Ancillary workers: an ignored but indispensable part of HE

Catering, cleaning and security staff fulfil an important role in higher education, including maintaining the physical and social environment in which academics, professional staff and students operate. Ancillary work, as the work of this group is sometimes referred to, often requires a broad range of technical, organisational and relational skills and can be physically, emotionally and mentally demanding.

In the United Kingdom, ‘elementary occupations’ (under which catering, security and cleaning staff fall) represent 12% of higher education non-academic staff – a percentage which does not include those on outsourced contracts.

Despite the significance of ancillary staff’s contribution to higher education, research about this group remains scarce. Two notable exceptions, both in the US context, are Peter Magolda’s 2016 ethnography of cleaners in two universities, The Lives of Campus Custodians, and Verónica Caridad Rabelo and Ramaswami Mahalingam’s 2019 article, a mixed-method study of cleaners in a single university.

Outside these two texts, when these groups are considered, the focus tends to be on the quality and costs of the services provided, with limited consideration for ancillary workers themselves and their perspectives.

Anecdotal evidence and research about similar groups in other sectors also point to a range of injustices faced by ancillary staff, for example, in terms of working conditions, feeling valued and contribution to decision-making.

The experiences of ancillary staff

With the above in mind, our research project, funded by the Society for Research into Higher Education, addresses three questions:

• Who are ancillary staff and how does their re/productive work enable higher education institutions and other categories of staff to operate?

• How are the experiences of UK higher education-based ancillary staff characterised by economic, cultural, political and care-related in/justices?

• How are these experiences framed by politics of gender, class and ethnicity?

The data collection consists of three main phases: an online survey of UK higher education institutions to draw a broad picture of policies and challenges linked to ancillary staff in higher education; 20 interviews with ancillary staff focusing on how participants make sense of their work and the potential in/justices they face; and some informal observations to gain a better sense of the environment in which they work.

Our data analysis is informed by Nancy Fraser’s (1997) and Kathleen Lynch’s (2021) multi-level theories of social justice. Fraser’s work provides a useful lens to explore how distributive, cultural and representational in/justices are compounded, while Lynch calls for the consideration of a fourth dimension: affective equality.

This theoretical framework also acknowledges that these dimensions of social justice are simultaneously compounded by the politics of gender, class and race. Indeed, minoritised groups are a significant presence among ancillary staff.

As such, this group is particularly at risk of being exposed to injustices.

An invisible workforce

Early findings from this project highlight two key patterns. One pattern relates to the invisibility of ancillary staff in academic cultures. In particular, we found that organisational, administrative and scholarly processes render this group invisible in ways professional and academic staff are not.

On campus, they are rarely seen or heard, although this depends on the nature of their role. Cleaners are particularly prone to this. Many start their shift once academic and professional staff have left the premises. When ancillary staff have a dedicated working space, it is often hidden from view. They are often absent from staff directories, university websites and policy documents.

Likewise, their exact numbers are often unknown as administrative categories used nationally or institutionally do not always capture their distribution across specific positions. This is further complicated by the fact that, among ancillary staff, many are outsourced.

Finally, they are strikingly absent from the research literature, with the exception of the two above-mentioned studies.

Ironically, in a field broadly ignoring this group, their invisibility, which often goes hand in hand with a lack of recognition, is the focus of both texts. Rabelo and Mahalingham, in particular, comment on university cleaners’ invisibility at work (ie, not being acknowledged) and of work (ie, feeling that their work is ignored or not valued).

At the margins

We argue that this invisibility is linked to occupational identities subjected to racialised and gendered processes of misrecognition, with ancillary staff positioned at the margins of academia despite the breadth and depth of their contribution to academia.

This invisibility affects ancillary staff who must navigate academic cultures which, often, do not ‘see’ nor recognise them. In our research, we faced considerable issues in accessing this group and any information about them.

This led us to reflect on how our initial research design and approach to recruitment and fieldwork were shaped by our experience of researching academics and professionals and by our own positionality and privileges. For instance, we had wrongly assumed that we would be able to conduct in-depth interviews, scheduled in advance, in quiet spaces and during our ‘core’ working hours.

In doing so, we had failed to consider, among other things, that this group often has limited control over their working times, does not always have access to a quiet space, and that some interviewees may not speak English.

Another emerging pattern in our project relates to the ancillary staff’s experiences and diversity. Satisfaction at work varied highly, and so did the level and nature of economic, cultural, political and affective in/justices experienced by the individuals we talked to. In his study, Magolda reflected on how moving to a cleaning job is rarely associated with upward mobility.

Limitations of a deficit lens

Yet it is clear from Magolda’s discussions with campus custodians, and from our own discussions with a range of ancillary staff, that this deficit lens is problematic.

It is indeed the case that some participants did struggle with a lack of recognition from management (less often from other staff and students), low pay and precarious contracts, with some also commenting on the stressful nature of their work and the emotional labour. Porters and security officers, for example, are often the only people present on campus at night and would be the first port of call if a student experienced distress.

Outsourced staff were more likely to experience feelings of dissatisfaction, linked to precarious contracts and poor working conditions compared with the in-house staff alongside whom they sometimes worked.

However, for the majority, moving into ancillary work was viewed as a positive development. For some, it represented an improvement in terms of work-life balance. For others, it was simply the promise of a job, having come from a country with high unemployment.

For others still, ancillary work was seen as a rewarding and varied activity. Many took pride in what they were doing and in their contribution to their university. Our interviews with ancillary staff evidenced their awareness of the significance of their contribution to the sector.

It is also worth noting that, in contrast with Magolda’s and Rabelo and Mahalingam’s research, we do not solely explore the experiences of cleaners but also consider those in catering and security roles. Early findings suggest significant differences linked to the nature of the position, the place of work and, as noted above, the nature of their contract.

As the project continues to develop, we are hoping to kickstart a conversation about a group given limited consideration in higher education research and policy circles, yet who do essential work. We are also hoping that the project will help to generate a better understanding of the contribution of ancillary staff to the higher education sector.

Marie-Pierre Moreau is professor in sociology of education, work and inequalities and director of the Centre for Education Research on Identities and Inequalities at Anglia Ruskin University, United Kingdom. She blogs here. Lucie Wheeler is a research assistant in education. They are both based in the school of education, faculty of arts, humanities, education and social sciences, at Anglia Ruskin University, UK. If you work in a cleaning, catering or security role or research this group, they would love to hear from you. E-mail marie-pierre.moreau@aru.ac.uk