The International Encyclopedia of Higher Education Systems and Institutions [1st ed.] 9789401789042, 9789401789059

701 110 43MB

English Pages [2807] Year 2020

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD FILE

Polecaj historie

The International Encyclopedia of Higher Education Systems and Institutions [1st ed.]
 9789401789042, 9789401789059

Citation preview

Pedro Nuno Teixeira · Jung Cheol Shin  Editors-in-Chief Alberto Amaral · Elizabeth Balbachevsky Andres Bernasconi · Edward Choi · Hans De Wit Gaële Goastellec · Fiona Hunter · Barbara M. Kehm Manja Klemenčič · Patricio Langa · António Magalhães Goolam Mohamedbhai · Terhi Nokkala · Laura Rumbley Bjørn Stensaker · Lisa Unangst · Jussi Välimaa Rui Yang  Editors

The International Encyclopedia of Higher Education Systems and Institutions

The International Encyclopedia of Higher Education Systems and Institutions

Pedro Nuno Teixeira • Jung Cheol Shin Editors-in-Chief

The International Encyclopedia of Higher Education Systems and Institutions With 180 Figures and 314 Tables

Editors-in-Chief Pedro Nuno Teixeira CIPES - Centre for Research in Higher Education Policies and Faculty of Economics - U. Porto Portugal

Jung Cheol Shin Department of Education Seoul National University Seoul, Korea (Republic of)

ISBN 978-94-017-8904-2 ISBN 978-94-017-8905-9 (eBook) ISBN 978-94-017-8906-6 (print and electronic bundle) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8905-9 © Springer Nature B.V. 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature B.V. The registered company address is: Van Godewijckstraat 30, 3311 GX Dordrecht, The Netherlands

Preface

Higher education has been facing major transformation in recent decades. One of the major transformations has been the relentless expansion of student enrollment that has made mass higher education a reality across continents and brought important developments in higher education such as the worldwide expansion of private institutions and the development of diverse types of higher education. The move towards mass and universal higher education brought increasing diversity to higher education, which has multiple and complex meanings for the higher education realm from the profile of the student body to the types of higher education. The move towards mass and universal higher education has also contributed to reshape the missions of higher education and its consolidation as a multipurpose institution. Higher education has been increasingly asked to play important and varied economic and social roles and this has been shaping its mission, its priorities, and its organizational and decision-making structures accordingly in order to serve an increasingly diverse set of constituencies. The worldwide expansion of higher education has been a decisive factor to make it a truly global reality, which was hardly the case just a few decades ago. Over the last decades there has been tremendous growth in the international links in higher education, through issues such as training, students’ mobility, staff mobility, and research activities. Nowadays it will be hard to find any higher education institution (HEI) in the world that is not in some way connected to other HEIs located in other countries. Another important and controversial facet of this global dimension is the fact that the benchmarking in higher education has become increasingly internationalized, notably through the proliferation and pervading influence of rankings and league tables in recent decades. Higher education is being shaped by rapid and significant transformations as its societal and technological environments are also rapidly changing. Among those transformations, the changes in population, technology, and economy and political changes are expected to have major impacts in higher education. One the one hand, the demographics of higher education is becoming increasingly complex, with many of those countries that have witnessed the early development of mass higher education now facing stagnant or declining demand and other parts of the world are still facing major expansion in demand for higher education, challenging governments and institutions to accommodate expanding cohorts of students in a way that balances access and inclusion with quality and relevance. On the other hand, we are observing v

vi

complex and profound technological advancement that is likely to entail major changes for the landscapes of “education” and “research” that may affect the different missions of higher education, the way these are fulfilled, and the organizational fabric that supports those missions. We are also witnessing major political and social changes that will inevitably impact higher education, such as the strong debates regarding nationalism, democratic participation, or inequality. Those political and societal changes will create major challenges to higher education, either in the form of growing barriers for academic mobility and collaboration or in regulatory and organizational changes aiming at responding to those emerging needs and realities. A significant part of the current landscape in higher education has been shaped by the long-term patterns of development of the welfare state and the dynamics of globalization. These have given higher education an unprecedented centrality in economic, social, and political debates, though have also created major pressures and challenges. It is yet to be seen how much of the pillars that sustained higher education in the past decades will be transformed in the coming years and how this will impinge in the fabric of higher education. Many of the contributions in this encyclopedia already reflect on these emerging trends, but this is still clearly work in progress for research in higher education in the coming years. Moreover, the capacity of the researchers in the field to anticipate and make sense of those transformations will be a critical factor for the sustainability of higher education as a central institution. Higher education research has mirrored these trends and has shown a remarkable capacity to address these issues through an increasingly sophisticated and robust research agenda by an increasingly diverse research community interested in higher education. This created the two fundamental conditions for the development of such a large-scale editorial project. Not only we had the necessity, but we also had the intellectual potential to fulfill that necessity. If such an editorial project aimed at tackling the realities of higher education, it would have to live up to its aforementioned major trends, namely by adopting an international, multidisciplinary, and multilevel approach. The major reference works developed by leading figures in the field of higher education studies such as the late Burton Clark, Guy Neave, or Philip Altbach have been published roughly 30 years ago and their effort has not been updated significantly since then. Moreover, several of these works have not been available for several years, preventing many younger institutions access to a major reference work in the field of higher education. Thus, there was a clear need for an international and up-to-date landmark editorial project on higher education that covers all themes in a comprehensive, accessible, and comparative way. The International Encyclopedia of Higher Education Systems and Institutions aims to map the field for the twenty-first century, reflecting the enormous changes in the field and the challenges ahead for future research. The topics covered have envisaged to encompass all key areas of higher education with a topical, geographical, and disciplinary approach, always aiming to draw comparative analyses and to cover diverse scholarly interpretations. The first part of the encyclopedia covers the National Entries that

Preface

Preface

vii

outline a comprehensive account of the reality of higher education in a very large and diverse set of countries. The presentation of almost 150 higher education systems was developed, as much as possible, in a comparative framework, following the same structure. Thus, each entry aims to cover briefly the historical context of the emergence and development of each higher education system, some basic data and trends about its higher education institutions, and a set of major topics that shape all higher education systems such as governance, funding, quality, and the major stakeholders (especially academics and students). In general, each entry ends with a concluding summary that outlines the major issues and challenges faced by that system and that should be followed attentively in the coming years. The development of these National Entries was coordinated by the Regional Editors, supported by the Editors-in-Chief, in order to attain a higher degree of coherence and comparativeness between those entries. The regional sections were organized as follows: Western Countries (Barbara Kehm); Asia and Pacific (Rui Yang, Jung Cheol Shin, and Pedro Nuno Teixeira); Latin America and Caribbean (Andrés Bernasconi and Elizabeth Balbachevsky); and Africa, Arabian Peninsula, and Middle-East (Goolam Mohamedbhai and Patrício Langa). The second part comprises the thematic entries, which takes advantage of the accumulated expertise in multiple aspects of higher education. The selection of entries was comprehensive and aimed to identify themes that were of significant interest to an international audience interested in higher education, notably by its significance to many systems of higher education. The thematic entries were structured according to a set of major themes in higher education research that avoided focusing too much on disciplinary approaches. Each theme was coordinated by an associate Editor (or more than one) in order to aim at consistency and comprehensiveness. The themes covered were the following: Elite and Mass Higher Education in the Twenty-First Century (Manja Klemenčič); The State and Higher Education (Alberto Amaral and António Magalhães); Higher Education and Its Communities (Gaele Goastellec); Higher Education as a Complex Organization (Bjorn Stensaker); Higher Education as a Global Reality (Hans de Wit, Fiona Hunter, Laura Rumbley, Edward Choi, and Lisa Unangst); The Political Economy of Higher Education (Pedro Nuno Teixeira); and Higher Education as a Research Field (Jussi Valimaa and Terhi Nokkala). Each of them supervised several dozens of entries, supported by the editors-in-chief, and painstakingly revised and commented on each of them. In the structuring of each theme we have tried to cover the major issues of the literature, but also to identify emerging topics that could add novelty to the analysis. Altogether, these almost 350 entries present a comprehensive, nuanced, and profound depiction of the world of higher education that is nourished by the different disciplinary perspectives that have been studying higher education and by the increasingly large number of specialized studies focusing on higher education. The final result owes tremendously to the competent and persistent editorial work of this team of outstanding scholars. We hope that this massive undertaking will become a reference source benefiting from the richness of scholarly perspectives and a wide range of internationally diverse contributions. This encyclopedia covers in an

viii

extremely comprehensive way the world of higher education both from a geographical as well as thematic/disciplinary perspective. Most importantly, we believe that the result of this effort will support indispensable comparative analyses as higher education has never been as interconnected as today. Whereas entries in previously published encyclopedia primarily reflected particular countries/national systems, this reference work is unrivaled in its international scope and its capacity to go beyond national boundaries by profiting from the wealth of international comparative research that has been developed in the field over the last decades. The aim was therefore to provide a complete resource on higher education institutions meant to advancing research and the exploration of key issues in higher education worldwide, to influence current thinking, and to raise awareness and create insight in current issues. The encyclopedia will provide readers at different levels a comprehensive and systematic research tool that combines research in depth and breadth with reflections about the realities of the higher education world. Thus, we have aimed that it could become a useful source for a very diverse set of audiences, from the more academic ones composed of researchers and students to the more practically oriented ones of policy makers and academic administrators. We sincerely hope that the latter will also find this work a useful reference for decision-making purposes. This purpose has been reinforced either by the significant knowledge of many contributors about the systemic and institutional dynamics of higher education, but also by the contribution of many scholars with past or current management and policy experience in higher education. The growth of higher education and its increasing complexity that has been briefly characterized above has been a powerful driver for the expansion of research in this field. Over the last decades we have seen a significant expansion of the community of researchers specialized in higher education, nurtured by a growing number of master and doctoral programs specialized in higher education topics. This has reflected in the number of scientific journals and the creation and/or consolidation of several national and international organizations of researchers. The research in the field has combined national studies with a strong comparative and international approach to higher education issues. Likewise, an overview of main publications in the field shows a growing strength regarding the diversity of methodological approaches. The vitality of the field has benefited by the expanding possibilities of interaction between researchers of multidisciplinary backgrounds. Thus, the amount of high-quality research about higher education has been expanded significantly over the last decades. This encyclopedia was made possible by the commitment and dedication of colleagues and researchers in the field of higher education from all over the world, reflecting an expanding and increasingly diverse community of researchers in this field. Twenty renowned scholars participated as editors and circa 540 authors wrote articles for thematic or systemic sections. The editors in the thematic sections are all located in Europe and North America, though they reflect a growing regional diversity in contrast with previous encyclopedias’ dominance of authors from English-speaking countries.

Preface

Preface

ix

Moreover, editors for regional sections on higher education systems are wellestablished scholars that have developed their careers in those regions. We believe that this diversity reflects a much more diverse field, but also that captures more adequately the complex and nuanced realities of higher education worldwide. In the case of thematic entries, there is still a large presence of authors from the countries where the field of higher education has consolidated earlier, with about two-thirds of authors based in the USA, UK, and Western Europe. However, this means that there is already 35% of authors based in countries that had a largely residual presence in previous reference works. Furthermore, in the system entries it was possible to develop a truly international approach with 80% of the contributions coming from authors based outside the traditional axis Western Europe/North America. Thus, although the distribution of editors and authors still reflects a broad scientific pattern in which major knowledge providers are based in the Anglo-Saxon and Western European countries, there are rapidly growing academic communities in Asia-Pacific, Latin America, Africa, and Middle East, as shown in our higher education systems and institutions sections. We believe that higher education research in those growing academic communities will provide rich soils for academic development in the West as well as in their own regions. The list of editors and authors also present a significant diversity regarding important academic characteristics such as gender and age. Thus, 40% of the editors are women and more than half of the sections were coordinated or co-coordinated by female academics. The share of female authors is also very large, confirming a pattern of increasing recognition of women in academia. The age structure of the editorial team and of the authors contributing to the encyclopedia also reflects our aims of diversity with authors ranging from early career academics to well-known senior academics. Readers will recognize that the collaboration of early career academics and seniors brings overarching views on higher education from different perspectives. Especially noteworthy is the contribution of many young academics with high scholarly potential from non-Western higher education systems both in systemic and thematic entries, as it points out to a promising future of the field in many parts of the world. We are sure that those young academics will lead research with fresh perspectives and pioneering new research territories. Those young researchers have much field experiences as practitioners (most of them hold practitioner position in a higher education institution) and those experiences will provide rich ground for theoretical development in their academic career. This encyclopedia covers a wide range of topics related to contemporary higher education. In several cases there will be (unavoidable) overlaps or different perspectives about similar topics, but this was intentional and aimed to reflect the diversity of perspectives in the field that can and should not be subsumed in a single approach. Although we have searched to incorporate the dynamics of higher education in our encyclopedia, our academic endeavor is limited as we are still learning to grasp what some of these changes will bring to the realities of higher education. We are confident that the contribution of this research will provide valuable insights about this unknown future and the publication of this print edition is just a starting point for

x

Preface

adventuring higher education research as a field of research. Our task is unfinished and we will continue to think about this fascinating and complex reality of higher education and the results of that future work will enrich the digital version of this work in the years to come. This was a complex and long project and we could not finish this introduction without expressing our deepest gratitude to the crucial people that contributed significantly to its successful accomplishment. First of all, we should thank our team of associated editors who played a critical role in structuring the entries for each theme, persuaded a great team of qualified authors to generously contribute, and reviewed their submissions. Secondly, we would like to thank the members of the advisory team, who helped us during this project, especially in its initial stages. A special thanks to our colleagues Guy Neave, Philip G. Altbach, and Ulrich Teichler for their continuous support and advice. Third, we would like to thank all contributors that did their best to accommodate our demands regarding length, deadlines, and content. Although we have tried to be flexible, we are aware that this was a big demand on many of them and we are grateful for their efforts. Finally, we would like to express our gratitude to the entire team at Springer for their support, professionalism, and tolerance. A special thanks to Yoka Jassen who initiated and provided support since the beginning of this project, to Michael Hermann at Springer reference who provided invaluable advice for the progress of this project. Last, but certainly not least, the entire editorial team is very grateful to Sarah Mathew and Tina Shelton for their time and dedication. We could not handle this project with almost 500 entries without the persistence, the generosity, and the commitment of all those that have been mentioned and we are deeply grateful to each and one of them. We hope that the final result will live up to their dedication. July 2020

Pedro Nuno Teixeira Jung Cheol Shin

List of Topics

Section Editors: Alberto Amaral and António Magalhães Accountability in Higher Education Advocacy Coalition Framework, Higher Education Agenda Setting and Policy Development, Higher Education Autonomy and Accountability in Higher Education, Africa Autonomy and Accountability in Higher Education, Asia Autonomy and Accountability in Higher Education, Eastern Europe Autonomy and Accountability in Higher Education, Latin America Autonomy and Accountability in Higher Education, North America Autonomy and Accountability in Higher Education, Western Europe Bureaucracies and Ministries, Higher Education Economic Models and Policy Analysis, Higher Education Evaluative State, Higher Education, The Federal States, States and Local Policies in Higher Education Good Governance and Higher Education Government, Stakeholders, and Interest Groups in Higher Education Higher Education Policy Institutional Autonomy in Higher Education Intergovernmental Policies in Higher Education, Bologna International Organizations, Higher Education

Law and Higher Education in the EU and in the Flemish Community Market Mechanisms, Higher Education Multi-level Governance, Higher Education New Public Management or Neoliberalism, Higher Education Policy Cycle in Higher Education, Theories of Policy Implementation in Higher Education Policy Instruments in Higher Education Policy Learning and Borrowing in Higher Education Policy Outcomes and Effects in Higher Education Policy Process in Higher Education Policy-Making, Rhetoric, and Discourse in Higher Education Politics, Power, and Ideology in Higher Education Research on Higher Education and Europeanization State and Planning, Higher Education Section Editor: Manja Klemencˇicˇ Academics and Higher Education Expansion Access to and Widening Participation in Higher Education Access to Higher Education, Affirmative Action Access to Higher Education, Barriers to Enrollment and Choice African University Traditions, Historical Perspective Alternative Higher Education Asian University Traditions British University Traditions xi

xii

Community Colleges and the Massification of Higher Education Critical Higher Education: Rethinking Higher Education as a Democratic Public Sphere Cultural Capital, Social Class, and Higher Education Demography and Higher Education Diversity and Higher Education Elite Higher Education Elite, Mass, and High-Participation Higher Education Engaged University, The Entrepreneurial University Equity in Higher Education Expansion of Higher Education, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Countries French University Traditions, Napoleonic to Contemporary Transformation Gender and Higher Education German (Humboldtian) University Tradition, The High Participation in Higher Education, Implications for Funding Higher Education and Democratic Citizenship Higher Education and National Development, Meanings and Purposes Higher Education and the Public Good Higher Education Expansion in Africa and Middle East Higher Education Expansion in Asia and the Pacific Higher Education Expansion in Brazil, Russia, India, and China Higher Education Expansion in Latin America Higher Education for Sustainability Higher Education in Knowledge Systems Higher Education Institutions, Types and Classifications of Higher Education Market Segmentation Higher Education System Differentiation, Horizontal and Vertical Higher Education Systems, Types of Higher Education, Welfare States, and Inequalities Inequality in Higher Education Inequality in Higher Education and the Labor Market

List of Topics

Institutional Diversity in Higher Education, Institutional Profiling Latin American University Tradition, The Mass Higher Education Non-university Higher Education Private Higher Education Public Higher Education Quality of Higher Education Systems Race, Ethnicity, and Higher Education Refugees and Higher Education Research University, The Social Mobility and Higher Education Stratification in Higher Education Student Employees in Higher Education Student Governments Student Politics Students and Higher Education Expansion The Idea of the University: Renewing the Great Tradition University Tradition in the United States, The University Traditions in the Middle East and North Africa University Traditions, Russia World-Class Universities Section Editor: Bjørn Stensaker Academic Deans in Higher Education Institutions Administrative Planning, Higher Education Institutions Changing Legal Framework for Higher Education Collegiality in Higher Education Dimensions of Sustainable Development in Higher Education Diversity and Leadership in Higher Education Entrepreneurial Leadership in Higher Education External Quality Assurance in Higher Education Financial Management, Higher Education Institutions Governance in Community Colleges Governance of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education Governing Access and Success in Higher Education Human Resource Management, Higher Education Institutional Accountability in Higher Education Institutional Culture in Higher Education

List of Topics

Institutional Drift in Higher Education Institutional Fundraising, Higher Education Institutions Institutional Research and Themes, Asia Institutional Research and Themes, Europe Institutional Research and Themes, Latin America Institutional Research and Themes, North America Institutional Research and Themes, Southern Africa Leadership in Higher Education, Concepts and Theories Leadership of Internationalization in Higher Education Institutions Linking Innovation, Education, and Research Management of Research, Higher Education Institutions Managing External Relations, Higher Education Institutions Marketing in Higher Education Mission Statement, Higher Education Models of Change in Higher Education Non-university Education and Professional Institutions Organization and Knowledge Production in Higher Education Organizational Change, Higher Education Organizational Culture in Higher Education Organizational Identity in Higher Education Peer Leadership, Higher Education Performance and Quality Management in Higher Education Recruitment and Admission Management, Higher Education Institutions Regional Roles of Higher Education Revenue Generation, Higher Education Institutions Shared Governance, Higher Education Institutions Strategic Planning in Higher Education Understanding Institutional Diversity Section Editor: Gaële Goastellec Academic Careers Academic Evaluation in Higher Education

xiii

Academic Identity in Higher Education Academic Perception of Governance and Management Academic Profession, Higher Education Access to Higher Education in Europe, Trends Admissions Processes to Higher Education, International Insights Bureaucratization Process in Higher Education Chair System in Higher Education Civic Engagement in Higher Education Communicating Science Online, Higher Education Community Engagement in Higher Education Community Partnerships, Higher Education Digital Humanities in and for Higher Education Diploma Devaluation, The Ins and Outs Disciplinary Differences in University Teaching Disciplinary Versus Institutional Approaches, Higher Education Distance Teaching Universities Doctoral Student Socialization E-Learning in Higher Education Factors Influencing Scientists’ Public Engagement First Year Experience Programs, Promoting Successful Student Transition First-Generation Student, A Sociohistorical Analysis Gender Discrimination in the Academic Profession Higher Education Professionals, A Growing Profession Learning and Educational Pathway to Higher Education Learning Outcomes in European Higher Education Merit and Equality in Higher Education Access New Managerialism in Higher Education New Public Management and the Academic Profession Non-tenured Teachers, Higher Education Overlap Model of Roles and Tasks in University Organizations Peer Instruction in Higher Education Peer Review, Higher Education Professional Staff Identities in Higher Education Public Engagement in Higher Education

xiv

Public Engagement Measurement Recruitment of Academics Refugees’ Access to Higher Education Social and Public Responsibility, Universities Social Partnership, Cross-Sector Collaboration Student Retention in Higher Education, A Shared Issue Students’ Drop Out, Higher Education Students’ Experiences in Higher Education Social Contract of Science, The Understanding the Transition to Higher Education Universities and Regional Development in the Periphery Values and Beliefs in Higher Education Widening Access to Higher Education Women in Science Communication Section Editor: Pedro Nuno Teixeira Academic Capitalism, Conceptual Issues Academic Capitalism, Evolution and Comparisons Commercialization of Science, Higher Education Competition in Higher Education Completion and Retention in Higher Education Concepts of Efficiency, Higher Education Cost Disease, Higher Education Cost-Sharing in Financing Higher Education Degrees of Quality, Higher Education Economic Determinants of Higher Education Demand Economics of Massive Open Online Courses, Higher Education Economics of Student Loans Excellence Schemes, Higher Education Experience with Student Loans, Higher Education Financing Higher Education in Africa, An Overview For-Profit Higher Education Formula Funding, Higher Education Higher Education and Economic Development Higher Education Policy and Economic Development Human Capital and Economic Growth Human Capital: Historical and Conceptual Developments Information Issues, Higher Education Markets

List of Topics

Market Differentiation in Higher Education Markets and Marketization in Higher Education Mergers and Consortia, Higher Education Nonmonetary Private Returns of Higher Education Nonparametric Methods and Higher Education Over-Skilling, Under-Skilling, and Higher Education Parametric Methods and Higher Education Peer Effects, Higher Education Performance Indicators in Higher Education Performance-Based Funding, Higher Education Performance-Based Funding, Higher Education in Europe Performance-Based Funding, Higher Education in the USA Philanthropy and Individual Donors in Higher Education Pricing in Higher Education Private Higher Education in Developed Countries Private Higher Education in Developing Countries Privatization and Diversity in Higher Education Privatization, Higher Education Public Funding of Higher Education, Europe Public Funding, Asia Public Funding, Latin America Rates of Return to Education: Conceptual and Methodological Issues Returns to Higher Education and Gender Revenue Diversification, Higher Education Scale and Scope Economies, Higher Education Signalling and Credentialism, Higher Education Social Benefits of Higher Education Tuition Fees, Higher Education Tuition Fees, Worldwide Trends Universities and Enterprises Universities as Economic Organizations Varieties of Capitalism in Higher Education Section Editors: Hans de Wit, Laura E. Rumbley, Fiona Hunter, Lisa Unangst and Edward Choi Academic Mobility, Inequities in Opportunity and Experience

List of Topics

Administrative Staff as Key Players in the Internationalization of Higher Education Collaborative Online International Learning in Higher Education Corruption in Higher Education Doctoral Studies in Europe Flagship Universities in Africa Free Higher Education, Myths and Realities Global Citizenship and Higher Education Global Higher Education, Digital Age Global Trends in Student Mobility Globalization of Higher Education, Critical Views Graduate Education Developments in an International Context Higher Education as a Global Reality Higher Education Globalization, Implications for Implementation of Institutional Strategies for Internationalization Higher Education in Post-Conflict Settings Higher Education Networks, Associations, and Organizations in Europe Human Capital Policy in Science and Technology Identity and Internationalization in Catholic Higher Education Intercultural Competencies and the Global Citizen International Academic Mobility in Asia International Academic Mobility in Australia and New Zealand International Academic Mobility in Europe, Regional Perspectives International Alumni Matters, Beyond Academic Mobility International Branch Campuses, Management of International Consortia of Higher Education Institutions International Higher Education Development Aid, Possibilities and Pitfalls International Higher Education Hubs International Higher Education Partnerships in the Developing World International Organizations and Latin American Higher Education International Student Services Internationalization at Home

xv

Internationalization of Higher Education, Africa Internationalization of Higher Education, China Internationalization of Higher Education, Emerging Economy Perspectives Internationalization of Higher Education, European Policies Internationalization of Higher Education, Historical Perspective Internationalization of Higher Education, Latin America and the Caribbean Internationalization of Higher Education, Leadership Perspective Internationalization of Higher Education, Mapping and Measuring Internationalization of Higher Education, US Perspectives Internationalization of Higher Education, Evolving Concepts, Approaches, and Definitions Internationalization of Research and Knowledge Development Internationalization of the Curriculum in the Disciplines, Critical Perspectives Internationalization of the Curriculum, Teaching and Learning Internationalizing the Student Experience Internationally Mobile Faculty, Comparative Perspectives Language and Internationalization of the Higher Education Curriculum Liberal Arts Education, Going Global National Policies for Internationalization New Modes of Student Mobility, Work Experience and Service Learning Online Programs and Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) Partnerships and Joint Programs in Higher Education, Management of Positioning European Higher Education Globally Quality Assurance and Internationalization, Higher Education Quality Assurance in Higher Education, A Global Perspective Refugees in Tertiary Education, European Policies and Practices Transnational Education

xvi

Universities in the Age of Internationalization, Competition, and Cooperation University Rankings, National and International Dynamics US Accreditation and Quality Assurance, International Dimensions Section Editors: Jussi Välimaa and Terhi Nokkala American Foundations and Higher Education Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE) Comparative Research, Higher Education Consortium of Higher Education Researchers EAIR: The European Higher Education Society Economic Perspectives, Research in Higher Education Field of Higher Education Research in Latin America Field of Higher Education Research, Africa Field of Higher Education Research, Asia Field of Higher Education Research, China Field of Higher Education Research, Europe Field of Higher Education Research, India Field of Higher Education Research, North America Field of Higher Education Research, Russia Field of Higher Education Research, France Higher Education Conferences Higher Education Journals Higher Education Research in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden Higher Education Research in Eastern Europe (Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia) Higher Education Research, Australia Higher Education Research, Germany Higher Education Research, Southern Europe (Italy, Portugal, Spain, Greece) Higher Education Research, UK Historical Perspective, Research in Higher Education Innovation Studies in Higher Education Research International Organizations and Asian Higher Education

List of Topics

Internationalization of Higher Education Research and Careers in Africa Internationalization of Higher Education Research and Careers in North America Internationalization of Higher Education Research and Careers, Europe Internationalization of Higher Education Research in East Asia Internationalization of Higher Education Studies in Latin America Organizational Studies, Research in Higher Education Pedagogical Perspectives in Higher Education Research Philosophical Perspectives, Research in Higher Education Political Perspective, Research in Higher Education Research in Higher Education, Cultural Perspectives Role of the European Union in the Field of Higher Education Research Role of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in the Field of Higher Education Research Role of the World Bank Group in the Field of Higher Education Research Role of United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in the Field of Higher Education Research Science and Technology Studies in Higher Education Research Sociological Perspectives on Higher Education Research Society for Research into Higher Education (SRHE), The Section Editors: Rui Yang, Jung Cheol Shin and Pedro Nuno Teixeira Higher Education System and Institutions, Korea Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Australia Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Bangladesh Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Bhutan

List of Topics

Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Brunei Darussalam Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Cambodia Higher Education Systems and Institutions, China Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Fiji Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Hong Kong Higher Education Systems and Institutions, India Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Indonesia Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Japan Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Lao People’s Democratic Republic Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Macau Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Malaysia Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Mongolia Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Myanmar Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Nepal Higher Education Systems and Institutions, New Zealand Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Pakistan Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Philippines Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Singapore Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Sri Lanka Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Taiwan Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Thailand Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Vietnam Section Editors: Elizabeth Balbachevsky and Andrés Bernasconi Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Anglophonic Countries in Latin America Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Argentina

xvii

Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Bolivia Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Brazil Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Central America Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Chile Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Colômbia Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Costa Rica Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Cuba Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Ecuador Higher Education Systems and Institutions, El Salvador Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Guyana Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Honduras Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Mexico Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Paraguay Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Peru Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Suriname Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Uruguay Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Venezuela Section Editors: Goolam Mohamedbhai and Patricio Langa Higher Education System and Institutions, Mauritius Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Algeria Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Angola Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Burkina Faso Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Burundi Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Cape Verde

xviii

Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Central African Republic Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Cote d’Ivoire Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Egypt Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Eswatini (Swaziland) Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Ethiopia Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Francophone Africa Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Gabon Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Gambia Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Ghana Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Guinea Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Guinea Bissau Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Iran Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Kenya Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Kuwait Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Lebanon Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Liberia Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Libya Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Malawi Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Mali Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Mauritania Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Morocco Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Mozambique Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Namibia Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Niger Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Nigeria Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Qatar

List of Topics

Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Rwanda Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Saudi Arabia Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Senegal Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Sierra Leone Higher Education Systems and Institutions, South Africa Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Sudan Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Sultanate of Oman Higher Education Systems and Institutions, São Tomé and Príncipe Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Tunisia Higher Education Systems and Institutions, United Arab Emirates Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Yemen Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Zambia Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Zimbabwe Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Uganda Section Editor: Barbara M. Kehm Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Albania Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Austria Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Belarus Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Belgium Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Bosnia and Herzegovina Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Bulgaria Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Canada Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Croatia

List of Topics

Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Czech Republic Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Denmark Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Estonia Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Finland Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Georgia Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Germany Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Greece Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Holy See Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Hungary Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Iceland Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Ireland Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Israel Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Italy Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Kosovo Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Latvia Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Lithuania Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Luxembourg Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Macedonia Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Malta Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Montenegro Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Northern Part of Cyprus

xix

Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Norway Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Poland Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Portugal Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Republic of Cyprus Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Republic of Moldova Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Romania Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Serbia Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Slovakia Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Slovenia Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Spain Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Sweden Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Switzerland Higher Education Systems and Institutions, The Netherlands Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Turkey Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Ukraine Higher Education Systems and Institutions, United Kingdom Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Russia Higher Education Systems and Institutions, United States Higher-Education Systems and Institutions, France

About the Editors-in-Chief

Pedro Nuno Teixeira Director of CIPES – the Center for Research in Higher Education Policies and Professor in the Faculty of Economics at the University of Porto. He has served as an adviser on Higher Education and Science to the President of Portugal since April 2016. He was Vice-Rector for Academic Affairs at the University of Porto (2014–2018) and was also a member of Portugal’s National Council of Education (2014–2018). Professor Teixeira has published widely on higher education policy in a broad range of scientific journals and is a member of the editorial boards of the following journals: Higher Education, the European Journal of Higher Education, Higher Education Policy, Journal of Research in Higher Education, and OEconomia: History/Methodology/ Philosophy. He is also a member of the Board of Governors and Secretary General of the Consortium of Higher Education Researchers (CHER), a Research Fellow at the Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), an Associate Researcher of the Program for Research on Private Higher Education (PROPHE), and a member of the Scientific Committees of the Réseau d'Etudes sur l'Enseignement Supérieur (RESUP) and of the European Network of Higher Education Doctoral Students (EURODOCS). Professor Teixeira has been of the Board of the BIAL Foundation (since 2015) and was a member of the Education Advisory Board of the Foundation Francisco Manuel dos Santos (2013–2018). He has also served on the evaluation panels for the European University Association (EUA) and the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA).

xxi

xxii

About the Editors-in-Chief

Jung Cheol Shin is a professor at Seoul National University. He served the Korean Ministry of Education for about 20 years and began his professorship since 2006 when he moved to Seoul National University. His research interests are higher education policy, knowledge and social development, and academic profession. Professor Shin is Co-editor-in-Chief of the book series Knowledge Studies in Higher Education. He is an editorial board member of Studies in Higher Education, Tertiary Education and Management, and Higher Education Forum. Professor Shin was visiting fellow at East-Wester Center (USA), Tohoku University (Japan), Kyoto University (Japan), Hiroshima University (Japan), and National Chengchi University (Taiwan). Currently, he is the Secretary General (interim) of the Higher Education Research Association (HERA). Professor Shin’s book publications include University Rankings (2011), Institutionalization of World-Class University (2012), The Future of the Post-Massified University at the Crossroads (2014), Teaching and Research in Contemporary Higher education (2014), and Doctoral Education for the Knowledge Society (2018). For details, please visit: http://skie.snu. ac.kr/html/index.php

About the Editors

Elite and Mass Higher Education Manja Klemenčič Department of Sociology, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA Higher Education and its Communities Gaële Goastellec OSPS, LACCUS, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Vaud, Switzerland Higher Education and the State Alberto Amaral CIPES, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal António Magalhães Center for Research in Higher Education Policies CIPES - and Faculty of Psychology and Education Sciences, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal Higher Education as a Global Reality Edward Choi Center for International Higher Education, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA, USA Hans de Wit Center for International Higher Education, Boston College, Boston, MA, USA Fiona Hunter Centre for Higher Education Internationalisation, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milan, Italy Laura E. Rumbley European Association for International Education (EAIE), Amsterdam, The Netherlands Lisa Unangst Center for International Higher Education, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA, USA Higher Education as Research Field Terhi Nokkala Finnish Institute for Educational Research, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland Jussi Välimaa Finnish Institute for Educational Research, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland Higher Education Institutions as Complex Organizations Bjørn Stensaker Department of Education, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway xxiii

xxiv

Higher Education Systems and Institutions: Africa, Arab and Middle Eastern Countries Patricio Langa Centre for Adult and Continuing Education, University of the Western Cape, Cape Town, South Africa Goolam Mohamedbhai Former Vice-Chancellor, University of Mauritius, Rose-Hill, Mauritius Higher Education Systems and Institutions: Asia and Pacific Jung Cheol Shin Department of Education, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea Pedro Nuno Teixeira CIPES - Centre for Research in Higher Education Policies and Faculty of Economics - U. Porto, Portugal Rui Yang Division of Policy, Administration and Social Sciences Education, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong Higher Education Systems and Institutions: Latin America Elizabeth Balbachevsky Department of Political Science, Research Center on Public Policy, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil Andrés Bernasconi School of Education, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile Higher Education Systems and Institutions: Western Countries Barbara M. Kehm Leibniz Centre for Science and Society, Universität Hannover, Hannover, Germany Political Economy of Higher Education Pedro Nuno Teixeira CIPES - Centre for Research in Higher Education Policies and Faculty of Economics - U. Porto, Portugal

About the Editors

Advisory Board Members

Philip G. Altbach Boston College, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts, USA Akira Arimoto Hyogo University and Research Institute for Higher Education (RIHE), Kakogawa, Japan Guy Neave Centro de Investigac¸ão de Políticas do Ensino Superior (CIPES), Porto, Portugal University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands Sheldon Rothblatt University of California - Berkeley, Berkeley, USA Ulrich Teichler International Centre for Higher Education Research, University of Kassel, Kassel, Germany Gareth Williams Institute of Education - University College London, London, UK

xxv

Contributors

Kaare Aagaard Department of Political Science, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark Timo Aarrevaara University of Lapland, Rovaniemi, Finland Pius Coxwell Achanga National Council for Higher Education (NCHE), Kampala, Uganda Georgette Agneroh-Eboi Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research, Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire Adalberto Aguirre Jr. Department of Sociology, University of California at Riverside, Riverside, CA, USA Ali Ait Si Mhamed Graduate School of Education, Nazarbayev University, Astana, Kazakhstan Khalid Ahmed Al Qaidani Center of Public Administration Development, Sana’a University, Sana’a, Yemen Khalaf Al’Abri Sultan Qaboos University, Seeb, Oman Ahoud Al-Asfour Department of Educational Foundations and Administration | Comparative Education, College of Basic Education (CBE), The Public Authority for Applied Education and Training (PAAET), Kuwait, Kuwait Cecilia Albert Departamento de Economía, Universidad de Alcalá, Alcalá de Henares/Madrid, Spain Ruby Alleyne Office of Quality Assurance and Institutional Effectiveness, The University of Trinidad and Tobago, Arima, Trinidad and Tobago Jeffrey W. Alstete School of Business, Iona College, New Rochelle, NY, USA Philip G. Altbach Center for International Higher Education, Boston College, Boston, MA, USA Alberto Amaral CIPES, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal

xxvii

xxviii

Ravichandran Ammigan Office for International Students and Scholars, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA Centre for Higher Education Internationalisation (CHEI), Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milan, Italy José Pedro Amorim CIIE – Centro de Investigac¸ão e Intervenc¸ão Educativas, Faculdade de Psicologia e de Ciências da Educac¸ão, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal Eric J. Anctil University of Portland, Portland, OR, USA Robert D. Anderson School of History, Classics and Archaeology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK Carrie Amani Annabi Heriot-Watt University, Dubai, United Arab Emirates Dominik Antonowicz Nicolaus Copernicus University, Toruń, Poland Robert Archibald William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA, USA Rodrigo Arocena Universidad de la República, Montevideo, Uruguay Redouane Assad Department of Strategies and Information System, Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research, Hassan, Morocco N’Dri Thérèse Assié-Lumumba Africana Studies and Research Center, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA Hortense Atta Diallo University Nangui Abrogoua, Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire Jana Bacevic University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK Gasim Badri Ahfad University for Women, Omdurman, Sudan Diola Bagayoko Southern University and A&M College in Baton Rouge, Baton Rouge, LA, USA Sylvia S. Bagley University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA Nikola Baketa Center for Youth and Gender Studies, Institute for Social Research in Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia Jorge Balán School of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University, New York, USA Ivan Baláž Constantine the Philosopher University, Nitra, Slovakia Elizabeth Balbachevsky Department of Political Science, Research Center on Public Policy, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil Victoria Ballerini Research for Action, Philadelphia, PA, USA Osman Z. Barnawi Royal Commission Colleges and Institutes, Yanbu, Saudi Arabia Ronald Barnett University College London Institute of Education, London, UK

Contributors

Contributors

xxix

Damian Barry L H Martin Institute, Melbourne Centre for Studies of Higher Education, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia Aleš Bartušek Education Policy Centre, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic Roberta Malee Bassett The World Bank, Washington, DC, USA Janosch Baumann University of Kassel, Kassel, Germany Jos Beelen The Hague University of Applied Sciences, The Hague, The Netherlands Maarja Beerkens Faculty of Governance and Global Affairs, Leiden University, Hague, The Netherlands Eric Beerkens NWO (Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research), The Hague, The Netherlands Stefan Beljean Department of Sociology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA Enora Bennetot Pruvot Governance, Funding and Public Policy Development, European University Association (EUA), Brussels, Belgium Paul Benneworth Center for Higher Education Policy Studies, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands Estela Mara Bensimon Center for Urban Education, Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA Peter James Bentley The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia Sjur Bergan Directorate of Democratic Citizenship and Participation/DG Democracy, Council of Europe – Conseil de l’Europe, Strasbourg, France Andrés Bernasconi School of Education, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile Rajika Bhandari Institute of International Education, New York, NY, USA Ronald Bisaso East African School of Higher Education Studies and Development, College of Education and External Studies, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda Ricardo Biscaia CIPES - Centre for Research in Higher Education Policies, Porto, Portugal ESTGA-UAveiro and ESS-IPPorto, Porto, Portugal Ivar Bleiklie Department of Administration and Organization Theory, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway Fred Kofi Boateng School of Education and Leadership, College of Education, University of Ghana, Accra, Ghana Vikki Boliver School of Applied Social Sciences, Durham University, Durham, UK

xxx

Contributors

Andrea Bonaccorsi University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy IRVAPP-FBK, Trento, Italy Victor M. H. Borden Center for Postsecondary Research, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA Jan Botha Centre for Research on Evaluation, Science and Technology (CREST), Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa Pepka Boyadjieva Institute for the Study of Societies and Knowledge, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia, Bulgaria Lucia Brajkovic American Council on Education, Washington, DC, USA Uwe Brandenburg Global Impact Institute, Prague, Czech Republic Rovira i Virgili University, Tarragona, Spain John Brennan The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK Georgina Brewis UCL Institute of Education, University College London, London, UK Barbara Brittingham New England Colleges-CIHE, Burlington, MA, USA

Association

of Schools

and

Rachel Brooks University of Surrey, Guildford, UK Roger Brown Southampton Solent University, Southampton, UK D. Bruce Johnstone Graduate School of Education, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA Ian Bunting Department of Science and Technology-National Research Foundation (DST-NRF) Centre of Excellence in Scientometrics and Science Technology and Innovation Policy (SciSTIP), University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, South Africa Penny Jane Burke Centre of Excellence for Equity in Higher Education, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia Rutilia Calderón National Tegucigalpa, Honduras

Autonomous

University

of

Honduras,

Claire Callender Department of Psychosocial Studies, Birkbeck University of London and UCL, Institute of Education, London, UK Adalberto E. Campos Batres University Francisco Gavidia, San Salvador, El Salvador Sonia Cardoso A3ES, Lisbon, Portugal CIPES, Matosinhos, Portugal Vincent Carpentier UCL Institute of Education, University College London, London, UK

Contributors

xxxi

Teresa Carvalho University of Aveiro and CIPES, Department of Social, Political and Territorial Sciences, Aveiro, Portugal Edel Cassar Ministry for Education and Employment, San Ġwann, Malta Santiago Castiello College of Education – Department of Educational Policy Studies and Practice, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA K. Chachoua National Scientific Research Centre (CNRS), Research Institute on Arab and Muslim World Studies (IREMAM), Aix-Marseille University, Aix-en-Provence, France National Prehistory, History and Anthropology Research Centre (CRNPAH), Algiers, Algeria National Social and Cultural Anthropology Research Centre (CRASC), Oran, Algeria Celeste Chan University of Eastern Philippines, Catarman, Philippines Sheng-Ju Chan National Chung Cheng University, Chiayi County, Taiwan Khamtanch Chanthy Asian Development Bank, Vientiane, Lao People’s Democratic Republic Roger Y. Chao Jr. Independent Education Consultant, Hong Kong, China UNESCO International Center for Higher Education Innovation, Shenzhen, China Bruce Chapman Australian National University, Canberra, Australia Nicolas Charles University of Bordeaux, Centre Emile Durkheim, Bordeaux, France Le Chapelain Charlotte University of Lyon, Lyon, France Thierry Chevaillier Institut de recherche en éducation (IREDU), Université de Bourgogne, Dijon, France Carmela Chávez Irigoyen Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Lima, Peru Pontifical Catholic University of Peru, Lima, Peru Edward Choi Center for International Higher Education, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA, USA Riccardo Cinquegrani Agency for the Evaluation and Promotion of Quality in Ecclesiastical Universities and Faculties, Rome, Italy Patrick Clancy School of Sociology, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland Marie Clarke University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland Diebolt Claude University of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France

xxxii

Nico Cloete Centre for Higher Education Trust (CHET), Wynberg, South Africa Department of Science and Technology-National Research Foundation (DST-NRF) Centre of Excellence in Scientometrics and Science Technology and Innovation Policy (SciSTIP), University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, South Africa Robert C. Cloud Baylor University, Waco, TX, USA Márcia Coelho CIIE – Centro de Investigac¸ão e Intervenc¸ão Educativas, Faculdade de Psicologia e de Ciências da Educac¸ão, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal Jean-Franc¸ois Condette CREHS (EA 4027) Laboratory Research, Artois University, Arras, France ESPE-Lille-Nord-de-France, Villeneuve-d’Ascq, France Philip Conroy Pirimid Strategies, Winter Springs, FL, USA Francesca Costa Centre of Higher Education Internationalisation, Università degli Studi di Bergamo, Milan, Italy Christine M. Cress Portland State University, Portland, OR, USA Fabienne Crettaz von Roten University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland Suzanne Crew University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Australia Vernon Crew University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia John T. Crist George Mason University Korea, Incheon, Republic of Korea Glenda Crosling Office of Deputy Provost (Learning and Teaching), Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Office of Vice-Chancellor, Sunway University, Kuala Lumpur, Selangor, Malaysia Bojana Culum Department of Pedagogy, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia Cinzia Daraio Department of Computer, Control and Management Engineering “A. Ruberti”, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy Daniel Dauber University of Warwick, Coventry, UK John L. Davies University of Bath, Cambridge, UK Scott Davies Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada Harry de Boer CHEPS, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands Ariane de Gayardon UCL Institute of Education, London, NA, UK

Contributors

Contributors

xxxiii

Jan De Groof College of Europe, Bruges, Belgium University of Tilburg, Tilburg, The Netherlands HSE, Moscow, Russia Gaétan de Rassenfosse College of Management of Technology, Ecole polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland Hans de Wit Center for International Higher Education, Boston College, Boston, MA, USA Darla K. Deardorff Association of International Education Administrators, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA Rosemary Deem Royal Holloway University of London, London, UK Luis Delgado Internationalization of Higher Education, Spanish Service for the Internationalization of Education, Madrid, Spain Ana Delicado Instituto de Ciências Sociais da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal Elena Denisova-Schmidt University of St.Gallen (HSG), St.Gallen, Switzerland The Center for International Higher Education (CIHE), Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA, USA Roopa Desai Trilokekar York University, Toronto, ON, Canada Abdoulaye Diakité Gamal Abdel Nasser University in Conakry, Conakry, Guinea Amadou Tidjane Diallo Gamal Abdel Nasser University in Conakry, Conakry, Guinea Mamadou Kodiougou Diallo Central University Library of Guinea, Conakry, Guinea Diana Dias Universidade Europeia, Lisbon, Portugal CIPES – Center for Research in Higher Education Policies, Matosinhos, Porto, Portugal David D. Dill University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, USA Sara Diogo CIPES - Research Centre on Higher Education Policies, Matosinhos, Portugal Michael Dobbins Institut für Politikwissenschaft, Goethe University of Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany Gretchen Dobson Academic Assembly, Inc., Port Macquarie, NSW, Australia Ian R. Dobson Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

xxxiv

Pierre Doray Interuniversity Centre for Research on Science and Technology, Department of Sociology, Université du Québec à Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada Kevin J. Dougherty Department of Education Policy and Social Analysis and Community College Research Center, Teachers College Columbia University, New York, NY, USA Jonathan Drennan University College Cork, Cork, Ireland Noah D. Drezner Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA Franc¸ois Dubet Centre Émile Durkheim, UMR 5116, University of Bordeaux, EHESS, Bordeaux, France Marie Duru-Bellat IREDU and OSC, Sciences Po, Paris, France Institut de recherche en éducation (IREDU), Université de Bourgogne, Dijon, France Judith S. Eaton Council for Higher Education Accreditation, Washington, DC, USA Katri Eeva Department of Education, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK E. Egron-Polak International Association of Universities, Paris, France Mari Elken Nordic Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education (NIFU), Oslo, Norway Jason Eng Thye Tan National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore Marta Entradas London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), London, UK Hubert Ertl Director of Research, Federal Institute for Vocational Education (BIBB), Bonn, Germany Thomas Estermann Governance, Funding and Public Policy Development, European University Association (EUA), Brussels, Belgium Henry Etzkowitz Science Technology and Society Program, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA Christine Farrugia Institute of International Education, New York, NY, USA Irina Ferencz Academic Cooperation Association (ACA), Brussels, Belgium Hugo Figueiredo Department of Economics, Management, Industrial Engineering and Tourism (DEGEIT), Centre for Research in Higher Education Policies (CIPES), Research Unit on Governance, Competitiveness and Public Policies (GOVCOPP), University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal

Contributors

Contributors

xxxv

Martin Finkelstein Department of Education Leadership, Management and Policy, Seton Hall University, South Orange, NJ, USA Yvonne Fors Department of Quality Assurance, Swedish Higher Education Authority (UKÄ), Stockholm, Sweden C. J. H. Fowler Centre of Excellence in Learning and Teaching (CELT), University of Eswatini, Kwaluseni, Swaziland Gwendolyn H. Freed University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA Brigid Freeman Australia India Institute, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia Jetta Frost Chair of Organization and Management, Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany Isak Froumin Institute of Education, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia Tatiana Fumasoli Department Education, Practice and Society, University College London Institute of Education, London, UK Huang Futao Research Institute for Higher Education, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan Jocelyne Gacel-Ávila University of Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Mexico Eugenia Gallardo-Allen University of Costa Rica, San Pedro, Costa Rica Orkhon Gantogtokh Mongolian National Council for Education Accreditation, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia Ana García de Fanelli Center for the Study of State and Society (CEDES), National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET), Buenos Aires, Argentina Adela García-Aracil INGENIO(CSIC-UPV), Spanish Council for Scientific Research, Universitat Politècnica de València, Valencia, Spain Susan K. Gardner University of Maine, Orono, ME, USA Evelyn Chiyevo Garwe Zimbabwe Council for Higher Education, Harare, Zimbabwe Sahr P. T. Gbamanja Fourah Bay College, University of Sierra Leone, Freetown, Sierra Leone Wahid Gdoura Higher Institute of Documentation, Manouba University, Tunis, Tunisia Lars Geschwind KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden Sandra Gift Quality Assurance Unit, The Vice Chancellery, The University of the West Indies, St Augustine, Trinidad and Tobago Olga Gille-Belova Bordeaux Montaigne University, Pessac, France

xxxvi

Contributors

Henry Giroux McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada Lika Glonti National Erasmus+ Office Georgia, Tbilisi, Georgia Gaële Goastellec OSPS, LACCUS, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Vaud, Switzerland Kara A. Godwin Center for International Higher Education, College, Chestnut Hill, MA, USA

Boston

Leo Goedegebuure L H Martin Institute, Melbourne Centre for Studies of Higher Education, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia José Humberto González Reyes Departamento de Investigaciones Educativas, The Center for Research and Advanced Studies of the National Polytechnic Institute (CINVESTAV), Mexico City, Mexico Paul Gore College of Professional Sciences, Xavier University, Cincinnati, OH, USA Åse Gornitzka Department of Political Science, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway Barbara M. Grant School of Critical Studies in Education, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand Wendy Green University of Tasmania, Tasmania, Australia Kimberly Griffin College of Education, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA Eric Grodsky University of Wisconsin – Madison, Madison, WI, USA Amélie Groleau Centre on Population Dynamics, Department of Sociology, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada Magnus Gulbrandsen TIK Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway Sarah Guri-Rosenblit The Open University of Israel, Raanana, Israel Carolina Guzmán-Valenzuela Centre for Advanced Research in Education, University of Chile, Santiago, Chile Janet Haddock-Fraser Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK Cornelius Hagenmeier University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa Julian Hamann Forum Internationale Wissenschaft, Universität Bonn, Bonn, Germany Lazarus Hangula University of Namibia, Windhoek, Namibia Hanne Foss Hansen University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

Contributors

xxxvii

Zhidong Hao Department of Sociology, University of Macau, Macau, People’s Republic of China Robert Harmsen Institute of Political Science, University of Luxembourg, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg Jeni Hart Office of Graduate Studies, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA Matthew Hartley University of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of Education, Philadelphia, PA, USA Fabian Hattke Chair of Organization and Management, Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany Center for Higher Education and Science Studies, Universität Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland John N. Hawkins Graduate School of Education and Information Studies, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA Martin Hayden Southern Cross University, Lismore, NSW, Australia Nigel Healey Fiji National University, Suva, Fiji Savo Heleta Nelson Mandela University, Port Elizabeth, South Africa Robin Matross Helms American Council on Education, Washington, DC, USA Jane Hemsley-Brown Surrey Business School, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, UK Mary Henkel Brunel University, London, UK Marcel Herbst 4mation, Zurich, Switzerland Kristinn Hermannsson University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, UK Wendy Hiew Centre for the Promotion of Knowledge and Language Learning, Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia Henrik Holmquist Department of Quality Assurance, Swedish Higher Education Authority (UKÄ), Stockholm, Sweden Richard R. Hopper Kennebec Valley Community College, Fairfield, ME, USA Hugo Horta Division of Policy, Administration and Social Sciences Education, Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong Braden J. Hosch Institutional Research, Planning and Effectiveness, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA Syed Zabid Hossain Department of Accounting and Information Systems, University of Rajshahi, Rajshahi, Bangladesh Adam Howard Colby College, Waterville, ME, USA

xxxviii

Contributors

Yu-Ping Hsu Office of Research and Development, Providence University, Taichung City, Taiwan Futao Huang Research Institute for Higher Education, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan Mike Hughes Ministry of Education, Kigali, Rwanda Jeroen Huisman Department of Sociology, Centre for Higher Education Governance Ghent, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium Fiona J. H. Hunter Centre for Higher Education Internationalisation, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milan, Lombardy, Italy Sylvia Hurtado UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies, Los Angeles, CA, USA Abbey Hyde University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland Petya Ilieva-Trichkova Institute for the Study of Societies and Knowledge, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia, Bulgaria Lynn Ilon Bayoom Hub, Iksan, South Korea Shanti Jagannathan Asian Development Bank, Manila, Philippines Elene Jibladze School of Arts and Sciences, Ilia State University, Tbilisi, Georgia Geraint Johnes Lancaster University Management School, Lancaster, UK Jill Johnes Huddersfield Business School, Huddersfield, UK

University of Huddersfield,

Catherine M. Johnson Montana State University, Bozeman, MT, USA M. Amanda Johnson-Toala Navitas, Boston, MA, USA D. Bruce Johnstone University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA Graduate School of Education, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA Elspeth Jones Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK Ben Jongbloed Center for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS), University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands Nico Jooste Nelson Mandela University, Port Elizabeth, South Africa Thomas Jorgensen European University Association, Brussels, Belgium Rajendra Dhoj Joshi Kathmandu, Nepal James Jowi African Network for Internationalization of Education (ANIE), Moi University, Eldoret, Kenya James Otieno Jowi Education, East African Community (EAC), Arusha, Tanzania

Contributors

xxxix

Jens Jungblut International Centre for Higher Education Research (INCHER), University of Kassel, Kassel, Germany Katariina Juusola The British University in Dubai, Dubai, UAE Zimani David Kadzamira Formerly at University of Malawi, Zomba, Malawi Johanna Kallo Department of Education, University of Turku, Turku, Finland Susanna Karakhanyan International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE), Barcelona, Spain Ilkka Kauppinen Institute of Higher Education, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA Barbara M. Kehm Leibniz Centre for Science and Society, Universität Hannover, Hannover, Germany Jouni Kekäle University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu Area, Finland Robert Kelchen Department of Education Leadership, Management and Policy, Seton Hall University, South Orange, NJ, USA Jane Kenway Monash University, Melbourne, Australia Jennifer R. Keup National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA Adrianna Kezar School of Education, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA Lucky Kgosithebe Student Affairs, Human Resource Development Council, Gaborone, Botswana Conor King Innovative Research Universities, Melbourne, Australia Kevin Kinser Education Policy Studies, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA Fumi Kitagawa Lecturer in Entrepreneurship and Innovation, University of Edinburgh Business School, Edinburgh, UK Jussi Kivistö Faculty of Management, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland Manja Klemenčič Department of Sociology, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA Jane Knight Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada Jang Wan Ko Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, South Korea Jan Kohoutek Faculty of Social Sciences, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

xl

Florian Kohstall Center for International Cooperation, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany Aurelia Kollasch Iowa State University, Iowa, USA Sékou Konaté Gamal Abdel Nasser University in Conakry, Conakry, Guinea Yasemin Kooij Kassel University, Kassel, Germany Tatyana Koryakina CIPES - Centre for Research in Higher Education Policies, Matosinhos, Portugal Anna Kosmützky International Centre for Higher Education Research (INCHER), University of Kassel, Kassel, Germany Jan Koucký Education Policy Centre, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic Georgette Florence Koyt-Deballé University of Bangui, Bangui, Central African Republic Tamás Kozma Institute of Educational and Cultural Studies, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary Matthias Kuder Senate Chancellery – Science and Research, Berlin, Germany Sergiy Kurbatov Institute of Higher Education National Academy of Educational Sciences of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine Chiharu Kuroda Center for International Education, Institute for Promoting International Partnerships, Kobe University, Kobe, Hyogo, Japan Marek Kwiek Faculty of Social Sciences, Center for Public Policy Studies, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland Ľubica Lachká Constantine the Philosopher University, Nitra, Slovakia Pablo Landoni-Couture Universidad Católica del Uruguay, Montevideo, Uruguay Michael Lanford University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA Rattana Lao Policy and Research The Asia Foundation, Bangkok, Thailand William Lawton International Higher Education Consultant, London, UK Predrag Lažetić Department of Sociology, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK Betty Leask La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia Yann Lebeau School of Education and Lifelong Learning, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK Jenny Lee Department of Educational Policy Studies and Practice, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA Molly N. N. Lee The HEAD Foundation, Singapore, Singapore

Contributors

Contributors

xli

Liudvika Leišyt_e TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany Maria Jose Lemaitre Center for Interuniversity Development, CINDA, Santiago, Chile Benedetto Lepori Università della Svizzera Italiana, Lugano, Switzerland Daniel Levy University at Albany, Albany, NY, USA Gilbert Likando University of Namibia, Windhoek, Namibia Shuiyun Liu Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China Ye Liu International Development, King’s College London, London, UK William Yat Wai Lo The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China Bridget Terry Long Harvard Graduate School of Education, Cambridge, MA, USA Diogo Lourenc¸o Research on Economics, Management and Information Technologies – REMIT, Universidade Portucalense, Porto, Portugal Centre for Economics and Finance, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal Thierry M. Luescher University of the Free State, Mangaung, South Africa Peter Maassen Department of Education, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway Stephen Machin Department of Economics and Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics, London, UK Meggan Madden Educational Leadership, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA António M. Magalhães Faculty of Psychology and Education Sciences, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal Centre for Research in Higher Education Policies (CIPES), Porto, Portugal Lindsey Malcom-Piqueux Center for Urban Education, Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA Alma Maldonado-Maldonado Departamento de Investigaciones Educativas, The Center for Research and Advanced Studies of the National Polytechnic Institute (CINVESTAV), Mexico City, Mexico C. M. Malish Centre for Policy Research in Higher Education (CPRHE), National University of Educational Planning and Administration, New Delhi, India Simon Marginson Centre for Global Higher Education, Linacre College, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK Giulio Marini Centre for Global Higher Education, Institute of Education, University College London, London, UK

xlii

Contributors

Alfredo Marra School of Law, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy Edwin Marshall IGSR, University of Suriname, Paramaribo, Suriname Jonas Masdonati University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland Kenneth Kamwi Matengu University of Namibia, Windhoek, Namibia David J. Maurrasse Columbia School of International and Public Affairs, New York, NY, USA George S. McClellan Department of Higher Education, University of Mississippi, University, MS, USA Alexander C. McCormick Center for Postsecondary Research, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA Lorraine McIlrath National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland Walter W. McMahon University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA Ian McNay Higher Education and Management, University of Greenwich, London, UK V. Lynn Meek LH Martin Institute for Higher Education, Leadership and Management, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia Niels Mejlgaard Department of Political Science, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark Isabel Menezes CIIE – Centro de Investigac¸ão e Intervenc¸ão Educativas, Faculdade de Psicologia e de Ciências da Educac¸ão, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal Sefika Mertkan Eastern Mediterranean University, Cyprus

Famagusta, North

Amy Scott Metcalfe Department of Educational Studies, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada A. J. Metz Department of Educational Psychology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA Elizabeth Apple Meza University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA Robin Middlehurst Kingston University, Kingston, London, UK Stéphanie Mignot-Gérard IRG, UPEC, Créteil, France Adrian Miroiu Department of Political Science, National University of Political Studies and Public Administration, Bucharest, Romania Gabriela Miššíková Constantine the Philosopher University, Nitra, Slovakia Edwin Marshall: deceased.

Contributors

xliii

Sitwe Benson Mkandawire School of Education, Department of Language and Social Sciences Education, University of Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia Goolam Mohamedbhai Former Vice-Chancellor, University of Mauritius, Rose-Hill, Mauritius Olli-Pekka Moisio Department of Social Sciences and Philosophy, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland Karen Monkman College of Education, DePaul University, Chicago, IL, USA Norma Morales Centro para el Desarrollo de la Competitivad, CDC, Asuncion, Capital, Paraguay Christopher Morphew School of Education, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA Roberto Moscati University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy Patrícia Moura e Sá FEUC and CICP, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal Esperance Mukarutwaza Higher Education Council, Kigali, Rwanda Karen Mundy Leadership, Higher and Adult Education, University of Toronto OISE, Toronto, Canada Amanda C. Murphy Centre of Higher Education Internationalisation, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milan, Italy Bonaventure Mvé Ondo Recteur honoraire de l’Université Omar Bongo, Libreville, Gabon Ranjit Gajendra Nadarajah LH Martin Institute for Higher Education Leadership and Management, Centre for the Study of Higher Education, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia Florence Nakamanya East African School of Higher Education Studies and Development, College of Education and External Studies, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda Sophia Neely College of Education, DePaul University, Chicago, IL, USA Martin Nekola Faculty of Social Sciences, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic Maresi Nerad College of Education, Higher Education, Center for Innovation and Research in Graduate Education (CIRGE), University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA Clarissa Eckert Baeta Neves Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil Jon Nixon Centre for Lifelong Learning Research and Development, The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

xliv

Callixte Nizigama Department of Research and Quality Assurance, Université Lumière de Bujumbura, Bujumbura, Burundi James K. Njenga Department of Information Systems, University of the Western Cape, Bellville, Cape Town, South Africa Marcia Esther Noda Hernández Ministry of Higher Education, La Habana, Cuba Terhi Nokkala Finnish Institute for Educational Research, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland Pierre D. Nzinzi Departement of Philosophy, Université Omar Bongo, Libreville, Gabon Jennina Olivia Marie Obieta De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines Peter A. Okebukola Lagos State University, Lagos, Nigeria Kristin L. Olofsson School of Public Affairs, University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO, USA Åsa Olsson LH Martin Institute for Higher Education Leadership and Management, Centre for the Study of Higher Education, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia Imanol Ordorika Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), Mexico City, Mexico University of Johannesburg (UJ), Johannesburg, South Africa Luis Enrique Orozco Silva Facultad de Administración, Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia Clare Overmann Institute of International Education, New York, USA David Palfreyman New College University of Oxford, Oxford, UK Paulina Pannen Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education, Jakarta, Indonesia Antigoni Papadimitriou School of Education, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA Catherine Paradeise University Paris Est-LISIS, Paris, France Elke Park Institute for Science Communication and Higher Education Research, University of Klagenfurt, Vienna, Austria María Cristina Parra-Sandoval Universidad del Zulia, Maracaibo, Venezuela Attila Pausits Centre for Educational Management and Higher Education Development, Danube University Krems, Krems, Austria European Higher Education Society (EAIR), Amsterdam, The Netherlands Hans Pechar Institute for Science Communication and Higher Education Research, University of Klagenfurt, Vienna, Austria

Contributors

Contributors

xlv

Elias Pekkola Faculty of Management, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland Gustavo Mejía Pérez Departamento de Investigaciones Educativas, The Center for Research and Advanced Studies of the National Polytechnic Institute (CINVESTAV), Mexico City, Mexico Adriana Perez-Encinas Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain Research Institute on Higher Education and Science (INAECU), Joint Research Institute of the Autonomous University of Madrid and the Carlos III University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain Elena Petrov National Agency for Quality Assurance in Professional Education, Chisinau, Moldova Ly Thi Pham Vietnam National University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam France Picard Laval University, Québec, QC, Canada Pundy Pillay University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa Rómulo Pinheiro Department of Political Science and Management, University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway Roger Pizarro Milian Centre for the Study of Canadian and International Higher Education, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada Daria Platonova Institute of Education, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia Yurgos Politis University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland István Polónyi Institute of Educational and Cultural Studies, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary Laura M. Portnoi College of Education, California State University, Long Beach, Long Beach, CA, USA Gerard A. Postiglione Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China Justin J. W. Powell Institute of Education and Society, University of Luxembourg, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg George Psacharopoulos Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA Brian Pusser Department of Leadership, Foundations and Policy, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA Gabriella Pusztai Center for Higher Education Research and Development (CHERD), University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary Sungsup Ra Asian Development Bank, Manila, Philippines Barbara Read School of Education, University of Glasgow, Scotland, UK Kristen A. Renn Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA Amal Rhema Victoria University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

xlvi

Gary Rhoades Department of Educational Policy Studies and Practice, College of Education, Center for the Study of Higher Education, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA Jo Ritzen UNU-Merit/Graduate School of Governance, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands Susan L. Robertson Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK Jason Robinson Center for Urban Education, Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA María del Rocío Robledo Centro para el Desarrollo de la Competitivad, CDC, Asuncion, Capital, Paraguay Vera Rocha Department of Innovation and Organizational Economics, Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen, Denmark Graciela Rodríguez de Flores Departamento de Calidad Académica, Universidad Don Bosco, Soyapango, El Salvador Roberto Rodríguez-Gómez Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), Mexico City, Mexico Maria João Rosa DEGEIT and Cipes, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal Vladimír Roskovec Center for Higher Education Studies, Praha, Czech Republic Viola Rowe Cyril Potter College of Education, Georgetown, Guyana Adriana Ruiz Alvarado School of Education, University of Redlands, Redlands, CA, USA Laura E. Rumbley European Association for International Education (EAIE), Amsterdam, The Netherlands Carla Sá Universidade do Minho, NIPE and CIPES, Braga, Portugal Creso Sá Centre for the Study of Canadian and International Higher Education, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada Jan Sadlak IREG Observatory on Academic Ranking and Excellence, Paris, France Kem Saichaie European Association for International Education (EAIE), Davis, CA, USA Mohsen Elmahdy Said Mechanical Design and Production Department, Cairo University - Faculty of Engineering, Giza, Egypt P. Saketi Department of Educational Administration and Planning, College of Education, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Fars, Iran Jamil Salmi Diego Portales University, Santiago, Chile

Contributors

Contributors

xlvii

Dante J. Salto Instituto de Humanidades (IDH) – Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas / Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Cordoba, Argentina Gregory M. Saltzman Department of Economics and Management, Albion College, Albion, MI, USA Shakhawat Hossain Sarkar Department of Accounting and Information Systems, Jatiya Kabi Kazi Nazrul Islam University, Mymensingh, Bangladesh Cláudia S. Sarrico ISEG Lisbon School of Economics and Management, Universidade de Lisboa and CIPES Centre for Research in Higher Education Policies, Lisbon, Portugal Saykhong Saynasine Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Education and Sports, Vientiane, Lao People’s Democratic Republic Christian Schneijderberg International Centre for Higher Education Research, University of Kassel, Kassel, Germany L. Schoelen Centre for Quality Assurance and Development (ZQ), Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany Faculty of Human and Social Sciences (SHS)-Sorbonne, Paris Descartes University, Paris, France Peter Scott UCL Institute of Education, University of London, London, UK Helena Šebková Center for Higher Education Studies, Praha, Czech Republic Marco Seeber CHEGG, Centre for Higher Education Governance Ghent, Department of Sociology, Ghent, Belgium Chika Sehoole Faculty of Education, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa Dmitry Semyonov Institute of Education, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia Jehona Serhati Organisation for Cooperation in Higher Education (OCIDES), University of Kassel, Kassel, Germany Fad Seydou National Coordinator of the Malian Society of Applied Sciences (MSAS), Bamako, Mali Arjan Shahini Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg, Halle, Germany Sofia Shakil East Asia Regional Department, Asian Development Bank, Manila, Philippines Rachel N. Shanyanana University of Namibia, Windhoek, Namibia Michael Shattock UCL Institute of Education, London, UK David J. Siegel Department of Educational Leadership, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, USA

xlviii

Murvyn Sijlbing Department of Social Sciences, University of Suriname, Paramaribo, Suriname Cristina Sin CIPES – Centre for Research in Higher Education Policies, Matosinhos, Portugal Agência de Avaliac¸ão e Acreditac¸ão do Ensino Superior (A3ES), Lisbon, Portugal Sheila Slaughter Institute of Higher Education, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA Christian Michael Smith University of Wisconsin – Madison, Madison, WI, USA Anna Smolentseva Institute of Education, National Research University, Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia Diana Soares CIPES – Centre for Research in Higher Education Policies, Matosinhos, Portugal Catholic University of Portugal, Porto, Portugal Say Sok Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Royal University of Phnom Penh, Phnom Penh, Kingdom of Cambodia Gi Soon Song Asian Development Bank, Manila, Philippines Nathan M. Sorber College of Education and Human Services, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA Manuel Souto-Otero School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, UK Helen Spencer-Oatey University of Warwick, Coventry, UK Barbara Sporn Institute for Higher Education Management, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business, Vienna, Austria Marija Stambolieva Kassel, Germany Isabel Steinhardt International Centre for Higher Education Research (INCHER-Kassel), University of Kassel, Kassel, Germany Bjørn Stensaker Department of Education, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway Stephanie T. Stokamer Pacific University, Forest Grove, OR, USA Tony Strike President and Vice-Chancellor’s Office, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK Merlin Teodosia Suarez De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines Andrée Sursock European University Association (EUA), Brussels, Belgium Judith Sutz Universidad de la República, Montevideo, Uruguay

Contributors

Contributors

xlix

Krystian Szadkowski Faculty of Social Sciences, Center for Public Policy Studies, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland Myqerem Tafaj Departament of Agriculture and Environment, Agricultural University of Tirana, Tirana, Albania Clifford N. B. Tagoe University of Ghana, Accra, Ghana Yao Tano University Nangui Abrogoua, Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire Ted Tapper Oxford, the Collegiate University, Oxford, UK Orlanda Tavares A3ES, Lisbon, Portugal CIPES, Matosinhos, Portugal Barrett J. Taylor Department of Counseling and Higher Education, University of North Texas, Denton, TX, USA Damtew Teferra Higher Education Training and Development, School of Education, University of Kwazulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa Ulrich Teichler INCHER-Kassel, University of Kassel, Kassel, Germany Pedro Nuno Teixeira CIPES - Centre for Research in Higher Education Policies and Faculty of Economics - U. Porto, Portugal Ivo Tejeda Independent Consultant, Santiago, Chile Paul Temple UCL Institute of Education, London, UK Liz Thomas Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, UK Juliet Thondhlana School of Education, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK Dianne Thurab-Nkhosi The University of the West Indies, St Augustine, Trinidad and Tobago Rose Patsy Tibok Centre for the Promotion of Knowledge and Language Learning, Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia William G. Tierney University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA Malcolm Tight Department of Educational Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK Voldemar Tomusk Mitcham, Surrey, UK Päivi Tynjälä Finnish Institute for Educational Research, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland Charikleia Tzanakou University of Warwick, Coventry, UK Inga Ulnicane University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria Leang Un Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Royal University of Phnom Penh, Phnom Penh, Kingdom of Cambodia

l

Lisa Unangst Center for International Higher Education, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA, USA Agnete Vabø Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway Jussi Välimaa Finnish Institute for Educational Research, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland Frans van Vught University of Twente, Center of Higher Education and Policy Studies (CHEPS), Enschede, The Netherlands Amélia Veiga Faculty of Psychology and Education Sciences, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal Centre for Research in Higher Education Policies (CIPES), Porto, Portugal Centre for Research and Intervention in Education (CIIE), Porto, Portugal Daniela Véliz-Calderón Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile Marcela Verešová Constantine the Philosopher University, Nitra, Slovakia Pedro Videira CIPES & DINAMIA’CET – ISCTE-IUL, Matosinhos, Portugal Lesley Vidovich Graduate School of Education, The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia Stéphan Vincent-Lancrin Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (Directorate for Education and Skills), OECD, Paris, France Dominique Vinck Institut des Sciences Sociales, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland Lazăr Vlăsceanu University of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania Fabienne Crettaz von Roten University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland Leena Wahlfors Universities Finland UNIFI, Helsinki, Finland Paul Wakeling Department of Education, University of York, York, UK Qi Wang Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shangai, China Gerald Wangenge-Ouma Department of Institutional Planning, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa Kelly A. Ward Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA Christopher M. Weible School of Public Affairs, University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO, USA Crista Weise Departament de Psicologia Bàsica Evolutiva i de L’Educació SINTE Research group, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

Contributors

Contributors

li

Celia Whitchurch University College London Institute of Education, London, UK Craig Whitsed Faculty of Humanities, School of Education, Curtin University, Perth, Australia Stephen Wilkins The British University in Dubai, Dubai, UAE Kurt Willems Leuven Centre for Public Law, Catholic University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium Gareth Williams Institute of Education, University College London, London, UK Ross Williams Melbourne Institute, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia John Willoughby Department or Economics, American University, Washington, DC, USA Peter Woelert Melbourne Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia Gregory Wolniak Institute of Higher Education, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA Mimi Wolverton Retired Higher Education Professor and Consultant Austin, Texas, USA Ewan Wright Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China Gill Wyness UCL Institute of Education and Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics, London, UK Institute of Education, University College London, London, UK Rui Yang Division of Policy, Administration and Social Sciences Education, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong Po Yang Graduate School of Education, China Institute for Education Finance Research, Peking University, Beijing, China Akemi Yonemura Islamic University of Niger, Dakar, Senegal Ryan L. Young Education Policy and Leadership Studies, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA Leïla Youssef El Metni Faculty of Business Studies, Arab Open University, Beirut, Lebanon Maria Yudkevich National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia Iryna Yuryeva Kyiv, Ukraine Farida Zagirova Institute of Education, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia

lii

Eboni M. Zamani-Gallaher Department of Education Policy, Organization and Leadership, University of Illinois, Champaign, IL, USA Gonzalo Zapata Pontifical Catholic University of Chile, Santiago, Chile Martin Zelenka Education Policy Centre, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic Pavel Zgaga University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia Adrian Ziderman Bar-llan University, Ramat Gan, Israel Frank Ziegele University of Twente, Center of Higher Education and Policy Sudies (CHEPS), Enschede, The Netherlands Christopher Ziguras School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia William Zumeta University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

Contributors

A

Absolute Mobility ▶ Social Mobility and Higher Education

Academic ▶ Higher Education Research, UK

Academic Capitalism, Conceptual Issues Sheila Slaughter Institute of Higher Education, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA

Introduction A number of theories speak to the increasing alignment between science and engineering, universities, and the economy. Among the more prominent are the triple helix (Etzkowitz et al. 1998), Mode 2 (Gibbons et al. 1994), and entrepreneurial universities (Clark 1998). The triple helix (science, government, industry) is in many cases a descriptive, win–win narrative that celebrates the decontextualized emergence of university-industry partnerships that are assumed to be engines of economic development and prosperity.

Universities win because they claim intellectual property that leads to income for research; industries win because they gain access to the scientific and technological creativity of university-based discoveries. However, the theory leaves universities as institutions relatively unexamined beyond technology transfer activities. Nor is government analyzed, other than in its provision of funds for research, while industry is usually focused upon in its capacity as partner with science, and not as located in specific political economies. The process of knowledge transfer is much more complex than the triple helix suggests, and the results, in terms of economic innovation, are far from clear, while university generation of income from research in both the EU and US has been quite limited (Geuna and Muscio 2009; Powers 2003). Mode 2 (Gibbons et al. 1994) analyzes the consequences of a shift from science controlled by disciplines and professional associations and embedded in universities to global entrepreneurial science driven by industrial demand, resulting in a sort of just-in-time science that deploys teams of scientists and engineers on projects around the world and disbands them on completion. Despite Mode 2’s many analytic contributions, this theory underestimates the strength of universities as institutions. Research universities – at least their science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields – continue to flourish. Similarly, Mode 2 underestimates the role of the state and nonprofit sectors. Although the state has fallen into disfavor under neoliberalism, it

© Springer Nature B.V. 2020 P. N. Teixeira, J. C. Shin (eds.), The International Encyclopedia of Higher Education Systems and Institutions, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8905-9

2

nonetheless continues to fund university education, faculty, and graduate student positions, as well as research at increasing rates, while the nonprofit sector plays an important part in intermediating the relations between state, science, and industry, often through policy narratives and discourse, channeling public funds toward the economy, both directly and indirectly (Ball 2012). A scholar often cited in European higher education literature is Burton Clark (1998), whose concept of the enterprise university has been widely influential. Clark argued a turbulent environment with competing demands required that universities to strengthen their administrative core in to better engage in activities that increase new sources of revenue, decrease reliance on the state, and craft new missions that meet environmental demands. He made the case that some European universities became entrepreneurial by developing a stronger steering core, and a more active entrepreneurial periphery that reinvigorates the academic heartland, which consists of the traditional disciplines and professions. He assumed universities would be able to incorporate entrepreneurial activity and energy without harming academic values and faculty voice, if not governance. However, he provided little evidence that the academic heartland remained strong and faculty values and voice intact. The concept of entrepreneurial universities was based on a triangle of market, state, and higher education, but the separation among these sectors has diminished markedly, especially in the USA. All of these concepts differ from the theory of academic capitalism because they tend to be based on institutional theory, do not attend clearly to power relations, and do not attend to the structural relations that draw together higher education, the state, and market sectors.

The Development of the Concept of Academic Capitalism In 1997, Sheila Slaughter and Larry Leslie developed the concept of academic capitalism in Academic capitalism: Politics, policies and the

Academic Capitalism, Conceptual Issues

entrepreneurial university (Johns Hopkins University Press), to better understand marketization of higher education in four English speaking countries: The United States, Australia, the United Kingdom, and Canada. In 2004, Sheila Slaughter and Gary Rhoades developed a theory of academic capitalism in Academic capitalism: Market, state, and higher education (Johns Hopkins University Press), a book that concentrated only on the United States, where marketization of higher education was progressing at warp speed. The theory of academic capitalism was further refined by Sheila Slaughter and Brendan Cantwell in 2012 in “Transatlantic moves to the market: Academic capitalism in the US & EU.” Higher Education. 63, 5: 583–606. Several edited books also treat academic capitalism: Brendan Cantwell and Ilkka Kauppinen, (Eds.) 2014. Academic capitalism in the age of globalization (Johns Hopkins University Press), and Sheila Slaughter and Barrett J. Taylor (Eds). 2016. Higher education, Stratification, and workforce development: Competitive advantage in Europe, the US, and Canada. (Springer International Publishing). Academic capitalism is highly cited, both within the field of higher education and in many other fields, and the books have been translated into Chinese, Japanese, and Spanish. In their book of 1997, Sheila Slaughter and Larry Leslie used the concept of academic capitalism largely to focus on professorial behavior by examining national policy and the changing work of individual professors. The theories Slaughter and Leslie drew upon to explore the concept were Keynesian economics, globalization, resource dependency theory, and critical professionalization theories. In the 2004 book, Academic capitalism: Market, state and higher education, Slaughter and Rhoades thought the phenomenon of academic capitalism was developing so rapidly that theory construction was warrented. They expanded the concept by focusing on organizations as well as individuals and created a theory which conceptualized mechanisms that encouraged and explained the movement of higher education toward the market. The theory of academic capitalism saw groups of actors – faculty,

Academic Capitalism, Conceptual Issues

students, administrators, and academic professionals – as using a variety of state resources to create mechanisms such as new circuits of knowledge that linked higher education institutions to the knowledge industries and organizations of the neoliberal economy. These actors also used state resources to trigger mechanisms such as interstitial organizations to bring the corporate sector inside the university to participate in the generation of profit. These interstitial organizations were supported by new networks of actors in intermediating organizations that drew private and public sectors closer together. These market and market-like efforts within universities called for expanded managerial capacity to supervise new flows of external resources, investment in research infrastructure for the new economy, and investment in infrastructure to market institutions, products, and services to students. Expanded managerial capacity was also directed toward restructuring faculty work so as to lower instructional costs (although not costs generally). The term academic capitalism has stimulated significant debate, though its proponents considered that it was the best option to capture changes in the ethos of the academic profession, in part because alternatives – academic entrepreneurism or entrepreneurial activity – seemed to be euphemisms for academic capitalism, euphemisms that failed to capture fully the encroachment of the profit motive into academe. Of course, the word capitalism connotes private ownership of the factors of production – land, labor, and capital – and considering employees of public research universities to be capitalists at first glance seemed a blatant contradiction. However, capitalism also is defined as an economic system in which allocation decisions are driven by market forces. The authors play on words was purposeful. By using academic capitalism as the central concept, they defined the reality of the nascent environment of public research universities, an environment full of contradictions, in which faculty and professional staff expended their human capital stocks increasingly in competitive situations. In these situations, university employees were simultaneously employed by the public sector and are increasingly

3

autonomous from it. They were academics who acted as capitalists from within the public sector: they were state-subsidized entrepreneurs. Although faculty and administrators at research intensive universities may be state subsidized entrepreneurs, their position in many ways was analogous to that of industrial researchers and entrepreneurs in primary sector industries (large, oligopolistic industries that produce critical goods and services and employ large numbers of persons, many of whom are unionized and receive a social benefits package as part of their wages and salaries [O’Connor 1973; Braverman 1975]). Many of these industries – for example, aerospace, computers, electronics, and nuclear industries, as well as pharmaceutical, chemical and agriculture industries – were cushioned from the market by state support from a variety of federal agencies, for example, the Department of Defense, Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space Agency, the Department of Agriculture, and the National Institutes of Health. These industries were supported by the federal government because they were perceived to be critical to a number of national missions – primarily defense, food supply, and health. So important were these missions that the industries contributing to them were partially subsidized by the state rather than left to the vagaries of the market. Many of the science-based products and processes produced by these industries relied on the same technologies for which academic capitalists in universities received public and private support. In other words, academic capitalists were subsidized primarily from the same sources and for many of the same reasons as industrial capitalists. The market, the state, and the academy (public universities are, of course, technically arms of the several states) are related in complex and sometimes contradictory ways. Another way to approach the idea of academic capitalism is through the widely accepted notion of human capital: knowledge and skills possessed by workers that contribute to economic growth. Conceptually, these worker capabilities make their contribution by adding to the quality of labor, which of course is one of the three factors

A

4

of production, land, and capital being the other two. Universities are the repositories of much of the most scarce and valuable human capital that nations possess, capital that is valuable because it is essential to the development of the high technology and technoscience necessary for competing successfully in the global economy. The human capital possessed by universities, of course, is vested in their academic staffs. Thus, the specific commodity is academic capital, which is no more than the particular human capital possessed by academics. This final step in the logic is to say that when faculty implement their academic capital through engagement in production, they are engaging in academic capitalism. Their scarce and specialized knowledge and skills are being applied to productive work that yields a benefit to the individual academic, to the public university they serve, to the corporations they work with, and to the larger society. It is indeed academic capitalism that is involved, both technically and practically. Academic capitalism deals with market and market-like behaviors on the part of universities and faculty. Market-like behaviors refer to institutional and faculty competition for monies, whether these are from external grants and contracts, endowment funds, university-industry partnerships, or institutional investment in professors’ spin-off companies, or student tuition and fees. What makes these activities market-like is that they involve competition for funds from external resource providers. If institutions and faculty are not successful, there is no bureaucratic recourse; they do without. In contrast to market-like behaviors, market behaviors refer to for-profit activity on the part of institutions, activity such as patenting, and subsequent royalty and licensing agreements, spin-off companies, arms-length-corporations (corporations that are related to universities in terms of personnel and goals, but are chartered legally as separate entities), and university-industry partnerships, when these have a profit component. Market activity also covers more mundane endeavors, such as the sale of products and services from educational endeavors (e.g., logos and sports paraphernalia), profit-sharing with food services and book-stores and the like.

Academic Capitalism, Conceptual Issues

When we talk about how higher education is restructured, we mean substantive organizational change and associated changes in internal resource allocations (reduction or closure of departments, expansion or creation of other departments, establishment of interdisciplinary units); substantive change in the division of academic labor with regard to research and teaching; the establishment of new organizational forms (such as arms-length companies and research parks); and the organization of new administrative structures or the stream-lining or re-design of old ones.

Conclusion Overall, the theory of academic capitalism demonstrates colleges and universities are shifting from a public good knowledge/learning regime to an academic capitalist knowledge/learning regime. The public good knowledge regime was characterized by valuing knowledge as a public good to which the citizenry has claims. Mertonian norms, such as communalism, universality, the free flow of knowledge, and organized skepticism, were associated with the public good model. The public good knowledge/learning regime paid heed to academic freedom, which honored professors’ right to follow research where it led and gave professors rights to dispose of discoveries as they saw fit (Merton 1942). The cornerstone of the public good knowledge regime was basic science that led to the discovery of new knowledge within the academic disciplines, serendipitously leading to public benefits. Mertonian values are often associated with the Vannevar Bush model, in which basic science that pushes back the frontiers of knowledge was necessarily performed in universities (Bush 1945). The discoveries of basic science always preceded development, which occurred in federal laboratories and sometimes in corporations. It often involved building and testing costly prototypes. Application followed development and almost always took place in corporations. The public good model assumed a relatively strong separation between public and private sectors.

