University Expansion and The Knowledge Society

University Expansion and the Knowledge Society
Author(s): David John Frank and John W. Meyer

Source: Theory and Society, Vol. 36, No. 4 (Aug., 2007), pp. 287-311
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40213584 .
Accessed: 22/06/2014 20:28
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Theory and Society.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 20:28:52 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
TheorSoc (2007) 36:287-311
DOI 10. 1007/s11186-007-9035-z
expansionand the knowledgesociety

University
David John Frank • John W. Meyer
Publishedonline:3 May 2007

© SpringerScience+ BusinessMedia B.V. 2007
Abstract Forcenturies, theprocessesofsocialdifferentiation associatedwithModernity have

oftenbeenthought theneedforsite-specific
to intensify formsofroletraining and knowledge
production, threateningtheuniversity's survivaleitherthrough fragmentation orthrough failure
toadapt.Otherlinesofargument emphasize the extent towhich theModern system createsand
relies on an integrated knowledgesystem, but most of the literaturestressesfunctional
differentiationandputative threats to theuniversity. Andyetoverthisperiodtheuniversity has
flourished.In ourview,thisseemingparadoxis explainedbythefactthatmodernsocietyrests
as muchon universalistic cosmologicalbases as it does on differentiation. The university
expandsoverrecentcenturies because- as ithas fromitsreligiousorigins- itcastscultural and
humanmaterialsin universalistic terms.Our view helps explainempiricalphenomenathat
confoundstandard accounts:theuniversity's extraordinary expansionand globaldiffusion, its
auricularand structural isomorphism, and its relativelyunified All
structure. of this holds
increasingly trueafterWorldWar II, as nationalstatesocietiesmade up of citizensare
increasinglyembedded in a world society constitutedof empoweredindividuals.The
redefinitionof societyin global and individualtermsreducesnationally boundedmodelsof
natureandculture, extendsthepool ofuniversity beneficiariesandinvestigators,andempowers
thehumanpersonswhoareunderstood torootitall. The changesintensify universalization
and
theuniversity's rateofworldwidegrowth.Fortheuniversity's knowledgeand "knowers," and
forthepedagogythatjoins themtogether, theimplications are many.The emergingsocietal
contextintensifies longstanding processesof culturalrationalization and ontologicalelabora-
tion,yieldinggreatexpansions in what can and should be known, and in who can and should
know.Thesechangesinturnalterthemenuofapprovedtechniques forjoiningknowledgeand
knoweras one. The "knowledgesociety"thatresultsis distinguished by the extraordinary
degreeto whichtheuniversity is linkedto society.Butitis also distinguished bythedegreeto
D.J.Frank(El)
of California,
University
SociologyDepartment, Irvine,
Irvine,CA 92697-5100,USA
e-mail:frankd@uci.edu
J.W. Meyer
Stanford
SociologyDepartment, CA 94305,USA
Stanford,
University,
e-mail:meyer@stanford.edu
& Springer

288 TheorSoc (2007) 36:287-311
whichsocietyis organizedaroundtheuniversity's anduniversalized

abstracted understandings
of theworldand itsdegree-certified
graduates.
In thisarticle,we examinethecontemporary development of theuniversityaroundtheworld.

Overrecentdecades,highereducationhas amasseda largeandrapidlyincreasing population of
youngpersonsthought eligibleforstudy,thegreatmajority of whomattenduniversity-level
institutionsratherthanmorelimitedor specializedschools.Now approximately 20% of the
relevantage cohortis enrolledin highereducationworldwide(Altbach1998; Schoferand
Meyer2005; UNESCO 2005). Not onlyare morepeople involvedin tertiary schoolingbut
also more kinds of people are understoodto be appropriatecandidates(some once
stigmatized, as withfemalesor minority and lower class persons- see Karabel (2005)).
Thus the universityincreasinglyincorporates an arrayof personswith highlyvariable
qualities,accommodating differences in personalinterests and capacities- across gender,
-
class, ethnic,and nationallines and welcominga varietyof individualtastes.Also around
the worldin the post-WorldWar II period,the university broadensto encompassa much
wideracademicportfolio, extending to covergrandschemesand minutedetailsof natureand
societyand all kindsof personalperspectives and interests(Frankand Gabler2006). Within
the university contextnow, forinstance,it is possibleto studyperforming plasticsurgery,
managinga smallbusiness,and producingformerly denigrated formsof lowbrowart.1
It is commonto see all this growthas rootedin the university'ssuccess at training
studentsand shapingculturalmaterialsforthe elaboratingrole demandsof contemporary
society.The university, it is asserted,providesthe differentiated trainingand research
programsfunctionally requiredby complex societiesor theirpower structures, and may
even play a role in producingdesiredsocial development.
While sensibleon thesurface,and taken-for-granted in manyquarters, thisfunctionalist
explanationof the university's expansion shows several detailed
limitations, below. Here
we offeran alternativeinterpretation, proposingthatthe university's worldwidesuccess
reflectsfactorsfar removedfromthe technicaldemands and trainingrequirements of
today'scomplexsocieties.The university survivesand flourishesin thecontemporary era
not by practicallyshapingpeople and culturesfora greatmodernsocietal machinebut
ratherby castingthebuildingblocksof a universalistic and principledculturalunity.In the
original model of the this
university, unity was religiousand transcendental. The frameis
now secularized- rationalizedand scientized.But the old model's meta-principles - that
universalknowledgecovers the entireworld of natureand social practiceand stands
accessible to competenthumans- remainsecure. The university, we argue,organizes
studentsand culturalmaterialsless aroundefficient productionthanaroundprinciplesthat
transcendlocal realitiesand standat considerabledistancefromanyconcreteparticularities,
and less in particularlocal termsthanas microcosmsof theglobal and universal.2
'Already a centuryago, the range of universitysubjects was sufficientlyextended to include, forexample,

courses in Bandaging and Cattle Feeding at Tokyo Imperial Universityand degrees in BreweryEngineering
at Belgium's l'UniversiteCatholique de Louvain.
2One finds many examples of the university'suniversalizing tendencies. For example in the 1879-80
Catalogue of the Universityof Wisconsin, a course in AgriculturalBotany - addressed to Wisconsin's farm-
raised youth - is presented in highly abstracted and scientized terms. "AgriculturalBotany: Botanical
characteristicsand geographical distributionsof the naturalorders,withtheirrelativeimportance.The genera
and species having agriculturalvalue; those having commercial or medical value; those having ornamental
value; and those which are noxious or detrimental,as weeds or poisonous plants."
£) Springer

TheorSoc (2007) 36:287-311 289
Fromthisviewpoint,the huge expansionsin the university's studentenrollments and

academic contentsdo not principallyreflecta rise in society'soperationalcomplexity.
Rather,theyexhibitthe intensifying of the global and universalwiththe
interpenetration
The Modernglobalizedknowledgesystemincreasingly
local and particular. extendsinto
the furthest reachesof daily life,spreadinguniversalizedunderstandings of all aspectsof
natureand everysocial institution worldwide.At thesame time,a greatmanyyounglocals
are now seen to be capable and fitforuniversity studies,and thesepersons,in becoming
schooled,exchangethe distinguishing marksof locale forthe disciplineof universalized
global life.In theuniversity,in short,thelocal particularities
bothof thatwhichis known
and thosewho knoware increasingly in global and universalterms.
reconstituted
Background
Over the whole Modernperiod,and especiallyover the last 60 years,the university

has
expanded greatlyalong several main dimensionsall over the world. There are many
indicatorsof change.
(1) Most simply,the numberof universitiesgloballyhas expandedexponentially, and

practicallyall now
nation-states have universities(Riddle 1989, 1993; UNESCO 2005).
This is trueeven in thetiniestand poorestcountries(e.g., theNationalUniversity of
Samoa serves a populationof about 175,000, and the National Universityof East
Timoroperatesin a countrywitha GDP/capitaof around$400).
(2) Studentenrollmentshave risen sharply,explodingin numberand also becoming
substantially morediverse.In 1900,therewereaboutthreetertiary educationstudents
per 10,000 people worldwide. By 1950, thisnumber had increased eight-foldto 25.
By 2000, it had increased anothersix-foldto 166. In aggregate,thismeans therewere
morethan100 millionstudentsgloballyin theyear2000 (Schoferand Meyer2005).
And these studentsare no longersimplycore-country elite males, as in the past
(Karabel 2005). Enrollmentshave escalated almost as rapidly in the world's
peripheriesas in the core (Schoferand Meyer 2005; UNESCO 2005), and growth
has been especially dramaticamong females, formerlyoften excluded. Female
students,in manycountries,are now in the majority(Bradleyand Ramirez 1996;
Schoferand Meyer 2005). For instanceaccordingto Saudi Arabia's Ministerof
Education,femalestudentsrepresented 53% of thekingdom'stotalin 1996, as higher
education"followfed]an open-doorpolicyand provide[d]equal opportunities forall
citizenswithoutany discrimination."3
(3) The traditional variablesthoughtto produceand/orrequirehighereducation- social
differentiation and development- turnout to make littledifferencein predicting
expansion in the currentperiod(Schoferand Meyer2005; Windolf1997). In Armenia,
forexample- a country withfewerthanthreemillionpeople and a GDP/capitabarely
60% of Romania's - thereare 103 universitiesand institutes of highereducation,
enrolling over 200,000 students (Antonian 2000).
(4) The rangeof culturalmaterialsincorporated intothe university curriculum has also
swiftlyelaborated. Departments,degree programs,institutes,and centers of
instruction all have multipliedrapidly.In 1879 forinstance,University of Wisconsin
studentschose amongjust six possiblemajors, with few electiveoptionswithineach
3See 11/001172/117267.e.pdf.
http://unesco.unesco.org/irnages/00
& Springer

290 TheorSoc (2007) 36:287-311
major.By 2005, Wisconsinstudents witha multitude

faced155 possibilities, of internal
choices(FrankandMeyer2006; Robinson2005). Such changesreflect morethansimple
differentiation.
Many new arenasof studyand researchhave been established, so that
one can studymatters formerlyconsideredmundane,trivial,or otherwiseinappropriate
(popularculture,forinstance,or civildisobedience).Whilemanyof thenewtopicshave
appearedin thenaturalsciencesand thehumanities, thegreatestexpansionby farhas
involvedthecreationand riseof thesocial sciences(Droriand Moon 2006; Frankand
Gabler2006). Fields such as sociology,economics,politicalscience,and psychology,
whichonce had no place at all in theuniversity, are now foundalmosteverywhere.
(5) As a finalindicatorofuniversity expansion,we note thatthestructure oftheuniversity
organizationhas developed greatly.Far beyond lengtheningfacultyand student
rosters,a wave of managerialismhas washed over universitiesglobally in recent
decades (Droriet al. 2006; Kriickenand Meier 2006; Ramirez2006), catalyzingthe
rise of many new administrative, service, and managementposts. Whole new
categoriesof employee- expertsin such mattersas publicrelations,fundraising, and
environmental healthand safety- now appearroutinelyin university organizations.
In effect,thisstructural
expansionindicatesa rapidproliferation of linkagesbetween
the universityand the wider society- linkagescarryingsocial influenceinto the
university and incorporatingexpandingsocietalinterests, but also linkagescarrying
university influenceout intosociety,underbannersof progressand change.
In fact,thefivedevelopments discussedabove - whichproducemoreuniversities in more

countries withmorestudents, moreobjectsofstudy, andelaboratedorganizational structures -
all implydenserlinkagesbetweentheuniversity and society.Increasingly, political,economic,
and culturalforces,formerly bounded off,have been incorporated into university life.
Problems,demands,and resourcesassociatedwitheveryinstitution in contemporary society
now appearon university agendas,callingforrelevant researchandteaching.The university is
calleduponto helpwithgreatsocialproblems- improving businessorganizations and capital
investments, protectingthenaturalenvironment, preserving humanrights andcultural diversity,
resolving crisesofgovernance, promoting democracy, etc.- ineverycountry aroundtheworld.
At thesametime,theuniversity is accountableto immediate problemsat hand- training local
businessleaders,preserving local cultures,improving local childrearing
practices, protecting
local species,and so on - all in lightof generalnorms.
This processis oftenregardedwithalarm.The thickening web of linkagestypicallyis
seen to lower the university'sresistanceto virulentexternalinterests.But it is just as
reasonable to see the elaboratingconnectionsas reflectingthe university'smounting
influence,and even dominance,in contemporary society.If the university is increasingly
saddledwithdemandsfromsocietyat large,itis obviousthatsocietyis evenmorebesieged
by the university. Over the last two centuries,and dramatically over recentdecades, the
university has assumedevermoreauthority over everysocietalfunction. Virtuallyall elite
occupationsglobally are certifiedby the university (Sullivan 2005), and nearlyall the
world's stratification systemsare legitimatedby university-based knowledge. Socio-
economicprogressitselfis now thoughtto reston university knowledge(so-calledcultural
capital) and universitycertificates(a form of social capital). Thus education-based
discrimination can be encouragedand even compelledby law,whileotherand olderforms
- on class,gender,age, ethnic,or
ofdiscrimination religiousgrounds- arestrictly prohibited
(Brown2001; Collins 1979). In short,vis-a-visall sortsof publicand privatematters, the
authority of theuniversity speaks to thewidestrangeof decisionmakers.
& Springer

