The Organisation of Academic Knowledge: A Comparative Perspective Author(s): Tight Malcolm Source: Higher Education, Vol. 46, No.

4 (Dec., 2003), pp. 389-410 Published by: Springer Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3447568 Accessed: 13/09/2009 16:58
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Higher Education.

http://www.jstor.org

Higher Education 46: 389-410,2003. ? 2003 KluwerAcademic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

389

The organisation of academic knowledge: A comparative perspective

TIGHT MALCOLM
CoventryCV4 7AL(E-mail: Departmentof ContinuingEducation, Universityof Warwick, ac. m.tight@ uk) warwick.

Abstract. How is academic knowledge organized?Does this vary from countryto country, and, if so, how? This paper explores these questions throughan examinationof some of the an analysis is 2001. In particular, data includedin the CommonwealthUniversitiesYearbook schools and/or presentedof the differentnames given to basic academicunits (departments, forms faculties)in Australia, Nigeria and the United Kingdom.Evidenceis providedregarding of institutionalorganization,and of the varying strengthof differentdisciplines or fields of study. Keywords: academicunits, disciplines, diversity,fields of study,knowledge forms,university organisation

Introduction Standard models of the research process suggest a seamless and linear progression from the development of research questions through literature review, methodological design, data collection, data analysis to writing up and dissemination (see, for example, the discussion in Blaxter, Hughes and Tight 2001, pp. 6-9). In practice, of course, it rarely happens like that: social research may start from, and finish at, any of these stages, may jump back and forwards between them, and will typically involve several activities being progressed contemporaneously. The piece of research reported in this article is a case in point. There was no direct data collection involved, as it exploits an existing data set. The study did not start from research questions, but rather from the feeling that a particular publication, of which I had been vaguely aware for many years, might offer interesting data for analysis. And the data analysis was essentially completed before any formal literature review was attempted, so that I went to the literature looking for possible explanatory frameworks for what I had found. This article does, however, relate to a general area of interest of mine: the nature of academic work, institutions and life (Blaxter, Hughes and Tight

390

MALCOLM TIGHT

1998a, 1998b; Tight 2000). It offers an analysis of the contemporary organisation of academicknowledge in universitiesin three countries- Australia, Nigeria and the United Kingdom - as this is expressed throughthe names given to basic academic units. The remainderof the article is organisedin foursections. First,the dataset andmethodologyused aredescribed.Then the frameworks results of the analysis are presented,and possible interpretative for the patternsfound are explored.Finally some conclusions and directions for furtherresearchof this kind are offered.

Methodology
Each year the Association of CommonwealthUniversitiespublishes a Yearbook, 'a directoryto the universitiesof the [British]Commonwealthand the handbookof their association'. This study makes use of the 2001 Yearbook (Associationof CommonwealthUniversities2001), the latest availableat the time of writing. It also seemed somewhat apposite to focus on the 2001 of the state of higher education at the end of the edition, as representative twentieth century and/or the start of the twenty-first(whichever way you calculateyour calendar). The two volumes of the 2001 Yearbooktotal 2464 pages in length. The entries for Australia,Nigeria and the United Kingdom respectivelytake up 240, 74 and 512 pages, 34% of the total in all. These entries seek to provide comprehensiveinformationon the organisationand staffing of all institutions of higher educationin the countriesconcerned.Each institution'sentry lists its 'academic units'; that is, its departments,schools, units or faculties (universities,of course, adopt a variety of forms of organisationand associated nomenclatures).In the remainderof this article, these are referredto as 'basic academic units'. Details are given of all academic staff of senior lecturerlevel or above, with informationalso providedon 'special [typically research]centres'. For this study,databaseswere createdfrom the listings for the threecountries selected, tabulatingthe titles of all the basic academic units, institution by institution. This informationwas not available for a small minority of universitiesor colleges, either because they were not membersof the Association of CommonwealthUniversities, and so did not make returnsfor the Yearbook,or because they did not providethe full details requiredin time for publication.No attemptwas made to 'patch'the databaseby collecting information on these institutionsdirectly:partlybecause this would compromise the consistency of the data,but chiefly because it was not felt to be necessary for the purposesof the study.

THE ORGANISATION OF ACADEMICKNOWLEDGE

391

In compiling the databases,a numberof rules were followed. Only basic 'academic'units were included.Units whose function was wholly researchfocused, or which served wholly to supportacademic activities across the institution(e.g., computercentres, language centres and staff development units), were excluded: these were usually separatelylisted in the Yearbook. there Any listed basic academicunits thathad no staff - perhapssurprisingly were a few - were also excluded. In the few cases where an institutionhad two basic academicunits with the same title - all eithermulti-siteinstitutions or ones thathad experiencedrecentamalgamations - only one was included. The introductory'Notes to the User' included in the Commonwealth UniversitiesYearbookstress the care with which the informationit contains is compiled.A numberof checks againstinformationcontainedon university web-sites confirmed its accuracy.While the Yearbookmust include some errors,these appear,therefore,to be relatively few and small in nature.It may also be the case, of course, that some institutionsdo not update their informationas promptlyor fully as they might, but the effects of this on the analysis shouldnot be significant. Similar reservationsmust be made with regardto the databasesI have compiled from the Yearbook. While most errors have hopefully been correctedthroughthe variouscheckingproceduresI undertook, some will not have been pickedup. However,it shouldbe stressedthat,given the magnitude of the database,any remainingerrors,while they might affectthe detail of the analysis,would almost certainlyhave no impacton its conclusions. Results Table 1 gives basic informationon the size of the three nationaldatabases created.They range in size from Nigeria, with 25 universitiesand 931 basic academic units, to the United Kingdom, with 104 universities and 3022 basic academicunits included.The mean numberof units per universitywas similar, varying from 29 in the United Kingdom to 37 in Nigeria, with a similarrangein the three databases,rangingoverall from a minimumof 3 to a maximumof 114. Among the trendsevident was the tendencyfor older universitiesto have larger numbers of basic academic units, particularlythose with medical schools. By contrast,newer universitiestend to have fewer basic academic units, in some cases using a broaderschool or faculty structureratherthan the departmental structureevident in the majorityof the older universities. In these, and indeed other cases, of course, it may be that significantorganisationalresponsibilityis exercised at a lower level in the hierarchythan the basic academicunit identified.

