Pity the QAA. It has been rather shocked and somewhat overwhelmed by the amount and depth of feedback it has received on its draft (with the HEA) of proposals about ESD in higher education. People, it seems, care – much more so, anyway, that they usually do about the turgid quality stuff which QAA habitually spouts. There has been unprecedented feedback, it seems, not just to the points made at the consultation in Birmingham back in November, but also from the more formal response processes which ended a fortnight ago. There are pages and pages of it, from a rather large number of people.
Frustratingly, the feedback is contradictory. Some made sharp (bullet) points; a few wrote essays. Many wanted more of this and that; others less. Many wanted more emphasis on certain issues; others didn’t. Many wanted more examples and cases; many didn’t want any. Some thought the focus on Brundtland was fine; others despaired. Many liked the 50+ graduate outcomes; many thought there were too many. And so it went on. The data available are rather like water in the Somerset levels. There’s so much that it impedes communication and progress. One thing certainly must be clear to QAA – that the experts in its 'expert development group' are not representative of thinking in the country. I rather hope that QAA might make all the comments available on line; they are quite a resource.
I have thought for a while now that, had the expert development group been less secretive and more open to the views of those outwith the group (ie, all those writing in now), then what was produced would have been better focused, more coherent and useful, and less controversial. As it is, it is still not clear what its purpose is, or how the final document is to be used. Both of these are important, but especially the latter, and I have never had a sense of any strategic thinking from QAA about this. Indeed, has there been any thinking other than QAA's plan to send it to its usual mail lists.
I have suggested that dissemination workshops in every university would be one strategy, with developmental activities flowing from these across disciplines (and leadership) merging with, and building on, existing sustainability-focused activities in each university. Expensive, certainly, but with the promise of purposeful engagement. Then again: being cheap with the promise of no engagement at all doesn't sound like either value for money or clever politics. I remember once putting in a bid for £5m to the education and industry ministries (jointly). The senior education civil servant involved said he assumed I was joking, but the one from the industry department said that it showed how serious I was. Just so.
Respond