Don’t be ‘dodgy’: How to build trust in higher education

Dodginess in higher education is purportedly everywhere, not just lurking in grimy corners. A stink of words like ‘dodgy’, ‘shonky’ and ‘shoddy’ are widely used and provoke strong reactions. Allegations flow loudly from ministers and students to describe any and all kinds of things from institutions, teachers and policies to students. Dodginess is also imputed, hidden between the lines of policy settings which cry smoke without pointing to the fire.

The loose use of lurid pejoratives serves no one well. The terms provoke defensive reactions in the sector which then potentially make a real problem worse. The attacks erode confidence in the higher education system as a whole and perpetuate the use of invectives without tying those terms directly to what’s going on in practice.

Pointing a crooked finger

As what is ‘dodgy’ lies in the eye of the beholder, it almost always points outward. Wherever you are in the system – student, graduate, academic, policy-maker or community member – you see things differently.

Views can be formed on the basis of perceived privilege and prestige – there’s usually somewhere more ‘elite’, or ‘elitist’, higher up a perceived pecking order and, of course, there’s a ‘dodgy’ or ‘shonky’ ‘bottom-feeder’ lower down. Such adjectives are also used to construct and reinforce perceived hierarchies.

Let’s look at ‘dodgy’ through three lenses – providers, behaviours and people.

• Dodgy providers: There is a lot of ‘dodgy’ being thrown in and around Australia at all kinds of higher education institutions. “Dodgy education providers targeted in shake-up of migration system”, claims one TV news service. “Fraud and sex slaves: blitz on dodgy training colleges”, exclaims a newspaper headline.

Showing that this alarm isn’t limited to sub-editors, a recent ministerial media release proclaimed the “Last call for dodgy providers in international education”.

A 2023 national survey from the Australian National University found that only two thirds of people “have quite a lot or a great deal of confidence in universities”. Regardless of how things play out around international tuition regulation, the media have repeatedly underlined a loss of confidence, trust and ‘social licence’.

Australia doesn’t have a monopoly in this area, nor is it a new concern for the profession. A recent Gallup poll in the United States concluded that “an increasing proportion of US adults say they have little or no confidence in higher education”.

In the 1980s there was interest in US ‘degree mills’, such as the notorious Saint Regis University which sought to have itself legally recognised as an Australian university.

Greenwich University on Norfolk Island was, for a brief moment, an Australian university, offering remote learning, which attracted controversy and took Senate scrutiny and direct ministerial intervention to close.

It’s easy to throw the ‘dodgy’ cloak on for-profit higher education providers, as if public institutions are immune from the pressures of the market which drive academically spurious commercial or competitive inclinations, such as lowering entry and exit standards. The public bloodletting puddling around Australian higher education in 2024 has fingered many universities as having similarly ridden a visa train for pecuniary gain.

And then there are the seemingly unending stories of universities underpaying their casual staff. Wage theft seems squarely at the dogdy end of institutional practices.

• Behavioural dodginess: Dodgy is always about ‘you’; never about ‘me’ or ‘us’. It pokes at things which lurk in the half light, which you would prefer to keep out of sight, even in a boardroom or council cupboard behind the maraschino cherries. These things may not be illegal. They may not even be unethical.

Usually, dodgy things are dishonest or dubious or poor quality and involve a breach of trust. Thrusting an accusing finger at something ‘dodgy’ demands only tiny and weak amounts of evidence, or even a hallucination. Dodgy usually conveys a feeling, which can be rationalised as a public right.

Perhaps, then, every part of higher education has the capacity for dodginess from time to time. Even ‘top-ranked’ universities. Does the dodgy behaviour manifest when sex pests are promoted rather than brought to justice? Or when research malpractice predominates as ‘publish or perish’ principles pervade professional practice? When is national discussion, or even sustained research, required around the topic of cohort diversity within a student body?

Politics and policies – governmental, institutional and interpersonal – can be dodgy. In many respects, there has never been a more important time to analyse, design, evaluate, critique, integrate, compare and innovate higher education policy. Fast policy invokes a swift need for imaginative reflection. Light policy demands counterbalancing shovel loads of intellectual backfilling. Comparative analysis is important for parochial policy.

• Icky people: In a reputation-riddled world, though much is deployed to teflon-coat even the most rancid personal conduct, there are surely plenty of interesting people.

Most recently, it is ‘international students’ who have shouldered the sludge. Labels have morphed to stamp these poor aspirants as ‘foreigners’. It is claimed they are stealing houses from citizens as well as jobs and good social fabric, along with fairness and even aspiration and opportunity.