392

MALCOLM TIGHT

Table1. Numbersof universitiesand basic academicunits by country Country Australia Nigeria United Kingdom Universities 40 25 104 Basic academicunits 1309 931 3022 Mean units/university (range) 33 37 29 (4-114) (7-85) (3-87)

Table2. Numbersof basic academic units and unit titles Australia No. basic academicunits No. unit titles Mean units/title Range in units/title % uniquetitles No. (%) titles common to half or more universities 1309 737 1.8 1-27 75.7 4 (0.5) Nigeria 931 373 2.5 1-20 59.2 9(2.4) United Kingdom 3022 1399 2.2 1-56 75.3 1 (0.0)

One finding which was immediately striking during the compilation of the databases was the relatively large number of different basic academic unit titles (see Table 2), ranging from 373 in Nigeria to 1399 in the United Kingdom. Indeed, the great majority of basic academic unit titles were unique within their national system: from 59% in Nigeria to 76% in Australia.These included such novelties as Akkadian, Chinese Medicine, English Local History, General and FoundationStudies, Indigenous Health Studies, Keyboard,Marine Technology, Orthoptics,Quality Management, ShariaLaw, Urban Planning, Voice and Wildlife & Fisheries Management. Conversely,very few titles are to be found in half or more of the universities in any one system. There were a total of nine in the case of Nigeria - which, of the threecountriesexaminedhere, appearsto have the most 'standardised' titles - butjust one in the case of the United Kingdom. Table 3, which lists the 39 basic academic unit titles beginning with the letter 'G' in the United Kingdom database, shows how this works out in practice.A series of less common titles are displayed alongside Geography (a title used by 34 institutions)and German(found in 15 institutions). An examinationof the databasessuggests that there are four immediate explanationsfor the variabilityin the titles given to basic academicunits:

KNOWLEDGE THEORGANISATION OFACADEMIC Table3. Basic academicunittitles beginningwith the Letter'G', UnitedKingdom Basic academicunit title Gastroenterology and hepatology Gastroenterology Gastrointestinal surgery Generallinguistics Generalpractice Generalpracticeand primarycare Generalpracticeand primaryhealthcare Generalpracticeand public health Generalsurgery Genetics medicine Genito-Urinary and sciences Geographical environmental sciences Geographical Geography Geographyand archaeology Geographyand earthsciences Geographyand environment sciences Geographyand environmental and geosciences Geography Geographyand topographicscience Geological sciences Geology Geology and geophysics Geology and petroleumgeology Geomaticengineering Geomatics Geriatricmedicine German Germanlanguage and literature Germanstudies Germanicstudies Gerontologicaland continuingcare nursing Gerontology Government Graphicdesign Greek Greekand latin Greeklanguageand literature, byzantineand modern and studies roman Greek, byzantine Numberof units 2 1 1 1 5 3 1 1 1 3 2 1 2 34 1 2 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 1 1 1 8 15 2 5 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1

393

394

MALCOLM TIGHT

Alternativetitles are present alongside the most common ones. Thus, German as well as German,we have GermanLanguageandLiterature, Studies and GermanicStudies. * Many titles are combinations. Thus, as well as Geology, we have Geology and Geophysics and Geology and PetroleumGeology. These combinationsmay reachacross disciplinaryboundaries,as in the case, for example,of Geographyand Archaeology. * Some titles include qualifying terms, as in the cases of 'General' Linguisticsand 'General'Surgery. * Others identify particularspecialisms within disciplines or fields of study, including 'Gerontologicaland Continuing Care' Nursing and Medicine. 'Genito-Urinary' Clearly,however,some basic academicunit titles aremuch morepopularthan others. Table 4 lists the twenty most popularfor the three national systems studied,and illustratesa numberof points: * Of the 34 titles included in the table, only 5 - biological sciences, chemistry,economics, history and physics - are common to all three systems. * Another 16 titles, however - business, civil engineering, education, engineering,English, geography,law, management,mechanical engineering,medicine,music, obstetricsand gynaecology,philosophy, psychology, sociology, surgery - are common to two of the three systems studied,and, in most cases, appearonly slightly furtherdown the popularitylisting for the thirdsystem. * The lists for Australia and the United Kingdom are very similar, sharing 14 titles. Social science subjects feature strongly in both of these lists. * The list for Nigeria, by contrast, shares only 8 titles with that for Australia, and 9 with that for the United Kingdom. Medical and scientific subjectsfeaturemore stronglyin the Nigerianlist. * Individuallists include what might be thought of as closely related or overlappingbasic academic unit titles. Thus, the Australianand United Kingdom lists include both business and management,while the Australianlist also has separate entries for both accounting & financeand accounting. The last point suggests a furtherdirection for analysis, namely to group togethercognate basic academic unit titles so as to producea shorterlist of the most common subjects (I will use the term 'subjects' in preferenceto 'disciplines' or 'fields of study' for the remainderof this section, recognising that the latter are contested terms). This was done by grouping alternative, qualifying and specialist titles together under the most common titles, with

Table4. The most popularbasic academicunit titles Australia

1.