TheorSoc (2007) 36:287-311 29 1
Alongtheseand otherdimensions,theuniversity has experiencedextraordinary growth,

rising overthe course of and
Modernity diffusing worldwide. In thepost-WorldWarII period,
the university's developmenthas even intensified. Amidstsuch sweepingchanges,it is
unsurprising to findcriticisms of particularaspectsof theuniversity's expansion,including
theriseof marketpressuresas theuniversity expandsintosociety,thefallof theCanon as
formerly excludedsubjectsgain curricular standing,and thecreepingappearanceof social
conventions (e.g., speechcodes) in deferenceto increasingly diverseuniversity populations
(e.g., Bok 2003; Geiger 2004; Kirp 2003; Kors and Silverglate1998; Readings 1996;
Slaughterand Leslie 1997). More surprising perhapsis thegeneralsense of misgivingthat
hauntsmuchof theuniversity expansion literature.
On thefaceof it,afterall, theuniversity overthelastseveraldecadeshas enjoyedstunning
success. But the literature is curiouslywaryin tone. In mostjudgments,the institution's
expansionis thought to signalfragmentation, notvitality,
involvinga descentfroma Golden
Age and theweakeningof culturalintegration, establishedvalues,and highknowledge,and
eventhefallof autonomoustruth in thefaceof theModernLeviathan(Kerr1991; Rojstaczer
1999). The of
proliferation university-society linkages,meanwhile,is seen notto reflectthe
university's risingauthority but to represent formsof subjugation,
new involvingheightened
submissionto external- and particularly now commercial- powers(Bok 2003; Washbum
-
2005). Only a few analystssee in the tightenedlinkages and even in the university's
-
prophesiedcollapsein thefaceof morespecializededucationalarrangementsthepotential
for improvedrationalityand efficiency(Hatakenaka 2004). Thus the rise of tertiary
instructionoutsidethetraditional university form- in industries, by consultants, in for-profit
arrangements, throughlicensingand franchising schemes,etc. - attractsmuch attention,
whetherfromfearor hope (e.g., Berg 2005). At least,it is assumedthatthe present-day
universitymust become more efficientto survive the onset of less favorable,more
competitive societalconditions.
Underlyingnearlyall work along these lines is a common analysis of university
expansion.It restson a depictionof contemporary societyas ever more complex,dif-
ferentiated,anddependent on specializedknowledge.And itposes thefunctional demandsof
thissystem- theneeds of theemerging"knowledgesociety"- as drivingtheuniversity's
recentgrowthand in turnthreatening to overpoweritscore.
The whole storyhere is a familiarreprise.During the high period of Modernity-
betweenthelateeighteenth century and WorldWarII - muchthesame thinghappened.On
one hand to the surpriseof many,universities expandedworldwide- in size, in number,
and in importance.On the otherhand,traditionalists lamentedthe institution's expected
demise,whileprogressives hailedtheimpendingdownfallof an organization too moribund
to fueltheModernsocial machine.The basic analysisthenwas thesame as thatfoundnow.
Observersassumedsocial differentiation would come to demandmorehighlytailoredand
specializedsitesof training and knowledgecreationthantheuniversity could offer,or else
thatin accommodating to the new the
demands, integrated character of theuniversity would
be completelyundercut.4
Indeed duringthe high Modernperiod,major episodes of university destruction did
occur (Riddle 1989). The radical Moderns successfully,if temporarily, underminedthe
- theFrenchin preference
institution formorespecializedformsof statetechnicaltraining
and the Americansin favorof broadercollegiateformsof nationalcitizensocialization
closelyakinto thosedevelopedhere,ErnestGellner(1983) observedthat

4Notehoweverthatin arguments
theextreme of modernsocietyis accompanied
differentiation bytheleastspecializedand moststandardized
We are indebted
systemin history.
educational to theeditorforthispointand reference.
& Springer

292 TheorSoc (2007) 36:287-311
(Hofstadter1963; Lenhardt2002, 2005). In Germanyand Spain,too,universities weakened

the
during period. However by the late nineteenthcentury,they had resurgedeverywhere,
and the overridingstorythenas now is one of expansion- in the university's numbers,
locations,and societalcentrality.
In short,during the nineteenthcenturyneitherthe traditionalists'fears nor the
progressives'hopes materialized.The university did not collapse and give way, as was
oftenforetold,to narrow-gauge trainingcenters,cateringto thedifferentiated society.On
the contraryduringthe era, the populationof universitiesswelled and the institution
diffusedworldwide.Exactlythe same thingis now underwayeven more intensely, with
recentratesof university creationand expansionexceedingthose of the earlierModern
period (Riddle 1989; Schoferand Meyer 2005). In a sample of BritishCommonwealth
forexample,themean numberof university
universities, facultyspiraledupwardbetween
1955 and 1995 - from270 to 711 (Gabler and Frank2005).
To understand theevolutionof thepresent-day it is helpfulto reflecton what
university,
went wrongwithnineteenth centuryforecastsof the university's demise at the hand of
complexity. The root intellectual problem lies only partlywith a flawedunderstanding
of the universityand its role in society.A deeperproblemlies in a mistakenanalysisof
Modern societyitself.
The "knowledge" societyand the university
As suggestedabove, twobroadand closelyrelatedguidesto theuniversity's changesrecur

throughout theliterature.In the more positiveview, the institution's
striking growthfollows
fromitscapacitiesto meetthetechnical-functional requirements of Modern society(and/or
its elites).Fromthisstandpoint, thevariedaspectsof higher-educational expansionreflect
adaptationto the intensifying needs of a rapidlydifferentiating social system,ratherthan
eitherfailureto adapt or fragmentation (Gumportand Snydman2002; Kerr 1963; World
Bank 2000).
In theless positiveview,theverysame changeseventuatein disorderand fragmentation
in theuniversity. For instance,it is imaginedthatexpansiondiminishessocial unity(as in,
e.g., identity politics),propellingthe university towardincompatibleends (Bloom 1987),
whiletheincorporation of disparateknowledge-dependent politicaland economicinterests
fractures and distortsthe university's mission.Lost curricular coherence,fallenacademic
standards,a guttedCanon, and moral relativismare all thoughtto symptomatize an
institution whose explosivegrowthendangersits core foundations.
Both of theseanalyseshave obvious functionalist overtonesand come in centrist, left-
wing(againstinequality/injustice), and right-wing (againststatism/socialism) variants.The
core idea - rootedin muchrealistsocial theory- is thatModernsocietyis characterized by
complexityand role differentiation, which increasinglydemand from the university
specialized knowledge,socialization,and technicaltraining.Even among theoristssuch
as Weber,Durkheim, and Parsonswho are consciousof thesocial contract'snon-contractual
bases - i.e.,thosewhorecognizethatnotall membersofsocietyagreebychoiceto itsterms-
thetendencyis toprojectreifiedor essentializedsocietalbases (forinstance,values) intothe
university's foundations.
The empiricalproblemswithsuchfunctionalist analysesare clear.First,theexpansionof
theuniversity vastlyoutruns in scale and scope thesocial changesthought todriveit(Schofer
and Meyer 2005). Second, functionalist explanations lead one mistakenlyto anticipate
radicalcross-national variationsin theenrollments and academiccontentsof developedand
£>Springer

TheorSoc (2007) 36:287-311 293
developingcountries,whereas universities,and theirexpansion,show a good deal of

homogeneity worldwide(Droriand Moon 2006; Frankand Gabler2006; Frankand Meyer
2006; Schoferand Meyer 2005). Third,functionallogics falselylead one to expect,or
hope, or fear,the fragmentation of the universityover recentdecades into specialized
modularprograms thatmapdirectly ontosociety'srolestructure. Butagainthisconsequence
failstomanifest in reality:themainexpansionsinhighereducationoccurundertheumbrella
of theuniversity per se, notin disparatenarrow-gauge institutions,and whiletheso-called
Multiversity surelyincorporates a broader of
range topics and personnelthanitspredecessors
(Kerr1963; Kriicken et al. 2006), the university's fundamental unity- bothorganizationally
and culturally - prevails.Fourth,functional logics generate misplacedexpectationthat
the
rapid social change should undermine the university's traditional social form,exactlyas
occurswithbusinessesand states.But in factover thepast millennium higher-educational
institutionsconspicuouslyretainthe university'stime-honored semblance,symbolically
maintainedin distinctive architectural and ceremonialstylesand recentlyadvancedby the
morecrass expansionsof standardizedcourse-credit systems(which equalize instruction
in frogsand princes) and the European "Bologna process" (which formallyintegrates
instructionacross manydozens of countries[Kriicken2005; Teichler2002]).5
A further problembesettingfunctionalist analyses is that they suppose universities
actuallytrain to
people perform important social roleseffectively (or at leastdid so during
theinstitution's Golden Age). This suppositionrunsagainsta substantial researchtradition
(and commonawareness)demonstrating thatuniversity educationis in factnotverygood at
preparingpeople to performparticularjobs. Arrangementssuch as apprenticeships,
internships, and on-the-jobtraining are muchmoresuccessful(see Berg 1971 fora classic
empiricalstatement; see also Sullivan 2005). Doctorslearnto be doctorson patientrounds
and throughexperience,not in medical classrooms.Business managerslearnto manage
fromcorporatementorsand fromtrialand error,not frombusiness-schoolcoursework.
Schoolteacherslearntheircraftin frontof classrooms- as studentteachersand in their
initialyearson thejob. This is theway itstandsnow,and thereis everyreasonto believeit
was all themoretruein days of yore.6
These considerationsforcefully raise the issue of the university'srole in Modernity,
especiallyinthenascentknowledgesociety.Ifnottoprovidemoreelaboratedroletraining to
morepersons in more domains, then why does the university so
enlarge rapidly? We address
thisquestionfirstby reflecting on thenatureof Modernsocietyand of theknowledgeat its
center.Thenwe considertheroleof theuniversity in relationto thesestructures.
Modernityand the knowledgesociety
Unto itself,the"knowledgesociety"label is an odd one, since all societiesobviouslyrest

culturalknowledge.The label's relativelyrecententry
on a good deal of institutionalized
5Wolfe "feudalculture."Architectural
(1996) uses businessesand statesas foils for the university's
oftheuniversity's - e.g.,in thebrandnewGothicbuildings at KoreaUniversity -
dramatizations continuity
arestrikingandcommonplace.
6Earlyon, U.S. land-grant universitiesoftenexplicitly recognizedtheuniversity's
inabilityto replaceon-
the-jobtraining.For examplein the 1879-80 Catalogue oftheUniversityof Wisconsin,thedepartment of
mining andmetallurgy conceded:"It is notclaimedthatthe[program] thatitproduces
turnsoutexperts...but
theproperkindofrawmaterial to makeexpertsfrom."Likewise,thecivilengineering department modestly
sought, "to give its such
students as shall fitthem,aftera fairshareof experience,
instruction... to fill
responsiblepositionsin theprofession."
& Springer