Academic Capitalism, Conceptual Issues

However, returning to the public good knowledge/learning regime would be problematic because it had an unacknowledged side. In the 1945–1980 period, much scientific and engineering research depended on Department of Defense funding for weapons of mass destruction. The first university-industry-government partnerships were with military contractors such as General Electric and Westinghouse who build nuclear reactors as part of the Atoms for Peace program. Much scientific and engineering research was classified, and the need for secrecy fueled movements like McCarthyism, which created an unfavorable climate for academic freedom. The academic capitalism knowledge/learning regime values knowledge privatization and profit taking in which institutions, inventor faculty, and corporations have claims that come before those of the public. Public interest in science goods are subsumed in the increased growth expected from a strong knowledge economy. Rather than a single, nonexclusively licensed, widely distributed product – for example, vitamin D irradiated milk – serving the public good, the exclusive licensing of many products to private firms is presented as contributing to economic growth that benefits the whole society. Knowledge is construed as a private good, valued for creating streams of high-technology products that generate profit as they flow through global markets. Professors are obligated to disclose discoveries to their institutions, which have the authority to determine how knowledge shall be used. The cornerstones of the academic capitalism model are basic science for use and basic technology, models that make the case that science is embedded in commercial possibility (Stokes 1997; Branscomb 1997a, b). These models see little separation between science and commercial activity. Discovery is valued because it leads to hightechnology products for a knowledge economy. Academic capitalism also has an unacknowledged side. The benefits of economic growth do not always fall evenly on the population. Treating knowledge as a private good may make much of it inaccessible, perhaps constraining discovery and innovation. Conferring decision-making power on institutions rather than faculty may impinge

5

upon academic freedom. Basic science for use and basic technology may provide narrow forms of discovery and education that do not sit well with concepts of public good. An academic capitalist knowledge/learning regime may undermine public support for higher education.

References Ball, S.J. 2012. Global Education, Inc.: New policy networks and the neoliberal imaginary. New York: Routledge. Branscomb, L. et al. 1997a. Technology politics to technology policy. Issues in Science and Technology. 13 (Spring): 41–48. Branscomb, L. et. al. 1997b. Investing in innovation, toward a consensus strategy for federal technology policy. Cambridge: Harvard University, Center for Science and International Affairs. Braverman, H. 1975. Labor and monopoly capital: The degradation of work in the twentieth century. New York: Monthly Review Press. Bush, V. 1945. Science–the endless frontier: A report to the president on a program for postwar scientific research. Reprint, Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, 1990. Cantwell, B., and I. Kauppinen. eds. 2014. Academic capitalism in the age of globalization. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Clark, B. 1998. Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation. Oxford: Pergamon. Etzkowitz, J., A. Webster, and P. Healey. 1998. Capitalizing knowledge: New interactions of industry and academe. Albany: SUNY Press. Geuna, A., and A. Muscio. 2009. The governance of university knowledge transfer: A critical review of the literature. xi, 47(1), 93–114. Gibbons, M., C. Limoges, S. Schwartzman, H. Nowotny, M. Trow, and P. Scott. 1994. The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage. Merton, R., K. 1942. The normative structure of science. The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Reprint, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973. O’Connor, J. 1973. The Fiscal Crisis of the State. New York: St. Martin’s. Powers, J. 2003. Commercializing academic research: Resource effects on performance of university technology transfer. Journal of Higher Education, 74(1), 26– 50. Slaughter, S., and G. Rhoades. 2005. From endless frontier to basic science for use: Social contracts between science and society. Science, Technology and Human Values 30 (4): 1–37.

A

6 Slaughter, S., and B. Cantwell. 2012. Transatlantic moves to the market: Academic capitalism in the US & EU. Higher Education 63 (5): 583–606. Slaughter, S., and L.L. Leslie. 1997. Academic capitalism: Politics, policies and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Slaughter, S., and G. Rhoades. 1990. Renorming the social relations of academic science: Technology transfer. Educational Policy 4 (4): 341–361. Slaughter, S., and G. Rhoades. 2004. Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state and higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Slaughter, S., and B. Taylor, eds. 2016. Higher education, stratification, and workforce development: Competitive advantage in Europe the US, and Canada. Cham: Springer International Publishing. Stokes, D. 1997. Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Wood, F.Q. 1992. The commercialisation of university research in Australia: Issues and problems. Comparative Education 28: 293–313.

Academic Capitalism, Evolution and Comparisons Sheila Slaughter Institute of Higher Education, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA

Introduction During the second half of the twentieth century, professors, like other professionals, gradually became more involved in the market (Slaughter and Rhoades 1990; Brint 1994). In the 1980s, globalization accelerated the movement of faculty and universities toward the market. The 1980s were a turning point, when faculty and universities were incorporated into the market to the point where professional work began to be patterned differently, in kind, rather than in degree. Participation in the market began to undercut the tacit contract between professors and society because the market put as much emphasis on the bottom line as on client welfare. The raison d’etre for special treatment for universities, the training ground of professionals, as well as for professional privilege was undermined, increasing the

Academic Capitalism, Evolution and Comparisons

likelihood that universities would be treated more like other organizations and professionals more like other workers. As the economy globalized, the business or corporate sector in industrialized countries pushed the state to devote more resources to the enhancement and management of innovation, so that corporations and the nations in which they were headquartered could compete more successfully in world markets (Jessop 1993). Business leaders wanted government to sponsor commercial research and development in research universities and in government laboratories. In the United States, the National Science Foundation, once regarded as the bastion of basic research, developed Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers in the 1980s and, under President Clinton, a national science and technology policy exemplified by the Advanced Technology Programs housed in the Department of Commerce (Slaughter and Rhoades 1996). In the United Kingdom, Interdisciplinary Research Centers involving academic-industry-government funding emerged in the 1980s. Australia modeled its Cooperative Research Centers, founded in the 1990s, on the models provided by the United Kingdom and the United States (Hill 1993). Under Prime Minister Mulroney, Canada attempted to develop university-industrygovernment partnerships by tying increases in university research funding to corporate contributions for university research or for national research councils (Julien 1989). In all four countries, corporate CEOs worked with university leaders and government officials to develop partnerships aimed at bringing new products and processes to market (Slaughter 1990; Slaughter and Rhoades 1996). Faculty and research universities were willing to consider partnerships with business and government, based on commercial innovation because government spending on higher education was slowing down. The flow of public money to higher education receded, in part because of increasing claims on government funds. In the 1970s, the emergence of global financial markets made possible the financing of ever larger debts in western industrialized countries. These monies were used primarily for

Academic Capitalism, Evolution and Comparisons

entitlement programs (federally funded programs to which every citizen has a claim, for example, primary and secondary education, health care and social security), for debt service, and in the United States, for military expansion. As borrowing increased, federal shares of funding for postsecondary education programs (Slaughter and Rhoades 1996). In the United States, the federal government was the primary funding agent for student aid and for research grants and contracts, but the several states generally paid for faculty salaries and institutional operations in public universities. As the share of Federal funds for higher education decreased, the states picked up some of the burden, but not all, because the states, too, were spending the bulk of their monies on entitlement or mandated programs, such as health care and prisons. Beginning with the economic downturn in 1983, states periodically experienced fiscal crisis (state income failed to match state expenditures). These crises precipitated restructuring in higher education. In 1993–1994, the several states, for the first time, experienced an absolute decline in the amount of money expended on higher education, rather than a decline in the share of resources provided or in inflationadjusted, per student, expenditures. Again, the several states began to restructure higher education to contain costs. Restructuring often put increased resources at the disposal of units and departments close to the market, that is, those relatively able to generate external grants and contracts. At the state and federal level, then, conditions of financial uncertainty encouraged faculty and institutions to direct their efforts toward programs and research that intersected with the market. To maintain or expand resources, faculty increasingly had to compete for external dollars that were tied to market-related research, which was referred to variously as applied, commercial, strategic, and targeted research, whether these monies were in the form of research grants and contracts, service contracts, partnerships with industry and government, technology transfer, or the recruitment of more and higher fees-paying students. These institutional and professorial

7

market or market-like efforts to secure external monies were markers of academic capitalism.

A Academic Capitalism in 1980s and 1990s An in-depth review of state policy in four countries – Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States – revealed that in the 1980s and 1990s, the higher education policies of three of the four countries, Canada being the exception, began to converge (Slaughter and Leslie 1997). The areas of convergence were science and technology policy, curriculum, access and finance, and degree of autonomy. For the most part, these policies were concerned with economic competitiveness: product and process innovation, channeling students and resources into curricula that meet the needs of a global marketplace, preparing more students for the postindustrial work place at lower costs, managing faculty and institutional work more effectively and efficiently. Each of the countries developed a number of policies outside these parameters that did not converge. Even in the areas of convergence, the four countries arrived at similar policies by very different paths. Australia and the United Kingdom used their ministries of education, the former led by a Labor government, the later by a conservative government. In Canada and the United States, the provinces and the several states, as would be expected in relatively decentralized systems, often developed their own initiatives to promote academic capitalism. In the United States, Congress was more aggressive than the executive branch in creating an infrastructure for academic capitalism. Despite the very real differences in their political cultures, the four countries developed similar policies at those points where higher education intersected with globalization of the postindustrial political economy. Tertiary education policies in all countries moved toward science and technology policies that emphasized academic capitalism at the expense of basic or fundamental research, toward curricula policy that concentrated monies in science and technology and fields close to the market (business and intellectual property law, for

8

example), toward increased access at lower government cost per student and toward organizational policies that undercut the autonomy of academic institutions and of faculty. Research and development was probably the area in which the most dramatic policy changes occurred. In three countries, national policy shifted from promoting basic or fundamental research to privileging science and technology policy aimed at national wealth creation. Even in the United States and the United Kingdom, where fundamental R&D in the postwar period was to some degree conflated with defense R&D, strong civilian science and technology policies emerged (Slaughter and Rhoades 1996). The very words used to describe R&D changed. Research and development was no longer focused on basic or fundamental research, which came to be referred to derisively as “professors’ curiosity-driven research,” but on precompetitive, strategic, or targeted research (Lederman 1994; Wood 1992; Etzkowitz 1994a; Slaughter and Rhoades 1996). Notions of the way science and technology moved from academy to industry became more complex, changing from “spin-off,” a concept that did not dwell on the causality of the leap from laboratory to commercial product, to technology transfer, which envisioned a relatively linear but highly managed transfer, to evolutionary explanations that make the process more complex (Gummett 1991; Leydesdorff 1994). The three countries have discourses to discuss science and technology policy that go far beyond, sometimes even do away with, basic and fundamental research as central categories. All three countries saw R&D as the font of technoscience, necessary for home-based multinationals to compete successfully in the global economy. A number of policy initiatives involve universities in profit-making. The clearest cases are university technology licensing and university equity positions in faculty spin-off enterprises. In these instances, universities profit to the degree that products sell. However, technology parks directly bring profits to universities, if only the form of rent, and sometimes through housing jointventures. Centers of excellence, consortia with industry, and various university-industry

Academic Capitalism, Evolution and Comparisons

partnerships most often provide multiyear government and corporate funding for commercially geared R&D, but can utilize any of the profitsharing schemes described above: share of royalty or licensing income, joint-venture, or equity position. Changes in R&D policy in the several countries, then, moved universities into academic capitalism. Curriculum policies in all four countries resulted in cutbacks in the arts and humanities (with the exception of Australia) and in the social sciences (Martin et al. 1992). In countries where the power and budgets for tertiary education are not reserved for the states and provinces, namely, in Australia and the United Kingdom, the changes were made through allocation of student places (and, indirectly, faculty positions), with more students being funded in science and technology than in other areas. In the United Kingdom, for example, the fees allocated for social sciences and humanities students were cut by 30%, to $1300, while fees for science and engineering laboratory courses rose to $2772 per student (Halliday 1993). In the United States, changes were made indirectly, through cutbacks in research funding in nonscience and technology areas, which resulted in fewer graduate student places. In the United States, where salaries are partially determined by professors’ viability in the market and through individual negotiation between professor and administration, marked increases in salaries in technoscience areas reallocated institutional resources to these fields, making them more attractive to students. As other countries moved toward differential salaries, as did the United Kingdom, the resources concentrated in technoscience curricula, already rich in student places, were further concentrated. In all four countries, despite projections to the contrary, enrollments went up, tuition went up, government share of costs went down, and governments turned more to loans and grants to support students. Generally, working class and first generation college students were concentrated in the lower tiers of the system in all four countries. As tuitions increased and the rate of government spending decreased, able students from families willing to purchase tertiary education occupied

Academic Capitalism, Evolution and Comparisons

the most prestigious places, contributing to increased stratification and wealth inequality. The degree of autonomy possessed by institutions and professors was reduced in the several areas discussed: R&D, curricula, and access. The loss of institutional autonomy was clearly seen with regard to R&D. In the United Kingdom, the government agency responsible for buffering institutions from the state – the University Grants Committee – was abolished and replaced with agencies dominated by members of the business community. In Australia, the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, a body modeled on the British University Grants Committee, was abolished and many of its functions taken over by the Department of Education, Employment and Training, an agency the very title of which stressed the relationship between education and the economy (Marshall 1996). In the United States, the agency concerned with pure science – the National Science Foundation – began to promote industry-led research. To a substantial degree, the divisions between private and public organizations that had long protected institutional autonomy began to break down. The rule changes allowed public and nonprofit entities, whether universities, government agencies, or nonprofit research institutes, entry into the market, changing our common-sense understanding of what is public and what is private. Institutions still labeled public and nonprofit were able to patent and profit from discoveries made by their professional employees. Simultaneously, private, profitmaking organizations were able to make alienable areas of public life previously held by the community as a whole: scientific knowledge, data bases, technology, strains, and properties of plants, even living animals and fragments of human beings (Slaughter and Rhoades 1996). With the exception of Australia, this privatization was industry led, held together by government policies and government funding, and serviced by tertiary institutions trying to augment funds. Professors lost autonomy when research policies shifted from support for basic (professors’ curiosity-driven) research to more applied research geared to economic development. Professorial autonomy with regard to curricula was

9

also eroded. National competitiveness policies, supported by industrialists, government bureaucrats, university administrators, and some faculty, to a considerable degree determined the direction of curricula through resource flows. Decisions about growth or decline of curricula were no longer made exclusively by faculty operating in a collegium. Instead, decisions were made at a national level to strengthen technoscience in hopes of stimulating national wealth creation. As market considerations began to influence professorial salaries, the collegial model of governance was attenuated as faculty who professed certain curricula were, quite literally, valued more than faculty who professed in less well-funded fields. Professors lost autonomy in other aspects of their work. The various quality assessment and accountability schemes developed in the four countries often called for evaluation from bodies outside tertiary institutions, and frequently, from bodies outside specific disciplines. As decisions about professors’ performance of academic work were moved outside the purview of professional expertise, professors became more like all other informational workers and less like a community of scholars. Again, Canada was an exception; it has no external review at the federal level and only one province has instituted an external evaluation system by the mid 1990s. Since 1980, the higher education policies of three of the four countries have converged, although the countries remain divergent on a number of important dimensions: for example, degree of centralization, student participation rates, and student support. The United Kingdom and Australia dealt with higher education and academic science and technology policy through relatively centralized state agencies, the United States through less centralized state agencies. Although the United Kingdom and Australia disbanded the buffer organizations that protected higher education from the state, the same degree of centralization in these countries persisted throughout the 1980s and 1990s. The United States did not develop more centralized agencies, although its policies on the relation of education to the economy began to converge with those of Australia and the United Kingdom. Prior to the

A

10

1980s, Australia and the United Kingdom had relatively low higher education participation rates, with 10–12% of 18- to 21-year-old cohort attending higher education, while Canada and the United States had relatively high participation rates, with about 30% of the 18- to 21-year-old cohort attending. Canada overtook the United States in 1988. Although all countries made plans to increase participation, given their very different starting points, enrollment patterns held throughout the 1980s and 1990s. With regard to student financial aid, the United States moved toward high tuition and toward loans rather than grants, and Australia and the United Kingdom explored similar policies while continuing to offer much more generous government support to students, as does Canada, than does the United States. In the United States, graduate students in technoscience fields are supported primarily from their professors’ federal grants and contracts, while in the other countries graduate students are supported by low or no tuition policies and often have government stipends for living expenses (Lederman 1994). Despite persistent divergence with regard to organization, access, and student support, a remarkable degree of convergence in higher education and R&D policy occurred in three countries between 1980–1995. That convergence cannot be explained solely by the political party in power, given Australia’s labor government. We think that convergence is best explained by globalization theory. The rise of multipolar global competition destabilized Keynesian nation states, rendering problematic the implicit social contract between the citizenry and government with regard to entitlement programs and social safety nets. In the three countries, policy makers responded to increased competition for shares of global markets by reducing overall rates of increase in state expenditures and reallocating money among government functions. Generally, funds were taken away from discretionary programs, particularly from programs thought likely not to contribute in a direct way to technological innovation and economic competitiveness. In sum, postindustrial economies replaced industrial ones even as globalization of the

Academic Capitalism, Evolution and Comparisons

political economy destabilized traditional industrialized economies by replacing bipolar trading relationships with multipolar ones, causing the traditional industrialized nations to lose shares of global markets. In areas where higher education intersects with the global economy, three of the four countries have responded by developing policies that promote academic capitalism. Despite very different political cultures and institutions, the higher education policies of three of the four countries converged on science and technology policy, curriculum, access and finance, and degree of autonomy. These policies are, for the most part, geared toward increasing national economic competitiveness: they are concerned with product and process innovation, channeling students and resources into well-funded curricula that meet the needs of a global market place, preparing more students for the post-industrial work place at lower costs, and managing faculty and institutional work more effectively and efficiently.

Academic Capitalism: Developments and Complexities The United States provided the context for the theory of academic capitalism, developed in the 1990s and early 2000s (Slaughter and Rhoades 2004). The focus on a single country was justified because the USA was the epitome of neoliberal capitalism. The rapid withdrawal of state resources from US higher education stimulated multiple approaches to the private sector on the part of various groups of actors within universities, making academe an exemplar of what a public neoliberal organization should be. New circuits of knowledge. Knowledge no longer moved primarily within scientific/professional/scholarly networks. Teaching was no longer the province of faculty members who worked with students in classrooms, connected to wider realms of knowledge through their departments and disciplinary associations. Courseware like BlackBoard and WebCT linked faculty to electronic platforms that standardized teaching across colleges and universities, creating new circuits of knowledge that are more accountable to

Academic Capitalism, Evolution and Comparisons

administrators than disciplinary associations. University-industry-government partnerships were another obvious example of new circuits of knowledge. University research was judged not only by peers but also by patent officials, who awarded ownership based on who is first to reduce to practice, and by corporations, which judged knowledge on its commercial potential. Although peer review was still important within scholarly disciplines, universities as institutions no longer judged their own performance. Instead, outside organizations like US News and World Report rated college and university performance, judging their worth to the student/parent consumer. To some degree, such outsiders have replaced accrediting associations, creating new circuits of knowledge that move outside the educational profession, fusing education with consumption. Institutions competed for position, as concerned to maintain place in US News and World Report rankings as in ratings of the disciplines by scholarly peers (Ehrenberg 2000). When US News and World Report developed new rating categories, such as the degree to which campuses were “wired” or the “port to pillow ratio” for information technology in dormitories, colleges, and universities competed in these areas, even though the relation between expenses for new infrastructure to educational outcomes was not examined. Peer review, the cornerstone of the academic profession, was no longer conducted solely by university members. The refereeing or review of scholarly papers by experts came to include degree holders who worked in industry as well as academics. The number of scholars from industry sitting on National Science Foundation (NSF) peer review programs rose substantially (Slaughter and Rhoades 1996). Although the industrial scholars may well be as competent as academics, the shift illustrated the new circuits of knowledge created under an academic capitalist knowledge/learning regime. Interstitial organizational emergence. A number of new organizations emerged from the interstices of established colleges and universities to manage new activities related to generation of external revenues. Many of these organizations

11

are boundary spanning, bringing universities, corporations, and the state closer together. For example, technology licensing offices equipped to manage intellectual property have burgeoned. Economic development offices have grown to oversee the linking of areas in which universities have research strength to efforts by the states to build their economies. Trademark licensing offices have emerged in increasing numbers of universities. Fund-raising officials are no longer confined to university foundations; they are now frequently located in colleges and even in departments. Universities, colleges, and departments have developed educational profit centers that market instructional programs to niche markets that are not part of the official curricula. Intermediating networks. Actors and organizations that participate in an academic capitalist knowledge/learning regime were arrayed in networks that intermediate between public, nonprofit, and private sector. Intermediating organizations have proliferated in the past 25 years. Examples of such organizations are the Business Higher Education Forum (Slaughter 1990), the University-Industry-Government Research Roundtable, Internet2, Educause, and the League for Innovation, to name only a few. These organizations bring together different sectors interested in solving common problems that often stem from opportunities created by the knowledge economy. In corporatist fashion, representatives of the different sectors attempt to arrive at solutions before approaching the policy or legislative process. Networks of intermediating organizations allow representatives of public, nonprofit, and private institutions to work on concrete problems, often redrawing (but not erasing) the boundaries between public and private. For example, in the 1980s, the Business Higher Education Forum, an organization of corporate and university CEOs, made the case for individual education accounts (IEAs), to which workers could make tax-free contributions from which they could then withdraw funds to pay for retraining to retool for another of the multiple careers occasioned by the rapidly changing knowledge economy (Slaughter 1990). Corporations envisioned IEAs as providing for perpetual worker retraining, and given the

A

12

educational demands of the new economy, community colleges could design certification programs, 4-year colleges could offer off-curricula programs able to act as profit centers, and universities could develop masters of science degrees that were essentially professional retraining or professional development courses. Legislation similar to the IEA was passed as part of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. The network of business and university leaders redrew traditional educational boundaries, taking advantage of new markets in ways that served the neoliberal knowledge economy and providing directly for education of corporate workers at state and worker expense. Extended managerial capacity. New circuits of knowledge, interstitial organizational emergence, and intermediating networks called for extended managerial capacity on the part of colleges and universities. With trustees’ and university presidents’ approval, managers increased their capacity to engage the market, redrawing the boundaries between universities and the corporate sector. Patent and copyright offices, trademark licensing programs, economic development offices, distance-education profit centers, and special purpose foundations all increased the number of managers and managerial capacity within universities, to the point where nonexecutive administrators currently outnumber faculty. In the 1980s, technology transfer officials engaged the market by licensing patented technology to corporations in return for royalties. In the 1990s, many universities began to take equity in start-up companies based on intellectual property discovered by faculty members. In effect, university managers acted as venture capitalists, picking technologies they thought would be winners in the new economy. By the end of the 1990s, university managers were involved in the market in terms of licensing income, usually received in the form of royalties from sales; milestone payments, which were made when particular research results were reached; equity interest, which could include publicly tradable shares, privately held shares, or options to acquire shares; material transfer agreements; tangible property sales (cell lines, software, compositions of matter); and trade secrets. A few universities permitted profit-making corporations in which faculty and/or administrators

Academic Capitalism, Evolution and Comparisons

participated in corporations in which they held stock as consultants, employees, members, or chairs of boards of directors. Copyright policies were developed primarily in the 1980s and 1990s. Although a number of institutions “allowed” faculty members to personally own their scholarly and creative works, universities increasingly claimed materials that were “work for hire,” which included all work by academic professionals or work directly commissioned by universities – for example, general education syllabi – or that made substantial use of university resources, which faculty often did when developing digitized courseware. The educational materials covered included video recordings, study guides, tests, syllabi, bibliographies, texts, films, film strips, charts, transparencies, other visual aids, programmed instructional materials, live video and audio broadcasts, and computer software including programs, program descriptions, and documentation of integrated circuit and databases. Some university managers who negotiated with corporations over copyrighted products, processes, and services were located in technology licensing and transfer offices. Sometimes these offices were expanded to become intellectual property offices or technology transfer and creative works offices. These offices oversee the business aspects of commercializing intellectual properties and managing copyright issues or of developing enterprise centers to further build up and market copyrightable educational materials. Extended managerial capacity is less developed with regard to copyrights than it is for patents because institutional copyright policies and offices are a more recent phenomenon. New circuits of knowledge, interstitial organizational emergence, intermediating organizations, and expanded managerial capacity create networks through which college and universities connect to the knowledge economy. Colleges and universities also engage in an array of miscellaneous market and market-like behaviors that cut across colleges and universities, attaching a price to things that were once free or charging more for items or services that were once subsidized or provided at cost. For example, most universities now charge, whether outright or through fees, for

Academic Capitalism, Evolution and Comparisons

parking, use of student recreation facilities, and use of computer facilities. Historically, subsidized meal services were located in dormitories and provided low-cost food for students. Now food services are outsourced to fast-food companies such as McDonald’s and Domino’s and are part of food courts located in student unions, which serve as mini-malls and profit centers. Although market and market-like behaviors are defined by competition for external resources, they are also associated with a host of ancillary behaviors, such as advertising and marketing. Enrollment management offices spend large sums on advertising, designing view books and other materials that represent the educational life style of the institution, and then mailing them to affluent zip codes or to students who scored well on standardized tests. Trademark licensing officials work with “athleisure”-wear corporations to cross-license products that are sold in book stores, where students are captive markets. Market and market-like behaviors, as well as ancillary practices such as advertising, have permeated the fabric of colleges and universities. Although colleges and universities are integrating with the neoliberal knowledge economy and adopting many practices found in the corporate sector, they are not becoming corporations. Colleges and universities very clearly do not want to lose state and federal subsidies or, in the case of research universities, to pay taxes, to be held to corporate accounting standards (lax as these may be), to be held accountable for risks they take with state and donor money, and to relinquish, if they are public, eleventh-amendment protection and be liable for mistakes and various forms of malpractice. However, colleges and universities are participating in redrawing the boundaries between public and private sector, and they favor boundaries that allow them to participate in a wide variety of market activities that enable them to generate external revenues. Corporations participate in this redrawing because the new boundaries move research closer to the market, allowing universities to act as industrial laboratories and subsidizing the cost of product development. Similarly, many of the new forms of education prepare nontraditional student markets to use knowledge economy products or

13

prepare them for entry-level work, socializing the cost of education. These boundaries between private and public are fluid: colleges and universities, corporations, and the state (of which public universities are a part) are in constant negotiation. Contradictions and ironies are rife. For example, for-profit tertiary education makes money for corporations that provide educational services but may conflict with corporations that prefer state subsidy of worker training. Corporations worked with universities to support Bayh-Dole (1980), which privatized federal research, but are unhappy with universities’ aggressive claims to intellectual property and litigate regularly against them about ownership of broad patents that underlie a variety of pharmaceutical products. The “firewall” that once separated public and private sectors has become increasingly permeable. As colleges and universities integrate with the knowledge economy, professional groups within them have to develop strategies for how they will position themselves. Departments and fields that are close to markets – for example, biotechnology, medical substances and devices, or information technology – have some built-in advantages, given the importance of these fields to the knowledge economy. However, the proximity of a department or program to the market does not always predict how it will fare in terms of institutional resource allocation or ability to generate external revenues. For example, a number of fine arts colleges, traditionally not conceptualized as close to the market, have redefined themselves so that they train art students in graphic design, digital animation, and web design, therefore connecting directly to the knowledge economy. Some departments find niche markets that allow them to generate external revenues. For example, some classics departments augment their budgets by sponsoring revenue-generating educational trips to Greece and Rome, while some anthropology departments offer tours of prehistoric sites, charging for the tour and the pleasure of digging. Some departments in education sell tests and measurements copyrighted by their faculty. Often the external revenues brought in by these market revenues allow such departments to continue to deliver the standard of education they think

A

14

appropriate to their fields, while colleges and universities generally invest in other areas, such as information technology infrastructure or advertising for high-end, high-scoring student markets. Faculty are no longer the only important group of professionals within universities. Academic professionals have also organized themselves – in groups like the Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM), the Association of Collegiate Licensing Administrators, the Association of University Marketing Professionals, and many others. In many cases, they were able to crystallize as professional groups because they responded to opportunities offered by the neoliberal knowledge economy. Lacking the prerogatives historically accorded to faculty, these new groups of professionals became more strategic, aggressive, and flexible than faculty in responding to the opportunity structures associated with the neoliberal knowledge economy.

Academic Capitalism in the USA and in Europe Given the move toward the market by many other countries, Slaughter and Cantwell (2012) decided to use the theory of academic capitalism as the analytical focus to compare the way the USA and the EU were moving higher education toward the market. The comparison was merited given that the EU indicated it hopes to surpass the USA in research by 2020. As in previous iterations, the theory of academic capitalism teases out the ways in which new institutional and organizational structures that link state agencies, corporations, and universities developed to take advantage of the openings provided by the neoliberal state to move toward the market. The mechanisms identified by Slaughter and Rhoades (2004) persist: new circuits of knowledge that link state agencies, corporations, and universities in entrepreneurial research endeavors are developed; interstitial organizations emerge to manage market endeavor; intermediating networks between public, nonprofit, and private sectors are initiated by actors from the various sectors to stabilize the new circuits of knowledge and

Academic Capitalism, Evolution and Comparisons

organizations that facilitate entrepreneurial activity on the part of universities. At the same time, universities build extended managerial capacity that enables them to function as economic actors. Slaughter and Cantwell make the case that although marketization is the EU is state-led to a greater degree than in the USA, state bureaucrats use the same mechanisms (described above) as in the USA and provide examples of these. Slaughter and Cantwell also argue that new mechanisms emerged in both the USA and EU as marketization intensified. These are new funding streams, narratives, discourses, and social technologies. The recently created European Research Council (ERC) has provided an example of new funding streams. The ERC research funds are available for the European Research Area through the Seventh Framework. Over the period 2007–2013, the ERC awarded €7.5 billion in research grants. Investigators can win up to €2 million per grant, which may last up to 5 years (European Research Council 2008). Grants are made through two streams, one for advanced investigators and one for starting investigators who completed their Ph.D. within the last 9 years in life sciences, physical science and engineering, social sciences and humanities “domains.” The ERC (2007) prioritized projects in information technology, “innovative” medicine, nano-electronics, embedded systems, aeronautics and air transport, hydrogen and fuel cells, and global monitoring for the environment. As is the case in the USA, research funds are concentrated in STEM fields, and especially the biomedical sciences, although not so heavily. The narratives and discourses in the USA and EU are somewhat different. In the USA, human capital was the higher education discourse that intersected broader competitiveness narratives. As is typical in the USA, the human capital narrative emphasized the role of the individual, thereby converting higher education into a private good (Becker 1964; Leslie and Brinkman 1988; McMahon 2009). Complementing human capital discourses were competitiveness narratives, which were initiated by corporate leaders and nonprofit think tanks in the 1980s (Slaughter 1990; Bruno 2009; Slaughter and Rhoades 2005)

Academic Capitalism, Evolution and Comparisons

to deal with the stiff competition the US faced from Germany and Japan. Students’ investment in human capital was represented as serving not only individuals’ ends, but societal needs for a highly educated labor force to build a strong economy. In other words, societal goods were conceived of in economic terms, rather than social goods or social justice. Like human capital discourses, competitiveness narratives were also taken up by the intermediating organizations discussed above as well as by some university staff, some academic disciplines and some faculty, many of whom demonstrated their closeness to the market through publication, patenting, technology transfer, and product and technology innovation. The competitiveness and human capital narratives stress investment in education that contributes to productivity, economic growth, health, environmental issues, and national defense. These types of education create a “scientifically literate” population and are predicated on a workforce versed in STEM fields. The humanities, arts, and social science fields not concerned with social technologies are, by and large, not mentioned. The Lisbon Agenda elaborated an EU competitiveness narrative. Using language of the academic capitalist knowledge/learning regime, the often-cited Lisbon Agenda aims were to make Europe the most competitive region in the world (European Commission 2000). Higher education was integral to the Lisbon Agenda, which calls for economic competitiveness through the interaction between the state, industry, and universities in networks of innovation driven by application and production of knowledge. Lisbon goals include expanding public and private funds for research and development, industry-university partnerships, establishing EU-wide networks of lifelong learning, and boosting tertiary participation, especially in science and technology fields. In 2006, the EC made the case that “European universities have enormous potential, but this potential is not fully harnessed and put to work effectively to underpin Europe’s drive for more growth and more jobs” (European Commission 2006, p. 3) and a detailed plan for “modernizing” Europe’s universities, which largely focused further market reforms, was announced.

15

Social technologies are used to steer university staff toward the market and track their activity in competition for external resources (Geuna and Martin 2003; Bruno 2009). For example, in the EU the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) turns the attention of faculty and fields to the narratives of competition by providing incentives designed to gently nudge professionals’ activities in line with policy goals. Faculty and staff progress in cooperation with industry is followed by tracking attainment of bench marks and success in rankings. (Some) social sciences provide the methods, theoretical frameworks, and concepts (which are simultaneously discourses and narratives themselves) for social technologies such as bibliometrics (the analysis of academic article citations), rankings and league tables, soft law (Pestre and Weingart 2009). Narratives, discourses, and social technologies that justify and normalize competitive moves to the market are elaborated and articulated by all the players and deployed via social technologies. There is no particular order in which these phenomena occur. They can take place sequentially, simultaneously, independently, and always recursively. They explain how universities become marketized not only in science and engineering fields, but across a variety of fields. Currently, Cantwell, Slaughter, and Taylor are analyzing mechanisms that promote marketization that continue to emerge. They are exploring the idea that different sets of actors are able to deploy these mechanisms in very different ways. They hypothesize that that despite academe’s commitment to meritocratic order, the ability for institutions and individuals to leverage entrepreneurial activity and status co-varies tightly with accumulated state, institutional, and individual professional wealth (as measured by salary, research dollars, publications, entrepreneurial endeavor).

References Becker, G.S. 1964. Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education, National Bureau of economic research, general series. Vol. 80. New York: Columbia University Press.

A

16 Brint, S.G. 1994. In an age of experts: The changing role of professionals in politics and public life. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Bruno, I. 2009. The ‘indefinite discipline’ of competitiveness benchmarking as a neoliberal technology of government. Minerva 47: 261–280. Ehrenberg, R.G. 2000. Tuition rising: Why college costs so much. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Etzkowitz, H. 1994a. Academic-industry relations: A sociological paradigm for economic development. In Evolutionary economics and chaos theory: New directions in technology studies? ed. Loet Leydersdorff and Peter Van den Besselaar. London: Pinter. Etzkowitz. 1994b. Beyond the frontier: The convergence of military and civilian R&D in the U.S. Science Studies 7 (2): 5–22. European Commission. 2000. Presidential conclusions: Lisbon. European Council 23 and 24 March 2000. Resource document. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ summits/lis1_en.htm. Accessed 20 May 2010. European Commission. 2006. Delivering on the modernization agenda for universities. European Commission. http://ec.eupropa.eu/education/policies/2010/lisbon_ en.html. Accessed 17 May 2010. European Research Council. 2008. ERC advanced grant competition 2008: Statistics. Brussels: ERC. Geuna, A., and B. Martin. 2003. University research evaluation and funding: An international comparison. Minerva 41 (4): 277–304. Gummett, P. 1991. The evolution of science and technology policy: A UK perspective. Science and Public Policy 18 (1): 31–37. Halliday, J. 1993. Maoist Britain? The ideological function of vocationalizing the higher education curriculum. Curriculum Studies 1 (3): 365–381. Hill, S. 1993. Concentration of minds: Research centres in Australia. In Paper presented to the third international conference on University-industry relations. SUNY Purchase. May 1. State University of New York at Purchase, Purchase, New York. Jessop, B. 1993. Towards a Schumpeterian workfare state? Preliminary remarks on post-Fordist political economy. Studies in Political Economy 40 (Spring): 7–39. Julien, G. 1989. The funding of university research in Canada: Current trends. Higher Education Management 1 (1): 66–72. Lederman, L.L. 1994. A comparative analysis of civilian technology strategies among some nations. Policy Studies Journal 22 (2): 279–295. Leslie, L., and P. Brinkman. 1988. The economic value of higher education. New York: American Councilon Education/MacMillian Series on Higher Education. Leydesdorff, L. 1994. New models of technological change: New theories for technology studies? In Evolutionary economics and chaos theory: New directions in technology studies? ed. Loet Leydesdorff and Peter Van den Besselaar, 180–192. London: Pinter. Marshall, N. (1996). Policy communities, issue networks and the formulation of Australian higher education

Academic Careers policy. Higher Education. forthcoming 1996. 30 (3): 273–293. Martin, B.R., Irvine, J., and Isard., P.A. 1992. Input measures: trends in UK government spending on academic and related research: a comparison with F R Germany, France, Japan, the Netherlands and USA. Science and Public Policy 17 (1): 3–13. McMahon, W. 2009. Higher learning, greater good: The private and social benefits of higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Pestre, D., and P. Weingart. 2009. Governance of and through science and numbers: Categories tools and technologies – Preface. Minerva 47 (3): 241–242. Slaughter, S. 1990. Lipset’s ‘continental divide’ and the ideological basis for differences in higher education between Canada and the United States. Canadian Journal of Higher Education 20 (2): 81–93. Slaughter, S., and B. Cantwell. 2012. Transatlantic moves to the market: Academic capitalism in the US & EU. Higher Education. 63 (5): 583–606. Slaughter, S., and L.L. Leslie. 1997. Academic capitalism: Politics, policies and the entrepreneurial University. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Slaughter, S., and G. Rhoades. 1990. Renorming the social relations of academic science: Technology transfer. Educational Policy 4 (4): 341–361. Slaughter, S., and G. Rhoades. 1996. The emergence of a competitiveness research and development policy coalition and the commercialization of academic science and technology. Science, Technology and Human Values 21 (3 Summer): 303–339. Slaughter, S., and G. Rhoades. 2004. Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state and higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Slaughter, S., and G. Rhoades. 2005. From endless frontier to basic science for use: Social contracts between science and society. Science, Technology and Human Values. 30 (4): 1–37. Wood, F.Q. 1992. The commercialisation of university research in Australia: Issues and problems. Comparative Education 28: 293–313.

Academic Careers Tatiana Fumasoli Department Education, Practice and Society, University College London Institute of Education, London, UK

Synonyms Academic status; Employment; Positions

Academic Careers

Definition Academic careers: the sequence of positions over the working life of an academic, usually but not necessarily starting with a doctoral degree. The progression can be vertical, from assistant to full professor; horizontal, moving across institutions and/or countries holding the same academic title; or it can also be a “regression,” e.g., from dean of faculty back to professor.

Uniqueness Versus Comparability Academic careers are a core aspect of the functioning of higher education, since they organize the division of labor among academic professionals; they design possible occupational trajectories and foster a constant and coherent reproduction of academic workforce. In doing so, academic careers shape and delimitate the meaning and functions of academic expertise, the latter being further structured according to the fields of knowledge and to the rules and regulations underpinning higher education institutions. In other words, academic careers can be analyzed according to the tenets of the academic profession, of the disciplines, of the higher education institutions, and of the country (Clark 1983). It is then an empirical question to detect differences and similarities in a comparative analysis (Fumasoli 2014). The field of higher education research has investigated academic careers generally assuming their uniqueness in relations with other careers. Consequently, research has aimed to identify the distinctive features of academic careers, thereby fostering an important debate that has mainly shifted between two poles. On the one hand, survey-based research has provided a detailed characterization of academic careers through cross-sectional and/or longitudinal analysis (Teichler 1996). On the other hand, through a normative angle, academic careers have been scrutinized at the receiving end of managerialist pressures and New Public Management reforms. Against this backdrop, academics have partly lost their autonomy in handling selection and promotion of other academics, giving way to

17

bureaucratic forces in the coordination and control of the academic enterprise (Amaral et al. 2002, 2003). Building on a synthesis of research carried on academic careers, this entry argues that academic careers could be profitably studied and debated within the broader ecology of occupational and professional careers. Along this line, academic careers could be analyzed not only focusing on their particular aspects, but, equally, by contextualizing such distinctive characteristics in a larger landscape of co-evolving professions and career pathways (Abbott 1988). Additionally, the increasing number and variety of knowledgeintensive organizations constitute a broader context that is likely to affect substantially the academic profession and academic careers (Gorman and Sandefur 2011). As a consequence, drawing on theoretical and analytical frameworks from the sociology of professions, career studies and organization theory allow us to understand three fundamental questions: (1) How academic careers are organized and evolve (2) Under which conditions academic careers display change and stability (3) To what extent convergence or differentiation between academic careers and other professional careers can be observed. This approach appears equally helpful in delineating effective policies aimed to improve the contribution, efficiency, and accountability of the academic workforce and of the university in contemporary society.

Convergence Between Academic and Corporate Careers There are several dimensions that can be considered in order to analyze the changing academic careers. First, the higher education sector has expanded dramatically. This has created a paradoxical tension between the shortage of qualified academic staff to accommodate increasing numbers of students, and the increasing use of adjunct staff in order to respond to student needs in the short term. Second, academic careers vary in their degree of regulation, with the notable extremes of the US where salary and progression are mainly

A

18

the result of individuals’ negotiations within universities and European countries where universities, unions, and ministries of education need to agree on the main aspects related to the structure of remunerations and promotions (Williams et al. 1974). Finally, the organizational setting in which academic careers are embedded – that is, the university – has undergone several reforms to increase managerial coordination and control, accountability, as well as efficiency. This has put career structures under strain, as the traditional collegiate model where professors contributed significantly to decision making, or, at least, profited from extensive autonomy, has been limited by economic aspects, equality policies, and university strategies challenging the diversified academic discipline-based interests and practices (Fumasoli and Goastellec 2015; Fumasoli and Kehm 2017). While higher education research privileges a focus on how managerialist practices have affected academic careers, scholars in management studies have looked at how corporate careers have become more similar to academic careers (Baruch and Hall 2004; Harley et al. 2004). First, such studies have highlighted how reviews of academics for tenure and promotion remain in the hands of their peers, and continue to be based on prestige indicators such as publications and citations. Second, it is argued, university strategies remain substantially decoupled from academic career decisions, which continue to take place mainly in departments related to fields of knowledge. Management scholars thus underline how academic careers, seem to influence innovative corporate career models, where rank and file positions typical of bureaucracies have now become less salient (DeFilippi and Arthur 1994; Arthur and Rousseau 1996; Peiperl and Baruch 1997; Hall and Moss 1998). This seems to point to the fact that the corporate world has become similar to universities, as individual workers face fragmented, nonlinear career pathways, which are based on their own expertise and readiness to be mobile across organizations and countries. Equally, like for academics, individually initiated careers and network building, commitment to one’s own field of expertise and project-based

Academic Careers

work have become more relevant than upward career progression through bureaucratic positions within a single organization (Baruch and Hall 2004). However, at the same time, it can be observed that academic careers have also somewhat converged to other occupational careers. Reflecting the increasingly varied student population and more uncertain conditions for public funding, academic positions have become more differentiated. Thus, besides the traditional trajectories from junior through intermediate to senior positions, we can see nowadays several pathways and employment frameworks: from postdoctoral researchers, tenure track professors, to full professors. Even more importantly, this diversification is reflected in the increasing numbers of fixed-term contracts, teaching- or research-only employment, and part-time positions. This has been interpreted as a deleterious outcome of market forces and a drive toward short-term financial sustainability. Equally uncertainty in student enrolments, public funding, and other funding sources, as well as uncertainty related to longterm governmental policies and economic and financial conditions, have pushed universities to use more and more flexible employment contracts for their lecturers and researchers. As research on elite academics shows (van der Wende 2015; Kwiek 2016), only few academics are able to take advantage of global academic labor markets, while a significant majority is left to spend years of incertitude and risk of academic dropout.

Empirical Studies on Academic Careers Drawing on scholarship in career studies, empirical research on academic careers can be reviewed according to the following dimensions. First, academic careers can be seen from either an objective or a subjective angle: on the one hand, empirical analysis focuses on facts, numbers, and indicators; on the other hand, analysis addresses personal choices and individuals’ agency (Gunz and Peiperl 2007). In other words, research on academic careers can be positioned on a continuum from a close focus on individual perceptions and

Academic Careers

choices in a life-long occupational pathway to the opposite end conceiving academic careers as a social phenomenon (Moore et al. 2007). Methodologically, studies on academic careers can be divided into retrospective and prospective, the first being a more traditional approach to explore and explain what has happened in the past, the latter involving observation taking place across present and future points in time when decisions on one’s career are taken. The field of higher education studies has seen three large international research projects on academic careers between 1992 and 2012. The first major study of the academic profession was the Carnegie Study, which involved 14 countries and more than 19,000 responses (Altbach 2000). Significant differences in job satisfaction and career progression options are visible not so much across countries, but among three groups differently located along academic career pathways: the university professoriate, junior academic staff, and non-university professoriate (Teichler et al. 2013, pp. 5–6). The second major study of the academic profession was the Changing Academic Profession (CAP Study, 2004–2012). It involved 19 countries and focused on societal developments (relevance of knowledge, division of labor in national and international context), as well as on the institutional life within higher education institutions (influence of managerial power and pressures for the professionalization of academic work). Besides gathering almost 18,000 responses (Teichler and Höhle 2013, pp. 3–5), this Study involved a subjective and individual angle, in that it analyzed biographies and careers, employment conditions, the work situation of junior academics, their time budget, their assessment of their own professional situation, the different degrees of commitment to their discipline, their department and their institutions, and finally their job satisfaction. While significant differences emerged according to the national contexts, the study seems to confirm an increasing divide between professoriate and junior academics, the first enjoying permanent positions, autonomy of work organization, and professional status, the second depending for several years on fixedterm contracts and poor ability to plan their

19

careers in the long term (Teichler et al. 2013, pp. 75–116). The third study of the academic profession was the EUROAC Study on the Academic Profession in Europe, carried out in 2010 and including 12 European countries. This Study used a mixed-methods approach comprising an in-depth literature review (Kehm and Teichler 2013), quantitative analysis based on a survey (Teichler and Höhle 2013), and interviews with 500 academics, administrators, and managers in 8 European countries (Fumasoli et al. 2015). The EuroAC results shows how short-term employment of junior academics has become internalized by the academic workforce and how international mobility has considerably increased, at least in some European countries, contributing to an internationalization of academic markets, careers, and the academic profession itself (Goastellec and Pekari 2013). These three large international studies have testified of the changing settings, identities, and practices of academic careers, resonating with the broader literature of career studies and its focus in the last two decades on original, boundaryless, protean careers in a globalized world. In parallel, scholars of higher education studies have focused on the academic profession and careers as social phenomena. Country-based case studies have offered an international comparative perspective on the configuration of the politics and policies of the higher education sector, of the organizational dimensions within higher education institutions, and of the distinctive knowledge bases of disciplinary fields. The sociological fabric of academic careers has been investigated in an edited volume by Burton Clark (1987) through country cases in USA and Europe as well as through cases related to disciplines and types of professional higher education. Musselin (2010) provides an analysis of academic careers in France, Germany, and USA in the disciplines of History and Mathematics, highlighting how the articulation of supply in academic labor markets is based on ideas of quality, on the autonomy of higher education institutions, and on their institutional settings (e.g., recruitment committees). Empirical studies on academic careers from an educational perspective have addressed the

A

20

training and development needs of the academic workforce (Startup 1979; Chait and Ford 1982; Kogan et al. 1994; Blaxter et al. 1998; Sorcinelli et al. 2006). More recently, researchers of academic careers have adopted subjective approaches to investigate choice and identity in the building of individual academic career pathways. Along this line, Gopaul and Pifer (2016) offer a dialogic perspective on academic mobility in early career stages, reflecting on job insecurity, career uncertainty, and the unknowns of international mobility (see also Cai and Hall 2015; Morley et al. 2018). Ortlieb and Weiss (2018) look at the antecedents of academics’ perceptions on job insecurity to investigate individual academics’ agency in the unfolding of their careers. The effects of temporary contracts are addressed by Waaijer et al. (2017) who scrutinize how early career researchers’ lives and career plans are impacted. Clearly, research on growingly fragmented and insecure academic careers addresses fundamentally problematic aspects of the contemporary academic profession; at the same time, this type of research is potentially conducive to building theoretical and analytical bases to bridge studies on academic careers to the broader career studies scholarship, which have been tackling similar issues in the last two decades.

Drawing on Multiple Disciplines and Methods for a Future Research Agenda This section advocates a multidisciplinary and multilevel approach on academic careers that could expand the scope of theoretical and analytical development, as well as for empirical research (Arthur et al. 1989; Khapova and Arthur 2011; Lee et al. 2014). In this sense, sociology, social psychology, economics and management studies, political science, and public administration provide a significant toolkit of research topics, research questions, and methods that enhance how we can shed light on academic careers. A sociological perspective focuses on the meaning, understanding, and identities that engage in the structuring and restructuring of academic careers within broader social structures. This allows to explore not only how academics

Academic Careers

perceive themselves and their work, but also the broader role of such expertise-based careers in the contemporary society. Also, it can open up a debate on whether and how such careers can be located within or outside universities and the higher education sector. Chudzikowski and Mayrhofer (2011) suggest a Bourdieu-based analytical toolkit built on multilevel analysis uncovering the structure-agency link; social, economic, and policy contexts; and identities in changing academic careers. At a more micro level, social psychology look at the relations between individuals and groups and how such relations affect individual agency in the structures and processes of academic careers. Issues such as gender equality and inclusion of minorities, senior-junior relationships, coaching, and mentoring would be central in this approach, which aims to highlight individual career enactment and construction, as well as peer learning and solidarity. For instance, Schrodt et al. (2003) have analyzed the role of academic mentoring in the socialization process of junior academic staff. An economic and managerial approach analyzes the construction, distribution, and consumption of highly qualified (and rare) human resources based on expertise and talent. How are academic careers efficiently, effectively, economically organized and structured? Relatedly, an instrumental logic looking at the odds between investment and contribution to economic sectors of society would be at the center of such approach. Finally, a strategic management view would analyze the link between career structures and organizational output (Fumasoli 2014; Gornitzka and Maassen 2017). A political science and public administration approach focuses on rational behavior of the involved actors, the constellations thereof that emerge, and the representation of interests of the different groups. Equally, this perspective would analyze how order and stability in academic career pathways are achieved through power relationships that reflect ongoing negotiations within regulatory frameworks and bureaucratic structures shaping roles and division of labor in the academic enterprise (see, e.g., Musselin 2005). When it comes to methods, in-depth qualitative analysis through interviews and focus groups has

Academic Careers

been carried out extensively, allowing for fertile insights on how academics perceive and interpret their career pathways, the challenges, pitfalls, and opportunities academics are confronted with. Equally, the large international surveys conducted in the CAP project and affiliates have gathered an extensive database that offer many possibilities to conduct cross-country and longitudinal comparative analysis. These methods could be substantially integrated by the ethnographic methods developed in career studies, in order to gain further understanding and insight on the changing academic careers (Van Maanen 2015). We refer in particular to diary studies, which allow to gain insight not only from logs held by academics, but also by academics’ reflective analysis of their CV (Ohly et al. 2010). This seems to be particularly promising in order to understand the restructuring of academic careers: resumes can be analyzed as formal written texts, but also as interpretation of their authors or of other academics. A particular focus could be how academics acknowledge and validate experiences, expertise, and skills as crucial elements for progressions in academic careers.

Cross-References ▶ Recruitment of Academics

References Abbott, A. 1988. The system of professions. An essay on the division of expert labour. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Altbach, P.G., ed. 2000. The changing academic workplace: Comparative perspectives. Boston: Center for International Higher Education, Boston College. Amaral, A., G.A. Jones, and B. Karseth, eds. 2002. Governing higher education: Comparing national perspectives. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Amaral, A., V.L. Meek, and I.M. Larsen, eds. 2003. The higher education managerial revolution? Dordrecht: Kluwer. Arthur, M.B., and D. Rousseau. 1996. The boundaryless career: A new employment principle for a new organizational era. New York: Oxford University Press. Arthur, M.B., D.T. Hall, and B.S. Lawrence. 1989. Generating new directions in career theory: The case for a transdisciplinary approach. In Handbook of career

21 theory, ed. M.B. Arthur, D.T. Hall, and B.S. Lawrence, 7–25. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Baruch, Y., and D.T. Hall. 2004. The academic career: A model for future careers in other sectors? Journal of Vocational Behavior 64 (2): 241–262. Blaxter, L., C. Hughes, and M. Tight. 1998. Writing on academic careers. Studies in Higher Education 23(3): 281–295. Cai, L., & Hall, C. (2015). Motivations, expectations, and experiences of expatriate academic staff on an international branch campus in China. Journal of Studies in International Education, 20(3), 207–222. Chait, R.P., and A.T. Ford. 1982. Beyond tradition tenure. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Chudzikowski, K., and W. Mayrhofer. 2011. In search of the blue flower? Grand social theories and career research: The case of Bourdieu’s theory of practice. Human Relations 64 (1): 19–36. Clark, B.R. 1983. The higher education system: Organization in cross-national perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press. Clark, B.R., ed. 1987. The academic profession, national, disciplinary and institutional settings. Berkeley: University of California Press. DeFilippi, R.J., and M.B. Arthur. 1994. The boundaryless career: A competency-based prospective. Journal of Organizational Behaviour 15 (4): 307–324. Fumasoli, T. 2014. Strategic management of personnel policies: A comparative analysis of flagship universities in Norway, Finland, Switzerland and Austria. In New voices in higher education research and scholarship, ed. F. Ribeiro, Y. Politis, and B. Culum, 18–37. Hershey: IGI Global. Fumasoli, T., Goastellec, G. 2015. Global models, disciplinary and local patterns in academic recruitment processes. In Fumasoli, T., Goastellec, G. and Kehm, B. (eds.) Academic Careers in Europe - Trends, Challenges, Perspectives, Springer: Dordrecht. Fumasoli, T., Kehm, B. 2017. Recruitment of academics, Springer Encyclopedia of Higher Education, Dordrecht: Springer. Goastellec, G., and N. Pekari. 2013. The internationalisation of academic markets, careers and professions. In The work situation of the academic profession in Europe: Findings of a survey in twelve countries, ed. U. Teichler and E.A. Höhle, 229–248. Dordrecht: Springer. Gopaul, B., and M.J. Pifer. 2016. The conditions of movement: A discussion of academic mobility between two early career scholars. Higher Education Quarterly 70 (3): 225–245. Gorman, E.H., and R.L. Sandefur. 2011. “Golden Age,” quiescence, and revival: How the sociology of professions became the study of knowledge-based work. Work and Occupations 38 (3): 275. Gornitzka, A., and P. Maassen. 2017. European flagship universities: Autonomy and change. Higher Education Quarterly. 71: 231. Gunz and Peiperl. 2007. Introduction. In Handbook of career studies, ed. Gunz and Peiperl, 1–10. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

A

22 Hall, D.T., and J.A. Moss. 1998. The new protean career contract: Helping organizations and employees adapt. Organizational Dynamics 26 (3): 22–37. Harley, S., M. Muller-Camen, and A. Collin. 2004. From academic communities to managed organisations: The implications for academic careers in UK and German universities. Journal of Vocational Behavior 64: 329–345. Kehm, B.M., and U. Teichler, eds. 2013. The academic profession in Europe: New tasks and new challenges. Dordrecht: Springer. Khapova, S.N., and M.B. Arthur. 2011. Interdisciplinary approaches to contemporary career studies. Human Relations 64 (1): 3–17. Kogan, M., I. Moses, and E. El-Khawas. 1994. Staffing higher education: Meeting new challenges. Higher education policy series 27. Paris: OECD. Kwiek, M. 2016. The European research elite: A crossnational study of highly productive academics in 11 countries. Higher Education 71 (3): 379–397. Lee, C.I., W. Felps, and Y. Baruch. 2014. Toward a taxonomy of career studies through bibliometric visualization. Journal of Vocational Behavior 85: 339–351. Moore, C., H. Gunz, and D. Hall. 2007. Tracing the historical roots of career theory in management and organization studies. In Handbook of career studies, ed. Gunz and Peiperl, 13–39. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Morley, L., Alexiadou, N., Garaz, S., GonzálezMonteagudo, J. and Taba, M. (2018) Internationalisation and migrant academics: the hidden narratives of mobility, Higher Education (published online 25 Jan). Musselin, C. 2005. Le marché des universitaires: France, Allemagne, États-Unis. Paris: Presses de Sciences-Po. Musselin, C. 2010. The market for academics. Abingdon: Routledge. Ohly, S., Sonnentag, S., Niessen, C. and Zapf, D. (2010) Diary Studies in Organizational Research. An Introduction and Some Practical Recommendations, Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9(2): 79–93. Ortlieb, R. and Weiss, S. (2018) What makes academic careers less insecure? The role of individual-level antecedents, Higher Education (published online 5 Jan). Peiperl, M.A., and Y. Baruch. 1997. Back to square zero: The post-corporate career. Organizational Dynamics 25 (4): 7–22. Schrodt, P., C.S. Cawyer, and R. Sanders. 2003. An examination of academic mentoring behaviors and new faculty members’ satisfaction with socialization and tenure and promotion processes. Communication Education 52: 17. Sorcinelli, M.D., A.E. Austin, and P.L. Eddy. 2006. Creating the future of faculty development: Learning from the past, understanding the present. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Startup, R. 1979. The university teacher and his world: A sociological and educational study. Farnborough: Hampshire.

Academic Community Teichler, U. 1996. The conditions of the academic profession: An international, comparative analysis of the academic profession in Western Europe, Japan and the USA. In Inside academia: New challenges of the academic profession, ed. P.A.M. Maassen and F.A. van Vught, 15–65. Utrecht: De Tijdstroom. Teichler, U., and E.A. Höhle, eds. 2013. The work situation of the academic profession in Europe: Findings of a survey in twelve countries. Dordrecht: Springer. Teichler, U., A. Arimoto, and W.K. Cummings. 2013. The changing academic profession. Major findings of a comparative survey. Dordrecht: Springer. van der Wende, M. (2015). International academic mobility: towards a concentration of the minds in Europe, European Review, 23 (1): 70–88. Van Maanen, J. 2015. The present of things past: Ethnography and career studies. Human Relations 68 (1): 35–53. Waaijer, C.J.F., R. Belder, H. Sonneveld, et al. 2017. Temporary contracts: Effect on job satisfaction and personal lives of recent PhD graduates. Higher Education 74: 321. Williams, G., T. Blackstone, and D. Metcalf. 1974. The academic labour market: Economic and social aspects of profession. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Academic Community ▶ New Public Management and the Academic Profession

Academic Community Views ▶ Academic Perception of Governance and Management

Academic Deans in Higher Education Institutions Mimi Wolverton Retired Higher Education Professor and Consultant Austin, Texas, USA

Historically, academic deans have been male, white, and in their mid-50s. Although some shifts have occurred in recent years with more women

Academic Deans in Higher Education Institutions

and people of color being hired into these positions, the deanship remains male and majority dominated. Most deans progress upward through faculty ranks and into either a department chair or associate dean’s position prior to moving into a deanship. Although some deans continue in this capacity for extended periods, on average, they remain academic deans for 5–6 years; after which, they either return to faculty ranks or advance into higher levels of institutional administration. Most deans become deans because of a desire to contribute – to improve the college and influence faculty development. Dealing with growth, facilitating change, even confronting crisis (whether financial, academic, or staff discontent) in a way that moves the college forward can spark their resolve to serve. Deans also strive for personal growth – experimenting with and, in some instances, setting a new career direction. Financial gain and any power, or authority associated with the position, rarely serve as motivating factors. Deans serve at the will of institutional provosts and presidents and lead at the discretion of faculty. They head professional bureaucracies (colleges), which house networks of smaller professional bureaucracies (departments) managed by chairs whose main duty is to coordinate and facilitate faculty work. These colleges, in their entirety, function under the umbrella of overarching institutions, themselves professional bureaucracies [Professional bureaucracies are decentralized systems of authority, designed to allow employed professional a greater degree of control over their work]. This hierarchical positioning of deans makes them organizational linchpins. They communicate institutional goals, needs, and demands down and faculty concerns, needs, and desires up. They advocate for and attempt to shape both sets of priorities. Their ultimate goal: to further faculty innovation and research and student learning.

Responsibilities and Tasks A myriad of tasks surround this goal. These tasks can be collapsed into six broadly defined areas of

23

responsibility: internal productivity, academic personnel management, resource management, leadership, external and political relations, and personal scholarship. Sustaining internal productivity involves building a work climate in which morale is high and creativity abounds, establishing and sustaining effective lines of communication with and among faculty and support staff, and most importantly fostering good teaching and scholarship. Celebrating the life of the college and its people becomes an important aspect of promoting internal productivity. Academic personnel management refers to recruiting, selecting, developing, and evaluating department chairs and faculty. Organizing, and working with, department chairs, directors, and other senior staff comprise essential elements. Mentoring becomes the first step in developing individual and corporate capacity within a college and promoting academic health and faculty and student vitality. Deans as lead mentors model good mentoring practice and encourage others to engage in similar activities. Effective resource management keeps daily operations of the college and its departments running smoothly. The word stewardship captures much of the essence of this role. Tasks that define it include: supervising and supporting nonacademic support staff, managing college resources, assuring accurate college record keeping, maintaining college technological currency, and guaranteeing legal and agency guideline compliance. The multifaceted nature of leadership obligates deans to advance beyond management to providing guidance and inspiration. Deans delegate authority to ensure department and college effectiveness. They own and correct mistakes when mistakes occur. Deans attuned to their environments navigate the intricate labyrinth that lies within their own colleges across departments and centers, and between their colleges, the larger institution, and the communities within which they reside. Doing so entails cultivating effective communication channels across these factions through which concerns can be raised. And it necessitates regular solicitation of ideas on how

A

24

to improve the college. Effective deans remain perpetually alert to the college’s place within the larger institution and its faculty, administrators, and students’ roles as institutional citizens. Effective deans promote public-spirited, social consciousness. Leadership is closely related to a fifth responsibility dimension – external and political relations. Tasks identified as either external or political in nature include: developing and initiating long-range college goals, building relationships with the external community at large and with college stakeholders in particular, fostering positive alumni relations, obtaining and managing external funding, and engaging in long-range financial planning. In addition, deans typically identify two college- and institution-specific tasks, fostering gender and ethnic diversity within the college and representing the college to upper administration, as relevant to this dimension. Although the former certainly can impact the work environment (a concern captured as germane to internal productivity), cultivating diversity can necessitate broadening the faculty and student recruitment pools, an external activity. The latter, representing the college to the administration, while internal to the institution, is perhaps viewed as politically charged. In all, these tasks appear closely related to and dependent on effective leadership. The final responsibility dimension deans identify relates to personal scholarship. Personal scholarship encompasses engaging in professional growth, remaining current within ones discipline, maintaining a scholarly program, and modeling scholarly behavior through research and publishing.

Influences on Deans Even though all six responsibilities shape the reality of a dean’s life, the intensity with which each impacts that reality ebbs and flows. When ambiguity is present, deans have difficulty in determining the roles in which they should engage at any given time. The situation worsens if expectations remain vague over extended periods. As a

Academic Deans in Higher Education Institutions

consequence, when the purpose of the institution is in flux, more stress arises. For instance, roles change when 2-year colleges begin offering 4-year degrees. Are they still 2-year institutions? When comprehensive universities expect faculty to conduct research, publish, and generate grant dollars, are they really comprehensive in nature? To be effective and meet their potential, deans and colleges must have a clear sense of purpose. They must know what really matters. Mission drift suggests change efforts in the offing. If deans are hired to bring about change, their college’s people often have goals that differ from the new institutional directives. The more tenured faculty in a college, the more likely the group as a whole will become increasingly vocal and demanding and less willing to bow to the desires of central administration. In addition, carrying out a provost’s instructions can run counter to protecting academic autonomy and faculty independence. Change, even with the best intentions, comes with mandates from presidents and provosts. If inadequately funded, these mandates frequently result in failure at the college level. Diversity initiatives, use of technology in every classroom, emphasis on improving quality or graduation rates or research productivity of the faculty all take money. Lack of resources, fiscal and human, intensifies the conflict that naturally surrounds change efforts and increases job-related stress. For deans, role conflict also rears its head on a daily basis. Do I serve as an arbiter of personal squabbles among faculty and/or staff? As one dean so succinctly put it, “Everybody’s perspective collides with everybody else’s in the dean’s office.” How many meetings am I really obliged to attend? How do I avoid being weighed down by everyday minutia and the demands of daily tasks when I should be working on my relationship with chairs and faculty, raising money for college endeavors, and forwarding my own scholarship agenda? In other words, dean lack time and that leads to stress. Family life and personal expectations compound stress for many deans, especially those who are young, have children living at home, hold excessively high self-expectations regarding

Academic Deans in Higher Education Institutions

what they hope to accomplish as deans, and perceive themselves solely as administrators. Here again, lack of time becomes a stressor and roles become misconstrued. Stress is a certainty of life. At ideal levels, it invigorates us. In excess, it incapacitates us. The key is to optimize it. And herein lies the challenge. The more role conflict and ambiguity associated with the deanship, the greater the levels of stress and the lower the levels of job satisfaction experienced. Role conflict and ambiguity will always exist but certain aspects of the job either minimize or maximize their effect. Both decrease when deans are satisfied with their level of scholarly productivity, view their institutions as good places to work, and see their colleges as adequately funded. Charges like sustaining current programming and dealing with growth result in the least amount of conflict and ambiguity, probably because college members have agreed upon agendas. Older deans who had mentors who helped them transition into their positions seem to fare better. Role conflict and ambiguity are exacerbated by a lack of a clearly articulated purpose and uncertainty. In some instances, lowering the level of one increases the level of the other. For example, deans who view themselves as faculty experience less role conflict, but ambiguity decreases for those who think of themselves as administrators and vice versa. Cultivating optimal stress levels depends in large part on fit between the dean and the environment. Fit means finding a balance between conflicting roles and the ability to shift between roles as needed. The six, primary responsibility dimensions compete for attention and time, and each necessitates some level of compromise.

Conflicting Roles Within the college, the clearest imbalance for deans arises quickly as administrative tasks involved in stimulating internal productivity and engaging in the overall academic management of the college overwhelm personal scholarship efforts. Deans have a past life and often in this

25

former existence they were very good scholars. The dilemma they face revolves around the fact that time is finite and administrative and leadership responsibilities ascribed to the deanship often displace what was once the driving motivation for most of them. Developing new programs, strengthening existing ones, recruiting highquality students, and dealing with underprepared ones all take time. Faculty recruitment and retention, dealing with difficult personnel, and moving faculty toward change are critical elements of a healthy college. They take time. Ensuring diversity of faculty and the college’s student population is equally important and time consuming. Successful deans almost always decrease their research productivity levels, change their research agendas, or engage in team efforts to continue with ongoing lines of investigation. Some simply discontinue research efforts altogether. A similar disparity manifests itself in the management-leadership catch-22 deans face. Quite simply, the daily-to-dos of running the college wage war against “what we’re all about.” Here, resource management and engaging in the external and political realities of the college butt up against leadership activities that distinguish a college from its peers and demonstrate its worth. The former demand immediacy and the latter: reflection. Budgeting the use of fiscal and personnel resources not only calls for clearly defining day-to-day operational activities that require funding and determining the level of funding they need but also thinking beyond today to the tomorrows 1–5 years down the road. The continual need to upgrade technology and revisit the way in which it is used to foster learning exemplifies the tug between management and leadership. Similarly, public and legislative demands for accountability vie for time with long-range planning and community outreach. In today’s environment, fund raising becomes a critical endeavor that not only helps ensure short-term operational goals are met but future possibilities explored and brought to fruition. It requires not only political acumen but insightful leadership as well. Institutional obligations and college goals dictate which tasks and responsibilities deans favor at a given time. If a college holds a preeminent

A

26

reputation for research, a dean might adopt a “steady as it goes strategy” – showcasing college strengths to attract funding, high-quality students, and top faculty. Here, greater emphasis might be placed on academic and resource management along with external relations. If the institution’s mission shifts or undergoes significant change, say with an increased emphasis on academic quality and productivity, it might require a new way of thinking, departmental reorganization, creating new groups with greater synergy. These demands might involve fund-raising efforts for scholarships and endowed faculty positions. Deans might need to model scholarly behavior. Internal productivity, external relations, and personal scholarship take precedence. When cultural change, such as proactively pursuing gender and racial diversity or wholeheartedly embracing technology, is in the wind, academic and resource management become keys to changing behavior and disrupting engrained inclinations, behaviors, and preferences. Similarly, a dean might face crisis. A prime example: the survival of the college. Here, streamlining operations, cutting costs, and closing or collapsing departments call for particular attention to academic and resource management and external and political relations.

Lack of Fit Deans deal with most types of change, conflict, and ambiguity and do so successfully. Rarely, however, can they rectify a lack of fit between them and their colleges. Such a mismatch leads to more stress, greater job dissatisfaction, and the possibility of a failed deanship. Lack of fit is a latent construct, which can materialize after a dean’s hire. Environments change; goals shift. A dean might possess a set of skills and exhibit a predisposition toward a specific organizational philosophy that matches the needs of the college at the time of hire. A change in institutional demands can require the use of strengths the dean does not possess, and past effectiveness can disappear.

Academic Deans in Higher Education Institutions

For instance, a dean might be hired as a scholar leader charged with increasing faculty research productivity. Then several years later, a financial downturn threatens the college’s existence. On the one hand, the dean must model desired behavior by maintaining a research agenda, publishing work, and procuring research grants. On the other, he/she must become a fundraiser and political advocate. Although not mutually exclusive, these skill sets are not natural bedfellows. Very likely, this dean’s skills and mind set no longer match the needs of college. Time management, operational management, and leadership itself jolt the uninitiated. Mary Catherine Bateson once commented, “Being a new dean is like learning to ice skate in full view of your faculty.” And it’s true. Going it alone makes the ice slipperier and the falls more painful. Working harder does not necessarily improve time management but it does wear deans out faster. The results – high turnover, burn out, and low productivity – cost too much in terms of people, time, and money.

The Importance of Leadership A veteran dean described his job as part entrepreneur, part fundraiser, part marketer, part seasoned administrator. Indeed, change places deans in the position of managing tension between various factions of the institution and college while at the same time keeping the organization focused on its mission and goals. Success demands they build collaborative partnerships with their faculties, other administrators, and college stakeholders. Better deans do so by maintaining an academic mentality on the one hand and embracing a business orientation on the other. They look for creative ways to organize the work of the college. If budgets permit, a cadre of associate and assistant deans emerges to carry part of the load. A codeanship, where two or more faculty share an office and split the work and stipend, but speak with one voice, represents a more unconventional approach to managing and leading a college. Such an arrangement often

Academic Dishonesty

allows deans to continue pursuing their research agendas. The prime charge given to deans is to create college cultures conducive to collegiality and productivity. To do so successfully requires imagination, creativity, and stamina. Every situation in which deans find themselves requires leadership. The most effective deans balance leadership and management, slightly favoring leadership. They think broadly, foster creativity, and promote innovation. They communicate, and they do it often. They make the tough decisions but do so impartially. As one dean noted, “Almost nothing buys more good will than people knowing your going to be fair, objective, and evenhanded.” In essence, deans build communities of scholars, set their direction, and empower others to help fulfill their potential. Not a simple task, but one crucial to institutional well-being.

Author’s Note on Institution Type and Location and Available Resources I use the word institution as an inclusive term. Although the experiences of academic deans who serve in 2-year colleges, liberal arts colleges, technical institutes, comprehensive universities that do not offer doctoral programs, and research universities can differ, the majority of their responsibilities and the challenges they face are similar. The same caveat holds across countries. Even though priorities and organizational structures might vary, successfully navigating the terrain any academic dean treads requires familiarity with the entire array of tasks mentioned herein. For academic deans, no matter the institution type or country, the charge remains the same – facilitate faculty productivity and ensure student learning. Not a great deal of literature on academic deans exists. Much of what does tends toward personal, anecdotal accounts, or discipline-specific research studies (i.e., deans of schools of medicine or nursing). Further, very little international literature exists.

27

In an effort to provide resources for those interested in learning more about academic deans, I have included research-based studies as well as practice-based instructional tools.

References The following three books and one article offer practical guidance and information about what deans do and how they can work to be effective. Behling, L.L. 2014. The resource handbook for academic deans. 3rd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Buller, J.L. 2015. The essential academic dean or provost: A comprehensive desk reference. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. June, A. W. 2014. To change a campus, talk to the dean. The Chronicle of Higher Education, November 28, XLI(13), A18–A21. Krahenbuhl, G.S. 2004. Building the academic deanship: Strategies for success. Westport: ACE/Praeger Publishers. The three pieces listed below, two books and one article, report the results of the most comprehensive study of academic deans to date (over 1300 deans – education, business, liberal arts and science, and allied health – at 360, four-year USA institutions were surveyed with a 60% response rate. The study was replicated in Australia with similar results but not extensively reported. Montez, J., M. Wolverton, and W.H. Gmelch. 2003. The roles and challenges of the deanship. Review of Higher Education 26 (2): 243–268. Wolverton, M., and W.H. Gmelch. 2002. College deans: Leading from within. Phoenix: Oryx Press/Greenwood Publishing. Wolverton, M, Gmelch, W. H., Montez, J. & Nies, C. (2001). The changing nature of the academic deanship, ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report 28(1). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Academic Department, Institute ▶ Graduate Education Developments in an International Context

Academic Dishonesty ▶ Corruption in Higher Education

A

28

Academic Drift ▶ Institutional Drift in Higher Education

Academic Evaluation in Higher Education Julian Hamann1 and Stefan Beljean2 1 Forum Internationale Wissenschaft, Universität Bonn, Bonn, Germany 2 Department of Sociology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA

Synonyms Academic judgment; Assessment; Peer review

Definition Academic evaluation is a social process taking place in different arenas in which values, worths, virtues, or meanings are produced, diffused, assessed, legitimated, or institutionalized with respect to academic products and their producers.

Academic Drift

academic fields. Modern academic disciplines are fundamentally status economies. They revolve around the construction and stabilization of recognition via symbolic capital (Bourdieu 1988). Scholars produce knowledge in the pursuit of recognition from their peers, and recognition, in turn, is the basis for the construction of academic careers. Thus, as a process that ascribes worth, evaluation is also a boundary practice that negotiates, for example, disciplinary turfs, and signals which scholars and ideas are integrated into or excluded from a field (Gieryn 1983; Lamont and Molnár 2002). While the study of evaluation processes in academia has traditionally been the purview of the sociology of science (cf. Merton 1973), it is increasingly studied using analytical tools from the nascent field of the sociology of evaluation and valuation (Lamont 2012; Zuckerman 2012). In this article, we first map out the diversity of academic evaluations, before discussing different analytical perspectives that scholars have drawn on to study evaluation processes in academia. In a fourth section, we discuss scholarship that has pointed to variation in scholarly evaluations across disciplines. Lastly, we put to changes in the social organization of academic evaluation that are the result of recent changes in the governance of academic work as well as technological changes.

Introduction The world of academia is permeated with evaluations. Academic processes of evaluation play a central role in both the production and reception of scholarly work as well as for the status of academic entities like scholars, departments, or universities. Some of these evaluations are largely informal, taking place, for example, in smallgroup interactions. But there is also a wide array of evaluations in academia that are fairly formalized, such as letters of recommendation and peer reviews of journal manuscripts. Rankings of universities according to research performance are among the most standardized forms of evaluation. Evaluation has a central place in academia because of the crucial role recognition plays in

Academic Evaluation: A Variety of Practices and Arenas Academic evaluation aims at a variety of objects, it is accomplished through a multitude of practices, and it is performed by different actors. Considering this diversity, it is striking that we can identify a number of forms and arenas of evaluation that exist across communities and disciplines. All academic communities and disciplines are affected by higher education governance regimes that try to assess and audit the output of departments and universities in terms of research performance and societal impact (Martin 2011). Although this kind of evaluation is becoming increasingly influential in many countries, it is

Academic Evaluation in Higher Education

not typically the center of attention of scholarship on academic evaluation. We will discuss some of the effects of this systematic, policy-oriented evaluation toward the end of our article. But then of course, scholars are not only evaluated from the outside. Positioning discourses across all disciplines locate and anchor scholars in knowledgebased communities as well as in bureaucratic positions in institutions (Angermuller 2013), thereby straddling different logics of academic worlds. The ascription of values and worth in academia largely operates through peer review. This is evident across a number of different institutionalized arenas of evaluation. Among these arenas are, for example, funding panels. Not only do funding panels exist in all disciplines, often enough several disciplines are congregated in one panel. In order to evaluate proposals for fellowships and research grants (Lamont 2009), they rank submissions according to criteria of excellence, thus facing the challenge of agreeing on what criteria like “clarity,” “originality,” or “impact” actually mean (cf. Derrick and Samuel 2016). Furthermore, there are different arenas in which publications are evaluated. Before publication, editors assess manuscripts for their journals (cf. the overview by Meruane et al. 2016). Editorial judgments can be understood as a result of the intellectual milieus the editors are situated in, the impressions the editors gained by reading a manuscript, and the discussions in which they rationalize their judgments toward the editorial committee (Hirschauer 2010). After publication, editors judge articles in case of minor and major errors that need to be met with errata or retractions (Hesselmann et al. 2016), while book reviews provide a critical assessment of newly published books (Riley and Spreitzer 1970). They examine whether books contribute new knowledge to the field, thus providing an important source of orientation in the face of an everincreasing stock of academic publications (Nicolaisen 2002). Although funding and publications are vital resources in all communities and disciplines, evaluative practices and arenas go far beyond that. Appointments of professors, for example, are a consequential arena of academic evaluation where

29

national traditions (Musselin 2009) influence how different academic criteria like networks and publications (Combes et al. 2008) intertwine with various non-academic criteria like gender (van den Brink and Benschop 2012). Academic obituaries are another example for a widely neglected arena of evaluation that consecrates deceased colleagues and demonstrates the customary rules according to which academic life-time achievements are narrated and assessed (Hamann 2016a; Macfarlane and Chan 2014). Last but not least, processes of evaluation also play a crucial role in the very production of scholarly knowledge. While philosophers of science have developed varying accounts of how scientific knowledge is produced and evolves – whether describing an incremental progression toward objective knowledge (Popper 1972), a conservative authority that prevents change (Feyerabend 1975), or a mediator for interchanging stages of revolutionary and normal science (Kuhn 1962) – their theories all acknowledge that scientific inquiry is centrally dependent on the evaluation of epistemic claims. This notion of an intimate connection between evaluation and epistemology has also been confirmed and highlighted by science studies of actual scientific practices (Knorr Cetina 1999; Latour 1988).

Analytical Perspectives on Academic Evaluation Existing scholarship has examined academic evaluation from a number of analytical perspectives. These perspectives are far from distinct and mutually exclusive, but we want to suggest five tentative strands. First, academic evaluations can be examined from a functionalist perspective, focusing on how well evaluative procedures serve their purposes. Research using this perspective examines, among other things, the validity, reliability, and fairness of judgments (Armstrong 1997; Bornmann and Daniel 2005; Reinhart 2009) and studies possible biases (Cole et al. 1981; Roumbanis 2016). Power-analytical approaches complement functionalist approaches with a second perspective on academic evaluation. This

A

30

perspective focuses on dysfunctional effects in terms of structural inequalities like, for example, nepotism in peer review (Sandström and Hällsten 2008) or unequal opportunities of resource accumulation that follow from it (Hamann 2016b). The critical intention of this literature is shared by a third perspective that is concerned with the performativity of evaluations and evaluative devices. Scholarship using this analytical perspective has drawn attention to how journal peer review exerts discipline over scholarship (Siler and Strang 2016; Strang and Siler 2015; Teplitskiy 2016), how rankings trigger organizational change (Sauder and Espeland 2009), or how indicators incite strategic behavior or lead to goal displacement (see the overview in de Rijcke et al. 2015). Fourth, academic evaluations have been studied from a social-constructivist perspective, emphasizing that ideas and personas can be positioned and evaluated differently in various social and historical contexts (Angermuller 2015; Baert 2012). This has been illustrated for conceptions of merit and originality (Guetzkow et al. 2004; Tsay et al. 2003), for philosophical ideas (Collins 2000), or for thinkers like Jacques Derrida (Lamont 1987) and Richard Rorty (Gross 2008). Related to this, and fifth, there is a pragmatist perspective on academic evaluation that focuses on the practices reviewers perform to actually reach a consensus on, for example, “quality” (Hirschauer 2010; Lamont 2009). Pragmatist perspectives emphasize the situatedness of evaluative practices, highlighting that evaluations are accomplished in concrete contexts and interactions. However, academic communities and disciplines are also important explanatory factors for evaluative practices. This brings us to the next section.

Disciplinarity and Academic Evaluation While above we have discussed how most forms and arenas of academic evaluation are institutionalized across all disciplines, we want to emphasize in this section that the criteria of evaluation can differ substantially between and within scholarly communities. We will discuss, first,

Academic Evaluation in Higher Education

intradisciplinary aspects of evaluation criteria within disciplines; second, interdisciplinary aspects of evaluation criteria between disciplines; and third, transdisciplinary aspects of evaluation criteria across disciplines. To begin with, academic communities and disciplines vary on an intradisciplinary spectrum with respect to their internal diversity of evaluation criteria. Members of a discipline can widely agree on the core questions, methods, and theories, or they can be characterized by a plurality of notions of what is relevant, “good” research. Usually, this continuum spans from the natural sciences, where scholars share most evaluation criteria, over the less paradigmatic social sciences to the even less consensual humanities (Cole 1983; Evans et al. 2016). The degree to which disciplines share evaluation criteria has become a marker for their value. From Kuhn (1962), who remarkably equals paradigmatic closure with a discipline’s maturity, has evolved a powerful symbolic boundary that distinguishes “hard,” paradigmatic, and thus more “valuable” sciences from “soft,” pre-paradigmatic, and thus less “valuable” sciences (Peterson 2015; Smith et al. 2000). The paradigmaticness and scholarly consensus on evaluation criteria can, in turn, influence journal rejection rates (Hargens 1988). The diversity of interdisciplinary evaluation criteria, and especially their contestation between different communities and disciplines, has been studied for the social sciences and humanities. One important difference between the two disciplinary clusters is the value of subjectivity in the pursuit of knowledge. Humanists and those social scientists that are influenced by the cultural turn find subjectivity and interpretative skills to be vital for research that is “good” in terms of being, for example, “fascinating.” Many social scientists, especially in the quantitative strands, prefer validity and reliability in order to produce research that is “good” in terms of being “true” (Lamont 2009). This finding applies not only to the funding panels studied by Lamont but also, for example, to book reviews. Reviews in most humanities and social science disciplines have been found to be not only longer and more discursive than in the natural sciences but also to

Academic Evaluation in Higher Education

be critical of both content and style of argument e.g., by valuing the quality and detail of exposition over demonstration and proof (East 2011; Hyland 2004). Furthermore, interdisciplinary differences also become apparent in graduate school admission committees, where economists believe that excellence inheres in what is being evaluated, while philosophers see it as an ideal that reviewers socially construct (Posselt 2015). Transdisciplinary differences are illustrated, for example, by varying definitions of the evaluative criteria of “originality” between social sciences and humanities. Both disciplinary clusters employ a broad definition of “originality” that includes new perspectives, methods, questions, and arguments. But there are significant differences between the disciplinary clusters. In humanities and history, the most important aspect of originality is an innovative approach, while humanists also value original data. In comparison, social scientists privilege originality with respect to methods and also theories and research topics (Guetzkow et al. 2004). Arguably, intra-, inter-, and transdisciplinary differences are linked to distinct epistemological cultures (Knorr Cetina 1981), tribal affiliations and belongings (Becher and Trowler 2001), and disciplinary rhetoric (Bazerman 1981). Arenas of evaluation that have to deal with this pluralism illustrate not only the challenges that come with this but also strategies to overcome them. For instance, interdisciplinary panels do not merely draw on a combination of disciplinary criteria. Rather, hybrid criteria and standards emerge from practices and deliberations between evaluators (Lamont 2009). Transdisciplinary evaluation is characterized by respect for disciplinary sovereignty and deference to expertise. The respective arenas rely on trust between reviewers of different expertise that their respective judgments are unbiased and disinterested (Lamont et al. 2006). Procedures that are supposed to facilitate outcomes perceived as fair include either the application of the same set of general evaluation criteria to different, say, proposals (cf. Collins and Evans 2002) or the application of criteria that seem appropriate to each proposal in terms of being most relevant to the discipline from which the proposal emanates

31

(Mallard et al. 2009). In turn, an obstacle for fair judgments could be that evaluations also have a boundary function. Evaluators use their judgments to reproduce or redefine the boundaries of their respective fields (Posselt 2016). Evaluative practices that establish fair judgments are not only influenced by the disciplinary composition of panels. Other questions that have an influence include, for example, whether panelists rate or rank proposals or whether they have an advisory or a decisional role (Lamont and Huutoniemi 2011). Apart from the rather deliberative strategies described up to this point, there are also more comprehensive strategies to conceptualize and measure academic quality and research performance by drawing on quantitative techniques. These approaches are increasingly mindful of disciplinary differences. Nonetheless, since criteria for “good” research and publication practices vary markedly across communities and disciplines, quantitative techniques have been proven to be less appropriate – and less acknowledged – in the social sciences and humanities (Mustajoki 2013; Ochsner et al. 2016). For example, customary methods of research performance evaluation are not appropriate for the humanities (Moed et al. 2002; Nederhof 2006). Alternative metrics, based on data from the social web and designed to assess non-academic criteria like popularity or media impact, share these limitations (Hammarfelt 2014). While the academic literature on research quality and performance assessments is distinctly aware of these restrictions, higher education policies do not always share this insight. Most large-scale audits famously ignore and overlook disciplinary differences. We discuss their attempts of academic evaluation in the following section.

