What’s a technician worth at your institution? A league table of technical salaries in the UK

As a former technician, manager of technical teams, and director of a university technical department, I am acutely aware of the differences and sensitivities surrounding the salaries and benefits of academic and technical staff in higher education (HE). Indeed, in a recent Unite survey of workplace priorities 52% of technicians highlighted pay as their highest priority.

While there are legitimate arguments, complaints, and disparities regarding reward and recognition, it’s important to recognise that academic and technical roles are fundamentally different (albeit with contested and converging responsibilities relating to teaching and learning). An aspect that is less easily understood is why there is such significant variation in technician salaries across institutions, for seemingly equal work.

Equal work for equal pay

Before exploring this point, it is helpful to define what ‘equal work’ means in law. Guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission stipulates that there are three kinds of equal work:

• ‘like work’ is the same or broadly similar. It involves similar tasks which require similar knowledge and skills, and any differences in the work are not of practical importance.
• ‘work rated as equivalent’ has been rated under a valid job evaluation scheme as being of equal value in terms of how demanding it is.
• ‘work of equal value’ is not similar and has not been rated as equivalent, but is of equal value in terms of demands such as effort, skill and decision-making.

It is commonplace to see multiple technician vacancies advertised concurrently by different providers, often with identical job titles, comparable job descriptions and person specifications, but attracting very different salaries. While these may appear to meet the criteria of equal work set out above, this form of salary variation is not a legal issue. ‘Equal pay for equal work’ legislation relates to discriminatory practice within an employer (as per The Equality Act 2010). But, the underlying moral principle of equal work for technicians should, in theory at least, be visible at the sector level. If providers require technical staff to do comparable work, it seems reasonable that there should be a fair explanation for any price differences. Transparency in this regard matters, both from a sector perspective, where quality, equity, and value for money are priorities for senior leaders, and for technicians, whose contribution should be fairly and appropriately recognised and rewarded.

An example from the field

I remember advertising for a technician tutor role (fashion production) to join my team in 2023, with a salary of £29,605 – £32,982. I was passionate that we should strive to attract the very best applicants, but a near-identical role was being advertised at another provider in the same region at the same time, with a salary of £38,359 – £47,109, which was 43% above what I was offering. It came as little surprise when I was unable to attract the standard of applicants I’d hoped for, or indeed, been able to fill the vacancy at the first, second, or even third attempt. This wasn’t an isolated incident (it happened a lot, across different disciplines and campuses), or limited to my institution (others in my network were reporting similar challenges compounded by elevated responsibilities and expectations of technicians, but declining (in real terms) and non-competitive salaries).

These situations were frustrating at the vacancy and team levels, but the broader trend was significant at the institutional and national levels (as I would learn through my doctoral research). To examine it at an institutional level, I extracted the metrics from the university recruitment system. Analysis demonstrated that the volume of unsuccessful recruitment (roles advertised but not filled) had risen significantly in the last decade, almost tenfold. In one full academic year (2023-24), 69% of my attempts to recruit to technical vacancies failed to result in an appointment. My colleagues in HR estimated that each vacancy incurred costs of around £5k (staff time, resources, advertising, and processing). There were often vacancy savings to offset and mask the cost of failed recruitment, but this wasn’t always the case, and additional expense could be incurred due to the need to contract expensive agency cover.

Though the inefficiency wasn’t just financial; unfruitful recruitment campaigns consumed the time and morale of all involved, including the technicians who had to cover their absent colleagues’ duties for months at a time, the recruiting managers, and HR teams who supported the processes, academic teams who needed the teaching hours, specialist skills, and support, and of course the students, whose education, experiences, and satisfaction were impacted.

Problematic recruitment was intensified by high staff turnover. There’s always an element of staff churn and natural wastage as people retire or move on in their careers, which is healthy, but with around 20% of the technical workforce leaving annually, it placed additional burden upon an increasingly inefficient recruitment process.

Exit interviews surfaced a breadth of threads, with one of the most prominent being that staff were leaving simply because they were seeking higher salaries. In years gone by, the technicians in my team would point to better-paid roles in industry, but they generally accepted that it was not a fair comparison. Additionally, the benefits of working in HE (development, annual leave, pension, autonomy, and so on) often went a considerable distance in mitigating minor salary shortfalls. However, more recently it became clear that we were losing excellent technicians that we’d appointed, onboarded, and developed, to competitor universities for more or less the same job, with equivalent benefits, but for marginally higher pay, which felt incredibly wasteful.

In this blog post, I examine the phenomenon of technician pay variance and, following HE style conventions, present the findings in a league table format.

Data collection

The idea for this blog came to me while writing up my PhD thesis that explored how arts technicians conceive of their pedagogies. To inform my research I completed a five-year (2017-2022) desktop survey of job vacancies (via jobs.ac.uk). I set up weekly email alerts and collected thousands of advertisements, job descriptions, person specifications, and applicant packs. My aim was to document and compare the learning and teaching responsibilities of technician roles as outlined in their employers’ expectations, specifically through the qualifications, skills, competencies, knowledge, characteristics, and personal qualities specified as essential and desirable.

Most vacancies required an undergraduate degree (or equivalent) as a minimum, with postgraduate qualifications preferred. Many also stipulated a requirement for a teaching qualification or willingness to obtain one, as well as ‘industry-standard’ knowledge and experience. I discuss the findings of this survey in my upcoming book ‘Technical Teaching in Higher Education: Insights from the Creative Arts’ publishing in summer 2026 (more on that soon).

