Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Kogan, 1997

    Uploaded by

    José Antonio Anguita G
    5 views16 pages

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    5 views16 pages

    Kogan, 1997

    Uploaded by

    José Antonio Anguita G

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 16
    Minera 38: 47-62, 192 1D 1997 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in The Netherlands Diversification in Higher Education: Differences and Commonalities MAURICE KOGAN ‘Tun erupy of higher education has always emphacised specialication, and therefore diversification or differentiation, as the dynamic which causes it to grow and exert its power. The basic units’ claim to freedom and power hae boon that they create and certify knowledge within the nnderctandinge of the external invisible college which enjoys the same specialist knowledge as they do. Specialisation is the source of academic power, as those hostile 6 i ia the 1060 wore quick ta saa, The Chinses owlteal prunlutinn and i ‘copyists in the West typified academia as involved in & conspiracy to sustain the division of labour. “The exponents af epeciatication have heen canvineing in its defenre Specialisation has enabled difficult questions to be asked and answered on the basis of certified knowledge and methods which are simply impossible fo attain without specialised training and applieatian This cain technological argument justifies the special nature of academic organisa- tion. It has also been used to define the integrity of the institution from malovolont or dastrvctive autsiders. Tohn Searle in daserihing how Rerksley was assaulted by such groups in the 1960s emphasised that universities are specialist institutions and cannot be open or demotically driven.! Spocialivation ie the hasie af diversification It has several dimensions some of which pull in different directions. But first some definitions are needed. We can distinguish between stratification, ic., the differences in levele ax typified by purposcs, ctatws and rasounans henween instiutinns, anc differentiation, ic., differences between disciplines or subject arcas in their epistemologies and social organisation.’ Differentiations Between Subject Areas ‘At one time virtually everything taught or studied came under the heading of philocaphy. Rut that cauld mnt lit ance the Sacadtemie incctry™ was established. For example, biology was invaded by physicists to create @ whole new zone of biological physics, or molecular biology—a branch of bischamistey which was itself a new compound haced pan previans disciplines. Statistics emanated from mathematics, and business studies, at its most sophisticated level, from applied economics. Searle, J, The Campus War (Harmondsvorti: Penguin Books, 1972) 2 Becher '', Henkel, M. and Kogan, M., Graduate Education in Britain (London: Jessica ‘ingsley, 1994). 48 Maurice Kogan Functional portusition aunt viffuicatiation ave die dynamic of avaderaie life. There are pecking orders between subjects and, indeed, sub-subjects, some of which are being challenged by quality assurance procedures.’ The renees between disciplines or between de sevecal dumains of atualy account for the differences within the academic profession which is, in fact, several professions whose institutional behaviour may be held together by @ relatively narrow range of common values, whilst all suits uf uiliet values and behaviours are particular to different areas of study. It is this specialisation and the legitimacy which comes from it that make universities 30 difficult to govern, Sometiaxs goverameats attempt 1 override subject differentiation, as with the decisions in some countries to force all the rescarch councils into one council. This notion was voiced in the United Kingdom but, surprisingly, in view of the current official tendency to go headlong for any innovation, came to nothing, The language of management and quality assurance does indeed speak to uniformity wherever it ean Rad i, But whilst multidisciplinary and inter-diseiptinary work will grow in importance, differentiation between subject areas will remain strong: it is needed for academic training and socialisation and for the effective handling of all the diverse material constituting the contcat of Teaching and research. Institutional Diversification and Stratification ‘The more important aspect of diversification at issue is, however, institutional diversification and the virtually irresistible propensity to strat- ification. Ulrich Teichler has produced an essential guide to what has been happening in the organisation of national systems.’ He distinguishes between the integrated mode, in which all universities would be broadly xin their admissions policy—the Gesamthochschule in Germany, and the integrated university in Sweden are examples—and the diversified model which allows for a range of somewhat permeable but different institutions. The diversified model is strongly exemplified by the United States with its enormous variety of institutions, all of them known publicly according to where they rank, but between which students can move at ifferent stages in the light of their acquired academic record TTeichler assembled the following generalisations regarding what a diver- sified model aims to provide: a multitude of environments for education commensurate with the presumed diversity of abilities, motives and job prospects of students; distinct educational provisions for different kinds of students rather than reduction of differences; a relatively steep hierarchy of 2 Henkel, M. and Kopan, M., CHCP Research Seminar an the Academic Profession, “The Impact of Policy Changes an’ the Academis Prafecinn” (Ivsinne Cammitine af View ‘Chancellors and Principals of the United Kingdom, 1996). “Teicher, U., Chansing Patera of the Higher Education System: The Experience of Three Decades (London: Jessica Kingsley, 1988), Diversification in Higher Education 49 inotitutional coures progeammes according to quality; withia that bicsascly an elite sector which will remain relatively distinct from other segments of higher education; institutions which differ not only in rank but also horizontally besawos thoy are substantially diverse in character, goals, content of courses and typical competences However, the overall system of the diversified model is dynamic in providing permeability for the crudonte and blurred boundaries botweon aoctors, and in zolatively frequent changes in the ranks of institutions and units. ‘An attempt to bring theory into the explanation of the processes of diversity and differentiation proved a largoly frustrating exercise, but concluded that programmatic differentiation and decreases in the diversity of study programmes could be explained by pursuing social exchange theory.® Inoreacing levele of dopondeney on the atate forced programmes to achieve some kind of balance with competing programmes. Certainly, it is observable that universities at all levels of esteem have broadened their offerings, and have thue divervified within themselves. Paradoxically, this may narrow differences between institutions, as the more esteemed attempt to enter the market for saleable courses, and the least esteemed attempt to strongthen their academic standing by moving more determinedly into the traditional academic fields. One shrewd prophecy by Burton R. Clark was that diversity in higher education is more likely to occur if divorce powers shapo highor education? But in recent years governments have not hesitated to reinforce diversity through selectivity and hence stratification. A comparison of Australian and Dutch morgors has shown that institutions merge in renetion to changes in their environment that appear to threaten a secure supply of critical resources.* In other words, in that example diverse powers are reducing rather than enhancing diversity. So it io diffeult to otrike up any com preltensive theory for these changes. The Dynamics of Strai Massifcation: Institutional diversification takes on board two powerful dimensions—that of quality which underlies the most powerful ingredient vf suatification, aud drat of function or mission. Teichlr’s generalisations are derived from Clark, Burton R., The Higher Education rom. Academic Onsnigaion: A Cross National Perspective (Berkeley and Lox Angeles versity of California Press, 1983), and Trow, Martin “Academic Standards and. Mass er Education”, Higher Education Quarterly, XLI, 3 (1987), pp. 268-29, "Huisman, H., Differentiation, Diversity and Dependency in Higher Education (Enschede: CHES, 1995) * Gatk, BR, “The Fragmentation of Research, Teaching and Study”, in Traw, Martin and Nybom, Thorsen (ed), Universiy and Socien: Essays an the Social Role of Research and Higher Education (London: Jessica Kingsley, 1992) "Gocdegcbuure, L. and Meek, L. “A’ Resonree Denendence Persagetive on Merser, ConipaningInsitutional Amalgamavibis in Australia and the Nethesfands, in Goedepebue, Land van Vaght, F. (eds). Comparative Policy Studies in Higher Education (Btschede’ (CHEPS, 1004), 50 Maurice Kogan (On the origina and dynamics of otratifeation, tho analysis has to be at several levels, The advent of mass access (0 higher education and the broadened demands of the labour market exert pressure for greater internal differentiation in higher education. Thic ooours among inctitutions, within institutions and within graduate education, Differentiation is further reinforced by the need of governments to limit costs in ever-expanding ystems, To governments, the need to acommodate greatly increaced cohorts of students is likely to take precedence over the demands for research and scholarship; governments will be among the first to test the asoumption that only teaching clee name of higher education, At the system level our starting point is Martin ‘Trow’s important claccificatory romark to tho offeet that whon a system educates 18 per cent of cach age group in higher education it remains an elite system.’ Ata level of between 15 and 40 per cent it becomes a mass system, and at over 40 per cont a universal system. Ho denoted changing characteristics in each of these stages. Within an clite system, an academic can have reasonable knowledge of colleagues both in the university and within the invisible college. Beyond that point, i ly related to recearch ic worthy of the becomes impossible. ‘We could question the actual enumerations in Trow’s discussion, In my view, in either the United States or the United Kingdom, the elite system had gono loag before it roached 18 per cent of the age cohort. Refore the great expansion of the late 1980s, British higher education catered for 15 per cent of school-leavers. But that inchided all institutions from Oxford and Cambridge to the smallest tenchor.te ing college. ‘The Facultios servicing the 15 per ceat could in no sense regard themselves as being in collegial relationships across institutions. When British universities took only 6 por cont of tho ago group, there wora alroady signe of breakdown in such forms of mutuality as the external examiner system. However, the general dynamic as expressed by Trow remains correct. Proletartantsatton and mdividual reactions: Another charactensic of mas- sification, which is both a result and a reinforcing element, is the pro- Ictarianisation of the faculty which has been charted by A.H. Halsey for the Umited Kingdom and which must be a virtually universal charactenste. But within that general decline in status, Halsey shows increased stratification of prestige and other professional rewards.” For example, the academics surveyed expressed. a preterence tor being an Uxoridge don ratner tan @ professor in a wellesteemed post-1960s university. In the United States, rankings of academic departments and of institutions based on academic reputation are commonplace. Lne Carnegie classification ot mstitutions 18 Trow, M.. “Problems inthe Transition from Elite to Mass Higher Education”, Policies for Higher Education (Parts: OECD, 1979), Halsey, AHL, Decline of Bomnish Dominions The British Academic Professions in the ‘Twentieth Contr (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992). Diversification in Higher Education St based un upen aint fined! ewitesia aud, divugh mut developed for this purpose, constitutes a hierarchy of institutions. Conditions of work, status, Gifferentiation in the academic role, access to resources, and personal autonomy all vary within the differeat types of institution. Moving to individual levels, there is an interactive process between what universities and leading academics try to achieve and the judgements made by ontornal govorning inatitutions, which may or may not be reinforced by differential funding. We concluded that: A viable hypothesis, on the basis of our data, is that prestigious individuals or basic finite nee these power to [hath] reinforce indivichial steatieation and sttengthen the independence of their own institutions, mainly by maintaining control over their boundaries with the outside world. In contrast, more vulnerable institutions may seek t0 maintain control over such boundaries by establishing “niche markets”; or falling that, may become increasingly dependent on external agoncioy, allowing them rather than’ the logic of their own disciplinary imperatives 10 determine their rescarch activities and the pattern of their graduate education." Thue win nated the dagran af denominator of stratification, Quality assurance: A further aspect of massification, and the resulting intrusion of govornment into arvas hithorto rocerved to academic coll government, is that overwhelming theme in current educational governance—namely, quality assurance. Here we see a dialectic at work borwoon olits acadomie and governmental thinking. Quality ascuraneo of research has mainly observed the traditional criteria of high-class research in pursuit of curiosity and truth, and conducted according to the epistemic rulae of login and domanetrahility and evidence Rut alongside it are the attempts of government to forecast industrial needs and fashion research funding accordingly. So relevance is a Key criterion, although the judge- ments made are predominantly on criteria of excellence ‘At the same time quality assurance is invading teaching and learning, where the criterion is most often fitness for purpose rather than any ideal notion of what constitutes excellence and knowledge and therefore learn- ing. Is knowledge, then, to be judged on its intrinsic qualities of experimen- tal tightness, pursuit of logic, artistic renditions of human states and the like? Or is it to be judged on relevance? Governments seek to fashion systems so that they follow criteria of relevance. But they have to depend upon academics for judgements, and these virtually universally insist upon the paramountey of academic excellence. So we must note the pull of the academy towards stratification, supported in this by governments in many Western systems, and the conflicting pull of governments towards the distribution of esteem by other criteria, Inerahility ta antside sponsorship as 9 Policies of Stratification At the macro-level, the forces operating towards stratification are: a national decision to create @ binary divide, with Austna, Finland, Germany, "Becher, T, Henkel, M. and Kogan, M., Graduate Education in Britain, op. cit, p.7. 