Nigeria physics (20) chemistry(18) biochemistry(16) civil engineering(16) economics (15) history (15) mechanicalengineering(15) political science (14) sociology (13) anatomy(12) medicine (12) obstetrics& gynaecology (12) surgery(12) biological sciences (11) physiology (11) animalscience (10) geography(10) economics & ext. (9) agricultural geology (9) pharmacology(9)

United Kingdom law (56)

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

management(27) law (25) education(22) psychology (22) economics (17) nursing(17) business (15) philosophy (14) chemistry(12) music (11) accounting& finance(10) English (10) history (10) public health (10) accounting(9) biological sciences (9) marketing(9) medicine (9) surgery(9) civil engineering(8) engineering(8) physics (8)

psychology (44) economics (42) education(40) chemistry(37) music (36) geography(34) business (33) history (33) philosophy (29) mathematics(28) engineering(27) English (26) biological sciences (25) physics (25) computerscience (23) management(23) sociology (23) mechanicalengineering(20) obstetrics& gynaecology (2

396

MALCOLM TIGHT

combinationtitles allocatedto what was interpreted as the dominantelement of the combination. For example, to go back to Table 3, the titles GeneralPractice& Primary Care, General Practice & Primary Health Care, and General Practice & Public Health were all initially groupedwith General Practice. Amalgamations continueduntilno subjectcontainedfewer than 10 basic academicunits, and each system had the same numberof subjects. Subjecttitles were standardisedbetween the three systems; thus, in the case of Nigeria, for example, political science was re-labelled as politics, the title more commonly used in Australiaand the United Kingdom.The details of the allocation process might, of course, be the subjectof some debate,but this would be unlikely to change the overallresults much. Six faculties were recognised alongside the subjects - arts, engineering, languages & area studies, medicine, science and social sciences - to accommodateboth generic basic academicunit titles and minorspecialist titles that could not be combined with other subjects. Thus, to take examples from Table 3 again, General Practice was eventually amalgamatedinto another subject called PrimaryCare; whereas Genetics became part of the faculty groupingMedicine. Table 5 provides four examples of the subject amalgamationsproduced, for the United Kingdom database,and illustratesa numberof the grouping processes involved. Thus, Pharmacology and Pharmacy,which might be seen as separatesubjects, were so closely connected in the naming of basic academicunits that they had to be amalgamated togetheras one. Philosophy, by contrast,is an example of a fairly coherent subject, at least in terms of unit titles, with variants,specialisms and combinationsrelativelyuncommon (88% of the units included have the title 'Philosophy'). Physics, as a large subject, has absorbed what might be seen as a separate, though smaller, subject,Astronomy.Politics is a subjectthatis rife with alternative, specialist and combinatorytitles (only 35% of the units have the title 'Politics'). Of course, the details of Table 5 might be the subject of debate. Some might wish to put certain specialisms into other subject groupings. Others might argue that the subjects identified are too few or many in number.I am not here concerned, however, with the fine detail - and I am certainly not seeking to produce, as if such a thing were possible, a definitivemap of academicknowledge - but with the overallpatterns. The overallresultsof the groupingexercise are displayedin Table6, which lists the leading 34 subjects and the faculty groups identified in terms of popularityfor each of the three systems. A comparison between this table and Table 4 reveals both similaritiesand differences. Many subjects appear high up in both tables, includingeducation,law and business. Others- such

OFACADEMIC THEORGANISATION KNOWLEDGE

397

Table5. Examplesof Subjectsand ComponentBasic AcademicUnit Titles: United Kingdom Pharmacologyand Pharmacy(31): Clinical Pharmacology(3); Clinical Pharmacologyand Therapeutics(1); Pharmaceutical and Biological Chemistry(1); Pharmaceutical Sciences (3); Pharmaceutics (1); PharmacologicalSciences (1); PharmacologicalSciences and Toxicology (1); Pharmacology(7); Pharmacologyand Clinical Pharmacology(1); Pharmacology and Neurosciences(1); Pharmacologyand Therapeutics(1); Pharmacology, Theraand and (5); Pharmacy Toxicology (1); Pharmacy Chemistry(1); Pharmacy peutics and PharmaceuticalScience (1); Pharmacy and Pharmacology (1); Pharmacy, Biomedical and Physical Sciences (1). Philosophy (33): Logic and Metaphysics (1); Moral Philosophy (1); Philosophical Studies (1); Philosophy(29); Philosophy,Logic and Scientific Method(1). Physics (53): Astronomy(2); Astronomyand Space Physics (1); Astrophysics(1); Atmospheric, Oceanic and PlanetaryPhysics (1); Atomic and LaserPhysics (1); Clinical Physics (1); CondensedMatterPhysics (1); ExperimentalPhysics (1); Particleand Nuclear Physics (1); Physical Sciences (3); Physics (25); Physics and Applied Physics (1); Physics and Astronomy(11); Space and Climate Physics (1); TheoreticalPhysics (2). Politics (49): Government (5); International(1); InternationalPolitics (1); InternationalRelations (2); International Relations and Politics (2); International Studies (1); Local GovernmentStudies (1); Policy Studies (2); Policy Studies and Criminology (1); Politics and Social Research (1); Political Science and InternationalStudies (1); PoliticalStudies (2); PoliticalTheoryandGovernment (1); Politics (17); Politics and Asian Studies (1); Politics and CommunicationStudies (1); Politics and ContemRelations(3); Politics andInternational poraryHistory(1); Politics andInternational Studies (2); Politics and Philosophy (1); Politics and Sociology (1); Politics, Relationsand the Environment International (1). (figuresin parenthesesindicatethe numberof basic academicunit titles involved).

