Bradley Tucker is the Vice Provost at the American University of Beirut and former Executive Director of Analysis, Planning & Budget at McGill University.
You’re a proud skeptic. Imagine our surprise when we heard that your skepticism extends to market research in higher education…
It’s not so much market research as it is the willingness – or the courage – of institutions to try implementing those initiatives. Despite the best intentions, there’s a risk-averse mindset in higher education that keeps institutions in holding patterns, in wait-and-see mode, that ultimately keeps them from doing good things for their students and themselves.
It’s hard because of course, there are people ensconced within those environments that genuinely want to change things for the better; they often just feel like it's such a mountain to climb to make anything happen.
“The best data in the world isn't going to move the needle by itself, you know. You need a little something more.”
Take international tuition elasticity studies for example, the ones that show institutions can attract more international students by actually raising tuition prices. The data can strongly suggest that it’s a practical, strategic way to increase revenue, and yet raising tuition still involves an element of risk. So some institutions will run into that hesitance, that tendency for inaction because “everything is working as is” and “what happens if it doesn’t work?” But the truth is that what worked 5 years ago may very well not be working today because the landscape is changing.
What role can data have in helping institutions break out of that risk-averse shell?
Well, the best data in the world isn't going to move the needle by itself, you know. You need a little something more. It comes down to the assumed risk/reward, and oftentimes it can seem like the rewards for taking risks – especially for the senior administration of universities – are slim to none. Even if the rewards have the potential to be hugely impactful, the risks tend to be disproportionately considered.
No amount of data in the world alone is going to overcome that inertia. And the snag is that any meaningful change has to come from a vision paired with a willingness to take significant risks. In the best case, these decisions are based on studies, like the studies that you guys do, and are data-driven. But that approach is still relatively rare to see in academia, for one reason because nearly any conclusion can be quibbled with, regardless of the quality of the study.
The interesting thing is that in the private sector, you have a ton of companies that are equally risk-averse as the most conservative universities. And yet you’d be hard-pressed to find a market leader in any industry that hasn’t adopted data-driven decision-making.
So it does seem almost inevitable, given enough time, that institutions to actually make that leap to embracing data and market research as ways to create a positive impact.
“Nobody wants to be handed a mountain of data and have to derive their own conclusions. They want to be told clearly what the recommended route of action is and why.”
When it comes to creating change, would you say the aspirational angle is generally less galvanizing within institutions than having to compete for market share?
Definitely. If one of your close competitors leads the charge to implement, for example, an innovative student marketing initiative that’s wildly successful, what’s pushing your institution to act is no longer an aspirational motivation but a matter of survival, to be dramatic.
And fear of loss seems to be a much more widespread, effective motivator than the promise of reward when it comes to getting things done within an institutional culture of caution. At least from what I’ve seen.
I’d also say this is a timely conversation to have, because so many things are changing in higher education right now. You’ve got volatile global conditions, attendance issues that point to a larger change in how students are choosing to engage with information, more public scrutiny on the value of a degree, AI tools that have to be reckoned with…. There are more factors but that’s a whole other conversation. It’s all definitely putting pressure on everyone to assess the situation.
So the wait-and-see, business-as-usual mindset is really at odds with this new era.
I’d also note that larger universities and “status” universities can afford to wait and see more than small, “follower” universities can. The risks and rewards are magnified for the latter.
Last question, any advice for people who are trying their best to create impactful change within institutions?
The first thing I’d say is be persistent. And that doesn't mean that you're shrill, it doesn't mean trying the same exact approach over and over again, and it doesn't mean that you say, “I told you so,” if it works. But it does mean that you're persistent in bringing opportunities to the decision makers.
I’d also say the clearer the recommendations you bring them, the better. Nobody wants to be handed a mountain of data and have to derive their own conclusions. They want to be told clearly what the recommended route of action is and why. They want a clear picture of the risks and rewards. That’s a big part of why I’m a fan of what CRI does.
So: be persistent in approaching decision-makers with data-supported recommendations that, if implemented, have a very good chance of making a significant difference. They may not want to assume any risk, they may not want to spend any political capital, or they may not think the time is right, but you bring it forward. And you bring it forward. And you bring something else forward, and you bring something else forward, and you bring something else forward.
Something is going to stick, eventually; you're going to find something that resonates with the leader at that time, that they're willing to take on.
And when you find that something, that's when you're really going to make a difference.