Does compassion have to end where compliance begins? Cultures of compliance and compassion don’t have to be mutually exclusive 

This blog was kindly authored by Megan Brown, Quality Enhancement Manager at the Quality Assurance Agency. 

All of us in further and higher education sometimes need to have difficult conversations. Sensitive discussions take place every day in our colleges and universities related to mitigating circumstances, reasonable adjustments, harassment and abuse, appeals and complaints, conduct concerns, fitness to practise or study, finance issues, and progression, continuation and awarding decisions. 

These conversations have the potential to significantly impact a student’s wellbeing, academic journey and educational outcomes. We therefore all have a responsibility to consider how best to communicate with our students in ways which embed compassion across our institutions. To communicate compassionately does not mean an ‘over-softening’ of language. On the contrary, compassion is a necessary tool to convey challenging news effectively, and clarity and transparency are both essential components of compassionate communication. 

This has been a key finding of our recent research into this area of institutional practice. As part of our ongoing National Review of Awarding Arrangements at Scottish providers, commissioned by the SFC, QAA Scotland is publishing a set of resources to support the sector to deliver compassionate communication, including a report based on a series of roundtable events with 218 students and staff from 39 institutions.  

Our communications with students may at times result from the need to comply with institutional regulations, legal obligations, and the requirements of government departments, public funding organisations and professional, statutory and regulatory bodies (PSRBs). During our roundtable events, staff highlighted a tension between compliance and compassion, with challenges to remaining compassionate while also complying with the requirements of institutions, external bodies and government processes. Yet our communications with our students should not, in practice, have to play out this apparent conflict.

Ensuring that students have immediate access to support services at the time of receiving difficult news, and individually tailoring such communications to students in more vulnerable groups (including international students, care-experienced and estranged students, neurodivergent students and students experiencing mental health challenges or in distress), does not conflict with obligations to comply with, for example, the requirements of a PSRB, UKVI, or an institution’s own academic regulations. Nor would it be non-compliant to ensure that colleagues are properly supported and trained in person-centred, trauma-informed and psychologically safe approaches, and that the mechanisms of compassionate communication and student support are appropriately resourced.  

There are times when there may be conflicts within an institution’s various compliance obligations. For example, confidentiality and data protection responsibilities may be set against the need, in response to serious concerns about student safety or mental health, to involve parents, carers or relevant third parties (as identified, for example, by Universities UK, and in ongoing deliberations as to a statutory duty of care for providers). Participants at our roundtables highlighted the need for institutional processes which ask every student to identify a contact at the very start of their time at the institution, who can subsequently be notified if a staff member has a significant concern about their welfare.

There also remain areas in which formal compliance obligations may continue to clash with the ethics and ethos of compassionate communication practices. Participants in our discussions, for example, described the challenge of communicating with students in situations where specific wording is mandatory or legally required, as this wording can be perceived by some students as cold, unsupportive or hostile. 

In response, some colleagues have introduced in-person meetings with students ahead of sending written communications, in order to explain outcomes in a more personalised way and to offer opportunities to ask questions face to face. Others have added supplementary wording before and after the mandatory text they are required to send, to give a more individualised touch to correspondence. 

Our participants suggested that sector bodies and regulators could also usefully learn from these areas of effective practice which have been developed by institutions. Although the practices of external bodies can sometimes be perceived as fixed and unchangeable, many of our participants felt that, just as the culture of compassion is being embedded into our colleges and universities, this cultural shift can also transfer to national bodies, regulators, PSRBs and government departments. 

Our participants emphasised the need for institutions to embed this ‘culture of compassion’ across their whole organisation, with institution-wide commitments articulated and modelled by senior leaders. This sets an example to all colleagues that an approach based in compassion and empathy is not a matter of sheltering students from the ‘real world’, but in fact prepares students for a world of professional and social interaction which puts increasing emphasis on the crucial value of these qualities.

A further recurring theme which emerged from our discussions was the need to ensure that compassionate systems are in place to underpin strategies of compassionate communication. In short, we can be as compassionate as possible in communications, but if the systems, policies and processes are not in themselves compassionate – both internally and externally – then such exercises will prove futile.  

Our compassionate communication initiative will, through the course of this academic year, roll out a suite of resources to support the sector in the enhancement of institutional approaches to compassionate communication, including a student co-creation toolkit and customisable training materials.   

There is no one way to approach compassionate communication and providers will want to adopt strategies that best suit their own contexts. Many colleges and universities already demonstrate innovative and effective practice in this area, and our project is intended to support continuous enhancement by building on these strong foundations. 

Done well, a compassionate approach can enhance student wellbeing, increase engagement with services, support earlier intervention, enable students to make more informed decisions, enhance students’ sense of belonging, and, crucially, reduce harm and distress. By making the choice to prioritise compassion, institutions can cultivate a culture of empathy, in which all members of an institution’s community are recognised as individuals deserving of care, respect and understanding.