as chemistry,history and psychology - still appear,but have slipped down the table. Still others, such as health sciences and art & design - which are combinationsof largenumberof relatedacademicunitswith differenttitles now appearfor the firsttime high up Table6. And others,such as biological sciences and management have moved up the table. Once again, there are similarities and differences between the three nationallists includedin Table6, thoughtherearenow moreof the formeras a resultof the groupingprocessundertaken. Thus:
With 34 subjects listed for each system, there are 52 different subjects

identified in all, of which 18 - accounting & finance, biological sciences, business, chemistry, civil engineering, economics, educa-

Table6. The Most PopularSubjectand FacultyTitles (afteramalgamation) Australia (a) Subjects 1. education(62) 2. business(47) 3. health sciences (46) 4. art & design (41) 5. law (36) 6. accounting& finance(35) 7. agriculture(35) 8. mathematics(34) 9. music (34) 10. biological sciences (33) 11. economics (31) 12. management(30) 13. nursing(30) 14. psychology (30) 15. computerscience (27) 16. communication& media (24) 17. informationsystems (22) 18. history (21) 19. leisure, sport & tourism(21) 20. electrical & electronicengineering(19) 21. architecture (18) 22. marketing(18) 23. chemistry(17) 24. English (16) 25. mechanicalengineering(16) Table continuedon next page. Nigeria education(59) law (40) (37) agriculture crop science/forestry(33) pharmacology& pharmacy(32) biological sciences (30) business (28) mathematics(26) animalscience (23) physics (23) chemistry(22) health sciences (20) accounting& finance (19) politics (19) biochemistry(18) geography(18) history(18) sociology (18) veterinarymedicine (18) civil engineering(17) economics (17) electrical & electronicengineering(17) geology (17) anatomy(16) mechanicalengineering(16) United Kingdom

health sciences (117) education(98) management(81) computerscience (80) mathematics(79) business (74) art & design (73) biological sciences (71) psychology (65) history (64) law (63) economics (61) chemistry(57) physics (53) English (52) music (52) electronic & electrical engineering( politics (49) nursing(48) geography(44) surgery(42) dentistry(41) mechanicalengineering(39) public health (38) accounting& finance (35)

Table6. Continued 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. philosophy(16) physics (16) civil engineering(15) politics (15) public health(15) pharmacology& pharmacy(14) Asian studies (13) geography(13) biomedicalsciences (12) surgery(16) English (13) obstetrics& gynaecology (12) physiology (12) microbiology(11) pathology(11) religious studies (11) chemicalpathology (10) paediatrics(10) Nigeria engineering(s, 53) medicine (s, 51) arts(s, 27) social sciences (s, 23) medicine (g, 21) studies (s, 19) languages/area other(12) studies (g, 9) languages/area science (s, 5) engineering(g, 2) arts(g, 1) science (g,l) built environment(35) philosophy (33) sociology (33) pharmacology& pharmacy(31) civil engineering(29) communication& media (28) religious studies (27) architecture (26) continuingeducation(26) United Kingdom medicine (s, 422) languages/areastudies (s, 180) social sciences (s, 131) engineering(s, 100) science (s, 93) arts(s, 89) medicine (g, 51) languages/areastudies (g, 44) engineering(g, 38) social sciences (g, 37) science (g, 22) arts (g, 15) other (7)

Australia (b) Faculties medicine (s, 113) science (s, 61) social sciences (s, 58) engineering(s, 49) languages/areastudies (s, 40) arts (s, 27) arts (g, 21) languages/areastudies (g, 19) engineering(g, 13) science (g, 12) medicine (g, 10) social sciences (g, 9) other (5)

(figures in bracketsindicatethe numberof units includedin each subject). (the abbreviations's' and 'g' indicate specialist and generic titles).

400

MALCOLM TIGHT

tion, electrical & electronic engineering, English, geography,health sciences, history, law, mathematics, mechanical engineering, pharmacology & pharmacy,physics, politics - are common to all three systems. As with the analysisof basic academicunit titles, an analysisof Table6 shows that the Australianand British systems are the most similar, with 28 out of 34 subjectsin common. By contrast,the Australianand Nigeriansystems have only 19 subjectsin common,while the Nigerian and United Kingdomsystems have 21 in common. 20 of the 52 subjectslisted areuniqueto one of the threesystems: 12 to Nigeria (anatomy,animal science, biochemistry,chemical pathology, crop science/forestry,geology, microbiology, obstetrics & gynaecology, paediatrics,pathology, physiology, veterinarymedicine), 5 to Australia (Asian studies, biomedical sciences, informationsystems, leisure, sport & tourism, marketing)and 3 to the United Kingdom (builtenvironment, continuingeducation,dentistry).This is not to say, of course, thatthese subjectsdo not exist in the othersystems, but that in they are relativelyless common there, and have been amalgamated other subject or faculty groupings in Table 6. The greateremphasis on applied sciences and medical specialities in the Nigeriansystem is evident. particularly Note, however,the large numberof titles thathave been amalgamated into faculty groupings ratherthan subjects. This is particularlyso in the case of medicine, and for languages & area studies in the United Kingdomcase, which accommodatea huge numberof relativelysmall
specialisms.

If the numberof units included in each of the subjects groupingslisted in Table 6 is divided by the number of units having the most popular basic academic unit title within that grouping, a measure of the relative coherence of subjecttitles may be produced.For example, in the United Kingdom listing, thereare 56 basic academicunits with the title 'law', and 63 units are groupedunderthatsubjecttitle in Table6, giving a measurefor coherenceof 63/56 = 1.13. Table7 providesdetails of these calculationsfor the 18 subjects common to all threesystems. An examinationof Table7 reveals a numberof trends: * Some popularsubjects appearhigh in coherence in all three systems. Thus, chemistry, civil engineering and economics departmentsare almost always called just that, whether in Australia, Nigeria or the United Kingdom. * Other popular subjects appear less coherent in all three systems. Thus, biological sciences, electrical & electronic engineering,health

Table7. The Most and Least CoherentSubjectTitles Australia chemistry(1.42) law (1.44) English (1.60) economics (1.82) civil engineering(1.88) physics (2.00) history (2.10) mechanicalengineering(2.67) education(2.82) business (3.13) accounting& finance(3.50) pharmacology& pharmacy(3.50) biological sciences (3.67) politics (3.75) geography(4.33) mathematics(4.86) electrical & electronicengineering(6.33) health sciences (7.67) Nigeria civil engineering(1.06) mechanicalengineering(1.07) economics (1.13) physics (1.15) history(1.20) chemistry(1.22) politics (1.36) English (1.63) geography(1.80) biological sciences (2.73) accounting& finance(3.17) mathematics(3.25) electrical& electronicengineering(3.40) business (4.00) healthsciences (4.00) pharmacology& pharmacy(6.40) law (8.00) education(11.80) United Kingdom law (1.13) geography(1.29) economics (1.45) chemistry(1.54) civil engineering(1.93)

history (1.94) mechanicalengineering(1.95) English (2.00) physics (2.12) business (2.24) education(2.45) mathematics(2.82) biological sciences (2.84) politics (2.88) accounting& finance (2.92) electrical & electronic engineering(4. pharmacology& pharmacy(4.43) health sciences (7.31)

402

MALCOLM TIGHT

sciences andpharmacology undera varietyof titles & pharmacy appear (as, indeed, the pluralityor combinationevident in their subject titles would suggest). Perhapsmost interesting,however,are the subject titles which appear coherentin some system lists but not in others.Thus, while geography are usually called just thatin both Nigeria and the United departments Kingdom, they appearunder a wide range of titles in Australia(typically geographyand somethingelse). Similarly,while law departments arealmostalways calledjust thatin Australiaandthe United Kingdom, they go under a variety of titles in Nigeria (typically more specialist, as in the cases of business, commercial, industrial,Islamic, private, propertyand/orpublic law). How, then, might we furtherinterpretthis dataand analysis?

Possibleinterpretative frameworks
Withinthe corpusof researchand writingon highereducation,therearemany butinterwovenstrandsthatrelateto the issue being consideredhere, disparate the organisationof academicknowledge, though thereis little that addresses the issues raised specifically. Several of these strandswill be identifiedand of the briefly explored for what they might suggest about the interpretation above. patternsreported First, the literatureon the history of higher educationis useful in tracing the development of academic structures, their relative status and interrelationshipswithin universities(e.g., de Ridder-Symoens1992, 1996). This literaturealso suggests that the diversityin basic academic unit titles found at the present time is nothing new, but part of a continuinghistorical trend. Thus, Vergercomments: There is little point at this stage in the argumentin lingering any longer over this question of the structures and internal subdivisions of the medieval universities.There was an almost limitless variationas regards mattersof detail;they developed over the centuries.(1992, p. 40) Indeed, one obvious extension to the analysis presented here would be to examineearliereditions of the CommonwealthUniversitiesYearbook,and to chartthe rise and fall of basic academicunit titles over the years. Second, studies of the contemporaryorganisationof higher education have much to tell us about the functions, operationand positioning of basic academicunits. Thus, Becher and Koganhave presenteda four level 'model of higher education', with what they term the basic unit lying between the individualacademic and the institution(their fourth level is, of course, the centralauthority).They define 'basic unit' in the following terms:

