Anticipating challenges

Academic freedom and freedom of expression are fundamental to the University's purpose, but the challenges they face can arise in different and sometimes unexpected ways.

These include changes in the political, legislative, and regulatory environment, alongside technological developments, external interference, and challenges experienced by staff and students. The University therefore needs to be equipped to anticipate potential challenges, understand their implications for research, teaching, and wider university life, and take informed, proportionate action to sustain a vibrant, diverse academic community in which staff and students can pursue knowledge, explore and challenge ideas, and engage constructively with differing perspectives.

Challenges to academic freedom and freedom of expression do not always appear as isolated incidents. They can reflect wider developments affecting research, teaching, the expression of ideas, and the institutional independence needed to pursue knowledge.

McEwan Hall ceiling

Why this matters

Responding only when controversies arise can make it harder to recognise patterns or anticipate future challenges. A systematic approach makes it possible to evaluate evidence, consider risks, and exercise informed institutional judgement.

From responding to individual controversies towards anticipating challenges and strengthening institutional preparedness. The goal is not to predict every event, but to develop better institutional awareness and the capacity to act.

What we did

The Challenges Workstream developed a Typology of Challenges to Academic Freedom and Freedom of Expression, drawing on evidence about contemporary challenges in higher education and beyond.

Academic Freedom Typology of Challenges

The Typology creates a shared analytical framework, organising challenges according to how they arise, who or what may generate them, and which people or activities they affect. It was supported by an evidence base and illustrative worked examples.

The Typology is descriptive, not predictive: it helps the University recognise patterns and consider implications, rather than prescribe how particular challenges should be addressed.

Building on this work, the programme designed an annual horizon-scanning and risk-assessment cycle to structurally embed the framework within the University's established governance and risk-management arrangements, connecting evidence with institutional evaluation, proportionate action, and accountability.

The annual horizon-scanning process

Each year, a five-stage process connects understanding of the external and internal landscape to institutional judgement, proportionate action and accountability.

1. Annual horizon scanning

Gather international, national, regulatory, University and research evidence to identify potential challenges.

2. Use the Typology

Apply the Typology to categorise the evolving landscape of challenges to academic freedom and freedom of expression.

3. Prioritise through the risk lens

Prioritise evidence through the lens of the University's institutional Risk Appetite Framework.

4. Evaluate and recommend action

Exercise informed judgement and recommend proportionate actions to address priority challenges.

5. Take forward and report

Assign actions to existing University structures, monitor progress and report through established governance arrangements.

Students walking down corridor

What difference is this intended to make?

  • Earlier awareness and better judgement: Together, these arrangements strengthen the University's institutional capacity for anticipation, informed judgement, and proportionate action, supporting a more considered and consistent approach to emerging challenges.
  • Bringing perspectives and evidence together: Together, these arrangements bring together the perspectives and expertise of staff and students, academic and professional services colleagues, and student and trade union representatives, informed by research evidence, regulatory developments, and institutional experience. This collaborative approach enables emerging challenges to be considered from different perspectives, supporting informed institutional judgement and proportionate action.

Insitutional ownership going forward

  • Senior lead: University Secretary
  • Proposed specialist function: Academic Freedom and Freedom of Expression Risk Advisory Group
  • Existing governance route: Risk Management Committee and established risk processes
  • Action owners: Relevant Schools, services, and University functions

Useful links

Challenges Workstream: Terms of Reference

Challenges Business-As-Usual Governance Framework

Challenges Governance Framework Worked Examples

Our story: 2023-2026

This article was published on