294 TheorSoc (2007) 36:287-311
intothevernacularmay suggestthatcontemporary societyinvolvesmoreknowledge,and

morespecializedknowledge,thanitspredecessors.7 But thatinterpretation assumesa simple
continuumof social complexity, involvingnot an explodinguniversity but only theslow
elaborationoftimeworn knowledge-production and role-socialization arrangements, suchas
apprenticeships. This is notwhatis observedempirically. Somethingmoreis clearlyafoot.
We suggestthattheknowledgeat theheartof Modernity - and even moreat thecruxof
thecontemporary knowledgesociety - is quite distinctfrom information and skillstiedto
role-performance. Knowledge, rather, refers to the understanding of cultural materials
organized around supra-localprinciples,involvinghighly schooled of
conceptions reality.
In thecurrent period,especially,skillsin practice- no matterhow productiveor efficient -
usuallyfail to countas knowledgeproper.To make theknowledgegrade,practicalskills
mustbe at leastnominallysupplemented by generalprinciples,i.e., linkedto universaland
educationallycertified truthstranscending anyparticular local situation.This is so whether
the skill in question is navigatingby stars or locatingcrude-oilreserves.Skills and
knowledge,indeed,may be sharplydecoupled.Being a good parentand knowingabout
good parentingare not obviouslyrelated.In thepresentday,individualsmustbe able to
articulatesupra-localprinciples, and indeedtheabilityto do so, encouragedin and certified
by the university, is for many purposesmore important than the masteryof everyday
competencies.Experiencesand skillsmayor maynothelpone to becomea doctor;passing
throughmanyhighlyschooledexaminationbarriersis essential.
The core pointhere- crucialto understanding theextraordinary survivaland expansion
of theuniversity bothin thenineteenth century and currently - is thatknowledgerefersto a
body of universalizedprinciples,which can be understoodby properlysocialized and
certifiedpersons(Meyer 1977). While the university may be poorlyorganizedto teach
people how to do theirjobs, it is well poised to teachpeople how specificfeatures of nature
and society relate to ultimatelyencompassingtruths.Even more, the universityis
positionedto teachboth studentsand societyat largethe meta-principle thatall sortsof
particularscan and/orcould be understood,and should be understood,as instancesof
generalabstractions. In theworldat hand almostwithoutexception,culturalmaterialsare
conceivedto be amenableto schooling- i.e., to beingcast in thelightof generallaws and
principles,and thusto beinghighlyscriptedworldwide.
Whatis trueof "knowledge"in thecontemporary worldis also trueof itspossessors.It
is now commonlythoughtthatvirtually all people (includingthoseformerly stigmatized as
retarded[Schmidt2005]) have naturalcapacitiesto comprehendhighertruthsand to be
schooled in the universityto administerthese understandings in generalizedways.
Universitycredentialsand degrees,thus,can be recognizedglobally,on bases thatcut
across social sectorsof practice.A certifiedengineerdoes not stop being certified when
movingfromone industry to anotherand an economistwitha PhD fromCanada does not
lose thatdegreeupon relocatingto India.
From this analyticalpurchase,it becomes clear that however much contemporary
societyrequiressharpenedskills to fuel its day-to-dayoperations,it restsfundamentally
on universalisticformsof knowledge,embodyingabstractand generaltruths(Bell 1973;
7This imageryis commonplace.For instance,"A knowledge-based societyis one whereknowledge

diffusion,
production and applicationbecomethe organizing principlein all aspectsof humanactivity:
society,theeconomy,
culture, politicsand privatelife"(UNDP 2003: 2).
& Springer

TheorSoc (2007) 36:287-311 295
Kerret al. I960).8 Indeed it is only because theyare based on such transcendent matters
thatuniversity degree certificationsprovidelegitimate bases for discriminating between
personsin theknowledgesociety'srole-allocation and stratification
systems.
The universalistic essence of contemporary knowledgeis all the moreapparentif we
look back to thenineteenth and earlytwentieth centuries,beforethemostrecentwaves of
university expansionbegan.At thattime,deep commitments to rationalizedand scientized
formsof understanding were rapidlyexpanding,as were the hopes theyinspired(Drori
et al. 2003). Guidedaccordingly, leadersof theperiod,in thename of thecommongood,
called upontheirfellowsto be socializedintoscientific disciplines(such as sociology)that
hardly existed outside the imagination. Such calls now read as striking assertionsof faith.
Whatseemsto havechangedwiththerecentriseofthecontemporary knowledgesociety-
- is thenatureofthesocietalmodelforwhichknowledge
raisingtherateofuniversity growth
is required.The highModernperiodsupposeda boundednation-state societythatwas a real
functional social system,builton clear(oftenmaterial)interdependences. Knowledge,often
scientific but sometimesmorecultural(to supportsocial integration [see Readings 1996]),
was deemednecessaryto perform theinterdependent rolesinvolved.Undertheseconditions,
theuniversity was conceivedto servetheneeds of a boundedand reifiedsocietalmachine.
Thus it was possibleto imaginethe phenomenonof over-education, in whicha surfeitof
training signaledinefficiency in a nation-state'srole-allocationsystem and possiblyevenled to
socialdisorder and dreadedanomie.
In severaldramaticways,theemergenceof the"knowledgesociety"afterWorldWarII
indicateda change in this older vision of the societal context- beyond merelyadding
complexityrequiringmore training.A globalized and individualizedsocietybegan to
surfacein thepost-warera,offering enhancedcentrality to theuniversity and increasingthe
its
pace of expansion(and all but the of
burying concept over-education).
This means firstthatto an increasingextentit came to be understoodthatuniversity
educationcould activelycreatethekindsof knowledgeand personnelthatcould produce-
notjust adaptto - societaldevelopment.For examplein theeconomy,the idea tookhold
thathumancapital(viz., education)could directlylead to innovations,new occupations,
and increasedprosperity. Similarideas arose vis-a-vispoliticaland social development.
Overall,it became acceptedthathighereducationcould initiate,not simplyrespondto, a
futuregoldenage (e.g., Bridgeset al. 2006).
Second,moreand moreof theinstitutions seen as definingsocio-economicdevelopment
came to deriveimmediately fromthe educationalsystem.In a host of new professions -
elementsmorethanmaterial-production -
forgedfromknowledge-system dependencies huge
educationalestablishments renderedschoolingas directly integralto development, measured
by GDP/capita (Chabbott 1999). Contemporary managerialism, for instance,consistsof a
mass of intangibles (strategy, branding, etc.,oftenformulated as bestpractices),as does the
stateapparatus,thehealthcaresystem,and so on. Much of therole activityof present-day
8Recentdiscussionsofthefragmentation ofknowledge seemoverstatedgiventheextentto whichuniversity

in factexpandon universalistic
curricula bases. "Highereducationhas atomizedknowledgeby dividingit
intodisciplines, andsub-subdisciplines - breaking
itup intosmallerandsmallerunconnected
subdisciplines,
fragments of academic even
specialization, as the world and
looks to colleges forhelp in integrating
synthesizingtheexponential We mustreform
increasesin information.... highereducationto reconstructthe
unityand valueof knowledge...[which]is reallyjust shorthandforsayingthatthecomplexity of theworld
requiresus to have a betterunderstanding and connections
of the relationships betweenall fieldsthat
andoverlap*'
intersect (Gregorian 2004).
& Springer

296 TheorSoc (2007) 36:287-311
society,thatis, is notmerelyservedbytheeducationalsystembutis literally by it

constituted
Thuswhenadvanceddegreesareinvolved,a comforting talkis transformed
heart-to-heart into
expensiveandvaluabletherapy. A similarmetamorphosis occurswheneducationalcredentials
rendercasual businessadvice as consulting, or when the informalassessmentof dangers
succumbsto university-certified riskanalysis.Muchof thisvalue is educationallyconstructed
withoutregardtothedelivery ofverifiableservices.TherapyaddsvaluetotheGDP evenwhen
thepatientfailsto getbetter,whereassolace fromfriends is economically valuelessevenwhen
thepersonimprovesdramatically (Meyer and Rowan In the
1977). short, knowledgesocietyis
fundamentally based on schooled -
understandings theformof universalprinciples- that
in
can be requiredand can countas progressper se, over and above materialoutcomes.
The consequencesof thesecontinuingchanges in dominantsocietal models show up
everywhere in global and nationalpolicies.The WorldBank's (2000) discussionof higher
educationfor developingcountries,for instance,makes no mentionof the once-feared
possibilityof over-education. More is better,in thevisionof the Bank. The onlyconcern
now seems to be whetherdevelopingcountriescan sustainenoughhighereducation,of
sufficientquality,to enterintothebravenew worldof theknowledgesociety.
The expanding role of the university
Thus we arriveat an understanding of the university'senduranceand rapid expansion

throughthe currentperiod.Its core task goes beyondshapingcultureand personnelfor
efficientroleperformance in a boundedsociety.Much more,theuniversity existsto design
and assemble the culturaland human featuresof an expanded map of a universalistic
cosmos. We now turnto a discussionof why thisencompassingcosmic map - read the
"knowledgesociety"- firstarises.
The current waves of expansioncharacterizing theworld'suniversities originatedin the
periodfollowingWorldWar II. The war and its aftermath undermined theearlierModern
synthesis,in whichsocietytookformin thehighnationalstate,and it opened thedoorto
a world society.At the heartof the postwartransitionlay the decline of nation-state
sovereigntyunderconditionsof universalism.Obvious militaryforces(the nuclearage)
were involved in the process, along with culturalones (the stigmatization of fascism)
and also politicalones (a Cold War builtarounduniversalprinciple- democracyversus
communism- ratherthan nationalcultures).Economic forcesalso contributed to the
developmentof worldsociety,butthesetendto be exaggeratedin current thinking, which
oftenmistakenly definesglobalizationmainlyineconomicterms.Centraltotheongoingshift
was theconvictionthatthegreatnew global worldrepresented theforcesof progressand
developmentratherthancontraction and retreat.Againstthebackdropof war,depression,
and fascism(all thoughtto be producedby closed nationalstates),therecould be no
turningback. An expandednew world was in formation, to which the university stood
central.
We can see theco-evolutionof university and societyif we look back at theriseof the
universityitself,in theeighteenth and nineteenthcenturies.
The university's firstwidespread
emergenceoccurredconcomitantly withtheriseof theModernnation-state. These twinsof
theage of reasonprovidedreciprocalsupportto each otherspurredby interstate and inter-
universitycompetitions. As closed and competitive nationalstatesgrewinstitutionalized over
time,becomingvirtually coterminous withModernrationalized universities
society, came to
be seen as theirnaturalappendages:The university'sstudentsand academic contents
increasinglytookon nationalmeaningsandpurposes(Altbach1998).9As publiclife,in other
£> Springer

