In a post-pandemic world, managing the modern university campus covers not just facilities, grounds and buildings but ed-tech tools, firewalls and other cybersecurity measures.

University estates management

It’s no surprise that our latest cybersecurity survey shows that universities cite ransomware as the top threat this year. There’s been a huge spike in this type of attack against our sector, with the number of incidents in the first half of 2021 surpassing the total in all of 2020. It’s fair to say that it’s no longer a question of whether an institution will face a cyberattack, but when.

Jisc and partner agencies including the National Cyber Security Centre have, for some time, been advising tertiary education providers&nbsp;on how to defend themselves. Even so, devastating attacks continue − systems are crippled, data are lost and stress levels soar for staff and students alike. Recovery can take months and cost millions.

It’s vital that we work together to reduce risk and strengthen security, and it’s essential that senior leaders get involved. Jisc’s role is to provide threat intelligence and guidance and protect the national research and education network, Janet, on which our members rely. 


	Secure and transparent use of student data
	Cybersecurity in online learning
	Running safe and secure online meetings and calls
	&nbsp;


Vice-chancellors and boards are responsible for ensuring there is protection in place for the cyberspaces within their institutions, but our survey suggests that not all senior leaders are as engaged as they need to be.

Although 86 per cent of higher education institutions (HEIs) regularly report on cybersecurity risks and resilience to their executive board, and a similar percentage report that cybersecurity is a strategic priority at their university, this still leaves a significant minority where this is not the case. 

These institutions are unlikely to have sufficiently robust processes and technical solutions in place to stop or mitigate an attack when it happens − and very unlikely to have recovery plans.

There is no silver bullet for this issue. Reducing the risk is multilayered and requires a range of interventions. We need ongoing government support for critical infrastructure, financial investment from the sector in specialist staff and services and leadership from senior teams to create the conditions to enable change to happen within their institutions.

Given the financial implications of the pandemic, investment will be a challenge, but it’s likely to be substantially cheaper than the devastating impact of a significant and sustained system outage and/or data breach. 

There’s no doubt that recruiting skilled security and IT staff is difficult because of the UK’s technical skills shortage. While the government is tackling the skills gap in several ways, including rolling out free courses in STEM subjects such as cybersecurity, the public sector cannot easily compete with the much higher salaries offered by commercial organisations. 

Remote or hybrid working policies will help expand the pool of candidates beyond geographical boundaries, but attracting and retaining the right people will remain a problem for the sector.

There are effective steps universities can take to help protect themselves in terms of processes and services. We encourage all senior teams to engage with their technology leaders to ensure these things are happening in their institutions − noting that significant investment may well be required to put them in place:

Vulnerability management and patching procedures are essential for all systems, with priority given to critical and externally accessible services. &nbsp;&nbsp;

Segmenting and isolating all critical service infrastructure helps prevent attackers who gain access to one system moving on to others. 

Implementing segregated central logging and monitoring of critical systems enables early warning of potential problems and will help in incident investigations. 

Ensuring backups are segmented, secured and tested regularly is paramount, as is frequently rehearsing incident response plans and procedures. Practice won’t make security perfect, but it will ensure that your response in the event of an attack is effective and that you can recover as quickly as possible. 

Controlling system access is vital too. Only those people who need access should have it. Multi-factor authentication (MFA) has a significant role to play in controlling system access more widely and, therefore, reduces the risk of a successful ransomware attack. 

There has been a sharp rise in the deployment of MFA during the pandemic, but it’s not yet in place across the board. We recommend that it’s rolled out to all systems, all staff and all students. Our survey shows that 87 per cent of HEIs are now implementing MFA for some or all staff (up by 15 per cent on 2020) and 49 per cent have it in place for some or all students (an increase of 27 per cent on 2020). 

Similarly, security awareness training is a key tool in preventing security incidents caused by phishing and other “human errors”, which the survey acknowledges as the second and third top threats this year, behind ransomware. 

To help underpin knowledge-sharing and maintenance, we advocate mandatory training for all. The survey reveals this to be an opportunity area for the sector, with 73 per cent of universities running compulsory training for staff, but only 9 per cent insisting that students take a course. 

Continuing the trend of the past five years, perceptions of cybersecurity protection are not high in HEIs, with only 17 per cent (16 of 93 respondents) scoring themselves at 8 or more out of 10. The mean score is 6.3. 

So, while the latest stats show the trajectory is heading in the right direction, we believe, as many of you will too, that more could be done. And Jisc is here to help.

Heidi Fraser-Kraus is CEO of Jisc.

Statistics show that universities are getting better at defending against and preparing for cyberattacks, but much more needs to be done, says Heidi Fraser-Krauss

Cybersecurity remains a critical issue that universities must face

Civic engagement is deeply rooted in many of our universities, and as we and our localities focus increasingly on recovery from the impact of Covid, the case for the civic agenda across higher education has never been stronger. But what role should our physical spaces play in this, and as the physical and virtual worlds become ever closer, can digital spaces support wider civic engagement?

The pandemic has forced people across the globe to socially distance, pushing many of us into the virtual world of Zoom, and depriving campuses and town centres of the physical interaction that brings them to life.

As this changes, and we increasingly focus on recovery, we have an opportunity not just to design the “new normal” for our core activities, but to rethink our role in supporting social and economic recovery. If we’re to maximise our civic impact, the role and use of our physical spaces must be part of that agenda.

The University of Gloucester’s acquisition of the recently closed local Debenhams store hit the headlines, with the retail space to be repurposed to deliver healthcare tuition and community cultural events. While this model may still be the exception, similar ambitions are driving others to find innovative ways to connect to communities, both physically and digitally.

As universities begin to reimagine their post-Covid campuses and wider engagement, I’ll pose three key questions.

First, how can we use our campuses to deliver wider civic value? 

We can design more “porous” buildings, through social, leisure and well-being spaces. Apart from making space more vibrant, greater footfall can contribute to more sustainable operations. There are already great examples of where campus meets community, such as the new Town House building at Kingston University, which provides a vibrant open space for students, staff and the general public.

External space also matters. Sheffield Hallam’s city campus redevelopment is centred around a new public green space –&nbsp;creating a dynamic and “open for all” environment at the heart of the campus, and at&nbsp;a key city gateway. And simple changes around public signage and route marking can also help overcome what for many may be implicit or explicit physical boundaries.

Higher education has a strong track record of providing space for business start-ups and research collaboration with industry, while&nbsp;also opening facilities for use by community and voluntary groups. A more systematic offer that includes a community booking portal could allow better access to these – reaching beyond well-established users. This is something we are looking at.

All this can help enhance an institution’s&nbsp;civic value, as well as creating opportunities to enrich the student experience through volunteering, placement or consultancy opportunities.

But the reach of our campuses will always be limited. This is partly down to geography, especially for towns with no university presence. But there are wider factors: many within our local populations – particularly those with no personal or family history of involvement with higher education – are still hampered by invisible barriers to engagement.

So, the second question is: how do we reach out directly into our local communities, essentially taking the university out, rather than waiting for people to come to us? 

Partnerships are key, especially at hyperlocal level. Working with schools and colleges enables much of this outreach. But this is not just about widening access to higher education, it is about creating opportunity and supporting community well-being at all levels. So, work with a range of organisations and draw on your own internal talent pool – the students – to support outreach projects where possible.

Through social mobility partnership South Yorkshire Futures, we are working from early years through to post-16, with programmes ranging from a new school-based research nursery through to the groundbreaking GROW scheme, through which student volunteers are mentoring young people across the region who are struggling with the impact of Covid on their learning. Through this, pupils are given bespoke support to help them progress while our student volunteers gain valuable skills and experience for their future studies&nbsp;or employment.

Looking further afield, Cardiff University’s “Community Gateway” partnership with residents and businesses in the Grangetown is making&nbsp; a tangible difference to the community through student projects and consultancy work, while Nottingham Trent University is working in partnership with Vision West Nottinghamshire College, to deliver a new route to higher education in Mansfield, offering finance and career support as well as integrated further and higher education pathways for local people.

But – coming to my third question – can we achieve even greater reach through more imaginative use of digital platforms alongside physical space? 