Recent Developments in the Organization of Academic Evaluation The linchpin of academic evaluation has long rested on the notion of academic autonomy and self-governance (Whitley 1984). According to this idea, the work of academics is first and foremost evaluated by other scholars. Thus, the

A

32

primary form of recognition that counts in the world of academia is peer recognition. This is echoed not only in the more classical literature from Popper to Bourdieu that we have cited throughout this contribution. The vital role of peer recognition is also reflected by the central role that peer review has in academic disciplines, whether it is deployed for the distribution of research grants, the allocation of journal space, or the determination of winners of scholarly prizes and awards. In the last 10–20 years, however, there has been a series of developments that have weakened the relative autonomy of academic fields and that have added new dominant evaluative procedures and institutions. The most important factor contributing to this trend has probably been the rise of new public management, changing how higher education and its members are governed in many countries across the globe. The main thrust of this new form of governance has been to reduce government funding and introduce more market-like competition in higher education (e.g., for the case of the United Kingdom, see Deem et al. 2008). Additionally, new public management initiatives have also sought to increase the accountability of universities and its members (Strathern 2000). These developments have gone hand in hand with a stronger emphasis on external standards of evaluation in the assessment of scholarly work. One important example is the rise of rankings of academic departments and entire universities, promoted by both media corporations and government agencies (Collins and Park 2016; Espeland and Sauder 2016; Hazelkorn 2014). Another central concomitant has been the growing reliance on quantitative indicators to measure and track scholarly productivity and quality (Burrows 2012; de Rijcke et al. 2015). Taking the form of bibliometrics and citation indexes, these indicators have rapidly diffused into the scientific community, particularly the natural sciences, in part due to changes in the capability of information technology. Research shows that the growing reliance on such indicators has had a host of feedback effects on the content and organization of scholarship (Fochler et al. 2016; Hamann 2016b). While many scholars have been very critical of

Academic Evaluation in Higher Education

indicators, arguing that they render academic evaluation more mechanical and numerical (Lorenz 2012), new evaluative procedures and institutions seem to have become an established part of the wide range of academic evaluations.

Cross-References ▶ Admissions Processes to Higher Education, International Insights ▶ Evaluative State, Higher Education, The ▶ Peer Review, Higher Education ▶ Performance Indicators in Higher Education ▶ Recruitment of Academics ▶ Values and Beliefs in Higher Education

References Angermuller, Johannes. 2013. How to become an academic philosopher. Academic discourse as multileveled positioning practice. Sociología Histórica 2013: 263–289. Angermuller, Johannes. 2015. The moment of theory. The rise and decline of structuralism in France and beyond. London: Continuum. Armstrong, J. Scott. 1997. Peer review for journals: Evidence on quality control, fairness, and innovation. Science and Engineering Ethics 3: 63–84. Baert, Patrick. 2012. Positioning theory and intellectual interventions. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 42: 304–324. Bazerman, Charles. 1981. What written knowledge does: Three examples of academic discourse. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 11: 361–388. Becher, Tony, and Paul Trowler. 2001. Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Philadelphia: Open University Press. Bornmann, Lutz, and Hans-Dieter Daniel. 2005. Selection of research fellowship recipients by committee peer review: Analysis of reliability, fairness and predictive validity of Board of Trustees’ decisions. Scientometrics 63: 297–320. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1988. Homo Academicus. Cambridge: Polity Press. van den Brink, Marieke, and Yvonne Benschop. 2012. Gender practices in the construction of academic excellence: Sheep with five legs. Organization 19: 507–524. Burrows, Roger. 2012. Living with the h-index? Metric assemblages in the contemporary academy. The Sociological Review 60: 355–372. Cole, Stephen. 1983. The hierarchy of the sciences? American Journal of Sociology 89: 111–139.

Academic Evaluation in Higher Education Cole, Stephen, Jonathan R. Cole, and Gary A. Simon. 1981. Chance and consensus in peer review. Science 214: 881–886. Collins, Randall. 2000. The sociology of philosophies: A global theory of intellectual change. Harvard: Harvard University Press. Collins, Harry H., and Robert Evans. 2002. The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science 32: 235–296. Collins, Francis L., and Gil-Sung Park. 2016. Ranking and the multiplication of reputation: Reflections from the frontier of globalizing higher education. Higher Education 72: 115–129. Combes, Pierre-Philippe, Laurent Linnemer, and Michael Visser. 2008. Publish or peer-rich? The role of skills and networks in hiring economics professors. Labour Economics 15: 423–441. Deem, Rosemary, Sam Hillyard, and Mike Reed. 2008. Knowledge, higher education, and the new managerialism: The changing management of UK universities. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Derrick, Gemma E., and Gabrielle N. Samuel. 2016. The evaluation scale: Exploring decisions about societal impact in peer review panels. Minerva 54: 75–97. East, John W. 2011. The scholarly book review in the humanities. An academic cinderella? Journal of Scholarly Publishing 43: 52–67. Espeland, Wendy N., and Michael Sauder. 2016. Engines of anxiety. Rankings, reputation, and accountability in a quantified world. New York: Russel Sage Foundation. Evans, Eliza D., Charles J. Gomez, and Daniel A. McFarland. 2016. Measuring paradigmaticness of disciplines using text. Sociological Science 2016: 757–778. Feyerabend, Paul. 1975. Against method: Outline of an anarchist theory of knowledge. New York: New Left Books. Fochler, Maximilian, Ulrike Felt, and Ruth Müller. 2016. Unsustainable growth, hyper-competition, and worth in life science research: Narrowing evaluative repertoires in doctoral and postdoctoral scientists’ work and lives. Minerva 54: 175–200. Gieryn, Thomas F. 1983. Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review 48: 781–795. Gross, Neil. 2008. Richard Rorty: The making of an American philosopher. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Guetzkow, Joshua, Michèle Lamont, and Grégoire Mallard. 2004. What is originality in the humanities and the social sciences? American Sociological Review 69: 190–212. Hamann, Julian. 2016a. ‘Let us salute one of our kind’. How academic obituaries consecrate research biographies. Poetics 56: 1–14. Hamann, Julian. 2016b. The visible hand of research performance assessment. Higher Education 72: 761–779. Hammarfelt, Björn. 2014. Using altmetrics for assessing research impact in the humanities. Scientometrics 101: 1419–1430.

33 Hargens, Lowell L. 1988. Scholarly consensus and journal rejection rates. American Sociological Review 53: 139–151. Hazelkorn, Ellen. 2014. Rankings and the global reputation race. New Directions for Higher Education 2014: 13–26. Hesselmann, Felicitas, Verena Graf, Marion Schmidt, and Martin Reinhart. 2016. The visibility of scientific misconduct: A review of the literature on retracted journal articles. Current Sociology online first: 1–32. Hirschauer, Stefan. 2010. Editorial judgements: A praxeology of ‘voting’ in peer review. Social Studies of Science 40: 71–103. Hyland, Ken. 2004. Disciplinary discourses. Social interactions in academic writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Knorr Cetina, Karin. 1981. The manufacture of knowledge. An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Knorr Cetina, Karin. 1999. Epistemic cultures. How the sciences make knowledge. Harvard: Harvard University Press. Kuhn, Thomas S. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lamont, Michèle. 1987. How to become a dominant French philosopher: The case of Jacques Derrida. The American Journal of Sociology 93: 584–622. Lamont, Michèle. 2009. How professors think. Inside the curious world of academic judgement. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Lamont, Michèle. 2012. Toward a comparative sociology of valuation and evaluation. Annual Review of Sociology 38: 201–221. Lamont, Michèle, and Katri Huutoniemi. 2011. Comparing customary rules of fairness: Evaluative practices in various types of peer review panels. In Social knowledge in the making, ed. Charles Camic, Neil Gross, and Michèle Lamont, 209–232. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lamont, Michèle, and Virág Molnár. 2002. The study of boundaries in the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology 28: 167–195. Lamont, Michèle, Grégoire Mallard, and Joshua Guetzkow. 2006. Beyond blind faith: Overcoming the obstacles to interdisciplinary evaluation. Research Evaluation 15: 43–55. Latour, Bruno. 1988. Science in action. How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Harvard: Harvard University Press. Lorenz, Chris. 2012. If you’re so smart, why are you under surveillance? Universities, neoliberalism, and new public management. Critical Inquiry 38: 599–629. Macfarlane, Bruce, and Roy Y. Chan. 2014. The last judgement: Exploring intellectual leadership in higher education through academic obituaries. Studies in Higher Education 39: 294–306. Mallard, Grégoire, Michèle Lamont, and Joshua Guetzkow. 2009. Fairness as appropriateness: Negotiating epistemological differences in peer review. Science, Technology, and Human Values 34: 573–606.

A

34 Martin, Ben R. 2011. The research excellence framework and the ‘impact agenda’: Are we creating a Frankenstein monster? Research Evaluation 20: 247–254. Merton, Robert K. 1973. The sociology of science. Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Meruane, Omar Sabaj, Carlos Gonzáles Vergara, and Álvaro Pina-Stranger. 2016. What we still don’t know about peer review. Journal of Scholarly Publishing 47: 180–212. Moed, Henk F., Marc Luwel, and Anton J. Nederhof. 2002. Towards research performance in the humanities. Library Trends 50: 498–520. Musselin, Christine. 2009. The market for academics. New York: Routledge. Mustajoki, Arto. 2013. Measuring excellence in social sciences and humanities: Limitations and opportunities. In Global university rankings. Challenges for European higher education, ed. Tero Erkkilä, 147–165. Houndmills: Palgrave MacMillan. Nederhof, Anton J. 2006. Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the social sciences and the humanities: A review. Scientometrics 66: 81–100. Nicolaisen, Jeppe. 2002. The scholarliness of published peer reviews: A bibliometric study of book reviews in selected social science fields. Research Evaluation 11: 129–140. Ochsner, Michael, Sven E. Hug, and Hans-Dieter Daniel, eds. 2016. Research assessment in the humanities. Towards criteria and procedures. Dordrecht: Springer. Peterson, David. 2015. All that is solid. Bench-building at the frontiers of two experimental sciences. American Sociological Review 80: 1201–1225. Popper, Karl R. 1972. Objective knowledge. An evolutionary approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Posselt, Julie R. 2015. Disciplinary logics in doctoral admissions: Understanding patterns of faculty evaluation. The Journal of Higher Education 86: 807–833. Posselt, Julie R. 2016. Inside graduate admissions. Merit, diversity, and faculty gatekeeping. Harvard: Harvard University Press. Reinhart, Martin. 2009. Peer review of grant applications in biology and medicine: Reliability, fairness, and validity. Scientometrics 81: 789–909. de Rijcke, Sarah, Paul Wouters, Alex D. Rushforth, Thomas P. Franssen, and Björn Hammarfelt. 2015. Evaluation practices and effects of indicator use – A literature review. Research Evaluation 25: 161–169. Riley, Lawrence E., and Elmer A. Spreitzer. 1970. Book reviewing in the social sciences. The American Sociologist 5: 358–363. Roumbanis, Lambros. 2016. Academic judgments under uncertainty: A study of collective anchoring effects in Swedish Research Council panel groups. Social Studies of Science, online first. Sandström, Ulf, and Martin Hällsten. 2008. Persistent nepotism in peer-review. Scientometrics 74: 175–189.

Academic Excellence Tables Sauder, Michael, and Wendy N. Espeland. 2009. The Discipline of rankings: Tight coupling and organizational change. American Sociological Review 74: 63–82. Siler, Kyle, and David Strang. 2016. Peer review and scholarly originality. Let 1,000 flowers bloom, but don’t step on any. Science, Technology, and Human Values 42: 29–61. Smith, Laurence D., Lisa A. Best, Alan D. Stubbs, John Johnston, and Andrea B. Archibald. 2000. Scientific graphs and the hierarchy of the sciences: A Latourian survey of inscription practices. Social Studies of Science 30: 73–94. Strang, David, and Kyle Siler. 2015. Revising as reframing. Original submissions versus published papers in administrative science quarterly, 2005 to 2009. Sociological Theory 33: 71–96. Strathern, Marilyn. 2000. The tyranny of transparency. British Educational Research Journal 26: 309–321. Teplitskiy, Misha. 2016. Frame search and re-search: How quantitative sociological articles change during peer review. The American Sociologist 47: 264–288. Tsay, Angela, Michèle Lamont, Andrew Abbott, and Joshua Guetzkow. 2003. From character to intellect: Changing conceptions of merit in the social sciences and humanities, 1951–1971. Poetics 2003: 23–49. Whitley, Richard D. 1984. The intellectual and social organization of the sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Zuckerman, Ezra W. 2012. Construction, concentration, and (dis)continuities in social valuations. Annual Review of Sociology 38: 223–245.

Academic Excellence Tables ▶ University Rankings, National and International Dynamics

Academic Freedom ▶ Academic Identity in Higher Education

Academic Goals ▶ Learning Outcomes in European Higher Education

Academic Identity in Higher Education

Academic Identity in Higher Education Jonathan Drennan1, Marie Clarke2, Abbey Hyde2 and Yurgos Politis2 1 University College Cork, Cork, Ireland 2 University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

General Definition Traditionally associated with academic freedom, academic identity is today defined as lying at the crossroad of individual life course experiences and higher education specific contexts, and thus as an increasingly plural identity.

Synonyms Academic freedom; Academic professional development, socialization, education; Academic roles

Defining Academic Identity Definitions of academic identity in higher education are limited with a relative paucity of research in this area (Clarke et al. 2014). Those definitions that do exist tend to explore concepts related to professional identity in general rather than exploring academic identity in higher education. For example, Sachs (2001: 153) states that professional identity refers to “a set of externally ascribed attributes that are used to differentiate one group from another. . . It provides a shared set of attributes, values and so on so that enable the differentiation of one group from another.” In a review of the literature, Trede et al. (2012) identified a number of terms associated with academic and professional identity in higher education including: professional development, professional socialization, professional education, professional formation, and professional learning.

35

When exploring academic identity in particular, there are a number of core concepts that emerge, including: collegiality, academic freedom, autonomy, professional self-regulation, values, and behavioral patterns (Clegg 2008; Winter 2009). However, there is a sense that many of these core concepts are evolving, changing, and, in some cases, being eroded from the discourse around academic identities due to the increasing scrutiny of the role and function of academics in today’s higher education system (Billot 2010; Clancy 2015). In particular, academic freedom as a core concept of academic identity has, it is argued, become increasingly eroded as organizational and governmental economic priorities predominate (Billot 2010). However, as academic roles continue to change, evolve, and expand, the question of academic identity is more to the fore than ever before especially in the context of continual change and the centrality of competitiveness within the higher education sector. In addition, a recent definition of identity in higher education conceptualizes the complexity of contexts which lead to the development of an academic identity and defines it as: A dynamic construct, as one’s individual identity emerges from a personal, ethnic and national context, but it is also socially constructed over time . . . In the context of academe, the individual develops their sense of ‘academic self’ through their imaginings of what comprises ‘the academic’, their past experiences and their understanding of the current circumstances (Billot 2010: 4).

The Context of Academic Identity To understand academic identity there is a need to discuss the rapid changes and complexity that exists in higher education systems, including the rapid growth from elite to universal participation in higher education, the changing profile of students (age, social group, income), changes in the working conditions of academics (short-term contracts, career pathways, promotional opportunities), the evolvement of the modular curriculum, the increasing vocationalism of academic

A

36

Academic Identity in Higher Education

programs, and the impact of managerialism on academic lives and work (Nixon 1996; Henkel 2005; Clegg, 2008; Winter 2009; Clarke et al. 2014). As higher education is increasingly viewed by governments as being more and more important to the economic growth of society, academics are increasingly being forced to reconfigure their roles and identity and as Henkel (2005: 195) states: There were strong pressures on academic communities and institutions not only to change their cultures and structures to enable them to manage the new policy environment but also to review their assumptions about roles, relationships and boundaries in that environment.

At the macro level, it is increasingly being argued that policies set by national governments, not least the setting of research priorities for the achievement of economic goals, has reduced the strength of academic autonomy and resulted in the need to develop programs of “applied” rather than “basic” research with income generation becoming a principal driving force behind research outputs (Henkel 2005). In addition, academics are increasingly evaluated in terms of outputs and performance; tenure, promotion, and pay progression are becoming dependent on the successful achievement of these outcomes (Lamont and Nordberg 2014). Although referring to the teaching profession, Sachs (2001: 151) outlines many parallel with higher education educators and researchers where the influence of state mandated goals is leading to the development and increasing influence of “managerial professionalism.” Managerial professionalism results in the requirement that academics are accountable and are required to develop an economic outlook in terms of their work; this is viewed as a new managerialism approach to academic work. New managerialism equates to the axiom: that which works in the private sector should also work in the public sector (Sachs 2001; Whitchurch and Gordon 2010). This is evident in the changing role of head of school or dean which has moved from one of being a senior colleague to one where the integration of managerial and market principles in their work predominate (Sachs 2001). The impact of

new managerialism in higher education has led to a restructuring and realignment of the professional identify of academics within the system. Winter (2009: 121) writes that this new managerialism has led to an “identity schism” between academic managers and the managed, which results in an incompatibility between the goals of each group. This identity schism, Winter argues, is portrayed in managers highlighting the centrality of commercialization, income generation, and productivity whereas academics identify with the importance of collegiality, research, and education. The introduction of managerialism, it is claimed, has also resulted in the increased control of academic work, a shifting of power from the academic to the manager, and a clear delineation of management and academic activities (Whitchurch and Gordon 2010). There is also continuing tension between the notion of academic freedom and economic pressures instigated by the higher education organization; this can be seen, as Billot (2010) highlights, in academics’ emphasis on student learning as opposed to the organization’s stress on student numbers. There is common ground in stating that higher education is in crisis, and this crisis affects the central actors in the system: the academic profession (Nixon 1996). This crisis has impacted on the working conditions of academics and the ever evolving roles and professionalization of academic work has led the profession to not only change its identity but to fundamentally question it. This questioning has led to a vulnerability of the position of academics not only in respect of tenure but also the role of academics in wider society; this is occurring in the context of public confidence rapidly declining in the traditional stalwarts of society such as politics, the church, banking, and the judiciary to name but a few. The result of these challenges is that a new set of professional and academic values and identities are emerging. While it is argued that academics can still largely control their work (teaching and research), control is increasingly becoming diminished in terms of student recruitment and research topics, which are increasingly being determined by the state and the market (Nixon 1996).

Academic Identity in Higher Education

The Development of Academic Identity The development of an academic identity is an iterative process where identity in higher education develops as a consequence of an academic’s interaction with their environment; in effect, “identity is not a fixed attribute of a person, but a relational phenomenon” (Beijaard et al. 2004: 108). Therefore, the mercurial nature of academic identities is “an on-going process of identity construction and deconstruction” due to the complexity of roles and the intellectual nature of academic work (Fitzmaurice 2013: 614). The development of academic identity is influenced by a multitude of factors, including: “personal attributes, early socialisation experiences, and contextual factors at both doctoral and initial career level” (Clarke et al. 2014; 18). It has been argued, however, that whatever academic identity existed has now been eroded due to the introduction of short-term contracts, the pressure to monetize academic outputs, the increasing influence of higher education professionals (HEPROs – management roles held in the university, usually, by nonacademics), and a loss of self-regulation. These pressures in turn have, it is argued, resulted in an undermining and loss of academic autonomy and status (Nixon 1996; Clegg 2008). In addition, the increasing influence of HEPROS has led to minimizing of the roles of academics as this cohort take over and professionalize roles previously in the domain of academics such as academic administration, educational technology, research support, and commercialization. These new roles are impacting on the traditional identities of academic staff related to teaching and research; however, even here there are tensions. Furthermore, values related to academic identity have changed considerably over the last 20 years, where, it is argued, that these traditional principles, such as academic freedom, no longer apply (Harris 2005), are under threat (Henkel 2005), and the professoriate has, if anything, become deskilled (Cote and Allahar 2007). This is seen in the extent to which marketization and monetization in particular have resulted in a reframing of academic identities due the corporate identity of the institution superseding the academic identity of the individual

37

with claims that there is increasing blurring between these two identities (Harris 2005). Consumerism, marketization, student massification, and internationalization are themes that arise when discussing academic identity; the emerging consensus is that these pressures are fundamentally altering the identity of academics. The internationalization of the higher education sector has no doubt added benefits to the sector in terms of cultural development and understanding; however, this has not been without challenges not least in terms of realigning teaching and research strategies, increased international travel, overseas campuses, and international student recruitment; all factors that impact on traditional views of academic identity (Harris 2005). The identity of the academics has also been impacted upon by the rise of the evaluative state (Clancy 2015); this has resulted in increasing scrutiny and regulation of the work of academics leading to a loss of autonomy and academic freedom, previously the cornerstones of academic identity (Harris 2005). In the UK, these are evidenced in the centrality of Research Excellence Framework (REF) in the life of academics. However, the extent to which research evaluative policies have impacted on academic identity is, it is argued, debateable (Harris 2005).

Academic Identity Academic identity begins to develop as the individual transitions and is inducted into the academy; this process is influenced by both disciplinary and institutional factors (Billot and King 2017). The development of academic identity within a discipline is viewed as a process of “reconciliation” and “negotiation” (Gardner and Wiley 2016) where group norms and dynamics are developed through participation. This process involves “developing the knowledge, skills and values of the group, community or profession that one is participating in which are common to other members of the same group or community, but likely to be different to the knowledge, skills, and values of other groups/communities” (Gardner and Wiley 2016: 4). Although the development

A

38

of academic identity is primarily influenced by an academic’s discipline or subject, there are other factors including professional networks, research focus, faculty structure, and the extent to which academics view their roles as predominantly one of education or research (Clarke et al. 2014). There are a number of discourses that surround the types of academic identity that are evident among higher education staff. Central to the debate are the identities that relate to the academic as a teacher or the academic as a researcher. However, it is evident that these roles, to an extent, have become dichotomized with a premium value accorded to being a researcher; this has resulted in the eroding of the identity of the academic as a teacher. Nixon (1996: 8) argues that there is not a singular professional identity in academia but a “plurality of occupations,” which is characterized by academics whose roles are defined by “task”; this plurality results in academics with job uncertainty, resulting in short-term contracts for those who predominantly teach compared those who predominantly do research and work with graduate students resulting in the perception of having a higher status within the organization. In effect, there has been a division between academic teaching identity and academic research identity. Nixon (1996) underlines that academic identity as a teacher is rarely acknowledged with institutional awards such as pay and promotion reflecting success in research rather than education. This increasing dichotomy between teaching and research is leading to tensions in identity among increasingly partitioned groups. In contrast, it is argued that dichotomizing academic identity into either teaching and/or research does not take into account the increasing complexity of academic roles in the twenty-first century. Clarke et al. (2014) highlights this complexity and highlights that academic identity increasingly will be formed by working across boundaries that incorporate internal and external relationships as well as comprising both professional and academic domains. Advancing this argument, it is more likely that there will not be one or two types of academic identity but a multitude of disciplinary and institutional focused identities. This will be particularly seen in the emergence of nontraditional discipline focused

Academic Identity in Higher Education

educational programs; academics working in this space will develop “hybridized identities” (Clegg 2008: 341) as identity adjusts to meet new ways of working. In addition, the “ivory tower” of academia is becoming less obvious as boundaries between the university and government, the private sector, and the professions become less demarcated; this is resulting in greater movement in and out of the higher education sector and, as a consequence, new identities are emerging as ideas and processes are carried from non-university and university institutions and vice versa (Whitchurch and Gordon 2010). Furthermore, the process of being an academic is infused by multiple roles and, as Clegg (2008: 340) highlights, “academic identity is complex and . . . cannot . . . be read off from descriptions of mainly teaching, research, or management roles.” The fracturing of traditional academic identities has resulted in not only a diversity of academic roles between institutions but also a range of identities within organizations; as Harris (2005) points out, the discourse of targets, income, and outputs are ingrained in the daily life of academics. These roles lead to conflict between the values and beliefs of academics and the evaluative and monitoring requirements of the institution, especially when economic matters of the university take precedence. Harris (2005: 426) describes this as a tension between corporate identity and academic identity and states: “identities are influenced by individual values and beliefs as well as by institutional culture and positioning.” The role of academics in enhancing the corporate identity of the university has also led to considerable change in academic identity, not least in relation to the oft derided but carefully scrutinized and reported national and international higher education league tables. There are particular challenges in negotiating academic identity for early career academics. For newer academics, developing professional identity can be impacted upon through struggling with the demands of developing a profile in teaching and research. Billot and King (2017) found that these struggles could emanate from the variability in support received by new academics from more experienced colleagues. Where support and mentoring was forthcoming, it was found to

Academic Identity in Higher Education

“increase the sense of a collective research community”; however, this required a “cultural shift” in thinking with newer academic needs given priority to enable them to develop their teaching and research capabilities (p. 618). Newer academics are increasingly faced with casual contracts and uncertainty of long-term employment; the consequence of this is the inability to establish their identity in higher education and a lack of structure around their career pathway. Billot and King (2017: 619) argued that ineffective induction processes for academics beginning their research career pathway led to a “sense of isolation” and a “lack of confidence,” which negatively impacted on the development of an academic identity. They further argued that relationships with other experienced academics, in particular through mentoring, provides the early career academic with a place in the organization, and this helps them understand what it means to be an academic.

Conclusion In exploring academic identity in the twenty-first century, there is not just one identity but many which intersect, are temporary, and changing. Whitchurch and Gordon (2010) argue that the idea of fixed identities, for example, an identity related to either research or teaching, does not “do justice to the diversity and complexity of contemporary identities in higher education.” This is seen in the “separation and fragmentation of functions” that were once in the domain of academics and have necessitated the handing over to new roles and the diversification of roles and functions: Within a single institution, therefore, there may exist individuals who see themselves as having different academic or professional identities, and different concepts of, for instance, academic autonomy, what constitutes applied research, relationships with students and teaching methods (Whitchurch and Gordon 2010).

Furthermore, the complexity of academic identity goes beyond the roles and responsibilities outlined in academic job descriptions (Whitchurch 2009); what is occurring is a move away from fixed identities to the development of a

39

“fluid identity” as academics cope with the continuous levels of complexity occurring in the higher education sector (Billot 2010). As Clegg (2008: 343) concluded: “rather than being under threat, it appears that identities in academia are expanding and proliferating.” Universities have a unique role in society and within these unique institutions academic identity is continuously evolving under both institutional and societal pressures. These pressures are multifaceted and are leading to a reframing of academic identity from the traditional dichotomous view of an academic as a researcher or educator to an identity which is fluid and evolving as new roles, disciplines, and ways of working emerge. There are a number of reasons why these reformed identities are emerging, not least due to the impact of new managerialism on ways of working and the impact of globalization, the move to student universality and the blurring of roles within the university sector. These new identities are complex, varied, and are continuing to emerge; however, these identities are being derived through the broad scope of scholarship and the development of connections and partnerships within, between, and without higher education. This reframing of identity can lead to tensions, contested spaces, and can result in identity conflict especially for early career academics and those in new disciplines. However, the now fluid nature of academic identity reflects the reality of academic lives and the extent to which academic work is reflective of the constant change in society.

References Beijaard, D., P. Meijer, and N. Verloop. 2004. Reconsidering research on teachers professional identity. Teaching and Teacher Education 20: 107–128. Billot, J. 2010. The imagined and the real: Identifying the tensions for academic identity. Higher Education Research & Development 29 (6): 709–721. Billot, J., and V. King. 2017. The missing measure? Academic identity and the induction process, Higher Education Research & Development 36 (3): 612–624. Clancy, P. 2015. Irish higher education: A comparative perspective. Dublin: IPA. Clarke, M., J. Drennan, A. Hyde, and Y. Politis. 2014. Academics’ perceptions of their professional contexts. In Academic work and careers in

A

40 Europe, ed. T. Fumasoli, G. Goastellec, and B. Kehm. London: Springer. Clegg, S. 2008. Academic identities under threat? British Educational Research Journal 34 (3): 329–345. Cote, J., and A. Allahar. 2007. Ivory tower blues: A university system in crisis. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Fitzmaurice, M. 2013. Constructing professional identity as a new academic: A moral endeavour. Studies in Higher Education 38 (4): 613–622. Gardner, A., and K. Willey. 2016. Academic identity reconstruction: The transition of engineering academics to engineering education researchers. Studies in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 03075079.2016.1162779. Harris, S. 2005. Rethinking academic identities in neoliberal times. Teaching in Higher Education 10 (4): 421–433. Henkel, M. 2005. Academic identity and autonomy in a changing policy environment. Higher Education 49: 155–176. Lamont, C., and D. Nordberg 2014. Becoming or unbecoming: Contested academic identities. Paper presented at the 28th Annual British Academy of Management Conference (BAM2014), Belfast, Northern Ireland. Retrieved from http://eprints.bournemouth. ac.uk/21215/1/Becoming_or_unbecoming_BAM_full. pdf. Nixon, J. 1996. Professional identity and the restructuring of higher education. Studies in Higher Education 21 (1): 5–16. Sachs, J. 2001. Teacher professional identity: Competing discourses, competing outcomes. Journal of Education Policy 16 (2): 149–161. Trede, F., R. Macklin, and D. Bridges. 2012. Professional identity development: A review of the higher education literature. Studies in Higher Education 37 (3): 365–384. Winter, R. 2009. Academic manager or managed academic? Academic identity schisms in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 31 (2): 121–131. Whitchurch, C. 2009. Progressing professional careers in UK higher education. Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education 13 (1): 3–10. Whitchurch, C., and G. Gordon. 2010. Diversifying academic and professional identities in higher education: Some management challenges. Tertiary Education and Management 16 (2): 129–144.

Academic Judgment

Academic Market Internationalization ▶ Internationalization of Higher Research and Careers, Europe

Education

Academic Migration ▶ International Academic Mobility in Asia

Academic Misconduct ▶ Corruption in Higher Education

Academic Mobility in Canada, the United States, and Mexico ▶ Internationalization of Higher Education Research and Careers in North America

Academic Mobility, Inequities in Opportunity and Experience Santiago Castiello1 and Jenny Lee2 1 College of Education – Department of Educational Policy Studies and Practice, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA 2 Department of Educational Policy Studies and Practice, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA

Synonyms

Academic Judgment ▶ Academic Evaluation in Higher Education

Globalization; Inequality; International students; Internationalization; Study abroad

Academic Mobility, Inequities in Opportunity and Experience

Definition In this chapter, “academic mobility” specifically refers to international study abroad. While “academic mobility” can encompass a broader range of international education activities and include faculty and staff, the focus of this chapter utilizes a more narrow definition to briefly exemplify ways that international higher education is not equal or neutral. Internationalization is not neutral. While the stated intentions about internationalization tend to incorporate values toward promoting goodwill for all, such as developing global citizenship and building diplomacy, the realities in an unequal world can be very different. The most common form of internationalization in higher education involves student mobility. In this chapter, we will address three key questions: How is the world “unequal” in terms of academic mobility? How is this a problem? What can/should we do about it?

An Unequal World for Academic Mobility There is currently a major imbalance in international student flows. In 2013, the number of international students enrolled in tertiary education in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries was, on average, three times the number of students from OECD countries studying abroad (OECD 2014). Over half of all the world’s internationally mobile students are enrolled in just a few countries; the USA, the UK, Australia, Canada, France, Germany, and Japan, together receive more than 50% of all international students worldwide (OECD 2014). Asia alone contributes over 50% of all internationally mobile students (OECD 2014). The reasons for these imbalances vary. For example, at the national level, some countries, such as the USA and the UK, view internationalization as an opportunity to recruit students from a much wider market who can contribute economically and scientifically to the host country (Cantwell and

41

Lee 2010); for others, such as South Africa, attracting international students is a way to build national capacity and further regional development (Lee and Sehoole 2015). Some countries, like Australia, even rely on educational services as a priority export (Department of Education and Training 2015). In short, the global patterns of mobility have become very unbalanced in the past decades, with degree-seeking students moving from south to north, from east to west, and from peripheries to centers (Altbach 2016; Cantwell et al. 2009; Lee and Sehoole 2015; Macready and Tucker 2011). But even within a same country, internationalization perspectives and practice can be quite stratified across institutions. For some, especially national and public research universities, internationalization is a strategy for positioning as national or regional leaders (Castiello et al. 2016). For these and other institutions, international student enrollment is a major revenue generation activity. This motivation is further evidenced by the results of the International Association of Universities’ 4th global survey in which institutions surveyed in North America identified as one of the top three priority internationalization activities: “recruiting fee paying international undergraduates” (Egron-Polak and Hudson 2014). The phenomenon is evidenced elsewhere, particularly among places that have or are experiencing a disinvestment in public funding. Lastly, at the individual level, the reasons for students to embark on an academic endeavor abroad might differ widely, from political reasons, such as seeking temporary asylum (Lee and Sehoole 2015), to social benefits, like the desire to study abroad for the “lure of life” that exists among the privileged classes (Altbach 2004, p. 21). Due to the added costs of study abroad compared to staying at home, those who participate in at least short-term study abroad tend to have higher incomes than those who do not. There is also evidence that even within the same country, students from the Global North tend to study short-term in the Global South and for reasons related to culture and vacation, while those within

A

42

Academic Mobility, Inequities in Opportunity and Experience

the Global South tend to study abroad (both in the Global North and the Global South) full-time for reasons related to their degree attainment (Cantwell et al. 2009; Lee and Sehoole 2015). Put another way, internationalization can be a pastime for some and a primary means of social mobility for others. Ultimately, there are inequalities in the opportunities and experiences of academic endeavors abroad depending on individual, institutional, national/regional differences of those involved.

How Is This a Problem? Unequal mobility is problematic for several reasons. Among the most commonly discussed challenges there is brain drain, which stagnates national development, making countries less productive and less competitive with the exodus abroad of top talent. But brain drain becomes even more problematic when misalignment arises between national and institutional priorities. On one hand, governments and researchers refer to brain drain as a major risk for middle and lower income countries (Didou Aupetit 2013; HolmNielsen et al. 2005; Egron-Polak and Hudson 2014). On the other hand, higher education institutions seek the prestige of having alumni working or pursuing higher degrees abroad with hopes that this will open doors for further collaborations. When there are divergent goals for the actors involved, solutions become more complex. Both higher education in general and the internationalization of higher education in particular are typically grounded in (or at least aspire to) the pursuit of a greater common good, in the advancement towards a better society (Marginson 2016). Yet, and perhaps more troubling than the past points, is the fact that current internationalization strategies seem to be perpetuating and even increasing the economic and social inequalities that already exist, not only between the so-called global north and global south, but in widening the inequality gap that is characteristic within developing economies (Altbach et al. 2009). A “Matthew Effect” (Merton 1973) occurs that exacerbates financial and prestige disparities in

favor of already wealthy and prestigious institutions. By enrolling so many full-tuition, selffunded students from abroad, rich universities get richer while governments around the world are defunding higher education (Johnstone 2004, 2006). Likewise, by enrolling more international students, institutions are becoming more selective when admitting their local students, thus increasing their rankings positions (Ehrenberg 2003). The added brain gain further secures wellresourced universities in their privileged positions among international rankings that value scientific production, like the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) (Yudkevich et al. 2016). However, these inequalities are not exclusive to high income countries; they are also present among lower income countries. Data have shown a considerable increase in the number of students from middle and lower income countries who are seeking semester long programs or graduate degrees abroad. But, who is benefiting from this increased enrollment? Are marginalized and underserved students within their home country partaking in internationalization or is it a luxury for the most affluent students? As captured in a recent article about internationalization in Latin America with a quote from a senior international officer at a Mexican institution: “We have two groups of students: one that can afford it [studying abroad] and one that can’t; we are creating inequality [emphasis added]” (Berry and Taylor 2014, p. 597). Are institutions aware of their role and responsibility in the stratification that internationalization of the elites can create in a sometimes already stratified system? Another problem that comes with an unequal and exponential flow of students and scholars from and to certain specific regions is xenophobia. Numerous studies have documented the problems of neo-racism and neo-nationalism discrimination in countries around the world (Lee and Rice 2007; Lee and Sehoole 2015; Lee et al. 2016; Lee 2017). Throughout the world, international students have experienced considerable discrimination based on negative stereotypes about their nation and culture of origin. The greatest challenges tend to be experienced by the Global South or less prosperous countries as

Academic Mobility, Inequities in Opportunity and Experience

well as countries that are perceived as nearby economic rivals for labor.

Moving Forward Universities have been described “as one of the last frontiers for hope of a more globally aware population” (Rhoads and Szelényi 2011, p. 42). How do we then promote greater equality and a more ethical approach towards internationalization? One recommendation is more and better research, but such research needs to take a poststructural and post-critical approach (Metcalfe 2015). Tackling the world’s inequities requires deconstructing the existing assumptions that lie beneath and reflecting on the consequences of policies aimed towards gaining equity. Is the issue equity in numbers of mobile students and faculty, i.e., more balanced geographic flows? Is the aspiration for “win-win” conditions for cooperation (Deschamps and Lee 2015)? It is important to question “whose structure and whose function” (Metcalfe 2015) as a basis to design mobility programs abroad and to inform research. Current internationalization jargon and the dominant narratives in policies and practices of international mobility should also be deconstructed. In short, we need to de-westernize the concept of internationalization (Dzulkifli 2005). Some relevant actors have already started to work towards this purpose. Twenty-four national and regional organizations involved in international higher education met in January 2014 and January 2017 in a group called the “Global Dialogues,” with the goal of shaping a more inclusive discourse and course of action that equalizes internationalization. The group highlighted three priority global commitments: (1) to treat internationalization as a means to an end, (2) to give internationalization back to the global community, and (3) to aspire to equal and ethical partnerships (IEASA 2014). Even though such gatherings of representatives from distinct regions are neither uncommon nor new, exercises like the global dialogues bring a different and refreshing perspective of collaborative engagement based on the deliberate intention to cocreate knowledge, a

43

shared sense of values, and equitable decisionmaking processes (Jaquez et al. 2016). Internationalization at home offers other ways to equalize mobility. By preparing local students to be “global-oriented on issues and actions” and “to challenge nationalist policies” (Koyama 2015, p. 16), we can nurture more open, tolerant, and conscious generations. Rather than educating global citizens, we need to shift the perspective towards educating “global selves” (Killick 2015). This shift should include not only students, but also the faculty, administrators, and professionals who have been implementing these international programs based on the abovementioned constructs. Many international organizations and even individual higher education institutions have been moving in this direction. Nevertheless, the neoliberal globalization movement could be shifting towards the establishment of the “globalization of anti-globalization, the internationalization of nationalism, the popular front of populism” (Garton-Ash 2016). Given the current panorama, higher education institutions need to remain a bastion for cooperation among peoples and nations regardless of their political stances and their geopolitical position. Only by embracing global diversity, shared knowledge, and commongood oriented research can universities build the bridges that will bypass any political, economic, and ideological wall that divides the world and perpetuates its current inequalities.

References Altbach, P.G. 2004. Higher education crosses borders: Can the United States remain the top destination for foreign students? Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 36 (2): 18–24. Altbach, P.G. 2016. Global perspectives on higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Altbach, P.G., L. Reisberg, and L.E. Rumbley. 2009. Trends in global higher education. Chestnut Hill: Boston College Center for International Higher Education. Berry, C., and J. Taylor. 2014. Internationalisation in higher education in latin america: Policies and practice in colombia and mexico. Higher Education 67 (5): 585–601.

A

44

Academic Mobility, Inequities in Opportunity and Experience

Cantwell, B., S. Luca, and J.J. Lee. 2009. Exploring the orientations of international students in Mexico: Differences by region of origin. Higher Education 57 (3): 335–354. Cantwell, B., and J.J. Lee. 2010. Unseen workers in the academic factory: Perceptions of neo-racism among international postdocs in the US and UK. Harvard Education Review 80 (4): 490–517. Castiello, S., J. J. Lee, M. S. Marei, L. O’Toole, and G. Rhoades. 2016. Marketing to international students: Presentation of university self in a geopolitical space. Paper presented at the ASHE annual meeting. Columbus: ASHE. Department of Education and Training. 2015, November. Export income to Australia from international education activity in 2014–15. Retrieved 27 Jan 2017, from Research Snapshot: https://internationaleducation.gov. au/research/Research-Snapshots/Documents/Export% 20Income%20FY2014-5.pdf. Deschamps, E., and J.J. Lee. 2015. Internationalization as mergers and acquisitions: Senior international officers’ entrepreneurial strategies and activities in public universities. Journal of Studies in International Education 19 (2): 122–139. Didou Aupetit, S. 2013. Trends in student and academic mobility in Latin America: From “brain drain” to “brain gain”. In Latin America’s new knowledge economy: Higher education, government and international collaboration, ed. J. Balán, 71–81. New York: Institute of International Education. Dzulkifli, A.R. 2005. The internationalization of education: A western construct. In Going global. The landscape for policy makers and practitioners in tertiary education, ed. M. Stiasny and T. Gore, 13–20. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Egron-Polak, E., and R. Hudson. 2014. Internationalization of higher education: Growing expectations, fundamental values. IAU 4th global survey. Paris: International Association of Universities. Ehrenberg, R.G. 2003. Reaching for the brass ring: The U.S. news & world report rankings and competition. Review of Higher Education 26 (2): 145–162. Garton-Ash, T. 2016, November 11. Populists are out to divide us. They must be stopped. The Guardian. Retrieved 24 Jan 2017, from https://www.theguardian. com/commentisfree/2016/nov/11/populists-us. Holm-Nielsen, L., K. Thorn, J. Brunner, and J. Balán. 2005. Regional and international challenges to higher education in Latin America. In Higher education in Latin America: The international dimension, ed. H. De Wit, I. Jaramillo, J. Gacel-Ávila, and J. Knight, 39–99. Washington, DC: The World Bank. IEASA. 2014. Nelson Mandela Bay global dialogue declaration on the future of internationalisation of higher education. Port Elizabeth: IEASA. Jaquez, F., E. Ward, and M. Goguen. 2016. Collaborative engagement research and implications for institutional change. In Publicly engaged scholars: Next generation engagement and the future of higher education,

ed. M. Post, E. Ward, N.V. Longo, and J. Saltmarsh, 76–95. Sterling: Stylus Publishing. Johnstone, B. 2004. The economics and politics of cost sharing in higher education: Comparative perspectives. Economics of Education Review 23 (4): 403–410. Johnstone, B. 2006. Cost-sharing and the costeffectiveness of grants and loan subsidies to higher education. In Cost-sharing and accessibility in higher education: A fairer deal? ed. P.N. Teixeira, D.B. Johnstone, M.J. Rosa, and H. Vossensteyn, 51–78. Dordrecht: Springer. Killick, D. 2015. Developing the global student: Higher education in an era of globalization. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Koyama, J. 2015. The elusive and exclusive global citizen. Delhi: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization/Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Education for Peace and Sustainable Development. Lee, J.J. 2017. Neo-nationalism in higher education: The case of South Africa. Studies in International Higher Education 42 (5): 869–886. Lee, J.J., and C. Rice. 2007. Welcome to America? International student perceptions of discrimination and neo-racism. Higher Education 53 (3): 381–409. Lee, J.J., and C. Sehoole. 2015. Regional, continental, and global mobility to an emerging economy: The case of South Africa. Higher Education 70 (5): 827–843. Lee, J.J., J.-E. Jon, and K. Byun. 2016. Neo-racism and neo-nationalism within Asia: The experiences of international students in South Korea. Journal of Studies in International Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1028315316669903, 1–20. Macready, C., and C. Tucker. 2011. Who goes where and why? An overview and analysis of global education mobility. New York: The Institute of International Education. Marginson, S. 2016. Higher education and the common good. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press. Merton, R.K. 1973. The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Metcalfe, A.S. 2015. Whose structure, whose function? (Feminist) post-structural approaches in higher education policy research. In Critical approaches to the study of higher education, ed. A.M. Martinez-Aleman, E.M. Bensimon, and B. Pusser, 220–240. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. OECD. 2014. Education at a Glance 2014. OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/ eag-2014-en. Rhoads, R.A., and K. Szelényi. 2011. Global citizenship and the university: Advancing social life and relations in an interdependent world. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Yudkevich, M., P.G. Altbach, and L. Rumbley. 2016. Global university rankings as the ‘olympic games’ of higher education. In The global academic rankings game: Changing institutional policy, practice, and academic life, ed. M. Yudkevich, P.G. Altbach, and L. Rumbley, 1–11. New York: Routledge.

Academic Perception of Governance and Management

Academic Movement ▶ International Academic Mobility in Asia

Academic Perception of Governance and Management Teresa Carvalho University of Aveiro and CIPES, Department of Social, Political and Territorial Sciences, Aveiro, Portugal

Synonyms Academic community views; Higher education institution reforms; Steering higher education

Definition Governance refers to the institutional arrangements higher education institutions (HEIs) apply to “govern” organizational and staff behaviors. Management is associated with the processes and instruments HEIs use to accomplish their objectives in an efficient way. In different HEIs the governance and management models have been changing, and the effects are differently perceived by academics.

Changes in Governance and Management Changes in HEIs’ governance and management have been identified worldwide both at the system level, usually referred to as changes in the steering model, and at the institutional level (Deem et al. 2007; Krüger et al. 2018). At the system level, there has been a tendency for the reduction of state direct control over HEIs by giving them more autonomy. This tendency is referred to in the literature as the shift from a “regulatory” to a “facilitatory” state (Neave and

45

van Vught 1991) or toward an “evaluative state” (Neave 1998). Institutional autonomy is followed by increasing accountability mechanisms to control institutions’ performance to assure that they fulfil the state expectations (Bleiklie 2018; Krücken et al. 2018). These tendencies result in an increasing importance attributed to management values and norms in HEIs, which, inspired by New Public Management, tend to be assumed as more efficient to the extent that they are oriented to management policies and practices traditionally dominant in forprofit organizations. Governance at the institutional level is translated into a change in the balance between the principles of collegial and hierarchal coordination (Krüger et al. 2018). In the European context, until the 1960s HEIs were organized based on the notion that academics were the best-prepared and the right actors to manage HEIs. Academic collegiality was considered as the basis for all decision-making processes (in some cases that included also students and administrative staff) with the central administration having a weak position in the power structure (Krücken et al. 2018). This governance model is also known as “shared governance” (Shattock 2002, 2006; Stensaker and Vabø 2013). Academic collegiality was considered as an essential feature in assuring academic freedom. The structural reforms developed under the New Public Management (NPM) and managerialism influences were sustained in the rhetorical assumption that collegial structures were less efficient (Santiago and Carvalho 2012; Carvalho and Santiago 2010, 2015; Deem et al. 2007), and, to counter this, more management-like models of governance started to be implemented, imposing a management culture in HEIs (Ball 2015, 2016). The implementation of these models turned HEIs into complete (Enders et al. 2008) or unitary institutions (Carvalho and Santiago 2010). From being considered as organized anarchies or loosely coupled institutions, HEIs started to be expected to answer as a single voice to external pressures. In the coordination system, HEIs’ organization and management started assuming a fundamental role (de Boer et al. 2007), in particular the

A

46

Academic Perception of Governance and Management

performance management and the development of audit and quality assurance systems. Power started to be more concentrated at the top, and rectors or vice-chancellors were (re)configured from primus inter pares into CEOs (chief executive officers) (Carvalho and Machado 2011; O’Connor 2014). Simultaneously, HEIs were expected to be more accountable to society and to justify the value of the money they receive from public sources. These tendencies have been framed in narratives centered on the idea of “opening HEIs to society.” Within this framework, an increasing presence of external stakeholders started to be assumed as necessary to include the general interests of society in HEIs’ decisions. The increase in stakeholders’ power to take relevant decisions at the institutional level, such as the election or appointment of rectors, is concomitant to the decrease in the influence of collegiate bodies (Krücken et al. 2018). In parallel, the accountability and quality mechanisms associated with the tendency to increase institutional autonomy resulted in augmenting the number and qualifications of administrative/management staff in HEIs (Gornitzka and Larsen 2004; Whitchurch 2008; Whitchurch and Gordon 2010; Carvalho and Videira 2017; Carvalho et al. 2016).

while others, such as Poland, tend to maintain their collegial structures (Kwiek 2015). Based on CAP (Changing Academic Profession) empirical data, including data from 13 European countries, Aarrevaara and Dobson (2013) reveal that collegial decision-making still has a role in these European countries, this being especially true for Germany. The same tendency to identify differences between countries was found by Harry de Boer et al. (2007) who developed a comparative study on the shifts in university governance in four countries (England, the Netherlands, Austria, and Germany). The authors reveal the existence of similar general tendencies in governance restructuring in these countries but also identify significant differences between them. In being part of the decision-making structures, based on collegiality, academics had control over their work conditions. This control was not only related with the definition of their reward systems and their operating conditions inside institutes but above all with their privileged power positions which gave them freedom to define their research and teaching agendas. The new governance and management models, being more or less collegial, redefined HEIs’ power structures, resulting in limitations to the academic self-governance of HEIs and, in consequence, to their control over academic work. In this context, there is a general consensus that the changes in governance and management represent a threat to academic freedom (Karran 2007, 2009; Aarrevaara 2010; Carvalho and Santiago 2015; Höhle and Teichler 2013; Teichler et al. 2013). This conclusion is corroborated by de Boer and colleagues’ study on England, the Netherlands, Austria, and Germany. In all of these countries, the governance reconfigurations seem to be translated into a retreat of academic self-governance, since “whatever new powers the university leadership and external stakeholders win, the academic profession loses” (de Boer et al. 2007, p. 150). Yet, this does not mean, contrary to the expected, that there is an inevitable reduction in academics’ institutional power. Actually, de Boer et al. (2007) conclude that it is possible to have

New Governance and Management Models and Academics Despite being undeniable that similar general tendencies occurred in changes in governance and management models, one cannot dismiss the existence of relevant differences between countries, questioning the thesis of isomorphic homogenization between distinct higher education (HE) systems. Actually, different comparative studies reveal relevant distinctions between countries (Teichler et al. 2013). In the European context, some countries are identified as having faced a high reduction in the collective influence of academics over decision-making in HEIs, as is the case for the Netherlands (Bleiklie et al. 2011),

Academic Perception of Governance and Management

47

strong leadership along with a strong professoriate and that academics still play a part in the system’s governance. The authors defend that if it is true that collective academic power, as well as the individual academics’ influence, has been weakened, it is however still possible to acknowledge academics relevant role in policy- and decision-making (de Boer et al. 2007). In the same line, Bleiklie et al. (2011) argue that reputed academics can still assume the most prestigious top hierarchical positions and coordinate their institutions by means of soft steering, legitimacy, and prestige, instead of authority, with the consensus-oriented culture remaining as the dominant style in HEIs’ top decision-making in some countries (de Boer et al. 2007). Christine Musselin (2013) reinforces the conclusion that there is a common route in governance reforms to reduce collegial decisionmaking; however she defends that, in fact, this reduction ended up empowering the academic elite. According to her, academic oligarchy maintains a relevant role in essential activities that are part of the professional regulation such as the peer review processes, the research evaluation, and the definition and development of national research programs (Musselin 2013). This conclusion seems to be reinforced by studies that are more recent. An empirical comparative study between Portugal and Finland showed a tendency for a decrease in collegial decision-making, which was equally perceived by academics in both countries (Carvalho and Diogo 2018). However, important interprofessional differences were also acknowledged, with some academics with management responsibilities recognizing that they are still called to participate in institutional strategic decisionmaking, both in Finland and in Portugal. To conclude, one can say that common tendencies on changes in governance and management have been acknowledged in different countries, even if this is also accompanied by important differences. The implementation of the new governance and management models is expected to have promoted a decrease in academics’ organizational power. Actually, there is a tendency for

academics to perceive a decrease in their participation in collegial decision-making in different national contexts. However, this general feeling is followed by more specific perceptions in some subgroups, calling attention to the relevance of actors’ agency when analyzing change processes. Empirical studies, based on academics’ perceptions, reveal that there is an individual dimension that needs to be taken into account when analyzing the way academics perceive changes in governance and management. The reduction in academics’ power is a common tendency, but the personal prestige and position each academic has inside academia can determine the stronger or weaker perceptions of power restructuring. As Carvalho and Diogo (2018) state, despite the reduction in academics’ power, “taking the heterogeneous character of the profession, certain sub-groups with positional power can actually perceive the maintenance, or even an increase, in their professional autonomy” (Carvalho and Diogo 2018: 29). To better understand the way changes in governance and management models redefined power structures in HEIs, it is also relevant to analyze how academics perceive the increasing influence of other key actors within this governance and management framework.

Perceptions on the Redefinition of Power Structures The new governance models value a model of decision-making in which a great diversity of actors participate, including both internal and external stakeholders. In this context, academics’ traditional power within HEIs is said to be diminishing, while the power of other groups, such as professional managers and external stakeholders, is increasing. Nevertheless, empirical studies reflecting on actors’ perceptions on HEIs’ power redefinition seem to evidence realities that are more complex. External stakeholders can be defined, according to Amaral and Magalhães (Amaral and Magalhaes 2002: 2), as “a person, or an entity

A

48

Academic Perception of Governance and Management

with a legitimate interest in higher education and which, as such, acquires the right to intervene.” In order to make HEIs more responsive to environmental needs, external stakeholders are said to increase their prominence in HEIs in different national contexts (Pinheiro 2015). The presence of external stakeholders tends to be recognized as positive by academics (Bruckmann 2015); however this does not mean that a shift in power is seen as effective. Actually it seems that academics’ cognitive framework didn’t change as a result of the increasing presence of external stakeholders in governance models because academics keep the conviction that academic and scientific issues should be mainly decided by academics (Bruckmann 2015). Simultaneously, the roles of managers and administrators have been strengthened and professionalized. This increasing presence of professional managers is said to promote academics’ deprofessionalization (Gornitzka and Larsen 2004). However, other perspectives present a more complex situation, arguing that instead of a shift in power, there is a redefinition of boundaries between the two professional groups. Whitchurch (2008) identifies a third space, as a result of blurred boundaries, resulting from the creation of partnerships between teaching and nonteaching staff. An empirical study developed in the Portuguese context reveals that transformations in HEIs’ governance models with a concentration of power in decision-making at the top and the loss of influence of collegial bodies in decisionmaking processes are not necessarily accompanied by an increase in managers or administrative staff power (Carvalho et al. 2016; Carvalho and Videira 2017). In the Portuguese context, both teaching and nonteaching staff recognize the persistence of the “traditional” power relations with the teaching staff still being recognized as having a higher degree of participation in decisionmaking processes (Carvalho and Videira 2017). The internal differences in the academic profession can be identified as a relevant justification for these perceptions. As seen previously, it is possible to have a more hierarchical structure within the new governance models with the power being still concentrated in a small group of academics.

Krücken et al. (2013) advance another argument to explain the persistence of representations of academics as a group with institutional power within HEIs. In analyzing the German case, the authors conclude that new categories of administrative and management positions have emerged along with a decrease in lower-level positions, such as those related with clerical work. Yet, this was accompanied by the maintenance of the traditional professional organizational model with HEIs remaining controlled by academics and not by administrators or managers. The authors advance that this may be explained by the fact that academics are increasingly incorporating more administrative and management roles to the traditional teaching and research activities that they traditionally performed. Furthermore, the impact of changes in governance and management roles may be lessened or moderated by the core characteristics of a professional organization that has been characterizing HEIs for several years (Krücken et al. 2013). To conclude, one can say that the tendency to transform governance and management models in HEIs is not perceived in the same way by all academics. There is a general tendency to consider that academics lose power in the new models, but there are relevant differences between subgroups with contradictory tendencies concerning the way they perceive transformations in power relations with other groups in academia. Research in this field needs to include academic internal segmentation and to reflect on the way power is allocated in HEIs, as well as on the distinct sources of academics’ power, which may contribute to clarify the persistent perceptions of a maintenance of traditional institutional status quo in a less collegial academia.

Cross-References ▶ Governance in Community Colleges ▶ Multi-Level Governance, Higher Education Acknowledgments This work is funded by National Funds through the FCT—Foundation for Science and Technology under the project UID/CED/00757/2013.

Academic Perception of Governance and Management

References Aarrevaara, T. 2010. Academic freedom in a changing academic world. European Review 18 (S1): S55–S69. Aarrevaara, T., and I.R. Dobson. 2013. Movers and shakers: Do academics control their own work? In The work situation of the academic profession in Europe: Findings of a survey in twelve countries, 159–181. Dordrecht: Springer. Amaral, A., and A. Magalhaes. 2002. The emergent role of external stakeholders in European higher education governance. In Governing higher education: National perspectives on institutional governance, 1–21. Dordrecht: Springer. Ball, S. 2015. Education, governance and the tyranny of numbers. Journal of Education Policy 30 (3): 299–301. Ball, S. 2016. Neoliberal education? Confronting the slouching beast. Policy Futures in Education 14 (8): 1046–1059. Bleiklie, I. 2018. Changing notions of the governance– creativity nexus. European Review 26: 1–14. Bleiklie, I., J. Enders, B. Lepori, and C. Musselin. 2011. New public management, network governance and the university as a changing professional organization. In The Ashgate research companion to new public management, ed. Tom Christensen and Per Laegreid, 161–176. Farnham: Ashgate. Bruckmann, S. 2015. Shifting boundaries in universities’ governance models. In The transformation of university institutional and organizational boundaries, 163–184. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Carvalho, T., and S. Diogo. 2018. Does more institutional autonomy equal to more professional autonomy? Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 40 (1): 18–33. Carvalho, T., and M. Machado. 2011. Senior management in higher education. In Gender, power and management. A cross cultural analysis of higher education, ed. K. White and B. Bagilhole, 90–109. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Carvalho, T., and R. Santiago. 2010. New public management and ‘middle-management’: How do deans influence institutional policies? In The changing dynamics of higher education middle management: Vol. 28. Higher Education Dynamics, ser. ed. P. Maassen, and J. Müller & vol. ed. L. Meek, L. Goedegebuure, R. Santiago, and T. Carvalho, 165–196. Dordrecht: Springer. Carvalho, T., and R. Santiago. 2015. Professional autonomy in a comparative perspective: academics, doctors and nurses. In Professionalism, managerialism and reform in higher education and the health services: The European Welfare State and Rise of the Knowledge Society, ed. T. Carvalho and R. Santiago, 30–63. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Carvalho, T., and P. Videira. 2017. Losing autonomy? Restructuring higher education institutions governance and relations between teaching and non-teaching staff. Studies in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 03075079.2017.1401059. Published online nov. 2017.

49 Carvalho, T., G. Marini, and P. Videira. 2016. Is new public management redefining professional boundaries and changing power relations within higher education institutions? Journal of the European Higher Education Area 6 (3): 59–74. de Boer, H., J. Enders, and U. Schimank. 2007. On the way towards new public management? The governance of university systems in England, the Netherlands, Austria, and Germany. In New forms of governance in research organizations, 137–152. Dordrecht: Springer. Deem, R., H. Sam, and M. Reed. 2007. Knowledge, higher education, and the new managerialism: The changing management of UK universities. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Enders, J., H. De Boer, and L. Liudvika. 2008. On striking the right notes: Shifts in governance and the organisational transformation of universities. In From governance to identity: A Festschrift for Mary Henkel, ed. Alberto Amaral, Ivar Bleiklie, and Christine Musselin, 113–129. Dordrecht: Springer. Gornitzka, Å., and I. Larsen. 2004. Towards professionalisation? Restructuring of administrative work force in universities. Higher Education 47 (4): 455–471. Höhle, E. A., and U. Teichler. 2013. The academic profession in the light of comparative surveys. In The academic profession in Europe: New tasks and new challenges, 23–38. Springer, Dordrecht. Karran, T. 2007. Academic freedom in Europe: A preliminary comparative analysis. Higher Education Policy 20 (3): 289–313. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.hep.8300159. Karran, T. 2009. Academic freedom in Europe: Time for a Magna Charta? Higher Education Policy 22 (2): 163–189. Krücken, G., A. Blümel, and K. Kloke. 2013. The managerial turn in higher education? On the interplay of organizational and occupational change in German academia. Minerva 51 (4): 417–442. Krücken, G., L. Engwall, and E. De Corte. 2018. Introduction to the special issue on ‘university governance and creativity’. European Review 26 (S1): S1–S5. Krüger, K., M. Parellada, D. Samoilovich, and A. Sursock. 2018. Governance reforms in European university systems: The case of Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, the Netherlands and Portugal. Vol. 8. Cham: Springer. Kwiek, M. 2015. The unfading power of collegiality? University governance in Poland in a European comparative and quantitative perspective. International Journal of Educational Development 43: 77–89. Musselin, C. 2013. Redefinition of the relationships between academics and their university. Higher Education 65 (1): 25–37. Neave, G. 1998. The evaluative state reconsidered. European Journal of Education 33 (3): 265–284. Neave, G., & van Vught, F. A. (1991). Prometheus bound: The changing relationship between government and higher education in Western Europe. O’Connor, P. 2014. Management and gender in higher education. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

A

50 Pinheiro, R. 2015. The role of internal and external stakeholders. In Higher Education in the BRICS Countries, 43–57. Dordrecht: Springer. Santiago, R., and T. Carvalho. 2012. Managerialism rhetoric’s in Portuguese higher education. Minerva 50 (4): 511–532. Shattock, M. 2002. Re–balancing modern concepts of university governance. Higher Education Quarterly 56 (3): 235–244. Shattock, M. 2006. Managing good governance in higher education. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Education (UK). Stensaker, B., and A. Vabø. 2013. Re-inventing shared governance: Implications for organisational culture and institutional leadership. Higher Education Quarterly 67 (3): 256–274. Teichler, U., A. Arimoto, and W. Cummings. 2013. The changing academic profession – Major findings of a comparative survey, The changing academy – The changing academic profession in international comparative perspective. Vol. 1. Dordrecht: Springer. Whitchurch, C. 2008. Shifting identities and blurring boundaries: The emergence of third space professionals in UK higher education. Higher Education Quarterly 62 (4): 377–396. Whitchurch, Celia, and George Gordon. 2010. Diversifying academic and professional identities in higher education: Some management challenges. Tertiary Education and Management 16 (2): 129–144.

Academic Profession, Higher Education Ulrich Teichler INCHER-Kassel, University of Kassel, Kassel, Germany

Synonyms Faculty; Key profession; Scholars

Definition persons professionally active in the generation, discussion, preservation and dissemination of systematic knowledge through teaching and research within the frame of higher education Institutions and research institutes.

Academic Profession, Higher Education

Terms and Concepts Scholars are conceived to be persons characterized by a high intellectual caliber, being active in the generation, discussion, preservation, and dissemination of systematic knowledge. The somewhat narrower term “academic profession” suggests that these activities are undertaken for most of the period of the adult life-span, are distinct from those in the center of other occupations, and as a rule serve to secure livelihood. Finally, these activities are assumed to be undertaken as a rule in the framework of universities or – more widely defined – institutions of higher or tertiary education. Generation and dissemination knowledge as well as its utilization in various ways are the tasks of many occupations. Scholars at institutions of higher education, though, are conceived to do this in the most intellectual demanding and systematic way, as core activities of their profession named research and (academic) teaching. They are considered to be the carriers of knowledge in all areas, often called disciplines, and to shape also the knowledge of experts working in various professional areas (e.g., academics of the discipline law shaping the knowledge of judges or lawyers, academics of engineering shaping that of engineers). The social historian Harold Perkin (1969) called the academic profession “key profession” in order to characterize their centrality in knowledge systems and high societal prestige. For various reasons, the delineation of the academic profession is vague. First in terms of institutional settings: Those in charge of teaching and research at universities and other institutions of higher education are viewed as belonging to the academic profession. In the United States of America, even the term “faculty” is employed for the academic profession, i.e., term depicting university departments in Europe. Views vary though, whether those active at research institutes outside higher education and those working at other institutions of “tertiary” education should be included as well, and those involved in “research and development (R&D)” in industry or in charge of the generation and dissemination of systematic knowledge in other organization are

Academic Profession, Higher Education

rarely viewed as members of the academic profession. As regards research activities, however, the term “researchers” is often viewed as most comprehensive, and national and international research statistics define academics as one subcategory of researchers. Second in terms of dominant functions: Persons primarily in charge of teaching and/or research at the abovementioned named institutions are viewed as academics. Customs and legal regulations vary, though, whether those with managerial functions (“rectors,” “presidents,” “deans”) are defined as academics who happens to be involved in coordination functions or as administrators. Similarly, professionals at higher education institutions primarily in charge of service and management-support activities (occasionally named “higher educational professionals,” “middle-level managers,” etc.) are often defined as administrators, in various instances though as academics. Third in terms of employment status: Definitions employed in major comparative surveys suggest that those are viewed undoubtedly as members of the academic profession who are employed for the respective purposes at least halftime. Views vary, though, whether those should be included as well, who are employed for less than halftime, who are contracted on honorarium basis for individual courses or other work units, who work in this domain without financial compensation (for example, a “Honorar-Professor” in Germany), or who are retired and continue to be active in academia. Fourth in terms of stages of career and work: The title “professor” is most common to depict the mature academic. Those named professors often tend to be assured of the highest pay and stable employment conditions, and they often have supervisory functions regarding academics viewed as not fully matured. Academics having not – yet – reached the professoriate undergo a long process, which is initially characterized by a dominance of learning but gradually shifts toward productive work: This can be characterized as “formative years” of academic work (Teichler 2006). Thereby, definitions vary as regards the first stage of the academic career. The term

51

doctoral “student” is customary in some countries, while terms such as doctoral “candidate” or similarly are preferred in other countries. In some countries, more than half of the doctoral candidates are employees at higher education institutions, while in others study without pay, support by means of fellowships, or the status of ‘auxiliary’ staff prevails (Gokhberg et al. 2016).

Characteristics of the Academic Profession Reviews of the characteristics of the academic profession have to take into account that certain features of the knowledge system might be universal and that certain elements of the institutional fabrique of higher education are arranged similarly worldwide. However, many features of career, employment, job descriptions, and coordination are regulated nationally or on lower levels (regionally or institutionally; see Clark 1984; Teichler et al. 2013). Yet, though the details might vary, three features can be observed all over the world. Obviously, the academic profession ideally is characterized by a close link between research and teaching. This link is applicable to academics at institutions called “universities” in Europe and otherwise “research universities” or “researchoriented universities.” According to some analyses, teaching is historically the key function of higher education only supplemented during the recent two centuries in some sectors by research (Altbach 1991). The terms “university teacher” or “higher education teacher” are employed – at times legally, often in statistics, often informally – to characterize the academic profession. Other analyses, in contrast, underscore research as most strongly shaping the identity of the academic profession (Enders 2006). Actually, the notion of “unity of research and teaching,” coined by Wilhelm von Humboldt with reference to the foundation of the University of Berlin in 1810, is most frequently named the core idea of the modern university. Detailed accounts, however, suggest that most academics in some countries understand this as dominance of research which

A

52

is taken up in teaching, and those in some other countries strive for a balance between research and teaching, while finally others take a dominance of teaching for granted (Arimoto 2014). Teaching tends to dominate in other higher education institutions, which in most instances have no right to award doctoral degrees, often have an applied educational thrust and often offer shorter study programs. It should be added that additional functions of the academic professions are depicted with terms such as “administration,” “services,” “knowledge transfer,” “third mission,” “civic engagement,” etc. This indicates partly additional activities within the academic system, e.g., academic self-administration or evaluation and assessment activities, and externally directed activities such as transfer knowledge to society or academics’ active involvement in other life spheres (see Jongbloed et al. 2008). Further, the academic profession is characterized by a very long process of learning and maturation. In most countries, academics eventually appointed to professorial positions at about 40 years are only considered full-fledged members of the academic profession when they reach this stage. In most other professions, though, a stable influential position is reached at an earlier stage and is not so clearly segmented in titles, functions, and inter-professional power. The junior career path is highly selective in many countries. In economically advanced countries, less than one tenth of persons having been awarded a first higher education degree eventually reach a doctorate, and in most countries with relatively high rates of doctorate, less than one fifth of doctorate holders eventually reach senior academic positions. Moreover, part-time and short-term employment are far more frequent among junior than among senior academics in most countries (see Galaz-Fontes et al. 2016). Irrespective of the duration and selectivity of junior academic careers stages: A substantial divide between senior academics – often called the professoriate – and junior academics holds true in many countries. In Germany, for example, even not a common term of academic profession exists for senior academics, officially called “higher education teachers,” and junior academics

Academic Profession, Higher Education

called “academic coworkers.” The former tend to be privileged as regards reputation, access to resources for research, as well as influence in internal decision-making, and they often have supervisory functions as regards junior academics’ work. This raises the question whether there is a single or various academic professions – according to status, as discussed here, or to the extent of involvement in research or according to institutional types, as discussed below (Teichler 2010). Finally, the academic profession enjoys a higher degree of disposition in determining its work tasks than other professions do as a rule. “Academic freedom” is considered necessary to generate new knowledge and to prepare students for indeterminate work tasks (Shils 1991). In some countries, “academic freedom” is reinforced by a high degree of institutional “autonomy,” whereby academics, notably professors – often, but not consistently – have substantial influence on administrative matters of their higher education institution.

Changing Contexts, Expectations, and Activities The academic profession experienced substantial changes in recent decades regarding its context and societal expectations directed to it, and academics themselves changed in many respects their views and activities – often in response to changing environments. Expansion of higher education (Altbach 1996), increasing managerial power, growing expectations regarding the relevance of academic work, and internationalization of academia and society are the most important trends addressed in this framework (Höhle and Teichler 2013). Expansion of higher education: The proportion of the respective age group enrolling in higher education as students from less than one tenth on average in economically advanced countries in the 1950s to more than half five decades later reflects a growing importance of higher education. But the concurrent growth of the academic profession did not necessarily lead to an increased

Academic Profession, Higher Education

pride as regards the importance of the knowledge system. Rather, expansion triggered diversification of higher education, whereby the top of system could persist with moderate chances, while less privileged sectors experienced substantial changes, e.g., the establishment of institutions the academics of which were solely in charge of teaching or had limited research tasks. Moreover, teaching and research in those sectors were expected to have an applied approach rather than the absolute freedom of exploring new territories of knowledge. While some academics in these sectors were satisfied with the other profile of their institutions and work assignments, others felt themselves as inferior to the reputation of universities and the traditional professoriate and, in response, reinforced “academic drift” toward the traditional model. Altogether, the view seems to have spread among academics in the wake of higher education expansion that they are a profession under pressure – not only loosing social exclusivity but also facing deteriorating employment and work conditions. According to various surveys, the percentage even of senior academics employed shortterm or part-time increased as well as of those in lower income categories. Yet concurrently, access to academia increased of hitherto underprivileged socio-biographic groups, i.e., women (see Eggins 2017), academics with parents of lower educational backgrounds, and academics from various ethnic groups and foreigners (Finkelstein et al. 1998). Interpretations, however, varied about the extent to which greater success of traditionally underrepresented groups was attributable to a loss of privileges as a whole or an indication of a more meritocratic career system. Increasing managerial power: In many countries, institutional leadership has moved since about the 1980s from moderate power in predominantly collegial settings toward powerful professional management. Regulatory systems got tighter, allocation of resources became a tool of management, and mechanisms of evaluation and performance assessment spread. Many analyses show that mechanisms of “marketization” and “entrepreneurialism” are closely linked to

53

managerial regimes (Enders 2001). While this often was hailed as increasing institutional “autonomy” vis-à-vis government and other stakeholders as well as strengthened effectiveness and efficiency, attempts of introducing such changes often met with skepticism and resistance on the part of academics. Fear seemed to be widespread that this restricts the potentials of academics to strive for unexpected insight. Growing managerial power often is linked to efforts to underscore specific characteristics of individual higher education institutions and to strengthen the notion of belonging to an institution or even of institution-based identity. This has been reinforced in recent years by strong attention being paid to “rankings” of individual universities. Most studies on academic views and activities, however, have shown that academics vary enormously according to disciplines (Becher 1989) and that they feel most strongly committed to their discipline and possibly to their unit of teaching and research and less – if at all – to their higher education institution (Altbach 1996; Teichler et al. 2013). Growing expectation of relevance: The increasing popularity of terms such as “knowledge society” or even “knowledge economy” do not merely suggest that systematic knowledge moves toward increasing influence on economic and societal developments but also that higher education aims at contributing in a more targeted way to these developments (see Cummings and Teichler 2015). This is often underscored by growing involvement of external “stakeholder” in higher education, increasing calls for raising funds from sources outside academia, calling for greater concern of graduates’ “employability’ in study programs, and underscoring the measurement of “impact” in evaluation activities. This also meets with skeptical views in academia, many of whom being concerned that academic quality might be sacrificed for relevance, and others that universities might be driven to serve only the external expectations of powerful and influential stakeholders. Internationalization: Although the academic profession traditionally strives for borderless collection of knowledge, is mobile across borders,

A

54

appreciates international reputation, and often harbors cosmopolitan values, experts note a recent trend toward internationalization of higher education. Notably, physical mobility of student and academics is supported in a more targeted manner and increases substantially, and international research collaboration notably is increasingly viewed as beneficial. Worldwide virtual communication becomes more important in teaching and research. Academics seem to adapt to these challenges more readily than to those named above; thus, more than one tenth of academics on average of economically advanced countries work abroad, about one fifth are awarded a doctoral degree abroad, and more than half of academics have substantial international experiences in the course of their career (see Cavalli and Teichler 2015). Yet, problems of internationalization are pointed out as well – i.e., loss of talents notably on the part of economically and academically disadvantaged regions (“brain drain”), labor market barriers, quality loss due to disparities of academic experiences, and lack of language skills or of intercultural understanding.

Academic Profession, Higher Education

professional situation even is on the rise (Teichler et al. 2013). Most characterizations, however, have those in economically advanced countries in mind. In other parts of the world, we frequently note on the one hand constraints of working conditions, more infringements of academic freedom, and often restrictions as regards research that it even was characterized as “endangered species” (Vessuri and Teichler 2008). On the other hand, successful moves of “catching up” with economically advanced countries can be seen in some instances (see UNESCO 2010). The variety of observations, thus, calls for being cautious in general statements about the academic profession and for taking note of variations across countries, disciplines, institutions, and status groups.

Cross-References ▶ Academic Careers ▶ Chair System in Higher Education

References Conclusion Some analyses of the academic profession underscore academic freedom, high motivation in the search for truth and new knowledge, and collaboration in collegial settings as characteristic. Others point out endemic problems, e.g., the ambivalent situation of junior academics. Others finally underscore increasing challenges due to higher education expansion, growing managerial power, and increasing expectation to be relevant to technology, economy, and society. The majority of features not fitting the ideal initially named are viewed by some academics as endangering the essentials of the academic profession. International comparative studies, however, suggests that the majority of academics accommodates to features, which are in part viewed as questionable and dangerous, and altogether continue to consider their professional setting as satisfactory. Satisfaction with the overall

Altbach, Philip G. 1991. The academic profession. In International higher education: An encyclopedia, ed. Philip G. Altbach, 23–45. New York: Garland. Altbach, Philip G. 1996. The international academic profession. Princeton: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Arimoto, Akira. 2014. The teaching and research nexus in the third wave age. In Teaching and research in contemporary higher education, ed. Jung Cheol Shin, Akira Arimoto, William K. Cummings, and Ulrich Teichler, 15–33. Dordrecht: Springer. Becher, Tony. 1989. Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual inquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Buckingham: SRHE & Open University Press. Cavalli, Alessandro, and Teichler, Ulrich. 2015. Mobility and migration in science (special issue). European Review 23 (Supplement 1) Clark, Burton R., ed. 1984. The academic profession: National, disciplinary, and institutional settings. Berkeley: University of California Press. Cummings, William K., and Ulrich Teichler, eds. 2015. The relevance of academic work in comparative perspective. Dordrecht: Springer. Eggins, Heather, ed. 2017. The changing role of women in higher education. Cham: Springer.

Academics and Higher Education Expansion Enders, Jürgen. 2001. Between state control and academic capitalism: A comparative perspective of academic staff in Europe. In Academic staff in Europe: Changing contexts and conditions, ed. Jürgen Enders, 1–23. Westport: Greenwood Press. Enders, Jürgen. 2006. The academic profession. In International handbook of higher education, ed. James F. F. Forest and Philip G. Altbach, 1–21. Dordrecht: Springer. Finkelstein, Martin J., Robert K. Seal, and Jack H. Schuster. 1998. The new academic generation: A profession in transformation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Galaz-Fontes, Jesús, Akira Arimoto, Ulrich Teichler, and John Brennan, eds. 2016. Biographies and careers throughout academic life. Cham: Springer. Gokhberg, Leonid, Natalia Shmatko, and Laudeline Auriol, eds. 2016. The science and technology labor force: The value of doctorate holders and development of professional careers. Cham: Springer. Höhle, Ester Ava, and Ulrich Teichler. 2013. The academic profession in the light of comparative surveys. In The academic profession in Europe: New tasks and new challenges, ed. Barbara M. Kehm and Ulrich Teichler, 23–38. Dordrecht: Springer. Jongbloed, Ben, Jürgen Enders, and Carlo Salerno. 2008. Higher education and its communities: Interconnections, interdependencies and a research agenda. Higher Education 56: 303–324. Perkin, Harold. 1969. Key profession: A history of the association of university teachers. London: Routledge/Palmer. Shils, Edward. 1991. Academic freedom. In International higher education: An encylopedia, ed. Philip G. Altbach, 1–22. New York & London: Garland. Teichler, Ulrich, ed. 2006. The formative years of scholars. London: Portland. Teichler, Ulrich. 2010. The diversifying academic profession. European Review 18 (Supplement 1): 157–179. Teichler, Ulrich, Akira Arimoto, and William K. Cummings. 2013. The changing academic profession: Major findings of a comparative study. Dordrecht: Springer. UNESCO. 2010. UNESCO science report 2010. Paris: UNESCO Vessuri, Hebe, and Ulrich Teichler, eds. 2008. Universities as centres of research and knowledge production: An endangered species. Rotterdam and Taipei: Sense.

Academic Professional Development, Socialization, Education ▶ Academic Identity in Higher Education

55

Academic Roles ▶ Academic Identity in Higher Education

Academic Status ▶ Academic Careers

Academics and Higher Education Expansion Maria Yudkevich National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia

Many people associate the massification of higher education, which has become an inherent part to the educational landscape of many countries in the past decades (Schofer and Meyer 2005), primarily with the increase in enrolment rates. Indeed, according to Ulrich Teichler, “the term ‘mass higher education’ was traditionally employed to describe the growth of enrolment beyond the level of academic reproduction and training for a small number of occupations requiring this education for demanding professions and privileged social positions” (Teichler 1998, P. 19). At the same time, the impact of the massification goes beyond a mere growth in the number of young people with a higher education diploma. Massification has a significant effect on the academic profession, its substance, and, of course, the people who represent universities’ academic core. What are the underlying factors behind this effect, and what does it mean in practice? First of all, student numbers are growing. Faculty is expanding too but at a slower pace (Coates et al. 2009). As a result, university expenditures per student are often going down, while the students per teacher ratio and faculty members’ workload are increasing. All these induce a forced shift toward such educational technologies that

A

56

allow faculty to work with numerous students simultaneously: lectures for large student groups, standardized tests, and use of online elements. Faculty members are confronted with the challenge of mass teaching, which is replacing individual approach in education. Secondly, the growth in student numbers is not only important from a quantitative point of view. Universities encounter students with a completely new social status, different motivations (usually far from a desire to build an academic career), and varying entry levels (Beerkens-Soo and Vossensteyn 2009). Faculty members have to explore new methods of working with such a heterogeneous and less well-prepared student audience. Student needs regarding higher education, which many of them treat as an investment that should yield returns on the labor market, are changing too. They have a more market-oriented view on the competencies they are gaining. Students, as well as other stakeholders, are increasingly seen as customers whose interests in universities have to take into account (Kwiek 2009; Schmidtlein and Berdahl 2011). On the whole, the academic system is switching from internal accountability to external (Van Valey 2001). Thirdly, it is becoming clear that the diversity of demand on behalf of those entering the higher education system inevitably defines the diversification of higher education institutions (GuriRosenblit et al. 2007). Various types of HEIs emerge; they have different mandates and serve different market segments. New HEIs aimed at delivering professional training that matches labor market needs emerge in addition to traditional research universities. Therefore, the conditions and scope of work of faculty employed at HEIs of different types vary dramatically too (on changing working conditions in academic in comparative perspectives, see Altbach et al. 2012; Altbach et al. 2013). Consequently, there is a shift away from the traditional research-focused tenure model, which implies that each faculty member does both research and teaching and takes part in university governance too. Varying working conditions and

Academics and Higher Education Expansion

a substantial expansion in the scope of work lead to the fact that an academic career can nowadays be associated with an array of contract types. However, they share one key feature: that is, they are losing the fundamental elements of a traditional academic contract, such as guaranteed regular employment, right to academic freedom, and right to peer evaluation of one’s professional performance. There are temporary contracts emerging (Gumport et al. 1997; Finkelstein et al. 2016) – contracts aimed at a particular aspect of academic work and structurally and substantively similar to wage worker contracts. There is a desacralization of the academic profession going on. It is no longer domain of the elites, its borders are becoming blurred, and the distance between members of the academic guild and traditional wage workers is getting smaller. This comes with a partial loss of autonomy (Altbach 2011; Shimank 2005). University academics’ professional status is weakening (Kwiek 2009). As Ulrich Teichler puts it, “higher education is in the grip of a strong feeling of loss of social exclusiveness. Academic careers lose their glamour in terms of social status, income, superior knowledge and professional self-control” (Teichler 2001, P. 5). The fact that different faculty groups are employed under different types of contracts leads to further stratification of the academic profession, which carries important negative implications (Kwiek 2009). For example, faculty working on a temporary contract and adjunct professors usually get a smaller remuneration, are confronted with a higher workload, and are less loyal to their university. They have a less clear understanding of its institutional goals and are to a smaller degree integrated into university life. Since they are treated like wage workers, they take only modest part in the processes of academic governance. Therefore, the faculty no longer represents a homogeneous group of academics who share the same values, equally invest their interests and efforts in university life, and enjoy the same guarantees. Growing academic stratification between faculty members and differentiation of HEIs causes more competition on the elite research universities’ labor market. In the US universities, for

Academics and Higher Education Expansion

example, the share of young tenured faculty is constantly going down (including both entry tenure-track positions and real tenured positions), which is increasingly stressful for young academics (Altbach 2011; Altbach 2015). The decline of the professional status of university faculty coincides with the processes of authority shift from the academic community to professional administrators (Whitchurch and Gordon 2010) and the emergence of new forms of control over academic activities (Musselin 2007). The existing system of faculty evaluation and remuneration, which implies a holistic approach to academic work, is no longer valid in the situation of fragmented academic activities (Mcfarlane 2011). Fragmentation comes along with the formalization of monitoring systems and the introduction of peculiar reporting formats. Peer evaluation is no longer secondary to academic work; instead it is becoming a separate process that requires both faculties’ and administrators’ efforts and time. Faculty members view external reporting as an infringement of academic freedom, which causes extra stress: faculties, who used to “own” the university, are becoming just employees who are subordinate to professional administrators and have to implement the latter’s decisions. Thus, the massification of higher education implies a whole range of consequences for the academic profession, most of which are caused by structural changes on the higher education market. To sum up, we can quote Marek Kwiek: “Massified educational systems (and corresponding an increasingly massified academic profession) unavoidably lead towards various new forms of differentiation, diversification and stratification” (Kwiek 2009, P. 116).

References Altbach, Phillip G. 2011. Harsh realities: The professoriate in the twenty-first century. In American higher education in the twenty-first century: Social, political, and economic challenges, ed. Philip G. Altbach, Patricia J. Gumport, and Robert O. Berdahl, 227–253. Baltimore: JHU Press.