TheorSoc (2007) 36:287-311 297
words,becameembeddedin nationalcommunity, and as personalrolesand identitieswere

into
packagedtogether citizenship (Frankand Meyer2002), both thedomain of university
knowledgeand the populationof universityknowerswere cast as nation-state projects-
boundto nationalculture,tradition,
attachedforms,integrally
historically and history,and
to the putativefunctionalrequirementsof nation-state
society (Readings 1996; Soares
1999).
Underthesesocietalconditions,the university enlargedsubstantially. Firstthatwhich
could count as officialknowledge expanded. In the name of national progress,the
university laid claim to culturalrealmsformerly consideredinaccessibleand forbidden,
extending human sovereignty over natural with rationalizationbased on
territories,
empirical science, and also over spiritual and social withrationalization
territories, based
on principles.10 The new university knowledge,as means forcollectiveends, promised
benefitsforthe nation-state as a whole - in nationalliterature and history(Franket al.
2000) and in sciences orientedon natural-resource exploitation(prominently including
agricultureand mining,whichoftenpredatedthe"basic" naturalsciencesin theuniversity).
For examplein 1900, theUniversity of Tokyofeaturednation-state-centric departments of
of
Technology Explosives and Technology of Arms. More the
generallyduring period, the
n
social sciencesfirstappeared(Frankand Gabler2006).
Also withtheriseof nation-state society,thosewho could countas university knowers
multiplied.In opening its doors to new studentpopulations,the universityconstituted
-
Modernity'smostactivemembers leadersand citizensforthenationalpolity,producers
and consumersforthenationaleconomy,and so on.
The end of WorldWarII markeda shiftin thismutuallybeneficialarrangement, altering
thecosmicmaprootingbothnation-state societyand theuniversity. The liberalvictory, part
moraland partmilitary, unleashedforcesthatundermined corporatebodies stigmatizedin
thewar (religious,ethnic,and especiallynational)and erodedthe limitstheyimposedon
universalization. At the same time,the liberalvictoryenergizedthe move towarda new
worldsociety,composedof individualizedpersons,commonlyconceivedas autonomous,
equal actorswitha wide rangeof humanrights(Suarez 2007; Tsutsuiand Wotipka2004).
In thepost-wartransition, thatis, thenation-state lostsome of itsprimordial standing,and
so too did citizensand bureaucratic and professional bodies associatedwith the state,such
as nationalscientificstructures
(Frank and Meyer2002; Mann 1990; Paul et al. 2003; Soysal
1994).12 In theirwake, new and encompassingimageriesof the world, individualized
-
persons,andhumanity all conceivedon universalistic grounds- strengthened considerably
(Boli 2005).
9Deweymade thispointin his 1916 classic,Democracyand Education,whichWinther-Jensen (1998)

summarizes thus:"[Education becamea civic function and the civic functionwas identifiedwiththe
* forhumanity;
oftheidealof thenationalstate.The state'was substituted
realization cosmopolitanism gave
wayto nationalism.To form the not
citizen, the'man,'becametheaimof education."
10Aprinciples-based ofnatureseemssubjective
rationalization andtherefore whilea science-based
arbitrary,
of God seemsreductionist
rationalization and thereforearbitrary.
"The state-centricimpulseappearsclearly,e.g., in politicalscienceand development economics(as in
manpower planning [e.g.,Livingstone 1998]).
12Thereconfiguration of"society"showsinthechanging contentsofColonialStudies.In theearlytwentieth
century,these stressedthe colonizing nation-state's
objectives. For instancein 1930,a ColonialSciences
degreefromtheUniversite Catholiquede Louvainrequired coursesin CongoleseLanguages,ColonialLaw,
Culturesof the Congo (Farming,Hunting,and Fishing),PoliticalEconomyand Tools of the Colony,
Ethnologyand Ethnography (IndigenousPolitics),Colonial Hygiene,and the Catholic Missions. In
now,ColonialStudieshighlight
universities theexperiencesof colonizedindividuals.
& Springer

298 TheorSoc (2007) 36:287-311
The reconstitution of society in global-individualterms inaugurateda new and

continuingage of university expansion.By (a) extendingthe naturaland social contexts
of university activitiesout beyondcompetitive nation-states to a unifiedworld,(b) scaling
up thepresumedenginesand beneficiaries of university activitiesfromnationalcitizenries
to global humanity, and (c) breakingdown the corporatist elementsof society- church,
family, and nation whenconstructed as primordially rootedin race,religion,and history-
into individualsconceivedas extraordinarily agenticsocial actors(Meyer and Jepperson
2000), the developing model of a global and individual-based societyfacilitated
previously
unimagined universalization and thus university growth.13
Withtherawmaterialsof knowledge- societyand nature- reconceivedon globalrather
thannationalbases, and withtheauthorization of a global corpsof knowledgeproducers,
the post-war shift toward an individualizedworld society unleashed an enormous
proliferationof globally systematizedunderstandings. The universalization-inhibiting
boundariesimposed by nation-state societyweakened,enablingthe discoveryof ratio-
nalized and lawfulprinciplescommonto the whole humanrace and extendingfardown
into the details of every Modern social structure (Castells 1996). Likewise,prevailing
modelsof natureshiftedfromnationalresourceto global ecosystem- theformeran only
partiallyscientizedfeatureof nationalwealthand thelattera pervasivelyscientizedsystem
of global lifesustenance(Frank1997). Both dimensionsof changeare capturedin therise
of theuniversity's medicalsciences,whichassumeboththeuniversalvalue of humanlife
and theuniversality of thehumanbody.Between1863 and 1930, forinstance,thenumber
of degrees offeredby the Facultyof Medicine at PUniversit6Catholique de Louvain,
Belgium,increasedfrom1 to 3, and between 1930 and 2005, increasedfurther to 12
degrees(Medicine,Dentistry, Pharmacy, Clinical Biomedicine,Experimental Biomedicine,
Clinical and Biomedical Technology,Human Nutrition,Toxicology, Public Health,
Motricity, Kinesitherapy and Rehabilitation, and PhysicalEducation).
The same post-warchangesalso generateda considerablybroadenedand empowered
populationof universityknowers,with enhancedcapacities for understanding. In the
emergingglobalizedand individualized world,categoricalrestrictions on educationalaccess
were steadilybrokendown (includingthose based on sex, race, and citizenry),as were
collectivecontrolsover knowledgedistribution (opening access, e.g., to once guarded
nationalsecrets,such as thoseassociatedwiththeCold War Space Race). As individuals
schooled in knowledgecame to anchorworldsociety,thesalienceof degreecertifications
rose. Numbersof studentsand university facultyshotupwardaccordingly.
The new causal dynamicsfavorednotonlytheuniversity's contemporary expansionbut
also theunprecedented openingand interconnection of theuniversity withsocietywritlarge
(as in the rise of the "practicalarts"[Brint2002; see also Ramirez2002]). Withso few
culturalmaterialsremainingoutsidetheuniversity orbitand withwide-openaccess to the
studentrole,thepost-waruniversity began to enmesh withsocietyas neverbefore,under-
the
cutting ivory-tower-style isolation that had been celebrated earlieras a measureofpurity.
Criticsof thisprocesssee theuniversity's penetration by society(and by itscommercial
and marketelementsin particular) as representing the destruction of academicvalues. But
theytendto grosslyunderstate thecountervailing trend- therisingextentto whichacademic
13An 1891letter
fromfuture ofChicagopresident
University HarryJudsonto thenpresident WilliamHarper
suggeststhenation-state's
euroson knowledge:"I dislikethe idea of a foreigner
at the head of such a
departmentin an Americanuniversity.It seems to me thatdepartments involvingAmericanhistory,
Americanliterature,
and Americanpoliticsshouldbe in chargeof Americans....
I mustconfessthatI don't
fancyhavingto workundera German.I doubtifmanyAmerican would"(Boyer2003).
professors
& Springer

TheorSoc (2007) 36:287-311 299
values, perspectives, expertise,and knowledgecome to transform and in many senses

dominatesociety(Bell 1973; Kerret al. 1960; Maassenand Weingart 2005; Schofer1999). In
important ways, the compromiseof university autonomyby the incursionof mundane
societalinterests is farless thoroughgoing thanthedestruction of whatwas once thought of
as local "society"by a universalizing academy.Thus, for instance,the proliferation of
Boeing professorshipsin various universitiesmay indicate somethingmuch less
revolutionary than Boeing's own requirement that its engineers- withoutexception-
hold universitydegrees. Indeed over recent decades, this reverseinfiltration proceeds
unabatedly:universityknowledge and universitygraduatesdeeply penetratesociety's
constitutive foundations, so muchso thatthe arrivalof the so-calledknowledgesociety-
builtaroundtheuniversity and itsuniversalized meanings- is widelyannounced(Beck 1992;
Castells1996; Habermas1987; Stichweh2004).
Our overallargumentthusis that- morethana systemof materialproduction- the
"knowledgesociety"is a systemof cosmicmapping.Even moreso thanitsearlierModern
analogue, contemporary society is built around religious-likepretenses(i.e., universal
principles)more than actual competences(i.e., local techniques).If expandedcompetencies
were the only issue, an elaborationof routinetrainingrelationships probablycould have
handledthe socializationrequirements arising over time, and the university mightindeed
have fragmented and collapsedas forecast.But theuniversity survivesand flourishes, as a
grand and cohesive scheme, precisely because what are forged at its core are not mundane
skills but ratherthe transcendentprinciplesthat constitutethe knowledge society's
foundations.
The argumentput forwardhere enlightensaspects of the university'scontemporary
development thatare otherwisedifficult to fathom.Firstithelpsexplainwhytheuniversity
so completely outlasts all the technically-superior competition thatis supposedto undercut
it in thecurrent -
period exactly as it prevailed, in earlierform, in thenineteenth century.
The university's at or religious work - the great ceremony of higher
gifts cosmological
education,celebrating universalbeliefsand doctrines- give theinstitution enduringpower.
Second, our argumenthelps accountforthe surprising degreeof homogeneityfound
among university curriculaand enrollment patternsaroundthe world,despiteenormous
cross-national variationsin economies,politicalsystems,occupationalstructures, and so on.
If theuniversity's mainagenda is to bathe local activitiesin the light of universaltruths -
models of the ideal more than summoning realities at hand - worldwide
invoking society
homogeneity in university foci makes sense. Notionsof the ideal society,afterall, and
progresstowardit,are quiteuniform globally:centering on humanrights,scientific models,
and principlesof social rationality (Meyeret al. 1997). Since such world-levelmodelsare
muchmorehomogeneousthanthediverserealitieson theground,theuniversity exhibits
considerableisomorphism.14
Third,ourargument helpsexplaintherapidpenetration of university understandings and
graduatesdeep intolocal societies.Everywhere now positions of value and esteem require
the symbolicpossessionof certifiedknowledge,embodiedin university degrees(Brown
2001). Under conditionsof rapid globalizationand weakeningstate sovereignty, local
14Thus,for example,the Universityof Zululand's 2006 degree offerings are largelyconventional

(imaginablein Kansas or Bosnia). In the Facultyof Arts,one maystudyAfrikaans, Arts
Anthropology,
andCulture,Communications, Criminal Justice, Geography
English,Linguistics, andEnvironmental Studies,
German,History,Intercultural Communication, IsiZulu, Language Studies,LibraryScience, Nursing,
Philosophy,Psychology,RecreationandTourism, Social Work,Sociology,Theology, andHumanMovement
Sciences.The 1999 Bologna Declarationseeks unprecedented organizational homogeneity among the
of Europe(Krucken2005; Lenhardt
universities
distinct
historically 2002, 2005; Teichler2002).
£) Springer

300 TheorSoc (2007) 36:287-311
societiesgain stability
and legitimacy
by invokingworldmodelsof meritocracy(Jencksand
Riesman 1968). Thus theworld'sstratificationsystems,long knownto displaysurprising
assemblearounda relativelyunifiedsystemof educationalcredentials(Treiman
similarity,
and Ganzeboom2000).
Research implicationsforuniversityknowledgeand forthe studentrole
As the nationalstateslowly gives way to a new world societybuiltaroundindividuals,

scientization,and social rationalization,both the university'sstructuraland human
dimensions(its knowledgeand studentidentities) are transformed.Firstalongthestructural
dimension,many aspects of social life are reorganizedaround principleduniversity
knowledge,makingit routineto develop and promulgategeneralor universalanalyses
of culturalmaterialsand role behaviors formerlytreatedas particularto nationalor
civilizationalcontext(as with formerfoci on nationalhistoryand nationalliterature or
civilizationalart- see, e.g., Franket al. 2000) or outsidetheuniversity domain.One now
can have seminars,forexample,on peasantagriculture, teen-agesexuality,tribalartifacts
seen as high art,properdiet,and the medical effectsof stress.Many aspects of nature
likewiselose theiridiosyncratic and unique qualities,accumulatinginsteaduniversaland
law-likemeanings.The recognition of singularnatural"wonders"declines,forinstance,as
thewondersthemselvesare demystified and subjectto scientificscrutiny (Weber 1978).
In parallelalong the humandimension,thereis enormousexpansionin thenumberof
thosewho can and should- itis thought - be universitystudents.At thesame time,thereis
solidificationin the standingof each individualstudent,as a person with the right,
capability,and obligationto acquire universalknowledgeand understandings. Underthe
new rulesof thenew society,itseemsobviousthatall sortsof personsstandto benefitfrom
university tutelage,independent of class, race,gender,ethnicity,nationality,or even what
was once consideredacademicaptitude.Thus theuniversity becomes thecore site forthe
ultimatein contemporary baptisms- the union of empoweredindividualknowerand
universalknowledge.
At theheartof boththeseexpansionsare two longstanding processes,acceleratedin the
post-war era. They are rationalizationand ontological elaboration.Rationalization entails
developingthecausal textureof naturaland social life- spellingoutprocessesof actionin
globallypertinent cause-and-effect chains. We can now specify,forinstance,the precise
logics behind "right"and "wrong" ways to employ people or to use materialsin the
classroom(Jacksonand Davis 2000; Shulman1999). Rationalization furthermore involves
definingthe structure of naturaland social life,detailingits complexorganizationsand
hierarchies of interconnection.Thus we can specifytheramifications of "wrong"classroom
decisionswell beyondtheirimmediateinteraction contexts(on thechances,say,of future
criminalbehavior).Rationalization meansthatdeep intotheminutiaeof naturaland social
life,and intotheactionsof people in thesearenas,generalrulesarediscovered,structures of
interrelationship are established,and abstractanalyses are conducted.Rationalization
strengthens ourgraspbothof how thingsworkand how theyfittogether, and it does so in
universalistic terms.
By itself,of course,the reductionof bothnaturaland social worldsto generalcausal
principlesand abstractchainsof relationcan be seen to be profoundly alienating.This is a
perspectivecommonto criticalanalysesof societaldevelopment overthelasttwocenturies,
as in Weber'sironcage. But rationalizedanalysisis not theonlyvectorof global cultural
changeunderwayin theModernperiod(Droriet al. 2003).
& Springer

