This clearly demonstrates enhancing student well-being through targeted action based on confidential feedback. As Lia Lawson emphasised, with confidential data “we’re targeting those students indicating a need and giving them relevant information,” compared to generic information sent to all students based on anonymous feedback.

Under the OfS framework, institutions should ensure that they use student feedback to tackle issues such as harassment, mental health concerns and barriers to academic success. Confidential surveys give universities the ability to address these issues more effectively by enabling follow-up actions with individual students who may be at risk or have reported harassment. Furthermore, institutions are increasingly linking confidential survey data to strategic goals and other regulatory requirements; Ravinder Bassi, Student Engagement and Enhancement Manager at Middlesex University, for instance, explicitly cited the potential to use module survey analysis to gain a better understanding to support APP and use module survey data “as proxy indicators for NSS” as drivers for transitioning their module evaluations to a confidential format.

Anti-harassment policies, which require universities to maintain safe and supportive environments for all students, further necessitate the use of mechanisms that allow institutions to respond meaningfully to reports of harassment or discrimination. E6 specifically mandates that providers must have clear and accessible reporting mechanisms for students to report instances of harassment and sexual misconduct; confidential surveys can act as one valuable channel within this broader framework of required disclosure routes. While anonymous surveys can give institutions a broad understanding of the prevalence of these issues, confidential surveys enable universities to intervene directly and offer support to students who may need it most.

However, this approach must be balanced with the need to protect student privacy and avoid any appearance of punitive action based on survey responses. E6 requires appropriate training for staff involved in handling incidents of harassment and sexual misconduct. Confidential surveys can play a crucial role in providing data to inform and improve such training. In the same vein, confidential surveys also enable universities to follow up with individual students in cases of abusive comments about staff. Thankfully, in my long experience of working with student surveys, these incidents are very rare occurrences. Paula Bushby, Academic Quality Manager from the University of Derby, concurs:

Student mistrust concerning confidential surveys is often rooted in high expectations of confidentiality when disclosing information (Appelbaum and Zaitsoff, 2008) and anxieties shaped by the inherent power dynamics between students and the institution (Osuna, Cobbina-Dungy and Moylan, 2023). This mistrust isn’t unfounded; it can be amplified by students’ perceptions or experiences of past “unfair practices“ (even if unrelated to surveys specifically), leading to legitimate fears that identifiable feedback could lead to retaliation or negative consequences (HeartCount, 2024). Fear of identification, particularly on sensitive topics, can significantly hinder honest feedback (Azam et al., 2021). Research comparing survey methods suggests anonymous approaches may yield higher disclosure rates for sensitive information, implying concerns about confidentiality might inhibit responses (Murdoch et al., 2014). Therefore, acknowledging the student position within the university power structure and demonstrating trustworthy, ethical data handling are crucial to overcoming scepticism potentially fuelled by past negative experiences (Osuna, Cobbina-Dungy and Moylan, 2023; Scheid, 2019).

The specific ways in which such student mistrust manifests can differ significantly, and resistance can vary depending on the survey’s context. As Lia Lawson at Middlesex University observed, “the use of confidential surveys through pre-arrival and welcome have never been challenged by Faculty colleagues. But with module surveys, there was strong opinion as to whether they should be confidential.” Concerns raised during the module survey transition, according to Ravinder Bassi, included potential impacts on response rates – “some of key concerns… were potential impact on response rates” – and how data would be used. Indeed, some staff may perceive centrally mandated surveys as an imposition regardless of confidentiality, highlighting the need for strong institutional rationale and clear communication of benefits.

While there is no published evidence documenting widespread resistance from Student Unions specifically against confidential surveys, anecdotal experience suggests their potential advocacy for student privacy and protection is a crucial consideration. Student Unions may favour anonymous feedback mechanisms as they appear to offer stronger guarantees against potential identification risks. This stance aligns with the unions’ fundamental role in safeguarding students from any perceived risks associated with identification (Kent Students’ Union, 2024). Therefore, institutions transitioning towards confidentiality often find it necessary to engage proactively with their Student Unions to address potential concerns and co-develop processes ensuring student protection, as evidenced by the experiences at Middlesex and Derby. For instance, Derby actively engaged with the Student Union, involving them in the design and implementation of the surveys. This collaborative approach helped address concerns and foster a sense of ownership, ultimately contributing to the success of the transition.

It’s important to note that transitioning to confidential surveys does not necessarily negatively impact response rates or the nature of student feedback. Research indicates that response rates often remain stable or even increase, likely due to the increased focus on student engagement and wellbeing that accompanies this shift. For instance, the University of Derby saw a significant increase in response rates after moving to confidential surveys, rising from 18% to 40%. Furthermore, rather than assuming students possess an inherent comfort with digital accountability, research indicates their willingness to participate honestly in confidential feedback processes is highly conditional on trusting the institution’s data protection measures (Kirlappos, Clarke and Nurse, 2024; Scheid, 2019).

