This week, an external company commissioned by the University Executive Team (UET) held a series of “focus groups” to inform the design of a forthcoming staff “engagement” survey (what we’ve previously understood as staff satisfaction surveys). Trade union representatives were invited to participate in one of these sessions.

We are sharing this update to be transparent about the process so far, and to explain our current position.

What we observed

Participants in these sessions were selected by HR, with no clear or transparent rationale for how individuals were chosen. The invitation process itself did not include adequate information about the purpose of the session, nor did it follow basic expectations around participant information or informed consent.

During the session, there was limited clarity about how the discussion would meaningfully shape the survey design. The process did not reflect what would typically be understood as a structured or methodologically sound focus group.

We understand that the next steps are for the company to design the survey, for UET and HR to approve it, and for the company to analyse the results and report back. The raw data will not be independently accessible.

Why this matters

For any staff engagement survey to be credible—particularly in a university context—it must meet a high standard of methodological integrity.

At present, there are significant concerns:

• Participants in the “focus groups” were not independently selected, creating a risk of selection bias
• The survey instrument will be approved by the same body it is intended to evaluate – UET
• The organisation collecting and analysing the data is contracted by, and accountable to, that same body – UET
• There is no clear mechanism for independent scrutiny of the raw data; there will be no opportunity to corroborate this company’s analysis
• Trade unions and other stakeholders have not been meaningfully involved in the design process as we would understand it in a robust and unbiased methodological approach to research

Individually, each of these raises questions. Taken together, they create a process that risks producing results that are partial, shaped, or open to selective interpretation.

This is not simply a technical concern. Staff are being asked to provide honest, and potentially sensitive, feedback. That requires trust in the process.

Our position

We raised these concerns directly during the session.

It was concerning that there was limited recognition from the company of the potential for bias in a commissioned process of this kind, or of the importance of established research ethics and methodology—particularly when conducting research with and on researchers.

For staff to trust the findings of this survey, the process must be demonstrably robust, independent, and transparent. At present, we do not consider that threshold to have been met.

As a result, we are not in a position to endorse the process as it stands, nor can we support any claim that the survey has been developed in meaningful consultation with the recognised trade unions.

This can still be fixed

There is still time to ensure that this survey is credible, trustworthy, and genuinely useful. That requires:

• Transparent and appropriate participant selection processes
• Clear participant information and consent procedures
• Meaningful stakeholder involvement, including trade unions, in survey design
• Independence in the construction of survey questions
• Greater transparency around data handling, analysis, and access

We are ready to engage constructively to support a process that meets these standards.

If these issues are addressed, this survey could provide a valuable and accurate picture of staff experience. If they are not, it risks producing results that do not reflect the reality of staff working lives—and we will not be able to encourage our members to engage with it.

Why this matters for all staff

A staff survey should be an opportunity for genuine voice and meaningful change. But that only works if the process used to capture that voice is beyond reproach. At present, that is not the case. It can be. And we are willing to help make it so.