Data doesn’t just describe what’s happening in our institutions. It also shapes it. What we choose to measure – and what we don’t – tells staff and students what really matters. Over time, those choices create culture and direction, even when no one has explicitly set out to do so.
Think of it as a compass: if you’re measuring only one landmark, you’ll keep walking toward it, whether or not it’s where you intended to go. The danger comes when the measures themselves become the goal, and we lose sight of the bigger picture.
When the data changes the behaviour
One university I worked with began collecting attendance data with the intention of reducing withdrawals. The logic was straightforward: spot the absences early, intervene, and support students before they dropped out. But what happened was more complex. Students who were going to disengage anyway continued to do so, but their non-attendance was noticed and withdrawals were processed instead of them being left on the books all year. Withdrawals went up, but the exam board profiles at the end of the year actually looked better as there were less empty profiles of assessments.
The institution changed tack. They stopped making attendance the headline metric and instead turned their attention to outcomes and engagement. This subtle shift reframed the conversation with students. It moved away from “reduce withdrawals” to “support those who want to engage” – and the culture followed.
What you measure is what you value
Higher education is full of measures. Some of them are set externally: funding bodies, regulators, league tables. Others are chosen internally: institutional KPIs, survey targets, departmental dashboards. Collectively, they send a strong signal.
But what happens when those signals conflict with what students and staff actually care about? I’ve seen cases where institutions pour resources into improving metrics that matter to league tables, while side-lining the very things that come up in real-time student feedback – things like the quality of support services, timeliness of feedback on assignments, or the sense of belonging in the classroom.
The result is predictable: staff chase the numbers they’re told to chase, while students feel their voices are ignored. Slowly, the institution drifts toward performing for rankings rather than listening to its community. The cultural direction has been set, but not intentionally.
The hidden assumptions in your data
Every metric carries an assumption. Attendance assumes that being in the room equals learning. League tables assume that employability is best captured by graduate salary. Student satisfaction surveys assume that ticking boxes captures the lived experience of learning.
None of these assumptions are inherently wrong. The problem arises when they’re unexamined. When we let the metric stand in for the value, we stop asking the deeper question: is this really what matters most?
Using data to align culture with values
If data is going to act as direction, we need to be intentional about what it’s pointing us toward. That means asking three simple but challenging questions:
- What do our current measures say we value?
- Do those values align with the culture we want to build?
- Where are the gaps – the things our students and staff tell us matter, but we aren’t measuring?
These questions aren’t about throwing away the metrics we’re obliged to report. Compliance will always be part of the picture. But they are about reclaiming space for values-driven measurement. Data can still provide accountability, but it can also reflect care, inclusion, and purpose – if we let it.
A challenge for higher education
The next time you’re presented with a dashboard or KPI set, ask yourself: what direction is this pointing us in? Are we happy with the destination? Or are we at risk of following the numbers into a culture we never intended to create?
Because data doesn’t just tell the story of where we’ve been. It’s quietly shaping the story of where we’re going.