TheorSoc (2007) 36:287-311 301
For ifrationalization providesone mainenginedrivingtheinterpenetration of global and

an
local, expanded and liberalized ontologyprovides the other - specifyingexactlywhat
things exist in realityand delineatingprecisely what those thingscan do (Thomas et al.
1987: Ch. 1). In particular, the liberal-ontological elaborationcharacteristic of thecurrent
era reconstitutes societyaround individualizedand activatedglobal persons,bestowing
themwith autonomyand ultimatestandingin increasinglylawful and comprehensible
worldsof societyand nature.By definition, theseindividualizedactors(and the complex
social organizationsand statestheycreate)can and naturallywant to use, manage,and
acquire knowledge (Meyer and Jepperson2000). Furthermore with schooling, these
individuals- the linchpinsof the new society- can hone capacitiesto benefitfirsthand
fromtheirown personalexperiences,whichuniversalizing filtersimbuewithgreatgeneral
significance.15
Ontologicalspecification also occursin thenaturalworld.For example,moreand more
animal species are demarcated,withenhancedstatusesand itemized"rights,"on top of
increasingly elaboratedcapacities(such thatnow even dolphinsare knownto use tools).
Physicalplaces, likewise,are distributed among progressivelymore refinedcategories.
They are discovered not only to do more but also to be more,occupyingpositionsin unique
constellationsof physical and social (e.g., recreational)relations(what was once, for
example,a simpleswamp may now be any numberof quite specificand highlyvariable
things). Indeed as universalizedmeanings accumulate,entities increasinglyachieve
singularityvia distinctivepackages of universals.Thus a world that is increasingly
renderedas thesame in itssubjectionto generalcausal laws is also increasingly filledwith
elaboratelyrecognizeddifference (as also occursin "glocalization"- theglobal production
of local particularities accordingto universalstandards[Robertson1992]). Given its
strengths at both rationalization and ontologicalelaboration,the universityis uniquely
suitedto accommodateboththestandardizing and theparticularizing processesunderway.
As is clearly implied,the Modern tendencytowardontologicalclarificationstands
parallelto,and interdependent with,thetendencytowardrationalization. For instanceas the
category"copper"is specifiedevermoreprecisely,therecan and mustbe morerulesabout
how itworksand fitstogether withotherthings.And in turntheelaborationof rationalized
rulesand relationship structures aroundcopperrequirefinerspecifications of the metal's
formsand properties. Both of
processes, course, displace local realitieswith universal
understandings.
In broadperspective, thus,we have theriseofan orderlyand predictable world,in which
empowered knowers command abstract knowledge through schooling and managed
experience.16 We turn now to suggest more specific propositions about what rationalization
and ontologicalconstruction have done to the routinefabricof the university as it has
changedover thelast two centuries, givingspecial attention to thepost-WorldWar II era.
15Therecentdisplacement of novelsbymemoirs listssuggeststhecontemporary

on U.S. best-seller blanket
relevanceof privatelives. Whilethe rationalization of knowledgemay seem at odds withpedagogical
emphaseson experience, in factexperiential knowledgetakeson highlyrationalized forms.Given the
primordiality of thehumanindividual, experience can be tightlyspecifiedand highlygeneralized.
16We describethe The implicit
university'schangesas if theyoccurredsimultaneously everywhere.
assumption is thatexpansiverationalizationand liberalizingontologicalconstruction as
areverywidespread,
aretheiruniversity Thisis notentirely unreasonable - changesintheuniversity indeedoccur
consequences.
in parallelworldwide. Butitis also truethatmuchvariation remainsat lowerlevelsofanalysis- at national
levels,amongstindividual universities, and at departmental and program 2002 foran
levels(see Jepperson
illustrativegeneral analysisand Lenhardt 2005 for a specificdiscussion of cross-national
university
variations).
& Springer

302 TheorSoc (2007) 36:287-311
Changes in the theoryof knowledge
In thenascentuniversity of themedievalperiod,knowledgewas conceivedto be precious

and scarce. Beyond theology,few culturalmatterscould be formulated in universalistic
terms.17 What limitedknowledgetherewas retainedmysterious and arbitrary airs,being
encasedin ritual,tradition,and in sanctified texts(as in themonastery). The Modernperiod
of thenineteenth century undercut manycustomary restrictionslimitingtheuniversalization
of culturalmaterials.Order,albeitfragmentary, spreadin theuniverse,givingriseto more
lawfuland factualunderstandings of natureand society.Such understandings, renderedas
knowledge,lengthened the roster of university disciplines.
In the contemporary knowledge society,the globalized and individualizedcontext
invitesextensiveinterpenetration of the local and the cosmic, creatinga knowledge
explosion.It is now increasingly thecase thatall things- includingthelikesof blackholes,
forwhich evidencemay be only speculative- can be perceivedand understoodwithin
universalisticframeworks. As knowledgegrowspervasive,itis notonlystoredin university
organizations but also woven intothefabricsof everydaypracticesand routines(including
those identifying the characteristics of properhandshakesand the ingredients of ideal
laundrydetergents).Knowledge furthermore comes to be structured into the properlife
experiencesof society'sindividualconstituents. To wit,even themostpersonaland seem-
inglynonsensicaldreamscan be interpreted, thanksto Freudand Jung,withincommon
symbolicframeworks.
The risingauthorityof knowledgeover human experienceis paralleledby a great
increasein theauthorization of social experienceby theknowledgesystem.Thus whileall
can be knownin thenew worldsociety,so also all shouldbe known- thatis, analyzedin
lightof generalprinciplesof science,rationality, and humancompetenceand rights.The
individualhas primordial statusin thewholemodernperiod(as in Durkheim's([1957] 1975,
or [1898] 1969 "cultof theindividual").So itwouldbe offensive undercurrent conditions to
eliminateor bar fromtheuniversity all sortsof familiarities
formerly consideredmundaneor
corrupted.One mustlegitimate thesoberanalysisof old sharecropper dialects,or dime-store
romancenovels,or lesserformsof faunaand flora,or themistakenthoughts of children.In
contemporary society,these thingsshould be studiedas instancesof abidingtruthsand
designatedaccordingly as knowledge.Doing so is thought to enrichindividualexperience, at
thesametimethatitsubjectsindividualexperienceto thestandardizing orderofuniversalistic
Muchchangeswhentheoldpeasantdialectbecomesan objectofuniversity
principles. analysis.
Fromthe deep and mutualpenetration of universalknowledgewithlocal cultureand
individualexperiencefollowsthe proliferation of university-based teachingand research
programs(degrees,majors,departments, centers,and otheruniversity divisions).New study
domainsappear,existingdomainsdifferentiate, and all domainsdeepen in the course of
officialknowledgepermeation.For example,thenumberof departments at theUniversity
of Tokyojumpedfrom33 to 84 between1900 and 2000, and thenumberof history courses
at Harvardcatapultedfrom3 to 229 between1853 and 2000 (Frankand Meyer2006).18
17Until1961, the world'soldestuniversity,Al-Azharin Egypt(founded975), encompassedonly three

faculties:Theology,Shariat(Islamiccanon law), and ArabicLanguage.Now, thereare also facultiesof
Commerce,Educationand Instruction, Languages and Translation,Sciences, Medicine,Chemistry,
Engineering,Dentistry, Islamicand ArabStudies,and IslamicDa'awa (spiritual
Agriculture, awakening).
18OfHarvard'sthreehistorycoursesin 1853, none focusedon the AmericanRevolution, despitethe
locationin thecradlethereof.
university's
£> Springer

TheorSoc (2007) 36:287-311 303
Along the path of proliferation and expansion,university-based programsalso extend

intothewidersociety- connectingwiththenon-academicworldthrough, forinstance,the
credentialingexplosion,knowledge-sharing agreements, adultlearningcurricula,
internship
schemes,and technologytransferprograms(e.g., Hatakenaka2004). Thus from 1945
onward,the numberof Tokyo's specialized institutes(e.g., the EarthquakeResearch
Institute)increasedfrom4 to 29, at thesame timeas Harvard'srose from2 to 33.
Entirelyapartfromthe university duringthe presentperiod,university-style programs
materializein all sortsof publicand privateorganizations. Firmsand statesand non-profits
alike all come to see theirpracticesas framedby universals,requiringuniversity-like
endeavorsto conductresearchand instruction (fromthe classic Bell Labs to the more
prosaic McDonald's Hamburger University).19 Partlysuch programsdisciplinethe local
worldin practicalterms.And partlytheyflaunttheuniversalknowledgethatsecureslocal
organizational identitiesand activities.
Amidstsuch widespreadgrowth,the contentof knowledgechanges, too. There is
extensiverationalizationand global standardization, as local arenas acquire universal
underpinnings. Thus, for the
instance, study of the French Revolutiongives way to the
study of revolutions generally(Hymans2005). Also, there is much ontology-basedchange,
as knowledgein theformof inertsubstantive facts("whatis" knowledge)getsrearranged
intoprocess-oriented abstractprinciples,suitedto the capacitiesof activatedindividuals
("how to" knowledge). This shiftis clearlyapparentin theretreatof taxonomicframeworks
in thenaturalsciencesand theonrushof actor-directed experimentation (Gablerand Frank
2005; McEneaney2003).
We thusfindourselvesin a worldwhereeverything is knowable(and in principleshould
be known);whereknowledge deeply is institutionalized in the codes and proceduresof
society;and where knowledge is the master key to a wide varietyof social structures
(greatlyadvantaging schooled persons). It is also a world whereall kindsof local activities
and phenomenaare linkedto universalnaturallaws, which oftentranscendthe positive
nationallaws thatearlierwere so prominent (Boyle and Meyer 1998; Droriet al. 2003).20
Thus we envisiona broad time sequence in the manifestation of knowledgein the
university.In thepre-Modernera, isolatedbundlesof categories- listsof birdsor starsor
-
sins suchas usury,surrounded by clumpsof rulesand factsand theories existedforelect
students to come laboriously to know. Over time,Modernity disciplinedmuch of this:birds
turned into ornithology,sins of usury evolved into ethics and economics, and starsbecame
thestuffof astronomy. Slowly,knowledgeexpanded, rationalized,and systematized.
The present-daysynthesisrepresentsgreat steps forwardin rationalization,with
elongatedand enumerated causal chainsof interrelation. Birds,stars,and sins can now be
analyzed withincomplex webs of evolution,function,and interdependence with their
environments, whichnow prominently includenotonlynaturalbutalso humanand social
realms.The knowledgethereby producedhas a functional-theory quality- givenitsorigins
in cause-and-effectrationalization and orientation around human individuals.Thus it tends
to diffuse out from the university, becoming rooted in benchmark routinesof production
and practice.For example,elaboratecausal links betweenbirds,pesticides,and human
19Hamburger showsjusthow fartheprocesshas gone.In Leidner'saccount(1993), Hamburger

University
universalizes
productsand servicesunderheavilytheorized suchas theCorporate
Consultancies
rationales.
Xchangegive
University adviceon such issuesas University
Corporate Designand Development.
20Forexample,thereinterpretation medicaland psychological
of femalegenitalcuttingon universalistic
a local customintoa globalwomen'srights
groundstransforms violation(Boyle2002).
& Springer

304 TheorSoc (2007) 36:287-311
healtharise,standardizing thelistof legallyacceptableactiveingredients in pesticidesand

theprecisestrength at whichtheymay be delivered.
At the same time, liberal-ontologicalclarificationalso proceeds, elaboratingthe
categoriesand capacitiesof entitiesgenerallyand also invigorating thehumanindividual.
Given theemergingassumptionsof society,theonce simplebirdacquiresstandingbeyond
thatprovidedby Modernornithology. Now, birdsmaybe seen in termsof theirrelationto
the essentialperson,such thatinsideand outsidethe university courses in bird-watching
proliferate,alongside studiesof the human interpretation of birdsong,birdpainting,bird
appreciation, and thehistorical
meanings of birds in diverse societies.In thecontemporary
world,it is even possible thattheputativeperspectivesof birdson therestof natureand
societybecomethefocusof instruction (e.g., in courseson Deep Ecology). Similarlywhile
humanity's views of thestarscan providerichfodderforinstruction and research,so also,
withthe searchforextra-terrestrialintelligence, can theattributed perspectivesof starson
humans.In thesame way,thematter of profit - stigmatized in themedievalperiodand later
turnedrespectableby economics- develops various forms:e.g., detailedbookkeeping
instructionwithclearruleson therationalization side and on theontologicalside investment
clubs to help elaboratethechoice-making and taste-expressing logics of humanactors.21
Changes in the theoriesof studentand pedagogy
Transformations parallelto thoseoutlinedabove simultaneously reformthe model of the

student-learner.
In the medievalworld,few were deemed capable of knowing,and those
few were thoughtto requireenormousexternaldisciplineto be elevated out of their
inherentcorruption.Purificationrequiredrelentlessimitation,rote learning,behavioral
correctness,and exact mimicry- and even then,most studentswere thoughtunable to
move beyondthesimplestformsof knowledgereproduction.22 Undersuch circumstances,
universityinstructioncould be quite concrete,emphasizingthingslike correctgrammar,
precisepenmanship,and various formsof drill.23Courses typicallyfocusedon tangible
modes of thoughtand behaviorand were unlikelyto stressbroad law-likepicturesof
scientizednature,the liberalizedindividual,or rationalizedsociety.Indeed,thecelebrated
Latin and Greekwriters,whose decline in the university is widely mourned,were used
for
mainly grammar exercises - not fordeep literarystudy(Hofstadter and Smith1961).
2'Gibbonset al.
(1994) describetheevolvingtheoryof knowledgeas a shiftfrom"mode 1" knowledge
(pure,disciplinary,homogeneous, expert-led,supply-driven, hierarchical,
peer-reviewed, to
university-based)
"mode2" knowledge(applied,problem-centered, trans-disciplinary,
heterogeneous,hybrid,demand-driven,
entrepreneurial,network-embedded). Harrington (2007) analyzestheinvestment-club phenomenon.
22Hirsch (1999) and othersstandby thevalueof suchpedagogicaltechniques.
23At China's
ImperialTientsen Universityin 1900,e.g.,penmanship andmilitary drillweremandatory. The
Yale Reportof 1828,written to rebutcriticsof theclassicalcurriculum, summarizes thediscipline-oriented
view: "The twogreatpointsto be gainedin intellectual culture,are thedisciplineand thefurnitureof the
mind;expandingits powers,and storingit withknowledge.The former of theseis, perhaps,the more
important ofthetwo.A commanding object,therefore,ina collegiatecourse,shouldbe,tocall intodailyand
vigorousexercisethefaculties ofthestudent.Thosebranches ofstudyshouldbe prescribed,andthosemodes
of instructionadopted,whicharebestcalculatedto teachtheartof fixingtheattention, thetrainof
directing
thought, analyzinga subjectproposedforinvestigation; following,withaccuratediscrimination,thecourse
ofargument; balancingnicelytheevidencepresented to thejudgment; awakening,elevating,andcontrolling
theimagination; arranging,withskill,thetreasures whichmemory gathers;rousingand guidingthepowers
ofgenius....
Thehabitsofthinking aretobe formed, bylongcontinued andcloseapplication....
Ifa dexterous
performance of themanualoperations, in manyof themechanicalarts,requiresan apprenticeship, with
diligentattentionforyears;muchmoredoes thetraining of thepowersof themind."
& Springer

TheorSoc (2007) 36:287-311 305
The Modernperiodretained manyoftheseaccents,stillstressing theuniversity's distinctive

natureandremovefromeveryday lifeandthescarcity ofeligibleorcompetent citizen-students
(as evident,say,in barriers to women'sparticipation [Bradleyand Ramirez1996]). Required
characterreferences insuredthatthose lackingmoralfibernevertrespassedon university
grounds.Still,at leastsomepersonswerethought to possessreasonor inclination sufficientto
acquireit(theperiod,afterall,celebrated analyses).Thusa disciplined
rationalistic pedagogical
approachtoclearanddifferentiated bodiesofknowledgebecamefeasible.As a result,learning
techniquesgrewincreasingly codified in specializedorganizations, roles,and materials, most
obviously in the formalization of pedagogy itself.The textbook commenced its as
reign the
ultimatecarrierof generallaws and fixedfacts,and thestandardized "introductory" course
becamethesanctioned startof a rationalized pathwayfromelementary to advancedstudies.
In thecontemporary university muchof thishas openedup. Everyonein principleshould
knowandcan,eventhrough extra-classroom and extra-university participatory activities (such
as internshipsandstudy-abroad programs). Recastas individual actors,peopleareinstilled with
broadband authority tocreate,discover, anduse knowledge drawnfromlittlemorethandailylife
experience.24 Personalstatements thusreplacecharacter references in university admissions.
The newworldis one whereno one is obligedto knowanything in particular (to thechagrin
of critics[Hirsch1987]) butwhereeveryoneis authorized toknowanything at all. Mandatory
languagerequirements, forexample,collapseat thesame timeas optionallanguageprograms
proliferate(nowincluding Quechuaat Stanford andUzbekat Chicago).Specializedknowledge
becomessubjectto individual taste,evenas generalized competency and wide-ranging agency
becomede rigueur.Shakespeareis optionalaccordingly, but readingand writing- and the
abilityto exerciseone's interests in choosinga major- are utterly compulsory.
Pedagogy in the current era changescorrespondingly, comingto emphasizeparticipation,
choice,decision-making, and experience,in versionsof a "real world."None of Harvard's
229 history coursesin2000 wererequiredforall students, anda good deal ofstudent-directed
individualstudywas encouraged,oftenon thebasis of real-worldexperiences(even highly
personalones,inwhichhistory mergeswithbiography andgenealogy).Thusitseemsthatthe
textbookloses someofitsformer centrality (thereis limitedevidenceaddressingthequestion,
but see McEneaney and Meyer 2000) and is replaced at times by students'journals
recording theirown (broadlyrelevant)lifelessons.Learningby doingbecomesa preferred
classroomtechnique,so thatvoice studiesgain groundon music appreciation, and com-
position courses to
begin edge out literature.Now university curricula are rife withfree
electives and independentstudies (Robinson 2005), supplantingcore requirements,
prerequisites, and serial examinations(in 1906 at the Universityof the Cape of Good
Hope, therewerematriculation, intermediate, and B.A. exams,all standardforall students;
similarlythe Harvardof 1853 had, essentially, a singlemajor).The principalidea now is
thatthestudent, as a bona fideparticipant in theenterprise of educationand life,has built-in
capacitiesand interests all
to understand aspects of social and naturalreality.Cast as creator
andeducational consumer with sovereignty over the territories of knowledge,today'sstudent
decreasinglyrequires the moral and intellectual of
discipline introductory "principles"
coursesor longchainsof preparatory prerequisites. He is his own Schoolmaster(and so of
course is she). One consequenceof all this is a reductionin standardizing pressureson
students- e.g., fromcompulsorycourses,inflexiblebehavioralregulations, rigidtracking
- of thepublicrankingsand
systems,hazingrituals,and so on and thenear-disappearance
humiliationsthatonce markedfailureto conform, formerly as embodied in disciplined
educational
of diversity's
24Thevaluationof individualexperiencein partunderliesrecentrecognitions
(Antonioet al. 2004; Hale 2003).
benefits
& Springer

306 TheorSoc (2007) 36:287-311
grading systems (with failing grades).25 Students have rights,and rights to their
individuality.The worldin generalopens up to thecomprehension of individualstudents,
empoweredwithnaturalabilitiesand inclinations it.Pedagogy,then,becomes
to understand
an enablingratherthan a discipliningprocess, linkingstudentsto the many available
channelsof knowledgeand experience(Magolda 1999).
Thus in contemporary society,more studentsappear and froma broaderrange of
backgrounds.Theirinterestscover moredomains,includingall aspectsof theirown life
experiences,and theyare seen to be furnished withcapacitiesto make gainfulchoices -
amongprograms, courses, topics,and a activities(Harvard,in its
plethoraof extracurricular
2000 catalogue,listed287 officiallyrecognizedstudentorganizations).Pedagogically,the
instructionalsystemunfoldsto encouragestudents'authority and fullparticipation,
both
insidetheclassroomand in pedagogically-legitimated and accreditedoutsideexperiences.
of all thesechanges- bothin thetheoryof knowledgeand in thetheoriesof
Illustrations
studentsand pedagogy - are easy to accumulate.More systematicwork is obviously
required,however,beforewe can empirically groundgeneralizations abouttheuniversity's
transformations.26
Discussion and conclusion
Over thelasttwo centuries, a mainsocial-scientificvisionof societaldevelopment stresses

differentiation
as Modernity's keytendency. Fromthisperspective, expandedcontemporary
educationis a functionalresponseto increasedoperationalcomplexity,trainingyoung
people to meet the demands of ever more intricateroles. On one hand, this idea is
convincing,in partbecause it echoes theself-depictions of Moderneducationalinstitutions.
On theotherhand,doubtsarise: why does thetrainingforcomplexand specializedroles
occuroff-site- away fromtherole demandsin questionand undertheunifiedumbrellaof
the university,which makes claims to transcendent truthsand continuity over timeand
organizesaroundmodelsthatflowworldwideacross themostvariablesocieties?
Doubtsconcerning theconventional arenotonlytheoretical
storyline butalso practical.For
the last two centuries,a commonrefrainhas predictedthe destruction of the integrated
universityand its cultural
Canon in favorof narrowly tailoredtrainingoperations,as dif-
ferentiation
amplified theneedforfocused,flexible, andsite-specificmodesofpreparation - in
place of the university'ssweepingtruths.And yet forall the doomsdayprophecies,the
universityhas held steadfast and even flourishedthroughout theperiod,showinglong-term,
across-the-board growth,whichin recentdecades accelerates.The university certifies
ever
morepeople forevermorerolesin theModernsystem,enrolling massiveproportions of the
youngand providinginstruction on a constantly
broadening rangeoftopics.
Here we interpret this outcome by emphasizingthe centrality of the universalistic
cosmological foundations of contemporary rather
society, thanthe differentiation
and role
25
Public rankingsand humiliationsonce were common. For example, the Dublin UniversityCalendar of
1914-15 lists the Order of Rank in the College: "Provost; Fellows; Noblemen, Sons of Noblemen, and
Baronets; Doctors and Masters in the several Faculties; Bachelors; Fellow-Commoners; Scholars;
Pensioners; and Sizars, who are studentsof limitedmeans." Additionally,Dublin held regularCorrections:
"At half-pastten o'clock on Saturdaymornings,theJuniorDean attendsin the Hall, and reads out the names
of all Studentswho have been punished forneglect of duties or otheroffences."
26In particular,one may argue thatour ideas pertainto elite universitiesmore than lower-statusinstitutions.
We have explored this argumentpreliminarily, with materialsfromthe historicallyblack Tuskegee Normal
and IndustrialInstitute(now Tuskegee University)fromaround World War I. So far it is not supported.
£>Springer