57 Altbach, Phillip G. 2015. Building an academic career: The twenty-first-century challenge. In Young faculty in the twenty-first century. International perspectives, ed. Maria Yudkevich, Philip G. Altbach, and Laura Rumbley, 5–20. Albany: SUNY University Press. Altbach, Philip G., Gregory Androushchak, Ivan Pacheko, Maria Yudkevich, and Liz Reisberg. 2012. Paying the professoriate: A global comparison of compensation and contracts. New York: Routledge. Altbach, Philip G., Gregory Androushchak, Yaroslav Kuzminov, Maria Yudkevich, and Liz Reisberg. 2013. The global future of higher education and the academic profession: The BRICs and the United States. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Beerkens-Soo, Maarja, and Hans Vossensteyn. 2009. Higher education issues and trends from an international perspective. Report prepared for the Veerman Committee, Center for Higher Education Policy Studies, The Netherlands. Coates, Hamish, Ian Dobson, Daniel Edwards, Tim Friedman, Leo Goedegebuure, and Lynn Meek. 2009. The attractiveness of the Australian academic profession: A comparative analysis. Camberwell: Australian Council for Educational Research. Finkelstein, Martin J., Valezie M. Conley, Jack H. Schuster. 2006. The faculty factor reassessing the American faculty in a turbulent Era. Baltimore: JHU Press. Gumport, Patricia, Maria Iannozzi, Susan Shaman, and Robert Zemsky. 1997. Trends in higher education from massification to post-massification, RIHE International Seminar Reports, No. 10, 57–93. Guri-Rosenblit, Sarah, Helena Šebková, and Ulrich Teichler. 2007. Massification and diversity of higher education systems: Interplay of complex dimensions. Higher Education Policy 20(4): 373–389. Kwiek, Marek. 2009. The changing attractiveness of European higher education: Current developments, future challenges, and major policy issues. In The European higher education area: Perspectives on a moving target, 107–124. Rotterdam/Boston/Taipei: Sense Publishers. Macfarlane, Bruce. 2011. The morphing of academic practice: Unbundling and the rise of the para-academic. Higher Education Quarterly 65(1): 59–73. Musselin, Christine. 2007. The transformation of academic work: Facts and analysis. https://hal-sciencespo. archives-ouvertes.fr/file/index/docid/1066077/filename/ escholarship-uc-item-5c10883g.pdf Schimank, Uwe. 2005. ‘New public management’ and the academic profession: Reflections on the German situation. Minerva 43(4): 361–376. Schmidtlein, Frank A., and Robert O. Berdahl. 2011. Autonomy and accountability: Who controls academe. In American higher education in the twenty-first century: Social, political, and economic challenges, ed. Philip G. Altbach, Patricia J. Gumport, and Robert O. Berdahl, 69–87. Baltimore: JHU Press. Schofer, Evan, and John W. Meyer. 2005. The worldwide expansion of higher education in the twentieth century. American Sociological Review 70(6): 898–920.

A

58 Teichler, Ulrich. 1998. Massification: A challenge for institutions of higher education. Tertiary Education and Management 4(1): 17–27. Teichler, Ulrich. 2001. Mass higher education and the need for new responses. Tertiary Education and Management 7(1): 3–7. Van Valey, Thomas L. 2001. Recent changes in higher education and their ethical implications. Teaching Sociology 29: 1–8. Whitchurch, Celia, and George Gordon. 2010. Diversifying academic and professional identities in higher education: Some management challenges. Tertiary Education and Management 16(2): 129–144.

Access and Equity ▶ Refugees in Tertiary Education, European Policies and Practices

Access Organization ▶ Admissions Processes to Higher Education, International Insights

Access to and Widening Participation in Higher Education Penny Jane Burke Centre of Excellence for Equity in Higher Education, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia

Widening Access and participation (WP) has emerged as a major policy concern in a number of national contexts. It is connected to longer histories over struggles for the right to higher education, to concerns for greater fairness in society, and to ensuring that higher education is more equitable and inclusive. It is also shaped by the growing diversification of student constituencies that have resulted from higher education expansion over the later decades of the twentieth

Access and Equity

century. In the English context, during the period of the New Labour Government (1997–2010), widening participation, often shorthanded as “WP,” gained discursive hegemony, and this discourse has gained momentum internationally. However, the concept of “widening participation” is highly contested within and across different national contexts, and there is no one agreed definition. The different meanings circulating from policies of WP are often implicit, while assumptions are often made about a common or universal understanding of the term. The meanings attached to WP are not only highly contextual but are also connected to diverse and competing values and perspectives, as well as interconnected policies across the public sphere. WP is thus a contested terrain, and there are different perspectives underpinning policy and practice, which have different outcomes and effects. WP is largely concerned with redressing the under-representation of certain social groups in higher education. WP is also connected to wider social movements for greater educational equality, for example, through access, enabling, and foundation programs driven by concerns to develop more socially just higher education systems. Such approaches to WP aim to transform educational structures, systems, and cultures and to create more inclusive institutional contexts, sometimes characterized as “transformatory” approaches to WP (Burke 2002; Jones and Thomas 2005). Although such transformatory approaches are at play, which are embedded in a social justice orientation to WP, “utilitarianism” has been identified as the dominant approach to WP (Jones and Thomas 2005). A utilitarian approach to WP might be described as focusing primarily on individual attitudes couched in a compensatory and remedial framework. This approach is underpinned by notions of individual deficit and strongly emphasizes the relationship between higher education and the economy (Jones and Thomas 2005: 618), characteristic of neoliberalism. The purpose of HE in the utilitarian, neoliberal framework is reduced to enhancing employability, entrepreneurialism, and economic competitiveness (Morley 1999; Thompson 2000;

Access to and Widening Participation in Higher Education

Archer et al. 2003). This has arguably led to greater stratification of institutions. Indeed it has been argued in the British context that “one of the most pernicious effects of the government’s widening participation strategy could be to solidify existing hierarchies (of institutions and knowledge) within higher education” (Barr 2008: 36). Neoliberal perspectives and outcomes underpin utilitarianism, with a focus on the types of employability, human capital, development of skills, and competencies that promote an efficient and competitive workforce in global knowledge economies and markets. Neoliberal and utilitarian discourses of WP have been critiqued for individualizing social inequalities, concealing the social structures, processes, and discourses that reproduce exclusions and marginalization in and through higher education systems. WP policies and strategies include identifying specific groups who should be targeted by WP initiatives and activities. The target groups are different across different national contexts, are debated and contested, and might change over time. The targeting strategies and methods used by policy makers and institutions aim to ensure that WP resources, opportunities, and funding are distributed specifically to those groups who have experienced social and educational disadvantages. Without targeting strategies and methods, it is always possible that WP initiatives and activities might reproduce inequalities by distributing further resources and opportunities to those individuals, families, and groups who already benefit significantly from social and educational advantages and privileges. However, targeting strategies are always potentially problematic in the way they focus on some groups to the exclusion of other groups and tend to perpetuate deficit discourses, which are based in flawed assumptions that students associated with WP target groups lack aspiration, motivation, capability, resilience, and so forth. Targeting could unintentionally contribute to the construction of negative stereotypes or to unwittingly pathologizing communities who have already suffered histories of misrecognition (Fraser 1997). Furthermore, targeting specific groups tends to construct those groups as

59

homogenous, as having a singular voice, history, and a shared set of needs and interests. This fails to acknowledge that personal and social identities are complex formations of multiple and intersecting differences, shaped by deeply embedded structural, economic, and cultural inequalities.

Excellence and Equity A key contemporary discourse at play in higher education is “excellence,” profoundly shaping possibilities and imaginaries in relation to challenging underrepresentation and exclusion in HE. The forces of neoliberal globalization have placed pressure on institutions to strive toward becoming “global universities” and to position themselves as “world-class,” competing for the “best students” in a stratified market driven by league table rankings. Institutions attempt to negotiate the regulatory demands of “excellence” and “equity,” despite the often contradictory values attached to each. “Excellence” as part of a “ranking movement” is “both a manifestation of the new global competitive environment and a driver of change in the field of HE” (Rostan and Vaira 2011, p. vii). Although excellence should not be perceived as in opposition to equity, discourses of “excellence” in higher education institutions (HEIs) often overshadow and/or challenge discourses of WP (see, e.g., Stevenson et al. 2014). Excellence thus poses tensions for the overarching aim of creating greater equity in higher education. For example, in seeking “excellence,” processes of selection and differentiation often become embedded in everyday practices and naturalized, increasingly seen as a necessary and inevitable dimension of HE. Maher and Tetreault (2006) argue that discourses of excellence are associated with struggles for prestige, which compel institutions to participate in competitive practices in the race to be ranked as “world-class.” Nixon (2013, p. 96) warns that competition for funds and for students has led to institutional stratification and the self-protective groupings of institutions, which lobbied intensively for their

A

60

Access to and Widening Participation in Higher Education

market niche. Within this context, prestige has itself become a marketable commodity, reinforcing institutional stratification. What we see are levels of institutional sedimentation that provide the bases for structural inequalities that define, restrict and control the horizons of expectation and possibility. ‘Competition between and within universities’, as Stromquist (2012) points out, ‘does not foster equity but instead creates “winners” and “losers.”’ (Nixon 2013, p. 178)

In the US context, Lazerson (2010, p. 23) argues that HE has expanded in a segmented and hierarchical fashion in ways that might well be interpreted as having “preserved the social structure of inequality.” In the Chinese context, the impact of “excellence” on WP is similarly observed, with “elitism being reinvigorated” (Zha and Ding 2007, p. 55).

Raising Aspiration As a key part of WP strategy, many universities have developed targeted outreach activities aimed at raising the aspiration of children and young people from disadvantaged backgrounds. The focus on “raising aspirations” has been critiqued as confusing material poverty with a so-called poverty of aspiration (Morley 2003; Burke 2012; Whitty et al. 2016). There are a number of examples emerging from the UK context where “aspiration-raising” activities have been shown in fact to reinforce rather than overcome cultural and socioeconomic divisions and inequalities (Slack 2003). The focus on “raising aspirations,” it has been argued, oversimplifies aspiration-formation, ignoring the ways that aspirations are formed in and through complex structural, social, economic, and cultural inequalities, relations, and identities (Burke 2012). The problem is not that students from backgrounds targeted by WP policies lack aspiration but that they are too often denied access to the web of social networks, pedagogical opportunities, educational resources, academic practices, and symbolic and material forms of capital legitimated by institutions such as schools and universities that facilitate high levels of

educational attainment and expectation. Some have highlighted that educational aspiration is mediated by students’ attachments to locality and the feelings of belonging and social inclusion that underpin those attachments (see Ball et al. 1995; Gewirtz et al. 1995; Reay and Ball 1997). Young children imagine future possibilities in the context of the commitment they have to their local area, contexts, and communities (Connolly and Neill 2001). Reay et al. (2001) similarly observe how HE applicants from working-class backgrounds often stress the importance of locality and community in their decision-making process and the sense of security, comfort, and familiarity generated through these localized expressions. Appadurai (2004) conceptualizes aspiration formation as a “navigational capacity” (Sellar and Gale 2011). This draws on insights by sociologists such as Ball and Vincent (1998) who highlight how students from middle-class backgrounds are able to draw on both the formal forms of “cold” knowledge available as well as “hot” knowledge – the knowledge available through informal social networks. Students from working-class backgrounds usually do not benefit from access to “hot” knowledge about higher education and therefore must rely on official forms of “cold” knowledge, which might be challenging to access and decipher. In this way, students from historically under-represented backgrounds “typically have diminished navigational capacities – the result of their limited archives of experience – with which to negotiate their way towards their aspirations” (Gale and Parker 2013).

Diversity “Diversity” is a key theme of WP, and meeting the needs of diverse learners has become a central concern. In some ways, this has helped highlight the importance of teaching and learning in higher education, with concerns to develop pedagogical strategies to address increasingly diverse student groups. However, diversity is too often reduced to tokenistic notions, for example, in the marketing images of university students from diverse

Access to and Widening Participation in Higher Education

backgrounds (Leathwood and Read 2009) without ample attention to how diversity raises serious challenges for admissions, student support, pedagogical, curricula, and assessment strategies in a highly stratified system (Stevenson et al. 2014; Burke et al. 2016). The emphasis of WP policies on equality of opportunity, through treating all individuals the same, conceals histories of inequalities and the significance of social differences that are reproduced through educational systems and structures, as well as differential familial, social, and cultural habitus and capital. Such inequalities require an acknowledgement that WP strategies might at times need a focus on difference and its intersection with structural and cultural formations of inequality. This has led to some heated debate about policies for and practices of affirmative and/or positive action, raising questions about how to address the tensions between practices of “fairness” and “equality” and how to recognize entrenched historical and social inequalities of different groups who are differently located and positioned in terms of access to educational opportunities and outcomes (Fraser 1997). This has led to a focus on how WP strategies might be most effective when framed by both redistribution (e.g., of resources and opportunities) and recognition (e.g., of social and cultural differences), even when these might be in tension (Burke 2012). Researchers also point out the need to understand diversity in relation to intersecting social differences. In the US context, Maher and Tetreault draw on the concept of diversity to “analyze the challenges to institutional privilege brought about by the entrance of new groups into the academy” (Maher and Tetrault 2006: 5). They understand diversity to mean “people and ideas that are different from the assumed norm of White, heterosexual, middle-class and collegeeducated men” (Maher and Tetrault 2006). In their study of the implications of increased diversity in British higher education, Chris Hockings and her colleagues argue that diversity extends beyond the traditional structural divisions of class, gender, and ethnicity, also encompassing diverse student entry routes and the different ways that students combine life, work, and study

61

(Hockings et al. 2008). Critiquing the often used terms of “traditional” and “nontraditional” students in WP policy and practice, they argue that such terms tend to mask the complexity of diverse student populations (Hockings et al. 2008). They examine the ways that difference is used as a source of diversity, enriching the lives of others, or as a mechanism of isolation and marginalization of those who are seen as not fitting in or as “others” (Hockings et al. 2008).

Fair Access WP policy has been largely preoccupied with questions of “fair access.” In England, for example, the 2004 report on admissions practices in HE, chaired by Steven Schwartz, examined “the options that English higher education institutions should consider when assessing the merit of applicants for their courses, and to report on the principles underlying these options” (Schwartz 2004, p. 4). Schwartz asserted that there was no evidence of poor admissions practice in universities but that there was a need for greater transparency of entry requirements and selection processes. This perspective tends to conflate “transparency” and “fairness,” both of which have acquired considerable currency in discourses of HE admission policy. However, making admission processes and practices clear and transparent does not render them “fair” if they continue to discriminate against groups who have been disadvantaged or marginalized socially and educationally (Burke and McManus 2009). The notion of “fair access” has its roots in liberal concerns to promote access to HE among individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds that are deemed to have high levels of potential and ability (Kettley 2007, p. 335). This concern has been expressed at different moments and in different ways throughout the twentieth century. The seminal Robbins Report in Britain presented the meritocratic principle that HE should be provided for all those who have achieved the appropriate entry qualifications and who wish to pursue such courses (Robbins 1963). This underpinning principle has not changed in English policy discourses

A

62

Access to and Widening Participation in Higher Education

and is echoed in many other contemporary national contexts. For example, Australian Senator the Hon Simon Birmingham stated that: We need to ensure that good quality higher education is accessible to all students who have the ability and well informed motivations to benefit from it. (Birmingham 2015, p. 9)

This view of “fair access” is strongly framed by notions of meritocracy (Young 1961). Meritocracy is premised on the belief that all individuals who work hard, and have the prerequisite ability, can succeed within a fair and democratic system. However, such a perspective does not address differential social positions and power relations, which provide some social groups with greater access to the valuable cultural and material resources necessary to gain institutionally legitimated academic forms of success. This lack of attention to the social reproduction of inequalities through cultural, educational, social, and academic forms of capital constructs “success” and “failure” in terms only of individual effort and talent. This reinforces flawed explanations of deficit and locates the problem of WP in the individual rather than in inequitable educational and social structures, cultures, and discourses. Morley and Lugg (2009) argue that WP might thus be understood as a technology of differentiation and stratification, rather than a social justice intervention (2009, p. 41). Leyva (2009) traces the implicit logic behind meritocratic discourses to the historically entrenched relationship between social Darwinism and neoliberalism. This logic tends to naturalize social inequalities on the premise that the socially “fittest” groups, those who demonstrate economic and educational success, gained their social advantage through their evolved ability, intelligence, and merit. Individual underachievement and nonparticipation in HE are thus constructed largely as the result of lack of (cap)ability and/or lack of aspiration.

Inclusion, Belonging, and Difference A concern to create inclusive HE cultures in which a sense of belonging is fostered has been a major theme of WP debates. The broad aim is to

counter exclusive cultures and elitism and to develop inclusive teaching and learning practices, curriculum, and assessment frameworks. However, “inclusion” has been critiqued for placing responsibility on those students deemed to be “different” to transform themselves to meet the dominant and normalized construction of “university student.” Policy discourses of inclusion emphasize the need to: include those who are excluded into the dominant framework/state of being, rather than challenging existing inequalities within the mainstream system, or encouraging alternative ways of being. (Archer 2003, p. 23)

Fostering a sense of belonging has been identified as a strategy to create more inclusive cultures that are not based on a requirement of students to conform to the dominant framework/state of being. Rather, belonging is premised on the recognition and value of difference, including the different perspectives, histories, and experiences students from underrepresented backgrounds bring to HE. Difference is seen as central to developing inclusive pedagogies for equity and social justice (Chawla and Rodriguez 2007; Barnett 2011). Difference should be embraced: not as a problem to be regulated for neoliberal processes of standardization and homogenization but as a critical resource to reflexively develop collective and ethical participation in pedagogical spaces. Such collective participation is not based on a notion that we can overcome power relations, but an understanding that power is complex and fluid and an inevitable dimension of pedagogical relations in which difference is and should be part of the dynamics in which we create meaning and understanding. (Burke 2015, p. 400)

Difference helps to reconceptualize WP as relational and “constructed within systems of power” (Brah 1996: 88). Brah argues that it is important to make a distinction between difference as the “marker of collective histories” and difference as “codified in an individual’s biography” (Brah 1996: 89). However, both forms of difference are significant in the understanding of inequalities in access to and participation in HE and struggles over the right to higher education. Widening participation in higher education is fraught with dilemmas and tensions, with multiple

Access to and Widening Participation in Higher Education

layers, histories, and forms of inequality running through a range of social and educational contexts and pedagogical relations. It is caught up in power struggles, including questions about the purposes of higher education and who has the right to higher education (Burke 2012). Critical scholars have highlighted the ways that contemporary higher education, a diverse and differentiated field, is increasingly being reframed in relation to the logics of neoliberalism and a complex web of intersecting political forces and discourses (Burke et al. 2016). This raises challenges for how we understand “widening participation” and related policies, strategies, and practices.

References Appadurai, A. 2004. The capacity to aspire: Culture and the terms of recognition. In Culture and public action, ed. V. Rao and M. Walton, 59–84. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Archer, L. 2003. Race, masculinity and schooling: Muslim boys and education. Berkshire: Open University Press. Archer, L., M. Hutchings, C. Leathwood, and A. Ross. 2003. Widening participation in higher education: Implications for policy and practice. In Higher education and social class: Issues of exclusion and inclusion, ed. L. Archer, M. Hutchings, and A. Ross. London: Routledge Falmer. Ball, S.J., and C. Vincent. 1998. ‘I Heard It on the Grapevine’: ‘Hot’ knowledge and school choice. British Journal of Sociology of Education 19(3): 377–400. Ball, S.J., R. Bowe, and S. Gewirtz. 1995. Circuits of schooling: A sociological exploration of parental choice of school in social class contexts. Sociology Review 43: 52–78. Barnett, P. 2011. Discussions across difference: Addressing the affective dimensions of teaching diverse students about diversity. Teaching in Higher Education 16(6): 669–679. Barr, J. 2008. The stranger within: On the idea of an educated public. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Birmingham, S. 2015. Speech: Times higher education world academic summit. Retrieved from http://www. senatorbirmingham.com.au/Media-Centre/Speeches/ID/ 2850/Speech-Times-Higher-Education-World- AcademicSummit. Brah, A. 1996. Cartographophies of diaspora: Contesting identities. London and New York: Routledge. Burke, P.J. 2002. Accessing education effectively widening participation. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books. Burke, P.J. 2012. The right to higher education: Beyond widening participation. London: Routledge. Burke, P.J. 2015. Re/imagining higher education pedagogies: Gender, emotion and difference. Teaching in Higher Education 20(4): 388–401.

63 Burke, P.J., and J. McManus. 2009. Art for a few: Exclusion and misrecognition in art and design higher education admissions. London: National Arts Learning Network. Burke, P.J., G. Crozier, and L. Misiaszek. 2016. Changing pedagogical spaces in higher education: Diversity, inequalities and misrecognition. Oxon: Routledge. Chawla, D., and A. Rodriguez. 2007. New imaginations of difference: On teaching, writing, and culturing. Teaching in Higher Education 12(5): 697–708. https://doi. org/10.1080/13562510701596265. Connolly, P., and J. Neill. 2001. Constructions of locality and gender and their impact on the educational aspirations of working-class children. International Studies in Sociology of Education 11(2): 107–130. Fraser, N. 1997. Justice interruptus: Critical reflections on the ‘Postsocialist’ condition. London and New York: Routledge. Gale, T. and S. Parker. 2013. Widening participation in Australian higher education. Report submitted to the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and the Office for Fair Access (OFFA), England Gewirtz, S., S.J. Ball, and R. Bowe. 1995. Markets, choice and equity in education. Buckingham: Open University Press. Hockings, C., S. Cooke, M. Bowl, H. Yamashita, and S. McGinty. 2008. Learning and teaching for diversity and difference in higher education: Towards more inclusive learning environments, Teaching and learning research briefing 41. London: Teaching and Learning Research Programme, ESRC. Jones, R., and L. Thomas. 2005. The 2003 UK government higher education white paper: A critical assessment of its implications for the access and widening participation agenda. Journal of Education Policy 20(5): 615–630. Kettley, N. 2007. The past, present and future of widening participation research. British Journal of Sociology of Education 28(3): 333–347. Lazerson, M. 2010. Higher education and the American dream: Success and its discontents. Budapest: Central European University Press. Leathwood, C., and B. Read. 2009. Gender and the changing face of higher education: A feminized future? Berkshire: Open University Press. Leyva, Rodolfo. 2009. No child left behind: A neoliberal repackaging of social darwinism. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies 17(1): 364–381 , June. Maher, F., and M. Tetrault. 2006. Privilege and diversity in the academy. New York: Routledge. Morley, L. 1999. Organising feminisms: The micropolitics of the academy. Hampshire: Macmillan Press. Morley, L. 2003. Quality and power in higher education. Berkshire and Philadelphia: Society for Research in Higher Education and Open University Press. Morley, L., and R. Lugg. 2009. Mapping meritocracy: Intersecting gender, poverty and higher educational opportunity structures. Higher Education Policy 22: 37–60.

A

64 Nixon, J. 2013. The drift to conformity: The myth of institutional diversity. In Global university rankings: Challenges for European higher education, ed. Tero Erkkilä, 92–108. London and New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Reay, D., and S.J. Ball. 1997. “Spoilt for Choice”: The working classes and educational markets. Oxford Review of Education 23(1): 89–101. Reay, D., J. Davies, M. David, and S.J. Ball. 2001. Choices of degree or degrees of choice? Class, “Race” and the higher education choice process. Sociology 35(4): 855–974. Robbins, L. 1963. Higher education: A report. London: HMSO. Rostan, M., and M. Vaira. 2011. Questioning excellence in higher education: an introduction. In Questioning excellence in higher education: Policies, experiences and challenges in national and comparative perspective, ed. M. Rostan and M. Vaira, vii–xvii. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Schwartz, S. 2004. Fair admissions to higher education: Recommendations for good practice. London: Department for Education and Skills. Sellar, S., and T. Gale. 2011. Mobility, aspiration, voice: A new structure of feeling for student equity in higher education. Critical Studies in Education 52(2): 115–134. Slack, K. 2003. Whose aspirations are they anyway? International Journal of Inclusive Education 7(4): 325–335. Stevenson, J., P.J. Burke, and P. Whelan. 2014. Pedagogic stratification and the shifting landscape of higher education. York: Higher Education Academy. http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/ Research/PedagogicStratification Stromquist, N. 2012. Theory and ideology in the gender proposals of the world bank’s education strategy 2020. In: Christopher S. Collins and Alexander W. Wiseman (ed.) Education Strategy in the Developing World: Revising the World Bank’s Education Policy (International Perspectives on Education and Society) Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 16:133–149. Thompson, J. 2000. Introduction. In Stretching the academy: The politics and practice of widening participation in higher education, ed. J. Thompson. NIACE: Leicester. Whitty, G, A. Hayton and S. Tang. 2016 The growth of participation in higher education in England. In Widening participation in higher education: International perspectives. occasional papers, Issue 1, May 2016. Special Issue co-published with the Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University. Newcastle: Centre of Excellence for Equity in Higher Education. Young, M. 1961. The rise of the meritocracy 1870–2033: An essay on education and equality. London: Pelican Books. Zha, X., and S. Ding. 2007. Can low tuition fee policy improve higher education equity and social welfare? Frontiers of Education in China 2(2): 181–190.

Access to Higher Education in Europe, Trends

Access to Higher Education in Europe, Trends Jan Koucký, Martin Zelenka and Aleš Bartušek Education Policy Centre, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

Synonyms Enrolment in tertiary institutions

Definition Access questions a student ability to enroll in any tertiary institution. Although equal access is formally guaranteed in almost all systems of tertiary education in developed countries, the influence of ascriptive factors remains generally strong. To a certain extent, it is an unintended consequence of the meritocratic principle that is therefore criticized on the grounds that, although it emphasizes competence and results, in fact it favors those who have had better conditions for achieving them only due to a more stimulating and richer (in economic, social, and cultural terms) family background. Ascription occurs when social class or stratum placement is primarily hereditary. In other words, people are placed in positions in a stratification system because of qualities beyond their control. Race, social class, strata or group (parental characteristics), sex, age, and ethnicity are good examples of these qualities. Ascription is one way sociologists explain why stratification occurs.

Expansion and Equity The role and position of education in modern European societies underwent substantial changes in the course of the second half of the twentieth century. Higher levels of education were traditionally open to a relatively tiny group of the population. Unlike primary and, later on, secondary education, they remained highly elitist for a

Access to Higher Education in Europe, Trends

much longer time both in terms of the chances of its acquisition and in terms of the nature of education provided. Participation in higher education was very low before WWII and it only exceeded 10% in the mid-1950s in some European countries. However, the rate of participation (i.e., the proportion of students in the relevant age cohort) in tertiary education increased significantly in developed countries over the last 60 years. This has changed the structure and nature of universities and other tertiary education institutions as well as, and most importantly, the social functions and roles of tertiary education. The enormous growth in the share of the population studying at tertiary education institutions was the consequence of economic, political, and social changes. The economic prosperity in developed Europe after WWII brought about major changes in the labor market and in terms of employment structure. Jobs were created in large numbers and there were increasing requirements for well-prepared and skilled workforce. This was caused by a continuous emergence of new technologies and the related growth in productivity, new trends in consumption, expansion of international trade, and changes in the division and organization of labor. Moreover, transition from agrarian societies of the previous centuries depending primarily on land (still in 1870 nearly a half of the population of Western Europe worked in agriculture) to industrial societies focusing on machinery (the bulk of work took place in factories) was completed. In the second half of the twentieth century the industrial era gradually comes to an end and work in service society focuses more on trade, transport, and similar activities demanding in terms of human labor (the largest proportion of employment moves from industry to traditional services). The last two decades of the twentieth century witness another change where knowledge, innovation and information, as well as the human capacity to acquire knowledge, make use of it and learn, become the main productive force in the knowledge society. Higher education is not only associated with a higher level of employability and income (and, consequently, higher living standards), but it is also considered a key factor of economic growth

65

and technological advancement (Becker 1964; Blaug 1970; Denison 1967; Mincer 1974; or Schultz 1961). Emerging in the 1960s, theory of human capital gained recognition with an assertion that the capacities and education of people were more important (and yielding better returns to investment both to society and individuals) than other forms of capital. However, the following decades saw a certain sobering up from overly optimistic expectations of the social benefits of investment in education (economic analyses repeatedly confirmed that individual returns of education were higher than those to society, e.g., Psacharopoulos 2002). It was pointed out that some of the premises of the human capital theory were untenable (Wolf 2002), and attention was increasingly drawn to the importance of the signaling and allocating functions of education. However, the importance of education for the development of society and the economy has been increasingly stressed again as a result of the gradual process of European integration and the building of the common market. This process is further reinforced by much stiffer global competition requiring that the potential of the entire population (preferably all social groups and individuals) be used in full, and therefore their education and qualifications be enhanced as much as possible. The same requirements are, however, also stipulated by the development of society and politics. The postwar democratization of education was perceived as a substantial widening of rights and liberties of citizens and thus as part and parcel of the overall postwar democratization in Europe. It was also linked with great expectations – some important political programs assumed that education would become an effective instrument in tackling poverty and bringing more justice. Education thus appears as a prerequisite for upholding democratic society that requires full participation in civic life. While some other bonds holding society together have been weakened, the education system is expected to function as an integrating force, limiting marginalization and even exclusion of individuals and social groups. Education has a major influence not only on the stability and cohesion of society as a whole, but also on the development and the quality of life

A

66

of each individual; it facilitates a larger degree of sharing the cultural wealth, establishment of broad social networks and healthier lifestyles. Attention is currently focused not only on quantitative growth, but also on the actual distribution of educational opportunities in society. Nearly all developed countries seek, in addition to increasing the overall rate of participation in education, to increase and equalize participation of all social strata regardless of their social, economic, cultural, or ethnic background, and to ensure equal opportunities (or equity) for each individual. Efforts to overcome social inequality in access to higher education therefore constitute one of the principal characteristics of modern democratic society. Ensuring equal access to education based on individuals’ ability and results (the principle of meritocracy) and not on ascriptive factors has become a generally declared and acknowledged goal. Equity has become, along with quality and efficiency, one of the main objectives of education policies of developed countries as well as international organizations (D’Addio 2007). There exist many grounds for it – and again on multiple levels, economic, socio-political, and ethical. Equal access to education for members of all social groups and strata facilitates the development of the potential of the entire young generation and, in this way, ensures the most effective use of their talents and aptitudes for the benefits of the economy and society. It maintains social cohesion, as it facilitates changes in social status (status mobility) between the generations of parents and children. It makes it more difficult for some to accumulate privileges and for others to be pushed to the margins of society and, in this way, it helps to avoid otherwise inevitable social conflicts. Finally, equal chances in life constitute one of the foundations of understanding justice in democratic societies, as all human beings should have the same human rights, including to education. The individual function of education has been strengthened as well. It was particularly in the postwar period of democratization of society, which brought about extensive opportunities of enhancing individuals’ social status and life, that

Access to Higher Education in Europe, Trends

education became a major factor of upward mobility, “the way up.” Education attained became an important component of the social status of each individual and his/her family, and a factor of change. Tertiary education was indeed viewed as a relatively reliable “lift” to social success: to interesting and prestigious work, high living standard and style, and good social position. Efforts to increase one’s position (and/or that of one’s own children) resulted in an unprecedented growth of educational aspirations in all groups of society. Although individual demand for education does not always correspond to abilities or future position on the labor market, yet it has become the main driving force of the quantitative expansion of education. After decades of expansion, tertiary education – today acquired by a substantial proportion of young people – is seen more as a safeguard against social decline than as a social lift, a safeguard that is even no longer entirely reliable (Keller 2008). Problems thus raised provoke a certain tension between social and individual functions of education. Diversification and Inequalities The development of tertiary education during the last 60 years shows that its expansion is inevitably interlinked with its diversification, both processes are interdependent, caused by the same reasons. The economic reasons and the demand on the labor market – when the graduation rate is growing – require more types and levels of education and training, including short and largely professionally and practically oriented programs. Social reasons and widening of access result in a far higher heterogeneity of students and thus in a greater diversity of their aptitudes, interests, motivations, and goals. Hence quantitative expansion is accompanied with structural transformation, and as new types of institutions and study programs impact on other characteristics of tertiary education, also qualitative transformation is under way. This fundamental threefold transformation proceeds in more stages than one. It was as early as the 1970s that American sociologist Trow – making use of the experience of US higher education institutions that were ahead of European

Access to Higher Education in Europe, Trends

development – defined together with the OECD three basic phases of tertiary education (and thus three types of tertiary education systems) as elite, mass, and universal. Trow characterized and explained them not only in terms of their function, goals, structure, and further qualitative characteristics (e.g., governance, quality standards, access and selection, curriculum) but also quantitatively, according to the proportion of the relevant age group admitted to studies (that is to the entry rate). He established a 15% limit for transition from the elite to the mass phase, and a 30% limit for transition from the mass to the universal phase (Trow 1974), revising later both limits according to experience newly gained in Europe and the USA to 25% and 50%, respectively (Trow 2005). In Europe, the transition from the elite to the mass phase has been in progress since the second half of the 1960s. New short and mostly vocationally oriented programs have been introduced, offered in new types of institutions that were often transformed from best upper secondary technical schools. A whole range included, for instance, Polytechnics in Great Britain and Finland, Fachhochschulen in Germany and Austria, Institutes Universitaires de Technologie and Sections des Techniciens Supérieurs (STS) in France, Higher Vocational Schools (HBO) in the Netherlands, Flemish Hogescholen and Wallonian Hautes Écoles in Belgium, Regional Colleges in Ireland or Norway, or Higher Professional Schools (VOŠ) in the Czech Republic. Although they usually had a lower status as HE nonuniversity institutions or as tertiary non-HE institutions, their graduates often found a good position on a growing labor market. Some countries defined their tertiary education systems explicitly as binary with a clear distinction made between universities and other types of institution (today for instance in Belgium, Finland, or France). However, even in cases where these systems formally remained – or again became – unitary (for instance in the Netherlands, Germany, or the United Kingdom), they still underwent internal structural and qualitative differentiation: vertical according to the position and prestige of the institution, and horizontal

67

according to the focus and specialization of the study programs (Brennan and Naidoo 2007). Since the 1990s research into inequalities in access to tertiary education has been focusing on three key questions that emerge in the process of studying the issue of expansion of tertiary education on the one hand and the issue of inequality in access to this education on the other hand. Does quantitative growth (i.e., a robust expansion of opportunities of studying at tertiary level) also lead to a more equal and fairer access to this education regardless of various advantages or disadvantages on the part of the applicant? Does it result in a genuine decrease in inequality? Moreover, the fact that expansion of tertiary education goes hand in hand with its diversification raises another question: What is the impact of internal diversification of the system on the development of inequalities – irrespective of whether the diversification consists in differences between various sectors of tertiary education, individual schools/ institutions of tertiary education, levels (bachelor’s, master’s, PhD), or fields of studies, with different prestige and standards and, consequently, with a varying level of selectivity? According to the theory of Maximally Maintained Inequality (Raftery and Hout 1993; Raftery 2007) the influence of family background does not decrease until the educational needs of the most favored social groups are satisfied – i.e., until nearly all individuals within these groups achieve the relevant level of education (the term saturation point is used in this context). At this point inequalities began to decrease at the given level of education, but they increase at the next more advanced level, as the population applying for these studies becomes more heterogeneous. The MMI theory is consistent with some other conclusions and it is therefore often used as a working hypothesis in research into expansion and stratification of education. For example, the authors of an extensive comparative study of inequalities in access to education in 12 countries characterized this situation as persistent inequality (Shavit and Blossfeld 1993). Expansion of tertiary education necessarily affects its functions and roles in society. The reason is that, at individual level, instead of serving

A

68

as a lift to prestigious jobs and careers tertiary education becomes a necessary but far from sufficient precondition for reaching up to these jobs and careers. Expansion of tertiary education is accompanied by its inner diversification. New study opportunities emerge predominantly at the lower, less selective level that has been added to complement the higher level of traditional universities. Individual strategies therefore cannot aim at a mere acquisition of tertiary education, but rather at completion of elite and prestigious institutions, at acquisition of higher degrees, studies of preferred programs, etc. However, access to these continues to be limited. This means that inequalities in access have not been eliminated, but have merely shifted within diversified systems and have taken new forms – qualitative and structural instead of quantitative. The Effectively Maintained Inequality theory offers similar conclusions (Lucas 2001; Lucas and Beresford 2010). The new situation continues to be nontransparent. First, it is not clear what the roles of quantitative, qualitative, and structural factors are in various countries. Answering this question would require extensive comparative analyses of the various factors and dimensions involved. However, comparative analyses are limited by a lack of relevant and up-to-date information (Clancy and Goastellec 2007). This is why some of the most recent comparative projects are designed as profound sociological qualitative studies that do compare a number of countries, but also focus on their overall situation and broader context, interpret their specific development, and analyze national data sources without claiming rigorous comparability and relevance. One of the most extensive comparative studies (Shavit et al. 2007) that concerns inequalities in access to tertiary education in 15 countries has expanded on the existing knowledge of the effects of diversification and provided a new assessment of the whole process (particularly see Arum et al. 2007). Firstly, the study focuses on the relationship between expansion, differentiation, and market structure of tertiary education and their impact on inequalities. Expansion is taking place in all countries and, under certain conditions, can lead to a

Access to Higher Education in Europe, Trends

decrease in inequality. At the same time, expansion is closely linked to differentiation, as diversified tertiary education systems increase the overall participation rate. Secondly, the study interprets the research results from two perspectives – diversion and inclusion. The outcomes of the study confirm that inclusion does occur. Although social selection remains the same (until the saturation point is achieved), there are more students of all classes (including those with disadvantages) continuing their education, and inequalities therefore decrease within the age cohort as a whole. Thirdly, the study stresses that the above conclusions – i.e., that expansion supports inclusion although inequalities do not decrease – lead to a new interpretation of earlier research (Shavit and Blossfeld 1993). It was this research that produced the term persistent inequality, but failed to get to the very essence of the problem. Expansion at a certain level of education increases the level of heterogeneity of those who then move on to study at a higher level. This means, at the same time, that expansion facilitates access for a larger proportion of young people from all social strata, and the system should therefore be considered as more inclusive. Although relative inequalities remain unchanged, inclusion leads to an absolute enlargement of access for a wide range of the population. And even though it is possible to see education predominantly as a positional good, yet its expansion represents a benefit because it increases the human capital of individuals and of the entire society. Unfortunately, one of the main problems faced by researches in Europe and around the world is the lack of suitable and comparable data across countries. One of the most recent comparative study (Atherton et al. 2016) considered whether it might be possible to develop a reliable so-called Global Equity Index that would compare HE access across nations, but found that there are not currently enough suitable data available to create a meaningful index. In place of an index, and as a catalyst to action, they have produced a Global Equity Data Charter for HE, with suggestions for some coordinated next steps that providers, national governments, and international organizations can take to gather more comprehensive and comparable data.

Access to Higher Education in Europe, Trends

Inequality in Tertiary Education Attainment 1950–2015 The following analysis of the development of inequalities in tertiary education attainment is based on the data gathered in the first seven rounds of the European Social Survey (ESS), from 2002/2003 to 2014/15, respectively, in more than 30 European countries. Using a concept and methodology developed here (Koucký et al. 2009) and further elaborated here (Koucký et al. 2010), the analysis of the Inequality Index in European countries has revealed that the level of inequality in tertiary education attainment in Europe had been gradually decreasing over the first three decades, but since has increased to about the same level as it was at the beginning. In many European countries inequalities reached their minimum levels during the 1970s and 1980s, but in the 1990s they began to grow again. In number of countries their levels even exceeded those achieved in the 1950s and 1960s. The change in the 1990s can be explained by the overall development of society, in developed countries around the world rather strongly affected by neoliberalism. Its manifestations included, among other things, an increase in the level of wealth and of income inequality and other similar indicators. Since then the Inequality Index for Europe remained about the same. Neither the average European level of inequality in tertiary education attainment nor the longterm trends can be generalized for all countries and periods. It is necessary to deal with individual countries and periods specifically, as they differ a lot. It has turned out, for example, that the originally large spread of the Inequality Index (measured by standard deviation) between countries began to diminish in the 1950s and kept on diminishing till the 1970s. However, the spread of Index values in the 1980s got larger again, and after two decades of smaller differences, the differences in inequality between European countries have reached in its new high in the 2010s. In the decade immediately after the end of the WWII there were high levels of inequalities in tertiary education attainment particularly in Portugal, Lithuania, France Bulgaria, Slovakia, and Spain. However, from that time on inequalities in

69

most of these countries have tended to decrease or fluctuate – although this was not true of all participating countries (e.g., Bulgaria and Slovakia) and all periods analyzed. For example, in the last two and half decades (1990–2015) the highest level of inequality in tertiary education attainment of all 22 analyzed countries can be found in Bulgaria, Slovakia, and also in Belgium, which is the country where inequality in tertiary education attainment has risen the most since the 1980s. A major trend of growing inequalities can also be observed in Estonia (1960s–1980s), the United Kingdom (1960s–1990s), Bulgaria and Lithuania (since 1960s to the present), Slovakia (in 1970s), Germany (1960s–2000s), Greece (1970s–2000s), Sweden (since the 1980s to the present), and France (in the 2010s). However, while in Bulgaria and Slovakia the level of inequality in tertiary education attainment was above-the-average as early as the 1950s, countries such as Estonia, the United Kingdom, and Sweden have never reached the European average and Germany and Greece has stepped over the European average as late as during one of the most recent decade (2000–2010). On the other hand, a steady decrease in the level of inequalities in TE attainment in early decades occurred in Portugal, Finland, Spain, Lithuania, and Sweden. The same happened in Slovenia and Denmark during the most recent decades. However, while Denmark, Finland, Slovenia, and even Spain have shown the lowest inequality levels of all countries in the most recent one and half decade (2000–2015), these values have risen to average levels in the case of Portugal and Sweden and to an above-the-average level in case of Lithuania. Both influences – the starting level of inequality and the long-term development tendencies – are intertwined and explain their present level. In the most recent periods after 2000, the level of inequalities has been the lowest in Denmark, Slovenia, Finland, and Estonia – i.e., countries where the Inequality index has either underlined a major decrease or been low for the entire period (Fig. 1). The analysis of the spread clearly confirms that the differences between countries are far from negligible – both in terms of the level and the development of inequalities in tertiary education

A

70

Access to Higher Education in Europe, Trends

Access to Higher Education in Europe, Trends, Fig. 1 Inequality index in TE attainment, European countries 1950– 2015 (Source: European Social Survey 2017)

attainment. The analysis of development trends and position of individual countries in all six time periods under review has led to the identification of three groups of countries. Although the three groups do represent certain types, the specific position and development of individual countries tend to create a continuum where it is not possible to strictly define any clear-cut boundaries, and countries forming one group still remain relatively heterogeneous. The breakdown of the countries into groups being, to a degree, related to their geographical position and cultural political situation, the three resulting types (groups of countries) have been described as countries of North-Western Europe, countries of SouthWestern Europe, and countries of Eastern Europe. The identification of these groups of countries has resulted in defining three, relatively different trajectories of development that vary both in terms of their overall level and the dynamics of change. In terms of the spread of the level of inequalities (measured by standard deviation), the differences in inequalities were the largest in the 1950s and have become the smallest in the most recent period after 2010. Differences in the level of

inequality between the three groups of countries were decreasing from the 1950s to the 1970s, then slightly increased in the 1980s, and then have begun to decrease again.

The three basic, relatively homogenous groups of European countries are composed as follows: North-Western Europe (North-West): Denmark (DK), Finland (FI), Germany (DE), Ireland (IE), the Netherlands (NL), Norway (NO), Sweden (SE), the United Kingdom (GB). South-Western Europe (South-West): Belgium (BE), France (FR), Greece (GR), Portugal (PT), Spain (ES), Switzerland (CH). Eastern Europe (East): Bulgaria (BG), the Czech Republic (CZ), Estonia (EE), Hungary (HU), Lithuania (LT), Poland (PL), the Slovak Republic (SK), Slovenia (SI) (Fig. 2).

Access to Higher Education in Europe, Trends

71

A

Access to Higher Education in Europe, Trends, Fig. 2 Inequality index in tertiary education attainment, Groups of European countries 1950-2015 (Source: European Social Survey 2017)

The decrease in the overall level of Inequality Index in tertiary education attainment in Europe in the early decades can be largely attributed to the countries of South-Western Europe. Historically, they have a predominantly catholic tradition with a steeper social hierarchy and more clearly stratified social groups and classes. The original levels of inequality in tertiary education attainment in these countries were the highest of all (in the 1950s the Inequality Index was 56 on average, being by far the highest in Portugal) but they began to show a steady decrease in the following decades. In the 1990s inequalities in SouthWestern Europe have started increasing slightly again (51) and, after a small decrease, have increased quite sharply in the last half of a decade. However, this increase has happened only because of increase in Belgium and France. Overall, the lowest levels of inequalities in tertiary education attainment in the entire postwar period can be found in countries of North-Western Europe. They are, to a large degree, rooted in the protestant tradition with a less steep social hierarchy and smaller differences between the characteristics of social groups and strata. Between

1950s and 1980s the average Inequality Index first has decreased and started to gradually increase in the range of 41–44. It then sharply increased to a value of 48 where it remained stable ever since. However, despite this increase in inequalities in the 1990s (the largest one occurred in Germany, the Netherlands, and Norway) this group of countries remains far below the European average. Countries of Eastern Europe experienced an entirely different and more fluctuating development in terms of inequalities. In the 1950s they showed approximately the average European level of Inequality Index in tertiary education attainment. In most Eastern European countries this was caused, above all, by postwar communist takeovers that were often accompanied by an extensive “regrouping” of social strata or “overturning” of social structure, a massive emigration of people from higher social classes and the introduction of “class” criteria in admission to tertiary education institutions. Understandably, this disrupted the processes of intergeneration transmission of education (see, for example, Bourdieu 1986). Despite this, inequalities in

72

tertiary education attainment began to increase again as early as the 1960s and then, again, in the 1980s, as members of “new social elites” gradually restored and consolidated the continuity of intergeneration transmission. As a result, in the 1960s for the first time the average Inequality Index in countries of Eastern Europe achieved the highest level of all three groups. From the 1990s – i.e., immediately after the demise of socialism – Eastern European countries experienced further social changes. They resulted, among other things, in increasing overall social inequalities in many areas, for example, in the distribution of wealth and income. It is therefore not surprising that these changes also had an impact on inequalities in tertiary education attainment. This was particularly due the social status crystallization (a process where status characteristics, which were originally only very loosely connected, begin to strengthen their mutual links and correlate together) that manifested itself, apart from other things, in a severe strengthening of the link between education and income (which was very loose under socialism). An increase in the overall congruence of social status where education began to play a major role had another important implication. In systems with a low proportion of adults with higher qualifications, demand for tertiary education on the part of new young generations began to grow dramatically (in some Eastern European countries they represented large demographic groups). It took higher education policy several years to respond to this development. Due to the necessary selection as part of a supply oriented system, successful candidates were mainly those with a more favorable (supportive) family background and a higher level of economic, social, and cultural capital (see, for example, Shavit et al. 2007). After 2000 inequalities have begun slowly to decrease in Eastern European countries. In connection with an increase of Inequality Index the countries of South-Western Europe in the last half of a decade the level of Inequality Index for Eastern and South-Western European countries is now basically the same. In addition to the overall influence of family background on inequalities in tertiary education

Access to Higher Education in Europe, Trends

attainment of children from various social strata, each of the four factors of family background (so-called ascriptive factors) has a different impact on the overall level of inequality. Another objective was therefore to analyze the scale of impact of various family background factors for the European population for various periods. It has revealed two basic dimensions of intergeneration transmission of inequalities in tertiary education attainment. The first one relates to characteristics of the father and of the mother, the second one to characteristics of occupation and of education. The most significant trend in Europe in the last 60 years in most of countries is the shift from the predominance of the father’s characteristics to the characteristics of education of both parents. The impact of the father’s occupation has been more or less constantly decreasing in Europe since the 1950s when it was at its peak and has actually become the factor with least impact. On the other hand, the impact of the mother’s occupation has been strengthening in the last 65 years even to the level that it has become stronger factor than father’s occupation and about as strong as father’s education. In general, the prevalence of the father has been gradually weakening and impact of mother strengthening. This led to a period of 1990–2010 where impacts of all four factors have become very much similar. However, an analysis of last half a decade showed rather steep increase in impact of mother’s education which is now clearly the strongest factor. Admittedly it is only half a decade and only analysis of future data will show whether this is long term trend.

References Arum, Richard, Adam Gamoran, and Yossi Shavit. 2007. More inclusion than diversion: Expansion, differentiation, and market structure in higher education. In Stratification in higher education, A comparative study. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Atherton, Graeme, Constantino Dumangane, and Geoff Whitty. 2016. Charting equity in higher education: Drawing the global access map. London: Open Ideas at Pearson, Pearson. Becker, Gary. 1964. Human capital. New York: Columbia University Press.

Access to Higher Education, Affirmative Action Blaug, Mark. 1970. An introduction to the economics of education. England: Penguin Books. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1986. Forms of capital. In Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education, ed. John G. Richardson, 241–258. New York: Greenwood Press. Brennan, John, and Rajani Naidoo. 2007. Higher education and the achievement of equity and social justice. In Higher education looking forward theme 2. European Science Foundation. Strasbourge, France. Clancy, Patrick, and Gaële Goastellec. 2007. Exploring access and equity in higher education: Policy and performance in a comparative perspective. Higher Education Quarterly 61 (2): 136–154. d’Addio, Anna C. 2007. Intergenerational transmission of disadvantage: Mobility or immobility across generations? A review of the evidence for OECD countries. Paris: OECD. Denison, Edward. 1967. Why growth rates differ: Post war experience in nine countries. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Keller, Jan. 2008. Vzdeˇlanostní spolecˇnost? (The knowledge society?). Praha: SLON. Koucký, Jan, Aleš Bartušek, and Jan Kovařovic. 2009. Who is more equal? Access to tertiary education in Europe. Prague: Education Policy Centre, Faculty of Education, Charles University. Koucký, Jan, Aleš Bartušek, and Jan Kovařovic. 2010. Who gets a degree? Access to tertiary education in Europe 1950–2009. Prague: Education Policy Centre, Faculty of Education, Charles University. Lucas, Samuel R. 2001. Effectively maintained inequality: Education transitions, track mobility, and social background effects. American Journal of Sociology 106: 1642–1690. Lucas, Samuel R., and Lauren Beresford. 2010. Naming and classifying: Theory, evidence, and equity in education. Review of Research in Education 34 (1): 25–84. Mincer, Jacob. 1974. Schooling, experience, and earnings. New York: Columbia University Press. Psacharopoulos, George. 2002. Returns to investment in education: a further update. Washington, DC: World Bank. Raftery, Adrian E. 2007. Maximally maintained inequality and educational inequality in the Czech Republic. Seminar of MSMT and Institute of Sociology of the Academy of Sciences of the CR. 11 April 2007. Prague, Czech Republic. Raftery, Adrian E., and Michael Hout. 1993. Maximally maintained inequality: Expansion, reform, and opportunity in irish education. Sociology of Education 66: 41–62. Schultz, Theodore. 1961. Investment in human capital. American Economic Review 51: 1–17. Shavit, Yossi, and Hans P. Blossfeld. 1993. Persistent inequality: Changing educational attainment in thirteen countries. Boulder: Westview Press. Shavit, Yossi, Richard Arum, and Adam Gamoran, eds. 2007. Stratification in higher education. A comparative study. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

73 Trow, Marin A. 1974. Problems in the transition from elite to mass higher education. In Policies for higher education. Paris: OECD. Trow, Marin A. 2005. Reflections on the transition from Elite to mass to universal access. In International Handbook of Higher Education. Kluwer Publishers. Dordrecht, Netherlands. Wolf, Alison. 2002. Does education matter? London: Penguin Books.

Access to Higher Education, Affirmative Action Bridget Terry Long Harvard Graduate School of Education, Cambridge, MA, USA

Synonyms Positive discrimination

Definitions Affirmative action refers to the use of preferences favoring individuals in a particular group when making a choice between candidates. In regards to higher education, it refers to preferences in admissions decisions, i.e., being more likely to choose students from a certain group over others, all else equal. Framed more broadly, affirmative action is a policy focused on creating differential processes or applying different standards in order to promote more equal access to higher education opportunity. The preferences that receive the most attention are those for specific racial or ethnic groups, but affirmative action policies could alternatively be tailored to favor other student traits, such as low-income status (i.e., “economic” affirmative action). Additionally, college admissions committees have been shown to show preferences for students with legacy status (having a parent or other relative who has attended the institution), athletes, and students of a certain gender.

A

74

The Use of Preferences in College Admissions in the USA Most of the work on affirmative action has focused on the context of the USA. Although most American students attend the college of their choice and 80% of colleges are nonselective, there has been a great deal of concern about how admissions decisions are made and the extent to which preferences are given to certain groups. This question has become more important as differences in resources, government subsidies, and returns by level of college selectivity have been better documented (Hurlburt and Kirshstein 2012; Hoxby and Long 1999). It is important to acknowledge that students’ decisions play an important role in determining the outcomes we observe in higher education. In other words, affirmative action, or lack thereof, will not alone determine whether colleges and universities are racially and ethnically diverse. Because students’ decisions, as well as their access to resources and opportunities, are also important determinants of campus racial and ethnic composition, postsecondary institutions require more than race-conscious policies in order to diversify their campuses. Persistent differences by race, income, or gender all along the educational pipeline, from primary to secondary education, imply substantial gaps in college access even in the face of racial preferences. Although there is a perception that racial affirmative action is extensive in American higher education, the true role of race in college admissions is largely unclear. To discern the role of racial preferences, researchers have often compared the academic characteristics of students of different races at a particular college. The most popular indicator has been differences in the test scores of students of various races and ethnicities who have been accepted to the college. The implicit assumption of this approach is that test scores, often college entrance exams like the SAT or ACT, are a good measure of preparation for college and a good predictor of future postsecondary performance. However, research shows that such tests have limited ability to predict who will do well in college. Research on the

Access to Higher Education, Affirmative Action

predictive ability of SAT scores on future college performance suggest older versions of the test explained only about one-third of a student’s first-year performance in college (Bridgeman et al. 2000). More recent versions of the SAT, which has been revised in response to critique and pressure from colleges, have higher correlations (Shaw 2015). But even these correlations may overstate the predictive ability of the SAT, as Rothstein (2004) finds that, after correcting for selection issues inherent in studies of predictive validity, the SAT’s contribution to predictions of freshman grade point averages are about 20% smaller than the usual methods imply. Notably, the predictive power of the SAT varies by student gender and race, with the exam having a strong correlation with future performance for some groups versus others. The test also varies in how well it predicts future student performance by institution (Aguinis et al. 2016), and as a result, the SAT is a better predictive tool for some schools than others. Research on the predictive power of the ACT, the other major college entrance exam in the USA, suggests only two of the four subtests are good predictors of positive college outcomes (Bettinger et al. 2013). Additional critiques of college entrance exams include the fact that scores are easily influenced by test preparation and repeated sittings, which are both more prominent activities among more affluent students (Vigdor and Clotfelter 2003; Bound et al. 2009) and the assertion that such exams actually do not capture the material most often taught in high school or expected in college. To improve the predictive power of test scores, most suggest using it in combination with other academic measures, such as high school GPA. When determining the extent of preferences in college admissions, it is important to understand that test scores are only one of many factors admissions committees consider in their decisions. Admissions committees in the USA, particularly at selective institutions tasked with choosing between thousands of applicants, take into account a wide variety of criteria, including student essays, recommendations from teachers, extracurricular activities, and leadership

Access to Higher Education, Affirmative Action

experiences. Also, beyond just using high school GPA, admissions committees also consider the rigor of the courses taken. These additional factors are difficult to quantify in an objective way for the large-scale analyses needed to discern whether and how preferences are being used by admissions committees. For example, Kane (1998) compares the college application decisions of high school graduates at elite institutions. Although he finds that students of color attended slightly better institutions than white students with similar background characteristics, he notes that this observation is based only on test score and high school GPA information. Given the importance of other factors, a comparison of the mean test scores of students from different racial or ethnic backgrounds who have been accepted by a college is not a sufficient way to determine whether and to what degree racial preferences have been used in admissions. Looking beyond the most selective institutions, evidence of racial preferences at large, competitive (mostly public) colleges is stronger based on the admission processes employed by the institutions. With tens of thousands of applicants, large, public flagship universities do not have the time nor the capacity (i.e., admissions staff) to review millions of pieces of subjective material. Instead, many assign points to various aspects of an applicant’s file and then accept all students above a cutoff. The practice of assigning points to a student based on racial category alone is what was called into question in Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 US 244 (2003), a case brought forth by a student against the University of Michigan. It is unclear how many minority students would have been accepted without the points awarded for race. Moreover, without the racial category, many students of color may have alternatively received points for being from an underrepresented high school or having what the University of Michigan defined as socioeconomic disadvantage. However, the court ruled against the university for this specific practice, and since then, schools have generally moved towards treating factors like race, income, or being a firstgeneration college student as part of a holistic process rather than explicitly assigning points.

75

Challenges to Racial Preferences and Alternatives In response to the challenges to affirmative action, several states have eliminated racial preferences in admissions. Instead of using preferences explicitly in admissions, several states have replaced affirmative action policies with percentage plans. Under these policies, the top proportion of a high school is given admission to some set of public universities. To understand the effects of these programs, researchers have compared levels of diversity before and after enactment. As the oldest program, Texas has been the focus of much of the research in this area. Several years after the introduction of the policy, researchers have found that the black enrollment level is still lower than before the end of affirmative action (Kain and O’Brien 2003). Quantitative analysis by Horn and Flores (2003) provide further analysis of the Texas, California, and Florida plans. They conclude that percentage plans alone do not serve as effective alternatives to affirmative action. The elimination of affirmative action in these states certainly had a chilling effect on the appeal of selective public colleges for students of color. The number of applications from minority students fell significantly at these schools, and therefore, the level of minority acceptances would have fallen even without the elimination of racial preferences. Instead, such policies must be coupled with recruitment, outreach, financial aid, and support programs targeted at underrepresented communities with large minority student populations. As an alternative to race-based preferences, some have instead suggested preferences should be given to students on the basis of income. To address the paucity of low-income students at the most selective colleges in the USA, these advocates favor “economic affirmative action.” Cancian (1998) compares the effects of racebased programs to admissions policies based on class or economic status. Using the NLSY to simulate the effects of different admission scenarios, she finds that doing so would not produce the same results as programs that target race. Bowen et al. (2005) also consider the effects of considering economic diversity (i.e., income) in

A

76

admissions. This research suggests that using preferences according to student income is not a good substitute for using racial preferences in admissions decisions. The reason stems from the fact that although many students of color are from low-income backgrounds, there are still many more white students who are poor and who would benefit from economic affirmative action. Bowen et al. (2005) suggest that selective colleges should to continue race-sensitive admissions policies while also working to enroll more students from low-income backgrounds.

Affirmative Action Outside of the USA In the global context, countries beyond the USA have used affirmative action to promote equity in their tertiary education systems. For some, their policies are in response to historical discriminatory policies and practices, such as Apartheid in South Africa, the differential treatment of persons of different castes in India, and explicit favoritism towards white persons as in Brazil (Long and Kavazanjian 2012). Another justification relates to economics: this argument suggests that helping disadvantaged people will contribute to the economic efficiency of a country (Moses 2010). While increased access to tertiary education has been documented across the world, like in the USA, low-income, minority, and first-generation college student are the least likely to enroll and succeed in tertiary education. Across nations and cultures, countries have used a diverse set of mechanisms and procedures in the name of affirmative action. One decision that must be made is about the approach, or how the country will designate the beneficiaries, which can be particularly challenging if the country does not have a good census or way of categorizing and tracking individuals by group. Countries could designate beneficiaries of redistributive policies according to membership in established groups (e.g., South Africa) or construct its own social categories to determine who is eligible for preferences (e.g., India). The form of affirmative action can also vary from being a preferential boost in admissions, which is defined as adding points to

Access to Higher Education, Affirmative Action

the ratings of a target group. Alternatively, some countries, like Malaysia and Brazil, use quota systems that allot a certain number of slots to members of the target group. For example, a policy in India mandated that 49.5% of seats be reserved for students and faculty members of scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, and other “backward” classes (Deshpande 2006; Gupta 2006). The strength of the policy also varies across countries. In some places, preference is only given to the target group in a case of equally qualified candidates. Other countries have much strong policies and exert preferences that result in choosing the disadvantaged group over other candidates regardless of qualifications.

References Aguinis, H., S.A. Culpepper, and C.A. Pierce. 2016. Differential prediction generalization in college admissions testing. Journal of Educational Psychology 108: 1045–1059. Bettinger, Eric P., Brent J. Evans, and Devin G. Pope. 2013. Improving college performance and retention the easy way: Unpacking the ACT exam. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 5 (2): 26–52. Bound, John, Brad Hershbein, and Bridget T. Long. 2009. Student reactions to increasing college competition. Journal of Economic Perspectives 23 (4): 119–146. Bowen, William G., Martin A. Kurzweil, and Eugene M. Tobin. 2005. Equity and excellence in American higher education. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press. Bridgeman, Brian, Laura McCamley-Jenkins, and Nancy Ervin. 2000. Predictions of freshman grade-point average from the revised and recentered SAT I: Reasoning test, Research report 2000-1. New York: College Entrance Examination Board. Cancian, Maria. 1998. Race-based versus class-based affirmative action in college admissions. Journal of Policy Analysis & Management 17 (1): 94–105. Deshpande, A. 2006. Affirmative action in India and the United States. In Equity & development: World development report. Washington, DC: The World Bank, Background Papers. Gupta, A. 2006. Affirmative action in higher education in India and the US: A study in contrast. Berkley: Center for Studies in Higher Education, University of California. Horn, C., and S. Flores. 2003. Percent plans in college admissions: A comparative analysis of three states’ experiences. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Civil Rights Project.

Access to Higher Education, Barriers to Enrollment and Choice Hoxby, Caroline M., and B.T. Long. 1999. Explaining rising income and wage inequality among the collegeeducated. Cambridge, MA: working paper no. 6873. Hurlburt, Steven, and Rita J. Kirshstein. 2012. Spending: Where does the money go? Washington, DC: The Delta Cost Project at American Institutes for Research. Kain, J., and D. O’Brien. 2003. Hopwood and the top 10 percent law. Cecil and Ida Green Center for the Study of Science and Society, Working Paper, University of Texas at Dallas, Dallas. Kane, T.J. 1998. Racial and ethnic preferences in college admissions. In The black-white test score gap, ed. C. Jencks and M. Phillips, 431–456. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Long, B.T., and Laura Kavazanjian. 2012. Affirmative action in tertiary education: A meta-analysis of global policies and practices. World Bank report. Moses, M.S. 2010. Moral and instrumental rationales for affirmative action in five national contexts. Educational Researcher 39 (3): 211–228. Rothstein, Jesse M. 2004. College performance predictions and the SAT. Journal of Econometrics 121 (1–2): 297–317. Shaw, Emily J. 2015. An SAT validity primer. The College Board. Available at http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ ED558085.pdf Vigdor, Jacob, and Charles Clotfelter. 2003. Retaking the SAT. Journal of Human Resources 38 (1): 1–33.

Access to Higher Education, Barriers to Enrollment and Choice Bridget Terry Long Harvard Graduate School of Education, Cambridge, MA, USA

Definitions Access refers to whether a student attends higher education. In other words, it is the question of whether a student is able to enroll in any postsecondary institution. Choice focuses more on the student’s particular selection of an institution. While most students are able to access at least some colleges for attendance, they may not have the opportunity to attend any institution (i.e., choice) due to barriers, such as affordability and academic preparation or achievement level (Long 2007). For example, in the United States, financial

77

aid policy and open admissions standards make public, 2-year colleges accessible to all students, but not all students are able to attend the more expensive and selective 4-year universities. While governments have created policies and programs to bolster college access, there are growing concerns about barriers to choice due to the fact that there are differences in resources and outcomes for students by institution type (Long and Kurlaender 2009). Also, with better data being made available to track student persistence in college over time, there is acknowledgment that college access is not a sufficient indicator of increased education levels due to high rates of attrition, particularly among low-income students. In recent work, there is much more focus on whether students complete their intended postsecondary training and the policies that might support degree completion.

Trends Trends during the last several decades document that college access has increased substantially in the United States. The percentage of students who recently completed high school and enrolled in college by the October immediately thereafter increased from 45% in 1960 to 69% in 2015 (US Department of Education 2016). Additional students choose to enter a postsecondary institution later in life leading to the fact that about threefourths of Americans eventually enter college. In terms of choice, there is good information on how college enrollment is split between 4-year colleges and universities, which focus on awarding bachelor’s and graduate degrees, and 2-year colleges (i.e., community colleges), which primarily award associate’s degrees and educational certificates. In 2015, about 25% of recent high school graduates chose community college, while 44% enrolled immediately in a 4-year college (US Department of Education 2016). College access differs by demographic group and is reflected by gaps in enrollment rates. In 2015, 69.5% of White, recent high school graduates enrolled in college in comparison to 62.6% and 67.1% for Black and Hispanic students,

A

78

Access to Higher Education, Barriers to Enrollment and Choice

respectively. Meanwhile, Asian students had higher levels of college enrollment than other groups, at 86.7% in 2015. There are also major gaps by family income level. In 2015, 63% of students from low-income families (defined at the bottom 20% of the income distribution in the United States) enrolled in college immediately following high school graduation in comparison to 83% of students from high-income families (defined as the top 20%) (US Department of Education 2016).

Key Challenges to College Access and Choice There are many barriers to college access, especially for low-income and minority students, but most can be grouped into three major categories: affordability, academic preparation, and information. The major first set of barriers to college access relates to cost and affordability. During the 2016–2017 school year, the average total list tuition and fees at public 4-year colleges and universities was $9650, with average total charges amounting to $20,090. Concerns about affordability are even greater at private 4-year colleges and universities, which charged an average list tuition price of $33,480, or $45,370 including room and board. Relative to family incomes, tuition prices have skyrocketed during the last several decades. From 2006–2007 to 2016–2017, in-state tuition and fees at public, 4-year colleges and universities increased an average of 3.5% per year beyond inflation; in comparison, median family income in the United States increased only 0.4% per year from 2005 to 2015 (College Board 2016a). A second major set of barriers to college access and choice is academic preparation. Many students do not finish secondary school adequately prepared for higher education. Data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) indicate that in 2004, only 26.8% of high school seniors had completed “high-level” academic coursework, defined as 4 years of English, 3 years of mathematics (including at least 1 year of a course higher than Algebra II), 3 years of science, 3 years of social studies, and 2 years of

a single non-English language (Chen et al. 2010). Furthermore, a lack of alignment between the K-12 and postsecondary education systems frequently results in confusing messages to students and their parents about how and what students should do to prepare for college (Venezia et al. 2003). There are also significant gaps in test scores by background (Jencks and Phillips 1998; Reeves and Halikias 2017 and Jencks et al. 1998). Therefore, while academic preparation is a problem for many students, it is a problem that especially affects low-income and minority students. The third major impediment to college access for many students is the lack of information and the complexity of the college enrollment process, from decisions about preparation to the admissions and financial aid application process to college choice and matriculation. Information is a critical factor in models of higher education decision-making (Becker 1993), with the amount and accuracy of information a student has being important to supporting his or her calculation of the relative costs and benefits of going to college. Complexity and lack of information partly explain some of the challenges related to affordability and preparation described above. For instance, low awareness and information about financial aid is a barrier for some students to complete the necessary applications to obtain support to help them pay for college.

Attempts to Address Barriers and Lessons for the Future To help families deal with the expense and encourage college enrollment, the federal and state governments spent $54 million on student grants in 2015–2016. The federal government also spent $96 million to provide student loans (College Board 2016b). States are also deeply involved in providing financial subsidies to students, which take the form of appropriations to public colleges and universities. These funds act as operational support for public institutions and enable them to lower the tuition price for in-state students. In 2015, state appropriations to public colleges and universities totaled $78 billion

Access to Higher Education, Barriers to Enrollment and Choice

(SHEEO 2016). After taking into account the multiple sources of financial assistance, the price paid by students is much lower than the list prices in college catalogs (College Board 2016a). The growth in college enrollment during the last several decades is at least partly explained by the growth in financial aid to students. Researchers have consistently found that grants have positive effects on college enrollment (Deming and Dynarski 2010; Dynarski and Scott-Clayton 2013). However, policy design is an important determinant of a program’s effectiveness, with easy-to-understand programs having the largest impact (Long 2010). However, even with grants, the remaining costs that families must meet are often substantial, which put into jeopardy the college access. As a consequence of unmet financial need, students are increasingly turning to loans to cover their postsecondary costs. Unfortunately, little is also known about how the availability of loans affects college access, because identifying the effect of loans is empirically challenging due selection issues. However, many papers highlight concerns, including the long-term negative repercussions of an excessive student debt burden. To address issues of academic preparation, many colleges and universities have remedial or developments courses, which target students in need of material below “college level” with the purpose of improving students’ abilities to succeed in college. The bulk of remediation is provided by nonselective, public institutions, the point of entry for 80% of 4-year students and virtually all 2-year students (Bettinger and Long 2009). In many ways, remediation is what enables college access for significant numbers of students by allowing them to enroll in higher education even though they are not fully prepared for postsecondary course material. Unfortunately, traditional remediation programs have been found to have mixed, or even negative, effects on the outcomes of students (Bettinger and Long 2009; Calcagno and Long 2008; Martorell and McFarlin 2011; Boatman and Long forthcoming). More recently, there are efforts to reform remedial courses, sometimes using technology and additional supports, and early results suggest such

79

reforms produce better results on average (Boatman 2012). To better meet the needs of underprepared students, some colleges have also implemented interventions such as summer bridge programs, learning communities, academic counseling, and tutoring in an effort to help students build better study skills (Bettinger et al. 2013; Sommo et al. 2012). In acknowledgment of how lack of information limits college access, recent policy efforts have focused on simplifying forms and procedures for getting financial aid. Evidence suggests interventions that help streamline and provide assistance to students during the college enrollment process can have dramatic effects on access. For example, Bettinger et al. (2012) implemented a program that used tax information to pre-populate the financial aid form and then streamlined the completion of the rest of the form. They found that the intervention increased substantially college aid applications, improved the timeliness of application submission, increased the receipt of need-based grant aid, and ultimately increased the likelihood of college attendance and persistence. There is a growing body of research that suggests targeted help at key points in the college enrollment process could support better decisions about academic preparation and financial aid receipt (Castleman and Page 2016; Long and Bettinger 2017).

References Becker, Gary. 1993. Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis with special reference to education. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Bettinger, Eric, and Bridget T. Long. 2009. Addressing the needs of under-prepared college students: Does college remediation work? Journal of Human Resources 44 (3): 736–771. Bettinger, Eric, Bridget T. Long, Philip Oreopoulos, and Lisa Sanbonmatsu. 2012. The role of application assistance and information in college decisions: Results from the H&R block FAFSA experiment. Quarterly Journal of Economics 127 (3): 1–38. Bettinger, Eric, Angela Boatman, and Bridget T. Long. 2013. Student supports: Developmental education and other academic programs. In Future of children: Postsecondary education in the U.S., ed. C. Rouse, L. Barrow, and T. Brock, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University. Vol. 23(1)

A

80 Boatman, Angela. 2012. Evaluating institutional efforts to streamline postsecondary remediation: The causal effects of the Tennessee developmental course redesign initiative on early student academic success. New York, NY: National Center for Postsecondary Research Working Paper. Boatman, Angela, and Bridget T. Long. Does remediation work for all students? How the effects of postsecondary remedial and developmental courses vary by level of academic preparation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. Forthcoming. Calcagno, Juan Carlos, and Bridget T. Long. 2008. The impact of postsecondary remediation using a regression discontinuity design: Addressing endogenous sorting and noncompliance, Working Paper No. 14194. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Castleman, Ben, and Lindsay Page. 2016. Freshman year financial aid nudges: An experiment to increase FAFSA renewal and college persistence. Journal of Human Resources 31 (51): 389–415. Chen, Xianglei, Joanna Wu, and Shayna Tasoff. 2010. Academic preparation for college in the high school senior class of 2003–04. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. College Board. 2016a. Trends in college pricing. New York: The College Board. College Board. 2016b. Trend in student financial aid. New York: The College Board. Deming, David, and Susan Dynarski. 2010. Into college, out of poverty? Policies to increase the postsecondary attainment of the poor. In Targeting investments in children: Fighting poverty when resources are limited, ed. Phil Levine and David Zimmerman. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Dynarski, Susan, and Judith Scott-Clayton. 2013. Financial aid policy: Lessons from research. The Future of Children 23 (1): 67–91. Jencks, Christopher, and Meredith Phillips. 1998. The Black-White test score gap. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. Long, Bridget T. 2007. The contributions of economics to the study of college access and success. Teachers College Record 109 (10). Long, Bridget T. 2010. Making college affordable by improving aid policy. In Issues in science and technology. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Summer. Long, Bridget T., and Eric Bettinger. 2017. Simplification and incentives: A randomized experiment to increase college savings. Harvard University manuscript. Long, Bridget T., and Michal Kurlaender. 2009. Do community colleges provide a viable pathway to a baccalaureate degree? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 31 (1): 30–53. Martorell, Paco, and Isaac McFarlin. 2011. Help or hindrance? The effects of college remediation on academic and labor market outcomes. The Review of Economics and Statistics 93 (2): 436–454.

Accountability Reeves, Richard, and Dimitrios Halikias. 2017. Race gaps in SAT scores highlight inequality and hinder upward mobility. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. Sommo, Colleen, Alexander Mayer, Timothy Rudd, and Dan Cullinan. 2012. Commencement day: Six-year effects of a freshman learning community program at Kingsborough community college. New York: MDRC. State Higher Education Executive Officers Association (SHEEO). 2016. State higher education finance: FY 2015. Boulder: State Higher Education Executive Officers Association. U.S. Department of Education. 2016. Digest of education statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Venezia, Andrea, Michael Kirst, and Anthony Antonio. 2003. Betraying the college dream: How disconnected K-12 and postsecondary education systems undermine student aspirations. Stanford: Stanford Institute for Higher Education Research.

Accountability ▶ Autonomy and Accountability in Higher Education, Western Europe

Accountability in Higher Education Jeroen Huisman Department of Sociology, Centre for Higher Education Governance Ghent, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

Introduction The concept of accountability has always been figured in higher education if only for the fact that – despite notions of the ivory tower, knowledge for its own sake, and academic freedom (all suggesting academia does not need to account for its activities) – academics and their institutions through time have had relationships with various stakeholders in which “answerability” continuously played a role. Such answerability relates to universities accounting for – in the traditional sense of the word – public money spent but also to academics explaining, in their professional work, how they set up their research, which methods they used and why, and explaining to

Accountability in Higher Education

what extent their results are valid, reliable, and generalizable. What is relatively new is that the notion of accountability is much more explicit on stakeholders’ agendas than in the past and that it appears that the balance between accountability and autonomy tilts quite often toward an overemphasis on accounting for performance. The changes will be addressed in more detail in the next section. As suggested, “answerability” would be the term closest to accountability, but a somewhat more elaborate definition would be helpful to unpack the intricacies. Burke (2004, p. 2) asked – echoing the work of Trow (1996) and Behn (2003) – “Who is accountable to whom, for what purposes, for whose benefit, by which means, and with what consequences?” This perspective is in sync with approaches from public policy and administration (see also Romzek 2000). Bovens (2007, p. 450) offers a fine-grained definition of accountability as “a relationship between an actor and a forum, in which the actor has an obligation to explain and to justify his or her conduct, the forum can pose questions and pass judgement, and the actor may face consequences.” Like Burke, he stresses the importance of relationships between actor (who is accountable?) and forum (accountable to whom?), including rewards and sanctions (with what consequences?) involved. To further clarify the concept, it may be helpful to juxtapose it to other concepts often used in the academic literature: accountability in contrast to trust (Trow 1996), academic freedom (external accountability seen as “a threat to the freedom of professionals to manage their own time and define their own work”, Trow 1996, p. 312), and institutional autonomy (Estermann et al. 2011). In this context, accountability is – implicitly or explicitly – judged as a loss of trust, freedom, and autonomy.

Historical Background In various reflections on the emergence or stronger visibility of accountability (Alexander 2000; Burke 2004; Trow 1996), three explanations dominate. A first explanation is rooted in the idea of massification of higher education, which undeniably brought along high(er) public costs to

81

maintain a much larger higher education system. As a consequence, governments – being the main funder of higher education – were forced to (re) balance investments in higher education and other semipublic sectors, like primary and secondary education, health, and social welfare. Second, with the growth of higher education as an important semipublic sector, governments – particularly in Western Europe (Neave and van Vught 1991) – started to realize that it became difficult or even dysfunctional to try to steer higher education through (detailed) regulation. Governments indeed took initiatives to grant higher education institutions more autonomy by, e.g., deregulation and self-regulation, but it appears however that full trust was not what most governments had in mind when push came to shove. Governments, alongside granting autonomy, introduced ex post evaluations (through quality evaluation and assurance policies) and asked institutions in return to autonomy to account for their activities (through annual reporting, spending reviews, and performance reporting). In contemporary higher education, systems show different levels of autonomy, and the level of autonomy also differs by topic (see, e.g., Estermann et al. 2011). Logically, this implies also different ways and levels of governmental intrusiveness (and hence different configurations of accountability mechanisms). Third, related to the shift in steering, partly under the influence of neoliberal or NPM perspectives emerging in the 1980s and 1990s, performance standards and output controls were considered to be appropriate tools for steering public sectors, and trust seemed to have disappeared largely from the governments’ radars, which made the idea of the obligation to explain and justify conduct much more prominent, and this further fueled the debate on how higher education institutions – importantly through audits and performance indicators (see below) – should account for their activities.

Traditional and New Types and Forms of Accountability With the increasing attention to accountability, obviously researchers started to investigate the

A

82

way it materializes and the consequences accountability practices may have. To make sense of the types and forms, we follow Romzek (2000) who made an important distinction between four types of accountability. She argues that professional and political accountability have always been part and parcel of (public) sectors in which key actors have considerable discretion to pursue relevant tasks. Indeed, professional accountability has been around in higher education and research for a long time, in that academics always have been asked to explain, e.g., which methods they use in their investigations, what the empirical basis is for their findings (and how reliable and valid these data are), and how they arrive at their conclusions (including their generalizability). The norms and standards for what is deemed an appropriate level of answerability stem from professional socialization, bearing in mind that there is considerable variety in norms and values (and the plurality thereof) across disciplines and fields. Political accountability is visible in the ways university representatives relate to higher education’s stakeholders: “the accountable official anticipates and responds to someone else’s agenda or expectations” (Romzek 2000, p. 27). Political accountability is apparent when university representatives explain to governments and parliaments – either by invitation or proactively – what their institutions do and why (obviously emphasizing the important contributions they make to the economy and society). These two forms are in some contrast to hierarchical and legal accountability, forms in which there is a more direct and explicit answerability relation. Legislation may prescribe that higher education institutions report annually to the government or relevant ministry or may require universities to have their financial reports audited. Hierarchical accountability may traditionally have been less common in professional settings with a stress on trust and collegial behavior, but New Public Management has introduced the idea of appointed professional managers and higher education leaders that “have the right to manage.” In sum, forms and types of accountability have always been figured – implicitly or explicitly – in higher education. It appears, however, that

Accountability in Higher Education

increasingly important values such as calls for responsiveness and efficiency (Romzek 2000, p. 29) have led to more explicit attention to specific accountability tools and mechanisms. Two of the most used (and investigated) tools that governments have introduced are quality assurance and performance indicators.

Accounting for Quality Undeniably, the introduction of quality assurance mechanisms in many higher education systems from roughly the 1980s on was partly geared toward quality improvement and enhancement, but the objective of answerability may have dominated the discourses. External quality assurance (of programs and institutions) nicely fits Bovens’ definition of accountability in that governments set up a relationship between higher education institutions (actors) and a quality assurance agency (forum), in which the actor has an obligation to explain and to justify how it takes care that the quality of the program or institution is maintained (conduct). The forum normally sets the standards, and peers are involved in posing questions to the actor and passing a judgment. Judgments are normally qualitative, in that a visitation committee of peers present a narrative (fitting the idea of quality enhancement), culminating either in a final qualitative assessment (excellent, good, poor) or a score (sometimes not much more than simply reflecting the qualitative assessment, 5, excellent; 4, good; etc.). These judgments may have consequences (sanctions) in terms of the actor maintaining or losing a license or public financial support. There can also be indirect sanctions, in that potential students may decide not to register for or employers may be reluctant to contract a graduate of a program or institution that has not received a favorable judgment. Surprisingly, there is limited research on the effects of quality assurance in general (Williams and Harvey 2015), and an even more limited focus on quality assurance as accountability. Studies so far address the following themes. One strand of literature stresses the burden that this type of

Accountability in Higher Education

accountability brings along. For example, Power (1997) speaks of the audit explosion, stressing the many accountability questions professionals and their institutions nowadays must answer, and argues that it leads to an increase in bureaucracy and – moreover – to rituals and ceremonies, implicitly questioning the effectiveness of the instrument: Does it actually lead to improved quality (see also Strathern 1997)? In some countries, the perceived excessive workload that quality assurance brings along has led governments to shift their attention from program assessment to institutional audits. Another strand of literature gradually starts to address impacts on institutions, academics, and students. Studies confirm that quality assurance has brought along more awareness of, attention to, and greater concern for quality issues (in teaching and learning). The evidence is however thin on whether accountability has increased quality and, if so, at what costs and with what side effects? Regarding the latter, Williams and Harvey (2015) – summarizing the relevant literature – point at the downsides: the risk of excessive bureaucratization, greater administrative workloads for academic staff keeping them from their core tasks, formalization that stifles innovation, and creativity and the de-professionalization of academic staff (being policed and suffering from a lack of trust) (see also, e.g., Hoecht 2006; Murphy 2009).

(Ac)counting by Numbers: Performance-Based Funding It could be argued that accounting for (educational) quality does in practice not necessarily differ from performance-based funding. It may be merely a matter of emphasis on particular critical elements of the tools in place. But what would distinguish performance-based funding conceptually from quality assessment (section “Accounting for Quality”) is the former’s stronger emphasis on the role of indicators and formulas versus narratives, the accompanying stress on outcomes and outputs versus processes, and a stronger role of (financial) sanctions.

83

Using Bovens’ terminology again regarding performance funding: there is a funding relationship between a higher education institution (actor) and a government or governmental agency (forum), in which the actor has an obligation to offer performance indicators (that are seen as proxies of its conduct and achievements). The forum decides – most of the times a priori – which indicators are important and what a “proper” performance would be and which formula is to be used to translate the performances in terms of resources to be allocated in the future. Because of the formulaic approach, there is limited scope for posing questions, and judgments (on future resources) are passed almost automatically. The institution receives a reward – but may not perceive this in such a way . . . – if performances are above average and a sanction in the case of underperformance (as defined by the forum). Some research has focused on the goals (Behn 2003) and appropriateness of performance-based funding in public contexts, arguing that performances are not (fully) under the control of the higher education institutions themselves; hence “punishing” institutions that do not perform well is unfair and moreover does not help them to perform better. Other research has focused on what would be good indicators of performance in higher education, much of it criticizing the contemporary indicators used in resource allocation models. Often reference is made to a popular formulation of Goodhart’s law: When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure, pointing at the largely unwanted side effects of performance measurement (see also Strathern 1997). Finally, more work appears that empirically investigates the impact of performance-based funding on institutional and student performance. Most of this research (e.g., Shin 2010; Volkwein and Tandberg 2008) concludes that performances do not improve (the work of Rezende 2010 being an exception). The explanations of the lack of improvement are not straightforward, although reference is made to the potential lack of institutional capacity and capabilities of higher education managers and leaders to make a real difference (Shin 2010).

A

84

Conclusion Accountability has changed the landscape in higher education, particularly the governance relationships between key stakeholders (especially government and its agencies) and higher education institutions. Increased scrutiny has put higher education institutions in the spotlight, and they will have to continue to explain for their behavior and performances, whether they like it or not and whether or not they agree with the quality and performance indicators. In this entry, the role of quality assurance and performance indicators (in relation to funding) has been emphasized as the main tools of contemporary governments. It appears that through these mechanisms, the performances of higher education institutions have become more transparent, with the caveat that indicators used are mere proxies and not always deemed reliable or valid. That said, the current accountability procedures in place in various systems seem to satisfice stakeholders. Sometimes a crisis or incident in a particular higher education system (fraud, poor quality – sometimes despite quality assurance being in place) begs the question whether the accountability measures should be more stringent, and this sometimes leads to adjustments in the instruments. Major overhauls are not expected, apart maybe from the development in the direction of risk-based approaches, with a focus on scrutiny of activities that are regarded as the riskiest (King 2015) and performance contracts (to be interpreted as “softer” versions of performance-based funding, leaving more scope for negotiation and interpretation of performances, see, e.g., De Boer et al. 2015). Important accountability questions remain unanswered and warrant further research. Some of these go back to the intangibility of performances in higher education: What are proper indicators of quality and performance? Does the quality and performance of higher education institutions actually increase? In concrete terms, do students learn more or better? Are institutions more effective and efficient? Other relevant questions pertain to the effects. Does accountability mechanism affect performance? Do potential advantages of accountability mechanisms

Accountability in Higher Education

outweigh the costs? And, related, what are the side effects of accountability and are these positive or problematic?

