The University of Aberdeen has refused to publish details about its cost-saving strategy, saying the topic is controversial and the information might cause distress to staff and students.
In response to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request asking for details of proposed academic and staffing changes already approved by the university's governing body, the university declined to share the information on the grounds that it might prejudice the ongoing cost-saving efforts.
Under its Adapting for Continued Success (ACS) programme, the University of Aberdeen is targeting £10 million in savings and has begun work on a series of academic and staffing changes, approved by its governing body, Court, this spring.
These include:
- Establishing a minimum of 10 students on all undergraduate or postgraduate programmes.
- Establishing a minimum of 20 students for each staff member in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics) courses.
- Establishing a minimum of 25 students for each staff member in SHAPE (Social Sciences, Humanities and the Arts for People and the Economy) courses.
- Immediately stop recruitment to postgraduate taught programmes that have consistently recruited fewer than six students.
- Reshaping the university from 12 Schools to four faculties.
The university has approved the faculty restructuring plan, confirmed that at least 21 postgraduate taught programmes have already been paused, and approved the minimum ratios.
In an FOI request to the university, The Herald asked for historical data on staff-student ratios (SSRs) for courses over the past five years, as well as the methodology by which the university decided on its now-approved minimums.
The Herald's FOI request also asked for the methodology, modelling, and assumptions used to arrive at the new ratios, the names of all postgraduate taught programmes for which recruitment has been paused as a result of the ACS programme, and the estimated changes to staffing.
The university refused to disclose the information requested, arguing that it is exempt from disclosure by citing section 30(c) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002: "Prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs".
The university admitted to holding the information, but said that sharing it could "cause upset and distress to staff and students" due to the sensitivity of the information and the potential impact on roles.
"This topic is controversial within the University Community, and it is only fair that the University’s staff feedback and engagement are prioritised during this process. The University has clear governance structures which are in place to ensure that information and engagement take place with staff and stakeholders, such as our Trade Union representatives, before it is shared publicly."
However, the local University and College Union (UCU) branch has said that staff have been asking directly for information on current and historic staff-student ratios and the university’s methodology for months with no success.
UCU Aberdeen co-chair Dan Cutts expressed frustration at the university’s ongoing refusal to share further details about its downsizing efforts.
The University Court, its governing body, has publicly approved the strategy and allowed officials to start assessing courses according to the approved recruitment thresholds and minimum staff-student ratios.
But Mr Cutts said that it is difficult to engage with management or scrutinise how they are applying their criteria without access to the cost-benefit analysis and reasoning behind the chosen strategy.
“UCU has, for the last year, been requesting information relating to the numerous strands of organisational change.
“We have received some information regarding the three-year budget and data relating to staff headcount and contract type; however, in relation to SSRs (staff-student ratios), minimum programme numbers, PGT withdrawals, and the four faculties, we have not seen the rationale underpinning these decisions.
“The information shared to date only represents part of the overall picture, and that makes meaningful consultation extremely difficult.”
Read more
- Aberdeen University approves academic restructuring plan
- One degree type accounts for 96% of university sector decline
- Fears of 'constitutional crisis' at Aberdeen University over cuts plan
In response to the university’s concerns that sharing the full methodology for how it selected the course minimums would cause anxiety, Mr Cutts said that the university community is already experiencing stress and confusion.
More information can only make this less stressful, not more, he said.
“All of the proposed organisational changes are causing significant distress and upset. It very much feels like an attack on academic staff and the University's character.
“I would argue that the lack of transparency is also a driver of stress and anxiety, and greater transparency would alleviate some of these issues and allow staff and students effective voice in the development and implementation of these proposals.”
The Herald has submitted a request for the FOI response to be reviewed, which gives the university 20 working days to do so.
HESA publishes annual data on student and staff numbers, and this can be organised by department and subject areas to build a rough depiction of ratios across the university.
When asked why the university would not share its methodology when publicly available data exists that could approximate their calculations, a spokesperson said:
“The methodology for future staff resource planning has been informed by student staff ratios and average staff salaries – both based on our own internal data. The data and methodology have been shared with our governing body Court.”
A source within the university has indicated that the university is not using the publicly available HESA staffing data in its assessments because the information is not up to date and does not reflect the nuances in the university’s internal data.
The source also reported that the university’s potential staff reductions – as many as 111 jobs – will be based on staff-student ratios as well as average salaries across disciplines, meaning the impact on individual courses and jobs has not been finalised.
The university has not provided any further details on what other variables could lead to a course being cut or retained, apart from the stated minimum staff-student ratios.
The university has also declined to share details about courses that have already been paused, or the amount of savings that are expected from planned course cuts or the faculty restructuring that has already been approved.
A spokesperson said:
“The community has been updated on our £10m saving plans to deliver stability and certainty - these include running a Voluntary Severance and Enhanced Retirement scheme.
“Our new faculty structure was developed in collaboration with the academic community and is expected to enhance efficiency and bring greater consistency, in a way not possible with 12 Schools of varying sizes and different approaches.”
The Herald has previously reported that the University Senate, its top academic body, voted against the four-faculty proposal,77 to 19.
When asked why it has refused to share the methodology behind its chosen ratios and internal data with staff or the public, a spokesperson said that setting minimum numbers for programmes is “standard practice across the sector” as part of regular portfolio management.
“Student staff ratios have been used as an indicative guide to help inform future staffing costs, as part of a wider and complex analysis of our income and expenditure.
"The University used a variety of internal data sources to gain a more complete understanding of our position, much of which is commercially sensitive and therefore confidential.
“We have kept our community regularly updated on progress, including the timelines associated with the proposed changes."
Share