Students expect privacy and need assurance that their confidentiality will be rigorously maintained (Appelbaum and Zaitsoff, 2008). Comfort is fostered not by accountability itself, but by institutional transparency regarding data usage, robust security safeguards, clear limitations on data access and demonstrated ethical handling, ensuring identifiable data is protected and used only for its stated purpose (Lehigh University, n.d.; University of Oxford, n.d.). Concerns about privacy are significant, to the extent that some students might avoid services if they fear their data will not remain confidential (Cheng et al., 1993). Paula Bushby explains:

“Very occasionally, we receive an email from a student asking about confidentiality of the surveys, and they’re usually satisfied with the responses that they receive.”

The fact that Derby response rates rose from 18% to 40% supports the argument that confidential surveys, when implemented transparently and effectively, do not necessarily deter students from participating.

Student Unions play a critical role in representing the interests of the student body and can be strong advocates for or against changes in survey practices. To gain their support and foster wider student ownership, universities should consider involving not only Student Unions but also engaging students more broadly as partners in the design and implementation of confidential surveys.

By partnering with Union representatives, institutions can co-develop survey frameworks that address privacy concerns and ensure that data is handled responsibly. Both the University of Derby and Middlesex University engaged with their respective Student Unions during their transition processes. Derby involved the Student Union actively in design and implementation, while Middlesex consulted with their Student Union, giving them the opportunity described by Ravinder Bassi to “contribute and shape the approach taken and be transparent with students about the use of their data.

Open dialogue with Student Unions, including addressing their specific concerns about confidentiality and data misuse, is essential. Engaging them as partners rather than adversaries helps build trust and increases the likelihood that the student body will participate fully and honestly in the surveys.

Transparency is key to building student trust. Universities should aim to clearly communicate how survey data will be used, who will have access to it and the steps taken to protect student privacy. This includes explaining the limited circumstances under which confidential data may be accessed, such as in cases of serious harassment or when a student is at risk. Clear communication should also outline how confidential surveys are different from anonymous ones, emphasising that confidential surveys are designed to provide better support and not to punish students for their feedback.

Transparency was a cornerstone of Derby’s approach. They prioritised clear communication with students, explaining the reasons for the change, how data would be used, and the safeguards in place to protect privacy. This open communication helped build trust and address student anxieties. Demonstrating responsiveness also builds trust; at Middlesex University, as Lia Lawson described,

“in the pre-arrival survey it’s personalised. The feedback loop is closed almost instantly because of the way we’ve delivered the survey and targeted follow up information “.

Additionally, universities should make it clear that survey responses are entirely separate from academic grading processes, and that teaching staff will not have access to individual responses linking feedback to specific students. This reassurance is vital for students who fear that providing negative feedback could result in academic retaliation.

To further alleviate concerns, universities should implement robust safeguards to protect students participating in confidential surveys. These include strict data access controls, ensuring that only a small group of trained professionals can access confidential information, and separating survey data from academic records.

At Middlesex University, Ravinder Bassi emphasised the robust approach as being “strict about access to the survey results. It’s a very small team, essentially, a handful of super users who actually undertake the analysis“, ensuring module leaders and other academic staff only see aggregated results for the demographic analysis dashboards, which use thresholds to ensure anonymised results.

Universities should also adopt anonymisation techniques and apply reporting thresholds in their reporting dashboards and outputs, ensuring that responses are aggregated in a way that prevents individuals from being identified, especially in smaller cohorts. By emphasising these safeguards, universities can reassure students that their privacy is protected and that the purpose of confidential surveys is to support students.

The role of technology in ensuring confidentiality

Beyond policy and principle, technology plays a crucial role in facilitating the secure and responsible implementation of confidential surveys. Modern survey platforms offer a range of features specifically designed to address data protection concerns and build student trust. Investing in such technology aligns with OfS condition B2, which emphasises the importance of providing sufficient resources and support to ensure a high-quality academic experience for students.

For instance, evasys software incorporates robust data protection measures directly into its functionality. Student data is protected through encryption both in transit and at rest, ensuring confidentiality throughout the survey process. Granular access controls within the evasys system guarantee that only authorised personnel can view sensitive information, further mitigating any risk of unintended exposure. Moreover, evasys employs data segregation, keeping survey responses strictly separate from academic records to prevent any linkage that could compromise student privacy. The platform also includes anonymisation tools, enabling institutions to share aggregated insights without revealing individual student identities, facilitating transparency while preserving confidentiality. Critically, evasys is fully compliant with all relevant data protection regulations, such as GDPR, providing universities with the assurance that their survey practices meet the highest legal and ethical standards. By leveraging such technology, institutions can confidently transition to confidential surveys, knowing they have the tools to safeguard student privacy and maintain the trust placed in them.