However, something that I also collected, by accident rather than intent, was a massive volume of salary information. I didn’t talk about it in my thesis, or my book because I deemed it unrelated to the research topic, but, it subsequently occurred to me that the resulting dataset offered a credible and empirical basis that I could use to chart technician salaries at different institutions.

To expand the sample in advance of this post I sourced additional vacancies from across a broader range of subjects and institutions in early 2026 and have incorporated them.

Data analysis

I developed a framework for analysis based on my research interests: the pedagogical contribution of technicians. I categorised the vacancies approximated to the three technical grades in my former team. In brief, these included:

Level 1 – Reactive support:
Immediate, transactional supervision, support, and advice at the point of need (service delivery rather than curriculum delivery), often one-to-one, and via counter services (e.g., issuing/receiving equipment).

Level 2 – Planned inductions and introductions:
Pre-planned introductions that develop safe and competent use of equipment, processes or facilities (e.g., inductions and demonstrations).

Level 3 – Curriculum-aligned, progressive teaching:
Progressively developmental skills-based teaching aligned to unit outcomes and assessment criteria, sometimes co-designed with academic teams, focused on learner development and application of knowledge.

While these interpretations are far from perfect and have indistinct and permeable boundaries, they provide three qualitatively distinct remits where teaching and learning activities are 1. Reactive, 2. Planned in relation to a tool, equipment, technique, or process, 3. Progressively developmental skills teaching in accordance with the academic requirements of the curriculum. I should also note that the levels used in my analysis are not necessarily hierarchical in the broader remit of the responsibilities. Many technician vacancies are research focussed rather than educational (particularly in STEM disciplines), and therefore, roles classified as level 1 in pedagogic terms may include elevated competencies and responsibilities in other areas and be remunerated as such.

A league table of UK technician salaries

The table below presents vacancies in descending order based upon the salary mid point, with sub-tables of the three levels located in the appendix of this post