Cross-References ▶ Evaluative State, Higher Education, The ▶ External Quality Assurance in Higher Education ▶ Institutional Accountability in Higher Education

References Alexander, F. King. 2000. The changing face of accountability. Monitoring and assessing institutional performance in higher education. Journal of Higher Education 71 (4): 411–431. Behn, Richard D. 2003. Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures. Public Administration Review 63 (5): 586–606. Boer, De, Ben Jongbloed Harry, Paul Benneworth, Leon Cremonini, Renze Kolster, Andrea Kottmann, Katharina Lemmens-Krug, and Hans Vossensteyn. 2015. Performance-based funding and performance agreements in fourteen higher education systems. Enschede: CHEPS, University of Twente. Bovens, Mark. 2007. Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework. European Law Journal 13 (4): 447–468. Burke, Joseph C., ed. 2004. Achieving accountability in higher education. Balancing public, academic and market demands. San Francisco: Wiley. Estermann, Thomas, Terhi Nokkala, and Monica Steinel. 2011. University autonomy in Europe II. The scorecard. Brussels: EUA. Hoecht, Andrea. 2006. Quality assurance in UK higher education: Issues of trust, control, professional autonomy and accountability. Higher Education 51: 541–563. King, Roger. 2015. Institutional autonomy and accountability. In The Palgrave international handbook of higher education policy and governance, ed. Jeroen Huisman, Harry de Boer, David D. Dill, and Manuel Souto-Otero, 485–505. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Murphy, Mark. 2009. Bureaucracy and its limits: Accountability and rationality in higher education. British Journal of Sociology of Education 30 (6): 683–695. Neave, Guy, and Frans A. van Vught, eds. 1991. Prometheus bound. The changing relationship between government and higher education in Western Europe. Oxford: Pergamon. Power, Michael. 1997. The audit society. Rituals of verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Administrative Planning, Higher Education Institutions Rezende, Marcelo. 2010. The effects of accountability on higher education. Economics of Education Review 29: 842–856. Romzek, Barbara S. 2000. Dynamics of public sector accountability in an era of reform. International Review of Administrative Sciences 66 (1): 21–44. Shin, Jung Cheol. 2010. Impacts of performance-based accountability on institutional performance in the U.S. Higher Education 60: 47–68. Strathern, Marilyn. 1997. ‘Improving ratings’: Audit in the British university system. European Review 5: 305–321. Trow, Martin. 1996. Trust, markets and accountability in higher education: A comparative perspective. Higher Education Policy 9 (4): 309–324. Volkwein, J. Fredericks, and David A. Tandberg. 2008. Measuring up: Examining the connections among state structural characteristics, regulatory practices, and performance. Research in Higher Education 49: 180–197. Williams, James, and Lee Harvey. 2015. Quality assurance in higher education. In The Palgrave international handbook of higher education policy and governance, ed. Jeroen Huisman, Harry de Boer, David D. Dill, and Manuel Souto-Otero, 506–525. Basinstoke: Palgrave.

85

Activity-Based Funding ▶ Performance-Based Education

Funding,

Higher

Administration ▶ Bureaucratization Process in Higher Education

Administrative Data ▶ Performance Indicators in Higher Education

Administrative Planning, Higher Education Institutions Accreditation ▶ External Quality Assurance in Higher Education ▶ Quality Assurance in Higher Education, A Global Perspective

Tony Strike President and Vice-Chancellor’s Office, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

Synonyms Institutional research; New public management; Strategic planning

Acquiring a Student Skillset ▶ Understanding Education

the

Transition

to

Active Participation in Public Life ▶ Civic Engagement in Higher Education

Active-Learning Approach ▶ Peer Instruction in Higher Education

Higher

Definition Administrative planning is not (yet) a welldefined, recognizable, and bounded set of processes or activities that consistently belong together in a single, identifiable administrative functional area. There is no unified naming convention for the activities found in higher education institutions’ administrative planning offices across the world and nor is there one name for the offices where administrative planning activities are located. Activities defined by some institutions as administrative planning are in some other institutions under the responsibility of

A

86

other roles or functions. While administrative planning activities can be identified as distinct from other administrative activities using some criterion, they are located differently in institutions and so defy a functional definition (Strike et al. 2017). Terenzini (1993) took the view that in the USA the activity he identified as institutional research could best be described using the three types of intelligence required: technical or analytical intelligence, issues intelligence, and contextual intelligence. Administrative planning is more productively defined as a process than as an administrative function, a process which is intended to be used to help academic leaders decide on priorities or actions or on the allocation of resources. In this chapter, administrative planning is taken to be the systematic organization of the processes that exist at the institutional level to guide academic decision-making about the future. This definition includes an institution’s internal management of its academic units through an internal planning cycle, sometimes resulting in student intake targets, teaching loads, student fee setting, and the planning or forecasting of research activity and income. Administrative planning may also include performance monitoring, external competitor, or market analysis, providing data and analysis to support internal management decision-making. Some administrative planning may also exist at the level of the continent (e.g., the European Union’s modernization agenda for higher education), nation, state, or system, but these extra-institutional layers of activity are not considered other than contextually to help explain what is observed at the institutional level.

Introduction Internationally higher education as an activity has since the 1970s and 1980s changed in its scale, in its rates of participation, in its funding sources, in its regulatory and governance mechanisms, and in its expected contribution to the economy of nation states and to business innovation. The marketization of higher education has led to competition between autonomous institutions for

Administrative Planning, Higher Education Institutions

income and competition for high-quality staff and for increased rank in third-party league tables, which has in turn driven an increased desire for institutional-level differentiation and competitive advantage. The emergence of strategic planning in higher education as a distinct administrative activity was also a feature of the 1970s and 1980s. Some argued the existence of this new set of administrative activities was evidence of the bureaucratization of academic leadership (Lane and Stenlund 1983) if not its usurpation using the tools of a new managerialism (Deem 1998), rather than a set of processes for supporting academic leaders in their more challenging roles. It is easy to see how this critique came about. For example, Kotler and Murphy (1981, p. 472) wrote “This procedure is hierarchical in the context that overall goals are generally set at the top. . ..each dean and department chairperson would develop a strategic plan and send it up to the high level administrators. Then, the top administrators would examine all plans.” Another view might be that institutional-level academic leaders increasingly looked for a more professionalized administrative planning process to aid them in what had become a complex environment in which to exercise a leadership role and to help them to respond to an increased accountability burden. Keller’s authoritative best seller (Keller 1983) exemplified a heyday for administrative planning as a rational, orderly, and systematic answer for an academic leadership looking for a way to meet the challenges they then faced. Whatever the founding explanation, administrative planning activities are now recognizable and discoverable in higher education institutions on every continent. Once established as a mainstream activity, administrative planning was disparaged as a management fad (Birnbaum 2000) and for being “too linear, for relying too heavily on available hard information, for creating elaborate paperwork mills, for being too formalized and structured, for ignoring organizational context and culture, and for discouraging creative, positive change” (Dooris 2002, p. 27). Criticism of administrative planning in the 1980s and 1990s was not though unique to higher education (Mintzberg 1994).

Administrative Planning, Higher Education Institutions

Structured Intentions and Flexible Creativity A survey of the UK Russell Group (researchintensive) universities conducted in 2016 found that 20 of the 22 respondents had an internal annual planning cycle, which in the majority of cases was being led by the vice-chancellor or deputy vice-chancellor or a pro vice-chancellor with a planning brief. The director or head of planning in most cases coordinated and contributed to the annual planning process. The purpose of the planning cycle varied by institution and included setting student numbers and budgets, staffing levels, or evaluating performance (Strike et al. 2017). Chadwick and Kew-Fickus (2017, p. 72) argued that the “annual planning cycle is the route through which higher education institutions (HEIs) take their strategic intentions and translate them into targets, budgets and activities in order to make strategy happen.” It is part of the inherent ideology of administrative planning that it is a process and as such it must be structured, intentional, transparent, sequential, comprehensive, and informed so to permit considered and contextualized decision-making. However, Chadwick and Kew-Fickus accept that when higher education institutions consider how to implement strategy, this was often through “a few large initiatives, which by their very nature are one-off, time-bound and focussed on a discrete area of activity.” They explain this phenomena is not a failure of administrative planning “so much as fundamental to the nature of higher education institutions: complex, multi-faceted, composed of disciplines which often have strikingly different needs, and characterised by distributed decisionmaking rooted in the professional expertise and autonomy of the academy.” Academic professionals are responsible for planning, directing, and undertaking academic teaching and research within higher education institutions. Knight and Trowler (2001, p. 132) asserted that given this cultural reality, the top-down managerialism required as a precondition of successful administrative planning “depends on a rather rationalist, reductionist and mechanistic view of how organisations operate, use resources and create value.

87

There are good reasons for believing that even if it is a sustainable view of systems designed to do simple tasks, it is quite inappropriate to complex systems with multiple means for pursuing fuzzy goals.” If there is a controversy here, it lies between those who believe all decisions should be part of an agreed planning process and those who believe such tidiness and discipline are unnecessary or unhelpful to creativity and change or are countercultural to the academy.

Strategy Formation and Implementation Orientations Strategy formation and strategy implementation are separate processes requiring different approaches, skills, and attributes (Mintzberg and Lampel 1999). The planning perspective manifests as an ordered and sequential process for delivering incremental phases of an approved strategy. Implementation of a strategy, as seen in a planning orientation, leans toward process thinking and process management founded on benchmarks, goals, indicators, and action plans. However, once a strategy has been formulated, other legitimate responses than a planning orientation can be found which are less analytical or are aimed at something other than inculcating process uniformity. More emergent, episodic, differentiated, or crafted approaches might include, for example, contingency management, cultural change, organizational development, developing a learning organization (Okumus and Roper 1999), performance-based steering, total quality management (Akyel et al. 2012), or strategic project management. Strategic management could be constructed, for example, on a “strategy-structure-culture” or a “strategystandards-training” pattern of implementation instead of a “strategy-goals-plans” pattern. Strike and Labbe (2016) identify in a literary-textual analysis of institutional strategic plans that differentiation can be achieved by using emotion, by creating narratives and stories about culture and values, and by using case studies as evidence as an alternative to rational goals, indicators, and metrics where benchmarks and rank are offered as the evidence. Institutions need to be clear within their

A

88

national context how much freedom they have to escape the confines of imposed measures of excellence and so express their mission and identity on their own terms, but in any case they can perhaps more freely choose how to express their goals and how to implement them.

A Continuum Between Research, Policy, and Practice This chapter excluded from its definition of administrative planning the work of academic researchers looking at higher education as a field of study, even when focussed on research or analysis for the particular employing institution. Some institutional researchers are academic and others are administrative. One of the problems found in defining administrative planning was the oftenblurred line between higher education research undertaken by academics as a field of study (institutional research) and the inquiry and analysis needed for decision support undertaken by administrators (administrative planning). The highlighting of this division is not done here to create or suggest a firewall; the relationship in other contexts than in making a definition is a useful bridge between higher education research, policy, and practice. In the USA, the Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE) was formed in 1976 to advance the study of higher education. By contrast, the American Association for Institutional Research (AIR) incorporated in 1966 was for those interested in collecting and analyzing data to support institutional decisionmaking. The Society for College and University Planning (SCUP) was also formed in 1966 as a community of higher education administrative planning professionals supporting the achievement of institutional planning goals. A similar tribal division was found in the UK, with academics, whose field of study is higher education, belonging to the Society for Research into Higher Education (SRHE), formed in 1965 as a learned society concerned with the greater understanding of higher education through research. Academics in academic administration who study their

Administrative Planning, Higher Education Institutions

institution to aid management decision-making belong to the Higher Education Institutional Research Network (HEIR), joined by practitioners in administrative roles who also conduct institutional research. Those who are pursuing policy and practice likely belong to the Higher Education Strategic Planners Association (HESPA), formerly the National Planners Group (NPG). Presented this way it may look like a continuum, but in fact in the USA and the UK, the number of administrative planners belonging to more than their one group is limited, with little conversation between the researchers and practitioners. Less strong tribal identities may cause these different groups to meet or merge. The European Higher Education Society (EAIR), for example, brings together researchers using institutional data and those involved in policy and practice, including research. EAIR professes itself an association of experts and professionals interested in the relationship between research, policy, and practice in higher education and genuinely seems to achieve this mixed participation.

Administrative Planning Around the World By visiting 24 university websites across 19 countries and 6 continents in July 2017 to look for examples of planning systems and processes, it was possible to observe the variety of ways in which administrative planning activities were structurally located, titled, and organized around the world. Google Translate was used for those higher education websites that were not available in English. Higher education institutions were identified in Europe (Germany, Italy, Hungary, and the Netherlands), Africa (South Africa, Ghana, and Kenya), Asia (Hong Kong, China, Malaysia, and Thailand), North America, South America (Brazil, Argentina, and Ecuador), and Oceania (Australia and New Zealand). Confirmation of the existence of administrative planning was first sought, and then its structural or reporting location was noted, the name of the office found, and some

Administrative Planning, Higher Education Institutions

description made of the activities included in the function described. For example, in Germany the Freie Universitat Berlin had an Office of Strategic Planning and Reporting as a support team to the Executive Board. The office had responsibility for external reporting, an annual planning cycle, and performance-based allocation of funds. They also provided advice to senior leaders on the strategic positioning of the university (see http://www.fuberlin.de/sites/bws/index.html).

Results The first observation was that administrative planning activities could always be found and although existing in many forms could reasonably be taken to be ubiquitous. Secondly, the title of the functional area, which encapsulated the administrative planning activities, varied substantially. Examples found included but were not limited to the Office of Strategic Planning and Reporting, Office for Internal Audit, Strategic Planning Office, Planning and Control Function, Institutional Planning Department, Institutional Research and Planning Office, Office of Institutional Research, Global Planning and Strategy Centre, Executive Secretariat of the Planning Committee, Office of Governance and Planning, and Planning and Information Office. The functional content of the offices where the administrative planning activities were located also varied. They included, for example, some or all of collecting and analyzing data, external reporting, annual planning cycles, allocation of funds, internal audit, monitoring performance of academic departments, analysis to support decision-making, developing responses to the national policy environment, student surveys, key performance indicators, servicing committees, forecasting student numbers, and setting tuition fees. Where any one of these activities was identified as belonging to administrative planning in one institution, it could be found allocated to another function in another institution. Administrative planning offices reported variously to an executive board or a planning committee; to the registrar or secretary general

89

or equivalent senior administrative role; to the provost, vice-president, or academic prorector, or an equivalent senior academic role, or in some cases to the president or the vice-chancellor or equivalent. The similarity in the existence of planning processes across the universities investigated was striking, with variations around the location of the planning function within the structure of the university and the additional functions also coordinated by the department or team that was responsible for planning. There were also differences between countries on the availability of information provided on public websites.

Looking Ahead As system and data management capabilities for storage, analysis, and sharing of information and insights improve, the emphasis will shift from administrative planning as a process toward institutions viewing administrative planning as a source of business intelligence and analytics. There is undoubtedly more emphasis on the quantification of outcomes from education and research. This has led to a proliferation in the range and type of measures used to benchmark the performance of academics, disciplines, departments, institutions, or countries with one another. Those who argue that higher education can and should resist a reductionist view of what it is for and what it does are not winning the debate with the governments, with the industry, and with the public who provide the funds and who want facts. The argument now turns on the responsible use and interpretation of metrics in the management of higher education rather than on the very existence of the metrics. Wilsdon (2017) presses for the development of better indicators, the contextualized interpretation, and the avoidance of algorithmic accountability. Just as administrative planning was proclaimed in the 1970s and 1980s as a useful process, in the early 2000s advanced analytics are being claimed as a new and powerful differentiator. The technical or analytical intelligence originally identified by Terenzini (1993) to

A

90

exploit these new technological advances exists in large part in administrative planning teams and will continue to legitimize and give impetus to the functions evolution.

Administrative Planning, Higher Education Institutions

as it typically has the data skills to exploit new technological capabilities to help inform academic decision-makers.

References Conclusions Administrative planning has a 40–50 year history in higher education. At the boundary, its identity blurs with academic research into higher education as a field of study and with institutional research. An activity defined in one higher education institution as administrative planning can fall within the remit of another function in another institution. No common or agreed set of core functions exist which define administrative planning as distinctive, and so it is more usefully defined as a process. In most cases the rationale for the processes described seems to be to implement an extant institutional strategy. Administrative planning is open to accusations of bureaucratizing higher education and for introducing tools and processes identified with new public management. However, administrative planning exists, and it has it seems become normative. Taken together these findings might suggest administrative planning is unnecessary, even contested. It is sustained because it is found to be desirable by academic leaders in helping them perform their roles or because of regulatory or governance requirements imposed from out with the institution itself. The absence of core functions probably means administrative planning must constantly (re-)prove the value of systematizing and must ensure its outcomes are worthwhile. The rational process orientation of much of the administrative planning commonly described by universities is one but not the only means by which institutions can choose to express and implement strategy. New system capabilities for holding, analyzing, and sharing insights from data are supporting a fresh drive toward the quantification and measurement of the outputs from higher education and are facilitating a modern trend toward management through the use of metrics and indicators. This technological trend is giving fresh impetus and legitimacy to the administrative planning function

Akyel, N., T. KorkusuzPolat, and S. Arslankay. 2012. Strategic planning in institutions of higher education: A case study of Sakarya University. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 58: 66–72. Birnbaum, Robert. 2000. Management fads in higher education: Where they came from, what they do, why they fail. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Chadwick, Steve, and Olivia Kew-Fickus. 2017. The planning cycle: A strategic conversation. In Higher education strategy and planning: A professional guide, ed. Tony Strike, 71–92. Abingdon: Routledge. Deem, Rosemary. 1998. ‘New managerialism’ and higher education: The management of performances and cultures in universities in the United Kingdom. International Studies in Sociology of Education 8 (1): 47–70. Dooris, Michael J. 2002–2003. Two decades of strategic planning. Planning for Higher Education 31 (2): 26–32. Keller, George. 1983. Academic strategy: The management revolution in American higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Knight, Paul, and Paul J. Trowler. 2001. Departmental leadership in higher education. Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press. Kotler, Philip, and Patrick E. Murphy. 1981. Strategic planning for higher education. The Journal of Higher Education 52 (5): 470–489. Lane, Jan-Erik, and Hans Stenlund. 1983. Bureaucratisation of a system of higher education. Comparative Education 19 (3): 305–323. Mintzberg, Henry. 1994. The rise and fall of strategic planning. New York: Free Press. Mintzberg, Henry, and Joseph Lampel. 1999. Reflecting on the strategy process. Sloan Management Review 1999: 21–30. Okumus, F., and A. Roper. 1999. A review of disparate approaches to strategy implementation in hospitality firms. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research 23 (21): 21–39. Strike, Tony, and J. Labbe. 2016. Exploding the myth: Literary analysis of universities’ strategic plans. In Positioning higher education institutions: From here to there, 125–140. Rotterdam: Sense. Strike, Tony, Martin Hanlon, and Dominic Foster. 2017. The functions of strategic planning. In Higher education strategy and planning: A professional guide, ed. Tony Strike, 30–48. Abingdon: Routledge. Terenzini, Patrick. 1993. On the nature of institutional research and the knowledge and skills it requires. Research in Higher Education 34: 1–10. Wilsdon, James. 2017. Responsible metrics. In Higher education strategy and planning: A professional guide, ed. Tony Strike, 247–253. Abingdon: Routledge.

Administrative Staff as Key Players in the Internationalization of Higher Education

Administrative Staff as Key Players in the Internationalization of Higher Education Fiona J. H. Hunter Centre for Higher Education Internationalisation, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milan, Lombardy, Italy

Synonyms Internationalization of administrative/support/ professional staff in higher education

Definition Measures undertaken by a higher education institution to ensure its administrative staff (other than those in international offices) are adequately prepared to perform tasks related to the internationalization of higher education and training administrative staff to become active players in the process. It is recognized that the level of preparation of administrative staff to carry out internationalization tasks will vary significantly in different institutions and world regions.

Administrative Staff and Definitions of Internationalization There have been many revisions and reiterations in the definitions of internationalization of higher education over the last 25 years or so, each seeking to reflect more accurately the various evolutions in the way the term is understood and enacted around the world. Typically, the administrative staff – i.e., those individuals who do not hold positions focused directly on teaching/learning and/or research – or their functions have been excluded from these definitional exercises, and even when scant reference is made, the administrative role is rarely discussed in the literature. To a large extent, this trend is reflected also in the

91

practice of internationalization where, although administrative staff have always been involved, the focus has been placed principally on academic activities and hence on students and teachers. As early as the mid-1990s, when internationalization was still a fledging concept, Knight and de Wit (1995) highlighted the need to prepare “faculty, staff and students to function in an international and intercultural context.” While much has been done, or at least debated, about the preparation of graduates for life and work in a globalized world and an increasing attention is paid to the need to train faculty to teach in the international classroom or to encourage their active involvement in internationally coproduced research, it is presumed to a large extent that administrative staff are just getting on with the tasks at hand. They have been described as invisible actors, expected to adapt to the changing institutional needs and provide the requisite levels of service, with or without the appropriate training (Brandenburg 2016). As institutions aspire to a more comprehensive approach to internationalization, as defined by Hudzik (2011), the focus and the challenges are typically seen around making the necessary changes in the teaching, learning, and research functions. However, the same definition stresses the importance of engaging the entire higher education community and makes specific reference not only to institutional leadership, governance, faculty, and students but also to all academic service and support units (Hudzik 2011). The trend to consider the administrative role and ramifications of internationalization is reflected also in the recently revised and closely related definitions for internationalization at home and internationalization of the curriculum. As these dimensions become more comprehensive and inclusive, they include references to the service functions that are required to underpin effective internationalization processes. The revised definition for internationalization at home by Beelen and Jones (2015) also includes the informal curriculum and thus embraces all aspects of the student experience. This includes the provision of student services and hence the role of administrative staff. Leask’s retooling of

A

92

Administrative Staff as Key Players in the Internationalization of Higher Education

her own definition for internationalization of the curriculum (IoC) makes explicit reference to the support services and thus includes the administrative role, as well (Leask 2015). Finally, a recently revised version of Knight’s widely accepted definition of internationalization of higher education (de Wit et al. 2015) seeks to provide an overarching sense of purpose to internationalization. It highlights that it is not just a process but one that is purposeful and inclusive. By embracing “all students” in the definition, it seeks to reflect the growing awareness that internationalization must become less elitist if it is to make a real contribution to the quality of education and research. In parallel, by including “all staff,” it also reflects an increasing awareness that internationalization is critically dependent on their active engagement whether they be in academic or administrative functions. Academic engagement is increasingly being addressed in the literature and to varying degrees is reflected in institutional policies and practice, precisely through greater interest in the “at home” dimension of internationalization and the related development of internationalized curricula. However, much less attention has been paid to the administrative function and on how it contributes not only to the quality of the student experience but also to how it can foster institutional improvement in internationalization.

Internationalization as a CrossFunctional Dimension There has long been the understanding that the administrative function is principally the responsibility of a specialized unit, generally referred to as the international office or other variations of the term. While well-prepared, professional staff in the international office can make a significant contribution to the success of international activities, it is also increasingly recognized that as internationalization grows in volume and scope, it can no longer remain an exclusive responsibility of a single unit. Rather, it needs to be distributed across a range of administrative units, each with its own specializations and competences. These

units however may be in need of specific skills development if they are to become active players in internationalization. Higher education institutions, that identify internationalization as strategic to the mission, recognize that “international education no longer can be seen as a fragmented list of activities executed by international offices and a small group of motivated internationalists among staff and students” (de Wit 2011). This implies the need for a more holistic approach that considers not only the appropriate academic activities but also the support services and the management of resources, financial and human, that work in synergy toward achieving institutional goals. Such an approach demonstrates an understanding that internationalization is a cross-functional dimension of all institutional activities (Hunter and Sparnon 2018). As universities declare internationalization to be increasingly important or even essential to their development, a growing number have developed or are developing a strategic plan in order to reach their goals. Naturally, these strategies come in a range of forms and degrees of effectiveness, and having a strategic plan does not always mean that it is reflected in institutional policies and everyday practices. A commitment to internationalization requires a carefully thought-out process that takes into consideration the development of the whole institution. This inevitably implies a longterm change process, and the more open and future-focused the university is, the more likely it will be willing to engage in organizational change as an essential component of its internationalization strategy. Beyond a strategy that identifies and implements appropriate structures and processes, it will be the people working within an institution who bring the objectives to life and make internationalization to happen. And it is increasingly important to recognize that those working in administrative units, providing high-quality professional services across a broad range of functions, are vital to this endeavor. However, this crucial role is often ignored in many institutions today. Consequently, insufficient attention is paid to providing administrators with the necessary

Administrative Staff as Key Players in the Internationalization of Higher Education

knowledge and preparation to deliver appropriate levels of service in line with the university’s aspirations for quality and excellence in internationalization (Hunter 2018).

Fulfilling the Potential of Administrative Staff to Become Key Players in Internationalization The first step is recognizing the fundamental role these staff play and acknowledging them as active participants or, better still, equal partners in the internationalization process. Higher education institutions that adopt a more comprehensive approach to internationalization will also need to build a shared understanding of – and sense of commitment to – internationalization in both their academic and administrative communities. Otherwise, they face the risk of dividing people into two groups – those who are committed and convinced versus those who feel distant and disengaged from internationalization (Hunter 2018). The second step is linking the development of support services to the institution’s strategic direction in internationalization. This can be done through the provision of dedicated training for administrative staff, which is often understood in non-English-speaking countries as English language courses. While the ability to speak English is indeed a key skill, staff also need to be able to communicate in a multicultural environment and to have greater understanding of internationalization in general, as well as their own institution’s internationalization’s strategy. Professional development is not only about gaining appropriate knowledge and skills but also about building team spirit and shared commitment. Whatever the program developed, it is important to make it meaningful to the staff by tailoring professional development to their specific needs as well as linking it to the human resource policies for career advancement and promotion. If human resource needs are built into the strategy for internationalization, it will be easier to identify the types of intervention required or how current and future human resources might be better deployed. Indeed, in some cases it may be more effective to

93

hire new staff, especially where high-level professional skills are required; this can be a means to accelerate the internationalization process and change the institutional culture (Brandenburg 2016).

Conclusions Improving the capacity of administrative staff to deliver high-quality international services is not without challenges. These may often be linked to shortcomings in current institutional structures and practices that are not supportive of internationalization, such as workload levels and understaffing, communication and coordination of different administrative units, excessive bureaucracy, and limited financial resources that can prevent or discourage effective engagement on the part of administrative staff. The starting point is to address these challenges in the strategic planning phase and to undertake the necessary steps to recognize the importance of administrative staff in a way that enables them to emerge as equal partners and key facilitators of internationalization.

Cross-References ▶ Administrative Planning, Higher Education Institutions ▶ Higher Education Globalization, Implications for Implementation of Institutional Strategies for Internationalization

References Beelen, J., and E. Jones. 2015. Redefining internationalisation at home. Bucharest: Bologna Researchers Conference. Brandenburg, U. 2016. The value of administrative staff for internationalization. In International higher education. Number 85: Spring. Boston College: Centre for International Higher Education. de Wit, H. 2011, October. Naming Internationalization will not revive it. University World News No 194. de Wit, H., F. Hunter, L. Howard, and E. Egron Polak. 2015. Internationalisation of higher education. Brussels: European Parliament. Directorate-General for Internal Policies.

A

94 Hudzik, J. 2011. Comprehensive internationalization: From concept to action. In Comprehensive internationalization: From concept to action, ed. J. Hudzik, p6. Washington, DC: NAFSA: Association of International Educators. Hunter, F. 2018. Training administrative staff to become key players in the internationalization of higher education. In International higher education. Boston College: Centre for International Higher Education. Hunter, F., and N. Sparnon. 2018. Warp and Weft: weaving internationalization into institutional life. In The future agenda for internationalization in higher education: Next generation insights into research, policy and practice, ed. D. Proctor and L. Rumbley. Abingdon: Routledge. Knight, J., and H. de Wit. 1995. Strategies for internationalization of higher education. Historical and contextual perspectives. In Strategies for internationalization of higher education, ed. H. de Wit, 5–32. Amsterdam: EAIE. Leask, B.I. 2015. Internationalising the curriculum. In Internationalising the curriculum, ed. B. Leask, 9. London: Routledge.

Administrators ▶ Higher Education Professionals, A Growing Profession

Administrators

Synonyms Access organization; Selection processes

Introduction This entry provides international insights into admissions processes to higher education. As the number of people entering higher education has grown, and the role of higher education systems has expanded, greater attention has been focused on admissions processes that facilitate and enable this transition. Concurrently, credentialism has increased the stakes for admission as demand for qualifications, and the benefits such qualifications confer have both grown. Recognition of the role of higher education in elite reproduction and upward mobility (Bathmaker et al. 2016; Savage et al. 2015; Waller et al. 2018) has also ensured that attention has been given to the degree to which admissions processes support inclusivity of different social groups and address social justice imperatives.

Systemic Influences on Admissions Processes

Admissions Processes to Higher Education, International Insights Brigid Freeman Australia India Institute, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

Definition Admissions processes consider secondary school preparation, examinations, application documentation, and/or previous degree achievements and involve various selection methods (including any affirmative action processes) to determine the eligibility of applicants for entry into higher education generally, specific higher education sectors, institutions, or educational programs.

The near universalization of primary education and growth in secondary school participation globally are reflected in the growing cohort of school graduates who aspire to higher education, notwithstanding continuing school participation challenges in South Asia and SubSaharan Africa. This trend is exacerbated in countries with large youth populations, most notably including India, Indonesia, South Africa, and the Philippines (United Nations 2014). Higher education systems have grown, and with the exception of Sub-Saharan Africa, and massified such that gross tertiary enrolment ratios (GTERs) typically exceed 15%. North America and most Western European countries as well as many Central and Eastern European countries have achieved universal status (i.e., GTERs exceeding 50%) using Trow’s (1974) classification.

Admissions Processes to Higher Education, International Insights

This tendency toward high participation systems is global (Marginson 2016a). Despite capacity growth, unmet demand remains a challenge in some developing countries (e.g., India), particularly where senior secondary graduation rates have experienced dramatic increases. Most higher education systems now comprise a hierarchy of institutions (see Marginson 2016b). This vertical stratification increases competition for admission to elite institutions and has consequences for the internal diversification of admission processes within national higher education systems. These admissions processes tend to vary depending on the higher education sector (public, private), the category or type of higher education institution, and the discipline in question (science, technology, engineering and mathematics, or humanities, arts and social sciences). Higher education systems, and higher education institutions within these systems, have approached admissions processes in various ways. There is variation between and within countries with respect to the use of examinations (secondary leaving, national entrance, institution-specific), stand-alone or supplementary admissions tests (aptitude tests), as well as alternative selection methods. Regulatory or accreditation authorities frequently apply additional admissions requirements for regulated professions, typically including health, accountancy, engineering, law, and teaching. Admissions examinations and tests attest different abilities (Watanabe, 2015) including but not limited to academic capability, aptitude, and potential to succeed in higher education. While some admissions processes are highly centralized and regulated, others are decentralized and more flexible. Centralization is more likely at the undergraduate level given the highly regulated nature of senior secondary education examinations and certifications. Some admissions processes are standardized, others ad hoc. Some are managed by government or government instrumentalities; others rely heavily on higher education institutions operationalizing institution-specific requirements, processes, and decision-making involving a high degree of autonomy. Increasingly, dual issues of equity for

95

underrepresented social groups, fairness, and meritorious selection drive admissions system reform (Freeman 2015).

Types of Higher Education Admissions Processes: Undergraduate Programs There are discrete types of higher education admissions processes. The dominant types identified in the research literature primarily concern entry into higher education directly from senior secondary education; however, higher education systems and institutions increasingly accommodate applicants not proceeding directly from senior secondary education (e.g., mature entrants and school non-completers) and applicants seeking entry into postgraduate programs. Different higher education system or institutional authorities may separately administer admissions for domestic and international applicants. Helms (2008) identified five dominant types of undergraduate admissions processes after analyzing publicly available data regarding a large number of diverse higher education systems in Europe, North and South America, the Middle East, Asia, Anglosphere countries, and Africa. The dominant types include “secondary leaving examinations,” “entrance examinations,” “multiple examinations,” “standardized aptitude tests,” and “no examinations.” Examinations or tests include those undertaken to complete senior secondary schooling or gain entry into higher education. Importantly, Helms’ typology categorizes countries according to the dominant type of admissions processes, noting that in many instances, a supplementary type of examination or test is also employed. In each instance, higher education systems or individual higher education institutions establish program eligibility requirements that typically include disciplinary prerequisites such as schoollevel mathematics and science subjects and language proficiency requirements. In addition to the various examinations and tests identified, secondary school preparation, application materials, and demographic features may be considered. The extent to which some or all of these are taken into

A

96

Admissions Processes to Higher Education, International Insights

consideration varies considerably between and within countries. The first type of admissions process, secondary leaving examinations, is predominantly based on an applicant’s performance in secondary school leaving examinations. Admissions decisions may be based solely on scores achieved in national, regional, or state secondary leaving examinations or on a combination of inputs including both examinations scores and other performance information (e.g., grade point average results). Secondary leaving examinations aim to measure knowledge acquired in senior secondary school. The second type of admissions process, entrance examinations, is predominantly based on an applicant’s performance in one or more national, regional, or institutional entrance examinations. National or regional examinations are frequently administered centrally by government, while institution-specific entrance examinations are administered by individual higher education institutions or groups of similar higher education institutions. Like secondary leaving examinations, entrance examinations aim to measure knowledge acquired in senior secondary school. Admissions decisions may be based solely on scores achieved in one such entrance examination or on a combination of inputs including senior secondary school academic performance. The third type of admissions process, standardized aptitude tests, is predominantly based on an applicant’s performance in aptitude tests that measure general cognitive abilities in contrast to examinations that assess achievement. Admissions decisions may be based solely on scores achieved in one or more standardized aptitude tests or on knowledge acquired during or after secondary school (i.e., academic performance). Standardized aptitude test results may also be considered in conjunction with other materials, such as an application dossier. The fourth type of admissions process, multiple examinations, is based on an applicant’s performance in more than one type of examination or test (e.g., secondary leaving examination as well as an entrance examination and/or standardized aptitude test). In some instances, consideration may also be given to senior secondary school academic

performance (e.g., grade point average). The final type, no examinations, occurs in systems where admissions processes generally consider academic performance in senior secondary school (e.g., grade point average results) or an application dossier rather than secondary leaving or entrance examinations, or standardized aptitude tests (Helms 2008). Dominance of type frequently reflects scope of government authority regarding secondary education examinations and higher education admissions. Where a school education system features standardized secondary leaving examinations, centralized government education authorities typically administer such examinations. In such instances, government authorities may also administer higher education admissions processes to allocate applicants to places or seats. Similarly, where national entrance examinations represent the dominant admissions type, centralized government authorities are typically responsible for their conduct. Admissions decisions are then taken either centrally by an administering government authority (i.e., where applicants are allocated to institutions on the basis of the entrance examination outcome) or by autonomous individual institutions. Where standardized aptitude tests are predominantly used, typically a set range of tests and testing organizations are relied upon (e.g., the US-based Educational Testing Service and American College Testing Inc.). Where multiple examinations represent the dominant admissions type, centralized government authorities are typically responsible for at least some elements of the admissions process, be that administration of secondary leaving examinations or entrance examinations. Furthering Helm’s admissions typology, Abouchedid (2010) analyzed admissions processes in seven countries across the four geographical regions of East Asia, North America, Europe, and Eurasia. Abouchedid’s four types incorporate both examinations and tests and the extent to which administration of these tests is centralized or decentralized. The four types of admissions processes, again which relate predominantly to undergraduate admissions, include “secondary school-leaving test results” which

Admissions Processes to Higher Education, International Insights

may or may not be centrally administered, “centralized national entrance tests,” “decentralized entrance tests” such as aptitude tests administered by a variety of organizations, and “additional entrance tests administered locally by higher education institutions” (i.e., multiple examinations or tests) (Abouchedid 2010). Higher education systems may use more than one type of admissions process. In a separate exercise, Coates et al. (2010) identified discipline-specific admissions tests, particularly those relating to medical and health sciences, law, engineering, history, and mathematics. Some of these discipline-specific admissions tests are used within the respective country system-wide, whereas others are used by select institutions. Admissions processes reliant on single examination/test results tend to be more objective than processes reliant on multiple examination/ test results and/or a variety of application materials (Helms 2015). As admissions processes aim to predict the likelihood of successful higher education program completion, scholars have examined the predictive validity and reliability of school completion examinations, higher education entrance examinations, and aptitude tests. This work has contributed to ongoing reforms, most notably to secondary curriculum and examinations. In addition to the discrete types of admissions processes, higher education systems and individual institutions have introduced affirmative action measures supportive of increased social groups historically underrepresented in higher education. For example, public Indian higher education institutions have comprehensive “reservation” or affirmative action quota systems. The research literature has extensively examined systems that operate to preclude different social groups from higher education on the basis of race and ethnicity (see Bowen and Bok 2016; Flores et al. 2017), socioeconomic background (see Walpole 2003), and gender (see Leathwood and Read 2008). The literature has also examined the lived experiences of particular social groups, including working class students, entering higher education (see Coulson et al. 2018).

97

Higher Education Admissions Processes: Postgraduate Programs As is the case with admissions processes relating to entry into undergraduate programs, admission into postgraduate programs typically relies on an applicant’s performance at the immediately preceding level of education (e.g., examinations and/or grade point average results relating to undergraduate programs). In addition, entrance examinations and/or standardized aptitude tests may be administered. For example, the Graduate Record Examinations (GRE) assessment administered by the Educational Testing Service is a standardized aptitude test used by many US graduate schools. At the postgraduate level, higher education institutions may require specific application documentation such as recommendation letters and use a variety of selection methods, such as interviews. Admissions processes at the postgraduate level have received far less scholarly attention than those at the undergraduate level. This literature has focused on disciplinary practices (e.g., entry into medicine programs), motivations of applicants in selecting postgraduate studies, and entry into particular types of programs, such as doctoral degrees (see Brailsford 2010). As participation in postgraduate level higher education increases, it is anticipated that greater scholarly attention will be given to this matter. Where admissions processes at the postgraduate level involve examinations, these may be discipline specific, particularly for regulated professions or fields of education where enrolments are restricted. Elite higher education institutions are typically more selective, and this is reflected in higher education admissions processes for postgraduate programs. While admission to undergraduate-level programs involves consideration of achievement in school-level science and mathematics, and proficiency in the language of instruction, admission to postgraduate programs may require completion of an undergraduate program or honors year in a relevant discipline, particularly STEM disciplines, languages, and creative arts. Admission to postgraduate programs may involve consideration of

A

98

Admissions Processes to Higher Education, International Insights

equivalent knowledge, skills, and capabilities developed through relevant work experience and internships, particularly for mature age applicants. Applicants for postgraduate programs in regulated professions may need to meet additional requirements specified by regulatory or accreditation authorities or professional councils. Higher degree by research students may be required to submit a detailed application including a research proposal.

Prevalence of Different Types: An International Perspective Secondary leaving examinations represent the dominant type for senior secondary school graduates seeking admission directly into undergraduate higher education. In some instances, secondary leaving examinations provide entry broadly into higher education, while in other instances, such examinations provide entry into specific programs, particularly where such programs have more selective eligibility criteria or otherwise restricted entry. Secondary leaving examinations represent the dominant type of admissions process for entry to higher education institutions in Asia (Malaysia, Bangladesh, Indonesia, South Korea), the Anglosphere (Australia, Ireland, United Kingdom), Europe (Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands), and Africa (Tanzania, South Africa) (Helms 2008; Freeman 2015). In many of these higher education systems, while secondary leaving examinations are clearly the dominant type, admissions processes consider achievement on secondary leaving examinations in conjunction with other tests (e.g., standardized aptitude tests) and supplementary information derived from sources such as letters of recommendation, creative arts/performance portfolios, dossiers, and personal statements. For example, in Indonesia, results from the senior secondary certificate (STTB-SMA or Certificate of Completion of Academic Secondary School) are considered for applicants to national universities in conjunction with the national selection process, Selection of National State University Entrance (SNMPTN) (International

Association of Universities 2015). In Sweden, the senior secondary school certificate (Slutbetyg från Gymnasieskolan) is required for higher education admission, and in addition, the Swedish Council for Higher Education administers the Swedish Scholastic Aptitude Test (SweSAT). National, standardized entrance examinations are implemented as the dominant type for senior secondary school graduates seeking admission directly into undergraduate higher education in a small number of countries in Africa (Ethiopia, Nigeria), the Middle East (Turkey, Iran), Europe (Georgia, Spain), as well as China (Helms 2008; Freeman 2015). Frequently, admissions processes in these countries take into consideration both performances on various standardized entrance examinations as well as supplementary or contextual information derived from other sources. There are few examples where multiple examinations are formally used, despite the global trend toward convergence of admissions processes and selection methods reflecting growing competition and stratification and tension between equity, fairness, and meritorious selection (Freeman 2015). Examples include Japan, Finland, Israel, several BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India), Mexico, and the Philippines (Helms 2008; Freeman 2015). Multiple examinations appear to be dominant in those higher education systems that have great diversity at the senior secondary school level in terms of qualifications and examinations. At least in some cases, this type applies where there is also variable quality. It is likely that the prevalence of admissions processes predominantly involving multiple examinations or nuanced admissions systems is understated, and this is suggested by the reliance on supplementary types in many if not most examples provided. Similarly, there are few examples of higher education systems predominantly involving no examinations, other than Canada. As a federation with a highly decentralized higher education system, there is no countrywide standardized, senior secondary school certificate or national admissions examination, notwithstanding some coordinated provincial or territorial admissions center operations, in-province privileging of applicants, and province-level secondary leaving examinations.

Admissions Processes to Higher Education, International Insights

99

Admissions Challenges

Cross-References

There is increasing performance pressure on school students aspiring to higher education. This has contributed to growth in shadow education that complements school education, and other forms of out-of-school coaching and examination preparation. There is a high degree of competition for admission in many systems, particularly admission to prestigious institutions. Similarly, admission to some high-status regulated professions (e.g., medical science) may be limited. Within this context, there are growing concerns regarding the “high stakes” nature of secondary leaving examinations. Higher education admissions processes influence school curriculum and pedagogy (e.g., “teaching to the test”), including emphasis on critical thinking and student engagement. Admissions processes remain subject to scrutiny with respect to what they assess, their capacity to predict future success (i.e., predictive validity), and the potential for overreliance on one admissions process. Where admissions processes allow multiple inputs, institutions may consider potential in addition to, or rather than, prior academic achievement. Increasingly, admissions decision-makers at system- or institutional-level benefit from more than one input. Admissions processes may also accommodate exceptional applicants from special groups (e.g., elite athletes, and veterans).

▶ Massification ▶ Merit and equality in higher education access ▶ Signalling and Credentialism, Higher Education ▶ Widening access to higher education

Conclusion Admissions processes are by definition the “archetypal. . .gatekeeper” (Polesel and Freeman 2015, p. 5) of higher education. While there is a small range of types, academic performance on secondary leaving examinations is the principal basis on which school graduates are admitted directly to higher education. However, admissions processes are increasingly nuanced and based on a variety of considerations including single, dual, or multiple assessments (secondary leaving and entrance examinations and aptitude tests) and supplementary information aimed at diversifying access to and within higher education.

References Abouchedid, K. 2010. Undergraduate admissions, equity of access and quality in higher education: An international comparative perspective. In Towards an Arab higher education space: international challenges and societal responsibilities: Proceedings of the Arab Regional Conference on Higher Education. Beirut: UNESCO. Bathmaker, A.M., N. Ingram, J. Abrahams, A. Hoare, R. Waller, and H. Bradley. 2016. Higher education, social class and social mobility: The degree generation. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Bowen, W.G., and D. Bok. 2016. The shape of the river: Long-term consequences of considering race in college and university admissions. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Brailsford, I. 2010. Motives and aspirations for doctoral study: Career, personal, and inter-personal factors in the decision to embark on a history PhD. International Journal of Doctoral Studies 5 (1): 16–27. Coates, H. B., D. Edwards, and T. Friedman. 2010. Student aptitude test for tertiary admission (SATTA) pilot program: Evaluation report for the Department of Education, employment and workplace relations (DEEWR). Coulson, S., L. Garforth, G. Payne, and E. Wastell. 2018. Admissions, adaptations, and anxieties: Social class inside and outside the elite university. In Higher education and social inequalities: University admissions, experiences and outcomes, ed. R. Waller, N. Ingram, and M.R.M. Ward. London: Routledge. Flores, S.M., C.L. Horn, W.C. Kidder, P. Gándara, M.C. Long, and G. Orfield. 2017. Alternative paths to diversity: Exploring and implementing effective college admissions policies. Princeton: Educational Testing Service. Freeman, B. 2015. Who to admit, how and at whose expense? International comparative review of higher education admissions policies. (Unpublished paper). Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/ 19668099/Who_to_admit_how_and_at_whose_expense _International_comparative_review_of_higher_education _admissions_policies. Helms, R.M. 2008. University admission worldwide. Education working paper series number – 15. Washington DC: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank.

A

100 Helms, R.M. 2015. University admissions: Practices and procedures worldwide. International Higher Education 5: 5–7. International Association of Universities. 2015. World higher education database. Retrieved from http://www.whed.net/home.php. Leathwood, C., and B. Read. 2008. Gender and the changing face of higher education: A feminized future? London: McGraw-Hill. Marginson, S. 2016a. High participation systems of higher education. The Journal of Higher Education 87 (2): 243–271. Marginson, S. 2016b. Higher education and the common good. Melbourne: Melbourne University Publishing. Polesel, J., and B. Freeman. 2015. Australian university admissions policies and their impact on schools. In The transition from secondary education to higher education: Case studies from Asia and the Pacific, ed. C. Wing, 5–16. Bangkok: UNESCO. Savage, M., N. Cunningham, F. Devine, S. Friedman, D. Laurison, L. McKenzie, A. Miles, H. Snee, and P. Wakeling. 2015. Social class in the 21st century. London: Penguin. Trow, M. 1974. Problems in the transition from elite to mass higher education. In The general report on the conference on the future structures of post-secondary education, ed. OECD. Paris: OECD. United Nations. 2014. World population prospects 2012 revisions. Retrieved from http://esa.un.org/wpp/ Waller, R., N. Ingram, and M.R.M. Ward. 2018. Higher education and social inequalities: University admissions, experiences and outcomes. London: Routledge. Walpole, M. 2003. Socioeconomic status and college: How SES affects college experiences and outcomes. The Review of Higher Education 27 (1): 45–73. Watanabe, M.E. 2015. Typology of abilities tested in University entrance examinations: Comparisons of the United States, Japan, Iran and France. Comparative Sociology 14 (1): 79–101.

Advancement

Advocacy Coalition Framework, Higher Education Kristin L. Olofsson and Christopher M. Weible School of Public Affairs, University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO, USA

Controversy is a common feature in any organization and governing system where there exist divergent value orientations. A number of policy issues in higher education illustrate such controversies, including debates over securing and allocating funds, affordability, and rights to free speech. One approach for understanding these controversies is the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF, Jenkins-Smith et al. 2014). Through 2016, there have been over 300 applications of the ACF. Most of these applications have focused on North American and Europe, with an increasing number of studies in other parts of the world. Just over half the applications of the ACF have been in environmental policy, followed by health and economic policy. There have been a handful of applications of the ACF to higher education policy issues, including Beverwijk et al. (2008), Shakespeare (2008), Dougherty et al. (2010), Ness (2010), and Balbachevsky (2015).

Main Questions

Advancement ▶ Institutional Fundraising, Higher Education Institutions

Adviser, Supervisor ▶ Graduate Education Developments in an International Context

The scope of the ACF centers around three main areas: advocacy coalitions, policy-oriented learning, and policy change. Questions regarding advocacy coalitions typically ask: How do actors build and maintain coalitions? How are coalitions used to achieve policy objectives? What are the characteristics of coalitions? How do actors interact within and between coalitions? In terms of policy-oriented learning, common questions include: How do actors learn within and between coalitions? What impact does learning have on coalition stability? How do actors use information, and what types of information are used, in learning processes? Finally, standard questions

Advocacy Coalition Framework, Higher Education

about policy change and, conversely, policy stasis ask: What explains the likelihood of policy change? What types of policy change might occur over time? What are the conditions that lead to policy change? How does policy change impact stakeholders and the public?

Assumptions There are several assumptions upon which the framework is built. First, the ACF aims to explain policy processes within a “subsystem.” The subsystem is the basic unit of analysis and bounds the realm of interpretation and application. A policy subsystem is defined by a policy topic, a geographical scope, and the actors who attempt to influence the processes within. Three characteristics bound a subsystem. First, within a subsystem there may be innumerable components that interact intentionally toward outputs and outcomes on a given policy topic. These components could be at the individual level, such as belief systems or resources, or they could be at the subsystem level, such as institutional (rules and norms), socioeconomic, and biophysical conditions. It is the intention of the framework to identify and clarify subsystem components to illuminate the policy process. Second, subsystems involve actors who are intentionally involved in the given policy topic; subsystems are not comprised of any and all actors who might be interested or even affected by a policy decision. Finally, the framework recognizes that subsystems are often nested and overlap and are not wholly independent. The second assumption of the ACF is that individuals are boundedly rational and are motivated by their belief systems. The actors involved in the subsystem, who are by definition those regularly attempting to influence policy, are limited in their ability to process information. Consequently, they rely on their belief systems to guide decision-making. The three-tiered belief system is a central component of the framework. The first tier is comprised of “deep core beliefs,” stable normative and ontological foundations that are not policy specific. Rarely are there changes to deep core beliefs. The next tier of beliefs is

101

“policy core beliefs,” which are bound to the policy subsystem. Policy core beliefs can be normative or may be more empirical. Normative policy core beliefs might consider value priorities and welfare of stakeholders within the subsystem. Empirical policy core beliefs might refer to the attributes of the severity of the problem and its causes or assess the impacts of the preferred solutions. The final tier of belief systems in the ACF are termed “secondary beliefs,” which usually refer to the individuals’ preferred instrumental means for achieving the goals of their policy core beliefs. The next assumption of the ACF combines individuals within subsystems to form coalitions. Actors aggregate into one or more coalitions with the intent to influence subsystem affairs. There are numerous ways through which actors could form coalitions, but the ACF assumes that actors join together based on shared beliefs and coordination strategies. Ultimately, policy is conceptualized as a translation of the belief systems of the winning coalition(s). Importantly, policy is not static – it can shift over time as coalitional power waxes and wanes. This is related to another original assumption of the ACF: In order to fully understand policy processes, researchers should consider a long-term time perspective (10 years or more). Finally, the ACF assumes that information, particularly scientific and technical information, is vital to understanding coalitions, coalitional behavior, and subsystem affairs. The ACF does not assume that individuals completely disregard evidence and rely on values when making decisions under cognitive constraints. The framework recognizes that individuals incorporate scientific and technical information into their belief systems. This information can be used to shape understandings of causes, problem attributes, and preferred solutions.

Theoretical Emphases Figure 1 represents the ACF’s conception of the policy process. On the far right, the policy subsystem is depicted with two coalitions, Coalition A and Coalition B. It is possible for a subsystem to

A

102

Relatively Stable Parameters

Advocacy Coalition Framework, Higher Education

Long Term Coalition Opportunity Structures

1. Basic attributes of the problem area and distribution of natural resources

1. Degree of consensus needed for major policy change

2. Fundamental sociocultural values and social structure

2. Openness of political system

3. Basic constitutional structure

2. Overlapping Societal Cleavages

Policy Subsystem Coalition A Beliefs Resources

Coalition B Beliefs Resources

Strategies

Strategies

Decisions by Government Authorities

External Subsystem Events 1. Changes in socio-economic conditions 2. Changes in public opinion 3. Changes in systemic governing coalition

Short Term Constraints and Resources of Subsystem Actors

Institutional Rules

Policy Outputs

4. Changes in other policy subsystems Policy Impacts

Advocacy Coalition Framework, Higher Education, Fig. 1 Flow diagram of the advocacy coalition framework. (Source: Weible et al. 2011)

contain more than two coalitions or no coalitions. Coalitions form based on shared beliefs and develop strategies to affect decisions by government authorities. These decisions run through institutional rules, generating policy outputs, and ultimately policy impacts. The policy process is not linear and, thus, provides for feedback opportunities. The shape of subsystems and the activities within are dictated by the left-hand side of the figure. There are relatively stable parameters, such as the basic attributes of the problem area, distribution of natural resources, fundamental values, and basic constitutional structures, that shape the subsystem as well as opportunities for participation. External subsystem events, like changes in socioeconomic conditions, public opinion, ruling parties, and other overlapping subsystems, provide additional opportunities for participation in the given subsystem. These opportunities for exploitation are encompassed in the middle of

the figure as short-term constraints and resources of subsystem actors. Relatively stable parameters dictate coalition opportunity structures, which can be conceptualized as the rules of the game for participation. Opportunity structures vary by context and are influential in determining who may participate and how. The overall flow of the ACF describes the general conceptual categories, variables, and relations, within which the three theoretical emphases of the framework take form. Advocacy Coalitions Groups of regularly participating actors who share beliefs and intentionally coordinate their actions to influence a policy subsystem comprise an advocacy coalition. There are five hypotheses within this theoretical emphasis. Coalition Hypothesis 1 On major controversies within a policy subsystem when policy core beliefs

Advocacy Coalition Framework, Higher Education

are in dispute, the lineup of allies and opponents tends to be rather stable over periods of a decade or so. Empirical work has largely confirmed Coalition Hypothesis 1. Coalitional stability does not demand that membership is static over time; it often changes. However, the basic composition of the coalition remains stable, as it is formed around shared beliefs, not individuals. Further work on Coalition Hypothesis 1 should explore the determinants of coalition defection and, in cases when coalition breakdown has occurred, determine why and how that disintegration happened and how the subsystem was impacted as a result. Coalition Hypothesis 2 Actors within an advocacy coalition will show substantial consensus on issues pertaining to the policy core, although less so on secondary aspects. Coalition Hypothesis 3 An actor (or coalition) will give up secondary aspects of her (its) belief system before acknowledging weaknesses in the policy core. Actors need not share deep core beliefs, but they should at least agree on policy core beliefs. Empirical work on belief systems has considered the extent to which policy core and secondary beliefs must be shared to encourage the formation of an advocacy coalition. Coalition Hypotheses 2 and 3 have found only partial support thus far in empirical applications. This could be because the threetiered belief system has not yet been standardized and thus differing approaches to operationalization and measurement have led to differing results. Since belief systems are central to coalition formation, it is essential to develop commonly understood concepts of the tripartite belief system. Coalition Hypothesis 4 Within a coalition, administrative agencies will usually advocate more moderate positions than their interest group allies. Coalition Hypothesis 5 Actors within purposive groups are more constrained in their expression of

103

beliefs and policy positions than actors from material groups. Coalition Hypotheses 4 and 5 have not been tested empirically to a great extent. In the applications that have tested Coalition Hypothesis 4, there has been mixed confirmation; to date, Coalition Hypothesis 5 has been tested only a limited number of times with promising indications of confirmation. However, much more work remains to be done on these hypotheses before confirmation or even partial support can be claimed. An informal but increasingly influential hypothesis within the advocacy coalition emphasis tests the assumption that coalitions form on the basis of shared beliefs. The “Belief Homophily Hypothesis” has been largely confirmed, but researchers have found that coalition stability is contingent not only upon shared beliefs but also on other factors such as perceived influence of the actors within the coalition, coalition resources, and trust. Overall, empirical support for advocacy coalitions is strong for Coalition Hypothesis 1 and the Belief Homophily Hypothesis, mixed for Coalition Hypotheses 2 and 3, and underdeveloped for Coalition Hypotheses 4 and 5. This could reflect difficulties in testing these hypotheses, or it may be due to the lack of standardized definitions of belief systems. There are four additional concepts that are influential in the study of advocacy coalitions. First, not all subsystems are characterized by coalitions that necessarily share power equally. There can be dominant and minority coalitions. A subsystem may be dominated by one coalition that retains the majority of control, while a minority coalition contests that dominance and searches for opportunities for influence. Second, coalition formation is contingent upon overcoming threats to collective action. Beyond shared beliefs, actors must intentionally choose to coordinate their actions into an advocacy coalition. How and why actors coordinate remains underdeveloped in the framework. Third, not all actors play equal roles within a coalition. Some actors are recognized as principle actors that may be more influential or active, and other actors serve as auxiliary actors who are perhaps not as regularly engaged

A

104

in coalition activities. Finally, resources play an important role in determining the capacity of coalitions to engage in subsystem politics. Resources can constrain or enable advocacy coalitions to participate and influence subsystem affairs. In higher education policy, Dougherty et al. (2010) applied the ACF and identified the structure and beliefs of coalitions to better understand the politics surrounding in-state tuition eligibility for undocumented students. Similarly, Balbachevsky (2015) used the ACF to understand fissures and points of compromise in the political landscape of Brazilian higher education by identifying key stakeholders and coalitional alliances. Policy-Oriented Learning Learning as a concept is important in policy processes; however, the concept is difficult to study, which has been reflected in the relatively limited number of empirical applications focusing on policy-oriented learning. Policy-oriented learning refers to changes that eventually become permanent in belief systems. Of interest to the ACF is how learning is associated with changes in belief systems and what information, specifically scientific and/or technical, is used to promote learning. There are four explanations associated with learning. First, the attributes of the arenas or venues in which actors participate in the policy process occurs dictate the opportunities for learning. Attributes can be shaped by coalition opportunity structures, such as the openness of venues, or by short-term constraints and resources of actors. The second explanation for learning is associated with the level of conflict between coalitions. It has been theorized that there is an indirect relationship between the level of conflict between coalitions within a subsystem and the potential for cross-coalition learning. The higher the level of conflict within a subsystem, the lower the potential for cross-coalition learning. Third, the quality of information available within a given subsystem is directly related to the potential for policy-oriented learning. With higher levels of quality data comes increased potential for cross-coalition learning. Finally, some attributes of actors regularly involved in subsystem activities have been identified to have an impact

Advocacy Coalition Framework, Higher Education

on the potential for policy-oriented learning. When actors display extreme beliefs, it appears to be less likely that cross-coalition learning may occur. It has also been identified that an individual actor in the coalition may play a role as a policy broker who works to encourage learning and agreements among coalitions. These four explanations can be found within the five hypotheses related to policy-oriented learning in the ACF. Learning Hypothesis 1 Policy-oriented learning across belief systems is most likely when there is an intermediate level of informed conflict between the two coalitions. This requires that (1) each have the technical resources to engage in the debate and (2) the conflict be between secondary aspects of one belief system and core elements of the other or, alternatively, between important secondary aspects of the two belief systems. Learning Hypothesis 2 Policy-oriented learning across belief systems is most likely when there exists a forum that is (1) prestigious enough to force professionals from different coalitions to participate and (2) dominated by professional norms. Learning Hypothesis 3 Problems for which accepted quantitative data and theory exist are more conducive to policy-oriented learning across belief systems than those in which data and theory are generally qualitative, quite subjective, or altogether lacking. Learning Hypothesis 4 Problems involving natural systems are more conducive to policyoriented learning across belief systems than those involving purely social or political systems because, in the former, many of the critical variables are not themselves active strategists and because controlled experimentation is more feasible. Learning Hypothesis 5 Even when accumulation of technical information does not change the views of the opposing coalition, it can have important impacts on policy – at least in the short run – by altering the views of policy brokers.

Advocacy Coalition Framework, Higher Education

In a study of merit aid eligibility in Georgia, Ness (2010) found learning to be a factor in shaping beliefs and policy; more specifically, people learned about policy issues from other subsystems. Similarly, Shakespeare (2008) found that different information patterns affect belief systems in New York’s higher education system. Policy Change The final theoretical emphasis within the ACF focuses on policy change and pathways to policy change. Policy Change Hypothesis 1 Significant perturbations external to the subsystem, a significant perturbation internal to the subsystem, policyoriented learning, negotiated agreement, or some combination thereof are necessary, but not sufficient, sources of change in the policy core attributes of a governmental program. Policy change can be either major or minor. The ACF theorizes that policy change can occur through an external event to the subsystem, such as a change in socioeconomic conditions or extreme events such as a crisis or disaster. Internal events to the subsystem can also lead to policy change by influencing beliefs and drawing attention to ongoing government policies. Policyoriented learning has mostly been found to affect incremental or minor policy change. Negotiated agreements can emerge in various ways but largely dependent upon a hurting stalemate, when both sides of an issue no longer view the status quo as acceptable and have no other option but negotiation, and supported by institutions that encourage collaboration and cross-coalitional interactions. There has been significant empirical support for Policy Change Hypothesis 1. There is a second hypothesis related to policy change. Policy Change Hypothesis 2 brings together coalition influence on the subsystem with propensity for major policy change as mitigated or encouraged by the hierarchical nature of jurisdictions. This hypothesis has found partial to somewhat strong support within empirical research applications, but the number of tests has been relatively few. Beverwijk et al. (2008)

105

found that external system-wide changes in the political system affected policy change in reallocating authority to govern higher education in Mozambique. Policy Change Hypothesis 2 The policy core attributes of a government program in a specific jurisdiction will not be significantly revised as long as the subsystem advocacy coalition that instated the program remains in power within that jurisdiction – except when the change is imposed by a hierarchically superior jurisdiction. There is still great potential to improve knowledge about coalitions, learning, and policy change and to develop a better understanding of controversies in the area of higher education policy. In doing so, researchers can embrace a variety of methods, but these must be supported by clear and transparent definitions and measurements. Otherwise, the best lessons from these applications will not accumulate into a cohesive and cumulative body of knowledge.

References Balbachevsky, E. 2015. The role of internal and external stakeholders in Brazilian higher education. In Higher education in BRICS countries, 193–214. Dordrecht: Springer. Beverwijk, J., L. Goedegebuure, and J. Huisman. 2008. Policy change in nascent subsystems: Mozambican higher education policy 1993–2003. Policy Sciences 41: 357–377. Dougherty, K.J., H.K. Nienhusser, and B.E. Vega. 2010. Undocumented immigrants and state higher education policy: The politics of in-state tuition eligibility in Texas and Arizona. The Review of Higher Education 34 (1): 123–173. Jenkins-Smith, H.C., D. Nohrstedt, C.M. Weible, and P.A. Sabatier. 2014. The advocacy coalition framework: Foundations, evolution, and ongoing research. In Theories of the policy process, ed. P.A. Sabatier and C.M. Weible, 3rd ed., 183–223. Boulder: Westview Press. Ness, E.C. 2010. The politics of determining merit aid eligibility criteria: An analysis of the policy process. The Journal of Higher Education 81 (1): 33–60. Shakespeare, C. 2008. Uncovering Information’s role in the state higher education policy-making process. Educational Policy 22 (6): 875–899.

A

106 Weible, Christopher M., Paul A. Sabatier, Hank C. JenkinsSmith, Daniel Nohrstedt, and Adam Douglas Henry. 2011. A quarter century of the advocacy coalition framework: An introduction to the special issue. Policy Studies Journal 39 (3): 349–360.

African Higher Education Studies ▶ Field of Higher Education Research, Africa

African University Traditions, Historical Perspective N’Dri Thérèse Assié-Lumumba Africana Studies and Research Center, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA

Introduction The early African university education/higher education system was characterized by its entire or partial indigenous origin. In contrast, contemporary African universities are of European colonial legacy. Despite its earlier experiences, the continent is now the world region with the lowest university enrollment. Its 54 countries have major differences in institutional capacity. The numbers and types range from a single public university in some small countries like São Tomé and Príncipe to dozens of universities like in South Africa and Egypt and more than a 100 universities and colleges like in Algeria and Nigeria. In the 2015–2016 and 2016–2017 editions of international ranking system, no African institution was among the first 100 universities. While this ranking is controversial, it suggests Africa’s standing in global knowledge production. In a recent book, Göransson and Brundenius (2011) analyze the evolving mission of universities in the changing local and global contexts. Some of the changes in Africa are addressed in African Higher Education in Transition: Recurrent Impediments, Emerging Challenges and New Potentialities (Assié-Lumumba Forthcoming).

African Higher Education Studies

This paper, structured under three headings, critically examines African universities in various historical moments. The first section discusses indigenous African and Afro-Islamic/ Muslim institutions before they were disrupted by centuries of large-scale enslavement followed by colonization. The second section analyzes institutions of European/Western origins from the nineteenth century to the post-independence period. The third section, followed by the conclusion, reviews the new complex landscape of universities.

Indigenous and Afro-Islamic Institutions Various socio-historical, political, and broader societal factors contribute to shaping and redefining the university. Eric Ashby (1964: 3) argues: “The university is a medieval institution” that reproduces a certain ideal rooted in the past and yet at the same time “has kept pace with the mutations of society.” Thus, the idea and history of universities in Africa are intertwined with broader African history. Two critical dimensions define the longest period in African social history, with the emergence and evolution of higher education/university and indigenous knowledge systems that lasted thousands of years within the Nile Valley Civilization (Ben-Jochannan and Clarke 1991; Ajayi et al. 1996). The second component relates to the “Afro-Islamic” institutions of higher learning. African “indigenous higher education produced and transmitted new knowledge necessary for understanding the world, the nature of man (sic), society, God and various divinities, the promotion of agriculture and health, literature and philosophy” (Ajayi et al. 1996: 5). It has been argued that “the roots of the University as a community of scholars, with an international outlook but also with responsibilities within particular cultures can be traced back to two institutions that developed in Egypt in the last two or three centuries B.C. and A.D.” (Ajayi et al. 1996: 5), with two models, namely the Alexandria model and the monastic system with complex and sophisticated knowledge production (Ajayi et al. 1996; Lulat 2005).

African University Traditions, Historical Perspective

Earlier African institutions fulfilled the educational mission for knowledge sake and practical applications in different domains of society. As Lulat (2005) points out, “the Egyptians may not have had exact replicas of the modern university or college, but . . . they did possess an institution that, from their perspective, fulfilled some of the roles of higher education institution. One such institution dating from around c. 2000 B.C. E. was the per-ankh (or the House of Life)” which had the Egyptian temples as their sites composed of larges campuses (Lulat 2005: 44). This Egyptian case must be located within the broader framework of the Nile Valley Civilization, which started in the Upper Nile regions including Ethiopia and expanded in the Lower Nile in Egypt. The second type of institution of higher learning in Africa before the European colonial rule emerged from the positive and creative crossfertilization of indigenous African culture and new impetus from Islam and its various effects (Kane 2011, 2012; Sy 2014) especially in the North, West, and East Africa. Of particular significance was the creation of Karawiyyinn in Fez (Morocco) in 859 A.D., Al-Azhar in Cairo (Egypt) in 970, and Sankore in Timbuktu from the twelfth century. Al-Azhar is considered the “oldest continuously operating University in the world” (Arab Information Center 1966: 282). These institutional innovations reflected an advanced level of fusion and symbiosis of African and Islamic/Arabian cultures. Important aspects included the use of Arabic directly or to transcribe African languages (Ajami) for learning (Hassane 2008; Kane 2011). Mazrui (2012: 5) argues: Muslim Africa virtually invented the global university in its simpler form. The standing monuments to that Muslim African invention consist today of Al-Azhar University in Cairo and the Qarawiyin Center of Learning in Morocco. . . . These two Afro-Muslim institutions are centuries older than Oxford and Cambridge in England, . . . Harvard, Yale and Princeton.

These Afro-Islamic universities did not expand beyond the areas where the religious anchor was absent. The cataclysmic TransAtlantic Enslavement that lasted for centuries followed by the colonization of the entire continent at the end of the nineteenth century led to stagnation of these

107

universities which even earlier did not transition into secular institutions responding to broader needs of society. In contrast, contemporary Western universities that are becoming a global model even in countries that were not colonized were created by Christian Churches, especially congregations of the Catholic Church (e.g., Jesuits and Oratorians). These institutions were indigenous to Europe, as they emerged and grew organically from European socio-historical realities. In contrast, European education traditions in Africa were created by Europeans to fulfill their interests during the colonization, neo-colonial era pressures, and dependency (Mazrui 1975). Thus, even if with time they become more rooted in African contexts, they are not indigenous to Africa, given their history, as articulated in the following section.

African Universities of European/ Western Influence: The Colonial and Post-Colonial Contexts The Africans under colonial rule overwhelmingly rejected education designed and managed by European missionaries and colonial governments (Foster 1965; Assié-Lumumba 2016). During the period of informal colonization, until the Berlin Conference of 1884/1885 and the formal partitioning of the continent, some missionaries established educational programs on coastal posts and sent to Europe a few Africans to acquire some mainly religious education. However, generally, when European education was introduced in the context of colonization across the African continent, it was rejected. The Africans who attended colonial schools were enlisted by force (Foster 1965; Assié-Lumumba 2016). The Africans’ negative attitude was part of their resistance to colonization and refusal to be “mis-educated” by the colonizers who wanted to control their mind and give them only basic education. The Europeans were fully aware that knowledge from formal education was likely to empower the colonized. As captured by the Belgians in the Congo, “pas d’élite pas the problème” (no élite no problem), meaning that without advanced education among the colonized there would be no

A

108

risk of an elite/critical thinkers challenging and putting at risk the colonial system (LumumbaKasongo 1981). Thus, higher education, especially university education, was off-limit for the colonized. By the end of World War II, despite their initial rejection of European education, Africans had realized that, indeed, even rudimentary schooling carried a certain power (Ki-Zerbo 1972). Thus, they demanded equal access to all types and levels of European education, including universities. The first African country to have a modern higher education institution of Western origin was Liberia, a state established in 1821 by the American Colonization Society (ACS), for formerly enslaved African Americans who wanted to return to Africa. It became an independent country in 1847 with continued American influence. In 1862, Liberia College was created and became the University of Liberia in 1951. Created by the Episcopal Church in the nineteenth century, Cuttington College in Liberia experienced several interruptions and reopened in 1949. The AmericoLiberians adopted a motto of “the love of freedom brought us here” but created an unequal society where they became the self-appointed rulers imitating their former American masters. Thus, university education reflected the unequal social structure. Ethiopia was the only African country that remained free of colonization by defeating its assigned colonial power, Italy in 1896, despite it trying again to occupy Ethiopia in the early 1930s. Ethiopia’s contemporary higher education was conceived as a fusion of American and various European traditions including the British and Germany. In British colonies, the British Advisory Committee on Education in the Colonies and the Phelps-Stokes Commission played vital roles in defining higher education. In 1939, the British Governors of West African colonies discussed and agreed on the creation of a full-fledged West African university (Ajayi et al. 1996). Several “colleges,” including Gordon Memorial College in Khartoum (Sudan), Makerere Government College in Kampala (Uganda), Yaba Higher College in Lagos (Nigeria), Princess of Wales

African University Traditions, Historical Perspective

School and College in Achimota (Ghana), and Fourah Bay College in Freetown (Sierra Leone) were created between the end of the nineteenth century and the 1920s. Although most of them were initially vocational/technical secondary schools, they constituted the foundation of post-independence universities. The French proclaimed policy of assimilation ontologically on contradiction with the goal of colonization. It did not include higher education for the colonized Africans. They created the Instituts des Hautes Études in Dakar, Tananarive, and Abidjan shortly before the independence process in the 1950s/1960s. In their North African protectorates of Morocco and Tunisia and settler colony of Algeria, the French did not promote higher education either and, besides a few precolonial Afro-Islamic institutions, the contemporary universities were created after independence. In general, North African countries with no conventional colonial experiences, including Libya (with Italian and British colonial influence) and Egypt, currently have larger number of universities, some of which use Arabic, while other African universities in general use languages of the former colonial powers. The Vatican/Catholic Church and the Protestants later heavily influenced the Belgian colonial education system in the Democratic Republic of Congo and to a certain extent in Burundi and Rwanda. Belgian policy emphasized mass basic schooling with higher education reserved only for future priests. Full-fledged universities were created after independence. Portugal, too, ignored the aspirations of the Africans and thus former Portuguese colonies created their universities after independence acquired in the 1970s. Similarly, Equatorial Guinea, which acquired its independence from Spain in 1968, Zimbabwe, a former British settler colony with white minority rule until it acquired its independence in 1980, and Namibia, which fought for independence from South Africa until 1990, created their universities after independence. In South Africa, Apartheid policy defined all education along racial lines with Whites, Colored, Indians, and Blacks, with inequitable resource allocation for the institutions leading to unequal

African University Traditions, Historical Perspective

quality. Despite the post-Apartheid policy to increase enrollment of under-represented groups and promote diversity in all institutions, the inequality from Apartheid is still noticeable in education.

Local-Global Dynamics and New University Landscape Zeleza (2016: 4) states that “in 1944, the entire continent had a grand total of 31 institutions of higher education, far fewer that the number of countries!” Even if in 2015 Africa still had fewer institutions, with 1639 institutions Africa and was second only to Oceania with 140 compared to Latin America and the Caribbean with 3060, North America 3826, Europe 4042, and Asia up to 6100 (Zeleza 6) argues: “It was in Africa, however, where the magnitude of growth was the largest from a very low base of course. The number of higher education institutions on the continent increased by 52.87 times between 1945 and 2015” (Zeleza 6). There have been several generations of African institutions since the 1950s. The mission of the first post-independence universities was clearly articulated by African policymakers and scholars, for instance in Creating the African University: Emerging Issues of the 1970s (Yesufu 1973). The first institutions were created amidst the euphoria of human capital theory, which stipulates a linear and positive correlation between formal education and individual socio-economic attainment, as well as national development (Schultz 1977). These were public universities with broad societal mission, and comprehensive disciplinary coverage. The internal and external shock of the economic crisis of the 1970s–1980s and the ensuing misguided and infamous policy of Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) of international financial institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) brought stagnation, decay, and underfunding of African universities. In the absence of alternatives to education, considering the slow or nonexistent industrialization, and the UNESCO–World Bank joint report Higher Education in Developing

109

Countries: Peril or Promise (Task Force on Higher Education and Society 2000) the resurgence of relentless demand, a new generation of universities arose, specialized foci, for instance in science, technology, or agriculture (Assié-Lumumba 2006). In recent years, eUniversities or open and mega-universities have increased while the University of South Africa (UNISA) created in 1946 was the only one for decades. Some have a dualmode delivery combining distance and face-toface learning, while others such as the Zimbabwe Open University and the Open University of Tanzania are single-mode virtual institutions. Accelerated globalization and liberalization in the context of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) of the World Trade Organization (WTO) policies and “agreements” have an impact on higher education (Cossa 2008), specifically the emergence and increase of private universities. Many private institutions are secular while others are sectarian, with the dominance of Christian denominations and a few Islamic universities, often connected to broader global networks. Hence, they are well funded and tend to exhibit relatively higher quality in terms of cognitive learning than for-profit private institutions. Only South Africa under Apartheid created universities for the Blacks in rural settings. Postcolonial universities in Africa have been urban and predominantly in the capital cities. However, many African countries are now creating community colleges and universities in rural areas (Jacob et al. 2009) to contribute to meet relentless demand. These institutions encounter numerous challenges with regards to infrastructure and communication, qualification of the teaching, and administrative support staff’s willingness to settle in rural areas. A new type of institution targets underrepresented groups, especially women. Besides the Ahfad University for Women in the Sudan, Kiriri Women’s University of Science and Technology in Nairobi (Kenya) and Women’s University in Africa in Zimbabwe have been created. Extensions of institutions of the Global North, including distance-learning delivery and physical sites in Africa, have increased. Other recent complexities reflect the increasing roles of newly

A

110

industrialized and emerging economies in African higher education. For instance, China as a rising player has been creating Confucius institutes. Given South Africa’s relatively broader/quantitative institutional capacity despite the issues of inequality, transnational education is not a burning issue. However, in many other African countries, it offers opportunities but presents major problems including coherent policies of higher education for development.

Concluding Remarks Despite the continued lower enrollment rates in comparison to other regions of the world, African countries made unprecedented achievements after independence, in terms of the number of universities built and enrollment rates since independence. Regardless of their respective trajectories, African universities and their stakeholders are still struggling with the colonial legacies (Mazrui 1975) which, for instance, have contributed to fuel student protests, for instance in South Africa, demanding the “decolonization of the mind.” Assié-Lumumba (2016: 58) argues that “African students pursuing higher education in Europe played significant roles in the anti-colonial struggle. In their determination to make an impact, it became critical for them to organize.” Hence, several student organizations of Pan-African perspectives were formed from the beginning of the twentieth century such as the West African Student Association in London and Fédération des Etudiants d’Afrique Noire en France (FEANF) demanding unconditional independence of African countries. The movements continued after independence although some governments wanted to control and co-opt students by creating student sections of ruling parties, especially during the decades of one-party systems under many brutal regimes. In South Africa, the youth and especially the students constituted an integral part of the struggle against Apartheid. The current student movements (Luescher et al. 2016) have been demanding that decolonization be addressed with commitment to promote Africanization. They have been requesting that

African University Traditions, Historical Perspective

unequal educational opportunity as corollary of historical inequality in the distribution and access to resources. Such grievances are in line with the historical struggle. An important dimension worth mentioning is the fact that in the current period of the twenty-first century, students now use digital technologies extensively (e.g., social media) to mobilize, strategize, and organize movements to advance their causes. The idea of university prevails (AssiéLumumba 2010; Assié-Lumumba and Lumumba-Kasongo 2011; Zeleza and Olukoshi 2004). However, a critical issue is how to pursue this idea in promoting national development agendas amidst the multiplicity of external and private actors with different or even conflicting objectives. Given the power relations, what are the challenges and possibilities of transnational universities? Brain drain is being explored for brain gain in creating positions for temporary or permanent returnees of scholars of African descent. One of the facilitating programs is the African Diasporan Fellows program sponsored by the Carnegie Corporation of New York. On the whole, it is imperative to craft visions for African integrated development with different types of universities in alignment. The African Union’s Pan-African University for holistic and sustainable social progress is conceptualized to respond to prevailing challenges in making use of opportunities.

References Ajayi, J.E.A., Goma, L. K.H., Ampah Johnson, G.; with a contribution by Wanjiku Mwotia. 1996. The African experience with higher education. Accra/London/Athens, Ohio: The Association of African Universities/ James Currey/Ohio University Press. Arab Information Center. 1966. Education in the Arab States. New York: Arab Information Center. Ashby, E. 1964. African universities and Western tradition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Assié-Lumumba, N.T. 2006. Higher Education in Africa: Crises, Reforms and Transformation. Dakar: CODESRIA. Assié-Lumumba, N.T. 2010. African universities, imperatives of international reach, and perverse effects of globalisation. In Internationalisation of higher education and development. Zur Rolle von Universitäten

Agenda Setting and Policy Development, Higher Education und Hochschulen in Entwicklungsprozessen, ed. Österreichische Forschungsstiftung für Internationale Entwicklung, 33–49. Vienna: ÖFSE. Assié-Lumumba, N. 2016. Harnessing the empowerment nexus of Afropolitanism and higher education: Purposeful fusion for Africa’s social progress in the 21st century. Journal of African Transformation 1 (2): 51–76. Assié-Lumumba, N.T. Forthcoming. African higher education in transition: Recurrent impediments, emerging challenges and new potentialities. Dakar: CODESRIA. Assié-Lumumba, N.T., and T. Lumumba-Kasongo. 2011. The idea of the Public University and the National Project in Africa: Toward a full circle, from the 1960s to the present. In Knowledge matters: The public mission of the research university, ed. Craig Calhoun and Diana Rhoten. New York: Columbia University Press. Ben-Jochannan, Y., and J.H. Clarke. 1991. New dimensions in African history: The London lectures of Dr. Yosef Ben-Jochannan and Dr. John Henrik Clarke. Trenton: Africa World Press. Cossa, J. 2008. Power, politics, and higher education in Southern Africa: International regimes, local governments, and educational autonomy. Amherst: Cambria Press. Foster, P. 1965. Education and social change in Ghana. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Göransson, B., and C. Brundenius, eds. 2011. Universities in transition: The changing role and challenges for academic institutions. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre. Hassane, M. 2008. Ajami in Africa: The use of Arabic script in the transcription of African languages. In The meanings of Timbuktu, ed. Sahamil Jeppie and Souleymane Bachir Diagne, 109–121. Dakar: CODESRIA. Jacob, W.J., Y.K. Nsubuga, and C.B. Mugimu. 2009. Higher education in Uganda: The role of community colleges in educational delivery and reform. In Community college models: Globalization and higher education reform, ed. Rosalind Latiner-Raby and Edward Valeau, 335–358. Dordrecht: Springer. Kane, O. 2011. Non-Europhone intellectuals. Dakar: CODESRIA. Ki-Zerbo, Joseph. 1972. Histoire d’Afrique: d’hier à demain. Paris: Hatier. Luescher, T.M., Manja Klemenčič, and James Otieno Jowi, eds. 2016. Student politics in Africa: Representation and activism. Cape Town: African Minds. Lulat, Y.G.-M. 2005. A history of African higher education from antiquity to the present: A critical synthesis. Westport: Praeger. Lumumba-Kasongo, T. 1981. A study of modernization process in the Congo between 1910 and 1960: An evaluation of social ethics. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, the University of Chicago, Chicago. Mazrui, A.A. 1975. The African University as a multinational corporation: Problems of penetration and dependency. Harvard Educational Review 45 (2): 191–210. Mazrui, A.A. 2012. From Euro-Colonial colleges to the global university: Transitions in Muslim and African

111

experience. Second Draft of a paper delivered at the International Institute of Islamic Thought in Herndon, Virginia. Schultz, T.W. 1977. Investment in human capital. In Power and ideology in education, ed. Jerome Karabel and A.H. Halsey. New York: Oxford University Press. Sy, J.H. 2014. L’Afrique, Berceau de l’Écriture. Et ses manuscrits en peril, Des origines de l’écriture aux manuscrits anciens (Egypte pharaonique, Sahara, Sénégal, Ghana, Niger). Paris: l’Harmattan. UNESCO and the World Bank – Task Force on Higher Education and Society. 2000. Higher education in developing countries: Peril or promise. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. Yesufu, T.M., ed. 1973. Creating the African university: Emerging issues of the 1970s. Ibadan: Oxford University Press. Zeleza, P.T. 2016. The transformation of global higher education, 1945–2015. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Zeleza, P.T., and A. Olukoshi, eds. 2004. African universities in the 21st century, Liberalisation and internationalisation. Vol. 1. Dakar: CODESRIA.

Agencies ▶ Higher Education Networks, Associations, and Organizations in Europe

Agenda Setting ▶ International Organizations and Asian Higher Education

Agenda Setting and Policy Development, Higher Education Jana Bacevic1 and Terhi Nokkala2 1 University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK 2 Finnish Institute for Educational Research, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland

Synonyms Policy cycle; Policy development; Policy framing; Policy process

A

112

Agenda Setting and Policy Development, Higher Education

Definition The capacity of an actor to define or influence issues on the public agenda by selecting issues seen as important or relevant or by shaping the way these issues are framed, discussed, and interpreted.

Introduction Agenda setting is one of the key concepts in the critical or interpretative approaches in the study of policy development. Developed in response to positivist paradigms, which saw policies as largely technical solutions to objectively existing problems, critical or interpretive analysis emphasizes the constructed, contingent, and processual nature of policies, in particular the role of differently positioned actors in bringing specific issues to the fore (Fischer 2003). In this sense, the use of agenda setting in the research on higher education policy is fundamentally related to the questions of political power and influence and thus to the relationship between longer-term structural change and stability, on the one hand, and individual or collective agency, on the other. In broad terms, agenda setting refers to the capacity of an actor (individual, group, organization, institution) to define or influence issues on the public agenda. This occurs in two ways: on the one hand, selecting issues seen as important or relevant (thematization or problematization), and, on the other, shaping the way these issues are framed, discussed, and interpreted (framing or interpretation). While policy processes normally involve elements of both, their analysis can be traced to two relatively distinct disciplinary traditions, one largely reliant on political science and the other on communication and media studies. This article summarizes the main elements of both traditions and then delineates their convergences and implications for higher education policy research.