The role of leadership: courage and commitment

Transitioning to confidential surveys benefits from institutional leadership acting courageously in the face of potential resistance and uncertainty. Leadership prepared to make difficult decisions, balancing the need for actionable data with the concerns of students and staff about privacy and trust, is advantageous. This process is enhanced by transparency, accountability and a clear commitment to student well-being.

Strong leadership was instrumental in Derby’s successful transition. The university secured support from senior leaders and academics early on, framing the change as part of a broader strategy to enhance student well-being and engagement. Similarly, the move to confidential module surveys at Middlesex University required navigating institutional governance, involving consultation with faculty leadership, academic staff and Students’ Union before securing approval from the Learning and Teaching Committee, underpinned by support at Pro Vice-Chancellor level. This top-down support helped drive the initiative forward and overcome potential obstacles.

Championing the transition

University leaders can champion the shift to confidential surveys by framing it as part of a broader strategy to enhance student and staff safety and well-being. Leadership should communicate the long-term benefits of this approach, including better support for students at risk and more effective responses to harassment and discrimination. By positioning the transition as a positive step aligned with institutional values and regulatory expectations, leaders can help alleviate fears and encourage buy-in from all stakeholders.

Taking accountability for survey outcomes

Leaders play a key role in ensuring that confidential surveys are used responsibly, with clear procedures in place to act on the feedback gathered. This includes taking ownership of the process, ensuring that follow-up actions – such as support for students in distress or investigations into harassment claims – are handled with sensitivity and professionalism.

Institutional leadership should also aim to publicly share aggregated survey results and demonstrate how student feedback has led to real, tangible improvements within the institution. A key marker of success noted by Ravinder Bassi at Middlesex was when staff actively responded to students and ‘closed the feedback loop’ on module surveys:

“Closing the loop via evasys+ was a game changer. Responses to students were provided for approximately 88% of module surveys so, students could see that staff valued their feedback. This helped to build trust in student feedback mechanisms and how we listen to students’ voices.”

Building a culture of trust

Perhaps most importantly, we can all work to build a culture of trust within the institution. This means not only ensuring that student privacy is respected, but also fostering an environment where students feel confident that their voices will be heard and acted upon. Trust is built through consistent, transparent communication, as well as by demonstrating that student feedback leads to meaningful institutional change.

The University of Derby’s experience provides a compelling case study of a successful transition to confidential student surveys.

Initially, the university faced challenges with low response rates and inconsistent data usage from traditional anonymous surveys. The shift towards online surveys raised concerns about accessibility for work-based and online learners, and the limitations of anonymous surveys hindered the ability to follow up on individual student concerns or address sensitive issues effectively.

The move towards confidential surveys, facilitated by the adoption of the evasys survey platform, aligned with the university’s commitment to enhancing student engagement and well-being, as well as meeting the regulatory requirements of the OfS. The platform’s enhanced features, such as single sign-on functionality, personalised automated emails and improved reporting capabilities, were crucial in facilitating this shift.

The transition was not without its challenges. Student mistrust and concerns about privacy were prevalent, and the student union initially resisted the change. Ensuring the true confidentiality of student responses was paramount. To address these challenges, the University of Derby adopted a multi-pronged approach:

Middlesex University’s journey towards confidential student surveys illustrates a phased implementation, highlighting different stakeholder reactions and strategic drivers depending on the survey’s purpose.

Unlike many institutions grappling with the anonymous versus confidential debate across the board, Middlesex implemented confidential surveys from the outset for their pre-arrival surveys. This decision was driven by a clear strategic goal: to use the surveys proactively to support student transition and wellbeing, and to gain a better understanding of students’ experiences in order to identify ways of supporting students (such as initiatives reflected in APP). Because the focus was explicitly on support, there was minimal resistance to this approach from Faculty colleagues.

The benefits of confidentiality in this context were quickly realised. In one notable instance, the disability support team used comments from the confidential pre-arrival survey to identify and proactively reach out to nearly 100 students indicating a potential need. This, alongside other outreach activity, resulted in a more than 200% increase in the number of learning support plans approved early in the academic year (by October), theoretically improving those students’ chances of success by providing timely support. Furthermore, the university implemented systems to provide personalised information back to students based on their survey responses, closing the feedback loop almost instantly and demonstrating responsiveness from day one.

The move to make module evaluation surveys confidential, however, faced more debate. While pre-arrival confidentiality was accepted as primarily supportive, concerns around module evaluations included potential impacts on response rates and fears among some staff about receiving personalised negative feedback.

Drivers for this change included the desire for a holistic view of the student journey by linking survey data across different touchpoints and the ability to conduct more granular analysis by student characteristics and demographics.

Middlesex addressed concerns through careful planning and consultation:

While it is still early days for confidential module evaluations (having only completed one cycle at the time of discussion), the university believes the benefits outweigh the initial concerns. The ability to link confidential module feedback with pre-arrival data, demographic information and, eventually, attainment data is seen as crucial for understanding student progression, supporting APP objectives and potentially developing predictive analytics.

Key lessons from Middlesex include: