The Imaginators of English University Reform

  • Susan Wright
Part of the Higher Education Dynamics book series (HEDY, volume 45)


This chapter traces changes to English universities as a result of changing political economic conditions in the United Kingdom. These conditions shifted funding and governance mechanisms in unprecedented ways, and so entailed dramatic transformations for English universities. The chapter calls attention to the “imaginators,” meaning a group of campus officials and government officers, who systematically laid the groundwork for these reforms. Analysis of documents such as speeches and policy reports highlights the imaginators’ collective efforts to recast and repurpose existing university infrastructure. This effort has been gradual and concerted, creating mechanisms that could be redeployed when the Great Recession provided a crisis moment. The resulting system yields numerous opportunities for private-sector actors to capture profits from state-subsidized activities, but may provide more limited options to students and faculty.


University reform English university Imaginators Policy fields Vice chancellors United Kingdom 


  1. Baker, S. (2010). Private practice. Times Higher Education, 9 Sept, pp. 35–38.Google Scholar
  2. Bakhradnia, B., & Thompson, J. (2013). The cost of the government’s reforms of the financing of higher education – An update. London: HEPI. 17 December.Google Scholar
  3. BIS (Department for Business, Innovation and Skills). (2011). Students at the heart of the system’ higher education white paper. London: HMSO. June.Google Scholar
  4. BIS (Department for Business, Innovation and Skills). (2014). Participation rates in higher education: 2006–2013. London: 28 Aug,
  5. Browne, J., & Lord Browne of Madingley. (2010). Securing a sustainable future for higher education. An independent review of higher education funding and student finance. 2 Oct from
  6. Dearing, R. (1997). Higher education in the learning society. Report of the national committee of inquiry into higher education. Norwich: HMSO.Google Scholar
  7. DES (Department of Education and Skills). (1998). The learning age-a renaissance for a New Britain (green paper). and Accessed 31 Oct 2003.
  8. DES (Department of Education and Skills). (2003). The future of higher education (white paper), Cm. 5735, January. London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  9. DES (Department of Education and Skills). (2004). Higher education act 2004, July.
  10. Eversheds. (2009). Developing future university structures: New funding and legal models. London: Universities UK. September,
  11. Fielden, J., Middlehurst, R., Woodfield, S., & Olcott, D. (2010). The growth of private and for-profit higher education providers in the UK’. London: Universities UK.Google Scholar
  12. Gallacher, J., & Raffe, D. (2011). Higher education policy in post-devolution UK: More convergence than divergence? Journal of Education Policy, 27(4), 467–490. doi: 10.1080/02680939.2011.62608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grove, J. (2014). That’s the home office dealt with – What’s next? Times Higher Education, 2 Oct.Google Scholar
  14. Haas, P. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization, 46(1), 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hansard (2004). Higher education bill (second reading), 27 January, cols. 167–284, Accessed 29 Mar 2004.
  16. HEPI. (2014). How to read the new BIS select committee report on student loans. Oxford: Higher Education Policy Institute blog, 22 July.Google Scholar
  17. Hotson, H. (2011). Short cuts: For-profit universities. London Review of Books, 33(11), 19, 2 June.
  18. IPPR (Institute for Public Policy Research). (2013a). An avalanche is coming. Higher education and the revolution ahead. London: IPPR. March.Google Scholar
  19. IPPR (Institute for Public Policy Research). (2013b). A critical path. Securing the future of higher education in England. London: IPPR. June.Google Scholar
  20. Jarratt, A. (1985). Report of the steering committee for efficiency studies in universities. London: Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals.Google Scholar
  21. Jary, D., & Thomas, E. (1999). Widening participation and life-long learning – Rhetoric and reality. The role of research and the reflexive practitioner. Widening Participation and Lifelong Learning, 1(1), 3–8.Google Scholar
  22. Jones, J. (2013). Dominic Raab reveals Britain’s true debt burden. The Spectator, 4 May.
  23. Klein, N. (2007). The shock doctrine: The rise of disaster capitalism. New York: Picador.Google Scholar
  24. Mahon, R., & McBride, S. (2008). The OECD and transnational governance. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
  25. Malik, S. (2014). Student fees policy likely to cost more than the system it replaced. The Guardian, 21 March.Google Scholar
  26. Matthews, D. (2012). Boom and bust. Times Higher Education, 5 January.
  27. Matthews, D. (2014a). Students launch legal action over withdrawal of 60 visa sponsorships. Times Higher Education, 13 February.Google Scholar
  28. Matthews, D. (2014b). Glyndwr planted the seeds of its financial woe some time ago. Times Higher Education, 17 July.Google Scholar
  29. McGettigan, A. (2012a). False accounting? Why the government’s higher education reforms don’t add up. London: Intergenerational Foundation.
  30. McGettigan, A. (2012b). NCH – New company structure. Critical Education Blog, 1 Sept.
  31. McQuillan, M. (2012). Another fine mess. Times Higher Education, 13 Sept.Google Scholar
  32. Middlehurst, R., & Fielden, J. (2011). Private providers in UK higher education: Some policy options. Oxford: Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI). 5 May.Google Scholar