THE ORGANISATION OF ACADEMICKNOWLEDGE

403

By basic units we mean the smallest component elements which have a corporatelife of their own. Their identifying characteristicswould normally include an administrativeexistence (a designated head or chairman[sic], a separatelyaccountedbudget);a physical existence (an identifiableset of premises);andan academicexistence (a rangeof underwork trainingprogrammes, graduate usually some provisionfor graduate and sometimesa collective researchactivity). (1992, p. 86) They go on to note some of the variationsin the natureof basic units: In traditional the basic unit would usually be taken universitystructures, as the individual subject department,rather than the faculty bringing However,this is not a hardtogethera numberof cognate departments. and-fast rule, since some long-established universities use the term 'faculty' where others would use 'department'.Some more recent units have developed alternativestructures,in which the constituentelements are more broadlybased 'schools of study', 'course teams' and the like. (ibid) As indicated,the databasesanalysed here include examples of each of these types of organisation. Third, studies of disciplinary cultures help to explain how academic knowledge develops and is disseminated within universities (e.g., Becher 1989, 1999, Becherand Trowler2001; Braxtonand Hargens1996; Neumann 2001). As well as emphasisingthe primacyof the discipline in the working lives of academics,such studies also foregroundthe importance of change: While it is convenientin some contextsto representdisciplinesas clearly and reasonablystable entities, it has to be acknowledged distinguishable that they are subject to both historical and geographicalvariation.The changing natureof knowledge domains over time... has its impact on the identitiesandculturalcharacteristics of disciplines. (Becher 1989, pp. 20-21) No one is about to find a way to stop the division of knowledge in academic society. (Clark1983, p. 16) A varietyof termshave been coined to describe and explainthese processes, (Peacocke 1985) and finalisation(Fuller2000). includingreductionism of the Fourth,analyses diversityof academicinstitutionsand systems - a featurewhich 'is generallyagreedto be a desirablething' (HigherEducation FundingCouncilfor England2000, p. 3) - suggest some of the processes by which such disciplinary developmentstakeplace. Thus, Huisman,in his study

404

MALCOLMTIGHT

of higher education programmesin the Netherlandsover a 20 year period, 1974-1993, found that: ... decreasingor fluctuatingfirst-yearstudentnumbersencouragestudy programme actors to establish new specializations in existing study
programmes and to establish new study programmes ... the 'softer' the

took place... the number discipline,the more processes of differentiation of processes of differentiation time increased. (1995, p. 199) through It would not be difficultto imaginemechanismsby which such differentiation at the study programme level could be translated to basic academicunits. Fifth, universitytypologies offer evidence of institutionalvariety,and of the influence of basic academic unit diversityupon this. For example, in a multivariate analysisof institutionaldatafor 1992/93 publishedby the Higher EducationFundingCouncil for England,I identified16 majortypes of higher educationinstitution(Tight 1996). Muchof this differentiation was explained annualincome), by measureseitherof institutionalsize (studentrecruitment, or of institutionalspecialisation, in terms of subject area (with a focus on or postarts,educationor medicine most common), level (i.e. undergraduate graduate)or mode of study (i.e. full-time or part-time).Since that time, the number of relatively small, specialist arts or education colleges has been reduced throughamalgamation,but the significance of the medical school in universitystatusremainsstrong. Sixth, studies of the transitionfrom elite to mass systems of highereducation suggest that this is having an impact on the organisationof academic knowledge. Thus Scott has arguedthat: The tendency for broadlybased faculties to be brokendown, effectively if not constitutionally, into reductionistdepartments has been reversedas more and more universities have developed looser academic structures based on schools, often built aroundtheme categories such as European studies or environmentalsciences. More recently, as modularand credit systems have become more popular,some institutionshave gone further, establishingstill looser frameworkswhich embraceschools, departments and individualacademicprogrammes.(1995, p. 159) Massification, in Scott's view, has had two main impacts on institutions themselves: First, they have had to develop theirown distinctivemissions... Second, institutionshave become much more complex, in size as the system has expanded, and in scope as it has become more heterogeneous. (ibid, p. 170)

THE ORGANISATION OF ACADEMICKNOWLEDGE

405

Such trendscould readilylead to an increasednumberand diversityof basic academicunits within institutions. Seventh, and finally for present purposes, there is the literatureon the changingnatureof knowledgeand the place of the universityin society (e.g., Barnett2000; Delanty 2001; Nowotny, Scott and Gibbons 2001). Much has been made in this literature of the developmentof 'mode 2' knowledge: By contrast with traditionalknowledge, which we will call Mode 1, generated within a disciplinary,primarily cognitive, context, Mode 2 social and economic knowledge is created in broader,transdisciplinary
contexts... The emergence of Mode 2 ... is profound and calls into

question the adequacy of familiar knowledge producing institutions, whether universities, governmentresearchestablishments,or corporate laboratories. (Gibbonset al. 1994, p. 1) The implications of these developments would include, for example, the developmentof new formsof basic academicunitsunderthe influenceof, and in co-operation with, institutionsexternalto the university. However,Askling, Henkel and Kehm, in their examinationof the impact of lifelong learning policies on concepts of knowledge and university organisation,concluded that: At most universities,the role of disciplines and the related structureof faculties and departments,as well as the disciplinary organisationof curricula,are still strong. Typical for most institutionsincluded in our sample was lifelong learning policy in which initiatives and activities were either left to individual academic staff members or concentrated in mostly smaller,sometimes bigger, but often isolated, centralunits for continuingeducation.(2001, pp. 348-349) Conclusions The data analysis presentedin this articleposes, at least for me, threebasic questions: 1. Why does there appearto be so much diversity in the naming of basic academicunits? 2. Why does this diversityappearto vary so much between subjects? 3. Why does it vary between countries? The excursionjust made amongst a range of potentiallyilluminatinghigher educationliteratures suggests a fourthquestion: 4. How does the dataanalysissupportor questionthe arguments putforward in the literature? In this section I will addressthese questionsin turn.