Agenda Setting in Political Science The political science tradition of agenda-setting research addresses the mechanisms through which policy issues arise into the policy arena – for

example, through actions of policy makers, NGOs, and the media. In this framework, agenda setting is usually focused on the first stage of the policy cycle, followed by policy formulation, decision-making, implementation, and evaluation (Jann and Wegrich 2007: 43). In their seminal Agendas and Instability in American Politics, Baumgartner and Jones frame the development of agendas in the context of the theory of punctuated equilibrium, where periods of relative stability are interlaced with moments of rapid and sudden change. The theory of punctuated equilibrium posits policy monopolies, “a monopoly on political understandings concerning the policy of interest, and an institutional arrangement that reinforces that understanding” (Baumgartner and Jones 2009: 6). These institutionalized arrangements mediate and limit the access of outsiders to discussions concerning specific policies, reinforcing monopolies, and resisting change. They are also supported by strong, easily communicable ideas that resonate with a wider public – such as progress, participation, or economic growth (Baumgartner and Jones 2009: 6–7). Policy venues are institutions that make authoritative policy decisions, such as state and local authorities or professional associations. Policy images present the given policy issue from a specific perspective, but evolve, are discussed, and contested over time by policy makers, interest groups, the media, and wider public. Policy issues enter the policy agenda through political actors’ strategically minded venue shopping, seeking venues where issues can be decided in a way favorable to them (Baumgartner and Jones 2009; McLendon 2003). Another influential contribution to agenda setting is Kingdon’s (2014) theory of three streams of policy making. Kingdon drew on Cohen et al. (1972) “garbage can” model, seeking to explain the seeming lack of rationality that often accompanies policy making (cf. McLendon 2003). The problem stream comprises issues that policy makers and other policy actors choose to pay attention to. Actors can be governmental, such as policy makers and government officials, or nongovernmental, such as NGOs. Similarly, they can be visible, such as elected politicians, or invisible,

Agenda Setting and Policy Development, Higher Education

such as officials or topic specialists. Policy entrepreneurs are actors who take an active role in advocating for certain ideas (Kingdon 2014; Yagci 2014; McLendon 2003). Policy stream comprises policy ideas and potential solutions developed by various policy communities to the identified problems. As there are typically more issues in the policy stream that can be accommodated, they compete for the attention of policy makers. Issues that offer solutions to the recognized problems achieve higher status on the agenda. Finally, the political stream includes political circumstances, such as the general mood in the country and its population, factors related to interest groups, and important administrative or legislative changes within the government. Policy change, in this view, depends on the “coupling” of three streams: if an issue is recognized as a problem, if a solution is identified for it, and if political arena is receptive for change, agenda shift is likely to occur (Kingdon 2014). Both Baumgartner and Jones’s and Kingdon’s models reject incrementalism and rational choice theories in favor of unpredictable and sometimes rapid changes in how issues arise into the policy agenda. According to punctuated equilibrium theory, policy agenda change results from chancing constellations of policy venues and images. This is not unlike the basic structure of the multiple stream framework, where change follows fortuitous coupling of the problem, solution, and political situation. Similarly, both theories emphasize the role of policy entrepreneurs in pushing their projects. Examples of the use of these theories in higher education research include the work of McLendon (2003) and Mills (2007) on higher education governance and funding, Yagci (2014) on the emergence of the social dimension in the Bologna process agenda, and Corbett (2011) on the competing European higher education agendas by the European Commission and the Bologna Process.

Agenda Setting and Media and Communication Studies The agenda-setting theory in communication studies focuses on the agenda-setting function of

113

media (including, more recently, social media) and their impact on public opinion. Agendasetting theory in this tradition was initially developed by Maxwell McCombs on the basis of the famous Chapel Hill study (McCombs and Shaw 1972), which demonstrated the link between the space given to specific issue in the mass media and the prominence of the issue for the surveyed public. Since then, research on agenda setting has evolved to encompass seven facets (or levels) of the agenda-setting process. The first is basic agenda setting; the second is attribute agenda setting (what kinds of attributes salient issues have, from which perspective they are presented, and how they are framed); then, networked agenda setting (the role of media and public networks in issue salience); and the psychology of agenda setting (i.e., the effects and mechanisms of influence on different people). Separate facets address consequences of agenda setting for attitudes, opinions, and behavior, origins of the media agenda (i.e., how issues achieve salience in the media), and, last but not least, agendamelding, which refers to effects that the relationship between issues in the media and reference communities, experiences, and values on influencing people’s worldviews (McCombs et al. 2014). The relevance of media and issue framing for agenda-setting and policy processes became particularly pronounced in controversies surrounding “echo chambers,” “content bubbles,” “fake news,” and other possible ways of distorting facts, primarily associated with the spread of social media (e.g., Flaxman et al. 2016). In the context of higher education, these issues have relevance not only because of the ways media report (or not) on specific issues (for instance, tuition fees, strikes and student occupations, or immigration) but also because the relationship between media and universities becomes increasingly complex in the context in which academics are encouraged to use media as outlets for engaging with the public. In this sense, while universities and academics can use the impetus for public visibility to play a stronger and more pronounced role in agenda setting, this is not without pitfalls: a series of recent cases, in particular in the USA, testifies to challenges raised by the delineation between “private” and “public”

A

114

Agenda Setting and Policy Development, Higher Education

forms of engagement on social media (e.g., Bacevic 2017). While it would be an overstatement to say that social media have “colonized” the public sphere, in contemporary democracies, it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain a strict (analytical or political) boundary between elements of agenda setting that take place in “traditional” political arenas – the parliament, executive bodies, agencies – and those generated in and through the media.

Agenda Setting, Knowledge, and Epistemic Communities This issue connects to one of the domains in which political science- and media and communication-influenced theories converge: the question of the role of knowledge and epistemic communities in agenda setting (e.g., Dunlop 2016). While epistemic communities are not uniquely restricted to networks of academic knowledge production, the role and status of knowledge (and expertise) play a significant role in the early stages of agenda setting, especially in defining the legitimacy of specific actors in putting forward authoritative statements concerning the definition and framing of a policy issue. The issues raised in this domain go beyond the uses of epistemic authority in specific instances of policy making and into questions of the social origin of knowledge, expertise, as well as the construction of facts.

Agenda Setting, Power, and Agency While initially drawing on separate theoretical vocabularies and methodological toolboxes, different forms of research on agenda setting converge around a number of questions. The first is political power: what kind of agents are in the position to place issues on the agenda, as well as to push them through? The second is the question of process: how does this happen? Last, but not least, the question of impact: what are the effects of agenda setting, and how does it influence decision-making in the long run?

Understanding how specific actors use political power in bargaining and other processes of policy construction is central not only to agenda setting but also to the broader understanding of the processes of political contestation and decision-making. Sell and Prakash, for instance, argue that “because agenda setting involves both the provision of information and of normative frames, it crucially influences policy debates and ultimately, policy outcomes. . .Given that most policy debates feature competing agendas, it is important to examine whose agenda prevails. After all, politics is about who gets what and how” (2004: 145). This aspect rests on a realist notion of power, which locates it in tangible relations of domination, usually tied to different socioeconomic capitals (e.g., Cronin 1996). Post-structuralist notions of power, by contrast, have focused on its diffuse nature (Lukes 2005; Foucault 2000). From this point of view, power is everywhere: this means that the agenda cannot always be attributed to specific actors or moments in the policy process. This shifted the emphasis to discourse (see Smith 2013; Wodak and Fairclough 2010) and, in particular, the question of framing. Framing refers to the question of who sets the tone of issues on the agenda and what rhetorical and discursive strategies are employed. Frames are both normative and discursive in nature; however, as rhetorical devices, they are also agential, in the sense in which they have the power to incite (or justify) action. Benford and Snow wrote “collective action frames [are] action-oriented sets of beliefs and meanings that inspire and legitimate the activities and campaigns of a social movement organization” (2000: 614). Sell and Prakash also emphasize the importance of framing in the process of agenda setting and its relationship to knowledge: “One of the most important activities of any campaign is agenda setting – generating issues by disseminating information and providing a normative frame to interpret it. The agenda-setting process is shaped by how various perspectives are presented in relation to dominant policy concerns. Normative frames help to translate information into knowledge” (Sell and Prakash 2004:157).

Agenda Setting and Policy Development, Higher Education

This type of analysis can be connected to the broader tradition of cultural political economy, which aspires to understand how cultural (discursive) constructions interact over time in order to produce relatively durable configurations of political power (e.g., Sum and Jessop 2013). In this process, actors navigate the social world by reducing its complexity through meaning making, that is, attributing forms of value to objects, forms, and relations. Meaning is cultural and thus precedes specific forms of action (and thus, for instance, specific policy choices); equally, however, it is not completely independent of social structure – for instance, specific configurations of power. In this sense, the “success” of a particular form of agenda setting can be said to depend on two things: one is the capacity of an actor to monopolize (or challenge) meaning or value of specific ideas, objects, or relations; the other is the “fit” of that act or process of meaning making (semiosis) with “extra-semiotic” elements – social cohesion, inequality, etc. – of the context. For instance, a policy focusing on autonomy is not likely to gain traction in a policy environment where there is a high level of distrust toward institutional freedom; however, if a group of policy actors manages to re-signify it so as to apply to individual, rather than institutional powers, it may become more successful. Thus, while processes of agenda setting influence the course of events, they still conform to path dependencies, institutional logics, and other more durable effects (e.g., Hay 2002). A similar approach in the context of higher education is Nokkala and Bacevic’s (2014) analysis of the role of European University Association (EUA), which shows how an organization uses the production of knowledge in the context of generating policy discourses in order to bolster its own position in the political landscape. Framing, in this context, is used not only to influence the agenda but also to increase the power and relevance of a specific political actor. This extends agenda setting from the question of how actors influence agendas to the question of how agendas help create and position individual or institutional actors in the policymaking arena. In the analysis of the framing and positioning of different actors in the “market” for higher education in the

115

Global South, Robertson and Komljenovic (2016) address similar questions, grounding them more explicitly in the elaboration of the cultural political economic framework (Robertson and Dale 2015). In this sense, the emphasis is on the constitution of actors in higher education markets and market relations as part of the regime of international trade in goods and services.

Perspectives and Challenges Some higher education policy issues have gained traction as part of global political-economic trends. For example, the drive toward greater institutional autonomy can be seen as part of the processes of declining public funding of higher education, where autonomy is equated with institution’s “freedom” to compete in the market. Dissecting the role of different actors in this increasingly glonacal (Marginson and Rhoades 2002) context can be demanding, especially given the size and amorphousness of some international higher education policy actors, such as the European Commission. Agenda setting, especially in the form in which it combines the analysis of more and less explicit forms of political power, offers a number of interesting perspectives for understanding such policy processes. This is especially true in the growing domain of critical policy studies, which focus on the cultural as well as political and economic aspects of policy making. On the other hand, these approaches are almost always constrained to explaining how things came to be the way that they are; it is very difficult to use them in order to assess what will happen. This, however, is not necessarily a shortcoming of agenda-setting theory as such; it is possible to conceive of agenda setting as an element of prospective analysis that would entail a minute analysis of day-to-day decision-making.

Cross-References ▶ Advocacy Coalition Framework, Education ▶ Higher Education Policy

Higher

A

116

▶ Policy Cycle in Higher Education, Theories of ▶ Policy-Making, Rhetoric, and Discourse in Higher Education ▶ Policy Process in Higher Education ▶ Politics, Power, and Ideology in Higher Education

References Bacevic, Jana. 2017. University under attack? Politics, contestation and agency beyond the neoliberal university. In The global university, ed. R. Barnett and M. Peters. New York: Peter Lang. Baumgartner, Frank R., and Brian D. Jones. 2009. Agendas and instability in American politics. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Benford, Robert D., and David A. Snow. 2000. Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology 26: 611–639. Cohen, Michael, James March, and Johan Olsen. 1972. A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly 17: 1–25. Corbett, Anne. 2011. Ping pong: Competing leadership for reform in EU higher education 1998–2006. European Journal of Education 46 (1): 36–53. Cronin, Ciaran. 1996. Bourdieu and Foucault on power and modernity. Philosophy and Social Criticism 22 (6): 55–85. Dunlop, Clare. 2016. Knowledge, epistemic communities, and agenda setting. In Handbook of public policy agenda setting, ed. N. Zahariadis, 273–294. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Fischer, Frank. 2003. Reframing public policy: Discursive politics and deliberative practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Flaxman, Seth, Sharad Goel, and Justin Rao. 2016. Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news consumption. Public Opinion Quarterly 80: 298–320. Foucault, Michel. 2000. Power. New York: Vintage. Hay, Colin. 2002. Political analysis. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Jann, Werner, and Kai Wegrich. 2007. Theories of the policy cycle. In Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods, ed. F. Fischer, G.J. Miller, and M.S. Sidney, 43–62. Boca Raton: Taylor and Francis. Kingdon, James. 2014. Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. 2nd ed. Pierson New International Edition. Harlow: Pierson Education Limited. Lukes, Stephen. 2005. Power: A radical view. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Marginson, Simon, and Gary Rhoades. 2002. Beyond national states, markets, and systems of higher education: A glonacal agency heuristic. Higher Education 43 (3): 281–309. McCombs, Maxwell, and David L. Shaw. 1972. The agenda-setting function of mass media. The Public Opinion Quarterly 36 (2): 176–187.

Agent Theory McCombs, Maxwell, Donald Shaw, and David Weaver. 2014. New directions in agenda-setting theory and research. Mass Communication and Society 17 (6): 781–802. McLendon, Michael K. 2003. State governance and reform of higher education: Patterns, trends, and theories of the public policy process. In Higher education: Handbook of theory and research, ed. J.C. Smart, 57–144. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Mills, Michael R. 2007. Stories of politics and policy: Florida’s higher education governance reorganization. The Journal of Higher Education 78 (2): 162–187. Nokkala, Terhi, and Jana Bacevic. 2014. University autonomy, agenda setting and the construction of agency: The case of the European University Association in the European Higher Education Area. European Educational Research Journal 13 (6): 699–714. Robertson, Susan L., and Roger Dale. 2015. Towards a ‘critical cultural political economy’ account of the globalising of education. Globalisation, Education, Societies 13 (1): 149–170. Robertson, Susan L., and Janja Komljenovic. 2016. Nonstate actors, and the advance of frontier higher education markets in the global south. Oxford Review of Education 42 (4): 594–611. Sell, Susan K., and Aseem Prakash. 2004. Using ideas strategically: The contest between business and NGO networks in intellectual property rights. International Studies Quarterly 48 (1): 143–175. Smith, Karen. 2013. Critical discourse analysis and higher education research. In Theory and method in higher education research, ed. Jeroen Huisman and Malcolm Tight, 61–79. Buckingham: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Sum, Ngai-Ling, and Bob Jessop. 2013. Towards a cultural political economy: Putting culture in its place in political economy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Wodak, Ruth, and Norman Fairclough. 2010. Recontextualizing European higher education policies: The cases of Austria and Romania. Critical Discourse Studies 7 (1): 19–40. Yagci, Yasemin. 2014. Setting policy agenda for the social dimension of the Bologna process. Higher Education Policy 27 (4): 509–528.

Agent Theory ▶ Disciplinary Versus Institutional Approaches, Higher Education

Agglomeration ▶ Mergers and Consortia, Higher Education

Alternative Higher Education

Alternative Credentials ▶ Alternative Higher Education

Alternative Higher Education Manja Klemenčič Department of Sociology, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA

Synonyms Alternative credentials; Alternative pathways to academic degree; Experimental higher education

Definition Alternative higher education refers to alternative pathways to academic degree be that through alternative forms of higher education institutions or alternative programs leading to an academic degree or recognition of prior learning or of acquired competences. Alternative higher education also refers to alternative credentials such as industry-recognized certificates, badges, licenses, and nanodegrees as alternatives to academic degrees.

Introduction This chapter reviews the history and the more recent developments in the alternative higher education and discusses the emerging forms of alternative higher education provision. The emergence of alternative higher education institutions implies innovations in how higher education is organized and delivered, to what purposes or credentials it serves, and what pathways lead to a credential. Alternative higher education is always a response to some perceived deficiency or student or labor market expectations that have not been met in the

117

existing higher education provision. In this sense, alternative higher education comes as a corrective or as educational innovation vis-à-vis the mainstream higher education provision. Alternative higher education has existed throughout history in parallel to the mainstream higher education, i.e., to the institutions that have attracted majority of students, have obtained funding from various benefactors including the state, and those that are nowadays accredited by recognized accrediting bodies. Over the years, some alternative higher education institutions have become mainstream, some remained marginal even if accredited, and some disappeared completely. We know most about those forms of alternative higher education that became mainstream. For example, land grant universities in the United States in the mid-nineteenth century were considered an educational innovation and an alternative form and soon became a widespread and permanent mainstream feature of the American higher education systems (Anderson 1976; Williams 1991; Geiger 2000; Kerr 2001; Sorber 2016). Similarly, community colleges were initially an educational innovation and between 1900 and 2000 became a formidable feature of American higher education (Ratcliff 1993; Cohen and Brawer 1996; Brint and Karabel 1989; ZamaniGallaher 2016; Sorber 2016). In the early twentieth century, it was the experimental work colleges and co-op colleges that presented innovations in the United States (Staley 2018). These colleges, which remain a marginal yet undoubtedly visible feature of American higher education, combine classroom education with practical work experiences. They establish partnerships with employers who provide students with paid work experience, and these work experiences are an integral part of academic requirements. Elsewhere in the world, the alternative higher education provision introduced liberal arts programs, i.e., interdisciplinary programs with some components of general education, to their traditionally disciplinaryspecialized or vocationally oriented institutions (Godwin 2017). The liberal arts colleges outside the United States too are a marginal yet visible segment of higher education provision. Finally,

A

118

we are witnessing a rise in alternative credentials, such as industry-recognized certificates, badges, licenses, and online nanodegrees as alternatives to academic degrees obtained from the mainstream institutions (Brown and Kurzweil 2017). More emphasis is also given to recognition of prior learning and awarding credit for out-of-class experiences and independent study, all of which reinforce the notion of flexible learning pathways or alternative academic pathways (Brown and Kurzweil 2017). In the remainder of the chapter, I first discuss factors leading to emergence of alternative higher education and then the different types of alternative higher education provision.

Factors Leading to Alternative Higher Education Provision There exist several overarching factors that bring about the emergence of alternative higher education provision. First, since the late nineteenth century, emergence of alternative higher education institutions has been part of the progressive education movement that highlights the importance of experiential learning. According to the progressive movement, learners are expected to actively co-construct knowledge. This was to correct the instructional practice focused on passive transmission of knowledge. These new ways of thinking about learning prompted occurrence of alternative or free schools on all educational levels, with many examples of alternative schooling models maintained until today, such as the Waldorf School and Montessori School (Mills and McGregor 2017). This progressive education tradition was articulated – in different ways – by prominent educationalist including John Dewey, Carl Rogers, Lev Vygotsky, Paulo Freire, Helen Parkhurst, Rudolf Steiner, and Maria Montessori among many others. The establishment of alternative higher education institutions or programs often materializes student rebellion against the established ways of conducting higher education not meeting certain student needs (Magid and King 1974). In the

Alternative Higher Education

United States, many alternative higher education institutions or programs emerged after the 1965 Berkeley Free Speech Movement, initially as “liberation classes” and as alternative higher education programs funded by student governments or established by students or communities (ibid., also Mayhew 1977; Kliewer 1999). Students criticized the traditional higher education institutions – which were originally created to serve the elites but were now opening doors to masses of students from all social backgrounds – on a number of issues: (1) for being overly bureaucratic and lacking student voice in governance, (2) for the curricula ignoring the social circumstances and social inequalities majority of students were experiencing firsthand, and (3) for the poor quality of teaching and learning and difficult study conditions that arose when the increases in student enrollments were not fully matched with teaching staff hires and student support resources (Klemenčič and Park 2018; Klemenčič 2019). The reforms over time have sought to address these criticisms, and many are still ongoing. Study programs, such as African American Studies and Ethnic Studies, that emerged as alternative in that period have over the years taken hold across the mainstream higher education institutions. Multidisciplinary study programs too have been incorporated into mainstream higher education institutions. Similarly, student participation in governance has become a visible feature in shared governance arrangements almost everywhere, even if institutional practices vary significantly (Klemenčič and Park 2018). Like the aforementioned reforms, however, the reforms of teaching and learning to be more student-centered too are still ongoing and far from completed (Hoidn and Klemenčič 2020). Student agency in learning and teaching and in institutional governance that was so much called for in the 1960s is only just emerging as an accepted principle in the contemporary higher education (Klemenčič 2020). The higher education institutions established in 1960ies and 1970ies have embraced educational experimentation in their core. These institutions have introduced a number of innovative forms of higher education provision, such as multidisciplinary

Alternative Higher Education

schools, problem-based and area studies, and participatory governance, a trend that could be seen not only in the United States (such as the New College of Florida) but also in the United Kingdom (e.g., University of Sussex) and Australia (e.g., La Trobe University) (Murphy et al. 2010 cited in Staley 2018). These education innovations not only persisted in the new universities which soon became mainstream institutions but also diffused – at different speed and to a different extent – to other existing higher education institutions. Second, approximately since 2000, the education technologies are becoming more advanced, diversified, and more affordable. This is paving the way for emergence of various forms of online learning both inside and outside the mainstream higher education. Distance learning that used to be an alternative form of education in the past shifted fully into online education (Toetenel and Rienties 2020). Online study programs, such as those offered initially by alternative “open universities” (e.g., Open University in United Kingdom), are now a common practice also among many mainstream higher education institutions. Online higher education institutions are now part of the mainstream higher education sector. With further advancement in educational technologies as well as availability and affordability of technology for educational purposes, online education has massively expanded and also differentiated the range of its education services (Palvia et al. 2018). These developments are not only initiating innovative education strategies but also prompting mainstream higher education institutions to adopt technology-enhanced learning, such as blended learning, Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), incorporating digital methods and digital tools into classroom practice, course management software and learning analytics technologies, even artificial intelligence, as well as technology-enhanced tutoring and mentoring, libraries, and assessment. The rise of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), which were designed initially by higher education institutions but gradually adopted also by other providers, both nonprofit and commercial companies,

119

increasingly blurs the boundaries between formal higher education provision and nonformal learning (Toetenel and Rienties 2020). Learning technologies nevertheless require considerable capital investment, which makes it difficult for many higher education institutions to afford. Yet learning-outcome-based and competence-based education that it enables is something that is appealing to students and employers and thus draws private investment and emergence of private nonacademic providers (Soares et al. 2013). Third, the rising cost of higher education or lack of affordable higher education too has over the history prompted innovative and less costly alternative higher education provision. The rising cost of higher education (and especially in the United States, massive accumulated student debt) raises question among the public whether higher education is worth the cost as well as whether cheaper alternatives to college exist (Craig 2018). The concern is not only how much students actually learn in college (Arum and Roksa 2011) but whether colleges and universities sufficiently align their programs with labor market demand and curriculum with workforce requirements and create career counseling and pathways to help their students to find the first good job (Carnevale et al. 2017). Accentuated is also awareness of fast-changing industries and accordingly changing labor market needs which demand flexibility from higher education institutions in what knowledge and skills they confer onto their graduates. These perceived deficiencies of the contemporary mainstream higher education too have prompted alternative higher education through alternative academic pathways and alternative credentials (Brown and Kurzweil 2017). These cater to students gaining specific vocational skills, which are shorter and cheaper than traditional degree. While different types of work-based training and distance education have existed long before, these shorter-term alternative programs and credentials are taking a number of forms, allow for flexible learning pathways, and are purposefully directed at students gaining employment. Despite proliferation and promise of these programs and credentials, their efficacy in terms

A

120

of competitiveness for jobs (and the reception by the employers) is still unclear, and their quality assurance is underdeveloped (lacking robust data on cost, features, and student outcomes) (Brown and Kurzweil 2017). The wave of the alternative higher education since 2000 can be explained through advancement in educational-learning technologies, but also the problems of “disruptive technologies” in higher education as discussed by Christiansen (2008) in his seminal work The Innovator’s Dilemma and later by Christiansen and Eyring (2011) in The Innovative University. Christiansen (2008) introduced the concept of disruptive technologies pointing to the fact that organizations competing for customers often develop products and services to the extent that they no longer provide value to the customer; hence, the company’s investment in innovations and additions was wasted. Craig (2018, xiii) suggests that similar developments could be seen in higher education and these developments are prompting alternative higher education forms: “disruptors are emerging because the college and university product is more than some students need or are willing or able to pay for.” Christiansen and Eyring (2011) applied the notion of disruptive technology to universities suggesting innovative and less costly ways for performing core functions of teaching, research, and service, some of which include work-based training, flexible learning pathways, and nanocredentials discussed earlier.

Types of Alternative and Emerging Higher Education According to organizational forms, we can distinguish between completely new alternative higher education institutions and alternative higher education provision as university-affiliated programs or community-based programs or combinations of both. New Alternative Higher Education Institutions Among the existing alternative (types of) higher education institutions are work colleges in the

Alternative Higher Education

United States (Wilson and Lyons 1961). The work colleges are federally recognized as a special type of higher education institutions that have “comprehensive work-learning-service” programs as an essential and core component of their liberal arts educational programs (US Government Publishing Office). Each student enrolled at the work college has campus employment that is part of the work-learning-service academic requirement which also helps students to reduce the cost of education (https://www. workcolleges.org/). Another distinct alternative higher education institutions are cooperative or co-op colleges which were founded at the University of Cincinnati in 1906 by Herman Schneider in order to integrate the theory and practice of engineering (Reilly 2006). Co-op colleges provide academic credit for structured work experiences that students gain with an outside employer (Auld 1972). This form of workintegrated learning involves a partnership between the higher education institution and the employer and provides paid employment to the student along with integration of this experience into the academic provision (Cedercreutz 2008). Other alternative organizational forms of higher education institutions are “network(ed) universities,” such as what Staley (2018) refers to as a model of “Nomad University” in which study and work are not grounded in a single site, but the physical location shifts around the world. This model is most closely depicted in the Minerva Schools at the Keck Graduate Institute (https://www.minerva.kgi.edu/about/) (Kosslyn and Nelson 2017). Similar vision is also at the core of the European Union’s new initiative of the European Universities through which funding is provided to a selection of “university alliances” which have “a shared, integrated, long-term strategy for education. . .going beyond existing higher education cooperation models” with European inter-university campus and embedded mobility enabling students and staff (https://ec.europa.eu/ programmes/erasmus-plus/programme-guide/partb/three-key-actions/key-action-2/european-univers ities_en).

Alternative Higher Education

New Alternative Higher Education Programs Within Existing Higher Education Institutions or as Community Programs Alternative higher education is not necessarily a new institution but rather a program or a school which has been established as a form of educational innovation within the existing accredited higher education institution or as a postsecondary education opportunity outside formal higher education, i.e., as a community program. Experimental colleges have been established within the existing accredited higher education institutions. For example, the Experimental College at Tufts University is a department at the existing research university offering education programs distinct from Tuft’s regular study program offer. Amsterdam University College in the Netherlands is a unit within University of Amsterdam which functions as a “liberal arts college” and is in that distinct from the University’s study program offer. Strong student self-governance and student participation in curriculum design and in co-teaching are common features of the experimental colleges. In the United States where student governments have – compared to Europe – much weaker authority in institutional governance, this feature is an important point of distinction from the mainstream higher education institutions. Similarly, liberal arts programs, which are rare in European context, are the distinct – innovative – feature of the Amsterdam University College compared to other programs of University of Amsterdam. There are also nontraditional postsecondary learning opportunities and spaces that may be attached to higher education institutions or not. In an excellent review of alternative academic credential and academic pathways, Brown and Kurzweil (2017) present three categories of alternative postsecondary credentials: (1) labor market training and credentialing including certificate programs, work-based training, and skills-based short courses, (2) online credentialing including MOOCs and online micro-credentials, and (3) competency-based education programs. According to Brown and Kurzweil (2017), certificate programs are mostly offered by for-profit

121

trade schools, for-profit degree-granting institutions, and community colleges, in particular in health sciences and consumer services. Workbased training includes apprenticeships and other forms of on-the-job training that can be offered at higher education institutions or in companies or in partnership between both or as community development programs (e.g., last-mile training programs; see also Craig 2018). Skillsbased short courses are popular in the emerging technology sector, such as coding boot camps and other specific technology skills that are offered by for-profit entities along or in partnership with mainstream higher education institutions (Brown and Kurzweil 2017). An example mentioned by Craig (2018) is a software company that not only develops software for clients but also trains software developers through an “outsourced apprenticeship” model registered by the Department of Labor in the United States. The idea of apprenticeship model of alternative higher education is, as mentioned also by Staley (2018, 16), to “substituting classroom instruction with experiences in real-word settings, led by practitioners.” Often offered by private providers other than higher education institutions, these programs also offer alternative financing arrangements outside of the traditional student loans. Online credentials through MOOCs and bundled online courses that lead to certificates and “nanodegrees” are offered by both business sector and higher education institutions, and new partnerships are emerging to use online credentials as components of a traditional degree (Brown and Kurzweil 2017). Finally, competency-based education programs provide “alternative pathways to a degree or credential that are more personalized, flexible, and aligned with in-demand skills” and that tend to “recognize prior and extra-institutional learning and allow students to progress at a pace determined by the rate at which they demonstrate learning outcomes” (Brown and Kurzweil 2017, 3). Finally, there exists also alternative higher education that is established purposefully in direct opposition to the traditional – mainstream – higher education. Although small scale, a notable example of such is the “UnCollege” movement (https://www.uncollege.org/). UnCollege evolved

A

122

from 2011 with the support of Thiel Fellowship which grants selected fellows funding to forgo college and offers “gap programs” to help participants develop skills for self-study and future employment.

Conclusion There is prolific and growing literature on transformation of higher education which includes also scenarios for emerging and alternative higher education provision. Anya Kamenetz’s (2010) book DIY U: Edupunks, Edupreneurs, and the Coming Transformation of Higher Education was prompted by her earlier exploration into high dropout rates and massive accumulated debt of higher education students in the United States. She puts forward options of Do-It-Yourself University by pursuing nonformal education using open and online educational resources or students creating learning and career opportunities for themselves. Ryan Craig (2018) is offering faster and cheaper alternatives to college (with a full directory) and suggestions for changes to be taken by selective and nonselective colleges to offer students faster and cheaper pathways to employment. David J. Staley’s (2018) notable book Alternative Universities: Speculative Design for Innovation in Higher Education makes a step further by offering ten models of alternative universities categorized by (1) distinct organizational forms, (2) apprenticeship as substituting classroom instruction with experiences in real-world settings with practitioners, (3) technology not only as a system of delivery but interaction with technology to engage in cognition, and (4) attributes as conferring a particular kind of transformative experience. Joseph Aoun’s (2017) Robot-Proof: Higher Education in the Age of Artificial Intelligence too highlights the potential of technology beyond merely being a mode of delivery of higher education. Kosslyn and Nelson (2017) put together an edited volume that looks at the concept of the Minerva “university” as a new distinct form of undergraduate education, highly selective in its admissions, but offering students a nomad study experience with full emersion in experiential

Alternative Higher Education

learning in different parts of the world. And Brown and Kurzweil (2017) wrote The Complex Universe of Alternative Postsecondary Credentials and Pathways for the American Academy of Arts and Sciences offering an overview of the complexity of postsecondary credentials as an alternative to an academic degree and alternative pathways to academic credentials. All in all, there is a sense in this literature of significant transformations happening in higher education and even more to come. The questions of change and continuity in higher education are a common narrative in higher education discourse in scholarship, policy, and practice. Yet, the basic features of the medieval universities are still recognizable in most higher education institutions. The imperatives for reforms are undoubtedly more notable for lower-tier institutions than for the most recognizable world-class universities. But the calls for reform include also elite higher education (Bok 2008). As a response to the last wave of alternative higher education, the academic institutions are beginning to be more purposeful in connecting real-world work experiences with their academic programs, pursue partnerships with business and other community institutions, utilize educational technologies and strengthen student agency in more student-centered higher education. Yet, especially in the American liberal arts and sciences education, the arguments in favor of developing general competencies rather than specific vocational skills to prepare students for twentyfirst century careers remain prevalent (Bok 2008; Baum and McPherson 2019). Thus, it remains to be seen which of the current trends in alternative higher education will become a permanent feature of higher education landscapes and at what scale.

Cross-References ▶ Community Colleges and the Massification of Higher Education ▶ Students and Higher Education Expansion ▶ University Tradition in the United States, The

Alternative Higher Education

References Anderson, G. Lester, ed. 1976. Land-Grant universities and their continuing challenge. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press. Aoun, J.E. 2017. Robot-proof: Higher education in the age of artificial intelligence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Arum, R., and J. Roksa. 2011. Academically adrift: Limited learning on college campuses. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Auld, Robert B. 1972. The cooperative education movement: Association of cooperative colleges. Journal of Cooperative Education 8 (5): 24–27. ISSN 0022-0132. Baum, S., and M. McPherson. 2019. Improving teaching: Strengthening the college learning experience. Daedalus Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 148 (4): 5–13. Bok, D. 2008. Our underachieving colleges. A candid look at how much students learn and why they should be learning more. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Brint, Steven, and Jerome Karabel. 1989. The diverted dream: Community colleges and the promise of educational opportunity in America, 1900–1985. New York: Oxford University Press. Brown, J., and M. Kurzweil. 2017. The complex universe of alternative postsecondary credentials and pathways. Cambridge, MA: The American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Carnevale, A.P., I.T. Garcia, and A. Gulish. 2017. Career pathways: Five ways to connect college and careers. Georgetown University Center on Education and Workforce, July 11, 2017. https://cew.georgetown. edu/wp-content/uploads/LEE-final.pdf Cedercreutz, C.C. 2008. Leveraging cooperative education to guide curricular innovation: The development of a corporate feedback system for continuous improvement. Cincinnati: Center for Cooperative Education Research and Innovation. Christiansen, C. 2008. The innovator’s dilemma: The revolutionary book that will change the way you do business. New York: Harper Business. Christiansen, C.M., and H.J. Eyring. 2011. The innovative university: Changing the DNA of higher education from the inside out. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cohen, Arthur M., and Florence B. Brawer. 1996. The American community college. 3rd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Craig, R. 2018. A new U: Faster+cheaper alternatives to college. Dallas: BenBella Books. Geiger, Roger L., ed. 2000. The American college in the nineteenth century. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press. Godwin, K.A. 2017. Trends in liberal education: Précis of a global phenomenon. In The evolution of liberal arts in the global age, ed. P. Marber and D. Araya, 87–105. London: Routledge. Hoidn, S., and M. Klemenčič, eds. 2020. Routledge handbook on student-centered learning and teaching in higher education. New York/Abingdon: Routledge.

123 Kamenetz, A. 2010. DIY U: Edupunks, Edupreneurs, and the coming transformation of education. White River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing. Kerr, Clark. 2001. The uses of the university. 5th ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Klemenčič, M. 2019. Students and Higher Education Expansion. In: Teixeira P., Shin J. (eds) Encyclopedia of International Higher Education Systems and Institutions. Dordrecht: Springer. Klemenčič, M. 2020. Students as actors and agents in student-centered higher education. In Routledge handbook on student-centered learning and teaching in higher education, ed. S. Hoidn and M. Klemenčič. New York/Abingdon: Routledge. Chapter 5. Klemenčič, M., and BoYun Park. 2018. Student politics: Between representation and activism. In Handbook on the politics of higher education, ed. Hamish Coates, Brendan Cantwell, and Roger King, 468–486. Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing. Kliewer J. 1999. The innovative campus: Nurturing the distinctive learning environment. Phoenix, AZ: American Council on Education/Oryx Press. Kosslyn, Stephen M., and Ben Nelson. 2017. Building the intentional university: Minerva and the future of higher education. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Magid, L., and N. King. 1974. Mini-manual for free university. Lincoln: Study Commission on Undergraduate Education and the Education of teachers. Mayhew, L. 1977. Legacy of the seventies. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Mills, M., and G. McGregor. 2017. Alternative education. Oxford research encyclopedia of education. Alternative and non-formal education. https://doi.org/10.1093/ acrefore/9780190264093.013.40. Murphy, P., M.A. Peters, and S. Marginson. 2010. Imagination: Three models of imagination in the age of knowledge economy. New York: Peter Lang. Palvia, S., P. Aeron, P. Gupta, D. Mahapatra, R. Parida, R. Rosner, and S. Sindhi. 2018. Online education: Worldwide status, challenges, trends, and implications. Journal of Global Information Technology Management 21 (4): 233–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 1097198X.2018.1542262. Ratcliff, James L. 1993. Seven streams in the historical development of the modern American community college. In A handbook on the community college in America: Its history, mission and management, ed. George A. Baker III. Boulder: Greenwood Press. Reilly, M. 2006. The ivory tower and the smokestack: 100 years of cooperative education at the University of Cincinnati. Cincinnati: Emmis Books. Soares, L., J. Eaton, and B. Smith. 2013. Higher education: New models, new rules. Educause Review 48 (5). https:// er.educause.edu/articles/2013/10/higher-education-newmodels-new-rules. Sorber, N.M. 2016. The University Tradition in the United States. In: Shin J., Teixeira P. (eds) Encyclopedia of International Higher Education Systems and Institutions. Dordrecht: Springer.

A

124 Staley, D.J. 2018. Alternative universities: Speculative design for innovation in higher education. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press. Toetenel, L., and B. Rienties. 2020. The virtuous circle of learning design and learning analytics to develop student centred online education. In Routledge handbook of student-centred learning and teaching in higher education, ed. S. Hoidn and M. Klemenčič. New York/Abingdon: Routledge. Chapter 20. US Government Publishing Office. eCFR, Electronic Code of Federal Regulations. Title 34. Education Subtitle B. Regulations of the Offices of the Department of Education Chapter VI. Office of postsecondary education, department of education Part 675. Federal work-study programs Subpart C. Work-Colleges Program (§§ 675.41–675.50). Williams, Roger L. 1991. The origins of federal support for higher education: George W. Atherton and the landgrant college movement. University Park: Pennsylvania State Press. Wilson, James Warner, and Edward H. Lyons. 1961. Workstudy college programs; appraisal and report of the study of cooperative education. New York: Harper. Zamani-Gallaher, E.M. 2016. Community Colleges and the Massification of Higher Education. In: Shin J., Teixeira P. (eds) Encyclopedia of International Higher Education Systems and Institutions. Dordrecht: Springer.

Alternative Pathways to Academic Degree ▶ Alternative Higher Education

Alumni Giving ▶ Philanthropy and Individual Donors in Higher Education

American Foundations and Higher Education Aurelia Kollasch Iowa State University, Iowa, USA

Synonyms Charitable body; Endowment; Funding agency; Source of funds

Alternative Pathways to Academic Degree

Definition A type of an entity that supports charitable activities by making grants to unrelated organizations or institutions or to individuals for scientific, educational, cultural, religious, or other charitable purposes. USA has more than 80,000 private grantmaking foundations and over 4,700 degree granting educational institutions. American foundations are one of the largest sources of support to higher education institutions representing 30% of the 2016 total with $12.5 billion in giving (Council for Aid Education 2017). Currently, California leads the country in $10 million plus gifts to higher education, with 19 gifts totaling $1.25 billion, followed by New York (11 gifts totaling $263 million), and Pennsylvania (eight gifts totaling $173 million) (Foundation Center 2016). At the same time, more than 25% of total donations go to less than 1% of the universities, with institutions such as Harvard, Stanford, and the University of Southern California leading the way (Council for Aid Education 2017). This is mostly contributed to so-called mega gifts of $100 million or more provided by leading “mega foundations” such as the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, The Duke Endowment, Lilly Endowment Inc., and the Lumina Foundation for Education (Hall and Thomas 2012). American foundations have historically been significant contributors to the progress of American higher education institutions. The Council on Foundations (2017) defines a foundation as an entity that supports charitable activities by making grants to unrelated organizations or institutions or to individuals for scientific, educational, cultural, religious, or other charitable purposes. Structural differences in any foundations may vary greatly, but most foundations have their own board of directors, at least a portion of their assets invested in an endowment, and grant money on at least an annual basis. These charitable organizations have a long history of supporting higher education for two distinct reasons: core capacity and institution building; and access and social change. The first is that American foundations support the

American Foundations and Higher Education

advancement of knowledge and institutional excellence (Geiger 1990) having their funding assistance directed to core research and teaching programs in higher education. Secondly, higher education has always been seen as a critical gateway to greater opportunities and as the great equalizer in American society, thus being a sound ground for support (Anheier and Hammack 2010).

History and Role(s) of American Foundations in Higher Education Since the late 1800s, American foundations have been active in the growth and development of higher education by providing funds for new academic and research projects, capital building projects, programs designed to increase college access and affordability, and in collaborating with higher education institutions to engage and influence the public policy arena. During their early years of higher education philanthropy, from the late nineteenth century until World War II, American foundations helped institutions of higher education to establish the idea of a competitive national framework. Toward the end of the 1800s, Andrew Carnegie along with benefactors such as John D. Rockefeller and Margaret Olivia Slocum Sage set up some of the nation’s first grant-making philanthropies. The early philanthropies varied in their goals and impact while their funding initiatives both reinforced and challenged inequities in education. Nevertheless, these philanthropies, perhaps the best known of which were the Carnegie Corporation, the Ford Foundation, and the Rockefeller Foundation, increasingly tried to raise the visibility of educational inequities and, thus, were widely perceived as liberal and altruistic for much of the twentieth century. The foundations were also harbingers for setting standards by which institutions would compete and be measured in terms of academic research and teaching (Anheier and Hammack 2010). During this time period, American foundations were the most influential forces in higher education concentrating their efforts on strategic donations while the

125

relationship between foundations and universities has been one of the well-suited institutional parings in American public life (Anheier and Hammack 2010). During post-World-War II years, American foundations primarily focused their grant making efforts on university infrastructure and capital building projects. The leading private foundations, such as Ford Foundation, had to redefine their role in a new institutional setting in which the federal government had become a major funder to exhibit systemic influence. While the growth of federal funding for higher education increased in form of federal grants through the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the foundations had to reposition themselves to provide resources for private education and support for humanities. Still, there were many reasons for American foundations to focus on higher education, most importantly, the fact that education was high on the national agenda during the 1950s and 1960s. Additionally, the post-World War II enrollment surge of returning veterans followed by the baby boom made higher education one of America’s great growth industries between 1945 and 1970 (Crossland 1983). Particularly, large foundations such as Ford, Sloan, Mellon, Kresge, and MacArthur took advantage of opportunities to creatively shape university infrastructure. Also, as early as the late 1960s, many foundations began developing program-related investments (PRIs) tactics to stretch limited funds and to attract other funders to projects. Similarly to grants, PRIs are vehicles for charitable purposes, but unlike grants, PRIs are recyclable philanthropic funds when repaid and often come with at least a modest rate of financial return. In the Tax Reform Act of 1969, the Internal Revenue Code permitted a giving vehicle for foundations called Program-Related Investments, or PRIs. A PRI is a method of making capital available to both nonprofits and for-profits that are addressing social or environmental concerns. While PRIs have existed for over 40 years, foundations have been slow to adopt such investment strategies. Program-related investments have gained momentum since the 1990s – especially

A

126

between the mid-1990s and the mid-2000s – with substantial growth in the dollar amount invested, the number of PRIs granted, and the number of foundations participating. The total PRI dollar amount increased significantly from the lowest point of $106 million in 1996 to over $400 million in 2007. Moreover, the average PRI dollar amount has increased steadily since 2005, rising from nearly $635,756 in 2005 to over $1.5 million in 2009 (Lilly Family School of Philanthropy n.d.). Program-related investing is gaining attention within the foundation community for both managing risk and generating attractive long-term returns, but their use by foundations still remains limited. At the beginning of the new millennium, American foundations started approaching philanthropy differently by shifting from being grant-making organizations to being leadership organizations attempting to wield their financial power to influence public policy and act as catalysts for change. At the same time, American foundations also increased their commitment to transparency. The Foundation Center has continued to provide information on foundations and their grant making while many foundations shifted their focus to evaluate impact and to present attainable, measurable, and sustainable results. By the time the 2008 financial crisis affected American and international markets, the American foundations already looked ahead with new social change initiatives that vary from access and equity towards student financial aid.

Current Landscape of American Foundations in Higher Education The landscape of foundation philanthropy in higher education has changed a great deal while major funders in this sector represent a different set of actors with potentially different social objectives. Private foundations (sometimes called independent foundations) and institutionally related foundations (sometimes referred to as campus foundations) are major players in the current higher education landscape.

American Foundations and Higher Education

All private foundations are 501(c)(3) organizations, which means that they are exempt from federal income tax under section 501(c)(3) of Title 26 of the United States Code. The 501(c) (3) designation is a legal designation reserved for organizations that are exclusively charitable. There are also different types of private foundations. Independent foundations (those founded by an individual, family or group of individuals and operated by the donor, donor’s family or independent board) made up 90% of all US foundations in 2011 and had total assets of $540 billion and total giving of $33 billion, according to the Foundation Center. Independent foundations that include most of the nation’s largest foundations such as Ford, Bill and Melinda Gates, J. Paul Getty Trust, Rober Wood Johnson, Kellogg, and William and Flora Hewlett are usually funded by endowments from a single source. The so-called mega foundations, such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation or Lumina Foundation have enormous resources to further support higher education initiatives from access and equity towards student financial aid. In addition, a new type of advocacy philanthropy has emerged to influence government action, policy, and legislation (Hall and Thomas 2012). These and other foundations can be catalysts for change in the future by not only collaborating with public research institutions, but also among each other. The fact that four leading national foundations have just announced the launch of a free online resource designed to help the staff of other private foundations explore the rules and potential impact of program-related investments, is one way American foundations might shape and influence the future direction of higher education. Created by staff at the Bill and Melinda Gates, William and Flora Hewlett, Gordon and Betty Moore, and David and Lucile Packard foundations as part of the Learn Foundation Law suite of resources, Program-Related Investment Rules for Private Foundations includes a series of interactive training modules that provide an overview of how foundations can use PRIs to help nonprofit organizations seize time-sensitive opportunities, attract capital to a new field, scale their efforts to achieve maximum impact, and stimulate private-

American Foundations and Higher Education

sector innovations that align with their own programmatic strategies. Institutionally related foundations, also called campus or institution foundations, have played a vital role in raising and managing private resources in support of public institutions of higher education. These foundations are typically incorporated as public charities under section 501(c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code, which means that these types of foundations are incorporated as nonprofit, tax-exempt charities. Their primary purpose is to help raise private support for their affiliated institution or system. An institution or system can receive, spend, and invest funds directly, often bypassing university governance procedures or the restrictions that would typically apply to state appropriations and to state procurement. What distinguishes institutionally related foundations from private foundations is that they are integrated into public academic institutions. They do not establish funding or usage priorities while the governing board of the college or university defines its mission and priorities. The Kansas University Endowment Association was the first campus foundation that enabled the university to use private gift funds to purchase the real estate, which became part of the campus (Bass 2010). As public funding for higher education has been declining, many state college and university systems have increasingly come to depend on revenue from institutionally related foundations. Yet faculty, students, and members of the public often know little about how those foundations manage and spend vital academic resources. In recent years, numerous reports of alleged wrongdoing involving foundations at state academic institutions suggest the need for researchers to take a more active role in holding these entities accountable. Campus foundations not only receive donations, but also may have an ability to generate substantial income from a variety of campus-related functions such as bookstores, tickets, sponsorship sales for arts and athletic events, campus-related intellectual property, student housing, and more. With diminishing state appropriations and other government-related funding being constrained, campus foundations

127

are critical entities for sustaining and supporting academic goals. Both campus foundations and higher education institution they serve need to collaborate to advance both institutional priorities and the philanthropic interests of their donors. The approach for much higher education foundations to grant making has changed throughout history, but their role in the growth and development of higher education through funding of new buildings, campuses, academic programs, and research projects has been unprecedented. Educational opportunity is and will remain a main focus of American foundations. However, the legitimacy of foundations is still intensely debated, particularly with regard to higher education. The extensive literature on philanthropic foundations has questioned and continues to question the legitimacy of foundations, particularly when grants are used to transform institutions or entire fields (Anheier and Leat 2007; Anheier and Hammack 2010; Bacchetti and Ehrlich 2007). In the current and future landscape of American philanthropy, traditional grant-making activity will be supplemented with American foundations collaboratively working with the higher education institutions. These collaborations will involve assistance in goal setting, decision-making, and evaluating progress and outcomes to ensure that priorities set up by foundations are met. Both American foundations and higher education institutions will continue to develop interdisciplinary team-based structures that would bring both research and communication expertise to inform future sustainable and strategic strategies. For instance, the Effective Philanthropy Lab at the Stanford Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society (Stanford PACS) at Stanford University is an interdisciplinary team and supported by grants from the Raikes Foundation and the Bill and Melinda Foundation where experts in strategic philanthropy, human centered design, and the behavioral sciences work together to better understand donor motivations and behavior. Most notably, American foundations will continue implementing mechanisms of strategic grant making and public policy advocacy. However, the means to achieve these ends might shift to either

A

128

fund intermediaries (i.e., College Board, Complete College America, Gateway to College National Network, or Institute for Higher Education Policy) or to pursue strategic collaborative efforts with government at both the state and federal level, and to further collaborate with other foundations. For instance, the newest entrant in the landscape is the ACT Foundation that brought together Gates, Lumina, and Joyce foundations to further promote advocacy philanthropy by supporting a national network of industry associations to ensure learners understand what skills they need to get jobs. In addition to American foundations expanding their advocacy role might be a shift to directly support students rather than institutions that serve them. For example, the Lumina Foundation and the Great Lakes Higher Education Guaranty Corporation fund awards and the report to offer micro grants to students to help them finish their education. This allows the institutions to offer micro grants in financial aid to students who are on track academically and who have unmet need to assist them to graduate and to use this financial assistance at the end of their education rather than using aid on the front end of students’ enrollment. The current and future landscape of foundation philanthropy will continue to flourish in this collaborative environment, in which both higher education institutions and foundations act to shape significant research agendas. For institutions of higher education, initiatives revolving around issues of measuring quality of educational experiences aligning educational systems to provide a seamless transition from high school to postsecondary school and on closing the achievement gaps for low-income and/or minority populations will remain to be a priority.

American Higher Education Bacchetti, R., and T. Ehrlich. 2007. Reconnecting education and foundations: Turning good intentions into educational capital. Stanford: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Bass, D. 2010. The foundation-institution partnership: The role of institutionally related foundations in public higher education. New Directions for Higher Education 149: 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.377. Council for Aid Education. 2017. Colleges and Universities Raise $41 Billion in 2016 [Press release]. http://cae. org/images/uploads/pdf/VSE-2016-Press-Release.pdf. Accessed 29 Nov 2017. Crossland, F.E. 1983. Foundations and higher education. Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science 35 (2): 48–60. Foundation Center. 2016. A mid-year report on $10 million+ gifts and commitments to higher education. Marts & Lundy Report. http://philanthropynewsdigest. org/news/10-million-plus-gifts-to-higher-education-do wn-in-first-half-of-2016?_ga¼2.259692874.17933624 37.1506354322-1422207005.1502302127. Accessed 29 Nov 2017. Geiger, R. 1990. Organized research units: Their role in the development of university research. Journal of Higher Education 61 (1): 1–19. Hall, C., and S. Thomas. 2012. ‘Advocacy philanthropy’ and the public policy agenda: The role of modern foundations in American higher education. Paper prepared for the 93rd annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, Canada, April 2012 https://www.insidehighered.com/ sites/default/server_files/files/Hall%20&%20Thomas2 0AERA%202012%20-%20final.pdf. Accessed 29 Nov 2017. Lilly Family School of Philanthropy. n.d. Leveraging the power of foundations: An analysis of program related investing. https://philanthropy.iupui.edu/files/research/ complete_report_final_51713.pdf. Accessed 29 Nov 2017.

American Higher Education ▶ University Tradition in the United States, The

References Anheier, H.K., and D. Leat. 2007. Creative philanthropy: Toward a new philanthropy for the twenty-first century. New York: Routledge. Anheier, H.K., and D.C. Hammack. 2010. American foundations: Roles and contributions. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Analysis of Discursive Practices ▶ Policy-Making, Rhetoric, and Discourse in Higher Education

Asian University Traditions

129

Analysis of Political Discourse

Asian Religions Traditions

▶ Policy-Making, Rhetoric, and Discourse in Higher Education

▶ Asian University Traditions

Anchors Institution ▶ Community Partnerships, Higher Education

Asian University Traditions John N. Hawkins1 and Molly N.N. Lee2 1 Graduate School of Education and Information Studies, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA 2 The HEAD Foundation, Singapore, Singapore

Apparent Over-Education ▶ Over-Skilling, Under-Skilling, and Higher Education

Applied Higher Education Research Undertaken Within Universities ▶ Institutional Research and Themes, Southern Africa

Synonyms Asian religions traditions

Definition Asian university traditions are intellectual traditions that were firmly entrenched in the Asian context prior to Western contact and these traditions continue to impact on the Asian universities.

Introduction

Arena of the Workplace ▶ Overlap Model of Roles and Tasks in University Organizations

Argumentation ▶ Policy-Making, Rhetoric, and Discourse in Higher Education

Articles ▶ Higher Education Journals

Asia is a diverse region in terms of geographical size, economic development, political ideologies, and educational traditions. There are small island states such as Singapore, Sri Lanka, East Timor, and Maldives, as well as countries such as China, Indonesia, and India which have huge populations and large geographical areas. Japan and South Korea are advanced industrialized countries, with Singapore, Malaysia, and Thailand as newly industrialized countries, whereas China, Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam are countries in transition (i.e., from agricultural economy to an industrialized economy, from a centrally planned economy to a market-oriented economy). Many countries in the region have a colonial history, and their education systems are part of the colonial legacy.

A

130

It is commonly maintained that Asian universities have their roots in the West. The impact of Western academic models are found in various aspects of the Asian universities, including the patterns of institutional governance, the ethos of academic profession, the rhythm of academic life, ideas about science, procedure of examination and assessment, in some cases the language of instruction, and other aspects of higher education (Altbach 1989). Studies have shown that various models have been imported by many Asian countries during the colonial period, including China, Japan, and Thailand even though these countries had not been under any colonial rule. The French model was imported by former French colonies, namely, Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam, while Indonesia imported the Dutch model and the Philippines imported the American model. The British model was imposed on all the former British colonies such as India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Singapore, Nepal, Hong Kong, and several others. Other European powers also exported their university models to Asia: the Germans in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan and the Russians in the central Asian republics (Altbach and Umakoshi 2004; Neubauer et al. 2013). It was pointed out that even in the postcolonial period, the continuing impact of the West is still very significant throughout Asia, as exhibited in the pervasive and subtle influence of the English language, the idea of the university as a meritocratic organization, the importance of scientific research, the notion of academic freedom, and institutional autonomy (Altbach 1989). While Asian universities are patterned on Western models, it is also clear that many Asian countries have adapted the models to suit local needs and realities. No doubt there has been considerable interplay between foreign influences and local cultural contexts. It has been observed that, historically, centers of higher education were outgrowths of religious and/or philosophical influences (King et al. 2011). This is particularly the case in countries with strong intellectual traditions such as those with Confucian, Buddhist, or Islamic traditions. These strong intellectual traditions were firmly entrenched in the local context prior to Western contact and therefore would

Asian University Traditions

continue to dominate in many aspects of social, cultural, and educational life in the Asian region (Hawkins 2013). The purpose of this entry is to analyze how these cultural traditions have influenced the historical development of universities in the different parts of Asia. The first part focuses on Southeast Asia and the latter part is on East Asia.

Southeast Asia Many of the Southeast Asian countries such as Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar have strong Buddhist traditions, and to some extent in Singapore and Malaysia as well. In all these countries, Buddhist universities were established to keep the Buddhist cultural traditions alive and to train Buddhist monks, novice, and lay persons. The aim is to promote Buddhism in these societies, especially in meditation and other spiritual practices, including Buddhist studies and the Pali language. Many of the Thai universities emphasize contemplative learning and inquiry and offer courses on contemplative practices (Olen et al. 2014). It was reported that in 2006, Singapore and Thailand together with China and India planned to revive the renowned Nalanda University which existed in the northern India state of Bihar from the fifth century until it was ransacked and burnt to the ground in 1193 by Turkish invaders (Alya 2013). The revived Nalanda University aims at being a global institution focusing on research, pan-Asian integration, sustainable development, and the revival of Asian languages. At the same time, it will study local issues of environment, agriculture, and livelihoods. The revival of Nalanda University is seen by many as the restoration of the ancient intellectual exchange between two great civilizations of Asia- India and China. A number of the Southeast Asian countries, namely, Singapore and Vietnam, including the Chinese community in Malaysia have Confucian tradition. The Confucian tradition in higher education dates back to the Han dynasty in the form of the civil service examinations in China. The examination system was a mechanism to recruit

Asian University Traditions

men of ability and virtue on the basis of merit rather than on the basis of family or political connections to be members of the state bureaucracy. These civil examinations also played a central role in the social and intellectual life in traditional China. The civil examination system lasted from 650 to 1905 in China, and it has spread to neighboring countries such as Vietnam, South Korea, and Japan. A recent study by Marginson (2011) identified the “Confucian Model” of higher education as evident in East Asia and Singapore. The model consists of four interrelated features, namely, (i) a strong nation-state which steers and controls the development of higher education, (ii) high tertiary participation rates with a large private sector and household funding, (iii) high stakes public examinations, and (iv) strong state support for research. These features are found in the Singapore higher education system and to a lesser extent, only item (i) and item (ii) are found in Vietnam. The high value placed on the pursuit of higher education is found in all Confucian societies. This is particularly so in Vietnam and Malaysia in the Southeast Asian region where the local communities established and fund their own universities such as the people-founded universities in Vietnam and the Chinese community-based universities in Malaysia. As for the Islamic tradition, Al-Azhar University which was established in Cairo, Egypt, in the tenth century AD has had a strong influence on Islamic higher education in Southeast Asia. It is one of the first universities in the world and the only one to survive as a modern university which includes secular subjects in the curriculum. Today, it is the chief center for Arabic literature and Islamic learning in the world. In the Southeast Asian region, both Indonesia and Malaysia have developed some forms of Islamic higher education influenced by this model. While the Institutions of Islamic Higher Education in Indonesia were established as early as the 1940s as natural extensions of the widely spread madrasahs (traditional Islamic schools) and pesantrens (traditional Islamic boarding schools) (Fu’Ad and Jamhari 2003), Islamic higher education in Malaysia is a more recent phenomenon. The first

131

Islamic university in Malaysia was only established in 1983, and this is the International Islamic University of Malaysia (IIUM). A few other Islamic higher education institutions were established even later such as the Selangor International Islamic University College in 1995 and Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia (USIM) in 1998. The main aim of most Islamic educational institutions is to integrate faith with learning, and there are various ways of achieving this aim (Anderson et al. 2011). A very popular approach is to adopt a secular curriculum to which a discrete Islamic study component is appended. This approach is quite common in Malaysian universities where all Muslim students are required to take Islamic studies as a compulsory course. Another approach is to use the Quran as a dynamic framework for organizing knowledge and research. This approach which is sometimes known as the “Islamization of knowledge” has been adopted by IIUM and USIM in Malaysia. Islamic pedagogies focus on the integration of Naqli (revealed knowledge) and Aqli (human knowledge) with the aim of creating an Islamic systems of knowledge. The new tradition in Islamic education in Indonesia is to introduce a tradition of rational discourse to Islamic pedagogy, that is, to integrate traditional knowledge into a wider empirical analysis of social realities (Fu’Ad and Jamhari 2003). The ethical aspects of Islamic higher education implies that research should be designed around knowledge that is useful to humanity and to avoid knowledge that is harmful. The study of contemporary problems with a classical framework of Islamic knowledge is the guiding philosophy of Islamic higher education in the region.

East Asia As is noted above, there is no neat division between the indigenous intellectual and cultural traditions of Southeast and East Asia as the Indianized, Sinicized, and Islamic traditions overlap in several cases. However, China looms large, and for our purposes, we will consider East Asia to include all those settings that were heavily influenced by China (principally China, Japan,

A

132

Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and surrounding areas). It is useful to go into some detail to illuminate the intellectual history of China in order to provide some framing for the discussion of educational forms that, it is argued, have had a profound and lasting influence on East Asia and China’s twentieth- and twenty-first-century higher education transformation as was briefly noted in the subsection above on Southeast Asia. The intellectual foundations of China have characteristically been associated with a brief historical period during the latter part of the Zhou dynasty (500–200 BCE). This period has popularly been termed the “golden age” of philosophy in China, for it was at this time that the major philosophers and thinkers who came to dominate traditional Chinese intellectual, and eventually educational thought, lived and worked (Schwartz 1985; Mote 1971). Thinkers as diverse as Confucius and Laozi are purported to have vied with each other intellectually during this period. In any case, it was at this time that the basic foundations of Confucianism and Daoism and the later development of Legalism were formed thus providing the primary groundwork for future East Asian and Chinese cultural and educational development. Although Confucianism was eventually to triumph as the predominant intellectual strain in Chinese thought, the traditions of Daoism and Legalism made important contributions in this early period. When Confucianism was declared the state philosophy during the Han dynasty (202 BCE–220 CE), there was already a mixture of Daoism (particularly the laissez-faire attitude toward economics) and Legalism (bureaucratic organization and administrative control) present, resulting in the fact that Confucianism became a useful tool for the state but never its master (Ho 1968, 1962). The moral code permeating Chinese education from the time of Confucius to the Qing dynasty consisted of a set of codes regarding social relationships such as those between parents and children, brothers and sisters, teachers and students, and subject and ruler. These hierarchical social relationships especially between teachers and students have carried over into the modern era throughout the region. The proper harmony among these relationships

Asian University Traditions

resulted in the individual expression of ren (benevolence) toward society. This concept of benevolence and harmony became a universal ideal for the Chinese, as well as for educators in Japan and Korea. Because the codes involved social behavior, they could be taught, and Confucianism particularly emphasized the power of education to improve society and citizenship in both an intellectual and moral sense (Ho 1968). By providing a model, which people could emulate, education could transform society. Intellectuals and scholars during the Han dynasty assumed a new role as government advisers and officials. It was during this period that the scholar-officials grew to become the dominant social force in the government. When Confucianism was decreed to be the official ideology, state universities or academies consequently were established along with a competitive civil serve examination, which in turn served as a catalyst for whatever education existed at that time. The establishment of the examination system insured the continual reproduction of the scholar elite as a segment of the ruling group (Loewe 1965). Thus, the Zhou and Han periods set an intellectual pattern which was to dominate and define educational theory and practice until the next major period of intellectual change during the Song dynasty (960–1279 CE). This linkage between the state and education carried forward into the modern era and in many respects remains significant in East Asia today. The sophisticated and deep intellectual tradition of China briefly referenced above provided a rich philosophical foundation for the development of an equally sophisticated “educational system.” While this was not a system in the sense that we think of these constructs today, it contained many of the features that allow us to discuss it and make some comparisons with contemporary educational developments. As this new “system” further developed, it spreads across much of East Asia, and today elements are readily identified in Japan, Korea, and other settings in East Asia (for an excellent summary of Korea’s historical legacy in higher education, see Lee 1998). Basically, two forms came to dominate this system: senior institutions (i.e.,

Asian University Traditions

colleges and universities) for the imperial civil service examination and the smaller, private academies both for personal enrichment and professional development, more closely aligned with the world of work (Cleverly 1985; Galt 1951). At the apex, in the case of China, the Imperial College was established in 124 BCE as an institution for scholar/officials to study Confucianism. By the Sui-Tang period (581–907 CE), a codified system had been established at this level for examination procedures, assessment, and evaluation in such areas as law, calligraphy, mathematics, and science. A hierarchy of degrees emerged from this system, each with various rights and privileges. Thus, one can see the enormous and long-standing historical legacy of these traditions. Over time, these institutions also offered a model of decentralization of organization and management, over and against the more centralized Imperial College model, thus framing a debate on the competing values of centralization versus decentralization in higher education, a debate and enduring theme that continues into the present day. It also framed the region’s response to Western models of higher education, whether presented by the Germans, Japanese, French, Russians/Soviets, or Americans. By the Ming period, the shuyuan or academy displayed many of the features of modern higher education, including a particular style of architecture, a discernible campus style that was easily recognizable with lecture halls, various shrines, dormitory facilities, eating facilities, a library, study bays, and so on, usually situated on roughly one acre of land (Meskill 1982). By the late Qing dynasty, China, Japan, and Korea had two indigenous historically entrenched, higher education structural models in place when confronted with Western higher education: one highly centralized, Confucian, and state centered (the Imperial Colleges and universities) and the other decentralized where one observed a freer discussion and more innovative curriculum with multiple philosophical influences (Buddhism and Daoism in the case of China and Buddhism in both Japan and Korea with other indigenous patterns of thought such as Shinto in Japan: Rawski 1979; Lee 1998; de Bary 1964).

133

Later, in the case of China in the Republican period (1911–1949 CE) when China sought to move forward on a “modernization” track, policy-makers were presented two external traditions that were therefore not unfamiliar to them. These were the European model, with its emphasis on a more centralized approach within more authoritarian structures (not unlike Confucian learning) typified by Beijing University and the German-supported Tongji University, and the American model somewhat reminiscent of the academy typified by Qinghua University and a host of missionary colleges and other institutions founded by Chinese scholars recently returned from the United States (Hayhoe 1989; Clark 2006; Franke 1979). Nevertheless, the multiple European and North American influences present in China and East Asia in the modern period gave them much to choose from without wholly giving up the main elements of indigenous educational traditions. The net result, it could be argued, has been a fluid development of a hybrid higher education model, one that is still evolving within a template of the Western model but not entirely of it (Hayhoe 1989; Clark 2006; Hawkins 2013). Much the same could be said for the overall educational curriculum and relations between students and teachers in the region.

Conclusion There are a variety of interweaving threads that help clarify the historical legacies and traditions that shaped and formed higher education in the Southeast and East Asian regions. Diversity is certainly a common feature of the region, with multiple impacts in the form of geography, politics, colonialism, economic patterns, ethnicity, philosophy, and religion among others. Internationally, there are also important features both within the region and those resulting from contact with the West. Out of this complex and rich historical experience, higher education in Southeast and East Asia reveals dynamic patterns of indigenous pedagogy and organization, intermixed with those of several outside influences. As

A

134

globalization further impacts this growing region, higher education is in a continual state of adaptation and change.

References Altbach, P.G. 1989. Twisted roots: The Western impact on Asian higher education. Higher Education 18: 9–29. Altbach, P.G., and T. Umakoshi, ed. 2004. Asian universities: Historical perspectives and contemporary challenges. Baltimore & London: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Alya, M. 2013. Revived Nalanda University will balance local and global research. University World News Global Edition Issue 259. http://www.university worldnews.com/article.php?story ¼20130213115825860. Accessed 31 Mar 2016. Anderson, P., C. Tan, and Y. Suleiman, ed. 2011. Reforms in Islamic education: A report of a conference held at the Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Centre of Islamic Studies, April 9–11. Cambridge: University of Cambridge. Clark, W. 2006. Academic charisma and the origins of the research university. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Cleverley, J. 1985. The schooling of China: Tradition and modernity in Chinese education. London: George Allen & Unwin. de Bary, W.T., ed. 1964. Sources of Japanese tradition. New York: Columbia University Press. Franke, W. 1979. The reform and abolition of the traditional Chinese examination system. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Fu’Ad, J., and Jamhari, ed. 2003. The modernization of Islam in Indonesia. Montreal/Jakarta: IndonesiaCanada Islamic Higher Education Project. Galt, M.S. 1951. A history of Chinese educational institutions. Vol. 1. London: Probsthian Press. Hawkins, John N. 2013. East-West? Tradition and the development of hybrid higher education in Asia. In The dynamics of higher education development in East Asia, ed. D. Neubauer, J.C. Shin, and J.N. Hawkins, 51–67. Palgrave Macmillan: New York. Hayhoe, R. 1989. China’s universities and Western academic models. Higher Education 18: 49–85. Ho, P.T. 1962. The ladder of success in imperial China. New York: Columbia University Press. Ho, P.T. 1968. Salient aspects of China’s heritage. In China in crisis: China’s heritage and the communist political tradition, ed. Ho Ping-ti and Tang Tsou. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. King, R., S. Marginson, and R. Naidoo, ed. 2011. Handbook on globalization and higher education. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Lee, Jeong-Kyu. 1998. Religious factors affecting premodern Korean elite/higher education. Seoul National University of Educational Research 8: 31–63.

Assessing Loewe, M. 1965. Imperial China: The historical background to the modern age. New York: Praeger. Marginson, S. 2011. Higher education in East Asia and Singapore: Rise of the Confucian model. Higher Education 61(5): 587–611. Meskill, J. 1982. Academies in Ming China: A historical essay. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press. Mote, F.W. 1971. Intellectual foundations of China. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Neubauer, D., J.C. Shin, and J.N. Hawkins, ed. 2013. The dynamics of higher education development in East Asia: Asian cultural heritage, Western dominance, economic development, and globalization. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Olen, G., E.W. Sarath, C. Scott, and H. Bai, ed. 2014. Contemplative learning and inquiry across disciplines. New York: SUNY Press. Rawski, E.S. 1979. Education and popular literacy in Ch’ing China. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Schwartz, B.I. 1985. The world of thought in ancient China. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Assessing ▶ Internationalization of Higher Education, Mapping and Measuring

Assessment ▶ Academic Evaluation in Higher Education ▶ External Quality Assurance in Higher Education ▶ Internationalization of Higher Education, Mapping and Measuring ▶ Peer Review, Higher Education

Asset-Based Community Development ▶ Community Partnerships, Higher Education

Association ▶ Society for Research into Higher Education (SRHE), The

Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE)

Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE) Kristen A. Renn Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA

Definition The Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE) is a non profit scholarly association based in the United States, dedicated to advancing higher education as a field of study. The stable URL for the association is www.ashe.ws.

Membership There are over 2000 members of the association, of whom about 40% are full-time graduate students undertaking master’s or doctoral degrees in a range of areas including education and other social sciences. About half of ASHE members are university faculty, mostly in academic programs that focus on some aspect of higher education, such as administration, leadership, or policy. ASHE members also include researchers working in non-university settings, including government, think tanks, and advocacy organizations. Two to three percent of ASHE members are from outside the United States.

Organizational Structure ASHE is led by a full-time executive director and governed by a board of directors elected by the membership. Voting members of the board are the president, president-elect, and immediate past president; two graduate student members at large; and four members at large. Additional members serve ex officio and nonvoting on the board: legal counsel, financial officer, executive director, and the chairs of councils and some committees. Councils include the Council for the

135

Advancement of Higher Education Programs, Council for Ethnic Participation, Council for International Higher Education, and Council for Public Policy in Higher Education; these groups typically are referenced as CAHEP, CEP, CIHE, and CPPHE, respectively. Standing committees lead activities related to fundraising and philanthropy, publications, awards, position taking, and nominations for elected officers. An annual meeting program committee is formed each year, and other committees are appointed on an ad hoc basis. ASHE by-laws guide governance and decision-making by the board.

Values ASHE has stated values related to diversity and to ethics. ASHE enacts diversity values through nondiscrimination on the basis of personal and social identities and through doing business in a way that does not support discriminatory activities. ASHE enacts its ethical values through publications and conference activities as well as through how it engages in communication with individuals and communities.

Purpose and Activities As stated in its organizational by-laws, “The primary mission of the Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE) is to foster scholarly inquiry of the highest standards of excellence for the purpose of increasing knowledge about and the understanding of higher education” (https://www.ashe.ws/ashebylaws). Scholarly inquiry includes empirical studies of postsecondary education, as well as philosophical, historical, legal, and other humanistic studies. Areas of inquiry include studies of college students, faculty, leaders, organizations, finance, governance, curriculum, teaching, learning, policy, and law. As an association, ASHE supports researchers through dissemination of research in publications and its annual conference. ASHE owns the

A

136

academic journal Review of Higher Education, which is published by Johns Hopkins University Press in four issues per annual volume; the publications committee runs a selection process for the editorial team and recommends it to the board of directors for approval. The Review of Higher Education is highly selective, has a high impact factor, and has been named among the top journals in higher education. The Review of Higher Education is peer-reviewed in a “double-masked” process, in which reviewers do not know the identities of authors and authors do not know the identities of the reviewers of their manuscript. The annual conference provides opportunities for higher education scholars, whether or not they are ASHE members, to present their research. Conference content is peer-reviewed, meaning that authors submit masked proposals, which are reviewed by members of the association. About half of the proposals are accepted each year. Authors are then invited to present their work as stand-alone papers, roundtable papers, or posters or in self-designed paper and symposium sessions. Paper sessions typically include a chair, who manages the sessions by introducing speakers and keeping time, and a discussant, who provides public feedback to authors; there is variation, however, across session types, and some sessions have a moderator instead of chair or discussant. Historically ASHE has not created conference proceedings, but authors themselves will then use feedback from a session discussant and audience members to revise their papers and submit them as journal manuscripts for publication or sometimes to group them with other papers as a book manuscript. ASHE also engages in supporting members’ professional development by offering opportunities for ongoing learning. Activities include workshops at the annual conference, synchronous online webinars on research topics or methods, and asynchronous learning through social media and archived material. Some councils offer mentoring programs for early- or midcareer scholars, and periodically ASHE partners with a foundation to sponsor seminars or symposia related to specific topics or research methods.

Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE)

History ASHE was incorporated in 1976 in Washington, DC, USA. It emerged from another association, the now-defunct American Association for Higher Education (AAHE, records now stored at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University) (Hoover Institution 2012). The first ASHE president was C. Robert Pace (1976–1977). ASHE members elect a new president every year. The first woman was Kathryn M. Moore (1983–1984) and the first person of color was Michael T. Nettles (1992–1993). ASHE presidents give an address at the annual meeting, and the addresses are then printed in the Review of Higher Education, providing an historical record of timely issues as included in these talks. Early ASHE meetings were one and a half days long and included a business meeting and social activities in addition to sessions on higher education research. Records of these meetings show that members held positions in college and university administration and state policy, as well as some faculty members in education and other social sciences. By 1982, ASHE members began to convene preconference sessions for the heads of academic programs in higher education administration, a sign that in addition to being an association for the dissemination of research ASHE was becoming an association where professors of higher education could find their counterparts from other universities to exchange ideas and advice. A session that year titled “Future of Degree Programs in Higher Education” also indicates that ASHE was a location where higher education faculty could discuss program-related issues as well as research in the field. This interest was later formalized as the Council for the Advancement of Higher Education Programs, which continues to offer preconference sessions for higher education faculty and program coordinators. ASHE has overseen several publications designed to advance the study of higher education. With changes to scholarly communication and the ability to access publications electronically, some of these formats were deemed unnecessary and discontinued. The ASHE Reader Series consisted of edited topical volumes (e.g., governance, organizations, diversity, history) that

Asylum Seekers

brought together important existing single publications (journal articles, book chapters) for use in graduate courses in higher education. Before these materials were available electronically, the ASHE Readers provided convenient sources for instructors and students. The ASHE-ERIC Monograph Series, later the ASHE Monograph Series, was an annual volume of two-to-four issues, treated as topical monographs, synthesizing important areas of knowledge. ASHE gives several awards annually which are useful markers of the progress and growth of the association. The ASHE Dissertation of the Year Award, later named for the late Bobby Wright, was inaugurated in 1979. The first Distinguished Service Award was given in 1987 to recognize an individual commitment to the association and its success. The Howard Bowen Distinguished Career Award was first given in 1985 to recognize someone whose career has been devoted to the study of higher education and who advanced the field through extraordinary scholars, leadership, and service. The first Leadership Award was given in 1990, for outstanding leadership in advancing the study of higher education. The Mentoring Award was inaugurated in 2009 to recognize noteworthy contributions to the field through developing scholars in the association. The Book Award was begun in 2018 to recognize an outstanding contribution to the study and scholarship of higher education. The first Promising Scholar/Early Career Award was given in 1989, to recognize achievement or potential for future research by an individual no more than 6 years beyond receipt of the doctoral degree. The first Research Achievement Award was given in 1985, for an individual whose published research advances understanding of higher education in a significant way. A Special Merit Award is given occasionally, first in 1989, to recognize a person, group, or organization for their distinctive support for the purposes and goals of ASHE. Councils and committees give additional awards. Since 1977, ASHE has had an executive director. Until 2004, these executive directors also maintained their professional roles as professors or other higher education research positions. In 2004 the ASHE office was moved to Michigan State University where it was led by the first full-

137

time executive director. Contracts between ASHE and institutional hosts have lasted 5 years, generally with the association and the institution sharing some costs for operation. After 10 years the association moved its office to the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV). Executive directors have been individuals holding PhDs in higher education. The ASHE staff consists of a fulltime executive director, an additional full-time staff member, and part-time staff and/or graduate student assistants at UNLV.

Cross-References ▶ Consortium of Higher Education Researchers ▶ EAIR: The European Higher Education Society ▶ Field of Higher Education Research, North America ▶ Higher Education Conferences ▶ Higher Education Journals ▶ Historical Perspective, Research in Higher Education ▶ Society for Research into Higher Education (SRHE), The

References Hoover Institution. 2012. Inventory of the American Association for Higher Education records now online. https://www.hoover.org/news/inventory-amer ican-association-higher-education-records-now-online. Accessed 12 Sept 2019.

Associations ▶ Higher Education Networks, Associations, and Organizations in Europe

Asylum Seekers ▶ Refugees in Tertiary Education, European Policies and Practices ▶ Refugees’ Access to Higher Education

A

138

Attrition ▶ Student Retention in Higher Education, A Shared Issue

Audit ▶ External Quality Assurance in Higher Education ▶ US Accreditation and Quality Assurance, International Dimensions

Authority ▶ Bureaucratization Process in Higher Education

Autonomy ▶ Autonomy and Accountability in Higher Education, Western Europe

Autonomy and Accountability in Higher Education, Africa Gerald Wangenge-Ouma1 and Lucky Kgosithebe2 1 Department of Institutional Planning, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa 2 Student Affairs, Human Resource Development Council, Gaborone, Botswana

Debates about autonomy and accountability in African higher education are as old as the earliest universities on the continent. The report of the Asquith Commission (1945), which led to the founding of some of the earliest university colleges in Sub-Saharan Africa, which later became fully fledged universities, for example, University of Ghana (1948), University of Ibadan (1948),

Attrition

Khartoum University College (1949), Makerere University College (1949), makes the point that “it was essential that Colonial universities should be autonomous in the sense in which the universities of Great Britain are autonomous” (Colonial Office 1945, p. 34). Regarding accountability, the report emphasizes that these universities “should be required, for example, to publish an annual report accompanied by a financial statement. . . and it is reasonable that that periodic visitations should take place by a properly constituted authority” (p. 34). From the outset, it was deemed appropriate and desirable that these universities should manage their own affairs but with the obligation of accounting for their stewardship. Having supported the idea of autonomy for the new institutions, the Commission instead recommended that the new university colleges grant the degrees of the University of London. This, ostensibly, was so as to guarantee quality. The result of this recommendation was that the new university colleges became constituent colleges of the University of London. The University of London had “the final word in the determination of the standards of the examination and the syllabuses prescribed for them, and in the appointment of examiners” (p. 42). This role played by the University of London considerably diminished the autonomy of the university colleges. At Makerere University College, for example, Mazrui (2012, p. 12) reports that “the teaching of Marxism and socialist thought was discouraged until after Uganda’s independence in 1962 – mainly because decision-makers at the University of London were cautious about promoting Marxism in either Africa or the Muslim world.” This model of a “special” relationship between African university colleges with a university in the colonial metropoles was practiced by many of the colonial powers. The Lovanium University Centre in the Congo became the overseas campus of the Catholic University of Louvain in Belgium, and higher education institutions in French colonial Africa became overseas campuses of French universities (Lulat 2003). Thus, historically, institutions of higher learning in Africa were not granted substantive autonomy, that is, the power to determine their own goals and programs, what

Autonomy and Accountability in Higher Education, Africa

Berdahl (1990, p. 172) describes as “the what of academe.” The onset of Uhuru (independence) in the 1960s was accompanied by intense debates on the question of the relationship between universities and the new independent states. As Mngomezulu (2012) points out, the experience of colonial domination in politics and education made the African leaders approach higher education with caution, which had implications for autonomy and accountability. The general consensus, as evidenced in debates at the then University of East Africa, was that, while universities needed academic freedom and autonomy in order to be able to perform their teaching and research duties effectively, the transplantation of Western notions of university autonomy in their pure form would be inapplicable in Africa (Mngomezulu 2012). Higher education was considered a central plank in the actualization of the promise of Uhuru, a task that was considered so important to be left to academics alone.

Autonomy The evolution of university autonomy has neither been linear (from less autonomy to more autonomy) nor homogenous across the continent. It is characterized by variability both within and across countries. Nigeria and South Africa provide interesting insights on the checkered history of university autonomy in Africa. The 1970s through to the early 2000s were a challenging period for university autonomy in Nigeria, especially during the various periods of military dictatorships. The relationship between the state and Nigerian universities during this period can be characterized as one of state control and interference. The various military dictatorships increased their control of universities by, inter alia, eroding the powers of university councils as the statutory employers of university staff and those of senate as the supreme organ in academic matters. In 1975, a decree was promulgated which, among others, gave the Head of the Federal Military Government power to appoint and remove vice-chancellors, a responsibility that

139

hitherto belonged to university councils (Onyeonoru 2008). Over time, the role of the University Visitor (also the head of state) evolved from a largely ceremonial one to one whereby he was empowered to intervene and interfere in the routine administration of universities. The erosion of university autonomy in Nigeria persisted through the 1980s and 1990s. Several positive changes have, however, since been registered. In 2003, an amendment to the University Act provided for improved autonomy. The Visitor’s administrative powers, for example, with regard to the appointment of vice-chancellors, were reverted to university councils (Onyeonoru 2008). The changes granting greater autonomy to Nigerian universities have, however, not stopped the state from interfering. For example, the Nigerian government unilaterally sacked and appointed 13 vice-chancellors in 2016 despite this being the statutory responsibility of the governing councils of universities. The evolution of university autonomy in South Africa can be divided into two periods – the apartheid period (which ended in 1994) and the postapartheid period. Consistent with its ideology of racial segregation, apartheid South Africa had segregated institutions for various race groups. Legal constraints were established to prevent institutions designated for the use of one race group from enrolling students from another race group (Bunting 2006). While all the universities – for all race groups – had some forms of limitations on their autonomy, whitesonly universities enjoyed greater levels of autonomy compared to the other universities. For example, while whites-only universities were allowed to keep their unspent budgets and build up reserves, blacks-only universities were required to return such unspent budgets to the state. Blacks-only universities also experienced tighter controls over the appointment of teaching staff and the curriculum. The postapartheid period has been characterized by extensive restructuring of the South African higher education system, with implications for autonomy. The 1997 Higher Education Act provides the minister responsible for higher education with several instruments for

A

140

steering and interfering with the sector, for example, determination of policy on the funding of higher education and the power to merge two or more public higher education institutions into a single public higher education institution (Hall and Symes 2005). The various ways in which these instruments have been utilized have led some (e.g., Jansen 2004; Hall and Symes 2005) to argue that the postapartheid state has systematically increased direct state control over higher education. A good example is the merger of higher education institutions between 2001 and 2007, which was carried out against the wishes of the universities involved.

Accountability Universities operate in a context of interdependent relationships with various stakeholders, for example, governments, professional bodies, and national and international organizations. These interdependent relationships vis-a-vis the need to maintain trust and confidence have led to the establishment of various external accountability mechanisms. The various external accountability mechanisms that have been implemented in African higher education systems are inextricably linked to the history of higher education on the continent; its promise and crisis; the encounter of the state or, more specifically, higher education with global forces; its relationship with market forces; and obtaining national sociopolitical trends (Wangenge-Ouma and Langa 2011). At Uhuru, for example, the newly independent African states looked at higher education as one of the essential elements of economic and political revitalization. Consistent with this view of the university, accountability was characterized mainly by public expectations about universities as engines of development. Recent changes in South Africa demonstrate how major shifts in the macro political context lead to changes in higher education accountability regimes. Higher education in apartheid South Africa was generally geared at supporting and maintaining the apartheid project; hence, following the collapse of apartheid, the key driver of accountability

Autonomy and Accountability in Higher Education, Africa

in higher education in South Africa has become transformation and development, the overriding policy imperative of the postapartheid state (Wangenge-Ouma and Langa 2011). The challenge of quality is probably the greatest driver of external accountability in African higher education. The tremendous expansion of higher education systems on the continent have not often been matched with concomitant increase in resources. It has been claimed that, generally, the quality of higher education in a number of African countries is suspect; curricula are irrelevant, often producing skills that are tangential to the continent’s development needs and challenges. Not infrequently, African universities have been castigated for apparently failing to adjust their curricula in response to the needs of industry, business, and the professions (Langa and Wangenge-Ouma 2014). Various external accountability mechanisms – such as external quality assurance, accreditation, and accountability reporting – have since been implemented across the continent to “fix” this challenge.