TheorSoc (2007) 36:287-311 307
specializationthatariseson thesebases. We understand the university's definingtaskas a

generalizing one with cosmological or religious overtones - to render the world in
encompassing law-likeframes, rather than to impartspecific role-orientedskills.Thuswe see
the striking expansionsof the university's studentenrollments and academic contentsas
expressionsof universalization, signifying the intensifiedinterpenetration of theglobal and
universalwiththelocal andparticular.
It thusbecomesrelatively easy to accountfortheuniversity's astonishing expansionand
globaldiffusion, itshighlevelsof isomorphism, and itsenduringcohesionundera unifying
frame.All of this holds especially true in the wake of World War II, as "society" is
increasingly relocatedfromnation-states and citizensto a world societyof empowered
individualsembeddedin a rationalizedand scientizedcontext.
For theuniversity's knowledgeand knowers,and forthepedagogythatconnectsthem,
the implicationsof society's reinventionare striking.The new contextrechargesold
processesof rationalization and ontologicalelaboration,yieldinggreatexpansionsin what
can and shouldbe knownand in who can and shouldknow.These in turnalterthemenuof
approvedstrategies, techniques,and approachesforjoiningknowledgeand knoweras one.
The new societalcontextfavorstherise of individual-based experiential knowledge,even
as it grantsstudentsgreatlyenhancedcommandof learningand authority. Pedagogyshifts
to empowerment ratherthandisciplineand to participation ratherthanimitation.
The "knowledgesociety"thateventuatesis markedby theexceptionaldegreeto which
the university is opened to society(including,of course,to the bogeymanof corporate
capitalism,but also to virtuallyeveryotherinstitution demandingconsideration).But the
knowledgesocietyis at least equally distinguished by the exceptionaldegree to which
- and
societyis builtaroundtheuniversity itsabstractedand universalizedunderstandings
itsall-important degree certifications.
A prominent featureof theresultant contemporary university is thatit notonlyrestson
universalistic claimsbutis in factglobalizedas an institution. Thereare,of course,country-
to-country and university-to-university variations.But thetrendswe analyze are global in
scope, and impact the whole populationof universities.Most impressively, even the
resistantold Europeancore institutions now are compelledto surrender centuriesof feudal
and early Modern traditionunder the homogenizingpressuresof what is called the
"Bologna Process."Wherechangeis too slow,privateuniversities ariseto fillin thegaps.
Meanwhile in the developingworld, where fewerinertialtraditionsanchor resistance,
university transformation is even morerapidand thoroughgoing.
Acknowledgments andguidance,
Forsuggestions weowethanks tomanycolleagues, Gerhard
including Casper,
GiliDrori,PattiGumport, GeroLenhardt,
GeorgKriicken, AlexMcCormick, Francisco
Ramirez,UweSchimank,
EvanSchofer, andManfred herereflect
Stock.Theideaspresented outovermanyyears,
woikcarried
collaborative
inthetext.Somerelevant
as referenced empirical arepresented
illustrations inFrankandMeyer(2006).Workon
was supported
itself
thearticle bygrants toFranciscoO. RamirezandJohnW. MeyerfromStanford University's
FreemanSpogliInstitute and fromtheSpencerFoundation (20060003)and to David JohnFrankfromthe
SpencerFoundation (200700213)and fromthe Centerforthe Studyof Democracyat the University of
Irvine.
California,
References
and development.
Altbach,P. G. (1998). Comparativehighereducation:Knowledge,the university
Greenwich,CT: Ablex.
International
Antonian,L. A. (2000). Armenia:Highereducationproblemsand perspectives. Higher
Education,19, 19-20.
& Springer

308 TheorSoc (2007) 36:287-311
Antonio,A. L., Chang,M. J.,Hakuta,K., Kenny,D. A., Levin,S., & Milem,J.F. (2004). Effects ofracial
diversity on complexthinking in collegestudents. Psychological Science,15, 507-510.
Beck,U. (1992). Therisksociety.London:Sage.
Bell, D. (1973). Thecomingofpost-industrial society:A venture in socialforecasting. New York:Basic.
Berg,G. A. (2005). Lessonsfromtheedge: For-profit and nontraditional highereducationin America.
Westport, CT: Praeger.
Berg,1. E. (1971). Educationandjobs: Thegreattraining robbery. Boston:Beacon.
Bloom,A. (1987). TheclosingoftheAmerican mind.New York:Simon& Schuster.
Bok,D. (2003). Universities in themarketplace: Thecommercialization ofhighereducation.Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University.
Boli, J. (2005). Contemporary developments in world culture.International Journalof Comparative
Sociology,46, 383-404.
Boyer,J.(2003).Judson'swarand Hutchins 'speace: TheUniversity ofChicagoand warin the20thcentury.
Occasionalpaperson highereducationXII. Chicago:Collegeof theUniversity of Chicago.
Boyle,E. H. (2002). Femalegenitalcutting:Culturalconflict in theglobal community. Baltimore: Johns
HopkinsUniversity.
Boyle,E. H., & Meyer,J. W. (1998). Modernlaw as a secularizedand global model:Implications for
sociology oflaw.Soziale Welt-ZeitschriftFurSoziahvissenschaftliche Forschung UndPraxis,49,275-294.
Bradley,K., & Ramirez,F. O. (1996). Worldpolityand genderparity:Women'sshareof highereducation,
1965-1985.Researchin SociologyofEducationand Socialization,II, 63-92.
Bridges,D., Juceviciene, P., Jucevicius, R., & Mclaughlin, T. H. (2006). Highereducationand national
development: Universities and societiesin transition. London:Routledge.
Brint,S. (2002).Theriseofthepracticalarts'.InS. Brint (Ed.), Thefuture ofthecityofintellect(pp.23 1-259).
Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
Brown,D. K. (2001). The social sourcesof educational credentialism: Statuscultures, labormarkets, and
organizations. SociologyofEducation(ExtraIssue),74, 19-34.
Castells,M. (1996). Theriseofthenetwork society,volume2: TheInformation Age.Oxford:Blackwell.
Chabbott, C. (1999). Defining development: The makingoftheinternational development field,1945-1990.
In J. Boli & G. M. Thomas (Eds.), Constructing worldculture:International non-governmental
organizations since 1875 (pp. 222-248). Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
Collins,R. (1979). Thecredential society.New York:Academic.
de Botton,A. (1999). Whatarethehumanities for?EuropeanReview,7, 19-25.
Drori,G. S., Meyer,J. W, & Hwang,H. (Eds.) (2006). Globalization and organization. Oxford:Oxford
University.
Drori,G. S., Meyer,J. W, Ramirez,F. O., & Schofer,E. (2003). Science in themodernworldpolity:
Institutionalizationand globalization. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
Drori,G. S., & Moon, H. (2006). The changingnatureof tertiary education:Cross-national trendsin
disciplinary enrollment, 1965-1995.In D. P. Baker& A. W. Wiseman(Eds.), Theimpactofcomparative
educationresearchon institutional theory. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Durkheim, E. (f189811969). Individualism andtheintellectuals. (Trans.S. Lukes).PoliticalStudies.17, 14-30.
Durkheim, E. ([1957] 1975).Professional ethicsand civicmorals.(Trans.C. Brookfeld). London:Routledge.
Frank,D. J.(1997). Science,nature, andtheglobalization oftheenvironment, 1870-1990.Social Forces,76,
409-435.
Frank,D. J.,& Gabler,J.(2006). Reconstructing theUniversity: Worldwide changesinacademiainthe20th
century. Stanford,CA: Stanford University.
Frank,D. J.,& Meyer,J.W. (2002). The profusion of individual rolesand identitiesin thepost-war period.
SociologicalTheory, 20, 86-105.
Frank,D. J.,& Meyer,J. W. (2006). Worldwide expansionand changein theuniversity. In G. Krucken,
C. Castor,A. Kosmiitzky, & M. Torka(Eds.), Towardsa multiversity? Universities betweenglobal
trendsand nationaltraditions (pp. 17-42). Bielefeld,Germany: transcript
Verlag.
Frank,D. J.,Wong,S.-Y, Meyer,J.W, & Ramirez,F. O. (2000). Whatcountsas history: A cross-national
and longitudinal studyofuniversity curricula. Comparative EducationReview,44, 29-53.
Gabler,J.,& Frank,D. J.(2005). The natural sciencesin theuniversity: Changeand variation overthe20th
century. SociologyofEducation,78, 183-206.
Geiger,R. L. (2004). Knowledgeand money:Researchuniversities and theparadoxof themarketplace.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
Gellner,E. (1983). Nationsand nationalism. Ithaca,NY: CornellUniversity.
Gibbons,M., Limoges,C, Nowotny, H., Schwarzman, S., Scott,P.,& Trow,M. (1994). Thenewproduction
ofknowledge:Thedynamics ofscienceand researchin contemporary societies.London:Sage.
£) Springer

TheorSoc (2007) 36:287-311 309
Gregorian, V. (2004). Collegesmustreconstruct theunityofknowledge. TheChronicle ofHigherEducation,

50(39), B12.
Gumport, P. J.,& Snydman, S. K. (2002). The formal organization of knowledge: An analysisof academic
structure. JournalofHigherEducation,73, 375-408.
Habermas, J.(1987). The idea of theuniversity - Learningprocesses.New GermanCritique,41, 3-22.
Hale,F. W. Jr. (Ed.) (2003). What makes racial diversityworkin highereducation:Academicleaderspresent
successful policiesand strategies. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Harrington, B. E. (2007). Pop finance:Investment clubs and thenew ownership society.Princeton,NJ:
Hatakenaka, S. (2004). University - Industry partnerships in MIT, Cambridge,and Tokyo:Storytelling
acrossboundaries. New York:Falmer.
Hirsch,E. D. Jr.(1987). Culturalliteracy - WhateveryAmerican needstoknow.Boston:Houghton Mifflin.
Hirsch,E. D. Jr.(1999). Theschoolswe need:Andwhywe don'thavethem.New York:Anchor.
Hofstadter,R. (1963). Anti-intellectualism in American life.New York:Knopf.
Hofstadter,R., & Smith,W. (Eds.) (1961). Americanhighereducation:A documentary history.
Chicago:
University of Chicago.
Hymans,J. E. C. (2005). Whatcountsas history and how muchdoes history count?The case of French
secondaryeducation.In H. Schissler& Y. N. Soysal (Eds.), The nation,Europe,and the world:
Textbooks and curriculain transition (pp. 61-81). New York:Berghahn.
Jackson, A. W.,& Davis,G. A. (2000). Turning points2000: Educating adolescents inthe2 1stcentury.New
York:TeachersCollege.
Jencks, C, & Riesman,D. (1968). Theacademicrevolution. GardenCity,NY: Doubleday.
Jepperson, R. L. (2002). Politicalmodernities: Disentangling two underlying dimensionsof institutional
differentiation. SociologicalTheory, 20, 61-85.
Karabel,J. (2005). The chosen: The hiddenhistoryof admissionand exclusionat Harvard,Yale,and
Princeton. Boston:HoughtonMifflin.
Kerr,C. (1963). Theuses oftheuniversity. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity.
Kerr,C. (1991). Thegreattransformation in highereducation1960-1980. Albany,NY: SUNY.
Kerr,C, Dunlop,J. T, Harbison,F. H., & Myers,C. A. (1960). Industrialism and industrial man: The
problemoflaborand management in economicgrowth. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity.
Kirp,D. (2003). Shakespeare, Einsteinand thebottomline.Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity.
Kors,A. C, & Silverglate, H. A. (1998). Theshadow university: The betrayalof libertyon Americas
campuses.New York:Free.
Kriicken,G. (2005). The Europeanization ofhighereducationandthebachelor/master reform: Some lessons
fromtheGermancase. Department of Sociology,University of Bielefeld.
Kriicken, G., Castor,C, Kosmutzky, A., & Torka,M. (Eds.) (2006). Towardsa multiversity? Universities
between global trendsand nationaltraditions. Bielefeld,Germany: transcriptVerlag.
Kriicken, G., & Meier,F. (2006). Turning theuniversity intoan organizational actor.Chapter10. In G. S.
Drori,J.W. Meyer,& H. Hwang(Eds.), Globalization and organization.Oxford:OxfordUniversity.
Leidner,R. (1993). Fastfood,fasttalk:Serviceworkand theroutinization ofeveryday life.Berkeley,CA:
University of California.
Lenhardt, G. (2002). Europeand highereducationbetweenuniversalisation and materialist particularism.
EuropeanEducationalResearchJournal,1(2), 274-289.
Lenhardt, G. (2005). Hochschulen in Deutschlandundin den USA. Wiesbaden, Germany: Vs Verlag.
Livingstone, D. W. (1998). Theeducation-jobs gap: Underemployment or economicdemocracy. Boulder,
CO: Westview.
Maassen,S., & Weingart, P. (Eds.) (2005). Democratization ofexpertise?Exploring novelformsofscientific
adviceinpoliticaldecision-making. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Magolda,M. B. (1999). Creatingcontexts for learningand self-authorship: Constructive developmental
pedagogy.Nashville,TN: Vanderbilt University.
Mann,M. (1990). Theriseand declineofthenationstate.Oxford:Blackwell.
McEneaney, E. H. (2003). Elements of a contemporary primary schoolscience.In G. S. Dron,J.W. Meyer,
F. O. Ramirez,& E. Schofer(Eds.), Science in the modernworldpolity:Institutionalization and
globalization (pp. 136-154).Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
McEneaney, E. H., & Meyer,J.W. (2000). The content of thecumculum:An institutionalist in
perspective,
M. Hallinan(Ed.), Handbookofsociologyofeducation(pp. 18^-211). New York:Plenum.
Meyer,J.W. (1977). Effects of educationas an institution. American JournalofSociology,S3, 55-77.
Meyer,J. W, Boli, J., Thomas,G. M., & Ramirez,F. O. (1997). Worldsocietyand the nation-state.
American JournalofSociology,103, 144-181.
£} Springer

