A short post on a constant annoyance.
The idea for this blog comes after a series of tiresome and deflating meetings – meetings intended to gather the input of larger communities, both inside and outside the university. Meetings designed with the right intentions, embodying a consultation process that strives to include as many voices and perspectives as possible. Because the university, in its purest form and tradition, is a community of learners. And that community, in theory, should be engaged and active in informing and determining the institution’s general direction.
There were very few in attendance at these consultation sessions. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the views expressed therein varied wildly, largely due to the diversity of experience and imperfect levels of understanding. The overall quality of feedback, therefore, is questionable, begging the question of what can feasibly be done with the acquired responses. What use will the amassed intel actually provide following such meandering conversations?
Providing the opportunity for feedback is generally a good thing. After all, decisions made by university administration impact directly on those whose input is being sought. The reality, however, is that a vocal and visible minority is only ever captured, which suggests a skewed sample size and perspective.
What are we meant to do with this newfound information? To ignore it would be problematic. To pay it lip-service, equally so. But to incorporate it would be potentially deleterious. Because it would diffuse and dissolve our priorities, taking the institution down a number of different and competing pathways without sufficient rationale or clarity of purpose.
I’ve come to feel the risk of over-consultation. Asking too much and too often is a seemingly dangerous move. It’s sometimes counter-productive. It’s slow and sometimes painful. It doesn’t seem to accomplish the principal task but rather serves to acquiesce potentially dissenting voices. Like a service employed out of habit to mitigate the foul cries from anyone who might consequently feel their voice hasn’t be heard.
It’s a complex matter. To avoid consultation in a university setting would be impolitic. It might permit a quicker decision and direction, absent the small throng of community opinions, but in the end it would be seen as too authoritative. Just imagine: the very thought of university leaders assuming their roles by exercising the small authority incumbent on them and their respective offices. What a crazy world that would be…