It’s a reasonably common occurrence for academics to diss non-academic professional staff. “They’re taking over”. “They’re not like us”. “They’re ruining the university”. Book-length whinges (not very good ones, mind) have been written about this.
These whinges usually combine two distinct arguments. The first has to do with the mere existence of some non-academic positions, who often act as the interface between the academic institution and the market (think research services, alumni/advancement, recruitment, marketing and – God forbid – branding). That these positions exist at all is often seen as some kind of neo-liberal front to the ideal of a university. The second has to do with the behaviour and attitudes of the people who staff these positions, which are often seen as alien or inimical to academic values. The former view is a noisier and more virulent one among faculty; the latter quieter but more widespread.
The distinction was brought home to me in a recent online conversation I had with a senior faculty member whose university marketing people had just made some howler or other. If I recall correctly, it was a marketing tagline along the lines of “At University of X, we don’t just teach Y, we live it”, with some people wondering why any university would use a phrase that even vaguely sounded like teaching was a second-best activity. The faculty member said to me “obviously, no set of academic eyes ever laid sight upon that before it went out”.
Exactly.
I don’t think there are many profs that genuinely question that there is a need for having masses of non-academic employees doing that interaction-with-the-outside-world stuff and “selling” the institution and its merits. Most people understand that If those people weren’t out there bringing in the money, academics wouldn’t be able to do their thing. And these are in fact professional services: they aren’t jobs academics could do themselves even if they were inclined to do so. So it’s not a matter of “taking back” responsibilities which once were academic and now are not: one might regret the need for quite so many of these positions, but a job’s got to get done, the right people should be hired to do it.
But what is aggravating beyond all get out is when people in these positions don’t get the product they are selling. When, in the process of selling the institution, language is used which actually works at cross-purposes to the values of the institution in question.
So while virtually no one wants to put profs in charge of marketing efforts, institutions should make it a point to ensure everything that goes out bearing your institution’s name has had a set of “academic eyes” on it. Get academic input on marketing campaigns before they start. Not to obtain creative direction or, God forbid, to do wordsmithing (that way madness lies), but simply to ensure that what is said in the institution’s name is said in a tone that doesn’t do violence to the academic mission. It could save everyone a lot of potential embarrassment.
Tweet this post
Alex, accurate insight, but I’d go further.
PSE institutions are themselves professional service “firms” at heart, with the faculty the professionals who deliver the services/activity that lie at the heart of the enterprise.
And just like every other professional service firm, the bulk of the marketing and branding is done by the professionals. Yes, the marketing department manages bought and earned media, develops the positioning/branding strategy and manages a set of PR and promotional activities that support the institution. But the majority of the marketing power of the institution comes from the strength, focus and activities of the faculty and Deans.
The most effective marketing strategies are those that understand the academic activity of the institution, and provide some market-focused input/strategy/shaping to what the institution is and does. Great PSE marketing serves and influences the academics. I think often PSE marketers forget this, and focus on the things they control. Your point is that marketers should have academic eyes on what they control – my point is that “what they control” is not the interesting or most important part of PSE marketing, and that marketing needs to serve the academic enterprise. There should not be a wall between them.
Yes, much of this falls in the category of what be called the “sloganization” of universities (aka ADMIN, alas) as they attempt to gain, well, who knows what. In my experience (and I survey my students about it), the students don’t even know about these marketing mantras. Yes, they often provide gross exaggerations that often don’t even make sense. The flagship statement at our school claims that it has a “academic environment . . . that can’t be found anywhere else.” What the heck is that supposed to mean? Of course it is literally true in an convoluted logical sense, since it is the only academic environment at that place. But behind it is a kind of an advertising lie: there are actually academic environments much, much better in many other places. Anyway, we’ve got the metrification of the university, and now we have this. Yes, it would be nice if ADMIN might consult faculty about how it markets the institute. They just might save some money and come up with something vaguely sensible—and truthful.
Advertisers and administrators are supposed to project enthusiasm, whereas intellectuals are supposed to be critical and ironic, especially in the humanities. To advertise a university, or even to actually run it, requires a sort of betrayal of the intellectualism at its heart. Of course, universities need to be advertised, just as they need to be administered, but it’ll always be a discomfiting process.
Moreover, the difficulty reflects the fact that universities have two definitions, as a sort of public service or corporation (the legal and political definition), and as a community of scholars (the time-honoured and perhaps ontological definition). While your suggestion is quite good, I think it doesn’t go far enough towards balancing out the professionalization of administration against the need to maintain and enhance collegial self-governance.