	INSTITUTION	ROLE	DATE	BASE	TOP	MIDPOINT	PEDAGOGIC REMIT
1	University of Nottingham	Advanced Technical Specialist	2026	46,049	58,225	52,137	Curriculum-aligned
2	Ravensbourne University	Lead Technician	2021	47,404	51,539	49,427	Curriculum-aligned
3	University of the Arts London	Lead Specialist Technician	2021	44,609	53,519	49,064	Curriculum-aligned
4	Royal College of Art	Specialist Technical Instructor	2026	44,693	48,269	46,481	Curriculum-aligned
5	University of the Arts London	Specialist Technician	2026	40,199	49,072	44,636	Curriculum-aligned
6	Royal Holloway University	Technician	2021	40,810	48,222	44,516	Curriculum-aligned
7	University of Westminster	Technician	2026	41,086	46,542	43,814	Planned workshops
8	Imperial College London	Technician	2026	41,005	45,616	43,311	Reactive support
9	University of Hertfordshire	Technician	2020	39,377	46,979	43,178	Curriculum-aligned
10	Cardiff Metropolitan University	Technical Demonstrator	2026	39,906	44,746	42,326	Curriculum-aligned
11	Solent University	Technical Instructor	2021	38,962	45,197	42,080	Curriculum-aligned
12	The Royal School for Speech and Drama	Technician	2022	39,401	43,615	41,508	Planned workshops
13	University of Roehampton	Technician	2026	38,971	43,020	40,996	Reactive support
14	Goldsmiths	Technician Tutor	2026	39,297	42,473	40,885	Curriculum-aligned
15	Loughborough University	Technical Tutor	2026	35,608	46,049	40,829	Curriculum-aligned
16	Brunel University London	Senior Technician	2026	34,145	38,638	36,392	Reactive support
17	University of Southampton	Technician	2026	36,636	44,746	40,691	Reactive support
18	University of West London	Technical Demonstrator	2021	37,854	43,423	40,639	Curriculum-aligned
19	London Southbank University	Technician	2026	37,228	42,842	40,035	Planned workshops
20	Queen Mary University of London	Lab Technician	2026	40,015	40,015	40,015	Reactive support
21	Regent College London	Technician	2026	40,000	40,000	40,000	Reactive support
22	London Metropolitan University	Technical Demonstrator	2026	36,345	43,110	39,728	Curriculum-aligned
23	University College London	Technician	2026	36,433	41,833	39,133	Reactive support
24	Royal College of Art	Technical Instructor	2021	36,073	41,322	38,698	Curriculum-aligned
25	University of Essex	Technical Supervisor	2019	36,982	40,394	38,688	Planned workshops
26	Arizona State University London	Technician	2026	36,000	41,000	38,500	Planned workshops
27	Oxford Brookes University	Technician	2026	36,636	39,906	38,271	Reactive support
28	University of the Arts London	Support Technician	2026	34,436	41,196	37,816	Reactive support
29	University of Bristol	Specialist Technician	2026	35,608	39,906	37,757	Reactive support
30	Coventry University	Technical Skills Instructor	2019	31,939	42,855	37,397	Curriculum-aligned
31	University of Edinburgh	Technician	2026	34,610	39,906	37,258	Planned workshops
32	University of Plymouth	Senior Technician	2026	35,608	38,784	37,196	Reactive support
33	University of Cambridge	Laboratory Technician	2026	33,951	39,906	36,929	Reactive support
34	University of Leeds	Senior Research Technician	2026	33,951	39,906	36,929	Reactive support
35	Northumbria University	Senior Technician	2020	33,267	40,431	36,849	Curriculum-aligned
36	University of the West of England	Senior Teaching Technician	2026	34,610	38,784	36,697	Curriculum-aligned
37	Ravensbourne University	Technical Tutor	2021	36,340	36,340	36,340	Planned workshops
38	University of Staffordshire	Technical Specialist	2021	33,636	38,962	36,299	Curriculum-aligned
39	Kingston University	Technician	2026	34,007	38,471	36,239	Planned workshops
40	Swansea University	Senior Technician	2026	34,132	38,249	36,191	Reactive support
41	University of Hull	Senior Technician	2026	33,002	38,784	35,893	Planned workshops
42	University of Glasgow	Technician	2026	33,951	37,694	35,823	Reactive support
43	University of Salford	Technical Demonstrator	2026	33,951	37,694	35,823	Planned workshops
44	University of Bedfordshire	Technician	2026	32,080	38,748	35,414	Reactive support
45	Norwich University of the Arts	Senior Technician	2025	33,002	37,694	35,348	Curriculum-aligned
46	University of Northampton	Technical Demonstrator	2021	31,716	38,962	35,339	Curriculum-aligned
47	Arts University Bournemouth	Senior Technician	2026	35,116	35,116	35,116	Curriculum-aligned
48	University of Gloucestershire	Technical Demonstrator	2026	32,080	37,694	34,887	Curriculum-aligned
49	University of Greenwich	Technical Demonstrator	2026	32,080	37,694	34,887	Curriculum-aligned
50	Middlesex University London	Technician	2020	32,975	36,744	34,860	Curriculum-aligned
51	Falmouth University	Senior Technician	2026	33,002	36,636	34,819	Planned workshops
52	University of Aberdeen	Technician	2026	33,002	36,636	34,819	Reactive support
53	University of Strathclyde	Technician	2026	33,002	36,636	34,819	Reactive support
54	Bath Spa University	Technical Demonstrator	2021	31,716	37,832	34,774	Planned workshops
55	University of Huddersfield	Technician	2022	31,203	38,335	34,769	Planned workshops
56	University of Oxford	Technician	2026	32,108	37,338	34,723	Reactive support
57	Durham University	Technician	2026	31,236	37,694	34,465	Reactive support
58	Edinburgh Napier University	Technician	2026	31,236	37,694	34,465	Planned workshops
59	University of Bath	Technical Specialist	2026	31,236	37,694	34,465	Planned workshops
60	University of Reading	Technician	2026	31,236	37,694	34,465	Reactive support
61	University of Stirling	Technician	2026	31,236	37,694	34,465	Reactive support
62	Sheffield Hallum	Technical Specialist	2022	30,920	37,985	34,453	Planned workshops
63	Anglia Ruskin University	Technical Officer	2019	31,366	37,412	34,389	Planned workshops
64	University of York	Technician	2026	32,080	36,636	34,358	Reactive support
65	University of Leeds	Technician and designer	2021	31,247	37,274	34,261	Planned workshops
