Studying history in 2019
From technological developments to the impact of ‘decolonisation’, history departments at UK universities are undergoing radical shifts. Meleisa Ono-George eZplains hoY students Yill be affected
Across the country, universities and A colleges are experiencing major changes. While the causes of these shifts are numerous and wide-ranging – not least Brexit and a growing awareness of student mental health issues – a handful of factors are particularly relevant to history departments.
These include the introduction of methods to improve teaching standards, a push to increase diversity and address inequality, and a student-led drive to ‘decolonise the curriculum’. This is not an exhaustive list of talking points, but here are some of the key elements set to shape the student experience of university – and history degrees – in the future.
Getting value for money
In recent years, students have been increasingly repositioned as ‘consumers’, with teaching accorded an equal status to research in the priorities of the institution. One driver behind this has been the Teaching Excellence and Student Outcomes Framework (TEF), launched in 2017, which assesses the quality of tuition at certain universities in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The framework, managed by the Office for Students (OfS), an independent regulator, ranks institutions using data from the National Student Survey – completed by students in their final undergraduate year – combined with stats on continuation rates and graduate employment. Universities can also submit a statement about their teaching excellence, and earn gold, silver, bronze or provisional awards as a result.
At first glance, the TEF seems a straightforward exercise, seeking to ensure universities provide high-quality teaching and a decent ‘service’ for students. But it has been at the centre of much controversy – not least because English universities with a TEF award can increase their annual tuition fees £250 above the £9,000 cap of those without one.
With rising costs for students, there is mounting pressure on universities to ensure their degrees offer good value for money, with graduate employability becoming a key concern for history departments in particular. According to the 2016–17 Destinations of Leavers from Higher Education survey, only 40.9 per cent of graduates in ‘history and philosophical studies’ – which includes history, philosophy, theology, heritage studies and archaeology – were in full-time employment six months after leaving, a much lower figure than for many other subjects.
To remedy this, some departments have begun to offer work placements to students as part of their degrees, allowing them to gain
experience at museums and heritage organisations, for example. Students have also been encouraged to engage with an emerging discipline known as the digital humanities. The term encompasses a broad range of activities, including the digitisation of archival and primary source materials, and the creation of searchable online databases. One example is University College London’s Legacies of British Slave-Ownership database, which allows researchers to find details of the compensation paid to owners after the British abolition of slavery in 1834.
The impact of these technological advances is that history departments may expect students to engage more with original archival sources, and produce a higher standard of work. Some modules will also incorporate alternative assessments that require students to use digital technologies – such as creating podcasts and blogs – thereby helping them build a wider range of transferable skills to aid them in their future careers.
Widening participation
The OfS also plays a key role in addressing student inequality. By monitoring access and participation statistics, it has pledged to increase the number of students from disadvantaged backgrounds, while balancing the disparities in continuation rates and academic performance. If universities and colleges fail to tackle these problems, the OfS has the power to fine or deregister them.
At present, universities do not recruit enough history students from disadvantaged backgrounds, with the discipline faring particularly badly in attracting black and minority ethnic (BME) students. According to a 2018 report by the Royal Historical Society, less than 3 per cent of ‘domiciled’ undergraduates studying history at university identified as BME.
The report also showed that, on average, only 78.4 per cent of the BME undergraduates who enrol on ‘history and philosophical studies’ courses end up graduating with a first or a 2:1. This is in comparison with the 85.3 per cent of white domiciled students doing so on the same courses, despite them being admitted on similar entry tariffs.
The effects of this attainment gap are far-reaching. BME historians make up just 3 per cent of academic staff employed in UK history departments – fewer than 70 people out of 2,275. The Royal Historical Society draws a direct link between the shortage of staff of colour teaching in the field and the low numbers and poorer degree outcomes of BME history students.
As a result, history departments and societies across the country are looking at ways of encouraging marginalised and
disadvantaged students, with new funding schemes and bursaries aimed at supporting BME historians and those researching BME histories. Hopefully, this will result in better provision for students from a range of backgrounds entering university, and ultimately foster greater diversity among staff.
Decolonising the curriculum
The growing influence of student voices across higher education has opened space for the flourishing of another key development. This is the grassroots ‘decolonisation’ movement, kicked off by protests at the University of Cape Town in 2015, when students called for the removal of a statue of controversial colonial leader Cecil Rhodes from campus.
The movement has led to a number of similar initiatives throughout the UK, with students and staff advocating for critical reflection regarding race and diversity in universities. For example, following a 137-day occupation of Deptford Town Hall by the student group Goldsmiths Anti-Racist Action earlier this year, the university recently agreed to calls to address the BME attainment gap and racial justice issues.
In history departments, demands for
inclusivity and decolonisation of the curriculum have had special resonance. Although the movement has faced criticism (chiefly based on the misunderstanding that it calls for the removal of white men and British histories), it has provoked important debates about how we construct history, the stories we choose to tell and what we ignore. From the perspective of academic staff, it is not just about what gets taught, but also how it is taught, and the ways in which students are encouraged to think critically about the present and future, as well as the past.
In some history departments, including at Cambridge, Manchester, SOAS and Warwick, the decolonisation movement has already led to extensive curriculum reviews and a reform of teaching practice and assessment. For students who choose to pursue history degrees in the upcoming years, this is likely to mean, at the very least, a more diverse and global offering of modules, and changes in the way modules are taught.
Looking to the future
Overall, students are increasingly seen as equal partners within higher education – not as the passive recipients of whatever the university chooses to offer. These changes continue to be reverberate within history departments and among students, creating a very different experience for those entering the discipline now to even five years ago. Whether this increasing focus on student experience and the issues of inequality and decolonisation will truly result in long-lasting change, however, remains to be seen.
In some departments the decolonisation movement has led to curriculum reviews, with more diverse modules now on offer