406

MALCOLM TIGHT

First,in answeringthe questionaboutthe diversityof basic academicunit titles, it could be argued that what I have described is at least as much an appearanceof diversityas diversityitself. As the groupingexercise demonstrated,much of the variationcould be removed through a simple process of bringing together alternative,combination,qualifying and specialist unit titles. After all, in practice, geographersshould be able to recognise each other across institutions,regardlessthat some work in basic academic units called Geography& EarthSciences or GeographicalSciences, or EnvironmentalSciences, or even Social Sciences, ratherthan simply Geography. It may be, then, that the issue of diversity in basic academic unit titles a is second order matter. But there is still a question, or rather a whole series of smallerquestions,to answerhere. Why, for example, does Glasgow University uniquely house a Departmentof Geography and Topographic Science? Why are King's College London and University College London alone in having departments of Laws ratherthan Law? Why do some higher education institutionshave Departmentsof Business, some Departmentsof Management,some both of these, and some Departmentsof Business and Management?The examples I have given are all in the social sciences, the faculty with which I am most familiar,but similarones could be identifiedin otherfields. It has been arguedthat: Disciplinary boundariesare the result of history, vested interest, financing, entrepreneurial opportunityor of academic coalitions. (Gibbons et al. 1994, p. 148) This statement suggests a number of possible reasons for the variation observedin unit titles, and, indeed, these are reflectedin the examples I have just quoted. Thus, the Departmentof Geographyand TopographicScience at Glasgow offers two separatefirst degrees, one in Geographyand one in Science (which turnsout to be a mixtureof surveyingand cartoTopographic This graphy). departmentis, thus, through its name, advertisingits distinct market position. The departments,actually Faculties, of Laws at King's College and UniversityCollege Londonharkback to the early history of the University of London (Twining 1990). And the division between Business and Management appears, at least from my initial inquiries of academics working in these areas, to be about a mixtureof post-war academic history, values and status. My second question is perhaps more interesting than the first. Clearly, as Table 7 indicates, there is much more diversity in the titles given to basic academic units in some subject areas than there is in others. I would advance two related hypotheses in explanation,though these do, of course,

THE ORGANISATION OF ACADEMICKNOWLEDGE

407

requirefurtherexaminationand testing. One has to do with the lengthof time for which each subject has been established within the university system, the other with the distinctionbetween disciplines and fields of study.Thus, we might expect long-establisheddisciplines, such as law, philosophy and chemistry,to exhibit less variety in terms of basic academic unit titles. On the other hand, more recent and less well-established fields of study, such as leisure, sport & tourism, communication& media and health sciences, might be expected to be less sure about theiridentity and position, and thus exhibit a greatervarietyof basic academicunit titles. The longitudinalstudy, alreadysuggested, of changes in basic academicunit titles would be helpful in exploringthese hypotheses,coupled with an in-depthstudy of institutional histories. Turningto the thirdquestion,thoughthe highereducationsystems in both Australiaand Nigeria have had a close historical relation with that of the United Kingdom, it is clear that there are sufficient local factors at play to ensure that the organizationof academic knowledge varies to some extent between these countries.At least threeexplanationsmay be suggested: * Some systems, such as Nigeria, appearto have adopteda more standardised approachto the namingof theirbasic academicunits. * Some systems, such as Nigeria, place a greater focus on particular vocational subjects, while others, including Australia and the United Kingdom,have a greaterdevelopmentof social science and artssubjects (in other words, the overall subject balances of these systems are different). * Local culturaldifferences are apparent in, for example, the existence of Islamic departmentsin Nigeria, and in the different emphases placed languagesand areastudies. upon particular some observationsmay be maderelatingto the strandsof the higher Fourthly, educationliterature identified: * History. The analysis presented here has been cross-sectional rather than longitudinal, so there is no direct evidence to compare with the literature. However, the databases do contain what may be viewed as more 'traditional'basic academic unit titles, such as Geography, titles such Geology andGerman,alongsidemorecontemporary-sounding as Geographical& Environmental Sciences, Geomaticsand Gerontology (see Table3), which are at least suggestive of changingfashions. * Organization. Thereare many examplesin the databasesof bothdepartmental forms of organizationand of more inter-disciplinaryor transdisciplinaryschool or faculty arrangements, though the former remain most common. A caveat has to be repeatedhere, however, to the effect thatthe titles given to basic academicunits may not be an accuratereflec-

408

MALCOLM TIGHT

tion of how academic organizationswork: more in-depth,observational and interview,studies within units would be needed to addressthis issue. * Disciplinary Cultures. The dataanalysis revealsthe continuingstrength of many long-establisheddisciplines (see Tables4 and 6). More recently established fields of study, such as Business, Management,Communication & Media, and Leisure, Sport & Tourismhave made a substantial andcurricula,but alongsideratherthanin impacton universitystructures as Mathematics,Law andEconomics. such of older departments place in the * Diversity. As the analysishas indicated,much diversityis apparent naming of basic academicunits, though this may be more apparentthan real, and would appearto be more prevalentin newer fields of study than in longer establisheddisciplines (see Table7). * Typologies. The databasesshow considerablevariationnotjust in forms but also in the areasof academicknowledge of institutional organization, includedwithinspecific universities.No basic academicunittitle, or even subject area, is to be found in every university within any of the three systems analyzed;indeed, only a few are to be found in the majorityof universities. * Massification. There is not much direct evidence in the databasesthat the recentexpansionin studentnumbershas led to a decline in the prevaland a rise of more 'thematic'forms of ence of 'reductionist'departments that not to the latterdo not exist, but ratherthat This is say organization. a limited impact on the naming of basic they have so far had relatively academicunits. * Knowledge Forms. Similarly,there is not much evidence in the names given to basic academic units of changes in the forms of knowledge. Thereis, however,plentifulevidence to illuminatea ratherolder form of this debate,thatbetween liberaland vocationalforms of education(Pring 1993). Table6 clearly shows the dominanceof vocationalsubjects,such as business, education,the variousbranchesof engineering,health, law and medicine in all threesystems examined. Finally, I will offer two, to some extent contradictory,comments in closing. First,the analysis presentedhas providedevidence of the continuing strength- at the level of the namingof basic academicunits- of 'traditional' Second and disciplinaryorganizationin the university. forms of departmental - and despite the continuingcalls by policy-makersto ensure the relevance to the world of work - it seems clear that of the higher educationcurriculum basic academicunits with a vocationalfocus are at least as prevalentwithin higher educationinstitutionsas the 'pure' disciplines. The vocationalrole of the universityhas always, of course, been strong, and these vocationalunits