66	Glasgow School of Art	Technician	2021	31,716	36,736	34,226	Planned workshops
67	University of Debry	Technical Instructor	2018	32,487	35,715	34,101	Curriculum-aligned
68	University of Dundee	Technician	2026	30,805	37,174	33,990	Reactive support
69	University of Surrey	Technician	2026	32,080	35,608	33,844	Planned workshops
70	Bournemouth University	Technical Demonstrator	2021	29,918	37,526	33,722	Curriculum-aligned
71	University of Sussex	Technical Demonstrator	2019	31,005	35,911	33,458	Planned workshops
72	University of Cambridge	Technician	2026	31,236	35,608	33,422	Planned workshops
73	University of Chester	Senior Technician	2026	32,080	34,610	33,345	Planned workshops
74	University of Nottingham	Senior Teaching technician	2026	29,740	36,446	33,093	Curriculum-aligned
75	University of Brighton	Technical Demonstrator	2020	31,126	35,007	33,067	Curriculum-aligned
76	Manchester Metropolitan University	Technical Officer	2026	31,236	34,610	32,923	Planned workshops
77	University for the Creative Arts	Technical Tutor	2026	31,236	34,610	32,923	Curriculum-aligned
78	University of Portsmouth	Specialist Technician	2021	31,247	34,126	32,687	Curriculum-aligned
79	Goldsmiths	Technician	2021	30,911	34,274	32,593	Planned workshops
80	Leeds Beckett University	Technician	2024	30,263	34,707	32,485	Reactive support
81	University of Bolton	Technician	2019	29,606	35,276	32,441	Planned workshops
82	University of Wales	Technician	2021	30,343	34,126	32,235	Planned workshops
83	Loughborough University	Technician	2026	29,588	34,610	32,099	Planned workshops
84	University of Greater Manchester	Technician Demonstrator	2026	29,588	34,610	32,099	Planned workshops
85	University of Liverpool	Teaching Technician	2026	29,588	33,951	31,770	Planned workshops
86	Swansea University	Technician	2026	29,959	33,482	31,721	Reactive support
87	Newcastle University	Technical Specialist	2026	31,236	32,080	31,658	Reactive support
88	Wrexham University	Demonstrator	2021	29,107	33,636	31,372	Curriculum-aligned
89	Kings College London	Technician	2026	30,929	31,218	31,074	Reactive support
90	Queen Mary University of London	Technician	2026	29,594	32,186	30,890	Reactive support
91	City St George’s, University of London	Technician	2026	30,378	31,236	30,807	Reactive support
92	University of Sheffield	Teaching Technician	2026	27,319	33,951	30,635	Curriculum-aligned
93	University of Birmingham	Senior Technician	2026	29,647	31,460	30,554	Reactive support
94	University of Staffordshire	Technical Instructor	2021	28,248	32,661	30,455	Curriculum-aligned
95	Ulster University	Technician	2026	28,778	32,097	30,438	Curriculum-aligned
96	University of Bristol	Core Technician	2026	28,778	32,080	30,429	Reactive support
97	University of Suffolk	Technician	2026	28,778	32,080	30,429	Reactive support
98	University of East Anglia	Technician	2026	24,645	36,093	30,369	Reactive support
99	Nottingham Trent	Demonstrator	2020	28,500	32,053	30,277	Planned workshops
100	Ravensbourne University	Technician	2021	29,842	29,842	29,842	Reactive support
101	Harper Adams University	Technician	2026	28,801	30,505	29,653	Reactive support
102	University of Surrey	Teaching Support Technician	2026	28,031	31,236	29,634	Reactive support
103	University of Cambridge	Technician Assistant	2026	27,236	31,236	29,236	Reactive support
104	Norwich University of the Arts	Associate Technician	2021	26,980	31,247	29,114	Planned workshops
105	De Montfort University	Technical Instructor	2026	26,707	31,236	28,972	Curriculum-aligned
106	University of Leicester	Senior Technician	2026	26,707	31,236	28,972	Reactive support
107	The Open University	Technician	2026	27,319	30,378	28,849	Reactive support
108	University for the Creative Arts	Technician	2026	27,319	30,378	28,849	Planned workshops
109	University of Kent	Technician	2026	27,319	30,378	28,849	Reactive support
110	Arts University Bournemouth	Technical Demonstrator	2021	28,641	28,641	28,641	Planned workshops
111	Leeds Trinity University	Technician	2025	26,338	30,805	28,572	Reactive support
112	Lancaster University	Technician	2026	26,707	30,378	28,543	Reactive support
113	Newcastle University	Technician	2026	27,319	29,588	28,454	Reactive support
114	University of Northampton	Technician	2021	25,950	30,798	28,374	Planned workshops
115	University of Worcester	Technical Demonstrator	2026	26,338	29,959	28,149	Planned workshops
116	University of Exeter	Technician	2026	28,031	28,031	28,031	Reactive support
117	University of Lincoln	Technician	2021	27,457	27,457	27,457	Planned workshops
118	University of Chester	Technician	2026	26,459	28,031	27,245	Reactive support
119	Liverpool Hope University	Technician	2026	25,804	28,031	26,918	Reactive support
120	University of Nottingham	Teaching Technician	2026	25,073	28,108	26,591	Reactive support
121	Birmingham City University	Technician	2018	25,337	27,540	26,439	Planned workshops
122	University for the Creative Arts	Technical Assistant	2026	25,249	26,707	25,978	Reactive support
123	University of Leeds	Technician	2026	25,249	26,093	25,671	Reactive support
124	Bournemouth University	Technician	2026	25,249	26,031	25,640	Planned workshops
125	University of Sheffield	Support Technician	2026	25,249	25,804	25,527	Reactive support
126	University of Bristol	Teaching Technician	2026	24,685	26,093	25,389	Planned workshops
127	Glasgow Caledonian	Technical Assistant	2026	24,344	26,338	25,341	Reactive support
128	Lancaster University	Assistant Technician	2026	24,215	26,093	25,154	Reactive support
129	University of Edinburgh	Technical Assistant	2021	23,397	25,950	24,674	Reactive support
130	Arts University Bournemouth	Technician	2021	24,631	24,631	24,631	Planned workshops
131	Glasgow School of Art	Technical Assistant	2021	22,864	26,198	24,531	Reactive support
132	Northumbria University	Technician	2021	23,082	25,587	24,335	Reactive support

