Here is a clip from the exchange on UniForum between ANU exec and Senator Mehreen Faruqi.

Apologies for video quality and big thank you to Senator @mehreenfaruqi.bsky.social for continuing to be such a fantastic advocate for better university governance.

3/3

Second, ANU’s COO admitted “we don’t have access to the underlying formulas and the raw data, we have access to the [Nous authored] reports”.

This suggests university executives are making huge decisions based on proprietary UniForum data and methodology that they have no way of scrutinizing.

2/3

Absolutely, this is one of the concerns I raise in the Senate submission. I’m also planning to dig deeper into this by running interviews with staff who are asked to respond to UniForum’s surveys. In the broader project, I’m very keen to engage with the experiences staff have these things.

Put simply, where universities have competent leaders and are governed through robust structures, one would not expect to find them relying on UniForum data or external consults to the extent that we see at so many universities in Australia and beyond.

These problems include: senior executives lacking the appropriate skills, character, and expertise to run universities; excessive emphasis on cost-cutting; and toxic workplace cultures that are inconducive to upward feedback or collaborative governance.

I argue that we need greater transparency about and scrutiny of the role of external consultants in university governance.

More fundamentally, however, reliance on consultants reflects much deeper problems with how universities are run.

Nous’ simultaneous contracts with unis and the Dep. of Education create conflicts of interest.

e.g. in 2024, DoE paid Nous to summarize public feedback on a University Accords discussion paper. Nous’ 80-page summary fails to mention feedback criticizing the role of consultants in uni governance.

University restructures often follow a similar playbook.

If restructures are based on UniForum data, then its blind spots and biases may be hardwiring a flawed, one-size-fits-all model of governance across the sector — a model that undermines educational quality and institutional diversity.

UniForum is operated by Nous – a firm who charge unis millions a year to tell them how to operate.

One wing of Nous provides "independent" UniForum data that shows the case for change at a uni, then a second wing of the same company swoops in to sell a program of cuts to deliver that change.

If you begin to open the UniForum black box, however, it’s clear that:
❌UniForum’s underlying data and methodology are poor
❌Data analysis is selective, inconsistent and opaque
❌UniForum benchmarks create perverse incentives

I also ask how UniForum fits into Nous’ wider business model:

Nous and uni execs use scientific-looking graphs and scientific-sounding jargon to imply UniForum data is grounded in rigorous methods and expert consensus. This performance of authority lends UniForum data an air of credibility and facticity that makes acting upon its results irresistible.

UniForum is a “benchmarking service” that Nous provides to universities globally.

University executives frequently invoke UniForum as an objective justification for cuts and redundancies.

This UniForum graph, for example, was a centerpiece of the case ANU’s ex-VC made to Council for Renew ANU. 👇

Good on you Francis! Thank you for your courage and integrity, and for all the work you’ve done to stand up for our university and our community.

Check in with your colleagues this week, and please submit feedback about these damaging and unnecessary cuts. Support from academics and students is critical.