THEORGANISATION OFACADEMIC KNOWLEDGE

409

includesome of long-standing, such as Law andMedicine,andothersof more recentprovenance,such as Business and Nursing. The organization of academicknowledge,then, exhibits both stabilityand flexibility.

References
Askling, B., Henkel, M. and Kehm,B. (2001). 'Conceptsof knowledge and theirorganisation in universities',EuropeanJournalof Education36(3), 341-350. Association of CommonwealthUniversities (2001). CommonwealthUniversities Yearbook 2001: A Directory to the Universitiesof the Commonwealth and the Handbookof Their Association. London:Associationof CommonwealthUniversities,Two Volumes. Barnett,R. (2000). Realizingthe Universityin an Age of Supercomplexity. Buckingham: Open UniversityPress. IntellectualEnquiryand the Culturesof Becher,T. (1989). Academic Tribesand Territories: Disciplines. Milton Keynes:Open UniversityPress. Becher, T. (1999). Professional Practices: Commitmentand Capability in a Changing Environment. New Brunswick,NJ: Transaction. Becher,T. and Kogan,M. (1992). Process and Structurein Higher Education,second edition. London:Routledge. IntellectualEnquiryand Becher,T. and Trowler,P. (2001). Academic Tribesand Territories: the Cultureof Disciplines, second edition. Buckingham:Open UniversityPress. Blaxter, L., Hughes, C. and Tight, M. (1998a). 'Telling it how it is: Accounts of academic life', Higher EducationQuarterly52(3), 300-315. Blaxter, L., Hughes, C. and Tight, M. (1998b). 'Writing on academic careers', Studies in Higher Education23(3), 281-295. Blaxter,L., Hughes, C. andTight,M. (2001). How to Research,second edition. Buckingham: Open UniversityPress. Braxton,J. and Hargens,L. (1996). 'Variation among academicdisciplines:Analyticalframeworks and research', in Smart, J. (ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and XI. New York:Agathon,pp. 1-46. Research,Volume Clark, B. (1983). The Higher Education System:Academic Organizationin Cross-national Perspective.Berkeley,CA: Universityof CaliforniaPress. Delanty, G. (2001). Challenging Knowledge: The University in the Knowledge Society. Buckingham:Open UniversityPress. Fuller,S (2000). The Governanceof Science. Buckingham:Open UniversityPress. Gibbons,M., Limoges, C., Nowotny,H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. and Trow,M. (1994). The New Productionof Knowledge:TheDynamics of Science and Researchin Contemporary Societies. London:Sage. Higher Education Funding Council for England (2000). Diversity in Higher Education: HEFCEPolicy Statement.Bristol:HEFCE. Huisman, J. (1995). Differentiation,Diversity and Dependency in Higher Education: A Theoreticaland EmpiricalAnalysis. Utrecht:Lemma. Neumann, R. (2001). 'Disciplinarydifferences and university teaching', Studies in Higher Education26(2), 135-146. Nowotny, H., Scott, P. and Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinkingScience: Knowledgeand the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.

410

TIGHT MALCOLM

Peacocke, A. (ed.) (1985). Reductionismin AcademicDisciplines. Guildford:NFER-Nelson. Pring, R. (1993). 'Liberaleducationand vocationalpreparation',in Barrow,R. and White, P. (eds.), Beyond Liberal Education:Essays in Honour of Paul Hirst. London: Routledge, pp. 49-78. de Ridder-Symoens, H. (ed.) (1992). A History of the University in Europe. VolumeI: Universitiesin the MiddleAges. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress. de Ridder-Symoens, H. (ed.) (1996). A History of the University in Europe. VolumeII: Universities in Early Modem Europe (1500-1800). Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press. Scott, P. (1995). The Meanings of Mass Higher Education. Buckingham:Open University Press. Tight, M. (1996). 'Universitytypologies re-examined',Higher EducationReview 29(1), 5777. and Life: WhatIt Is to Be an Academic, and How This Tight, M. (ed.) (2000). Academic Work Is Changing.Oxford:Elsevier Science, pp. 406. Twining, W. (1990). 'Laws', in Thompson,F. (ed.), The Universityof Londonand the World of Learning1836-1986. London:HambledonPress, pp. 81-114. Verger,J. (1992). 'Patterns',in de Ridder-Symoens,H. (ed.), A History of the Universityin Europe. VolumeI: Universities in the Middle Ages. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press, pp. 35-74.