Conclusion University autonomy and accountability have been, and remain, issues of immense contestation in Africa. While the current state of university autonomy has drastically improved compared to decades past, the state still maintains a very strong presence in the affairs of universities. Have the various accountability-related initiatives improved the quality of African higher education and enhanced its societal relevance? Have these initiatives enhanced research output or improved the financial management of African universities? These questions have no singular answer given the complexity of the African higher education landscape. Nonetheless, the continent is replete with many universities that “comply” with various accountability requirements but are badly run and offer mediocre higher education. The realization of the full benefit of the various accountability mechanisms requires, among others, the alignment of enrolments with resources, the empowerment of accreditation

Autonomy and Accountability in Higher Education, Asia

141

and quality assurance bodies to undertake their work without political interference, and the building of capacity for governance and financial management within universities.

Mazrui, A.A. 2012. From Euro-colonial colleges to the global university: Transitions in Muslim and African experience. Unpublished paper. Mngomezulu, B.R. 2012. Politics and higher education in East Africa: From the 1920s to 1970. Bloemfontein: Sun Press. Onyeonoru, I. 2008. University autonomy and cost recovery policies: Union contestation and sustainable university system. Unpublished paper. Republic of South Africa. 1997. Higher Education Act, No. 101 of 1997 (Government Gazette No.18515), Pretoria. Wangenge-Ouma, and P.V. Langa. 2011. Accountability in Africa: A disciplinary power in African higher education systems. In Accountability in higher education: Global perspectives on trust and power, ed. B. Stensaker and L. Harvey, 49–72. New York: Routledge.

Cross-References ▶ Accountability in Higher Education ▶ Autonomy and Accountability in Higher Education, Asia ▶ Autonomy and Accountability in Higher Education, Eastern Europe ▶ Autonomy and Accountability in Higher Education, Latin America ▶ Autonomy and Accountability in Higher Education, North America ▶ Autonomy and Accountability in Higher Education, Western Europe ▶ Evaluative State, Higher Education, The ▶ External Quality Assurance in Higher Education ▶ Quality Assurance in Higher Education, A Global Perspective

References Berdahl, R. 1990. Academic freedom, autonomy and accountability in British universities. Studies in Higher Education 15 (2): 169–180. Bunting, I. 2006. The higher education landscape under apartheid. In Transformation in higher education, ed. N. Cloete, P. Maassen, R. Fehnel, T. Moja, T. Gibbon, and H. Perold. Norwell: Springer. Colonial Office. 1945. Report of the commission on higher education in the colonies. London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office. Hall, M., and A. Symes. 2005. South African higher education in the first decade of democracy: From cooperative governance to conditional autonomy. Studies in Higher Education 30 (2): 199–212. Jansen, J. 2004. Accounting for autonomy. The 41st TB Davie memorial lecture [delivered at the] University of Cape Town, 26 August 2004. Unpublished paper. Langa, P., and G. Wangenge-Ouma. 2014. Good access to poor courses won’t create real learning. University World News. Issue No: 327, 04 July 2014. Lulat, Y.G.-M. 2003. The development of higher education in Africa: A historical survey. In African higher education: An international reference handbook, ed. D. Teferra and P.G. Altbach, 15–31. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Autonomy and Accountability in Higher Education, Asia Shuiyun Liu1 and Ye Liu2 1 Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China 2 International Development, King’s College London, London, UK

Introduction Higher education systems in Asia have achieved remarkable successes, partly because there has been a consistently high level of governmental support (ADB 2011) and partly because the rapid economic growth in the region has become a crucial drive to marketize the provision. The countries, including China, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam in the region of East and Southeast Asia, arguably have shared cultural similarities (Shin and Harman 2009). However, there are also crucial differences in the size of higher education sectors, which is largely dependent on the nation’s demographic characteristics, economic development, and political regimes. This chapter focuses on the autonomy and accountability of higher education systems among these countries.

A

142

Autonomy and Accountability in Higher Education, Asia

The Change of Higher Education Governance and Autonomy

precedent levels of direct involvement by the states. Instead, new strategies focus on the mechanisms of funding allocation and quality assurance (Liu 2016). For instance, Mok characterizes this as a “concentration and selection” strategy, through which only the best universities are selected for the funding to improve their research capacities and international recognition (Mok 2013).

Similar to Western experiences of mass participation in higher education (Marginson 2016), these countries have developed their systems at an unprecedented level since the 1980s. Gross enrolment ratio to tertiary education has increased from 5.33% in 1980 to 39.03% in 2014 among East Asian countries and from 4.52% to 22.75% among South and West Asian countries (UNESCO 2016). This rapid expansion of the systems has challenged the conventional higher education governance and management in many respects. The first concerns the source of funding. The traditional funding sources from the state cannot meet the growing demands from the mass clientele. Therefore, new policies were introduced to allow the private sector to be involved in the market share. In Indonesia, Japan, Korea, and the Philippines, private universities enroll the majority of students, in some cases, up to 80% of the student population (ADB 2011). In addition to privatization, a more popular approach is to diversify the financial sources by charging tuition fees for public universities. By 2010, the private contribution has accounted for nearly 70% of higher education spending among East Asian countries (Liu et al. 2016). The rapid expansion and privatization have raised serious concerns regarding academic quality and standards. Second, new public management (NPM) reforms, which have been widely introduced in these countries, aim to devolve financial responsibilities to institutions and promote entrepreneurship within the sector (Marginson 2016). Meanwhile, the concept of NPM also intensifies the competitions of higher education institutions at the national and international level (Naidoo 2015). A variety of elite projects have been developed as a response to the international competition, including China’s “985 project,” South Korean “Brain Korea 21,” and “the University Research Excellence” in Taiwan. As the priorities have shifted toward elite competitions and research excellence, a new type of governance has emerged to respond to these changes. There has been a trend of increasing flexibility and autonomy in management without

The Development of Higher Education Accountability and Quality Assurance Schemes Central to the new governance is quality assurance. Accountability has driven these countries to develop their national quality assurance systems over the past decade partly to ensure the provision quality and partly to enhance their competitiveness internationally (Liu 2016; APQN 2011). To date, there are at least two quality assurance (QA) agencies at the national level across half of the Asian countries, including Japan, Hong Kong, China, the Philippines, and Taiwan (APQN 2011). Most QA agencies are state-funded organizations; but there are indeed a few independent QA agencies, which only receive some of funding from the public sources and therefore charge the application fees from individual institutions, in the case of Hong Kong Council for Accreditation of Academic and Vocational Qualifications (HKCAAVQ), and the Accrediting Agency of Chartered Colleges and Universities in the Philippines (AACCUP). These QA agencies in Asia demonstrate a diversity of approaches and experiences (Stella 2010). The earliest agency of such is the Japan University Accreditation Association (JUAA), which was founded in 1947 (Hou 2015). HKCAAVQ has also established consistent policies and procedures, which has wide regional impact. By comparison, the Quality Assurance Center of Lao PDR was only established in 2008, which is yet to be fully developed (Hou 2015). It can be argued that the development of QA agencies is consistent with the level of the growth of higher education systems. More than 70% of these agencies have undertaken reviews at the program and institutional

Autonomy and Accountability in Higher Education, Asia

143

level, including the Accreditation Committee of Cambodia, the Higher Education Evaluation and Accreditation Council of Taiwan (HEEACT). Accreditation, evaluation, and audit are three major assessment tools (Hou 2015). One of the main challenges for these schemes is a lack of autonomy. These QA agencies are either public institutions or affiliated with a particular governmental department; therefore, they more or less function in order to justify the allocation of the governmental funding based on accreditation outcomes, which undermines their own autonomy (Hou 2015). Coincident with the national agencies is the rise of international accreditors, which provide quality assurance services for national institutions. In some countries including Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan, national institutions were encouraged to seek international accreditation to enhance their capacity of academic competitiveness internationally. Subsequently, there emerges the demand of integrating international accreditation into the national quality assurance frameworks (Hou 2015). Moreover, -global university ranking exercises, including the QS World University Rankings, the QS University Ranking, and Academic Ranking by the Shanghai Jiao Tong University, serve the additional function of measuring academic performance. The global competition resulted in an increase of the regional initiatives to assess the quality of provision. The Asia-Pacific Quality Network (APQN), established in Hong Kong in 2003, aimed to “enhance the quality of higher education in Asia and the Pacific region through strengthening the work of quality assurance agencies and extending the cooperation between them” (APQN 2012). It proposed “Chiba Principles” for QA agencies within the region (APQN 2010). Furthermore, the ASEAN University Network (AUN) was established to promote quality assurance and evaluation in Southeast Asia (Welch 2007).

“decentralized centralization” (Shin and Harman 2009). On the one hand, the governments have decentralized a certain level of autonomy and flexibility in finance and recruitment at the institutional level. On the other hand, they have adopted a variety of quality assurance mechanisms domestically and externally to measure performance and quality. This new strategy of governance is dressed up in the discourse of quality assurance and accountability to monitor and control the higher education systems in such a way that we argue as the rise of managerial states.

Conclusion In summary, higher education governance in Asia has been reshaped in the era of globalization and massification. It is characterized as a process of

References Asian Development Bank (ADB). 2011. Higher education across Asia: An overview of issues and strategies. Manila: ADB. Asia-Pacific Quality Network (APQN). 2010. Chiba principles. http://www.apqn.org/. Accessed 11 Sept 2016. Asia-Pacific Quality Network (APQN). 2011. Technical proposal. Unpublished. Asia-Pacific Quality Network (APQN). 2012. The AsiaPacific quality network. http://www.apqn.org/. Accessed 11 Sept 2016. Hou, Angela Yung Chi. 2015. The quality of mass higher education in East Asia: Development and challenges for Asian quality assurance agencies in the glonacal higher education. In Mass higher education development in East Asia: Strategy, quality, and challenges, ed. Jung Cheol Shin, Gerald A. Postiglione, and Futong Huang, 307–324. Dordrecht: Springer. Liu, Shuiyun. 2016. Quality assurance and intuitional transformation: The Chinese experience. Singapore: Springer. Liu, Ye, Andy Green, and Nicola Pensiero. 2016. Expansion of higher education and inequality of opportunities: A cross-national analysis. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 38 (3): 242–263. Marginson, Simon. 2016. High participation systems of higher education. The Journal of Higher Education 87 (2): 243–271. Mok, Ka Ho. 2013. The quest for an entrepreneurial university in East Asia: Impact on academics and administrators in higher education. Asia Pacific Education Review 14 (1): 11–22. Naidoo, Rajani. 2015. The competition fetish in higher education: Varieties, animators and consequences. British Journal of Sociology of Education 37 (1): 1–10. Shin, Jung Cheol, and Grant Harman. 2009. New challenges for higher education: Global and Asia-Pacific perspectives. Asia Pacific Education Review 10 (1): 1–13. Stella, Antony. 2010. The Chiba principles: A survey analysis on the developments in the APQN membership. Shanghai: Asia-Pacific Quality Network.

A

144

Autonomy and Accountability in Higher Education, Eastern Europe

UNESCO. 2016. The institute for statistics. http://data.uis. unesco.org/Index.aspx?queryid¼142#. Accessed 10 Aug 2016. Welch, Anthony. 2007. Governance issues in South East Asian higher education: Finance, devolution and transparency in the global era. Asia Pacific Journal of Education 27 (3): 237–253.

Autonomy and Accountability in Higher Education, Eastern Europe Pavel Zgaga University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia

Synonyms Central Europe; Southeast Europe; The Baltics; Western Balkans

Definition The concept of Eastern Europe seems unambiguous only from a perspective of the physical geography; in interweaving of history, culture, and politics, it becomes complicated – Eastern Europe, Central and Eastern Europe, Southeast Europe, etc. This is important also when discussing higher education. Furthermore, compared to Western Europe, higher education research in Eastern Europe has begun to develop only in recent years. If the specific features and diversities of the “West” have been investigated almost to the last detail, the “East” is often submerged in the night, in which all cows seem black. The division of Europe into West and East is a relative historical matter. After WW I, the political map of the region was fundamentally changed, and a fairly hermetic delimitation with the newborn Soviet Union was established. After WW II, the Soviet influence spread far toward the West, but generally speaking, “Sovietization” was not all an encompassing process. The enlarged “communist world” remained internally different and partly even opposite. “Eastern bloc” established

strictly controlled borders against the “Western bloc” but also against the “revisionist” Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) which was from the 1950s economically more connected to the West than to the East. Academies of Science, as known in the Soviet bloc, did not exist in the SFRY, and the development of higher education was strolled by different routes. The third type of “communism” was introduced in Albania, isolated from the world up until the 1990s. Differences in political systems determined the differences in education systems, understandings of the relationship between the state and the university, etc. Therefore, “emphasizing difference” (Scott 2006) is inevitable: common features get sense only in the light of differences. After 1989, one of the most noticeable systemic changes was the introduction of provision on academic freedom and/or autonomy in the national legislation. Before, these concepts were not clearly demarcated and used in fundamental law. According to the Constitution of the USSR (1977), it was the state which “provides for planned development of science and the training of scientific personnel and organises introduction of the results of research in the economy and other spheres of life” (Art. 26). Academic institutions and individual academics didn’t have special rights, but citizens were “guaranteed freedom of scientific, technical, and artistic work” however “in accordance with the aims of building communism” (Art. 47). With political changes, this required a thorough conceptual turn. The introduction of relevant provision was carried out in various ways and at various times. In most of the countries, a provision both on institutional autonomy and academic freedom was introduced in the constitution (see OSCE 2016, Legislationline.org); typical definition can be, e.g., “The autonomy of the institutions of higher education shall be ensured” (Poland). The provision of institutional autonomy is not always guaranteed directly in the constitution but in special law (Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Czech Republic, Latvia, and Slovakia). Constitutional provisions do not define the accountability of universities; this is normally resolved in the field laws and was introduced later.

Autonomy and Accountability in Higher Education, Eastern Europe

The post-1989 constitutional provisions outlined a principled, deep separation from the previous system. Yet, the implementation of the new principles has been faced with many idiosyncrasies. Even in neighboring countries with similar tradition, it proceeded in different ways, e.g., either leaned on “conservative and reserved legislation” as in the Czech Republic or on “new, very liberal rules for establishing non-state higher education institutions” as in Poland (Simonova and Antonowicz 2006). A comparative study of four countries found out that “despite relatively similar starting conditions the differences in HE governance have increased since the system transformation” (Dobbins and Knill 2009). Gradually, it became clear that the higher education “transition” hasn’t been just about the “liberation” of academia from ideological and/or state control but also about a new contract between society and university. Different situations across countries conditioned further differences among reformed education systems. Thus, gradual “convergence toward a common model” (Dobbins and Knill 2009) was possible only due to “the lure of the West” (Scott 2006) and “a powerful role of European agendas” (Kwiek 2012). The political transition took place in various ways, including wars; therefore developments in various social subsystems, including education, were far from being common for all countries. The academic “struggle for autonomy” was still not entirely a thing of the past. In 1998, for example, the Milosevic’s government in Serbia adopted a new higher education law, which encountered unprecedented fierce resistance. This law represented a step backward even when compared to the pre-1989 situation: inter alia, it stipulated that the “old” employment contracts for all academic staff shall terminate, that the Rector and other bodies shall be directly appointed by the Government, etc. (Belgrade Circle 1998). The Serbian Constitution at that time guaranteed the “freedom of creating and publishing scientific and artistic work” but not institutional autonomy. Vesna Rakić-Vodinelić, professor in Law from Belgrade University, made an interesting argument against the law of 1998: “The guarantee of freedom of science also

145

means the guarantee of the freedom of the University as the institutional bearer of science and education. [. . .] From this basic freedom, legal regulations should arise about a minimum legal guarantee of autonomy (freedom) of the University” (Belgrade Circle 1998). Further repression led to growing resistance among students and staff; it fused with the resistance of civil society and finally caused the fall of Milosevic (2000). However, after this tumultuous period, it took a few years to introduce provisions on academic autonomy and freedom in the Constitution (2006), such as we found in other countries soon after 1990. This specific interpretation of autonomy is a characteristic for most of the regions. It is conditioned by historical memory of covert tensions between the state and the university, public controversies, and even conflicts (e.g., student movement). According to it, institutional autonomy can’t be reduced to issues of governance and management, but it is interwoven with the academic freedom: “autonomy” is understood as a guardian, “the institutional bearer of science and education.” This is perhaps the essential common conceptual assumption, from which the higher education reforms of the 1990s had been fed. Comparative analysis has shown that “nearly half the EU states do not have protection for academic freedom and university autonomy written into their constitution” and that the constitutional protection for academic freedom is positioned higher in ex-socialist countries than in the rest of Europe (Karran 2007). A special feature of the transition period was the “situation of unfettered autonomy”: “instead of clear principles and legislation regulating the relationship between the state and HE providers, academics conceived the reintroduction of autonomy as a political action to accelerate the erosion of totalitarianism” (Dobbins and Knill 2009). This is why the new post-1990 laws “were sometimes utopian in their formulations” and lacked the concept of accountability; however, the reality of the transition period caused that this utopianism was gradually replaced with pragmatism: “Autonomy, initially seen largely in

A

146

Autonomy and Accountability in Higher Education, Latin America

terms of an absence of state power, was gradually replaced by new notions of civic and market accountability” (Scott 2006). This shift has been again quite complicated. The former system models lost legitimacy, but elements of the academic culture as formed during previous decades were partly maintained. This also applies to the understanding of universities as responsible to society: the new concept of accountability has been partly imported from the West and partly influenced by the previous “quality control” technologies which often looked ideologically “neutral” in the new context. On the East, the move from the state control model to the state steering model was held in essentially different circumstances than on the West. Recent research has identified three “routes to accountability in Eastern Europe”: via political process (e.g., accreditation agencies), via the market (development of market-like mechanisms), and by taking account of international audiences (supranational bodies) (Temple 2011). The move from “accountability to political authorities” toward “multiple constituencies” (Scott 2006) has been – paradoxically – to a large extent carried out by external pressures (government, supranational bodies). Through this process, the situation is “becoming like everywhere else” (Temple 2011): the concept of accountability has been enforced everywhere. The side result is that the concept of “university autonomy” as the “guardian” of academic freedom has now to face with a more instrumental concept of “institutional autonomy.” In this situation, universities are put in a position to searching for the golden mean.

Constitution (Fundamental Law) of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. 1977. http://www.departments. bucknell.edu/russian/const/1977toc.html. 15 Dec 2016. Dobbins, M., and Ch. Knill. 2009. Higher education policies in central and Eastern Europe: Convergence toward a common model? Governance 22 (3): 397–430. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2009. 01445.x. Karran, T. 2007. Academic freedom in Europe: A preliminary comparative analysis. Higher Education Policy 20: 289–313. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave. hep.8300159. Kwiek, M. 2012. Universities and knowledge production in Central Europe. European Educational Research Journal 11 (1): 111–126. https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj. 2012.11.1.111. OSCE (Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe). 2016. Legislationline.org; http://www.osce. org/odihr/legislationline. 15 Dec 2016. Scott, P. 2006. Higher education in central and Eastern Europe. In International handbook of higher education. Part two: Regions and countries, ed. J.F. Forest and G. Altbach, 423–441. Dordrecht: Springer. Simonová, N., and D. Antonowicz. 2006. Czech and polish higher education – From bureaucracy to market competition. Czech Sociological Review 42 (3): 517–536. URN: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar56535. 15 Dec 2016. Temple, P. 2011. Accountability in Eastern Europe. Becoming like everywhere else? In Accountability in higher education. Global perspectives on trust and power, ed. B. Stensaker and L. Harvey, 93–109. New York: Routledge.

Autonomy and Accountability in Higher Education, Latin America Maria Jose Lemaitre Center for Interuniversity Development, CINDA, Santiago, Chile

Cross-References ▶ Accountability in Higher Education ▶ Institutional Accountability in Education

Synonyms Higher

References Belgrade Circle. 1998. In defence of the university. Beograd: Beogradski krug.

Independence; Public responsibility

Historical Background Latin America groups together countries in North, Central, and South America, as well as the

Autonomy and Accountability in Higher Education, Latin America

Caribbean, which respond to Spanish or Portuguese roots. It is a diverse region, united by its cultural and language background. Until the second half of the twentieth century, higher education systems in the region were integrated by three types of universities: public or State owned; Catholic universities, established by the Church under special provisions that assimilated them to the public universities; and secular, elite universities, established by entrepreneurial groups, with a clear public commitment. Even though the last two groups were formally private institutions, all were created by law and operated in a similar way to public universities in terms of mission or target population; governments recognized this by funding them under the same criteria that applied to public universities. A student revolt in 1918 in Universidad de Cordoba, Argentina, which rapidly expanded to other countries, reframed the relations between the university, society, and the government and set the basis for a definition of university autonomy in Latin America which is valid until now, involving features such as the following (Tunnerman 2008): • The right for the university to choose its own authorities, appoint professors, and develop programs without the intervention of the government or any other organization, with the participation of all parties in the university (students, staff, and graduates), also known as cogovernance. • The right to determine its political, teaching, administrative, economic, and financial decisions, without the interference of the government or the Church. • A review of the contents of study programs, freedom to modernize program offerings, curricula, and teaching methods. • Legal guarantee of public funding, together with the capacity to manage resources without interference from the government. • No tuition fees, democratization of access to universities, no attendance requirements. • Strengthening of the social function of the university and increased concern about national issues.

147

As a result, higher education systems were relatively homogenous, composed of prestigious universities, with enormous autonomy in terms of their internal government and decision-making and free from external interference or regulations. They were also generously funded by the State (in many cases, with a certain percentage of GDP assured by the constitution), protected from competition by laws limiting the establishment of higher education institutions and focused on the education of a relatively small and selected fraction of the student population. In this respect, they enjoyed the “privileged autonomy” of assured resources, with no intervention from government or any public agency. In exchange, universities were expected to train the elite professional and technical staff necessary to support national wellbeing and development (Brunner and Uribe 2007). Governments, in turn, have left higher education policies and regulations under the responsibility of the public universities, which actually regulate the operation of the other institutions in the country. They base their strength and social power in their recognized and exclusive ability to grant professional degrees, significant elements for social mobility in highly stratified social contexts. They define good practice and for many years carried out what can be considered mutual “corporate regulation,” implicitly defining what was acceptable, but without any obligation to be accountable for the resources they received or the outcomes of their work.

Changes in Higher Education Thus, for over 60 years, universities in Latin America enjoyed a wide-ranging autonomy. While it was mostly described as their capacity for self-governance, in practice it meant that public universities decided who they hired and under what conditions; the academic mix of programs offered; conditions for the admission of students; and the granting of degrees. They determined who paid, how much, and how resources were to be used and demanded from the government the resources needed for their operation.

A

148

Autonomy and Accountability in Higher Education, Latin America

Governments, on their part, maintained a basically passive attitude regarding institutional performance, keeping their part of the agreement and thus fostering the central role of public institutions. During the last third of the twentieth century, things began to change. The region witnessed an unprecedented growth of enrollment, which went from 1.8 million students to 12.5 million between 1970 and 2000 and grew to 21.8 million in 2014. This increased demand for higher education led, in some countries, to the growth of public universities, but mostly to the emergence of a significant number of new, demand absorbing private universities. These currently represent two thirds of the total number of universities, and enroll almost 50% of the students, although countries differ greatly: Brazil, Chile, El Salvador, and Paraguay have over 60% of students in the private sector, while Argentina, Bolivia, Mexico, Panama, and Uruguay show figures around or below one third (Brunner and Miranda 2016). Around the 1980s, economic crises forced governments to change their patterns of funding, and in many cases, to transfer part of the financial burden to the private sector; the growing concern about quality linked to the emergence of these new private higher education institutions led to the development of assessment or quality assurance mechanisms, and financial mechanisms started emphasizing accountability and incentives based funding schemes. Institutions now had to pay attention to a new environment, where regulations started to become the norm rather than the exception; where funding depended on their ability to tune into governmental priorities; where competition and market forces appeared as a new actor affecting their decisions, their purposes, and policies.

Quality Assurance and Accountability Diversification led to an erosion of trust in higher education and the need for “someone” to assure quality. In a context of increased demands for public funding, it became unacceptable not to show that resources had been used effectively

and efficiently; public funding, which was normally allocated on the basis of historic considerations, became increasingly linked to incentives, with performance based funding and competitive funds for the development of priority areas. Higher education institutions (HEIs) had to look for other sources of income: tuition fees, which currently represent a significant portion of the budget of all private institutions and of some of the public ones; research contracts; and services to the public and private sector, all of which may interfere with their traditional view of academic freedom and independence. Around 1990, several countries (Chile, Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico) began developing quality assurance (QA) mechanisms. Initially, these focused mostly on private institutions, but gradually expanded to cover both public and private ones; their first concern was program accreditation, with a later focus on institutional review, mainly to be used as a basis for policy decisions. A recent study (Lemaitre and Zenteno 2012) showed that most HEIs have adjusted their academic structure and their practices to the requirements of external reviews and to the incentives associated to public funding; while there is a strong perception among university leaders, academic staff, and students that QA mechanisms have contributed to the improvement of higher education practices, they are also concerned about their impact on institutional autonomy. The effect of QA mechanisms has shown governments that QA is a valuable regulatory tool. If during the first years, QA agencies operated quite independently, currently governments are becoming increasingly involved in the definition and application of licensing and accreditation criteria. While this is not exclusive to Latin America, it is evident in several countries in the region: Ecuador has closed a number of universities based on accreditation results; Colombia requires all programs and institutions to show that they meet basic standards and, together with Chile, links licensing and/or accreditation results to access to public funds; Argentina requires that all programs considered to be “in the public interest” are accredited and links improvement funds to actions

Autonomy and Accountability in Higher Education, North America

emerging from external reviews; Peru has imposed a mandatory licensing scheme for all HEIs and compulsory accreditation for some programs. Latin America has traveled thus from an unqualified concept of autonomy to one that is most often referred to as “responsible autonomy” or “regulated autonomy.” Many universities now have had to establish external governing boards, with representation of the government or external stakeholders, thus effectively constraining the self-governance which was one of the main tenets of traditional autonomy. Their decisions must take into consideration market demands and national policies, and thus reach a new arrangement, “which represents the response of universities to the uncertainties and demands of the times and of the national and local contexts” (Acosta 2008). They had to leave their protected enclosure and take their place at the center of social life, thus making relevance one of the main components of their quality. They have to find significant and relevant answers to the distinction between academic freedom, autonomy, and social responsibility.

Cross-References ▶ Accountability in Higher Education ▶ Institutional Accountability in Higher Education ▶ Institutional Autonomy in Higher Education

References Acosta, Adrián. 2008. La autonomía universitaria en América Latina: Problemas, desafíos y temas capitales. Editado por UDUAL. Universidades LVIII 36: 69–82. Brunner, J.J., and D.A. Miranda. 2016. Educación Superior en Iberoamérica. Informe 2016. CINDA: Santiago. Brunner, J.J., and D. Uribe. 2007. Mercados universitarios: El nuevo escenario de la educación superior. Santiago de Chile: Universidad Diego Portales. Lemaitre, M.J., and E. Zenteno. 2012. Aseguramiento de la calidad en Iberoamérica. Informe Educación Superior 2012. CINDA: Santiago. Tunnerman, C. 2008. Noventa an˜ os de la reforma universitaria de Cordoba. Buenos Aires: Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales.

149

Autonomy and Accountability in Higher Education, North America Judith S. Eaton Council for Higher Education Accreditation, Washington, DC, USA

With the advent of knowledge-driven societies that are at the core of international competitiveness and cooperation, higher education has taken on enhanced importance, especially in the eyes of various governments. This is often accompanied by considerable media and student and other public attention to a country’s colleges and universities. This is the case for North America – Canada, Mexico, and the United States – as well as many other regions of the world. This importance has been about assuring an educated workforce as more and more jobs are created in technology and not in manufacturing fields and concerns about the structural mismatch between the education of the workforce and the jobs that need to be filled. It has been about the imperative of building national capacity for creativity and innovation in research. And, it has been about the role of higher education in addressing equity and social justice in society. This importance has been underscored as the cost of higher education has increased and as more and more countries turn to tuition or charging students as part of financing higher education. It is buttressed by the desirability of internationalizing higher education through such practices as expanding student mobility, cooperative research efforts, and faculty exchange. With the emergence of highly public national, regional, and national ranking systems and qualification frameworks, every country has its higher education prestige and prominence on the line for all to see. All of these factors have been influential with regard to the current state of both autonomy and accountability in higher education. Autonomy is about independence in academic decisionmaking. Accountability is about being answerable to another party, e.g., government, students, and

A

150

Autonomy and Accountability in Higher Education, North America

others in this decision-making. In many ways, autonomy and accountability are opposite sides of the same coin. Autonomy requires trust; accountability can often be an indicator of lack of trust. Autonomy is about self-determination; accountability is about being told what to do. Autonomy and accountability interact, with government typically the most important player and, at times, a mediator here. With regard to autonomy, historically, the United States, Canada, and Mexico consistently and publicly affirm the importance and value of colleges and universities sustaining a significant level of independence. This is focused particularly in the academic arena and in judgments about, e.g., the development of curriculum, the appointment of faculty, and the setting of academic standards. However, the longstanding commitment to autonomy is now accompanied by expanding and increasingly explicit requirements especially from government and particularly with regard to the quality and performance of institutions in relation to student learning. The primary impact is to restrict the degrees of freedom with regard to academic decision-making. For example, in the United States, the federal government has taken on judging the quality of an institution based on graduation rates. It stipulates the extent to which distance learning enrollments can grow and how and whether an institution can expand via branch campuses or new programs. In Mexico, significant growth in higher education enrollment has triggered a major expansion of private institutions. This, in turn, has triggered concern for additional oversight to sustain quality and calls for national quality standards (Else 2015). In Canada, the Council of Ministers of Education (CMEC), an intergovernmental body that provides a Canada-wide focus on postsecondary education, includes both assessing student skills and setting education indicators as part of its charge (CMEC n.d.). The future of autonomy is uncertain. Given the essential role of effective higher education and the cost of higher education to governments and to students, the current trend of ongoing and even expanding oversight through law, regulation, or

public opinion is likely to continue, raising questions about what “autonomy” will mean in the future. Increased accountability has taken many forms. It can mean being answerable to government, with law and regulation that applies to higher education and structures how higher education is to operate. It can also mean being judged in a more informal but nonetheless powerful way by students and the public, especially the media. The CMEC sustains a Canadian Degree Qualifications Framework as well as standards for assessing new degree programs and institutions that structure accountability. In Mexico, given economic conditions and growth in higher education demand, funding is increasingly focused on results (Gonzalez et al. 2013). In the United States, many colleges and universities must be responsive to public criticism or concern. Institutions with low graduation rates and students who do not complete their studies yet accrue considerable debt are increasingly subject to public criticism. Accountability that is indiscriminate can have a deleterious impact on higher education’s fundamental strengths. If a college or university sees its primary purpose as intellectual development or research, accountability measures that focus primarily on, e.g., job placement of graduates, however important, can divert attention from the self-proclaimed priorities of the institution. The freedom, richness, and spontaneity of open intellectual inquiry can be undermined by the ongoing emphasis on valuing education only if it leads to certain kinds of jobs and earnings. The future of accountability appears robust – for the same reason that the future of autonomy looks uncertain. Higher education is now viewed as too important for only a “trust-us” approach that has been effective throughout much of its history. The current state of autonomy and accountability is having a powerful impact on highly valuable and traditional features of higher education. These include academic freedom and academic leadership, peer review to define and judge quality, and sustaining the diversity of higher education through emphasis on institutional mission or purpose. If an outside party, government or media, is determining the parameters of academic decision-

Autonomy and Accountability in Higher Education, Western Europe

making – what faculty teach, what standards they set, and their research and work with students – faculty’s scope of judgment and discretion are reduced. If regulation – versus professional judgment – dominates judgment about quality and performance, the role of peer review is curtailed as well. Diminished autonomy and rising accountability can also reduce the diversity of higher education. The key challenge is to achieve balance. Yes, higher education needs to sustain autonomy but not at the price of ignoring responsibility to its sources of funding and those who provide approval to operate. Yes, higher education needs to be accountable but not at the price of any opportunity for independent action. Central here is the distinction between a college and university be held accountable for its actions – in contrast to accountability that is really the management of an institution from outside. For example, an institution that is held accountable will know that expectations it must meet have been set. However, the institution has the freedom of action to determine how it will meet the expectations. And, in the academic sphere, the institution also has the freedom to determine its academic success indicators, purpose, and direction. There is already consideration of such balance, particularly between institutions and governments. In the United States, there is a serious political debate about how much further the federal government can or should go in its oversight of higher education. In Mexico, there is significant attention to student mobility, both through credit transfer within the country and cross-border higher education, especially with the United States and Canada (Maldonado-Maldonado 2015). This attention also includes emphasis on institutional autonomy. In Canada, the work of the CMEC includes an ongoing commitment to institutional autonomy, through such cooperative efforts with the Universities Canada, a nongovernmental organization of institutions (Weinrib and Jones 2014). Changes in autonomy and accountability in North America are driven by both the growth of higher education and its heightened importance economically, socially, and politically. Whatever

151

the future holds, the key to sustaining the strengths of higher education is to achieve a balance, with adequate autonomy for academic leadership and adequate accountability to assure responsiveness and responsibility in serving students and society.

References Council of Ministers of Education. n.d. About CMEC. http://www.cmec.ca/en/. Accessed Mar 2017. Else, H. 2015. Mexico grapples with quality control as private growth creates ‘Tension’. Times Higher Education. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/search? e¼404&search¼news%20mexico%20grapples%20qu ality. Accessed Dec 2016. Gonzalez et al. 2013. Model of higher education funding in Mexico and Chile. 10th Higher Education Reforms Workshop, Slovenia. https://www.researchgate.net/pub lication/307857771_Models_of_Higher_Education_Fun ding_in_Mexico_and_Chile_Is_There_a_Possible_Equi librium_Between_the_Chronic_Lack_of_Public_Funds_ and_the_Student_Debt_Crisis. Accessed Mar 2017. Maldonado-Maldonado, A. 2015. Presidential politics and higher education reform in Mexico. ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313414486_ Presidential_Politics_and_Higher_Education_Reforms_ in_Mexico. Accessed Feb 2017. Weinrib, J., and G. Jones. 2014. Largely a matter of degrees: Quality assurance and Canadian universities. Politics and Society 33 (3): 225–236. http://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S14494035140003 20. Accessed Dec 2016.

Autonomy and Accountability in Higher Education, Western Europe Andrée Sursock European University Association (EUA), Brussels, Belgium

Synonyms Accountability; Autonomy; Bureaucracy; European commission; Managerialism; New Public Management; Performance-based funding; Reform; Shared governance

A

152

Autonomy and Accountability in Higher Education, Western Europe

Autonomy and accountability in Western European higher education have been the focus of multiple rounds of reforms, most recently, at the turn of the twenty-first century. Up to then, many higher education systems in Europe were run centrally by the ministries. In some countries, the faculties were considered to be institutions on a par with the university of which they were but a theoretical part; often, they received their funding from their ministry rather than via the central university administration. This meant that universities were “loosely coupled systems” (Weick 1976) and their leadership constrained in their steering ability. Several contextual developments have precipitated a wave of policy reforms that affected both autonomy and accountability, including increased globalization and internationalization; the growing importance of new technologies; the rise of knowledge-based economies; and the growth in student numbers, which challenged the capacity of ministries to manage the institutions or to fund the expanding systems. Underlying these policy reforms were concerns about bolstering the capacity of higher education to contribute to economic competitiveness and regional development through strengthened research capacity and the promotion of graduate employability. The rising importance of New Public Management (NPM) – with its central tenet: more autonomy in exchange for more accountability – provided a framework for these new policies. The European Commission (EC) expressed these concerns through a number of communications on higher education in an attempt to shape national policies. This took place in the context of the Bologna Process (for the accountability strand) and framed as part of the “Lisbon Agenda” (for the autonomy). The Lisbon Agenda aimed to ensure that Europe becomes the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world and required paying attention to university governance and increasing their funding. It prompted the EC to issue a series of papers focused on this topic (starting with EC 2003). In parallel, the European University Association (EUA) together with its national members (the national associations of universities)

were demanding more autonomy for universities while encouraging them to develop internal quality mechanisms in order to bolster their leadership and management capacity. This convergence of views resulted in enlarging the scope of institutional autonomy and increasing accountability requirements through a variety of mechanisms. The Irish and British higher education systems, which had enjoyed a strong tradition of institutional autonomy, have also been affected by greater accountability requirements, as had the Netherlands, which implemented governance changes earlier than the other continental systems. Some studies have looked at the role of various agents in policy implementation (e.g., Stensaker et al. 2012) while others have examined the impact of these change. The new legal frameworks have been converging toward a governance model (Amaral et al. 2012), albeit with national and institutional variations (Musselin 2005b). Key trends include the emergence of bureaucracies and of a managerial culture, greater power concentration in the hands of the top management teams, the limitations on individual or faculty autonomy, and the erosion of shared governance (e.g., Amaral et al. 2003; Paradeise et al. 2009; Middlehurst and Teixeira 2012; Musselin 2005a). The diversification of funding sources required responding to the multiple accountability requirements of the funders and stronger administrations, notably for the research-intensive universities (e.g., Mohrman et al. 2008). Accountability mechanisms accompanied autonomy reforms. In many countries, the composition of university boards must now include external members. As a signal of their accountability function, appointment systems vary from those where the national authorities alone decide on these appointments to those that are made jointly with the institutions. Only in a handful of countries are universities free to appoint external board members without external interference (Estermann et al. 2011). In parallel to governance change – and after a period of instability (e.g., Sursock 2011) – quality assurance in Western Europe has been shifting toward institutional approaches (e.g.,

Autonomy and Accountability in Higher Education, Western Europe

quality audits, institutional reviews). These tend to be context-sensitive and mission-driven and presuppose the capacity of autonomous institutions to set their own course. The stress on both institutional accountability and autonomy found its concretization in the 2015 version of The European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Europe (ESG 2015). This text strengthens the role of universities in managing their quality and reaffirms a co-regulatory approach linking internal and external quality assurance processes. Following the launch of the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) in 2003, the past 13 years have also seen the multiplication of international ranking schemes. However imperfect these rankings are, they have captured the attention of governments and the wider public who tend to see them as a form of quality assurance (e.g., Hazelkorn 2016). The EC has stepped in by funding the “U-Multirank” tool and promoting a variety of “transparency instruments” that are meant to measure the performance of higher education institutions or systems and to generate pressures for change (e.g., Hazelkorn 2012). The importance of ranking has led some countries to promote regional and international alliances of universities and even mergers in order to bolster their scientific impact and their international position. In some countries, these developments are taking place at the same time as autonomy reforms were being implemented, providing the institutional leadership with a rather complex set of change management challenges (Sursock 2014). The expanded financial autonomy granted to the universities has resulted in a growing emphasis on financial accountability to the State (e.g., Teixeira 2009). This trend has been amplified by the 2008 financial crisis and its aftermath, notably its negative effect on youth unemployment. These developments have had an impact on higher education including in countries that were not directly affected by it (e.g., EUA 2014). Many countries have bolstered their reporting requirements, particularly with respect to the graduates’ career trajectories and requiring institutions to demonstrate their value to economic development. Policy responses have included decreasing or

153

concentrating funding and “excellence initiatives” (Salmi 2016). The spread of performance-based funding and other funding mechanisms have steered institutions and limited their capacity to chart their own course (Bennetot Pruvot et al. 2015). The changes of the past 15 years have been complex, unrelenting, and difficult. Addressing them bolstered institutional leadership and promoted more strategic – albeit managerial – higher education institutions. It remains to be seen if these have been profound changes or simply cosmetic, leaving the academic staff to work both autonomously (Musselin 2007) and collegially at least in the research-intensive universities (Rip and Kulati 2014).

Cross-References ▶ Evaluative State, Higher Education, The ▶ Institutional Autonomy in Higher Education ▶ Intergovernmental Policies in Higher Education, Bologna ▶ New Public Management or Neoliberalism, Higher Education ▶ Policy Outcomes and Effects in Higher Education

References Amaral, A., V.L. Meek, and I.M. Larsen, eds. 2003. The higher education managerial revolution? Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Academic Publishing. Amaral, A., O. Tavares, and C. Santos. 2012. Higher education reforms in Europe: A comparative perspective of new legal frameworks in Europe. In European higher education at the crossroads: Between the Bologna Process and National Reforms, ed. A. Curaj, P. Scott, L. Vlasceanu, and L. Wilson, vol. 2, 655–673. New York: Springer. Bennetot Pruvot, E., A.-L. Claeys-Kulik, and T. Estermann. 2015. Designing strategies for efficient funding of universities in Europe. Brussels: European University Association. Estermann, T., T. Nokkala, and M. Steinel. 2011. University autonomy in Europe II – The scorecard. European University Association. European Commission (2003), The role of the universities in the Europe of knowledge.

A

154

Autonomy and Accountability in Higher Education, Western Europe

European University Association (EUA). 2014. Report by EUA Public Funding Observatory. http://www.eua.be/ Libraries/Governance_Autonomy_Funding/PFO_anal ysis_2014_final.sflb.ashx Hazelkorn, E. 2012. European “transparency instruments”: Driving the modernisation of European higher education. In European higher education at the crossroads: Between the Bologna Process and National Reforms, ed. A. Curaj, P. Scott, L. Vlasceanu, and L. Wilson, vol. 1, 339–360. New York: Springer. Hazelkorn, E., ed. 2016. Global rankings and the geopolitics of higher education: Understanding the influence and impact of rankings on higher education, policy and society. Abingdon: Routledge. Middlehurst, R., and P. Teixeira. 2012. Governance within the EHEA: Dynamic trends, common challenges and national particularities. In European higher education at the crossroads: Between the Bologna Process and National Reforms, ed. A. Curaj, P. Scott, L. Vlasceanu, and L. Wilson, vol. 2, 527–552. New York: Springer. Mohrman, K., M. Wanhua, and D. Baker. 2008. The research University in Transition: The emerging global model. Higher Education Policy 21 (2008): 5–27. Musselin, C. 2005a. European academic labour markets in transition. Higher Education 49: 135–154. Musselin, C. 2005b. Change or continuity in higher education governance? Lessons drawn from twenty years of national reforms in European countries. In Governing knowledge. A study of continuity and change in higher education; a festschrift in honour of Maurice Kogan, ed. I. Bleiklie and M. Henkel. New York: Springer. Musselin, C. 2007. Are universities specific organisations? In Towards a multiversity? Universities between global trends and national traditions, ed. G. Krücken, A. Kosmützky, and M. Torka, 123–206. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag.

Paradeise, C., E. Reale, I. Bleikilie, and E. Ferlie, eds. 2009. University governance: Western European comparative perspectives. New York: Springer. Rip, A., and T. Kulati. 2014. Multilevel dynamics in universities in changing research landscapes. In The changing governance of higher education and research, ed. D. Jansen and I. Pruisken, 105–115. New York: Springer. Salmi, J. 2016. Excellence strategies and the creation of world-class universities. In Global rankings and the geo-politics of higher education: Understanding the influence and impact of rankings on higher education, policy and society, ed. E. Hazelkorn. Abingdon: Routledge. Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area, (ESG), May 2015. Stensaker, B., J. Välimaa, and C. Sarrico, eds. 2012. Managing reform in universities: The dynamics of culture, identity and organizational change. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Sursock, A. 2011. Accountability in Western Europe: Shifting quality assurance paradigms. In Accountability in higher education: Global perspectives on trust and power, ed. B. Stensaker and L. Harvey, 111–132. Abingdon: Routledge. Sursock, A. 2014. Alliances and mergers in France: Incentives, success factors and obstacles. In Mergers and alliances in higher education: Current international practice and emerging opportunities, ed. L. Georghiou, A. Curaj, J. Cassingena Harper, and E. Egron-Polak. New York: Springer. Teixeira, P. 2009. Economic imperialism and the ivory tower: Economic issues and policy challenges in the funding of higher education in the EHEA (20102020). In The European higher education area: Perspectives on a moving target, ed. B.M. Kehm, J. Huisman, and B. Stensaker, 43–60. Dordrecht: Sense Publisher. Weick, K.E. 1976. Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly 21 (1): 1–19.

B

Bildung

Branding

▶ The Idea of the University: Renewing the Great Tradition

▶ Managing External Relations, Higher Education Institutions

Borderless Higher Education

Bribery

▶ Transnational Education (TNE)

▶ Corruption in Higher Education

Brain Circulation

Bridge Programs

▶ Human Capital Policy in Science and Technology ▶ Internationally Mobile Faculty, Comparative Perspectives

▶ Refugees in Tertiary Education, European Policies and Practices

British University Traditions Brain-Drain ▶ Human Capital Technology

Policy

in

Science

and

Robert D. Anderson School of History, Classics and Archaeology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

Definition

Branch Institutions ▶ International Branch Campuses, Management of

The complex of traditions which came together to shape the modern British university.

© Springer Nature B.V. 2020 P. N. Teixeira, J. C. Shin (eds.), The International Encyclopedia of Higher Education Systems and Institutions, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8905-9

156

Introduction In a comparative context, the distinctive English contribution to university ideals is usually seen as the collegiate, residential form of elite education characterized by Oxford and Cambridge, which emphasized socialization and character formation as much as intellectual training (Charle 2004). But this was not the only British tradition. Scotland had four universities with a professorial rather than a collegiate structure, and in the nineteenth century, new university colleges were founded on the professorial pattern, first in London, then in the large provincial cities of England. Yet another model was the “examining university,” starting with the University of London in 1836, which administered examinations and awarded degrees to students in independent colleges, but did not itself provide teaching. There were thus several British university traditions, developing and interacting in the nineteenth century, then converging into a national system which remained fairly unchanged until the 1960s. After that, the expansion of higher education embraced yet another tradition which had developed outside the university sector, that of vocational or technical education. Britain today thus has a diverse university system which has been built up by the addition of successive layers, some of which retain much more prestige than others, and its traditions cannot be understood without some account of their past history (Anderson 1992, 2006). Outside influences on British universities have been limited, though German models in the nineteenth century, and American in the twentieth, popularized the idea of the research university. British traditions themselves influenced early college development in the United States, but had little influence in continental Europe, where French and German models dominated. However, the diffusion of British traditions to the British Empire was an important aspect of global university expansion.

The Oxbridge Educational Ideal Although Oxford and Cambridge universities (often described collectively as “Oxbridge”)

British University Traditions

were medieval foundations, their modern form is largely the result of legislation in the second half of the nineteenth century. The universities as institutions were distinct from the colleges, which retained corporate and financial autonomy, and teaching was shared between university professors and college “fellows.” Students were required to be members of colleges and usually to live within them; they were small communities allowing close personal relations and moral supervision. One purpose of the Victorian reforms was to make Oxford and Cambridge training grounds for a new middle-class elite serving the professions and public service. They were national universities, with close metropolitan links to politics, law, the civil service, and (by the twentieth century) the literary and artistic life of London. The colleges socialized students through their corporate life and rituals, and it was always a British principle that the different elements of the elite should be educated together rather than (e.g., as in France) in specialized institutions. This tradition was reinforced because the reform of Oxbridge was closely linked with the growth of the “public schools” – secondary schools which were also residential, nationally recruited, and socially exclusive. These schools dominated Oxbridge student entry and passed on many of their values. Within British society, Oxford and Cambridge represented privilege. But internally, they fostered meritocratic competition through their examination system. They developed practices which mark the British academic tradition to this day. “Honors” examinations at the end of the threeyear curriculum, based on written papers, led to the division of candidates into competitive “classes.” The curriculum broadened out from the early duopoly of classics and mathematics, but as new subjects were introduced, they were organized into specialized examination courses (the “singlesubject degree”), rather than the broader multidisciplinary approach preferred in Scotland. Professors gave lectures, but the essence of the teaching tradition lay in frequent personal meetings between students and college teachers, where students presented their work for criticism and discussion (the “tutorial system”). Tutorials and

British University Traditions

examinations together produced a distinctive intellectual style which emphasized literary, critical, and analytical skills rather than original research (and in the eyes of critics, encouraged superficiality and mere cleverness). This constituted a distinctive form of liberal education, in which two different principles can be discerned. One was to train or “sharpen” the mind through vigorous intellectual exercise. Performance in examinations, and mastery of a traditional discipline, was seen as a test of general intellectual ability, which could then be applied in any career. The other aim was to shape the personality, through subjects with a unique civilizing role. Classics, philosophy, and mathematics were the traditional educational instruments, and when Oxford and Cambridge introduced new disciplines like history, English literature, and natural science, they were expected to have the same liberal character. Purely applied or vocational subjects were viewed with suspicion. Many have seen this as part of a long-lived anti-industrial bias in British culture. The tradition of liberal education within a college community was embodied in John Henry Newman’s The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated, first published under that title in 1873, but dating back to lectures given in Dublin in the 1850s. Newman had been a college fellow at Oxford, but his conception of the pastoral relationship between teacher and student was essentially a religious one; the modern tutorial system was a later creation. Newman believed in “universal knowledge,” an ideal which specialization made obsolete, and he was not a champion of the research university, though sometimes cited in its support. For him the disinterested pursuit of truth and “intellectual excellence” were ends in themselves, and this was primarily an educational ideal. The purpose of universities was the perfection of the individual’s intellect and personality; there are parallels with the German ideal of Bildung. Though the 1860s and 1870s saw much debate about university education, mainly between the protagonists of science and classical culture (Sanderson 1975), Newman’s book does not seem to have been much read in his own time. But it was influential later and is rightly regarded

157

as a classic statement of the English university tradition (Rothblatt 1997). The idea that research was a fundamental task of the university, which owed much to the German example, was a comparatively late development in Britain; the PhD, for example, was adopted only around 1919. At Oxford, notably, research was often resisted by college tutors who saw their task as preparing their charges for public life, rather than training future scientists and scholars. But once the need for research was accepted, the universities became its natural home, as Britain lacked any tradition of separate research academies or institutes. The professionalization of science and scholarship was largely a university phenomenon, and Oxford and Cambridge, with their size and resources, assumed leadership in many disciplines. The teaching tradition itself, with its emphasis on the pursuit of truth for its own sake and on individual analytical and critical skills, eased the adoption of the “Humboldtian” concept of the unity of teaching and research. The principle that students benefited from studying under teachers working on the “frontiers of knowledge” was absorbed into the older liberal ideal and survives in the idea of “research-led teaching.”

Other British Models The years between 1850 and 1914 saw both expansion and differentiation of British universities (Anderson 2006; Rothblatt 1983). The oldest element was the Scottish universities, like Oxbridge of medieval origins, but also subject to modernizing reforms in the nineteenth century. Their traditions included the idea that they were national institutions at the service of the whole community; a “democratic” ethos related to their relative social accessibility as urban, nonresidential universities; and the combination of a broadly “philosophical” and multidisciplinary arts degree with professional training for the church, law, and medicine. Teaching was in the hands of a strong professorate. The professorial model was followed when two colleges were founded in London around

B

158

1830, but these did not have the power to award degrees, and in 1836, the state chartered the University of London for this purpose. Its powers to administer examinations and grant degrees were not confined to London, and the “examining university,” often taking the form of a federation of colleges, became an influential and distinctively British institution (Anderson 2015). When new university colleges were founded in the English provinces, mostly in industrial cities – in Manchester in 1851, in the 1870s and in the 1880s elsewhere – they initially took their degrees from London. These “civic” or “redbrick” colleges followed the professorial pattern of teaching, recruited their students locally, and did not have residential colleges, but they differed from the Scottish universities. While the latter saw themselves as components of a national system, the English urban universities were founded and governed by local elites and expressed their civic and cultural aspirations. And while the Scottish universities trained mainly for the traditional learned professions, the new English ones were oriented to the needs of local industry and commerce and welcomed new and vocational subjects into the curriculum (Sanderson 1972). Their practical ethos, their relation to local communities, the London examination system, and national coordination through state grants from 1889 onward created a common identity for these universities, which itself influenced later foundations (Whyte 2015). Various forms of advanced education were also available in local technical colleges. Often this was part-time and given in evening classes. Another significant development was university “extension,” pioneered by Oxford and Cambridge, which made evening lectures of university standard available in towns throughout England. This was one of the few British innovations copied in continental Europe. By the early twentieth century, the Workers’ Educational Association was extending it to working-class audiences. Alongside elite university traditions, therefore, Britain has a significant tradition of democratic and adult education (Bell and Tight 1993). Most universities developed “extramural” or “continuing education” departments, though these have become less important in recent years.

British University Traditions

Two further points may be made. One is that when women gained admission to higher education, the 1870s being the key decade, two rather different traditions emerged. At Oxford and Cambridge, and in London, separate women’s colleges were founded, but in the civic universities and Scotland, and in most London colleges, women studied alongside men. Oxford and Cambridge restricted women’s full university membership for many years. Yet even there, the assumption was that women would study the same subjects as men and compete on equal terms. Compared with some countries, there was little tradition of women’s university education as a distinctive sphere. Second, as higher education expanded within Britain, it also did so in the British Empire. Universities were founded in India and Australia in the 1850s and in settler “dominions” like New Zealand and South Africa (Canada had more varied traditions). From the 1940s, universities were developed in colonies in Asia, Africa, and the Caribbean. Both the professorial and the examining or federal university served as models, and British degree systems, terminology, and ceremonies were taken over. There was significant interchange of academic staff, and many students from the empire came to study in Britain. The first Congress of Universities of the British Empire met in 1912 (Newton 1924; Pietsch 2013). These university connections have survived the transition from empire to Commonwealth.

The Twentieth Century and after By the early twentieth century, British traditions were converging into a national system, though with different types of university (Anderson 2006). One new factor was the development of London as a major university center, following the reform of London University as a “teaching university” and important new foundations like the Imperial College of Science and Technology (1907). Observers identified the emergence of an “Oxbridge-London axis,” or “golden triangle” which concentrated resources in metropolitan South-Eastern England, while the civic universities drifted away from their local roots and

British University Traditions

conformed to a more standardized pattern influenced by Oxbridge values (Shils 1955). National uniformity was reinforced by the channeling of state finance through the University Grants Committee (1919). The UGC respected university autonomy to a remarkable degree, perhaps because the values of elite universities and those of the governing class hardly differed. But this depended on a narrow definition of university education which excluded technical colleges and only recognized universities which taught a broad spread of disciplines and combined teaching with research. British universities down to the 1960s formed a small and cohesive group, in close association with the state though independent of it. Neither confessional nor private universities, common in other countries, existed in Britain. This tradition of university education as a public good has fueled academic resistance to recent neoliberal policies of marketization and competition (Collini 2012). By the 1960s, the nineteenth-century liberal university had come to terms with the research ideal and achieved, for a time, the Humboldtian balance between teaching and research. New foundations of that period reflected this compromise, and the period is often looked back to as an academic golden age (Tight 2010). It saw both the foundation of new campus (or “plateglass”) universities, planned as small residential communities, and the promotion of advanced technical colleges to university status. The Robbins report of 1963, a landmark in British university policy, endorsed these changes. Yet far from revolutionizing concepts of the university, the period was marked by the continuing strength of older traditions, including the value of personal relations between teacher and student and the university as a community. The campus universities reflected this, and the older civic universities also developed residential accommodation and began to recruit students on a national basis. The characteristically British view that the university experience means leaving home really dates from this period. But as expansion continued, tensions grew. There were still only 22 universities in 1960, by 1980 there were 42, and today there are around 120. The percentage of young people entering higher education of all types was around 8% in

159

the 1960s, 14% in the 1980s, nearly 50% today. A key date was 1992, when full university status was given to the “polytechnics” created in the 1960s from existing technical and vocational colleges. This raised the question of whether university values with their roots in the elite period needed to be rethought. Should alternative traditions, of a more open, democratic, or communitarian kind, be revalorized in a pluralist system (Halsey 1992; Scott 1993)? Arguably this challenge was avoided, and what has emerged instead is a hierarchical system where the elite traditions of the highest stratum still enjoy the highest prestige. There is no formal acknowledgement that universities should be of different types, despite pressures arising from the desire of governments to save money and the need to concentrate resources on a select number of internationally competitive universities. In practice, mechanisms of discrimination have arisen; but in theory, all universities have the same mission and award undergraduate and postgraduate degrees which are judged by the same standards. Some traditions, like communal residence, continue to shape popular views of university life, and though this is now far from universal, universities are still expected to provide extensive social and sporting facilities. Other traditions, like the singlesubject degree and degree classification, survive throughout the system. Newman-style notions of liberal education and pastoral relations, and the rhetoric of a “community of scholars and students,” may have vanished, but universities still try to organize “face to face” teaching in seminars and small groups and to encourage independent learning and critical discussion. Overseas students trained in more didactic traditions sometimes have difficulty adapting to this. In the age of globalization and international league tables based essentially on research, American universities are the dominant model. Because of a partly shared history, and the English language, British universities are well placed to benefit from this and to recruit students internationally. Yet similarities can be misleading. National traditions, as elsewhere in Europe, remain strong. Britain has perhaps not learnt the lessons of multiplicity which derive from America’s longer history of democratic higher

B

160

education, and tensions between mass higher education and values derived from the elite age underlie many contemporary university problems. The most fundamental, perhaps, is whether the virtues of the British university tradition – free debate, the disinterested pursuit of truth, careful attention to teaching, and concern for the individual student – can be infused into higher education as a whole, or will be confined to an elite sector, reflecting the social privilege and unequal opportunities which, in a country where economic inequality is entangled with the cultural factor of social class, the British university hierarchy tends to reproduce.

Budget Management Rothblatt, Sheldon. 1997. The modern university and its discontents: The fate of Newman’s legacies in Britain and America. Cambridge: University Press. Sanderson, Michael. 1972. The universities and British industry, 1850–1970. London: Routledge. Sanderson, Michael. 1975. The universities in the nineteenth century. London: Routledge. Scott, Peter. 1993. The idea of the university in the 21st century: A British perspective. British Journal of Educational Studies 41: 4–25. Shils, Edward. 1955. The intellectuals. I. Great Britain. Encounter 4(4): 5–16. Tight, Malcolm. 2010. The golden age of academe: Myth or memory? British Journal of Educational Studies 58: 105–116. Whyte, William. 2015. Redbrick: A social and architectural history of Britain’s civic universities. Oxford: University Press.

Cross-References ▶ Mass Higher Education

Budget Management

References

▶ Financial Management, Higher Education Institutions

Anderson, Robert. 1992. Universities and elites in Britain since 1800. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Anderson, Robert. 2006. British universities past and present. London: Continuum. Anderson, Robert. 2015. Examinations and university models in nineteenth century Britain. Annali di Storia delle Università Italiane 1: 105–125. Bell, Robert, and Malcolm Tight. 1993. Open universities: A British tradition? Buckingham: Open University Press. Charle, Christophe. 2004. Patterns. In A history of the university in Europe. III. Universities in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (1800–1945), ed. Walter Rüegg, 33–75. Cambridge: University Press. Collini, Stefan. 2012. What are universities for? London: Penguin. Halsey, A.H. 1992. Decline of donnish dominion: The British academic professions in the twentieth century. Oxford: Clarendon. Newton, A.P. 1924. The universities and educational systems of the British Empire. London: Collins. Pietsch, Tamson. 2013. Empire of scholars: Universities, networks and the British academic world, 1850–1939. Manchester: University Press. Rothblatt, Sheldon. 1983. The diversification of higher education in England. In The transformation of higher learning 1860–1930: expansion, diversification, social opening, and professionalisation in England, Germany, Russia, and the United States, ed. Konrad H. Jarausch, 131–148. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Budgeting ▶ Financial Management, Higher Education Institutions ▶ Formula Funding, Higher Education ▶ Public Funding of Higher Education, Europe

Bureaucracies and Ministries, Higher Education Alfredo Marra1 and Roberto Moscati2 1 School of Law, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy 2 University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy

Introduction 1. To develop any line of thought on the importance that bureaucratic and political participations have on systems of higher education,

Bureaucracies and Ministries, Higher Education

light needs to be shed on some of the basic characteristics which differentiate the various systems right from their beginnings. First of all, it must be remembered how in the modern period the external power the universities relate to is the nation-state. A Continental European model can be identified, where the nation-state has become the main partner of the universities, following the reforms brought in by the Napoleonic system and the German model proposed by Wilhelm von Humboldt. This runs side by side with an Anglo-Saxon model in the UK and the USA where the state’s role has always been far more marginal. In greater detail, the European model has led to universities becoming the legal property of the state, in moves to ensure the priority of national interests and protect them by setting up a regulated legally defined area around the universities. The state control model which has in this way taken over Continental Europe is therefore based on the principle of “legal homogeneity” and follows the nationstate’s centralist logic, which developed with the French Revolution of 1789. Differently, in Anglo-Saxon states, the interests of the community were not identified in its origins with the concept of nation-state but with “proprietary individualism.” According to this line of thought, which is traced back to John Locke, the acquisition and accumulation of goods and wealth give the individual responsibility for the common good and existing social order. Thus, we find a different definition of “community” conceived in economic terms and linked to property, so community meaning wealth in community, or “common wealth” (Neave 2002). 2. As is well-known, the “coordination triangle” elaborated by Burton Clark in his comparative analysis of higher education systems is an extremely efficient synthetic model for defining the prevalent forces in the different national systems of higher education (Clark 1983). Systems which are not Anglo-Saxon inspired emerge more under the influence of academic oligarchies or state authorities and are less likely to open up to the market in the Anglo-Saxon way.

161

Nevertheless, the Clark model needs to be seen as the starting point of a situation that has become more and more complex, due to the increase in social players involved in higher education, and the ever-widening reference points for universities encompassing local, national, and supranational elements. It is telling, furthermore, how states – increasingly in the Humboldtian-Napoleonic systems following in the wake of the Anglo-Saxons – link universities closer to users (students, research backers, both understood as stakeholders). But at the same time, however, the states keep control over the results (and often the processes for obtaining them), where action convergence and uniformity mechanisms offer more and better guarantees than the old centralist system of bygone times, in other words: the rise of the “controlled autonomy” (Neave 1995, 1998; Capano 1998). 3. In more general terms, it must be kept in mind how higher education is involved in the processes of transformation influenced by the changes in knowledge and their importance on the development of the economy and society. In the most recent series of analyses and reflections on the subject, the description of the forms that the evolutionary process of higher education systems has taken in the specific contexts of the nation-states falls into three currents, identified with (a) NPM (see also chapter on “New Public Management or Neo-Liberalism, Higher Education” by I. Bleikli), (b) network governance, and (c) the neo-Weberian evolution (Ferlie et al. 2008; Paradeise et al. 2009). What really happened was that hybrid forms of the three models were produced. More precisely, there seems to be a greater tendency in Continental European countries toward either network governance models (in which new actors are being involved in policy making and realizing) or neoWeberian alternatives, which put more emphasis on legal and procedural rather than on economic aspects of the functions and tasks of the systems of public services and specifically higher education. Systems therefore are not so much market oriented but focusing on citizens’ needs. Therefore, the commitment arises to make public

B

162

bureaucracy more efficient and improve the state’s capacity to monitor and evaluate rather than reduce its impact. 4. Any reference to bureaucracy recalls the fact that it is becoming more and more important in the processes of development and organization of higher education systems. In fact, the organizations within the same systems have multiplied in relation to the increased request for training, both because of the rise in functions attributed to universities and the calls for performance and assessment which society makes. Whatever the system – Anglo-Saxon or otherwise – universities undergo frequent processes of transformation in order to answer the multiplying requests coming from the outside world. These dynamics all together call for an often exponential increase in bureaucraticadministrative activity. There are many readings of this process, and one of the major ones is the structuralist model, according to which the structural characteristics of the politico-administrative system help to explain the reform policies in higher education (Bleiklie and Michelsen 2013). This approach identifies six main tendencies in the evolution of higher education systems: (i) a process of hierarchization in universities according to the New Public Management model which attributes greater importance to a strong leadership and the managerial structure of executive power at the cost of the structures elected by the academic world, (ii) a revision of financing universities partially according to performance, (iii) the assessment of the universities, (iv) a greater stakeholder involvement in academic life, (v) a greater role given to supranational players (the EU, OCSE, the Bologna Process) in policies for higher education systems, and (vi) a greater individual autonomy for individual universities, but also a greater standardization of procedures and criteria for assessing performance. 5. It can be asked how far these tendencies have developed in the various different systems of higher education. The picture we have offers

Bureaucracies and Ministries, Higher Education

some features and differences which have effect on the evolution of the various systems: (a) In state-centralized structures, more general reforms can be carried out, while in decentralized ones, there are greater possibilities to hold back political decisions. In federal systems as in Germany and Switzerland, reform processes are slowed down by mechanisms like consultation and the right to veto. (b) Where there are majority, government’s public policies are more easily formed, while where consensus has to be sought, radical reforms are not favored. (c) In the dynamics of the relations between politicians and bureaucrats, the level of politicization of top civil servants is of fundamental importance, given that the relations between political power and civil service vertices affect the destiny of the reforms. A greater harmony favors incremental reform processes, while conflictual situations may lead to radical reforms. (d) The systems following the Napoleonic tradition – characterized by administrative cultures based on the central role of the law, strong control, and an abundance of regulations (the “Rechtsstaat” model) –differ greatly from Anglo-Saxon models, where the role of public interest holds sway. In Napoleonic-type systems, the implementation gap is most evident, while if the principle of the spoil system is introduced, the politician-mandarin relationship is strengthened, so that the reforms tend to be more radical. In any case, a reform responds to important characteristics concerning sociopolitical policies, political parties, as well as the establishment’s attitude to the need for reform and possibility of carrying it out. There therefore emerges the importance of behavioral factors in any explanation of the differences in putting reforms in place. Besides, behavior factors can have different effects from system to system in the politico-administrative contexts of the various states (Ongaro and Valotti 2008).

Bureaucracies and Ministries, Higher Education

Ministries and Bureaucrats in the Napoleonic Model 1. In an analysis of the political and administrative components, the differences between the Anglo-Saxon and Napoleonic systems are very evident, as we have just seen. Other details conditioning the impact of NPM on the Napoleonic-type systems need, however, to be kept in mind. In the first place, university goers are seen as citizens with rights and duties rather than clients of a public service. Then public functionaries are defined as public officials forming a separate social group of bureaucrats; accountability is viewed in legalistic rather than meritocratic terms. 2. A pertinent example is offered by the Italian system, which classifies as Napoleonic in inspiration but with some differences from both the Spanish and French models, the latter being the historical benchmark. Features of the Italian system include (i) established results tend to correspond to merely respecting the established norms, (ii) a spoil system which highlights the importance of loyalty to the reference group rather than evaluating and reaching the foreseen targets, and (iii) the government tendency to reverse the decisions taken by the preceding government. Furthermore, the country’s culture complicates the relation between politicians and the top administration, often emptying content of the reforms, which end by being only formally implemented (Ongaro and Valotti 2008). Among the Humboldtian-Napoleonic systems, Italy had its own story to tell. For more than 40 years after the creation of the Italian Constitution in 1948, political intervention, in particular by ministers, was of little significance, if not almost inexistent in the development of a higher education policy (Capano 1998, 211). Marginalized by the far more important school policy, higher education was for a long time entrusted to the Ministry of Education, which for a considerable period carried out the role of decision-maker. The literature has constantly highlighted the excess of formalism and bureaucracy in the management of university

163

education going right back to the early years of the unification of Italy in the 1860s and 1870s (Mortara 1977, 617; Melis 1994, 187; Capano 2011, 160). Over the last 25 years, however, in Italy as in the main European countries, there has been a series of changes which, partly inspired by the ideas of New Public Management, have substantially modified the setup of higher education and the relative roles of politicians and bureaucrats. Its beginnings coincide more or less with Law no.168/1989, which recognized university autonomy solemnly affirmed in the constitution, but till then only existing on paper. The same law also provided for the institution of a specific Ministry of the University and Scientific and Technological Research. The underlying idea was that only a strong center, capable of governing the system from a distance, would be able to guarantee the conditions necessary for individual universities to become autonomous. What can be called the “season of autonomy” (see also chapter on ▶ “Autonomy and Accountability in Higher Education, Western Europe” by A. Sursock) did not, however, enjoy a linear development, due to a plurality of factors. The First one which needs to be remembered is that eight different ministers followed one another in the first 12 years of the Ministry’s existence. Evidently far too many, without anyone staying for long enough to be able to elaborate an overall long-term policy. Furthermore, and this is the most significant fact, the progressive recognition of university autonomy was accompanied by a conspicuous production, especially by governments, of both primary (legal) and secondary (advisory) regulations (Monti 2007, 94). More generally speaking, the norms which gradually extended, at times ambiguously, the space for university autonomy, are both fragmentary and incremental. New norms are added to existing ones, so creating a stratification extending the legally regulated area wider, more tangled, and of increasingly difficult understanding (Cassese 2001a). The situation has inevitably increased the role of bureaucracy, de facto the sole center of power to select, interpret, and apply the norms.

B

164

In sum, it can be said that for the way the season of autonomy was put in place, it led to less bureaucracy – because the Ministry was deprived of the penetrating powers it had held before 1989 – but at the same time to more bureaucracy, as an effect of the uncertainty due to the exponential increase in rules and regulations. In more recent years, the situation had grown worse and worse. The universities, by now far more in number, are treated like all other public administrations and controlled by an enormous quantity of regulations. The financial regulations aim at containing costs, as a reaction to the economic crisis. The organizational ones aim at controlling a correct academic life, from insisting on impartial treatment to contrasting corruption. These prevalently administrative legislations have resulted in further expenses and more bureaucracy. According to some recent research (Vesperini 2013), the legislator intervened in university matters over 120 times in the decade 2004–2013, an average of more than once a month. In most cases the interventions took place at governmental and not parliamentary level, so witnessing the strong government pressure on universities. Beyond primary sources, there are a great quantity of various prescriptive acts to be added (rules, decrees, notes, etc.) dictated from the center by the Ministry and ANVUR, the government assessment agency, operative since 2011. In addition, with the creation of ANVUR, the system is further centralized, given that the results of its actions constitute by law the basis of almost all the procedures putting reforms in place. In many cases, in fact, ANVUR’s decisions are not limited to detailing the content of the law for its implementation, but they also carry out a function which executes and replaces the law at the same time. As a consequence, evaluation has fully entered administrative activity and has finished by following its rules, so that the weight of traditional ministerial bureaucracy is further burdened by evaluations declined in formalistic and bureaucratic terms (Cassese 2013). 3. At the level of single universities, resistance to reforms comes more from teaching than

Bureaucracies and Ministries, Higher Education

administrative staff. The teaching staff complain in general about the lack of information about the modalities of the innovations, which they have resisted less in cases of sticks and carrots mechanisms, linked to the coming into operation of the national system of evaluation. Reforms encounter different difficulties in being implemented in France, too. “The first reason is a high degree of individual resistance. The individual autonomy is enhanced by the fact that universities are loosely coupled organisations. . .many activities can be continued as before at the individual level because there is nothing to constrain these activities. . .The second reason deals with the presidents and their teams. These leaders. . .do not give enough attention to the implementation process. . .The third reason is linked to the rather difficult relationships between the group composed of the president, his team and the administrators on the one hand and the deans (and the academic and administrative staff within the faculties) on the other” (Muselin and MignotGerard 2002, 75). In the case of Spain, the introduction of the Bologna Process was delayed by the parallel debate over LOU, the law for national reform, where the teaching staff resisted for a longtime requests to modify yet again the curricula. Reforms are difficult to implement in Spain because of the problems in aligning the powers of the central state, local ones, and the universities themselves (Mora and Vidal 2005; Barone et al. 2010). It must be said in more general terms that in line with other countries, in Italy, evaluation processes added to the multiplication of relations with the outside world have sparked off in the universities a process of rationalization of the internal organizational mechanisms. It has led to an increased importance in the managerial dimension and therefore internal administration. Recently there has been a decided strengthening – sanctioned by the 2010 Reform Law – both of the decision-making bodies (rector and board of administration) and the managerial bodies (in particular the registrar, the top figure in the administration). The tendency is for a governance

Bureaucracies and Ministries, Higher Education

diarchy, with the registrar side by side with the rector. A similar situation has come into being in France, with a dual hierarchy, in which the président manages the vice présidents and the registrar manages the administration. Differently, in the Spanish system, the rector can count on an equipo rectoral formed by a certain number of vice rectors and a secretario general named by the rector, who together with the vice rectors and the government-appointed gerente form the Junta de Gobierno, which in principle offers a homogeneous model of governance. In various countries, there is no clear definition of the relations between governing bodies and bureaucracy, and there is often much uncertainty about the administration’s managerial competences and likewise the tasks and functions of the teaching staff. Inadequate and untrained administrative structures mean that a part of the managerial functions have fallen to the teaching staff. So in practice, there has been a noteworthy change in the internal responsibilities between teaching and administrative staff. The former are being more and more called upon to take on organizational and bureaucratic responsibilities, thus increasing uncertainty over roles and tasks. In the French case, it is interesting to observe a similar evolution of relations and roles between policy-forming and administrative bodies. “It seems as if the respective roles of the different actors were clear and easy to respect. This is reinforced by the fact that they all often stress that there is a clear divide between the roles of the decision-makers (the ‘politiques’ as the elected leaders are called) and the administration. The former are supposed to define the orientations and the latter to implement them. . . (but) many concrete examples show that the borderline between the political and the administrative roles is not that straightforward. But it is interesting to observe that the divide between strategy and execution, which is so often presented as a managerial rule for an efficient public management, is appropriated by the French senior managers” (Chatelain-Ponroy et al. 2014, 74).

165

Conclusions To sum up, the Italian, French, and Spanish systems of higher education are all characterized by the change processes common to systems in the global world, with particular influence of the NPM’s neoliberal approach. The interweaving of this approach with the traditions of the Napoleonic model has provoked hybrid transformations in the systems and the relation between the political (ministerial) and administrative (bureaucrat) dimensions. On one side, the centralized systems have been forced to modify their direct control thanks to the new functions that society is requiring from universities. It does not seem, however, that the steering at a distance strategy has been developed completely and the burden of national assessment and accreditation has been added to the still considerable weight of ministerial bureaucracy. On the other hand, the new roles universities are called to add to their existing ones require an increased organizational activity and therefore internal administrative duties. The various forms of “controlled autonomy” the universities enjoy bring with them multiple responsibilities and internal assessments which finish by attributing greater power to the managerial roles which belong to the administration. The systems belonging to the Napoleonic model probably feel more than others the transformational process in act. The difficulties in implementing the reforms signal this. At management level, the organization of the governance makes it difficult to reach and maintain a balance between meritocracy, democracy, and bureaucracy (Gornitzka et al. 1998, 44).

References Barone, C., et al. 2010. Le trasformazioni dei modelli di governance (The transformation of governance models). In Torri d’avorio in frantumi? (Hivory towers in fragments?), ed. R. Moscati, M. Regini, and M. Rostan, 131–196. Bologna: Il Mulino. Bleiklie, I., and S. Michelsen. 2013. Comparing HE policies in Europe. Structures and reform output in eight countries. Higher Education 65: 113–133. https://doi. org/10.10007/s10734-012-9584-6.

B

166 Capano, G. 1998. La politica universitaria (University politics). Bologna: Il Mulino. Capano, G. 2011. Un centro organizzato per non governare? (A centre organized not to govern?). In Governare le università. Il centro del sistema (Governing the universities. The centre of the system), ed. C. Bologna and G. Endrici, 157–174. Bologna: Il Mulino. Cassese, S. 2001. L’autonomia e il testo unico sull’università (The autonomy and the comprehensive law on university). Giornale di diritto amministrativo 5: 515–524. Cassese, S. 2013. L’ANVUR ha ucciso la valutazione, W la valutazione! (ANVUR has killed the evaluation, long life to the evaluation!). Il Mulino LXII (1): 73–79. https://doi.org/10.1402/44137. Chatelain-Ponroy, S., et al. 2014. The impact of recent reforms on the institutional governance of French universities. In International trends in university governance. Autonomy, self-government and the distribution of authority, ed. M. Schattock, 67–88. Abington: Routledge. Clark, R.B. 1983. The higher education system. Academic organization in cross-national perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press. Ferlie, E., C. Musselin, and G. Andresani. 2008. The steering of higher education system: A public management perspective. Higher Education 56 (3): 325–348. Gornitzka, Å., S. Kyvik, and I.M. Larsen. 1998. The bureaucratization of universities. Minerva 36: 21–47. Melis, G. 1994. Alle origini della Direzione generale per l’istruzione superiore, (At the origin of the general direction for the higher education). In L’università tra Otto e Novecento: i modelli europei e il caso italiano, (The university between nineteenth and twentieth century: The European models and the Italian case), ed. I. Porciani, 187–208. Napoli: Jovene. Monti, A. 2007. Indagine sul declino dell’università italiana, (Enquire on the decline of the italian university). Roma: Gangemi. Mora, J.-G., and J. Vidal. 2005. Two decades of change in Spanish universities: Learning the hard way. In Reform and change in higher education. Analysing policy implementation, ed. Å. Gornitzka, M. Kogan, and A. Amaral, 135–152. Dordrecht: Springer. Mortara, V. 1977. Lettera aperta su baroni e burocrati dalla periferia del sistema (Open letter on barons and bureaucrats from the outskirts of the system). Il Mulino XXV (252): 617–622. Muselin, C., and C. Mignot-Gerard. 2002. The recent evolution of French universities. In Governing higher education: National perspectives on institutional governance, ed. A. Amaral, G.A. Jones, and B. Karseth, 63–86. Dordrecht: Springer. Neave, G. 1995. On living in interesting times: Higher education in Western Europe 1985–1995. European Journal of Education 4: 378–393. Neave, G. 1998. The evaluative state reconsidered. European Journal of Education 3: 265–284.

Bureaucracy Neave, G. 2002. The stakeholders perspective historically explored. In Higher education in a globalising world, ed. J. Enders and O. Fulton, 17–37. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Ongaro, E., and G. Valotti. 2008. Public management reform in Italy: Explaining the implementation gap. International Journal of Public Sector Management 21 (2): 174–204. Paradeise, C., et al., eds. 2009. University governance: Western European comparative perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer. Vesperini, G. 2013. Iperregolazione e burocratizzazione del sistema universitario (Overregulation and bureaucratisation of the university system). Rivista trimestrale di diritto pubblico 4: 947–966.

Bureaucracy ▶ Autonomy and Accountability in Higher Education, Western Europe

Bureaucratization Process in Higher Education Christian Schneijderberg International Centre for Higher Education Research, University of Kassel, Kassel, Germany

Synonyms Administration; Authority; Red tape

Definition Bureaucratization is about 1) a defined set of regular activities and official duties, 2) stable and rule led with communication channels based on written documents assuring communication and attainment of goals, and 3) employment of qualified personnel with attributed duties and rights. Universities are bureaucratic organizations. By law research, teaching and knowledge and technology transfer are defined as the functions of universities. Formal regulations exist for

Bureaucratization Process in Higher Education

employing professors, structuring academic and administrative work, and filing student enrolment, progress, and examinations. In addition to the examples of traditional bureaucracy, if you wish, new(er) bureaucratization processes like standardized reporting of indicators, provision of information to university rankings and ratings, application of ISO-standards for university products and services, teaching reports, and auditing, accreditation, and evaluations procedures of (almost) every aspect of university life continuously enlarges the bureaucratization of universities. The new(er) bureaucratization processes are prominent in the new public management (see ▶ New Public Management) and governance (see ▶ Governance) discourse about organizational accountability and public transparency of universities. In countries like Germany, the bureaucratization of universities is part of universities becoming more independent from the state, with the state creating functional equivalents to what previously was directly controlled and steered by the ministries responsible for higher education and research. Research about bureaucracy was prominent roughly in the period from 1950 to 1980, when bureaucratic, organizational, and work processes were widely studied (e.g., van de Ven et al. 1976). Most, if not all, research builds on the basic ideas of bureaucracy formulated by Max Weber in Economy and Society (1978), first published in German in 1921. According to Weber modern bureaucracies follow a specific manner: “There is the principle of fixed and official jurisdictional areas, which are generally ordered by rules [. . .] by laws or administrative regulations” (Weber 1978: 956). The principle differentiates: 1. A defined set of regular activities and official duties. 2. Stable and rule led with communication channels based on written documents (“the files”) assuring that goals are communicated, e.g., to subordinates, and that these goals are reached. 3. Employment of qualified personnel with attribution of corresponding duties and rights; the explicit and implicit knowledge of these rules

167

are defined as a special technical learning, e.g., of legal, business, and management issues. Weber (1978: 957) makes a distinction between the state sphere, where “these three elements constitute bureaucratic agency,” and the private economic sphere, where “they constitute a bureaucratic enterprise.” Weber notes concerning public agency and private enterprise that in Continental Europe a strict distinction is made, whereas in Anglo-American and Asian countries the distinction of public and private is rather blurred. Bureaucratic agency and enterprise are regarded as rational and efficient mechanisms for the achievement of goals and services of and inside universities. Bureaucratic agency and enterprise are also regarded as an “instrument of power, of exercising control over people and over different spheres of life, and of continuous expansion of such power either in the interests of the bureaucracy itself or in the interests of some (often sinister) masters” (Eisenstadt 1959: 303), e.g., in university and departmental administration and management. Several approaches to studying and measuring bureaucratization can be found in the literature, mostly related to administration and organization theory. Among others, Pugh et al. (1968) use a multidimensional grid for the analysis of bureaucracy in organizations. The five distinct but interrelated dimensions are: 1. Specialization has three point of reference: division of labor within the organization, functional distribution of official duties, and numerous full-time positions requiring specialized training. 2. Standardization refers to regular events ranging from decision-making and management processes to teaching of students and doing research. Primarily teaching and research legitimize the organization, and decision-making and management processes award legitimacy to universities being run well. 3. Formalization tackles the extent to which rules of enrolment, procedures of promotion, instructions for employees, and communications about job descriptions or information-passing

B

168

documents like decisions by the university presidency are spelled out in written form. 4. Centralization addresses management and decision-making in universities, especially hierarchical levels, authorization of executive action, and jurisdictions of committees like the academic senate. Depending on the tradition of the higher education system and the size of organizations also decentralized management and decision-making in departments by deans, faculty committees, etc. have to be taken into consideration. 5. Configuration can be understood as an allencompassing organizational chart of the university defining every role, hierarchical interrelatedness and workflow, and outcome control. In centralized and decentralized university, management and administration configuration influences the role structure, e.g., of academics controlling administrators who are controlling clerks. The five dimensions can be high on one or more dimension and low on one or more other dimensions. Pugh et al. (1968) also stress that flexibility and traditions can influence bureaucratic processes in organizations. Though, bureaucracy being high or low does not only depend on its basic or extended dimensions as described by Weber (1978) and Pugh et al. (1968). For instance, van de Ven et al. (1976: 323) show that (bureaucratic and) processual work activities or tasks can be coordinated by programming (impersonal mode), e.g., via rules, plans, schedules, policies, procedures, and information systems, and feedback, using vertical and/or horizontal channels of communication for the information of individuals (personal mode) or groups (group mode). Both, individuals and groups, can be informed in scheduled and unscheduled occasions. Van de Ven et al. (1976) find that task uncertainty, task interdependence, and group size are valuable predictors for a more or less bureaucratic coordination of work in organizations: Growing size of a group has an impersonalizing effect on the coordination of work; the more task interdependence and task uncertainty exists, the more impersonal and group modes of coordination

Bureaucratization Process in Higher Education

are effective; person modes of coordination are used in addition to impersonal modes, except for programmed coordination of work. In a recent study Walsh and Lee (2015) show that the work organization in large research groups in science becomes more bureaucratized. Large groups have a clear division of tasks between academic ranks and tasks at hand, e.g., doing research, training of pre- and postdoctoral candidates, and publishing. Task uncertainty in interdisciplinary research groups is met by clear division of work. Walsh and Lee (2015: 1597) find that for the technology of production “interdependence has significant effects on bureaucratic structuring, distinct from the effects of size, including negative effects on division of labor, but positive effects of standardization. Looking further, the effect of size on bureaucratization, especially division of labor, is larger in high interdependency than in low interdependency work settings.” In higher education studies bureaucratization is often addressed to discuss the organization of academic work (e.g., Blau 1994). Weber (1978) conceptualizes bureaucratization and professionalization as social aspects of rationalization. Ritzer (1975) points out that bureaucracy and profession are not antithetical and share common features. In Weber’s writing, Ritzer (1975: 631) identifies ten characteristics of a profession which are power, systematic knowledge, rational training, vocational qualifications, specialization, fulltime occupation, existence of a clientele, salaries, promotions, and professional duties. Already an early study by Hall (1968) suggests that professionals working in an organization affect the structure of the organization, and, at the same time, the organizational structure does affect the process of professionalization. On the one side, the process of bureaucratization is regarded as compromising the academic profession from inside, what Kogan (2007) labeled as the bureaucratization of the collegium, and from outside with professors becoming managed professionals by administrators (Rhoades 1998). On the other side, bureaucratization secures professional control in universities, evaluation of quality, etc. (Kogan 2007). The tension of professional and bureaucratic organization can

Bureaucratization Process in Higher Education

be pinpointed by referring to mechanisms of mediation or control (Ouchi 1980): Bureaucracies are found to be efficient, when both goal incongruence and performance ambiguity are moderately high, what applies to the organization of research, teaching, and knowledge and technology transfer in universities; professions, academic communities, or clans are efficient when goal incongruence is low, e.g., primacy of research, and performance ambiguity is high, e.g., judged by peer review (see ▶ Peer Review). Acknowledging this, it can be concluded that “a stable service-oriented bureaucracy (the type of bureaucracy depicted in the Weberian ideal type of bureaucracy) is based on the existence of some equilibrium or modus vivendi between professional autonomy and societal (or political) control” (Eisenstadt 1959: 313).