We’ve seen a previously unimagined transition to online teaching and learning over the last year, and while many students are crying out for a return to campus life, most would agree that there are many digital elements that should be retained longer-term. The scope of innovation and entrepreneurship in this space continues to grow, offering opportunities to expand the reach and impact of a university far beyond geographical boundaries and the student body.

There’s a bigger agenda here as well – around skills and economic recovery. Universities now have a wealth of digital expertise and resources they can share with businesses and individuals to drive competitiveness, innovation and growth.

For many areas, a more integrated approach to identifying and meeting local skills&nbsp;needs will be critical to “levelling up” and economic recovery. If universities are to help lead and deliver this, we need to take our offer beyond the campus, including via digital channels. This could involve shared facilities with partners, such as businesses and charities, providing the kind of drop-in spaces that students expect on campus, supported by digital provision to offer skilling and reskilling, particularly in&nbsp;areas of low participation.

Our Digital Boost collaboration with Barnsley and Sheffield Local Authorities incorporates a digital skills framework that can be used with individuals, communities and employers to assess and then develop digital skills from basic to advanced levels. The programme will connect regional SMEs to academic expertise and world-class facilities at the university and offer support on digital needs including enhanced cybersecurity, improved design, software engineering, data analysis, artificial intelligence, user experience and rapid prototyping. 

Plans for a new Institute of Technology in South Yorkshire also embed digital skills across foundational industries, engineering and construction, to support adoption of new technologies and business growth. This includes clearer curriculum pathways through further and higher education and a more modular and tailored approach to digital provision, targeting those returning to education or reskilling.

There’s more information about the projects I’ve referenced through the Civic University Network, as well as further best practice and a useful toolkit to help develop plans. Any successful civic engagement must reflect local conditions so must start with an understanding of community needs. There is no one size fits all. But there is still much we can learn from asking these key questions and learning from each other’s experience.

Richard Calvert is deputy vice-chancellor (strategy and operations) at Sheffield Hallam University. 

Richard Calvert explores what role universities’ physical spaces should play in civic engagement and how digital technologies can support this 

Open to all? Using our physical and digital spaces to better engage local communities 

As campuses worldwide mark one year since the sudden switch&nbsp;online, the question must be asked: has this experiment pronounced the campus dead? As an architect who believes the environment is the third teacher, I’ve been motivated to discover the lasting effects of a year of the distributed, digital campus. Since spring 2020, I’ve interviewed more than 125 faculty and students at more than 100 institutions, gaining perspective into how their ongoing experiences will reshape university life. 

With campuses largely closed, some schools still attempted to build and maintain&nbsp;a sense of community: the University of Pennsylvania recreated its engineering buildings on virtual platforms to host weekly events for spontaneous meetings; despite all-virtual classes at the University of Cape Town, dorms became learning communities for those who couldn’t return home; at Keio University, in Tokyo, cross-disciplinary intersections at a Hacking Studio (an “integrated ‘Build to Think’ space for discussions and brainstorming sessions”) had students “filling in the gaps” for each other. Each demonstrates the connective tissue that scaffolds academic engagement and well-being.

In regions where the pandemic was managed well (Taiwan, Singapore, New Zealand), fewer changes are expected of the post-pandemic campus. This is also true where technology access is uneven or the cost of higher education is less contentious. But where high tuition fees have exacerbated student debt (the UK, the US, Canada), examining the return on investment associated with the traditional campus is urgent. 

Undoubtedly, this massive digital delivery experiment will generate numerous forms of hybrid education. Whether it rings the death knell of 400-person lecture halls or fragments the campus will vary depending&nbsp;on funding models, institutional reputation and culture, and student motivation. The urge to divest cost-generating assets is powerful, and harnessing changes to strategically reduce the campus footprint – to build, operate and maintain less – is critical. My research suggests that such endeavours should be nuanced, innovation-focused and sustainability-led, not one-size-fits-all.

Potential changes to campus design will slide along a spectrum from optimising space utilisation to rethinking academic structures. Even small shifts from in-person to hybrid futures will demand more of universities’ physical infrastructure to facilitate formal and informal learning. Consider the shift from in-person lectures to asynchronous virtual delivery – in a post-pandemic context, this will emphasise outside-class-hours&nbsp;engagement via tutorials and peer-to-peer learning. Large, tiered, collective spaces will be freed up while more synergistic learning spaces for two to eight people will be required. 

With greater individual choice in determining educational journeys, many courses will evolve into hybrid formats mixing virtual and place-based learning, and to online-only formats. As four-year degrees are questioned, stacked credentials gain currency and lifelong learning becomes the norm, students will demand flexible access to higher education. Facilities will have to be agile to accommodate frequently varying requirements. By constructing technology-enabled, flexible, scalable, interconnected physical structures, campuses can shape hybrid spaces where activities and functions can differ, and diverse participants can interact physically or digitally. 

An increased appetite for self-motivated, independent learning could make undergraduate spaces begin to resemble graduate school. When transitioning from unified, teacher-led activities to independent study and cross-disciplinary exploration, multifunctional settings for focused study, debate and small-to-medium projects gain relevance. Such spaces inspire curiosity and connect-the-dots-type synthetic thinking. Interspersed between formal “classrooms”, active spaces with writeable walls, display cases, projectable surfaces, transparent, movable walls and mobile furniture become places where people and ideas can commingle. The promise of having one’s intellect challenged between classes and uncovering associations not previously contemplated – these daily occurrences aren’t easily replicated online and should be at the centre of campus reinvention. 

Further, convergent forces of AI and work-oriented learning should prompt place-based education to concentrate less on knowledge dispersal and discipline-specific skills − which can be developed virtually − and more on right-brain attributes such as learning, unlearning and relearning. In addition to growing the footprint for research, experiential learning should expand beyond STEM environments. All fields benefit from kindergarten-inspired places where discovery and innovation come from making, observing, experimenting and collaborating − where ideas are constructed and deconstructed in equal measure. 

The monotony and scripted behaviours of Zoom school has changed communication and participation too. The absence of the natural rituals of campus life − corridor chats, shared humour and simply hanging out, all of which build collective identity and community − reminds us that they are critical in developing empathy, rapport and whole-person growth. To quote a student I interviewed: “In clicking from Zoom class to Zoom class, I miss running into people who are not yet my friends; those spontaneous interactions that propel you through the day.” 

The future of work predicts that the attributes of resilience, (thriving in) ambiguity, optimism, openness and entrepreneurship will be more critical than discipline-specific competencies. This implies that delinking spaces from specific faculties is no longer a radical concept. If institutions lean in to cross-faculty interaction, redefined spaces for students and teachers can be shared and programmed across schools. 

For example, as business schools delve into design thinking and scientists embrace creativity, the potential uses of art and design studios extend beyond the typical. Similarly, the physical address of a bioethics course can fluctuate across the conventional humanities versus sciences divide. Taken further beyond institutional-brand boundaries, symbiotic spaces can be decentralised and distributed – collocated with off-campus housing, museums, libraries, community centres and even industry – effectively creating cities of learning.

Learning is social, and the active construction of knowledge, identity, culture and engaged citizens extends far beyond the classroom. Amid radical change, contemplate this critical reminder from a professor of anthropology: “Space for creating knowledge matters. How you sit matters. Where you sit matters. Whether you can make eye contact matters. How often you can speak matters. To co-create knowledge, you need to be together. It isn’t accidental − creation happens in the interactive, interpersonal spaces.”

Jay Deshmukh is senior architect and associate, IBI Group – Global Learning+ Studio. She is an award-winning architect with more 20 years of experience in institutional architecture&nbsp;projects in&nbsp;Canada, the US and beyond, such as the multidisciplinary Health Sciences Campus at the University of Ottawa, the “Campus of the future” at Amity University Dubai and the Student Centre at the University of York. 

Potential post-Covid changes to campus design will slide along a spectrum from optimising space to rethinking academic structures, says Jay Deshmukh

The campus is dead, long live the campus

In a post-Covid world, managing the modern campus covers ed-tech tools, firewalls and other cybersecurity measures as well as facilities, grounds and buildings

University estates management

Cybersecurity remains a critical issue that universities must face

Open to all? Using our physical and digital spaces to better engage local communities

The campus is dead, long live the campus

Discover

More from THE

Sign up

Collaborate with THE

About

Legal stuff