With slightly softer rhetoric, the recent OFFA strategic plan makes a similar point, signalling its intent to use evidence-based approach to more actively challenge and engage with universities and ‘…an colleges to make sustained and faster progress towards their targets across the student lifecycle’ (OFFA, 2015, p.12). This fits within a wider doctrine of practice’ in education, sometimes colloquially ‘evidence-based known as works’. The idea is simple: to focus resources on activities that have strong ‘what evidence for effectiveness. The reality is significantly more problematic, as generating unequivocal evidence in complex social fields is notoriously difficult (Donaldson, Christie and Mark, 2009; Pawson, 2013; Lingenfelter, 2016). Outreach is clearly such a field, with its long timescales, diverse settings and myriad influences. This complexity is exacerbated without a clear definition of in place. Current ‘effectiveness’ government policy aims double the proportion of people from disadvantaged backgrounds ‘to entering university in 2020 compared to 2009’ (BIS, 2016, p. 54), additionally focusing on increasing the proportion entering elite universities. Conversely, individual universities are duty bound to direct their outreach activities towards meeting the requirements of the Access Agreements that they negotiate with OFFA. These are generally couched in competitive terms of meeting recruitment targets of disadvantaged students to (McCaig, 2015; that specific university Rainford, in press). Senior university managers are inevitably keen to avoid censure (or worse) from OFFA and ensure that their admissions remain buoyant, alongside wider social justice motivations. The tension here is obvious: a university can meet its targets (and ostensibly be effective) for recruiting disadvantaged students without impacting at all on the national targets if it is simply capturing a greater of the existing applicant pool; a sum game’ where outreach is ‘zero conflated with recruitment and universities seek easy wins, leading to few additional students being encouraged into higher education. This of successes’ is an added challenge to ‘confusion practitioners: is it success against institutional or national targets that matters effectiveness for – one university or for society in general?
With slightly softer rhetoric, the recent OFFA strategic plan makes a similar point, signalling its intent to use ‘…an evidence-based approach to more actively challenge and engage with universities and colleges to make sustained and faster progress towards their targets across the student lifecycle’ (OFFA, 2015, p.12). This fits within a wider doctrine of ‘evidence-based practice’ in education, sometimes colloquially known as ‘what works’. The idea is simple: to focus resources on activities that have strong evidence for effectiveness. The reality is significantly more problematic, as generating unequivocal evidence in complex social fields is notoriously difficult (Donaldson, Christie and Mark, 2009; Pawson, 2013; Lingenfelter, 2016). Outreach is clearly such a field, with its long timescales, diverse settings and myriad influences. This complexity is exacerbated without a clear definition of ‘effectiveness’ in place. Current government policy aims ‘to double the proportion of people from disadvantaged backgrounds entering university in 2020 compared to 2009’ (BIS, 2016, p. 54), additionally focusing on increasing the proportion entering elite universities. Conversely, individual universities are duty bound to direct their outreach activities towards meeting the requirements of the Access Agreements that they negotiate with OFFA. These are generally couched in competitive terms of meeting recruitment targets of disadvantaged students to that specific university (McCaig, 2015; Rainford, in press). Senior university managers are inevitably keen to avoid censure (or worse) from OFFA and ensure that their admissions remain buoyant, alongside wider social justice motivations. The tension here is obvious: a university can meet its targets (and ostensibly be effective) for recruiting disadvantaged students without impacting at all on the national targets if it is simply capturing a greater of the existing applicant pool; a ‘zero sum game’ where outreach is conflated with recruitment and universities seek easy wins, leading to few additional students being encouraged into higher education. This ‘confusion of successes’ is an added challenge to practitioners: is it success against institutional or national targets that matters – effectiveness for one university or for society in general?
AUA%20paper%20-%20final%20anon.docx