3 10 TheorSoc (2007) 36:287-311
Meyer,J. W.,& Jepperson, R. (2000). The 'actors'of modernsociety:The culturalconstruction of social

agency.SociologicalTheory, 18, 100-120.
Meyer,J.W.,& Rowan,B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formalstructure as mythandceremony.
American JournalofSociology,83, 340-363.
Paul, T. V., Ikenberry, G. J.,& Hall, J. A. (Eds.) (2003). The nation-state in question.Princeton, NJ:
Ramirez,F. O. (2002). Eyes wide shut:University, stateand society.EuropeanEducationalResearch
Journal,1, 256-272.
Ramirez, F. O. (2006).Therationalization ofuniversities.
In M.-L.Djelic& K. Shalin-Andersson (Eds.),Trans-
nationalgovernance: Institutionaldynamics ofregulation.Cambridge, England:Cambridge University.
Readings,B. (1996). Theuniversity in ruins.Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity.
Riddle,P. (1989). University and state:Politicalcompetition and the rise of universities, 1200-1985.
Doctoraldissertation. Department of Sociology,Stanford University.
Riddle, P. (1993). Politicalauthority and university formation in Europe, 1200-1800. Sociological
Perspectives, 36, 45-62.
Robertson, R. (1992). Globalization: Social theory and global culture.London:Sage.
Robinson,K. (2005). The riseof individualism and theelectivesystemin highereducation.Department of
Sociology,University of California-Irvine.
Rojstaczer,S. (1999). Gone for good: Tales of university life afterthe GoldenAge. Oxford:Oxford
University.
Schmidt, P. (2005). Fromspecialed to highered. TheChronicleofHigherEducation,5/(24),A26.
Schofer,E. (1999). The rationalization of scienceand the scientization of society:International science
organizations, 1870-1995.In J.Boli & G. M. Thomas(Eds.), Constructing worldculture:International
nongovernmental organizations since 1875 (pp. 249-266). Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
Schofer,E., & Meyer,J. W. (2005). The worldwideexpansionof highereducationin the20thcentury.
American SociologicalReview,70, 898-920.
Shulman,L. S. (1999). Takinglearning seriously.Change,31, 10-17.
Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academiccapitalism:Politics,policies,and the entrepreneurial
university. Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversity.
Soares,J. A. (1999). The declineof privilege:The modernization of OxfordUniversity. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University.
Soysal,Y. N. (1994). Limitsof citizenship: Migrantsand postnationalmembership in Europe.Chicago:
University of Chicago.
Stichweh, R. (2004). Knowledgesocietyandthesystem ofscience.SwissJournalofSociology, 30, 147-166.
Suarez,D. (2007). Educationprofessionals and theconstruction of humanrightseducation.Comparative
EducationReview,51, 48-70.
Sullivan,W. M. (2005). Work and integrity: Thecrisisandpromiseofprofessionalism inAmerica(2nded.).
San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
Teichler,U. (2002). Towardsa 'Europeanhighereducationarea': Visionsand realities. CentreforResearch
on HigherEducationand Work,University of Kassel.
Thomas,G. M., Meyer,J.W.,Ramirez,F. O., & Boli,J.(1987). Institutional structure:Constitutingstate,
society, and theindividual. NewburyPark,CA: Sage.
Treiman, D. J.,& Ganzeboom,H. B. G. (2000). The fourth generationofcomparative stratification
research.
In S. R. Quah& A. Sales (Eds.), Theinternational handbook ofsociology(pp. 123-150).London:Sage.
Tsutsui,K., & Wotipka, C. M. (2004). Globalcivil societyand theinternational humanrightsmovement:
Citizenparticipation in international humanrightsnongovernmental organizations. Social Forces,83,
587-620.
UNDP (2003). TheArabhumandevelopment report2003: Buildinga knowledge society.New York:United
NationsDevelopment Programme.
UNESCO (2005). Statistical Yearbook.Paris:UNESCO.
Washbum, J.(2005).University, Inc.: Thecorporate corruption ofAmerican higher education.NewYork:Basic.
Weber,M. (1978). Economvand societv.Berkeley. CA: University of California.
Windolf, P. (1997). Expansionand structural change:Highereducationin Germany, theUnitedStates,and
Japan.Boulder,CO: Westview.
Winther-Jensen,T. (1998). Society,individualman,and education.Paperpresented at theconference on
Educationin Late Modernity. Institute of Education, University of London.
Wolfe,A. (1996). The feudalcultureof thepostmodern university.The WilsonOuarterlv. 20. 54-66.
WorldBank(2000). Highereducationin developing countries: Perilandpromise.Washington, DC: World
Bank.
& Springer

TheorSoc (2007) 36:287-311 311
David JohnFrank is AssociateProfessor of Sociologyand,by courtesy, Educationat theUniversityof

centeron worldsocietyand globalinstitutions,
Irvine.His interests
California, especiallyin therealmsof
environmentalprotection, criminalized
highereducation, sex, and expandedpersonhood. His mostrecent
work includesa 2006 book fromStanfordUniversity Press, entitledReconstructing the University:
Worldwide Shiftsin Academiain the20thCentury (withJayGabler),and an articleon "WorldSociety,
NGOs,andEnvironmental PolicyReforminAsia,'*forthcomingintheInternational
JournalofComparative
Sociology(withWesleyLonghofer and Evan Schofer).
John W. Meyer is Professorof Sociology,emeritus, at StanfordUniversity. He has contributed to

organizational comparative
theory, and thesociologyof education,
education, developinglinesof thought
theory.Since the late 1970s,he has done empiricalresearch,and
now called sociologicalinstitutional
publishedmanypapers,on theimpactof globalsocietyon nationalstatesand societies(some papersare
Wiedie westlichen
collectedin Weltkultur: Prinzipiendie Weltdurchdringen,
Suhrkamp, 2005). Recently,he
completeda collaborative studyof worldwidescienceand its impacton nationalsocieties(Drori,et al.,
Science in the ModernWorldPolity,Stanford, 2003). Anothercollaborativeproject,on the impactof
globalizationon organizational has just been published(Droriet al., eds., Globalizationand
structures,
Organization,Oxford2006). He now studiestheriseand impactof theworldhumanrightsregime,world
curriculaof massand highereducation,and theglobalexpansionof highereducation.
& Springer


University Expansion and The Knowledge Society

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

University Expansion and The Knowledge Society

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

University Expansion and the Knowledge Society

Author(s): David John Frank and John W. Meyer

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 20:28:52 PM

expansionand the knowledgesociety

Publishedonline:3 May 2007

Abstract Forcenturies, theprocessesofsocialdifferentiation associatedwithModernity have

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 20:28:52 PM

whichsocietyis organizedaroundtheuniversity's anduniversalized

In thisarticle,we examinethecontemporary development of theuniversityaroundtheworld.

'Already a centuryago, the range of universitysubjects was sufficientlyextended to include, forexample,

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 20:28:52 PM

Fromthisviewpoint,the huge expansionsin the university's studentenrollments and

Over the whole Modernperiod,and especiallyover the last 60 years,the university

(1) Most simply,the numberof universitiesgloballyhas expandedexponentially, and

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 20:28:52 PM

major.By 2005, Wisconsinstudents witha multitude

In fact,thefivedevelopments discussedabove - whichproducemoreuniversities in more

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 20:28:52 PM

Alongtheseand otherdimensions,theuniversity has experiencedextraordinary growth,

closelyakinto thosedevelopedhere,ErnestGellner(1983) observedthat

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 20:28:52 PM

(Hofstadter1963; Lenhardt2002, 2005). In Germanyand Spain,too,universities weakened

The "knowledge" societyand the university

As suggestedabove, twobroadand closelyrelatedguidesto theuniversity's changesrecur

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 20:28:52 PM

developingcountries,whereas universities,and theirexpansion,show a good deal of

Modernityand the knowledgesociety

Unto itself,the"knowledgesociety"label is an odd one, since all societiesobviouslyrest

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 20:28:52 PM

intothevernacularmay suggestthatcontemporary societyinvolvesmoreknowledge,and

7This imageryis commonplace.For instance,"A knowledge-based societyis one whereknowledge

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 20:28:52 PM

8Recentdiscussionsofthefragmentation ofknowledge seemoverstatedgiventheextentto whichuniversity

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 20:28:52 PM

society,thatis, is notmerelyservedbytheeducationalsystembutis literally by it

The expanding role of the university

Thus we arriveat an understanding of the university'senduranceand rapid expansion

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 20:28:52 PM

words,becameembeddedin nationalcommunity, and as personalrolesand identitieswere

9Deweymade thispointin his 1916 classic,Democracyand Education,whichWinther-Jensen (1998)

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 20:28:52 PM

The reconstitution of society in global-individualterms inaugurateda new and

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 20:28:52 PM

values, perspectives, expertise,and knowledgecome to transform and in many senses

14Thus,for example,the Universityof Zululand's 2006 degree offerings are largelyconventional

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 20:28:52 PM

Research implicationsforuniversityknowledgeand forthe studentrole

As the nationalstateslowly gives way to a new world societybuiltaroundindividuals,

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 20:28:52 PM

For ifrationalization providesone mainenginedrivingtheinterpenetration of global and

15Therecentdisplacement of novelsbymemoirs listssuggeststhecontemporary

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 20:28:52 PM

Changes in the theoryof knowledge

In thenascentuniversity of themedievalperiod,knowledgewas conceivedto be precious

17Until1961, the world'soldestuniversity,Al-Azharin Egypt(founded975), encompassedonly three

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 20:28:52 PM

Along the path of proliferation and expansion,university-based programsalso extend

19Hamburger showsjusthow fartheprocesshas gone.In Leidner'saccount(1993), Hamburger

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 20:28:52 PM

healtharise,standardizing thelistof legallyacceptableactiveingredients in pesticidesand

Changes in the theoriesof studentand pedagogy

Transformations parallelto thoseoutlinedabove simultaneously reformthe model of the

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 20:28:52 PM