Re-thinking group mission
One of the features, over the past decade or more, of the British university system has been the so-called ‘mission groups’. These have included the Russell Group, the 1994 Group, the University Alliance, Million+, Guild HE. All in all, these groups do not have a major presence in Scotland, though some Scottish universities are members of one or the other of them. However, mostly the mission groups are so totally focused on England that any Scottish membership is not much affected. In Ireland, leaving aside for a moment the membership by University College Dublin of the international group Universitas 21, mission groups have not been a feature. In Northern Ireland Queen’s University Belfast was allowed to join the Russell Group a few years ago, though its performance particularly in research might have raised questions about its suitability for inclusion in that particular collection.
Be all that as it may, the scene may be experiencing some significant change, even in England. In recent years some of the members of the 1994 Group, which had set itself up as an umbrella group for small research-intensive universities, jumped ship and joined the Russell Group, which is the self-declared representative of ‘leading UK universities which are committed to maintaining the very best research, an outstanding teaching and learning experience and unrivalled links with business and the public sector.’ Increasingly asset stripped by its larger rival grouping, the 1994 Group has now decided to close shop.
This could be seen as a victory for the Russell Group. But the latter has now become so large and diverse that some are wondering whether it will start developing smaller sub-groups and eventually break up. But maybe a more fundamental question should be asked: should such groups exist at all? In a system that should celebrate diversity and, where appropriate, competition, mission groups sometimes look like defensive cartels that seek special advantages for their members. Of course universities should collaborate, but whether such collaboration is better or more appropriate through exclusive clubs is open to question.
Thankfully, my university (Robert Gordon University) is not affiliated to any mission group. And that’s how it will stay. In this way we will drive forward with purpose and ambition; and any university is welcome to work with us.
Explore posts in the same categories: universityTags: 1994 Group, mission groups, Russell Group
You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.
University Blog 
December 3, 2013 at 7:29 am
It was always a bit like the Benedictine’s, the Augustinian’s and the Franciscans. Where the differences might be vast but only to professional Christians.
I thought the extern system worked to provide such a club from way back. And isn’t that what the real people want to know. That Uni A considers Uni B to have a measure of education equal to it’s own. Most don’t give a hoot about research.
December 6, 2013 at 8:34 am
“In a system that should celebrate diversity and, where appropriate, competition,…” …. it appears detrimental to the health of the overall system to declare a small set of `strategic’ themes for research focus, to be supported to the exclusion of other areas, whether the narrow focus is determined by a university or by a national government.
It is as odd for a university to declare itself that it leads the world in some topics but not others as it is for a university to declare tactical alliances with some universities but not others. Why would one university make a decision contrary to its nature in favor of another university merely because of an alliance? If the decision would be made anyway, the alliance is unnecessary; if it would not, the alliance is harmful.
Both sorts of declaration convey an impression of close-mindedness that is at odds with the diversity that one might naturally expect of a university.