52 Maurice Kogan Creces, the Netherlands, Norway, aint die United Kingdon aan Austtalia (both now unitary) as examples; national decisions to stratify and concen- trate research resources; and attempts by governments and other sponsors to olevate certain kinds of study and mission. Stratification and binary systems: Binary systems have been the most obvious form of stratification, But they should not be bundled into one classificatory package. Ine French system, perversely enough, places vocational studies at the top in the grandes écoles and leaves the universities as second best, responsible for teaching and such research as does not take place in Separate institutes. ‘There is the third tier of Instituts universitaires de technologie (IUTS), so itis a trinary system. Elsewhere, the establishmeat of binary forms of stratification has been based on several moves. One has been to consolidate and give status to higher vocational studies. In general at first that meant in many systems creating specialist technological institutions of full university status and the ability fo merge into the university system." Later binary systems attempted to broaden provision by creating high-level but non-university higher education institutions. This is one motive underlying the creation of the ammatnkorkeakoulu in Finland.” ‘Thus policy was also directed towards strengthening a regional dimension, as was manifest in Norwegian higher education policy. It has been a means of containing the growth of higher education in its most expensive and prestigious forms by creating separate institutions which cost less than universities to maintain In Australia, advantages noted were that the binary system allowed eaucational and economic advantages to be gained trom concentration of effort, and educational opportunities to be more widely distributed." ‘The binary system enabled the universities to concentrate on rescarch, to ennance tneir status within @ stranhed system and to remain elitist in selecting their students. Several benefits to the client groups, such as the availability of choice between applied and theoretical courses and courses responsive 10 me needs ot employers, Were also noted, In attempting to meet a disparate range of objectives, governments have varied widely in the modes of control placed on institutions in the non- university system, For the most part, these are controlied more directly by central government or local government agencies, In Finland, they are placed under governing councils composed of a wide range of stakeholders. In Austria, tne regulation pound unNersities Nave reason to be envious of the freedoms recently granted to the institutions in the second sector. ® Bomt, LF. (rapporteur), Universities, Colleges and Others: Divers of Secures for Higher Education, Report of Maltilateral Workshop, Bucharest, September 1993 (Steasbourg: Council ‘of Europe, 1994). 9p)GECD. Resor of the Examiners om Finish Hiker Révetion Relom Parac ORD, ‘* Moses, 1, “The Binary Experience: Success of Wasted Effort”, Joumal of Tertiary Education and Administration, XIMl, 2 (1991), pp. 153-163, Diversification in Higher Education 33 the intentions of policy-makers worked out unpredictably Lu ie Une Kingdom, and to some extent in Australia where the binary experiment was neaily described as “failure of a system, success of its institutions”. ‘Universtiy fn che: Untied Kingdom, util die revcut caplesion ius student numbers, recruited from roughly the best qualified 6 per cent and the polytectinics and colleges from the next 9 per cent of the age graup. This is fat Uiffercin fu: Ihuse inary aysieiis whore the universitica take the best qualified 20 per cent and the polytechnics between 5 and 15 per cent of the next best qualified. The British polytechnics and central institutions were allowed to offer coursca leading to master’s degrcoo and doctorates and to undertake research, although no funds were built into core grants, The binary line thus cut across a system that recruited from an ability range which most other systems for example, California's regarded ac appro- priately catered for in universities. Yet even among those narrow recruitment bands, there was implicit, wnoificial steatifoation. Some British polytechnias wore effectively minor, oF proto-universities, and others essentially collections of vocational educa- tional colleges, often teacher-training colleges. Nor did the binary system exclusively encourage wacational edvestion and applied rceatch ‘The ‘polytechnics were never strongly vocational and became increasingly less so: the majority of their students read humanities or social sciences, and the ‘univorsitieg had in any oace long taken on a wide variety of anplied stuctios So the vocational-general education or functional divide is not secure. A clear functional differentiation applies in Germany and in Finland, and to some extent in the Netherlands. hut not in Norway or in the Anglophone countries—although everywhere the universities are more esteemed than the vocational second stream, The differentiation in Australia and the United Kingcom was abandoned on the grounds that higher education formed a continuum of quality and subject concerns which made the division artificial. The conferment of university status on all would allow the former non-universities the chance to improve themselves and incidentally to appeal to many students who previously would not have entered higher education, Swratificatian by quoliiy: Im the Taited States, etratificatinn ie unofficial hs explicit and well known, There is an associated degree of involvement in graduate education. A hierarchy of institutions has been noted at three Tevele of inetitutiane which prnduce the bulk af doctoral students: those whose main postgraduate work is at master’s fevel and those which produce graduate courses mainly of non-mastes’s level.'® MeNicol, D, “Failure of @ System, Harman, G. (eds), The Binary Experiment for Higher Eilucaiion: An Ausrlion Perspective (Armidale: University of New England, 1993), Campuses in Clark, BRR (ed., The Research Foundations of Graduate Education. German Friar France, Une Sie, Japan (Betkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1983), 34 Maurice Kogan In the United Kingdom, dere las always been well-known Mlerarchy of esteem, mainly related to research standing, In our English research project carried out in the late 1980s, we listed nine different types of higher edvestion institution which could be plaed roughly it a status hierarchy.” Within the university sector, the differentiation in status and assumed quality was large between Oxford and Cambridge and the technological wnivorsities, although their degiees had parity aid dhe ability range Of students of the whole comprised a range of only 6 per cent. Halsey has shown how in terms of the academic background and levels achieved by the faculty there were big differences.” These caiie out stingy ln he Fesearch assessments taking place in British universities since 1986. A Strong dimension of differentiation is, then, the resources gained for, aad the outcomes of, rescarch—one of the Uincusivus uf vuluciabilily referred to above. Even though the new knowledge is often guided by relevance rather than by the highest academic standards of rigour, policy- makers on the whole wish to support cavcllent rescaiclt aud Hieiefore seek ways to ring-fence expenditure and endorse it through differential funding ‘The criteria are those of the established research centres. This is true of virtually every other Buropean ond Amerisan oyaten ‘The governments of many countries with a unitary university system have reinforced stratification. They have declared their intention to be more selective in funding roscarch, although it, svat he universities stat ult a ‘much more level playing field than in the United Kingdom. However, it is the United Kingdom that provides the sharpest example of government funding reinforcing stratification. Among dn Luglish uuiveisitics, 1m, Oxford and Cambridge, received the most, with research funds from all sources exceeding £100 million a year. Five universities have total research income from about £60 million to £0 million. Then wm a givup of eight with research funding from £40 milion, However, these lists leave out such highly distinguished institutions as the London School of Economies and the univercitios of Suosox and Warwick The Research-Teaching Divide Implicit ia swovarch selcutivity iy die Valance struck Derween naving a substantial stake in research or acting as largely a teaching institution, although few universities are entirely one or the other. In the traditional fed hat established raculty would engage in both teaching and research or scholarship. This “breathtaking principle” has dominated! many systems of higher education and has been lia bgciaiy allucations for wachilng start. Academic stat Univesity, in wivol syoteus, it way asst "Boys, C, Brennan, J, Henkel, M, Kiskland, J, Kogan, M. and Youll, P, Higher Edycation and the Preparation for Work (londow: ease Kingey, 1088) Vasey, AH. Decne of Donnish Dominion, op. ce Zellck, G, letter, The Times, 2 August, 199, ® Clark. BRR, “The Fragmentation of Research, Teaching and Study”, op. et, p. 101 Diversification in Higher Education 55 surveyed im a Variety Of counertey—ine Unlted States, United Kingdon, Australia, Germany—believed that teaching and research mutually benefit, stimulate’ and enrich each other; most are teaching-cum-research oriented—iney preter 10 do Dot, aibelt with varying ‘Two major exceptions to this assumption have been the division of French higher education between the elite grandes écoles and the univer- sities, and the dwealsn division of function, started ius the 19605 and exw being abandoned, between lektors, wholly engaged in teaching, and docents, wholly engaged in research. There are also systems, particularly in Eastern ang Central Europe, where much Of the best fuunled tescarcls takes place ta research institutes with no teaching duties, This has weakened the ability of universities to undertake research. A similar position applies in Norway, DUT wunOUL Ine same deleterious effects. Where a uutiversity dues both, itis the research which denotes its place in the hierarchy of esteem. But the unity of research, teaching and study has come under challenge mm recent decades. Everywhere “generic forces... aut ww frapuient the historic relationship, thereby attenuating the unity principle [but] we can also identify generic counter forces that stubbornly undergird the connec- {won OF researen 10 Dor texetiing wid study", Anuoug the fru Wveding to ivision are the massification of higher education and “the growth in academie tribes that follow from the proliferation of academic territo- Tes... Ie becomes Ulifcull, Lf no impussible, « Uerclup and maintain these necessary concentrations in the traditional locales of teaching and study. The modern day inner logic of the research imperative may thus be seen as containing a divisive tendency." National policies are leading to the separation of tcaching and research, In the United Kingdom universities with a tradition of research, research selectivity 1S causing some deparumemis 1 analyse the autivities vl ahs individual members. New universities and old are buying in the services of established researchers to improve their ratings. In order to give time to the more productive, use tess capable Uf producing published work may be required to take on the heaviest teaching and administrative burdens. Within a predominantly research environment, some workloads could come to consist Wholly of teaching and aduinisteati tasks among members of academic departments has been discussed in the United States, mainly as a way of increasing the overall “productivity” of aepartments. ipluasin Suc a differentiation of Stratification Based on Students’ Entry Qualifications Institutional esteem is also based on students’ entry qualilications. ‘There are two dimensions to this. The first concerns the nature of the total system, Boyer, Eile Intemational Suney af the Academic: Profesion (New York: Carnegie Foundation forthe Advancement of Teaching, forthcoming) "Ghar, BR, “The Fragmentation of Research, Teaching and Study”, op. ct. p. 102 56 Maurice Kogan and me second the extent to wnien institutions are able to select their students. In many countries, there is no deep difference in status between universities. In Austria, although conditions are crowded for students and staft at the University Of Vienna, Austrian students preter 1t strongly to the other universities, and there is unrestricted entry. In Germany and Sweden, it seems there is no strong difference in status between the six universities. Differences in quality are clear in the Anglophone countnes and are denoted by explicitly differentiated entry requirements. These differences largely correspond to the research status of the universities Goyermnent polictes can strengenen the student related base ot stratinca- tion. It has been showa that, where the funding for students is related to students” performance, “universities attracting school leaver students with tute highest student reruiary entry score are less Ukely t0 De affected oy the introduction of student-linked performance based funding because the school leaver students they attract are among their best performers” This rafses the Whole Issue Of Wnether Institutions are to De judged by the Value that they add to students or by the measures of final performance. The first would strengthen the propensity towards stratification whilst the second would tend wo weaken i, A Diversified Profession A further manifestation of diversification is in the nature of the academic profession, which is fragmented by both differentiation and stratification. Given the wide span of functions of higher education, to think of an academic profession is inappropriate: there are several academic profes- sions. Academies divide according to subject areas, but also according, to the diversity of their clients and the particular mix of activities to which they are dedicated. Thus a teacher of teachers may use many of the same theoretical frames as a psychologist or a sociologist, but the pull of the client group and of praxis establishes different, or mixed, peer and reference groups. It is amazing that the public sees academics as one type of person. Although the stratification of the profession is permeable, inasmuch as there is mobility beoween institutions of different status, diversification is to some extent a matter of individual research reputation, partly denoted by institutional affiliation. More recently there have been somewhat opportunistic and artificial attempts to destratify the occupational groups. In both Germany and Austria, professors are “called” to a position on terms largely similar to Dobson, LR and Sharma, Ry “Stident Progress: A Study ofthe Esperionce in Victorian Tertiary Institutions”, The Journal of Teriary Educational Institutions, XV, 2 (1993), pp. 203 212; Dobson, LR., Sharma, Rand Haytlon, A. “Undergraduate Intakes in Australia: Hetore Sand. After” (DMiIE uh Coneral Conforonser Soning,Pororitce for Thor Eduction Managernent, 1996), Higher Education Management (forthcoming) 3 Rogan, M, Mosey I. and ElKhavas Ey Siang Higher Education: Meeting New ‘Challenges (London: Jesica Kingsley, 1994) Diversification in Higher Education 37 thove of a contury ago. In the Fachhockschulen virtually all the academic staff are called professor. Throughout Britain and many of the Common- wealth countries, the structure of lecturers, readers and professors remains. But, in recent yoars, aesumptions about thees gradings havo bean compli- cated by the award of professorial titles in the former polytechnics and colleges of higher education to teachers and administrators who would not have been co designated in the “old” universities, In the rocontly created binaty systems in Finland and Greece, the universities have a traditional structure, although with very few full professorial posts, and the poly: teoknioe have no professorial poste There are, 100, wide differences internationally in the characteristics of faculty posts, including the proportion of professors and of tenured to other staff. Thue whilo to the public eye there ic a single prafessian af Farulty member, and a breakdown in titular distinctions in some systems, dif- ferences in status and functions are large. How Stratification Hinders Diversity ‘The arguments for stratification are that it enhances quality by con- contrating the abloot researcher in partioular inetitetions. In fact, the research evidence is that concentration—and the concomitant size—are doubtful indicators of research output A second argument is that it may produce a hoalthy diveruity of opportunity and thue enhance the choice open to clients. But far from enhancing diversity, stratification may reinforce conformity to the norms of the leading traditional centres. “The ‘most powerful inetitutions continue to contre their undergraduate and research degrees in modern languages on literature. Thus a massive faultline has developed in the structures for the reproduction of the academic community: the nature and focus of recoarch degracs are grounded in a tradition now rejected in a majority of higher education instivutions.”* Tf wo take the case of modern languages in the United Kingdom, many universities have broadened the field to inchide the study of institutions and other political and economic characteristics. But 40 per cent of Russian specialiste are in Oxford, whore 70 por cont of research dograos in Puecian literature have been completed in the last five to ten years. They are not directed, in the main, to the broadened field of study. Also, in the fncceccmente of research and teaching, there is evidence that tha reviewsre favour centres which conform to traditional forms of excellence.” So where » Kwik, $, Producti i Academia: Scegtiic Publishing at Nontexan Unvesties (Oso Nontegia Unwersty Pris, 1991) Kyu, 8. "Acacemic Stet and Sotentic Production Higher Eduction Management, V, 2 (1983), pp. 19-202; Johnson, R. (ed). The Effects of Resource Concentration on Research Perfonrance (Canberra: National Board Gf Employment Ediution and Traiine 193). ‘Secker Henkel Mand Kogen, M., Graduate Education in Brain op. ct Henkel, Nl and Kogan, M, "The Impact of Poy Changes onthe Academic Profession op.cit 58 Maurice Kogan ational systems av iu place for mmsking juugements, contormay 1s established inasmuch as all researchers or teachers are brigaded into one system of evaluation, but with a great deal of stratification in outcome. Institutional Self-Images A recent empirical study examined mission statements from 178 univer- sities and colleges in the United Kingdom to assess the extent to which institutions of higher education are seeking to differentiate themselves. ‘On quality, it showed that many institutions’ self-image assumes excellence even though the reality might be othenwise: 50 per cent of “old” universities in the United Kingdom compared with a quarter of colleges and 11 per cent of polytechnics claimed to be an excellent and/or leading institution. Un mission, 57 per cent of institutions “hedged their bets” by asserting both quality and accessibility, without conceding that these might be in conflict, Another study noted that “excellence” appeared in a key word analysis m 47 per cent of mission statements in the United Kingdom. Half of the universities and colleges in this study mentioned particular courses or disciplinary coverage as a base for their self-declared missions. ‘The polytechmics were less certain. Surprisingly, these findings somewhat con- futed the assumption that the central point of differentiation was an emphasis on research as against teaching, Most of them, including the old polytechnics, apparently regarded themscives as being good at research. We have to be vigilant about self-referential statements on where institutions are placed in the hierarchy of esteem or regarding their principal tunctions, although no statement of aspiration should be regarded as trivial. Tn the United Kingdom, there are already firmer data based on hierarchies of quality from external assessments which would contradict many ot these sel-ratings. The data do not refer to differentiation by function, although that cannot be too difficult to produce: it is known which institutions produce the most employable graduates, or which have recruited trom the widest social classes, ethnic groups and genders. We know which are the best teaching institutions—surprisingly to some, but not to many others, the best research institutions are also the best teaching universities. ‘Commonatities So differentiation and stratification co-exist and are, paradoxically, reinforced by the unification of systems and the nationalisation of profes: sional quality. A further ics ic how far higher edueation—leaving acide ® Mackay, L., Soott, P. and Smith, D. “Restruered and Differentiated? Institutional Resoonses ia, the Changing Fruiraninsar af TK. Highar Bdveation'y Higher Babson ‘Management, VII, 2 (1985), pp. 193-20. © Davies, S.W, and Glaster, KW, “Spurs to Higher Things? Mission Statements of UK Universities”. Higher Education Quaveny.L, 4 (October 1996). pp. 261-295 Diversification in Higher Education 59 government intervention, but focusing on the inherent tondoncioer of highor education—sustains characteristics common to all its institutions and practitioners. , wo should look for signs of convergence, particularly in the newly unified systems. These issues will become more prominent in systems which have reshaped themselves. In Australia, the college and university sectors were already boginning to converge in many of thoir characteristics. Some of the values and functions of one secior were adopted by the other. Programmes, courses, service to students and outside groups, and consul- ighly valued in the non university soctor and became increasingly so by the universities themselves. Specialisation through research was difficult to achieve in the college sector, but many of their academic ctaff novertholess strove to become part of the international disciplinary community and to participate in the activities of their peers.*" A significant number of staff achieved this against the odds. In othor cyctome, too, tho oxpoctations of clients and changer in structures will elicit similar shifts in orientation and questionings of mission, And we must never obscure the fact that most academics, whatever their inctitutionsl destination, were brought up in a research environment and that, given encouragement and resources, would most likely move towards the Humboldtian idcal Those discornible changor the landscape af higher education make it necessary to ask some fundamental questions. What are higher education’s boundaries and purposes? What forms and levels of teaching and styles of inquiry should be inctadad? Where daes schooling end and higher eden tion begin? What is the difference between higher education and training? Is there a higher educational “essentialism” offering its own characteristics? To define tho charactoristios of social inetitutione is to create normative constructs which are not made in heaven. But if we are to distinguish higher education from training, schooling, consultancy, journalism and preaching, come euch definition, no matier how subjective, has to he used: for example, work undertaken within higher education is demonstrable and testable by a wider audience than one’s own students and one’s own immediato colloagues; i is based an, and is tested by, evidence and demonsteability. Throughout higher education, however, massification and functional differentiation and stratification ‘are raising issues about the relationship between and the priority accorded 10 different tasks and to the kind of knowledge generation that is deemed appropriate to universities. Finding common ground on what ie academically acceptable will require new and useful definitions, te respect fa lngia » Moses, I. and Ramsden, P, “Academics and Academic Work in Colleges of Advanoed Education and Universtios, in Meck, EL. (ed), Auaia’s Binary Experiment in Higher Education (Armidale: University of New England, 1991). 60 Maurice Kogan In defining Kuowledge we can see how te traditional restriction 10 research is giving way to the wider notion of “disciplined inquiry”. As Clark Put it, the Humboldtian idea is not in command across modern systems of highss education aud aclacd sysueitls OF research, DUE “the O16 ideal i$ not

    You might also like