilities of government ministers.  The SFC is expected to contribute to the ‘achievement of the SG’s primary purpose of increasing sustainable inclusive economic growth by aligning its aims and objectives with the SG’s National Strategy for Economic Transformation.’

Given the amount of public money that Scottish universities and colleges receive – around £2 billion annually – it is perfectly reasonable that the views of government on national priorities, the development of skills, and the employability of graduates should be taken into account both by the SFC and individual institutions. At the same time, however, universities are autonomous bodies and, in a democracy, should have some freedom of action.  The relationship should not simply be a directive one, with central government dictating policies.

Within universities, the relationship between Courts and Senates is important.  Courts are expected to set the strategic direction of the institution, approving financial targets and operational plans.  Senates are expected to regulate the academic work of universities.  The legislation states that ‘The Senate also has the flexibility to discuss and declare an opinion on any matter whatsoever relating to the University.’ As the corporate culture described above has become established, this capacity is rarely in evidence.  Senates are no longer arenas in which important issues of principle can be debated: they are used by senior management to rubber-stamp pre-determined decisions.

'Centralisation has reduced the autonomy of academic departments' (Image: Getty)

The Code of Good HE Governance sets out a number of ethical principles which should underpin public life in Scotland: duty; selflessness; integrity; objectivity; accountability and stewardship; openness; honesty; leadership and respect. As the next section will suggest, there has sometimes between a gap between aspirational rhetoric and operational reality.

As an undergraduate and postgraduate at Edinburgh University, the former Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, was very active in student politics. He had several clashes with the then Principal, Sir Michael Swann. Brown is said to have posed the question: ‘What is the collective noun for a group of principals?’  Answer: ‘a lack’.

This may seem a rather severe judgement, but a number of press reports in 2025 presented an unflattering picture of some University Principals.  They were accused of receiving inflated salaries as well as other benefits (e.g., subsidised housing, numerous overseas trips involving first-class travel and exclusive hotels).  The amount spent on overseas recruiting agents to attract foreign students was also seen as excessive. One university achieved the distinction of receiving uncomplimentary attention in the satirical magazine, Private Eye. Similar reports had appeared in earlier years, including ones about financial settlements for Principals who had left ‘under a cloud’, but the articles that appeared in 2025 coincided with the revelation that several universities were in serious financial difficulty and were having to cut courses and reduce staff.  It was not a good look.

Individual principals who receive negative press coverage never deign to respond in person. They leave it to that mainstay of the corporate world – PR departments, experts in institutional boasting and damage limitation. Anonymous spokespersons generally claim that proper procedures for setting salary levels have been followed, endorsed by an ‘independent’ remuneration committee of the Court.  However, it soon became evident that this time ‘carrying on regardless’ was not possible when a serious financial crisis (a deficit of £35 million) arose at Dundee University.

This prompted resignations, enquiry reports and the grilling of key figures at the Scottish Parliament.  It emerged that the dire financial position of the university had been concealed from staff and that the University Court and relevant committees had failed in their responsibilities.  One insider subsequently published an article which stated that the Dundee experience was ‘symptomatic of broader trends in managerialism and diminishing democratic governance in higher education in Scotland and the UK more widely.’

What evidence is there of resistance within the academic community to the corporate drift described above? After all, academics often claim that part of their function is ‘to speak truth to power’.  Professional organisations representing HE staff have certainly raised concerns about a number of issues, including workload, low morale, and increasing use of part-time and fixed-contract employees to undertake undergraduate teaching.  The threat of job losses following the financial crisis facing some universities has also led to public protests and, in some cases, strikes.  What has been lacking has been a sustained intellectual case against the direction in which universities have been moving.

The former Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, was very active in student politics (Image: Alamy Stock Photo)

There are two reasons for this.  First, the corporate trend is not limited to Scotland or even the UK.  It has become a powerful global movement, as international companies have seen financial opportunities in the higher education market (through, for example recruitment agencies, the use of advertising techniques to promote particular ‘brands’, and the provision of online courses). Capitalism is endlessly inventive.  

The second reason is equally insidious. ‘Divide and rule’ is a familiar strategy in the business world to control dissent among employees. A minority of academics have colluded in the corporate agenda of senior staff, by accepting responsibilities which they hope will advance their careers.  These responsibilities may include requiring colleagues to submit to the requirements of performance management. Acting as bureaucratic ‘enforcers’, they serve as useful allies of those at the top.

How one youth programme changed a woman's life in Scotland

Scottish Government budget passes after SNP agree £178m pub boost with Lib Dems

John Swinney has 'confidence' in ex-nursing chief amid QEUH 'bribe' claims

Another group which has benefitted from the corporate culture are some senior professors who have been shielded from the harsher aspects of performance management.  These are usually ‘big names’ with a strong record in research. Some are undoubtedly outstanding in their field, others perhaps more noteworthy for their skills in networking and self-promotion. They are often given modest teaching loads and encouraged to develop international contacts to enhance the reputation of their home institution. Their public profile means that they could probably move if subject to pressures that they found oppressive.

Three main conclusions can be drawn from the preceding analysis. The first is that corporate culture has fundamentally altered the way universities are run.  Knowledge is now seen in terms of its market value.  Learning for its own sake is regarded as a quaint, old-fashioned idea.  Academics have become second-class citizens within their own institutions, subject to the diktats of centralised managers in recruitment, marketing, public relations and human resources.  University principals now act as chief executives (with salaries comparable to the private sector) rather than as leading public intellectuals.

The second conclusion is that governance arrangements under the corporate model have proved unsatisfactory.  Recent cases of universities facing serious financial difficulty have shown that accountability within institutions and external monitoring by the Scottish Funding Council have failed to anticipate the scale of the problem.  The role of the Scottish Government in allowing this situation to develop and then responding in a familiar ‘crisis management’ fashion merits scrutiny.  Fundamental rethinking of Collini’s question, ‘What are universities for?’, is required.

The third conclusion is that corporate governance has led to two forms of democratic deficit. Internally, teaching and research staff now have little opportunity to contribute to the shaping of university policy.  Important decisions are imposed from the centre by people who often lack understanding of the nature of front-line academic work.

Externally, the role of the universities as public institutions has been undermined by their capitulation to private-sector orthodoxies. A healthy democracy requires a mixed economy of public, private and voluntary institutions.  Universities need to give priority to their social role as sources of new knowledge, as agencies promoting a capacity for independent critical thinking, and as sites for well-informed debate about contested issues.  

To the extent that they compromise on these vital democratic functions, they are failing in their public responsibilities.

Walter Humes is a retired Professor of Education

© Herald Scotland