What can we learn?

The first thing to note is that there are no major surprises. London institutions dominate the top ten (the Nottingham role ‘Advanced Technical Specialist in Simulated Learning’ appears to be an outlier – at the peak of an impressive technical job family) and there is indeed a significant variation between technician roles at different institutions for comparable work, and overall, there is a trend for the most highly paid technician roles to be both pedagogic, and within the creative arts institutions and subjects. This is consistent with the findings of the Research England funded TALENT Commission that found technicians working in arts subjects to be drawn more deeply into teaching than in other areas and to a greater level of specialism, blurring lines between formerly clear academic and technical roles.

A follow up study found that 41% of creative arts technicians design and/or co-design curricula (more than twice the number of technicians working in other fields). The authors surmised “these technicians are performing duties well beyond ‘supporting’ teaching and are in fact delivering duties more traditionally associated with academic teaching staff”. It is therefore, perhaps to be expected that technical roles containing duties such as teaching (an activity often deemed ‘academic’) would attract remuneration comparable with academic roles, which, it seems some are beginning to.

But academics earn more than technicians… don’t they?

Yes, generally speaking academic roles are paid more than technical roles, and the gap in benefits is significant too. WonkHE published a blog last month that included an analysis of academic pay based upon the HESA Spring 2026 data. However, at the time of writing (March 2026), there are two vacancies at the top of my jobs feed that call this assumption into question. The first is for an academic position (Creative Education Lecturer) at a well-known arts university, with an advertised starting salary of £41,046. The second is for a Specialist Technical Instructor (at the Royal College of Art), offering a starting salary of £44,693. While these vacancies are selected to make a point, and not fully representative the broader sector, they offer some challenge to the taken-for-granted custom and practices concerning disparities between technical and academic salaries.

Furthermore, with VCs prioritising technical subjects and skills to modernise their institutions in response to a perfect storm of sector pressures, such as revised Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) metrics, and a remodelled Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) Staff Record that looks set to introduce a Technical Staff Employment Function marker and/or delivering research outputs; combined with value for money and efficiency drives; disaggregation of traditional academic roles (see for example, the recent headlines around ‘teaching only’ academics at Sheffield Hallum) restructuring the workforce and balancing salaries between academic and technical salaries at the institutional level doesn’t seem so far-fetched – particularly in practice-based subjects where skills teaching is increasingly prioritised and employability is used as a proxy for course quality, value for money, and return on student investment.

However, the salary information alone does not make clear how technical roles that differ in salary differ in duties. To test this, I compared the job description of the aforementioned Specialist Technical Instructor role at RCA, with another technical teaching role at a different institution (attracting a 30% lower salary). Both roles require comparable qualifications, experience, and skills, and the responsibilities and duties outlined in the recruitment material appear broadly similar. In my assessment, in all meaningful ways, the roles are virtually identical in all but location and salary.

So, is equal work for non-equal pay okay?

This vacancy survey supports that technician salaries vary considerably at different institutions for equal work. This is not new knowledge or a problem in and of itself, but it does raise pertinent questions, such as: how can there be such a variance when most institutions in the sector use apparently objective job evaluation schemes to assess the appropriate remuneration of roles?

Job evaluation schemes were universally embedded in HE during the mid 2000s, having been developed by a consortium of universities in what would become the Higher Education Role Analysis (HERA) job evaluation scheme. Indeed, the introduction of role analysis and job evaluation arrangements was one of the key features stipulated by unions during pay negotiations to ensure parity and equity across the HE workforce.

However, it is important to note that HERA produces points, rather than pay. The pay decision happens when institutions translate points into grades and then into their individual pay structures. That translation step is where subjective philosophy, finances, and local factors exert influence. The net result is that two universities can both use HERA to assess the same job description and price the role very differently.

An additional point of subjectivity to note, is that job evaluation depends on job descriptions, and for professional services staff, the duties listed are not always representative of the roles enacted, and the ambiguity around duties can lead to role creep and blurred responsibilities (Bossu et al., 2018). And, as Celia Whitchurch (2013) points out, while job descriptions set out the expected duties, they do not consider cultural factors or how individuals interpret their roles, acknowledging that non-academic roles can be interpreted and enacted in ways that might be reasonably be considered ‘academic’. This is particularly problematic in technical roles where technician-led teaching and learning activities are not deemed to be ‘proper teaching’.

Combined, HERA, which is the the leading job evaluation scheme in HE with over 70% of market share and other job evaluation schemes, such as, Hay can sometimes provide the comfort and optics of due process and objectivity but as this blog illustrates, can run counter to the underlying principle of equal work for equal pay and without the lived experience of fairness.

It ain’t what you do it’s the way that you do it

In my doctoral study I interviewed technicians with teaching responsibilities across the UK, and found a significant variation in how they thought about, approached, and enacted their roles. While salary information wasn’t used in the analysis process, overall, my interpretation of the data set did support that participants working in more highly remunerated roles are more likely to hold deeper and more complex conceptions of their pedagogies.

Therefore, while there does not appear to be significant differences between role profiles and salary, there does appear to be a loose correlation between higher pay, and more sophisticated approaches to learning and teaching.

Is there a better way?

Research in Australia has proposed that delineations of academic/non-academic should be dissolved and that technical, administrative, and academic roles could be evaluated on a single matrix structure. This seems an unrealistic prospect any time soon. In the UK, the TALENT Commission recommended that the sector should build upon the BEIS R&D People and Culture Strategy to support the development of a new, simple and fit-for-purpose classification for technical roles in higher education, research, and innovation at all levels. In light of the proposed changes to the HESA Staff Record coming in 2028/29, this initiative could create a transparent and equitable framework for the technical workforce nationwide. After all, transparency of what the technical workforce does and how it is organised is critical to establishing appropriate reward and recognition at all levels.

For institutions, decisions concerning the quantity, type, and characteristics of their technical workforce should be grounded in the deliverables of the job function, and an understanding of the duties technicians undertake and how they contribute to the institutional mission. This understanding should be used to devise fit-for-purpose job families, career pathways, and promotional pathways. See for example, the sector-leading work that has been undertaken at the University of Warwick, and the progressive development of promotional pathways for ETPs (Educational Technical Professionals) and RTPs (Research Technical Professionals) at Manchester Metropolitan University.

