Recently in the news on both sides of the Tasman were stories about attempts to change the names of institutions. In Australia, it was Charles Sturt University mooting the idea of changing its name to Sturt University as this would be easier to recognise or be more memorable than either the full name or the shortened name of CSU. In the end, and after consultation, it was obvious that there was little support or understanding of the need for the change. Instead, the university has opted for changes to the logo, and branding/marketing campaigns.
Similarly, on this side of the Tasman my own university, Victoria University of Wellington, went through a controversial process that resulted in an application to the Minister of Education for a change of name, which was rejected. The university briefly considered challenging the Minister’s decision but eventually opted to abandon the name change in favour of a branding refresh, changes to the logo and visual identity that will emphasise Wellington. The Hon. Chris Hipkins, Minister of Education, then pushed through a Supplementary Order Paper to change an anomaly in the Education Act 1989 whereby the disestablishment or establishment of a university is approved by Parliament, but a name change only involved the Minister. The process change has now been approved and the whole of Parliament will be asked about name changes for universities in the future.
As you can imagine, the issue stirred up considerable feelings for staff, students, alumni and other stakeholders at each university. It prompted a discussion in our office, Planning and Management Information, about whether the name we have for our ‘unit’ was reflective of what we do and reflective of current thinking about what it is that we do. We were fairly certain that the name doesn’t reflect what we do, and none of us were sure what ‘management information’ means anyway.
Lots of ideas were floated involving the words ‘reporting’, ‘institutional research or effectiveness’, ‘data science’, ‘analysis/analytics’, ‘performance measurement’, etc. We didn’t reach any conclusion and the discussion is ongoing, but it prompted me to think about what other similar units in Australasia are called and whether they reflect what those departments actually do. I also wondered where such offices fitted in the structure of institutions, and whether or not there is only one office—or multiples—across an institution that are involved in ‘institutional research’.
So what is your area’s ‘name’ and where do you fit into the university hierarchy? Is it time for a change and how do you futureproof the description or name that you use?
To quote a colleague, Jeff Holmes, maybe we should call ourselves ‘making stuff up’—not to be confused with ‘making stuff ups’—and just get on with it.
Kathie Rabel
Acting AAIR President
Roses photo by Denise Chan on Unsplash
Signpost photo by Javier Allegue Barros on Unsplash
Change photo by Ross Findon on Unsplash