Countries and provinces are labelled risky. Clearly characterising whole countries in such a way is offensive, even outrageous. It obviously lacks the true nuance that the world is diverse, and that the vast majority of people are trusting, honest and keen to learn. It is racist dog whistling at those who have come like everyone to a cosmopolitan country to enhance their lot.

Cases of individual misconduct crop up regularly. This is complex turf, especially given the size and complexity of contemporary higher education and the nature of humans, even in a sector which seeks to promote higher intellect and civilisation. But to make sweeping statements that people – because of their personal characteristics, because they are tarred with a particular behaviour or associated with a type of institution – are lesser should be questioned every time such aspersions are cast.

Brewing ointment

Shadowy stuff surely exists in higher education. It does everywhere. We can’t simply wish dodginess away. What matters is first separating ‘genuine’ dodginess from lambast and confection and then addressing it.

Having good quality information to hand about important matters is an important anti-venom. Dodginess grows in a vacuum and flourishes by tangling itself up in misinformation. This goes to the importance of capturing data. Denial is an enemy of such revelation, as are laziness and suppression.

If large volumes of tertiary teaching are done by people employed on a casual basis, for instance, it makes sense to collect relevant data. Having data is not enough; it is essential to support people who can authenticate and contextualise the information. It requires people who can curate seemingly disconnected data and put it into context.

This always requires discretion and sometimes will require redaction and other forms of de-identification or censorship, but likely much less than has grown to be the case. What is being suggested is far from radical; it is the substrate of most academic research.

The next step is making such information available. Open data and public reporting have shrunk in Australia compared to many benchmark countries. Higher education institutions are social, regulated and largely publicly funded. It matters that they are relevant and accessible to salient communities.

Universities should behave in ways that actively build trust, rather than waiting for deficits to emerge or relying on reactive campaigns. Chasing commercial revenue may well have spurred the construction of commoditised credential corporations, the ‘academic supermarkets’ where the approach to product is more Coles than Cambridge. We cannot let the imperative always to tell a positive story distract us from also telling the truth.

It is time to be more fallible and humble, and venture outside the corporate edifice into uncomfortable dialogues with the community. No institution is beyond reproach, as so many scandals have revealed. It’s time for universities to talk more about how they strive and succeed and also fail, just like every one of us.

Building trust

Words like ‘dodgy’ waft a stink around higher education which is cheap, quick and sticky. That’s not fair in a sector which invests more time in ethics and integrity than almost any other, and which most people experience as a massive public good. But dodgy and virtuousness can’t be left to wallow in dodgy rhetoric. The sector cannot simply dismiss that which is thrown its way.

Communities, nations, employers and learners should trust higher education. Clearly, not all do. Opening up about where things have faltered begins to make things right. A laundry list around trust problems in higher education would go on forever, but surely building trust in a few areas would help. The public should trust teachers, qualifications, academic standards, institutions, regulators, governments and researchers.

Here’s what to do next:

• Surface concerns about ethics and morality, identify underpinning dynamics and spotlight any basic queasiness which people have about the sector. If people don’t know what research is, universities should respond to this. If families are concerned about the welfare of young adults, these concerns should be addressed. Will spending several years at university lead to gainful employment? Let’s unpack the answer. That all seems fair and reasonable.

• Create, gather, analyse, publish and explain data. Make sense of it in ways that resonate with the audiences which matter. This goes well beyond marketing to weaving deeper and more substantive stories. What are universities doing to make a difference?

• Connect with communities and get these stories out there. There is no need for chest beating, slithering or censoring. A few dents and scratches are part of science and social life. Listen to how stories land in communities to understand better their reaction through a genuine desire to hear hard truths. Use that as a basis for authentic engagement and co-creation.

Much in higher education is very real and touchable, yet ultimately it relies on confidence to succeed. Confidence in financial markets is far better understood than confidence in higher education.

Higher education has long rested on assumptions of greatness, rightful superiority and arrogant splendour. But times have changed and so must universities. There is much in higher education of which to be proud. We can celebrate the sector, and defend the position of higher education, but we also need to balance that pride with a humility that builds trust.

Hamish Coates is a professor of higher education and is a global tertiary education expert. Gwilym Croucher is an associate professor at Melbourne Centre for the Study of Higher Education, University of Melbourne, Australia. Dr Nadine Zacharias is managing director and founder of Equity by Design. Angel Calderon is director of strategic insights at RMIT University, Australia. Dr Ant Bagshaw is a strategy consultant at LEK Consulting, where he leads the firm’s work in Australia and New Zealand as part of its Global Education Practice. This is an edited version of an article that was first published on the Higher Good website.

This article is a commentary. Commentary articles are the opinion of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of University World News.