  33. Morgan, J. (2010). Massive cut in Britain. Inside Higher Education, 21 Oct.
  34. Morgan, J. (2012a). Fire sale feared as London met faces flood of red ink. Times Higher Education, 6 Sept.Google Scholar
  35. Morgan, J. (2012b). Company policy: Where UCLAN restructure plans lead, post-1992s may follow. Times Higher Education, 22 Nov.Google Scholar
  36. Morgan, J. (2013a). Be wary, the kraken may be waking. Times Higher Education, 7 Feb.Google Scholar
  37. Morgan, J. (2013b). Expert voices raise alarm over capless costs. Times Higher Education, 19 Dec.Google Scholar
  38. Morgan, J. (2014a). “Massive” budget hole predicted as RAB charge rises. Times Higher Education, 21 Mar.Google Scholar
  39. Morgan, J. (2014b). For-profit won the title (and a “Premier League” debt to boot). Times Higher Education, 1 May.Google Scholar
  40. Morgan, J. (2014c). “Our ownership model ought to be an irrelevance”. Times Higher Education, 22 May.Google Scholar
  41. Morgan, J. (2014d). If the loan book sale isn’t going to fund student expansion, what will?. Times Higher Education, 24 July.Google Scholar
  42. Morgan, J. (2014e). David Willetts’ loan book plan: smart business of half-baked? Times Higher Education, 7 Aug.Google Scholar
  43. Morgan, J. (2014f). For-profits investigated amid fears of fraud. Times Higher Education, 19 June.Google Scholar
  44. Morgan, J. (2014g). Pearson rehomes private outcasts. Times Higher Education. 28 Aug.Google Scholar
  45. Olds, K. (2010). Associations, networks, alliances etc. Making sense of the emerging global higher education landscape. A discussion Paper presented to the IAU conference. Mexico City, Mexico.Google Scholar
  46. PA Consulting. (2009). Escaping the red queen effect: Succeeding in the new economies of higher education. London: PA Consulting Group.
  47. PA Consulting. (2010). A passing storm, or permanent climate change? Vice chancellors’ views on the outlook for universities. London: PA Consulting Group.
  48. PA Consulting. (2014). Here be dragons. How universities are navigating the uncharted waters of higher education. London: PA Consulting Group.Google Scholar
  49. PAC (Public Accounts Committee). (2014). Student loan repayments. Fourty-fourth report of session 2013–14. London: House of Commons HC886, 14 Feb.Google Scholar
  50. PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2010). In the eye of the storm: moving from collaboration to consolidation. London: PwC Public Sector Research Centre.Google Scholar
  51. Rizvi, F. (2006). Imagination and the globalisation of educational policy research. Globalisation Societies and Education, 4(2), 193–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Robertson, S., Dale, R., Moutsios, S., Nielsen, G., Shore, C., & Wright, S. (2012). Globalisation and regionalisation in higher education: Toward a new conceptual framework. Summative Paper on URGE work package 1, working papers in university reform no 20. Copenhagen: Danish School of Education, Aarhus University, February.
  53. Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills. (2011). Twelfth report. Government reform of higher education. London: Parliament, November.
  54. Shore, C., & Wright, S. (2000). Coercive accountability: The rise of audit culture in higher education. In M. Strathern (Ed.), Audit cultures. Anthropological studies in accountability, ethics and the academy (EASA series, pp. 57–89). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  55. Smith, A. (2014). Why universities should not buy their loan books. HEPI Blog, 4 Aug.Google Scholar
  56. Swain, H. (2012). Could universities be sold off? The Guardian, 23 April.
  57. Thorne, M. (Ed.). (1999). Foresight, universities in the future. London: Department of Trade and Industry, Office of Science and Technology.Google Scholar
  58. Times Higher Education. (2011). Minister meets with equity firms to discuss education over dinner. 22/29 December.Google Scholar
  59. Times Higher Education. (2014). Watchdog called in on private college use of student loans. 22 May.Google Scholar
  60. Vasagar, J., Wintour, P., & Mulholland, H. (2011). David Willetts on back foot over extra university places for higher fees. The Guardian, Tuesday 10 May.
  61. Wedel, J. (2009). Shadow elite: How the world’s new power brokers undermine democracy, government, and the free market. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  62. Willetts, D. (2014). Sell the student loan book – And let the academy buy. Financial Times, 28 July.Google Scholar
  63. Wright, S. (2004). Markets, corporations, consumers? New landscapes in higher education. LATISS Learning and Teaching in the Social Sciences, 1(2), 71–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wright, S. (2005). Machetes into a jungle? A history of anthropology in policy and practice, 1981–2000. In P. Sarah (Ed.), Applications of anthropology (Vol. ASA series, pp. 27–54). Oxford: Berghahn.Google Scholar
  65. Wright, S. (2008). Governance as a regime of discipline. In D. Noel (Ed.), Exploring regimes of discipline: The dynamics of restraint (EASA series, pp. 75–98). Oxford: Berghahn.Google Scholar
  66. Wright, S. (2011). Section I: Introduction to studying policy: Methods, paradigms, perspectives. In C. Shore, S. Wright, & D. Però (Eds.), Policy worlds: Anthropology and the analysis of contemporary power (pp. 27–31). Oxford: Berghahn.Google Scholar
  67. Wright, S. (2014). “Humboldt” Humbug! Contemporary mobilizations of “Humboldt” as a discourse to support the corporatization and marketization of universities and to disparage alternatives’. In T. Karlsohn, P. Josephson, & J. Ostling (Eds.), The humboldtian tradition – Origins and legacies. Brill: Leiden.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DPUAarhus UniversityCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations