Currently reading Byrom et al. (2026) on “Responsibility and other dangerous ideas: who cares, who can, and who should in higher education”

In the context of mental health and higher education, who has a duty to care and what does care even mean? Byrom et al. (2026), in “Responsibility and other dangerous ideas: who cares, who can, and who should in higher education“, distinguish three ways to approach care:

• A moral drive to care: most people are empathetic and value connection and relationships, whether they are told to or not. The authors refer to other research that shows that “clarification that academics are not responsible for students’ wellbeing does not reduce their drive to care” and there “appears to be a dissonance between what academics feel they ought to do, motivated by empathy, worry and relational care, and what the university formally expects or enables them to do“
• A legal duty to do no harm: as universities are employers and public institutions, there are laws and rules in place to protect employees and students. In the article, they describe the legal situation in the UK, but this is probably similar in most places, as well as this is probably true everywhere: “To meaningfully address mental health, institutions must look beyond compliance with legal minimums and embrace more proactive, relational forms of responsibility“
• A preventative responsibility: at many universities, there is a growing focus on proactively building “safe” (which is a problematic idea, see here) and supportive environments

But then who should care? There is the frontline staff (both teachers, teaching assistants, but also student councillors or librarians or others) who are the first point of contact or who notice that something is going on, but then there is also a more diffuse institution that should care as a whole. That is often addressed through rules and regulations, but that may backfire in several ways: “When time, training, and institutional recognition are absent, rules and accountability mechanisms risk hollowing out the very relationships they aim to protect. Instead of fostering care, regulation can displace responsibility, deepen inequalities, and accelerate staff burnout, ultimately leaving students less well supported. If universities are to meet their obligations meaningfully, they must move beyond compliance and create the conditions in which care can be exercised safely, sustainably, and with authenticity“. At the moment, “[o]ften the work of care is present, but neither institutionally owned nor resourced” (anecdote here: a while back I wrote a pitch for a seminar series I wanted to develop and run, and I wrote in a little time to “provide emotional support”. The only comment I got on that whole document? That emotional suppport is not part of our tasks… This just supports the point that the authors make that “Emotional labour to manage one’s own and others’ emotions is often invisible, undervalued and uncompensated“).

Additionally, regulating care “may undermine opportunities for students to develop autonomy and agency“: “If students are to learn how to care for themselves, universities must provide environments where mistakes and learning are possible. A purely reactive model, where academics are expected to notice distress and step in, may crowd out space for students to practise self-regulation. While well-intentioned, such responsiveness may unintentionally limit student agency.”

So what are possible solutions? One is that academics (who are paid for it) need to model how to care well. Another part is to “offer students meaningful roles in shaping and supporting community wellbeing“. It’s a fine line between regulating care and creating supportive systems, though! The authors conclude that “rather than expanding regulation, universities should prioritise time, resources, and authentic relationships that enable both staff and students to share responsibility for community wellbeing” and they “call for a more honest and grounded conversation about responsibility in higher education – one that recognises not only what is needed, but also what is possible. We doubt that care can be regulated. We doubt that increased accountability will improve the student experience. Care takes time and thrives with the freedom to be authentic“.

I have been thinking about this article quite a bit since I first read it. So if care has to be authentic, how can we make sure that there is more of it? But maybe that is not actually the point, maybe the point is really to make sure that those who care have the support they need to do the caring. Support as in sufficient time and freedom, but maybe also in knowing about other resources that can be brought in for help, like mental health professionals, or about structures, like how to lessen the pressure on students that need an extension or another special solution, or even just as training for how to have difficult, emotional conversations without it taking a huge emotional toll on the first responders. So basically being better trained and prepared to support and care for others. But maybe that’s what an academic developer would have to say. What do you think?

Byrom, N. C., Dodd, A., Crook, S., Jackman, P. C., Watkins, E., & Armstrong, N. (2026). Responsibility and other dangerous ideas: who cares, who can, and who should in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2026.2643242

Swimming with the swans…

It is so nice to go swimming when it looks like summer!

Doesn’t quite feel like summer yet, though…

But sun glint!

I recently tried migrating this website and it might be that I am slightly excessive with how many wave pictures I am posting…

But sometimes it’s also this view!

And it is beautiful here!

And this is always a favourite…