For institutions that genuinely want to recruit, develop, and retain the best technical talent, salary is the price signal that determines who applies and who stays. To gain ‘value’ from the technician workforce (quality, reliability, innovation, stronger student experience, more motivated staff and all-around better performance), employers should align their pay offer to match the expectations they place on these roles. If pay, recognition, and promotion prospects match rhetoric and expectations, institutions can expect to attract, develop and retain appropriate candidates.

Caveats – why the tables should be taken with a pinch of salt

This kind of data analysis is not neat; it’s messy. As I noted, vacancies were collected from publicly available sources over several years. It would be unfair to compare the salary of a role sampled in 2017 with, say, a role in 2026; therefore, to make a fair-ish comparison across time, I uprated all the salaries to a 2026 equivalent using a simple uplift. Rather than assume salaries have risen in line with inflation (which they haven’t), I took a small sample of legacy vacancies from my 2017-2022 dataset and located the same roles re-advertised in January and February 2026. Comparing like-for-like bands (using the midpoint of each range) showed a broadly consistent uplift of around 2.6% per year across the sample. I therefore applied a single annual multiplier to uprate salary ranges by advert year to a 2026 reference point. To be clear, roles dated 2026 are actual current data, roles dated earlier are estimates. Some were spot salaries, and where a range was advertised, I calculated the midpoint (min + max ÷ 2) to provide a single comparable figure for every vacancy.

My analysis is not a perfect representation of any institution’s internal pay award decisions; job families, weighting, and grading structures vary, but it provides a pragmatic basis for comparing advertised technician salaries on a consistent footing. A further caveat is that institutions regrade, restructure, and rebalance pay families, develop and refine career and promotion pathways; adverts appear at different points in the year; not all apply nationally agreed UCEA uplifts in the same way or at the same time. London weighting sometimes appears, sometimes doesn’t; some roles are 35 hours, others 37.5; annual leave entitlements vary, some institutions permit accelerated progression between spinal points, others don’t, and the broader benefit packages are not considered. Not all institutions are featured, and for those that do, not all roles/grades are included, and management roles have been excluded. I have written this blog post as an evidence-based provocation rather than an objective claim of truth.

I should also note that while my focus relates to technician roles in higher education, this recent report ‘The role and experience of support staff in schools’ from the Department of Education makes clear, these same issues concerning dissatisfaction around reward and recognition impact technical roles in further education, and schools.

Help me improve this blog post

I’ve attempted to be as accurate as possible with the information available. However, it is likely that I will have made errors. If you spot one of material importance, please let me know and I will attend to it. Additionally, If your institution isn’t listed (or you think a figure is wrong), send me the advert link and I’ll update the dataset.

If you wish to comment on this blog post, please add your thoughts to the original LinkedIn thread. Available here:

Appendix

Sub-table 1: Curriculum aligned

	INSTITUTION	ROLE	DATE	BASE	TOP	MIDPOINT	PEDAGOGIC REMIT
1	University of Nottingham	Advanced Technical Specialist	2026	46,049	58,225	52,137	Curriculum-aligned
2	Ravensbourne University	Lead Technician	2021	47,404	51,539	49,472	Curriculum-aligned
3	University of the Arts London	Lead Specialist Technician	2021	44,609	53,519	49,064	Curriculum-aligned
4	Royal College of Art	Specialist Technical Instructor	2026	44,693	48,269	46,481	Curriculum-aligned
5	Royal Holloway University	Technician	2021	40,810	48,222	44,516	Curriculum-aligned
6	University of Hertfordshire	Technician	2020	39,377	46,979	43,178	Curriculum-aligned
7	Cardiff Metropolitan University	Technical Demonstrator	2026	39,906	44,746	42,326	Curriculum-aligned
8	Solent University	Technical Instructor	2021	38,962	45,197	42,080	Curriculum-aligned
9	Goldsmiths	Technician Tutor	2026	39,297	42,473	40,885	Curriculum-aligned
10	Loughborough University	Technical Tutor	2026	35,608	46,049	40,829	Curriculum-aligned
11	University of West London	Technical Demonstrator	2021	37,854	43,423	40,639	Curriculum-aligned
12	London Metropolitan University	Technical Demonstrator	2026	36,345	43,110	39,728	Curriculum-aligned
13	Royal College of Art	Technical Instructor	2021	36,073	41,322	38,698	Curriculum-aligned
14	Coventry University	Technical Skills Instructor	2019	31,939	42,855	37,397	Curriculum-aligned
15	Northumbria University	Senior Technician	2020	33,267	40,431	36,849	Curriculum-aligned
16	University of the West of England	Senior Teaching Technician	2026	34,610	38,784	36,697	Curriculum-aligned
17	University of Staffordshire	Technical Specialist	2021	33,636	38,962	36,299	Curriculum-aligned
18	Norwich University of the Arts	Senior Technician	2025	33,002	37,694	35,348	Curriculum-aligned
19	University of Northampton	Technical Demonstrator	2021	31,716	38,962	35,339	Curriculum-aligned
20	Arts University Bournemouth	Senior Technician	2026	35,116	35,116	35,116	Curriculum-aligned
21	University of Gloucestershire	Technical Demonstrator	2026	32,080	37,694	34,887	Curriculum-aligned
22	University of Greenwich	Technical Demonstrator	2026	32,080	37,694	34,887	Curriculum-aligned
23	Middlesex University London	Technician	2020	32,975	36,744	34,860	Curriculum-aligned
24	University of Debry	Technical Instructor	2018	32,487	35,715	34,101	Curriculum-aligned
25	Bournemouth University	Technical Demonstrator	2021	29,918	37,526	33,722	Curriculum-aligned
26	University of Nottingham	Senior Teaching technician	2026	29,740	36,446	33,093	Curriculum-aligned
27	University of Brighton	Technical Demonstrator	2020	31,126	35,007	33,067	Curriculum-aligned
28	University for the Creative Arts	Technical Tutor	2026	31,236	34,610	32,923	Curriculum-aligned
29	University of Portsmouth	Specialist Technician	2021	31,247	34,126	32,687	Curriculum-aligned
30	Wrexham University	Demonstrator	2021	29,107	33,636	31,372	Curriculum-aligned
31	University of Sheffield	Teaching Technician	2026	27,319	33,951	30,635	Curriculum-aligned
32	University of Staffordshire	Technical Instructor	2021	28,248	32,661	30,455	Curriculum-aligned
33	Ulster University	Technician	2026	28,778	32,097	30,438	Curriculum-aligned
34	De Montfort University	Technical Instructor	2026	26,707	31,236	28,972	Curriculum-aligned

