An advisory company, WittKeifer, moderated a public consultation this week at the Appleton Tower to help decide the selection of the next Principal and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Edinburgh.
Up to 50 staff and students gathered to voice their opinions about what skills, experience, leadership qualities, style, academic visions and priorities they wanted to see in the next Principal.
The consultation is the first step the company will take to inform their decision about who to appoint to the role.
There will be a number of other steps before the next Principal is selected: a candidate outreach programme, longlist review of candidates, a shortlist review, and campus visits and formal interviews before the final announcement in March or April 2027.
WittKeifer also said that consultation would involve members of the University Court, the senior leadership team and the selection panel.
Professor Sir Peter Mathieson’s tenure as the current Principal is set to end in 2028, following his decision to step down last month amid ongoing disputes with the University College Union (UCU) over spending and course cuts.
WittKeifer brands itself as a company which “appl[ies] our specialized knowledge to the strategic and operational factors that define what our clients need from, and for, leadership.”
Before opening the discussion to the floor, a representative of the company said, “This is a dialogue; be as candid as you like.”
An overall sentiment of distrust in senior management was seen, with one member of staff stating that: “Under Mathieson the trust of students and staff in management to represent the interest of the university is at a historically low point.”
A librarian remarked that they did not want the power of the position of Principal to continue but rather that the next head of the university “takes [the] opinion of the committee above their own personal decisions.”
Another member of staff highlighted a need to reform communication between staff and senior management: “Meaningful engagement is not just having a meeting… it needs to be backed up by action.”
Concerns were raised by a PhD tutor regarding the timing of the consultation within the five weeks of industrial action as striking members of staff and supporters would have to cross the picket line to attend.
They also thought the next Principal should be “an academic, somebody who has experience as a union member… [with] local experience in Edinburgh… [so that] they know the culture, the university, and the history.
Local experience was mentioned by multiple attendees, with one member of staff stating that the new principal needs to better the university’s relationship with the local community to widen access: “We need locals to see us as a beacon of knowledge… the university can support people from disadvantaged backgrounds to come here.”
The university’s financial situation was also at the forefront of many attendees’ comments.
One student commented on the wage packet of the current Principal : “They want to benefit the next generation… help them become the next peers… we cannot get that if they are getting £400,000 a year.”
Another PhD student said that the newly-appointed Principal should not “[be] very out of touch with reality and the day to day experience…of the lowest paid members of staff”
Many advocated for financial divestment from companies associated with Israel, with one student commenting: “Our fees should not be funding war and genocide.”
Staff in particular also criticised Mathieson for a lack of “accountability, transparency [and] democracy,” with a refusal to include them in decision-making.
Commenting on the course cuts, one member of staff said “there was no democratic process,” with another calling the current situation at the university “deeply undemocratic.” This was met with applause from the room.
Staff highlighted “a huge rift between [the] Senate and management” and asked for the university to “consider an election in the wider community.”
Concerns were also raised on the future of the university’s identity, criticising the senior management for moving away from the flexibility of the Scottish system: “What is our identity? What makes Edinburgh Edinburgh?”
They also advocated for the new principal to have “formal media training.”
One student added to the argument: “Every principal has been a man… some change on this would be nice.”
Within the widely shared opinion that senior management does not listen to staff or students, concerns were raised as to whether the consultation will be successful: “I’ ve been to these meetings many times, and I’ve never heard anybody say anything else, and here we are still here.”
Attendees asked for consultation outcomes to be shared publicly, but no confirmation was given as to whether this could happen.
Photo by Mafalda Moura on Unsplash.