Sub-table 2: Planned workshops

	INSTITUTION	ROLE	DATE	BASE	TOP	MIDPOINT	PEDAGOGIC REMIT
1	University of Westminster	Technician	2026	41,086	46,542	43,814	Planned workshops
2	The Royal School for Speech and Drama	Technician	2022	39,401	43,615	41,508	Planned workshops
3	London Southbank University	Technician	2026	37,228	42,842	40,035	Planned workshops
4	University of Essex	Technical Supervisor	2019	36,982	40,394	38,688	Planned workshops
5	Arizona State University London	Technician	2026	36,000	41,000	38,500	Planned workshops
6	University of Edinburgh	Technician	2026	34,610	39,906	37,258	Planned workshops
7	Ravensbourne University	Technical Tutor	2021	36,340	36,340	36,340	Planned workshops
8	Kingston University	Technician	2026	34,007	38,471	36,239	Planned workshops
9	University of Hull	Senior Technician	2026	33,002	38,784	35,893	Planned workshops
10	University of Salford	Technical Demonstrator	2026	33,951	37,694	35,823	Planned workshops
11	Falmouth University	Senior Technician	2026	33,002	36,636	34,819	Planned workshops
12	Bath Spa University	Technical Demonstrator	2021	31,716	37,832	34,774	Planned workshops
13	University of Huddersfield	Technician	2022	31,203	38,335	34,769	Planned workshops
14	Edinburgh Napier University	Technician	2026	31,236	37,694	34,465	Planned workshops
15	University of Bath	Technical Specialist	2026	31,236	37,694	34,465	Planned workshops
16	Sheffield Hallum	Technical Specialist	2022	30,920	37,985	34,453	Planned workshops
17	Anglia Ruskin University	Technical Officer	2019	31,366	37,412	34,389	Planned workshops
18	University of Leeds	Technician and designer	2021	31,247	37,274	34,261	Planned workshops
19	Glasgow School of Art	Technician	2021	31,716	36,736	34,226	Planned workshops
20	University of Surrey	Technician	2026	32,080	35,608	33,844	Planned workshops
21	University of Sussex	Technical Demonstrator	2019	31,005	35,911	33,458	Planned workshops
22	University of Cambridge	Technician	2026	31,236	35,608	33,422	Planned workshops
23	University of Chester	Senior Technician	2026	32,080	34,610	33,345	Planned workshops
24	Manchester Metropolitan University	Technical Officer	2026	31,236	34,610	32,923	Planned workshops
25	Goldsmiths	Technician	2021	30,911	34,274	32,593	Planned workshops
26	University of Bolton	Technician	2019	29,606	35,276	32,441	Planned workshops
27	University of Wales	Technician	2021	30,343	34,126	32,235	Planned workshops
28	Loughborough University	Technician	2026	29,588	34,610	32,099	Planned workshops
29	University of Greater Manchester	Technician Demonstrator	2026	29,588	34,610	32,099	Planned workshops
30	University of Liverpool	Teaching Technician	2026	29,588	33,951	31,770	Planned workshops
31	Nottingham Trent	Demonstrator	2020	28,500	32,053	30,277	Planned workshops
32	Norwich University of the Arts	Associate Technician	2021	26,980	31,247	29,114	Planned workshops
33	University for the Creative Arts	Technician	2026	27,319	30,378	28,849	Planned workshops
34	Arts University Bournemouth	Technical Demonstrator	2021	28,641	28,641	28,641	Planned workshops
35	University of Northampton	Technician	2021	25,950	30,798	28,374	Planned workshops
36	University of Worcester	Technical Demonstrator	2026	26,338	29,959	28,149	Planned workshops
37	University of Lincoln	Technician	2021	27,457	27,457	27,457	Planned workshops
38	Birmingham City University	Technician	2018	25,337	27,540	26,439	Planned workshops
39	Bournemouth University	Technician	2026	25,249	26,031	25,640	Planned workshops
40	University of Bristol	Teaching Technician	2026	24,685	26,093	25,389	Planned workshops
41	Arts University Bournemouth	Technician	2021	24,631	24,631	24,631	Planned workshops

Sub-table 3: Reactive

	INSTITUTION	ROLE	DATE	BASE	TOP	MIDPOINT	PEDAGOGIC REMIT
1	Imperial College London	Technician	2026	41,005	45,616	43,311	Reactive support
2	University of Roehampton	Technician	2026	38,971	43,020	40,996	Reactive support
3	Brunel University London	Senior Technician	2026	34,145	38,638	40,757	Reactive support
4	University of Southampton	Technician	2026	36,636	44,746	40,691	Reactive support
5	Queen Mary University of London	Lab Technician	2026	40,015	40,015	40,015	Reactive support
6	Regent College London	Technician	2026	40,000	40,000	40,000	Reactive support
7	University College London	Technician	2026	36,433	41,833	39,133	Reactive support
8	Oxford Brookes University	Technician	2026	36,636	39,906	38,271	Reactive support
9	University of the Arts London	Support Technician	2026	34,436	41,196	37,816	Reactive support
10	University of Bristol	Specialist Technician	2026	35,608	39,906	37,757	Reactive support
11	University of Plymouth	Senior Technician	2026	35,608	38,784	37,196	Reactive support
12	University of Cambridge	Laboratory Technician	2026	33,951	39,906	36,929	Reactive support
13	University of Leeds	Senior Research Technician	2026	33,951	39,906	36,929	Reactive support
14	Swansea University	Senior Technician	2026	34,132	38,249	36,191	Reactive support
15	University of Glasgow	Technician	2026	33,951	37,694	35,823	Reactive support
16	University of Bedfordshire	Technician	2026	32,080	38,748	35,414	Reactive support
17	University of Aberdeen	Technician	2026	33,002	36,636	34,819	Reactive support
18	University of Strathclyde	Technician	2026	33,002	36,636	34,819	Reactive support
19	University of Oxford	Technician	2026	32,108	37,338	34,723	Reactive support
20	Durham University	Technician	2026	31,236	37,694	34,465	Reactive support
21	University of Reading	Technician	2026	31,236	37,694	34,465	Reactive support
22	University of Stirling	Technician	2026	31,236	37,694	34,465	Reactive support
23	University of York	Technician	2026	32,080	36,636	34,358	Reactive support
24	University of Dundee	Technician	2026	30,805	37,174	33,990	Reactive support
25	Leeds Beckett University	Technician	2024	30,263	34,707	32,485	Reactive support
26	Swansea University	Technician	2026	29,959	33,482	31,721	Reactive support
27	Newcastle University	Technical Specialist	2026	31,236	32,080	31,658	Reactive support
28	Kings College London	Technician	2026	30,929	31,218	31,074	Reactive support
29	Queen Mary University of London	Technician	2026	29,594	32,186	30,890	Reactive support
30	City St George’s, University of London	Technician	2026	30,378	31,236	30,807	Reactive support
31	University of Birmingham	Senior Technician	2026	29,647	31,460	30,554	Reactive support
32	University of Bristol	Core Technician	2026	28,778	32,080	30,429	Reactive support
33	University of Suffolk	Technician	2026	28,778	32,080	30,429	Reactive support
34	University of East Anglia	Technician	2026	24,645	36,093	30,369	Reactive support
35	Ravensbourne University	Technician	2021	29,842	29,842	29,842	Reactive support
36	Harper Adams University	Technician	2026	28,801	30,505	29,653	Reactive support
37	University of Surrey	Teaching Support Technician	2026	28,031	31,236	29,634	Reactive support
38	University of Cambridge	Technician Assistant	2026	27,236	31,236	29,236	Reactive support
39	University of Leicester	Senior Technician	2026	26,707	31,236	28,972	Reactive support
40	The Open University	Technician	2026	27,319	30,378	28,849	Reactive support
41	University of Kent	Technician	2026	27,319	30,378	28,849	Reactive support
42	Leeds Trinity University	Technician	2025	26,338	30,805	28,572	Reactive support
43	Lancaster University	Technician	2026	26,707	30,378	28,543	Reactive support
44	Newcastle University	Technician	2026	27,319	29,588	28,454	Reactive support
45	University of Exeter	Technician	2026	28,031	28,031	28,031	Reactive support
46	University of Chester	Technician	2026	26,459	28,031	27,245	Reactive support
47	Liverpool Hope University	Technician	2026	25,804	28,031	26,918	Reactive support
48	University of Nottingham	Teaching Technician	2026	25,073	28,108	26,591	Reactive support
49	University for the Creative Arts	Technical Assistant	2026	25,249	26,707	25,978	Reactive support
50	University of Leeds	Technician	2026	25,249	26,093	25,671	Reactive support
51	University of Sheffield	Support Technician	2026	25,249	25,804	25,527	Reactive support
52	Glasgow Caledonian	Technical Assistant	2026	24,344	26,338	25,341	Reactive support
53	Lancaster University	Assistant Technician	2026	24,215	26,093	25,154	Reactive support
54	University of Edinburgh	Technical Assistant	2021	23,397	25,950	24,674	Reactive support
55	Glasgow School of Art	Technical Assistant	2021	22,864	26,198	24,531	Reactive support
56	Northumbria University	Technician	2021	23,082	25,587	24,335	Reactive support