Cross-References ▶ Academic Profession, Higher Education ▶ Governance ▶ New Public Management ▶ New Public Management and the Academic Profession ▶ Peer Review

169

References Blau, Peter. 1994. The organization of academic work. New Brunswick: Transaction Press. Eisenstadt, Shmuel. 1959. Bureaucracy, bureaucratization, and debureaucratization. Administrative Science Quarterly 4 (3): 302–320. Hall, Richard. 1968. Professionalization and bureaucratization. American Sociological Review 33 (1): 92–104. Kogan, Maurice. 2007. The academic profession and its interface with management. In Key challenges to the academic profession, ed. Maurice Kogan and Ulrich Teichler, 159–174. Kassel: INCHER. Ouchi, William. 1980. Markets, bureaucracies, and clans. Administrative Science Quarterly 25 (1): 129–141. Pugh, Derek, David Hickson, Christopher Hinings, and Christopher Turner. 1968. Dimensions of organization structure. Administrative Science Quarterly 13: 65–105. Rhoades, Gary. 1998. Managed professionals: Unionized faculty and restructuring academic labor. Albany: State University Press. Ritzer, George. 1975. Professionalization, bureaucratization and rationalization: The views of Max Weber. Social Forces 53 (4): 627–634. de Ven, Van, Andre Delbecq Andrew, and Richard Koenig. 1976. Determinants of coordination modes within organizations. American Sociological Review 41: 322–338. Walsh, John, and You-Na Lee. 2015. The bureaucratization of science. Research Policy 44: 1584–1600. Weber, Max. 1978. Economy and society. Vol. 2. Berkeley: University of California Press.

B

C

Capacity Building

Chair System in Higher Education

▶ Higher Education in Post-Conflict Settings

Catholic Identity-Based Internationalization ▶ Identity and Internationalization in Catholic Higher Education

Census Data ▶ Performance Indicators in Higher Education

Centers, Institutes, and Networks Affiliated with the UN ▶ Role of United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in the Field of Higher Education Research

Central Europe ▶ Autonomy and Accountability in Higher Education, Eastern Europe

Michael Dobbins Institut für Politikwissenschaft, Goethe University of Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany

Origins The university chair system has its roots in the earliest European universities established between the thirteenth and sixteenth century. Ever since, it has taken on various context-specific forms both in Europe and beyond. The term “chair” is derived from the Greek and Latin word catheda which was originally translated into German as Lesestuhl (reading chair). Later the term evolved into the German word Lehrstuhl (teaching chair) which described a high position of a teaching professor or professor ordinarius at a university. Originally, university chairs were a reflection of the guild-like internal structure of the first European universities (e.g., Bologna, Paris, Florence), in which research and teaching activities were centered in small units specializing in a highly specific area of inquiry. These units were headed by a master, or maestro in Italian, who had highly specialized knowledge (Clark 1983). He directed and oversaw the research activities of small groups of “pupils” or “apprentices,” i.e., students wishing to become acquainted with his field of inquiry based on his guidance.

© Springer Nature B.V. 2020 P. N. Teixeira, J. C. Shin (eds.), The International Encyclopedia of Higher Education Systems and Institutions, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8905-9

172

The university reforms in Prussia under Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767–1835) resulted in the further institutionalization of the chair system as a model of academic governance, both in Germany and far beyond. In university systems which initially followed the Humboldtian tradition, teaching and research were inseparably intertwined and structurally concentrated in the individual professorial chairs (Froese 2013). The chairholders became the central decision-making units in university governance, while academic senates consisting nearly exclusively of professorial chairholders cemented their collective power. This system of governance became predominant in much of pre-communist Central and Eastern Europe (in particular Poland, the Czech Republic, and Baltics), Italy, Austria, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia as well as several Japanese universities during the age of German scientific dominance (Cutts 1997). Numerous research-oriented American and British universities also introduced professorial chairs in certain instances, although their meaning later took on different connotations (see below). In systems highly influenced by the German model, professorial chairholders generally came to enjoy not only civil servant status but were also in most cases appointed for life. Although the chairholders formally operated in the service of society and science as a whole, they were generally most committed to their specific scientific discipline. Along these lines, it was assumed that chairholding professors could not be effectively steered or controlled by governments or markets. This form of governance was reinstated in postwar Germany (Burtscheidt 2010) and several leading research universities in Japan as well (Cutts 1997). In the United States, Great Britain, and other English-speaking countries, by contrast, academic departments became the main decisionmaking units (see below).

Functional Logic of the Chair System and Critique Thereof In chair-based systems, university governance is highly compartmentalized, as each chair usually

Chair System in Higher Education

enjoys a supreme degree of autonomy, not least due to their highly specific foci of research and teaching. This results in a decentralized, collegially organized structure, in which overarching university governance can be viewed as the aggregation of the often highly heterogeneous preferences of individual chairholders. According to Clark (1987: 64), professorial chairholders operate within their own academic “dominions,” constituting bastions of authority at the microlevel (1983: 40) or “small monopolies in thousand parts.” (1983: 140). This institutional setup has concrete ramifications for all dimensions of university governance. For example, in many chairbased systems funding is generally streamlined directly from the government (sometimes via university management) to the individual chairs (Froese 2013). This allows them extensive leeway in the selection of academic staff. Historically, chairholders have unilaterally chosen their research staff and doctoral candidates. In the German and Polish cases, this even applies to postdoctoral academics seeking a habilitation. This has traditionally put aspiring researchers in a state of direct subordination to and dependence on chairholders (Enders 2001), hence frequently limiting their autonomy over the content and substance of their own research projects. In such constellations academic advancement is often the function of the personal, individual relationship between the professor and his/her doctoral candidates, making research a highly personal experience, heavily influenced by the character, personality, and individual demands of the chairholder. In some chair systems, such as Italy, attachment to a professorial chairholder is seen as essentially the only strategy for career advancement (Martinotti and Giasanti 1977). The chair system in many ways constitutes a pyramid-like structure, in which academic power, prestige, and autonomy are concentrated in individual chairs – at the bottom of the pyramid, while other subordinate academics often remain in a state of limbo and uncertainty. This is frequently reflected by their limited work contracts, weak leverage over university governance, and, subsequently, a high degree of professional inequality within universities (Enders 2001). This pyramid

Chair System in Higher Education

structure also directly impacts the internal governance of universities, as the highly specialized chairs often may hinder the creation of overarching university policy. In other words, the institutional fragmentation resulting from the disciplinespecific chairs may undermine the capacity for institutional leadership (Dobbins et al. 2011). Thus university management has little leverage over the setup, orientation, and everyday research and teaching activities of individual chairs. The frequent informal “nonaggression pacts” between chairs may lead to situations in which all chairholders can expect there to be no decisions which infringe upon their collective interests. Thus, individual professors are often averse to making uncooperative decisions, which would undermine majority positions, as this might lead to later punishment. Hence, there is a strong status quo bias, which in the German case is frequently viewed as the reason for the lacking capacity for reform (see Schimank 2005: 8). This does not go to say that there is no competition in chair systems. In fact, chairholders find themselves in a state of permanent competition for third-party funds, qualified student assistants, and doctoral candidates, while extreme competition among postgraduates over limited research positions at relevant research chairs often exists. Nevertheless, the chair system generally has been associated with institutional immobility (Burtscheidt 2010: 106), protection of privilege (Clark 1987: 153), and low job satisfaction among nonprofessorial academics. Recent research has shown that chair systems tend to be more sluggish in implementing what is viewed as “modern” or “market-oriented” higher education policy (e.g., entrepreneurial university management, socioeconomic accountability, extensive quality assurance) (see Dobbins 2011). Along these lines, scholars have pointed out further purported weaknesses. For example, in chair systems, there are often significant difficulties in reconciling heterogeneous professorial preferences in the recruitment of new high-ranking staff or professors. This often results in the nomination of “compromise candidates” despite their weaker qualifications (Färber and Spangenberg 2008) or even the breakdown of recruitment processes due to the

173

inability of the chairholders to reach an agreement and the lacking means of intervention of university management. Froese (2013) has also lamented the constraints that the chair structure imposes on efforts for academic departments to pursue joint scientific aims. Thus, the cellular structure of the chair system may be seen as barrier to scientific innovation.

Decline or Renaissance of the Chair Model? If one exclusively focused on the higher education systems of industrialized western countries as well as those of South America and Africa, one could justifiably argue that the chair model is in a state of decline or has already died out. In the United States, weaker governmental regulation of higher education has enabled greater structural diversity at universities. In general though, most American universities – including those heavily influenced by the Humboldtian model – moved to department-based structures in the twentieth century. Interestingly, the department structure was largely the result of the transfer of the Germanbased chair model to American graduate schools. The import of the chair system soon prompted scholars and administrators to analyze its various weaknesses as described above. Subsequently, most graduate schools sought to elevate the department to the main decision-making unit and break down the segmented chair-based structures (Ben-David 1984). This development coincided with the expansion of higher education and an overall drive to dismantle elitist, class-based structures in education. From an academic perspective, the department was seen as more conducive to the bundling of scientific expertise and also catering to a broader and more diverse student clientele. In fact, the term “chair” took on a different connotation in the American context and now designates the head of the department, i.e., department chair, to whom all department members are to some degree responsible. In Scandinavia, Belgium and the Netherlands, the chair model also remained prominent until the 1960s, in particular in the social sciences and

C

174

humanities. However, these systems gradually adopted department-like structures and nowadays frequently exhibit various hybrid forms in-between the German chair system and the US department system, with a tendency toward the department model (Röbken 2004). Even in Germany, where the chair model was the most deeply entrenched, numerous leading universities (e.g., Freiburg, Heidelberg) have shifted toward the department- or faculty-based structures, while some other German (and Austrian) universities have at least nominally replaced the chairs (Lehrstühle) with the Professuren (professorships). In Canada, the United States, Great Britain, and several western European countries (e.g., Belgium, the Netherlands), universities have frequently introduced the so-called endowed chairs based on large financial contributions from leading enterprises (e.g., the Bombardier Chairs in Canada) or named after distinguished scholars, often for a limited time period. One prominent example in the United Kingdom, which also largely shifted to department structures, is the prestigious Lucasian Chair of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge (UK). It was named after its endower Henry Lucas (1610–1663) and has been held by internationally renowned scholars such as Isaac Newton and Stephen Hawking. By contrast, many post-communist countries have countered the trend toward the abolishment or structural adaptation of the chair model. In particular, Poland and the Czech Republic, and also (historically less Humboldt-oriented) Romania and Bulgaria, drew heavily on the chair system existing in the prewar era or during the AustriaHungary Empire. The chair structure, buffered off by numerous new intermediate bodies (e.g., academic senates, rectors’ conferences) was seen as the most effective means of protecting collective academic interests against the state (Neave 2003). This structural compartmentalization of the university was largely motivated by extreme sensitivities of the academic community toward any kind of external intervention after decades of communist rule (Scott 2002; Dobbins 2011). Thus the chair system and related institutions of academic self-administration were regarded as the form of

Chair System in Higher Education

governance which best represented democracy. It remains to be seen in the coming years whether this one last strong bastion of the traditional chair model will remain entrenched amid large-scale higher education expansion and globalization or whether post-communist democracies will also gradually shift toward department-oriented or other hybrid governance structures.

References Ben-David, Joseph. 1984. The scientist’s role in society: A comparative study. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Burtscheidt, Christine. 2010. Humboldts falsche Erben: Eine Bilanz der deutschen Hochschulreform. Frankfurt: Campus. Clark, Burton. 1983. The higher education system. Berkeley: University of California Press. Clark, Burton. 1987. Academic life. Small worlds. Different worlds. Lawrenceville: Princeton University Press. Cutts, Robert. 1997. An empire of schools: Japan’s universities and the molding of a national power elite. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe. Dobbins, Michael. 2011. Higher education policies in central and eastern Europe: Convergence towards a common model? Basingstoke: Palgrave. Dobbins, Michael, Eva-Maria Vögtle, and Christoph Knill. 2011. An analytical framework for the cross-country comparison of higher education governance. Higher Education 62 (5): 665–683. Enders, Jürgen. 2001. A chair system in transition: Appointments, promotions and gate-keeping in German higher education. Higher Education 41 (1–2): 3–25. Färber, Christine, and Ulrike Spangenberg. 2008. Wie werden Professuren besetzt? Chancengleichheit in Berufungsverfahren. Frankfurt: Campus. Froese, Anna. 2013. Organisation der Forschungsuniversität. Wiesbaden: Springer. Martinotti, Guido, and Alberto Giasanti. 1977. The robed baron: The academic profession in the Italian university. Higher Education 6: 189–207. Neave, Guy. 2003. On the return from Babylon: A long voyage around history, ideology and systems change. In Real-time systems – reflections on higher education in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Slovenia, ed. J. File and L. Goedegebuure, 16–37. Enschede: Logo CHEPS, University of Twente. Röbken, Heinke. 2004. Inside the knowledge factory: Organization change in business schools in Germany, Sweden and the USA. Wiesbaden: DUV. Schimank, Uwe (2005) ‘Die akademische Profession und die Universitäten: „New Public Management“ und eine drohende Entprofessionalisierung’, in: Klatetzki, Thomas / Tacke, Veronika (eds) Organisation und

Changing Legal Framework for Higher Education Profession, Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 143–164. Scott, Peter. 2002. Reflections on the reform of higher education in central and eastern Europe. Higher Education in Europe 27 (1–2): 137–152.

Change Management ▶ Models of Change in Higher Education

Changes and Continuities ▶ Historical Perspective, Research in Higher Education

Changing Legal Framework for Higher Education David Palfreyman New College University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Introduction This essay considers the changing legal framework within which higher education (HE – see Palfreyman and Temple 2017) operates in various countries and legal systems. The concept of “The Law of Higher Education” (in, e.g., Farrington and Palfreyman (2012) for the UK and Kaplin and Lee (2013) or Alexander and Alexander (2011) for the USA) covers the ways in which the law of a country impacts upon the structure, governance, and management of the universities, colleges, and institutes as the higher education institutions (HEIs) within which HE is delivered. This will include the law relating to, say, premises safety and employee health and safety being applied in the same way to these HEIs as to any other organization or business, public or commercial. Similarly, the law relating to data protection, employment contracts, discrimination, freedom of information, or

175

intellectual property ownership and exploitation generally and broadly applies to HEIs as for other entities. There will, however, be special aspects of how the law treats HE by way of, notably, (1) the legal status of HEIs, how they are created, how they acquire degree-awarding powers, and how they are funded by government; (2) the studentHEI legal relationship and curtailed rights of the former to sue the latter for academic malpractice or negligence in its delivery of teaching and examining (via the concept of judicial deference to academic judgment); and (3) the issue of academic freedom, which often links to the employment privilege of faculty tenure in some HEIs. Next those three aspects are explored in terms of how the politics of HE and the making of public policy concerning the structure and financing of HE and HEIs lead to legislation as the framework for applying special HE law to HEIs. And we end with a case study on the dramatically changing legal landscape for English HE and HEIs as a result of a series of public policy decisions over the past 15 years that (re-)introduced and then steadily increased the tuition fees charged to undergraduates and now leading to the almost complete removal of the direct taxpayer subsidy of undergraduate teaching and culminating in significant legislation passed in 2017 for the regulation of the new market-oriented and studentconsumer context of HE delivery.

Public or Private? First, however, a short note on the confusing issue of who “owns” and “controls” the HEI: is it a public body or a private entity? In the USA the HEIs are either public or private, in the former case always nonprofit and in the latter as mainly also nonprofit but with significant for-profit commercial providers of HE (HEPs). Thus, for instance, Berkeley is a campus within the public state-owned/funded nonprofit University of California system; Harvard, MIT, and Stanford are private nonprofits; and the University of Phoenix is a for-profit. That is not to say that private HEIs such as Princeton or Yale do not receive significant public funds for research as

C

176

grants from federal agencies or that a state university such as Michigan does not have sizeable nonpublic income streams, especially by way of tuition fees and commercially funded research. The states will have legislation to determine the control of the state-funded HEIs, some states imposing more direct control than others via Boards of Regents, elected or governornominated; the US law on charities controls the private nonprofits through their lay-dominated Boards of Trustees; and US companies’ legislation governs the for-profits via their Boards of Directors. In the UK all HEIs are private in terms of being independent legal entities, almost all as nonprofit charitable corporations created either by Royal Charter (New College, say, in 1379 or the 1900s civic universities in such cities as Bristol or Birmingham and the 1960s new campus universities such as Warwick, Sussex, and York) or by statute when in 1992 all the former publicly owned/controlled polytechnics were made into independent entities (such as Oxford Brookes University or Coventry University). These UK HEIs are not owned/controlled by the state and are not public bodies, albeit receiving public funds for teaching and for research: they are subject to the case law of the arcane law of corporations (Halsbury 2010; as distinct from more modern companies’ legislation) and to charity law (Halsbury 2015) and operate through lay-dominated Boards or Councils with the members being charity trustees. There are also a growing number of for-profit commercial HEIs, which do not receive public grant funding for either teaching or research: they are governed by company law and a board of directors. Australia is similar to the UK, as is New Zealand. Latin American nations, as for many Asian countries, have a mix of public nonprofit and private nonprofit HEIs, with a widely varying quantity of for-profit HEPs. In Europe, beyond the UK, it is generally the case that HE is a free or low-fee publicly funded and publicly controlled system, with much debate about the introducing of or the increasing of tuition fees and also about the degree of autonomy to be granted to public HEIs in terms of budget control, the makeup of their governing bodies, freedom to

Changing Legal Framework for Higher Education

select faculty, whether student access to HE is open or selective, etc. – a few EU or Bologna Process (BP) member states have significant elements of private for-profit HE provision, with a lesser number of nonprofit private HEPs.

The Politics of HE, HE Public Policy, and HE Legislation The University is an entity dating back to its origins as a European medieval guild – of students at the University of Bologna (emerging in the 1080s) and of academics at the University of Paris (the 1150s) and then a little later at Oxford (the 1160s) – the latter masters-model soon eclipsing the student-model. This academic guild model still prevails at Oxford and Cambridge as universities (and within the colleges as part of their federal structures), where, uniquely globally, the faculty are sovereign (Tapper and Palfreyman 2011). Everywhere else a lay-dominated board of governors, with varying degrees of local or central government power or influence in appointing such governors, “owns” and largely controls the HEI, subject to some degree of devolved power and authority to the academics or faculty operating via a Senate, an Academic Board, or similar body within the HEI’s constitution (Tapper and Palfreyman 2010). Over the centuries the university as a concept and model has survived and developed: initially negotiating its way between the power of the Monarch and of the Church, latterly adjusting to the direct control or at least the strong influence of Government, especially where and when (notably the Golden Age of the 1950s and 1960s) government funding of HE was generous (and perhaps overly so?). In recent decades in many countries such public funding has declined as HE has “massified” so as to become much more costly to the taxpayer and as government priorities for spending have changed (especially the cost of aging demographics by way of pensions, health care, and social care) – for instance, in the Netherlands the number of students grew by about 100,000 between 2000 and 2014, while the government funding per student per year declined by some

Changing Legal Framework for Higher Education

25% (van der Zwaan 2017, pp. 68–69); it was a similar story in the UK as HE “massified” from the mid-1980s until around 2000 when tuition fees were (re-)introduced to begin to correct for the inability of government to afford mass HE as the funding levels of a smaller elite HE system. In addition, some detect a neoliberal agenda to shift HE away from being a publicly provided free good to HEIs operating in a HE market with students paying tuition fees and becoming consumers: HEIs slide down from the ivory tower on the acropolis and (re-)enter the sordid agora! In addition, a “new public management” Zeitgeist in very many countries has called for greater transparency and accountability for HEI’s use of public funds, questioning the efficiency of and cost control within HE as well as its effectiveness in enhancing the employability of its graduates and thereby contribute to the economy (see, for instance, Martin (2011) for a powerful critique of the alleged poor governance, weak management, rent-seeking behavior, declining quality, inadequate cost control, and low productivity that, he argues, characterizes HE). The result of this “politics of HE” is the determination of public policy on HE that then leads to a changing legal framework within which HEIs have to operate. Yet, while there may well be a global neoliberal driving force behind the trajectory of a national HE system, there are in this complex mix of “the politics of HE” also aspects of the political culture of the country and of its historical attitudes toward the concept of the idea and ideal of the university that will shape just how far along that trajectory a system might move over time. And the changing legal framework manifests itself in some nations as “hard” law by way of new legislation directly controlling HEIs (or in some cases devolving autonomy to them as a process of deregulation), for example, typically a new “Higher Education Law” in the civil code nations where usually HEIs are predominantly public and state-controlled. Or the change is implemented as “soft” law in terms of how the flow of government subsidy of HE influences HEIs – for example, in England, as a common-law country where HEIs are private corporations and not public bodies, HEFCE’s

177

(the Higher Education Funding Council for England) grant/subsidy-distributing function steadily fades, and it becomes something of a reluctant regulator of an evolving HE marketplace. (See, by way of discussion of this shifting HE landscape, for the USA Labaree 2017; for the UK, Palfreyman and Tapper 2014; and for Europe and beyond, van der Zwaan 2017.) But, of course, the pendulum of history and public policy-making can swing back – the 2017 general election in the UK had the Labour Party promising the abolition of the £9250 pa university tuition fees (and Labour duly increased its “youth” vote, gaining 40% of the overall vote to the Conservatives at c42% emerging as the largest single party in the Commons). In Germany substantial tuition fees for undergraduates were introduced – and then withdrawn a few years later – while in oil-rich Norway free HE is written into law. There is, of course, no “right” answer as to how to split the cost of HE between the taxpayer and the student/ family in terms of the assumed public-private benefits (McMahon 2009); but the trend globally is toward such cost sharing via the introduction of tuition fees (Heller and Callender 2013). Thus, the “soft” law “guidance” from government to agencies distributing funds to HEIs may change, or the “hard” law – whether very detailed or rather general – may need to be changed. Almost all such framework legislation in the civil law systems tends to incorporate key concepts: HE as a public good, freedom of HEIs from political interference but with autonomy being linked to accountability, fair access for students (and fairness or equity may involve such dimensions as gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic background, and rural-urban home residence), democratic governance of HEIs but often also increasingly allowing firm management by the administration (the rector becomes a CEO), quality assurance regimes for teaching, varying elements of protection for the student as a consumer part financing his/her HE via tuition fees, the adoption of the BP degree cycle system, and so on (see Chap. 25, pp. 684–702, of Farrington and Palfreyman 2012, for discussion of “Higher Education Law in the European Civil Law Systems”).

C

178

The Student-HEI Legal Relationship and Judicial Deference to Academic Judgment In every legal jurisdiction, it is as a matter of judicial or tribunal policy that students are not able to challenge HEIs on the basis of an alleged failure to deliver the student-university contractto-educate at the appropriate standard of skill and care reasonably to be expected of the normally competent HEI and its faculty. Similarly, in tort law, the HEI and its academics are sheltered from accusations of academic malpractice or professional negligence – even in the USA where actions in negligence are rather common. This is because there is a fear of the courts or tribunals being clogged by aggrieved students challenging academic grades and degree results, as well as because the judiciary is ill-equipped to secondguess the actions of academics as experts when properly exercising their academic judgment. This provides HEIs and indeed academics as professionals with a degree of judicial immunity that no longer is available to, say, doctors and lawyers who once may have enjoyed a similarly privileged position: in academe there is still a Get Out Of Jail Free card! The student can, however, challenge in court academic or disciplinary decisions where there appears to have been procedural failings within the terms of the contractual relationship in the common-law jurisdictions or at a tribunal where there is a deficiency in the behavior of the public body HEI in the civil code systems. This might arise because, say, it was supposedly an inquorate meeting of the exam board or the student’s marks was added up wrongly, or where concrete elements of a course were promised but not delivered, or where published procedures for complaints, appeals, and disciplinary action were not properly followed or were incompatible with contractual or administrative fairness. In the common-law jurisdictions, it is clearly established from case law stretching back over a century that the HEI is in a B2C, business-toconsumer, contractual relationship with the student and that consumer protection law applies. It is obviously the case that the contract is a prolonged one by any service industry standards and

Changing Legal Framework for Higher Education

a hugely complex one in that it requires the very active participation of the student to take full advantage of the teaching/learning and assessment opportunities being delivered with reasonable care and skill by the HEI. It is not enough to register, paying the tuition fees where levied, and await the award of the degree, just as, sadly, joining a gym does not in itself lead to weight loss without some effort. In the context of students across many nations now paying significant tuition fees to public HEIs and increasingly to for-profit commercial HEPs, however, it seems possible that a legal challenge to this judicial convention of deference to properly exercised expert academic judgment that reached a high level within the court hierarchy might see the convention overturned as inappropriate for what is a market-based and more consumerist model of HE delivery, compared to the norm of free or nearly free HE as a public good or service that almost universally prevailed some decades ago. That would indeed be a very substantial change in the legal framework for HE. (See Chap. 6 of Palfreyman and Tapper 2014, re “The Student as Consumer: Legal Framework and Practical Reality.”)

Academic Freedom and Faculty Tenure The concept of academic freedom, often linked to the idea of faculty tenure, is much discussed, much abused, and much misunderstood. It can be said to range from a minimalist interpretation – a legal protection for the academic guild in going about its professional teaching and research tasks unfettered by random government interference – to one where academe and academics are charged with being, or self-appointed as, “the conscience of society” and having “to speak truth to power” (Fish 2014; Finkin and Post 2009). In the USA it is probably less protected by law than academe realizes or would like; in the UK there is some degree of statutory protection; in other countries the legislative wording may appear strong, but the practical political reality can be very different. Thus, as a few examples, French law confirms: “researchers and teachers are fully independent

Changing Legal Framework for Higher Education

and enjoy full freedom of speech in the course of their research and teaching activities, providing they respect principles of tolerance and objectivity”; and for Germany: “art and science research and teaching are free [but] freedom of teaching does not absolve from loyalty to the constitution.” In the USA two Supreme Court cases set the framework: from 1957 in Sweeney we hear of “the essentiality of freedom in the community of American universities. . . Teachers and students must always remain free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding. . . It is the business of a university to provide that atmosphere which is most conducive to speculation, experiment and creation. It is an atmosphere in which prevail ‘the essential four freedoms of a university’ to determine for itself on academic grounds who may teach, what may be taught, how it should be taught, and who may be admitted to study.” And from Keyishian (1967): “The classroom is peculiarly the ‘marketplace of ideas’. The nation’s future depends upon leaders trained through wide exposure to that robust exchange of ideas which discovers truth.” The turmoil of the politics of HE – which in turn occasionally in some countries triggers at least debate if not attempts to amend the legal framework that seeks to protect academic freedom, whether narrowly or expansively interpreted – opens up controversies over such as campus free speech, student “safe spaces”, whether academics as employees can widely criticize the governance and management of their employing institutions, and whether academic freedom really gives faculty the duty and scope to offer opinions (beyond any general free speech rights as an ordinary citizen) on political and social issues not necessarily linked to their obvious area of academic expertise. It is interesting that there were attempts as the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 passed through Parliament to expand the legal protection of academic freedom in English law beyond this wording dating from 1988 legislation: “academic staff have freedom within the law to question and test received wisdom, and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions, without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or

179

privileges they may have at their institutions.” The amendment to the Bill at one stage read: “universities are autonomous institutions and must uphold the principles of academic freedom and speech. . . [and also] must ensure that they promote freedom of thought and expression, and freedom from discrimination [as well as being] free to act as critics of government and the conscience of society” (assuming that an academe of experts has not in fact now forfeited that role to the pundits of the modern think-tank: Drezner 2017). As enacted, however, the 2017 legislation simply instructs that the new HE regulator, the Office for Students, “must have regard to the need to protect the institutional autonomy of English higher education providers”; and this idea of institutional autonomy or academic freedom is later defined as the freedom to determine what to teach, how to teach it, who shall teach, and whom to teach – while individual academic freedom continues to be protected by several references to the 1988 wording as set out above.

Case Study: The 2017 Higher Education and Research Act in England and Regulation of the HE Market by the New Office for Students This case study of HE in England over the past few years is arguably of an extreme policy experiment within “the politics of higher education” – that policy stance may forever remain an outlier example; or it may yet become an exemplar copied elsewhere! This is what has happened. The Higher Education and Research Act 2017 (HERA17) sets out a new legal framework for the delivery of HE in England – to the extent that, as discussed above, in a common-law jurisdiction where universities are private corporations and not directly state-owned/controlled, there can be any direct government regulation of HE and of HEIs. In essence, the Act recognizes the shift over recent decades of English HE as a seminationalized and substantially publicly provided/ funded activity to being an economic activity operating in a quasi-market, charging high tuition fees that create the student-qua-consumer and

C

180

require the more robust application of consumer protection laws to the student-university contractto-educate: the Act seeks to regulate the HE market that public policy for funding mass HE has engendered (Palfreyman and Tapper 2014). The very tone of the legislation is expressed in the name of the new regulator, the Office for Students (OfS), as evocative of many such agencies created over the decades of the privatization of former state-delivered nationalized industries such as water, telecommunications, electricity, post, and railways – Ofwat, Ofcom, Oftel, etc. The old idea of a HE funding agency passes into history as the OfS replaces HEFCE (once the UGC, the University Grants Committee, and later the UFC, the Universities Funding Council), which is not surprising if the funding from government of undergraduate teaching has been almost entirely substituted for by students paying tuition fees. In so far as there is any significant state financing of HE, the Act creates the UKRI (the United Kingdom Research and Innovation body) as a new agency to take over the work of HEFCE in allocating research support monies to HEIs on the basis of the periodic REF assessments (Research Excellence Framework – once the Research Assessment Exercise, RAE): the vast majority of such REF funding now going to a small minority of universities (led by Oxford, Cambridge, UCL, ICL, KCL) and the distribution is such that a dozen effectively “teaching-only” HEIs get merely one-half of 1% of the REF pot! The HERA17 provides a useful case study of the matters government might want to address in adjusting the legal framework for HE as countries struggle with the financing of mass HE and other stakeholder claims on public finances. So, to work through the legislation, first, “a body corporate called the Office for Students is established” which “must have regard to” inter alia “the need to encourage competition between English higher education providers” and “the need to promote value for money in the provision of higher education by English higher education providers” – all based on “the principles of best regulatory practice” (including the activities of the OfS being “transparent, accountable, proportionate and consistent, and targeted only at cases in which action

Changing Legal Framework for Higher Education

is needed”). Second, the government must not seek to give “guidance” to the OfS that in any way interferes with institutional autonomy or institutional academic freedom, defined as noted in the above section. Third, the OfS “must establish and maintain a register of English higher education providers,” to be “publicly available,” and only the undergraduate students of such registered HEPs may access the government’s student loans scheme for UK citizens that helps them pay their tuition fees up to a “regulated” level (currently set at £9250 pa from 2017/18) for a “qualifying” course. And the OfS in registering an HEP will have agreed an “access and participation plan condition” designed to widen social equity in entering and completing HE, as well as being able to impose “a public interest governance condition”. The former seeks to address the vexed and vexing issue of family background in relation to HE (see Crawford et al. 2017); the latter aims to ensure that HEPs comply with good practice and especially respect the academic freedom of faculty. The OfS may also require an HEP to supply “a student protection plan” designed to protect the interests of students who get caught up in the process of an HEP becoming insolvent. Fourth, the Act gives explicit powers to the OfS (subject, of course, to an appeal process and to standard public law safeguards as to how the OfS reaches it decisions) to impose “monetary penalties” upon an HEP, to “suspend” an HEP’s registration, and to “de-register” an HEP. Fifth, the OfS “may assess, or make arrangements for the assessment of, the quality of and the standards applied to, higher education provided by English higher education providers,” by way of it having to establish a “Quality Assessment Committee” and it being able to set up a scheme “to give ratings” to HEPs (this will be the continuation and refinement of the TEF, Teaching Excellence Framework, operated directly by government for the first time in 2017 that has awarded gold, silver, or bronze grades to English universities – with some interesting results whereby some universities scoring heavily in the REF and the global rankings have been rated bronze in the TEF, reflecting a possible neglect of undergraduate teaching that can occur in a research-focused

Changing Legal Framework for Higher Education

HEIs where chasing the kudos of R can trump the routine resourcing of and commitment to T in terms of institutional brand and also individual academic career success). In due course, and subject to a review by “a suitable independent person” likely “to command the confidence” of registered HEPs, the TEF rating may be linked to the OfS allowing or prohibiting HEPs to increase their tuition fees in line with inflation, thereby potentially opening up over time a HE marketplace differentiated by price in the form of varying undergraduate tuition fees (a marketplace that exists and has existed for some years in relation to the fees charged for postgraduate courses and to international students). Sixth, a specific section of the Act carefully stresses the “duty to protect academic freedom” as well as “the freedom of institutions” or “institutional autonomy” imposed upon the OfS. Seventh, the OfS has the power to “authorize” a registered HEP to grant degrees, and such a degree-awarding power may be revoked by the OfS if there are serious concerns about teaching quality and degree standards in the HEP – but such a draconian revocation of the degreeawarding powers of, say, the University of Cambridge as a registered HEP can be done only by way of a parliamentary process (it is “exercisable by statutory instrument”) and after a detailed reassessment of the HEP’s quality and standards. Eight, the OfS shall control the use of the word “university” in the title of an institution and shall control the unauthorized use of “university”: in effect, it could strip the University of Oxford of the title “University” – but only after an exhaustive enquiry, appeals, and legal challenge process – and it can also reduce the traditional barriers or hurdles for a new for-profit HEP in entering the English HE market and challenging the incumbent HEIs. Ninth, the OfS can seek a warrant “to enter and search premises in England” occupied by one of its registered HEPs (the related Schedule 5 re “Powers of Entry and Search etc.” runs to almost 6 pages of this Act’s 135 pages!); and the OfS “must monitor and report on financial sustainability” of HEPs, just as HEFCE has for its universities; it can also engender “studies for

181

improving economy, efficiency and effectiveness.” It is to be part-funded by charging an annual fee to its registered HEPs. And it shall publish “a regulatory framework” on how it goes about the duties listed so far. Finally, with reference to the OfS, the (very rarely exercised) power of the Archbishop of Canterbury under the Ecclesiastical Licences Act 1553 to grant a degree is, charmingly, unaffected! The HERA17 also creates the UKRI which draws together the various Research Councils and will “facilitate, encourage and support research into science, technology, humanities and new ideas” as well as engender “knowledge exchange.” The UKRI may be required by government to establish a “research and innovation strategy.” It will distribute substantial government funds, and in doing so it (and government) must respect “the Haldane principle” (dating back to the early-C20) that “decisions on individual research proposals are best taken following an evaluation of the quality and likely impact of the proposals (such as a peer review process).” The OfS and the UKRI will, as appropriate, cooperate and share information and set up “join working” as necessary. Both agencies must each deliver an annual report to Parliament. The impact of the OfS upon English HE and HEIs will now depend in part on the formal application of the legal architecture of this new regulatory regime; and also on the tone or style, the organizational culture, the OfS adopts in its relationship with its registered HEPs.

Conclusion It is hoped that the above list of themes and issues the government is trying to address via the HERA17 in the case of English HE illustrates via this case study the way that a nation’s legal framework relating to HE may be set and indeed may change in accordance with the politics of HE. These “politics” of HE are probably being driven by a combination of: • The prevailing public attitudes to universities and academe or indeed to the size and role of

C

182













government (perhaps a neoliberal agenda; possibly a growing reaction to such), with such attitudes varying across nations. Politicians searching for ways that HE might hopefully contribute to the economy (via the human capital theory as a route for HE to add economic value and also via the benefits of intellectual property created and exploited within HEIs). The state of public finances (whatever are deemed politically acceptable levels of taxation, and other calls upon and priorities for public spending). The degree of trust in such institutions as universities in terms of whether to devolve power from the state to them where traditionally the state has centrally controlled HE and HEIs or to increase state “steering” of HE and HEIs where historically universities have been autonomous entities. The assessment of whether HE is seen as a public or social good as opposed to a private or consumption good, and, the more it is seen as the latter, the greater the questioning over who should pay for it in terms of shifting its cost between taxpayer by way of public subsidy and the student/family by way of tuition fees. The more it is seen as a private good, the greater the shift toward a market ideology driving “the politics of higher education” and change in the legal framework within which HE and HEIs operate. Whether government wishes to encourage forprofit HEPs to enter the HE market or indeed wants to curtail their presence – and, in fact, the degree to which government intends to stimulate an HE market at all. The degree to which political and policy contemplation of HE is in isolation or is seen as closely linked to the provision of further education (FE) and as part of a comprehensive approach to post-compulsory tertiary education (where HE + FE = TE).

Thus, in short, the law, as it impacts upon HE and HEIs and the legal framework in which it does so, as ever follows the politics surrounding HE and HE policy-making and hence the legislative

Changing Legal Framework for Higher Education

process flowing from the prevailing social and economic value attached to the university and its many varied outputs.

References Alexander, K.L., and K. Alexander. 2011. Higher education law: Policy and perspectives. New York: Routledge. Crawford, C., et al. 2017. Family background & university success: Differences in higher education access and outcomes in England. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Drezner, D.W. 2017. The Ideas Industry: How pessimists, partisans, and plutocrats are transforming the marketplace of ideas. New York: Oxford University Press. Farrington, D., and D. Palfreyman. 2012. The Law of Higher Education. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Finkin, M.W., and R.G. Post. 2009. For the common good: Principles of American academic freedom. New Haven: Yale University Press. Fish, S. 2014. Versions of academic freedom: From professionalism to revolution. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Halsbury’s Laws of England. 2010. volume 24 on Corporations (LexisNexis) Halsbury’s Laws of England. 2015. volume 8 on Charities (LexisNexis) Heller, D.E., and C. Callender. 2013. Student financing of higher education: A comparative perspective. New York: Routledge. Kaplin, W.A., and B.A. Lee. 2013. The Law of Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Labaree, D.F. 2017. A perfect mess: The unlikely ascendency of American higher education. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Martin, R.E. 2011. The college cost disease: Higher cost and lower quality. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. McMahon, W.W. 2009. Higher learning, greater good: The private and social benefits of higher education. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Palfreyman, D., and T. Tapper. 2014. Reshaping the university: The rise of the regulated market in higher education. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Palfreyman, D., and P. Temple. 2017. Universities and colleges – A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tapper, T., and D. Palfreyman. 2010. The collegial tradition in the age of mass higher education. Dordrecht: Springer. Tapper, T., and D. Palfreyman. 2011. Oxford, the collegiate university: Conflict, consensus and continuity. Dordrecht: Springer. van der Zwaan, B. 2017. Higher Education in 2040: A global approach. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Civic Engagement in Higher Education

Charitable Body ▶ American Foundations and Higher Education

Cheating ▶ Corruption in Higher Education

Civic Engagement ▶ Community Engagement in Higher Education ▶ Factors Influencing Scientists’ Public Engagement

Civic Engagement in Higher Education Christine M. Cress1 and Stephanie T. Stokamer2 1 Portland State University, Portland, OR, USA 2 Pacific University, Forest Grove, OR, USA

Synonyms Active participation in public life; Civic responsibility; Community engagement; Community service-learning; Community-based learning; Community-based research; Engaged scholarship; Service-learning; Volunteerism

Definition Civic engagement is “working to make a difference in the civic life of our communities and developing the combination of knowledge, skills, values, and motivation to make that difference. It means promoting the quality of life in a community through both political and non-political processes” (Ehrlich 2000, p. vi). While not universal, countries in Europe, North America, and South

183

America tend to hold inevitable that a thriving pluralist democratic society depends upon active participation of its citizens, characterized by informed deliberation and collaboration to address public problems and work toward common goals (Colby et al. 2007). The origin of the term civic is derived from the Latin civicus relating to city or town and civis meaning citizen. Likewise, Gottlieb and Robinson (2002) define the attitudinal precursor to civic engagement as having a sense of civic responsibility which is “active participation in the public life of a community in an informed, committed, and constructive manner, with a focus on the common good” (p. 16). Similarly, although not necessarily couched in democratic terminology, many countries in Africa and Asia tend to adhere to the corresponding belief that the inclusion of multiple voices in decision-making and problemsolving leads to thriving communities. As well, most nations seem to understand that citizen participation alone is not sufficient for collective success. Rather, prosperous societies require citizens competent enough to engage effectively in the tasks of maintaining civil society and government (Dahl 1992; Verba et al. 1995). Thus, civic engagement of individuals requires knowledgeable as well as active participation in the affairs of community and concomitant attitudinal dedication toward socially beneficial public purposes and outcomes.

Colleges and Universities Education has long played a part in developing the civic competence needed to effectively engage in democratic processes (Dewey 1916; Galston 2001). Cogan (1999) argued that civic competencies “do not just occur naturally in people. They must be taught consciously through schooling to each new generation” (p. 52). Though the relative importance of the civic mission of educational institutions varies across institutional type and geographic region, preparing graduates for personal and professional lives as citizens has been the historical mission and goal of most colleges and universities.

C

184

Respectively, Keeter et al. (2002) remarked, “Engaged citizens are made, not born” (p. 28). As well, Harkavy (2006) highlights the central role of colleges and universities “to educate students for democratic citizenship, and help create a fair, decent, and just society” (p. 9). Moreover, Astin et al. (2000), Battistoni (1997), Ehrlich (2000), Colby et al. (2003), Boyte (2008), and Saltmarsh (2005) are among the many scholars who have affirmed the community, national, and global necessity of higher education in developing students’ civic competencies through civic engagement. Beyond facilitating students’ political capacities for making informed decisions about and involving themselves in political processes, civic engagement is the ethos, advocacy, and action for collaboratively transforming community (Cress 2011). Not to be confused with civic education, the teaching about city, state, and national policies and procedures as a part of democratic citizenship (primarily voting behavior), civic engagement requires not just knowing about but actually connecting the self to community activities for broader societal gain.

Related Terminology Civic engagement as a concept is an overarching learning process and outcome that encompasses multiple forms on college campuses including volunteerism (which may also be called community service), service-learning classes (coursebased civic engagement), community-based learning (including experiential activities and internships), and community-based research or engaged scholarship (undertaken by students as well as faculty) (Cress et al. 2015). Each of these methods usually begins initially as pedagogical approaches, teaching strategies, and inquiry paradigms for examining community issues. However, over time, teachers and students alike usually evolve their perspectives into more complex cognitive, affective, and behavioral avenues for critically understanding and addressing community challenges through experiences that intentionally examine, integrate, and reflect upon

Civic Engagement in Higher Education

the symbiotic relationship between individual and community with respect to quality of life issues (Cress et al. 2013). Therefore, the ultimate aim of civic engagement (no matter the instructional or research mode) is to bolster the socioeconomic, environmental, political, and physical health of individuals and groups within communities (local, national, and global).

Historical Foundations Bowen (1977) articulated civic competence as a primary goal of higher education. In addition to cognitive learning and emotional and moral development, Bowen argued that practical competence is a primary outcome for students. He considered citizenship one area of practical competence, and provided a foundational description of citizenship competence that today informs the operationalization of civic engagement: understanding of and commitment to democracy; knowledge of governmental institutions and procedures; awareness of major social issues; ability to evaluate propaganda and political argumentation; disposition and ability to participate actively in civic, political, economic, professional, educational, and other voluntary organizations; orientation toward international understanding and world community; ability to deal with bureaucracies; and disposition toward law observance. As noted earlier, civic engagement may take the instructional form of service-learning. Various authors (Morton and Saltmarsh 1997; Stevens 2003) credit coining of the term “service-learning” to Sigmon (1979), although the origins of civic engagement can be traced to the community service of Jane Addams in bringing students to settlement houses to understand poverty. Additionally, Morton and Saltmarsh (1997) emphasize the contributions of John Dewey and Dorothy Day and their influence on modern conceptualizations of civic engagement and community-based learning. Finally, Stevens (2003) has called attention to the historical and contemporary roles of African-American educators and activists in promoting social change through civic engagement.

Civic Engagement in Higher Education

In efforts to develop civic competence, civic engagement connects students with authentic situations, builds strong institutional relationships between schools and community organizations, and develops the competencies of citizenship and democratic participation. Moreover, effective civic engagement is premised upon reciprocal relationships between campuses and community organizations (Sandy and Holland 2006; Stoecker and Tryon 2009). According to Mitchell (2008), the presence of critical reciprocity in civic engagement is crucial not only for students’ acquisition of the academic and civic knowledge, skills, dispositions, and efficacious identity necessary for effective participation in democratic society, but is key to deconstructing systems of social injustice.

Pedagogical Approaches Colby et al. (2003) defined pedagogy as “all the things teachers do and ask their students to do to support students’ learning” (p. 141). Given the complexity of issues facing cities, nations, and the globe, the future livelihood of communities depends upon the ability of college graduates to make headway on even the most perplexing problems. Civic engagement connects and intersects learning and living in efforts toward leveraging more equitable communities. Examples of civic engagement, particularly in the form of service-learning, are found in virtually every academic discipline. A sociology instructor, for instance, might assign students to work in a homeless shelter to illuminate concepts such as social inequality or classism. In the sciences, a course in biology might analyze stream samples for an antipollution program. Or, an accounting program might send undergraduates to help lowincome high school families prepare their financial aid forms for college admission. In each case, the civic engagement experience is accompanied by reflection that deepens students’ understanding of the academic concepts as exemplified in actual community contexts. Further, Howard (1998) described forms of civic engagement such as community-based learning as a “counternormative pedagogy”

185

(p. 21) because of the numerous ways in which it diverges from traditional classroom instruction. Civic engagement learning varies from traditional pedagogy in terms of epistemology, goals, degree of faculty control, learning processes, student contributions to their own learning, and critical reciprocity shared with community partners (Abes et al. 2002; Cress et al. 2013; Gottlieb and Robinson 2002). Another complication of community-based learning is whether social justice or social change is an intended outcome. Einfeld and Collins (2008) asserted, “an ideal democratic society is a socially just society” (p. 105). The social change perspective in community-based learning means that reflection leads to action on the problem addressed by service (Mitchell 2008). Similarly, a social justice approach uses community-based learning to empower students with the tools to question social structures and power dynamics to create a more just and equitable society, emphasizing the importance of learning for the purpose of taking action (Freire 1970; McLaren 2003; Wang and Jackson 2005). The alternative is what may be deemed the “charitable approach” in which students strive to meet an immediate need without necessarily seeking to understand or eradicate its root causes (Lewis 2004; Moely et al. 2008).

Participation Colleges and communities across the globe participate in various forms of civic engagement; those that are solely local or domestically focused as well as those that involve international collaborations and partnerships. For instance, the UNESCO group in Community Based Research and Social Responsibility in Higher Education has partners in Africa, Arab states, Asia, the Pacific, Europe, North America, Latin America, and the Caribbean. Likewise, the Talloires Network is an international association of institutions committed to strengthening the civic roles and social responsibilities of higher education. Specifically, their goal is to expand higher education civic engagement programs through teaching, research, and

C

186

public service and includes such organizations as AsiaEngage, Arab University Alliance, Engagement Australia, and Service Learning Asia Network. Related, the International Association for Research on Service-Learning and Community Engagement (IARSLCE) boasts members from over 35 nations. In the United States, estimates vary as to the number or percentage of higher education students participating in civic engagement learning. According to Campus Compact’s annual survey – now reaching nearly 1,200 campuses – approximately one third of students participated in service, community-based learning, and civic engagement activities at their campuses (Cress et al. 2010). Largent and Horinek (2008) reported that 80% of community colleges offer community-based learning, and Musil (2003) claimed that 78% of students participate in a service experience as part of undergraduate education.

Research-Based Outcomes Civic engagement has been consistently characterized as having modest, but positive effects on students’ academic, personal, and civic development (Astin et al. 2000; Cress et al. 2010; Eyler and Giles 1999). A steady stream of scholarship has associated various civic engagement approaches with student engagement, academic achievement, intercultural competence, and other outcomes (Vogelgesang and Astin 2000). Furthermore, civic engagement improves grade point averages and academic skills, such as critical thinking and writing (Cress 2004). Gallini and Moely (2003) reported that community-based learning students demonstrated more engagement with academic content, greater interpersonal and community connection, and increased likelihood of persisting in school than their peers. The research indicates that through civic engagement, students improve their abilities to think critically, problem-solve, negotiate, and participate in democratic deliberation. The civic goal is more than simply learning how to express themselves verbally and in writing. Students are challenged to listen to a range of voices, to empathize with people different from themselves, and to

Civic Engagement in Higher Education

compromise with others in the name of a common good that is often contested and tentative (Gray et al. 2000; Ward and Wolf -Wendel 2000). In sum, civic engagement develops civic competence which is critical to the successful functioning of pluralistic democracies (Stokamer 2011) and higher education institutions play a key role in sustaining civic engagement.

Cross-References ▶ Community Engagement in Higher Education ▶ Community Partnerships, Higher Education ▶ Critical Higher Education: Rethinking Higher Education as a Democratic Public Sphere ▶ Higher Education and Democratic Citizenship ▶ Higher Education and the Public Good ▶ Higher Education Institutions, Types and Classifications of ▶ Intercultural Competencies and the Global Citizen ▶ Politics, Power, and Ideology in Higher Education ▶ Social and Public Responsibility, Universities

References Abes, E., G. Jackson, and S. Jones. 2002. Factors that motivate and deter faculty use of service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning 9 (1): 5–17. Astin, A.W., L.J. Vogelgesang, E.K. Ikeda, and J.A. Yee. 2000. How service-learning affects students. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA. Battistoni, R.M. 1997. Service learning and democratic citizenship. Theory Into Practice 36 (3): 150–156. Bowen, H.R. 1977. Investment in learning: The individual and social value of American higher education. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Boyte, H.C. 2008. Against the current: Developing the civic agency of students. Change 40 (3): 8–15. Cogan, J.J. 1999. Civic education in the United States: A brief history. The International Journal of Social Education 14: 52–64. Colby, A., T. Ehrlich, E. Beaumont, and J. Stephens. 2003. Educating citizens. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Colby, A., E. Beaumont, T. Ehrlich, and J. Corngold. 2007. Educating for democracy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cress, C.M. 2004. Critical thinking development in service-learning activities: Pedagogical implications for critical being and action. Inquiry, Critical Thinking and Higher Education 23 (1–2): 87–93.

Civic Responsibility Cress, C.M. 2011. Pedagogical and epistemological approaches to service-learning. In Democratic dilemmas of teaching service-learning: Curricular strategies for success, ed. C.M. Cress and D.M. Donahue, 43–54. Sterling: Stylus Press. Cress, C.M., C. Burack, D.E. Giles, J. Elkins, and M.C. Stevens. 2010. A promising connection: Increasing college access and success through civic engagement. Boston: Campus Compact. Cress, C.M., P.J. Collier, V.L. Reitenauer, and Associates. 2013. Learning through serving: A student guidebook for service-learning and civic engagement across academic disciplines and cultural communities, 2nd ed, Expanded. Sterling: Stylus. Cress, C.M., S.T. Stokamer, and J. Kaufman. 2015. Community partner guide to campus collaborations: Strategies for becoming a co-educator in civic engagement. Sterling: Stylus. Dahl, R.A. 1992. The problem of civic competence. The Journal of Democracy 3 (4): 45–59. Dewey, J. 1916. Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: The Free Press. Ehrlich, T., ed. 2000. Civic responsibility and higher education. Westport: Oryx Press. Einfeld, A., and D. Collins. 2008. The relationships between service-learning, social justice, multicultural competence, and civic engagement. The Journal of College Student Development 49 (2): 95–109. Eyler, J., and D. Giles. 1999. Where’s the learning in service-learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Freire, P. 1970. Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group. Gallini, S.M., and B.E. Moely. 2003. Service-learning and engagement, academic challenge, and retention. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning 10 (1): 5–14. Galston, W.A. 2001. Political knowledge, political engagement, and civic education. American Review of Political Science 4: 217–234. Gottlieb, K., and G. Robinson (eds.). 2002. A practical guide for integrating civic responsibility into the curriculum. Washington, DC: Community College Press. Gray, M.J., E.H. Ondaatje, E.D. Fricker Jr., and S.A. Geschwind. 2000. Assessing service-learning. Change 32 (2): 30–40. Harkavy, I. 2006. The role of universities in advancing citizenship and social justice in the 21st century. Education, Citizenship, and Social Justice 1 (1): 5–37. Howard, J. 1998. Academic service learning: A counternormative pedagogy. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 73: 21–29. Keeter, S., C. Zukin, M. Andolina, and K. Jenkins. 2002. The civic and political health of the nation: A generational portrait. College Park: The Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement. Largent, L., and J.B. Horinek. 2008. Community colleges and adult service-learners: Evaluating a first-year program to improve implementation. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education 118: 37–48.

187 Lewis, T. 2004. Service-learning for social change? Lessons from a liberal arts college. Teaching Sociology 32 (1): 94–108. McLaren, P. 2003. Life in schools: An introduction to critical pedagogy in the foundations of education. Boston: Pearson Education. Mitchell, T. 2008. Traditional vs. critical service-learning: Engaging the literature to differentiate two models. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning 14 (2): 50–65. Moely, B., A. Furco, and J. Reed. 2008. Charity and social change: The impact of individual preferences on service-learning outcomes. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning 15 (1): 37–48. Morton, K., and J. Saltmarsh. 1997. Addams, Day, and Dewey: The emergence of community service in American culture. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning 4 (1): 137–149. Musil, C.M. 2003. Educating for citizenship. Peer Review 4–8. Spring. Saltmarsh, J. 2005. The civic promise of service learning. Liberal Education 91 (2): 50–55. Sandy, M., and B. Holland. 2006. Different worlds and common ground: Community partner perspectives on campus-community partnerships. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning 13 (1): 30–43. Sigmon, R. 1979. Service-learning: Three principles. Synergist 8 (1): 9–11. Stevens, C. 2003. Unrecognized roots of service-learning in African American social thought and action, 1890–1930. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning 9 (2): 25–34. Stoecker, R., and E. Tryon (eds.). 2009. The unheard voices: Community organizations and servicelearning. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Stokamer, S.T. 2011. Pedagogical catalysts of civic competence: The development of a critical epistemological model for community-based learning. Dissertation, Portland State University. Verba, S., K.L. Schlozman, and H.E. Brady. 1995. Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vogelgesang, L., and A. Astin. 2000. Comparing the effects of community service and service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning 7 (1): 25–34. Wang, Y., and G. Jackson. 2005. Forms and components of civic involvement. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning 12 (3): 39–48. Ward, K., and L. Wolf -Wendel. 2000. Community -centered service learning: Moving from doing for to doing with. American Behavioral Scientist 43: 767–780.

Civic Responsibility ▶ Civic Engagement in Higher Education

C

188

Civic University

Definition

Civic University ▶ Universities and Regional Development in the Periphery

Civic/Citizenship Education ▶ Higher Education and Democratic Citizenship

Civil War ▶ Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Liberia

Classification ▶ Higher Education Institutions, Types and Classifications of

Collaboration ▶ Universities in the Age of Internationalization, Competition, and Cooperation

Collaborative Online International Learning in Higher Education Hans de Wit Center for International Higher Education, Boston College, Boston, MA, USA

Synonyms Virtual exchange; Virtual mobility

Collaborative online international learning (COIL) is an online learning in an international setting, with interactive involvement of students and faculty from different international and intercultural backgrounds in and outside the classroom. Online international learning is mostly associated with distance education and massive open online courses (MOOCs). However, a more gradual digital addition to international teaching and learning is taking place with less attention. A survey by the European University Association (Gaebel et al. 2014) among European universities showed a strong interest in e-learning, in particular MOOCS, but joint inter-institutional collaboration in e-learning received limited attention. Only 8% (p. 47) said that e-learning was an opportunity to internationalize the curriculum. This ignores the important contribution that “virtual mobility,” “virtual exchange,” or “online intercultural exchange,” as it is named in Europe, or “collaborative online international learning” (COIL), as it is referred to in the United States, can have on internationalizing higher education. Whereas in distance education and MOOCs the teaching remains more traditional – simply using modern technology for a global form of delivery – virtual mobility and exchange, etc. use technology to develop a more interactive and collaborative approach to international teaching and learning, with interactions between students and between teachers both inside and outside the classroom. If one considers the divide between globalization and internationalization in higher education, distance education and MOOCs are more related to the first, while virtual mobility/virtual exchange/ COIL is more related to the second, with a strong focus on the internationalization of the curriculum and teaching and learning. And where at first glance MOOCs present this idea of being free but increasingly seem connected to the commercialization of higher education, COIL is more in line with the noncommercial, cooperative dimension of international higher education and with the development of internationalization of the curriculum and joint and double degrees (de Wit 2013).

Collaborative Online International Learning in Higher Education

In recent years, the terms “virtual mobility” and “virtual exchange” have emerged in documents of the European Commission as well as other European entities and institutions of higher education. This is in line with the decision of the European Commission to consider digital learning as a key dimension of its internationalization at home policy. Indeed, internationalization at home is one of the three pillars of the EU’s policy, published under the title “European Higher Education in the World,” in addition to international mobility of students and staff and strengthening of strategic cooperation, partnerships, and capacity building (European Commission 2013). Digital learning in the form of virtual mobility or virtual exchange relates to the increasing attention to forms of mobility other than physical mobility, exchange, and/or study abroad. It is connected to the appeal to pay more attention, in the context of the “internationalization at home” movement, to the large majority of students who are not mobile. The key question is how to make it possible for nonmobile students to experience an international dimension in their learning activities. Others see digital learning more as a means to realize international, collaborative experiences. This focus on the mobility dimension of online learning, as expressed in the name “virtual mobility,” ignores the two-way dimension of the concept, which is better expressed in the term “virtual exchange.” However, the potential of international online learning to be an integral part of the internationalization of the curriculum and teaching and learning, in which students and teachers interact with each other inside and outside the classroom, is an important added value. The terms “online intercultural exchange” and “collaborative online international learning” (COIL) combine the four essential dimensions of meaningful mobility: it is a collaborative exercise of teachers and students, it makes use of online technology and interaction, it has potential international dimensions, and it is integrated in the learning. The COIL movement in the United States can be considered to have started around 10 years ago in a small way, with a 1-day conference in 2007 at Purchase College in Westchester

189

College. Since 2010, COIL is integrated in the international mission of the State University of New York (SUNY (www.coil.suny.edu). The COIL annual conference attracts an increasing number of participants from all over the United States and from abroad. What makes COIL such an important addition to the many forms of physical mobility and to the internationalization of the curriculum and teaching and learning? First, it provides opportunities for students – for instance, part-time students – who cannot or do not want to go abroad to have an international learning experience. Through the interaction with students and teachers from other countries, such students receive different perspectives on the subject they are studying and on the learning and teaching itself, which for them would otherwise be difficult to be exposed to. It allows, in line with the concept of internationalization at home, for access to international and intercultural exchange for all students, not only for the small number of students who can and want to be physically mobile. Secondly, COIL provides both the opportunity and the necessity for close work between students and teachers, an opportunity in many cases missed in physical mobility, where students and teachers may not engage meaningfully inside or outside the classroom. For example, in a joint minor program of one semester between the School of Economics and Management at the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences and universities in Paris and Barcelona, students work on real projects for businesses and organizations in the three cities. Projects may address such issues as how to increase access by younger people to museums in the three cities or how to improve student accommodations in the three cities. The students start the program with a 1-week visit to Amsterdam, where they get to know each other (including a homestay), their teachers, and the companies involved. The students then take classes and work together on assignments in small groups via social media and other online platforms. They come together again at the end of the semester for 1 week to discuss their results and compete for the best analysis. Students,

C

190

Collection of Interdependent Institutions Devoted to Higher Education in Portugal

teachers, and companies are excited about the results and the interaction. This approach combines short study abroad with online learning. COIL is additionally meaningful because it emphasizes attention to the specific national and cultural approaches to the subjects being studied, as well as to the way particular subject matter is taught and learned. For example, in an online course on sports management involving the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences and SUNY Cortland, the different ways top sports are developed and organized in the United States and Europe, as well as the different ways sports management is taught, came clearly to the forefront and made students think differently about the subject. Other factors that make collaborative online international learning an important alternative model for internationalization are the fact that it is less cost-intensive than physical mobility and that it may provide an incentive for nonmobile students to eventually go abroad, based on positive experiences with online intercultural learning (De Wit 2016, p. 78). Whatever it is called, virtual mobility or virtual exchange, online intercultural exchange, or collaborative online international learning, the model of virtual collaboration inside and outside the real and virtual classroom, is an important new form of internationalization of teaching and learning. At the same time, there are still challenges encountered in the development of COIL. Resistance of faculty, technological difficulties and disconnections, different time zones, assumed high support, and communication costs are some of the main ones. Exchange of practices is required to address those challenges and to enhance the opportunities. In that context, calls for a coherent strategy, grants, and more research on virtual exchange (O’Dowd and Lewis 2016; UNI Collaboration 2014), in the European context and elsewhere, should be seriously considered and acted upon.

References De Wit, Hans. 2013. COIL – virtual mobility without commercialization. University World News, Issue 274, 1 June 2013.

De Wit, Hans. 2016. Internationalisation and the role of online intercultural exchange. 2016. In Online intercultural exchange: Policy, pedagogy, practice, ed. Robert O’Dowd and Tim Lewis, 69–82. New York: Routledge. European Commission. 2013. European higher education in the world. Communication form the Commission to the European Parliament, The Council, The European Economic and Social committee and the Committee of the Regions. Brussels, 11.7.2013 COM(2013) 499 final. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europe.eu/ LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri¼COM:2013:0499:FIN: en:PDF. Gaebel, M., V. Kupriyanova, R. Morais, and E. Colucci. 2014. E-learning in European higher education institutions. Results of a mapping survey conducted in October-December 2013. Brussels: European University Association. O’Dowd, Robert, and Tim Lewis. 2016. Online intercultural exchange: Policy, pedagogy, practice. New York: Routledge. UNI Collaboration. 2014. Position paper: Virtual exchange in the European Higher Education area, 2014. Retrieved from http://revistas.usc.es/export/ sites/default/gcompostela/en/descargas/COIL._Position_ paper.pdf.

Collection of Interdependent Institutions Devoted to Higher Education in Portugal ▶ Higher Education Systems and Institutions, Portugal

Collective Impact ▶ Community Partnerships, Higher Education

Collegiality in Higher Education Ted Tapper Oxford, the Collegiate University, Oxford, UK

Introduction Collegiality in higher education is best described as one of the ways in which universities have been organized to pursue their central goals of teaching

Collegiality in Higher Education

and research. Having reviewed very briefly continental ideas of the university, in this entry, we will outline the idea of collegiality as an organizational strategy for pursuing teaching and research in higher education, why its evolution has been particularly associated with the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge (Tapper and Palfreyman 2010), and how it came to penetrate more generally the English system of higher education. We will also explain why it has steadily declined and what has replaced it to enable universities to pursue their central purposes. This entry will conclude by considering what remains of the collegial tradition. The question is, “What place is there for collegiality as system change is driven increasingly by the pressures of the stateregulated market?” (Palfreyman and Tapper 2014: 212–234).

Collegiality as a Mode of Governance and Beyond As Cobban notes, “Paris must be regarded as the home of the university system in the sense that academic colleges of a kind arose there earlier than anywhere else” (Cobban 1975: 126). However, “at the Revolution the collegiate system as a whole fell with the other institutions of medieval France – never (like so much of the ancient regime) to reproduce itself under altered forms in modern times” (Rashdall 1936: 533). The Napoleonic and Humboldtian models of higher education then evolved to dominate continental Europe. Both models saw a close affinity between the needs of the university and the state with the former, particularly in France, associated with the training of elites, and the latter, especially in Germany, giving rise to the research university. Central to the English idea of collegiality is that institutional governance in higher education is the collective responsibility of its scholars – that is, as a body, they determine how they conduct their functions. Although it is the scholars who will determine the organization of knowledge, that is, what to be taught and to be researched, it is not the actual decisions that they reach that define collegiality but rather how they reach those decisions.

191

Colleges and universities have the formal responsibility for undertaking teaching and research, and it is how they arrive at the actual decisions that determine how these functions should be performed that defines collegiality. For these decisions to be arrived at collegially, authority has to reside in the hands of the collective institutional membership. While higher education institutions may have an appointed leadership cadre of officials, collegiality means that they act within the boundaries determined by the general will of the collective membership. It almost follows on logically that for collegiality to be an effective form of governance, institutions must be small in size with a carefully selected membership that has been socialized into the acceptance of institutional goals and how they should function; the exemplar is the Oxbridge College. Continuity rather than change is the order of the day. There is a strong feeling that institutional membership not only implies institutional loyalty but also a strong respect for other members of the college community, that there is interpersonal collegiality as well as institutional loyalty. The college functions as a social as well as an academic organization, and its members not only undertake the core duties (teaching and research) associated with a university education but also have a commitment to preserving the long-term well-being of the college as well as making sure that it functions effectively on a daily basis. Historically, in England collegiality in higher education has been most closely associated with the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. At the core of both universities is the presence of a number of privately endowed independent colleges which continue to be responsible for key academic functions. The colleges continue to control the admission of undergraduate students who will spend at least part of their undergraduate years residing in college. While much of the teaching is now undertaken, especially in the sciences, in university laboratories, college tutorials will invariably supplement that diet indeed may well be the critical teaching input for students in the arts disciplines and the social sciences. The consequence is that most faculty members have two bases – belonging to a university department and

C

192

being a college fellow. Thus Oxford and Cambridge are collegiate universities in the sense that their membership (students and faculty) has dual identities, both of which are integral to defining their academic roles. While, thanks to reforms instigated in the nineteenth century, the authority of the university has expanded vis-a-vis the colleges, the colleges continue to retain critical functions, and full university membership is still dependent upon sustaining a college base. Furthermore, authority resides in the hands of the collective membership; it is not delegated to an elected leadership or diffused among a cadre of appointed officials. Self-governance means control by the collective body of fellows. The Oxbridge collegial tradition also came to permeate the British system of higher education at large. Although from 1919 onward British universities were increasingly dependent upon public funding, and thus vulnerable to state control, for much of their twentiethcentury history, state influence was mediated by the University Grants Committee (UGC) that showed considerable respect for institutional autonomy, and individual institutions were at liberty within broad confines to determine their own development. However, over time – due very much to their control of funding – governments began to determine ever more tightly the pattern of university development, to control the boundaries within which individual institutions could develop. There was a steadily tightening noose of state direction perhaps most clearly seen in the replacement of the UGC in 1988 by the funding council model of governance. Although in 1986, it was the UGC itself that implemented the research assessment exercises (RAEs) which made the public funding of core research activities dependent upon the evaluation of research outputs. It was the state, therefore, that came to control the understanding of research excellence, and it was impossible for any university to pursue one of its key functions without entering into a competitive exercise organized by the state apparatus. Inevitably such pressure would help to steer research activities and what fields of knowledge were likely to expand or decline.

Collegiality in Higher Education

In the face of such pressure, universities became more bureaucratically organized, while an academically controlled senate may have still retained much of the formal control over future academic development, and the input of full-time officials (many of whom would be ex-academics) became stronger – raising questions, for example, about the performance of departments in the research assessment exercises and the changing patterns of student demand for degree programs – would inevitably become more influential. While universities may have retained a lot of their autonomy from the state, notwithstanding the growing dependence upon public funding, however, they have become more carefully managed institutions, sometimes even under the sway of dynamic leaders (the vice-chancellor acting as institutional savior). In addition, the cuts to the public funding of higher education, from the mid-1970s onward, were accompanied by a reassertion of the pressure to place the control of universities in the hands of their lay members, notably as seen in the 1985 Jarratt Report on institutional governance and also in the creation of the Committee of University Chairs. Donnish dominion was in decline. These changes in state pressure, and concomitant institutional organizational character, were reinforced by critical complementary developments within the academic profession itself. Historically the collegial tradition was built around the commitment of those who had devoted their careers to a combination of teaching and research, which were seen as complementary pursuits. Over time, however, it is clear that research output rather than teaching commitment became more important in shaping the trajectory of academic careers, above all in determining promotion to senior posts. Moreover, devotion to research generally necessitates more of a commitment to one’s discipline rather than to one’s institution.

Retreat to the Heartland? Given these developments, it is reasonable to argue that collegiality has in recent years retreated

Collegiality in Higher Education

to its collegiate heartland and in particular into the colleges of Oxford and Cambridge. It remains a very prestigious academic post to be a college fellow with responsibilities for admitting undergraduates, teaching them, supervising their progress, and helping to govern a college, which may be centuries old, have considerable independent financial resources, and be surrounded by a strong aura of prestige. Within British higher education, there are few more sought-after positions. Moreover, within both Oxford and Cambridge, although they have inevitably become more managed institutions led by a cadre of officials with powerful vice-chancellors, ultimate authority still remains in the hands of the assembled dons (Congregation at Oxford, the Regent’s House at Cambridge), and it is difficult to move things forward, to make positive changes, without their approval. At college level, dons steer the development of their individual colleges, so the collective body of academics is still critical to shaping university development, in particular into the departments. Within the universities the institutional structures will act collegially in the sense that all the formal membership will be invited to the meetings, receive the relevant documents, participate in the decision-making process, and help to make the pertinent decisions. Therefore, there is a formal continuation of collegiality in that sense, but how important these practices are in ensuring the maintenance of control over the policymaking process is another matter. Departments and research institutes tend to report to schools that fall under the auspices of academic areas which may then report to academic senates, university councils, the offices of pro-vicechancellors, and even to the vice-chancellor’s office. Decision-making is exercised within the context of a power hierarchy within which authority is circumscribed by a higher layer of institutional power that has become more centrally focused over time. There is no single gathering of dons as at Oxford and Cambridge, organized collegially, that ultimately controls the decisionmaking process. Within Oxford and Cambridge, there remains the threat of the exercise of collegial authority as at least a check on executive power and administrative action.

193

Contemporary Pressures: The Rise of the Market and the State-Regulated Market Our analysis has claimed that collegiality in higher education was a self-generating development designed to ensure the effective organization of knowledge – to enable entwined institutions (colleges and universities) to function effectively while promoting the delivery of high class teaching along with a commitment to expanding research output. Ideally, collegially organized institutions commanded their own economic resources, which gave them at least a measure of latitude when facing pressures from the state and society. However, interestingly in England, even with the steady increase in public funding post1918, the collegial tradition in fact expanded as it came to embrace steadily the more recently founded civic institutions, and by the 1960s, formal lay control had given ground to what was popularly known as donnish dominion (Halsey 1992). Public funding did not go with state control, and collegiality was underwritten by the principle of university autonomy, and state and government pressure was filtered by the academically dominated UGC. Nonetheless, as the 1970s unfolded, and in the context of increasing financial parsimony, the UGC became less of a buffer between the universities and the state and more of a conduit of government policy; see Shattock (2012: 117–136). Regardless, we see the rise of the managed university increasingly responding to external political pressures driven by a combination of the wish to secure “value for money,” and to turn the universities into institutions committed to building “the knowledge-based economy” rather than dedicated to sustaining on their own terms the transmission and expansion of knowledge. In effect, the higher education funding councils, which between 1988 and 1992 replaced the UGC, were clearly designed, and in fact given the legal status, to promote government policy. Significantly, the instigation of the funding council model of governance just preceded the emergence of the market (in the form of student tuition fees, to be underwritten by income-contingent loans) as the main provider of funding for higher education

C

194

institutions. But it is not a market which allows universities to determine their own fees but one that is highly regulated by the state for the parameters within which fees are charged are clearly determined by the state. Thus institutional policy-making is now driven as much, if not more, by the pressures exerted by the stateregulated quasi-market, rather than by the dictates of government policy. Can the collegial tradition survive in such a context? Could collegial decision-making be maintained if only profitable academic activities could be sustained? Alternatively, can a university organize its affairs collegially but, nonetheless, still impose rules that required ‘non-profitable’ areas of knowledge to be abandoned? One might anticipate, however, that it would be difficult to enforce such a rule for there would be a propensity for academics to protect one another’s preservation. But one can imagine rules that required “economically failing departments” to take action to revive their fortunes and restore their “profitability.” However, the current Higher Education and Research Bill, which has just completed its parliamentary journey in England, is designed not to create a higher education market but rather a state-regulated market. Higher education institutions that wish to increase their fees above their current levels will be required to conform to three government-imposed guidelines: to broaden the social range of their undergraduate admissions (to become more socially equitable) and to ensure that their student retention rates retain that equitability (which could possibly mean the implementation of strategies that ensure that their academically weaker entrants do not disproportionately fail) and that their students evaluate their academic experiences positively. Already the Office for Fair Access (OFFA) imposes the two former conditions upon universities in its review of their fees and access strategies. It is thus the third requirement that has given rise to most controversy as it requires students to take some responsibility for determining the academic quality of their courses and degree programs. It would weaken the authority of academics, and grant students, as consumers of the product, a say in

Collegiality in Higher Education

evaluating academic quality, which could even lead to the closure of departments. Therefore, it is possible to sustain the idea of the collegial tradition in higher education within a context that makes institutions dependent upon market funding in the form of student fees. Although in such a situation, collegiality would most likely encourage self-defensive decisionmaking rather than be driven by a desire to enhance the organization of knowledge. However, it could be more difficult to preserve collegiality within the context of a state-regulated market, depending upon what aspects of institutional character that the state is using the market to shape. Historically the universities have determined what is to be taught and researched and more significantly how those tasks should be performed – they control the shape that high status knowledge takes as well as what is to count as high status knowledge. If academic authority is to be curtailed in this key field, it seems pertinent to ask whether collegial decision-making will continue to serve any real purpose.

Conclusion This entry has examined the collegial tradition in higher education with particular reference to its manifestation in England and more especially at the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. Thanks to the University Grants Committee’s acceptance of the principle of institutional autonomy, collegiality survived the infusion of public funding into the university system at large, including post-1919 the placing of the two premier collegiate universities on its grant list. However, the tradition now only survives in any recognizable form within the precincts of Oxbridge, and higher education policy is increasingly driven by the central government and the state with the development of universities becoming increasingly driven by becoming more bureaucratically organized and institutional policy determined more by full-time officials and a centralized leadership cadre than by the collective academic community.

Commercialization of Science, Higher Education

It is now the state-regulated market, rather than either the market or state per se – by tying future funding to regulations shaping access student retention and student evaluation of the universities’ organization of knowledge – that poses the greatest threat to the continuation of the collegial tradition. Interestingly, however, the Higher Education and Research Act that proposes these developments will apparently nonetheless require the new regulatory authority – the Office For Students – “to have regard to institutional autonomy in everything it does” (Morgan, Times Higher Education, 2nd March, 2017: 7). Should that be the case, then it will be an autonomy that is not defended by the sustenance of the collegial tradition because the legislative framework contains preconditions that prevent collegial control over its defining purpose which is collegiality and that is to determine the organization of knowledge.

References Cobban, A.B.. 1975. The medieval universities: Their development and organisation. London: Methuen. Halsey, A.H. 1992. Decline of donnish dominion. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Morgan, J. 2nd Mar 2017. UK higher education bill gets late amendments, 7. Times Higher Education. Palfreyman, D., and T. Tapper. 2014. Reshaping the university; the rise of the regulated market in higher education. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Rashdall, H. 1936. The universities of Europe in the middle ages, volume 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Shattock, M. 2012. Making policy in British higher education 1945–2011, 117–136. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Tapper, T., and D. Palfreyman. 2010. The collegial tradition in the age of mass higher education. Dordrecht: Springer Press.

Commercialization of Knowledge ▶ Innovation Studies in Higher Education Research

195

Commercialization of Research ▶ Linking Innovation, Education, and Research

C Commercialization of Science, Higher Education Creso Sá Centre for the Study of Canadian and International Higher Education, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

The commercialization of academic science is one of the key features in the development of higher education over the last 40 years. From a rather unusual and circumscribed activity viewed suspiciously by scientists for most of the twentieth century, commercialization of academic research is now widely promoted and celebrated. Universities now commonly highlight successful products stemming from academic research and spinoff companies created by faculty and students as institutional achievements. What does the commercialization of science entail, and how does it matter?

Defining Commercialization This discussion is about the deliberate efforts of universities and scientists to commercialize academic research. Hence, other colloquial uses of the term such as the claim that scientific activity as a whole is becoming more “commercial,” in the sense of being driven by shorter-term applications in industry, or that science is influenced by corporate sponsorship, are beyond the scope of this discussion. The commercialization of academic science comprises two main tracks, one consisting of patenting and licensing activities, and the other

196

of start-up companies (Geiger and Sá 2009). Research commercialization is usually referred to as “academic entrepreneurship” as when involving university researchers, although the usage of the term varies in whether it encompasses both patenting and spin-off activity. Research commercialization also differs conceptually from technology transfer, as the latter involves a broader set of knowledge flows and activities beyond those revolving around universities’ exploitation of intellectual property rights. The two tracks through which science is commercialized are far from encompassing the full spectrum of university-industry linkages. Nor do they comprehend the multiple ways in which academic researchers interact with the commercial world. However, these two tracks have become focal points for policy makers and universities worldwide (Mowery and Sampat 2006). Governments want to see that public investments in science are generating economic pay-offs, and policy agendas stimulating and regulating the patenting of university research and the creation of start-up firms have become common across continents. Through these mechanisms, governments hope that universities will contribute to technological innovation and ultimately economic development.

The American Influence No country has been as influential internationally as the USA in articulating and exporting policy ideas and organizational models of research commercialization. This is not to say that universities elsewhere have not engaged in commercialization historically or that they blindly emulate American universities. Rather, the point is to highlight that the very constitution of the role of universities as agents in the commercialization of science, as commonly understood today, stems in large part from the US experience. Notably, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) was the pioneering entrepreneurial university in early twentieth century, creating start-up firms and transferring technologies to companies in the Boston area (Etkowitz 2002).

Commercialization of Science, Higher Education

As a private institute of technology reliant on securing external support from various sources to survive, MIT had no qualms about engaging with industry and conducting applied research at a time these activities were frowned upon in academia. As a lower caliber private university relative to peer institutions that formed the academic elite in the early twentieth century, MIT sought support from industry and association with local business agendas as a way to gather the resources it needed to operate (Geiger 1993). The institute eventually raised its academic profile significantly as it prioritized academic quality, and it provided a prototype for the later development of academic entrepreneurship at Stanford University. Stanford’s symbiotic relationship with the growth of Silicon Valley has gained mythical proportions, and today one can read about it in popular magazines and opinion pieces as frequently as in the academic literature. Stanford’s success in commercializing research via licensing and spinoff companies, as well as working closely with industry, has been actively exported and eagerly imported around the world (Leslie and Kargon 1996). As much as experts frequently pontificate that “Silicon Valley can’t be copied” (Wadhwa 2013) because of the unique historical, cultural, and economic circumstances that shaped it over time, which has not yet deterred policy makers and university leaders from trying. Stanford has provided an inspirational example to those seeking to exert an impact on their surrounding economies – and also hoping to bring outsized revenues to universities from inventions and from spin-off companies. US government legislation and programs to stimulate research commercialization have been similarly influential internationally. The BayhDole Act of 1980 is perhaps the most cited piece of legislation related to the topic internationally, which has motivated similar policy initiatives elsewhere (Mowery and Sampat 2005). The act lifted restrictions on the patenting of inventions made through federally sponsored research and allowed universities to negotiate exclusive licenses with corporations. Subsequent legislation complemented this measure and helped create a patenting system that is more lenient on what

Commercialization of Science, Higher Education

could be patented, allowing for patenting claims on organisms and research tools, for example. Bayh-Dole reinforced and legitimated a trend toward university patenting that had been emerging with the rise of biotechnology and the engagement of pioneering institutions such as MIT and Stanford. Whether or not Bayh-Dole caused university patenting to take off in the USA, the act has been cited to justify or endorse legislation in other countries aiming at encouraging research commercialization (Mowery and Sampat 2005). Some of those have actually been different from Bayh-Dole, including laws allowing professor to own intellectual property or stipulating the creation of technology transfer organizations. In the realm of policy ideas, an indirect source of influence from the USA on the development of research commercialization comes from the large body of knowledge on science and innovation policy generated in the country. A variety of experts, professionals, and policy makers internationally draw inferences, form opinions, and advance positions based in part on this knowledge base (Pavitt 2001). Moreover, international organizations are powerful carriers of such ideas, not only disseminating but also endorsing and legitimating them to policy elites. The World Intellectual Property Organization, for example, diffuses models of intellectual property protection and commercialization in universities around the world, in countries as distinct as Belarus, Botswana Bulgaria, Kyrgyzstan, Tunisia, and Sri Lanka (World Intellectual Property Organization 2016). The OECD, a long-standing proponent of innovation, regularly reviews and disseminates policy approaches toward research commercialization (OECD 2013). Ideas about the commercialization of science that are formed in large part based on the US experience are packaged and diffused as “best practices” through these organizations.

Private Knowledge and Commercial Interests The popularization of policy agendas emphasizing research commercialization around the world

197

has cast a new light on the private appropriation and exploitation of knowledge. Traditionally, such activities were regarded as inappropriate and unacademic, and those interested in pursuing commercial applications were deemed as suspicious (Sá et al. 2013). Nonetheless, in settings where commercialization was supported, a new academic culture developed overtime, blending intellectual property considerations to the ethos of scientific discovery (Colyvas and Powell 2007). A set of social, organizational, and material practices emerged around the protection and commercialization of intellectual property rights. The now ubiquitous university technology transfer offices (TTOs) embody this trend. TTOs have disparate origins and configurations in different countries, but apart from these differences, these units are responsible for the management of intellectual property. Depending on the national intellectual property regime and institutional policy, TTOs may encourage or require academics to disclose inventions arising from their research that hold commercial potential. These units evaluate disclosures to determine which ones warrant an investment on their commercialization, employing both technical and commercial criteria. They need to determine whether the technology is developed enough – can a specific product or application be derived from it in a reasonable time frame? – and whether it has the potential to meet an actual market demand. Here market logics drive decision-making. Through this evaluation, TTOs decide on whether the university will pursue a patent on the invention, which comes at a cost, in addition to staff time and effort. Once a patent is granted, TTOs pursue companies that might be willing to license the invention. If successful in finding prospective licensees, TTOs negotiate licensing deals and then make sure that the terms are being followed. This is essentially a market-driven operation in principle, even if in practice TTOs often fail to be profitable or even self-sustainable. Across Europe and in Canada, for instance, governments frequently subsidize these units (Geuna and Rossi 2011; Fisher and Atkinson-Grosjean 2002). Some question whether this TTO-based model is optimal,

C

198

given the known difficulties these units experience to fulfill their mandates as they are often underfunded and understaffed. Some see advantages in an inventor-based model, whereby the decision of whether and how to commercialize research findings rests with professors (Kenney and Patton 2009). The model of commercialization centered on the protection of intellectual property through TTOs is largely shaped after the features of the life sciences. The rise of the biotechnology industry in the 1980s provided a paradigmatic model for academic patenting in the USA, with potentially lucrative inventions arising from university laboratories that are closer to application and highly sought after by industry (Mowery et al. 2004). This result in universities seeking to protect as much intellectual property as they are able to, in hopes of securing an eventual “blockbuster” patent – a hugely lucrative invention that results in substantial licensing revenue. This pursuit of revenue creates problems for academic scientists who routinely collaborate with firms (Geiger and Sá 2009). When TTOs try to apply a strict patenting approach to these relationships, tensions surface. Firms are not willing to agree to extensive intellectual property claims on incremental contributions to their technologies, and faculty is focused on the longerterm relationship with their collaborators, which include other aspects such as providing opportunities for graduate students, gaining access to industrial problems, and obtaining research support. Market logic also guides the creation of startup companies to bring academic inventions to the marketplace (Sá and Kretz 2015). University professors or students may find a spin-off company around their own research, or other entrepreneurs may see potential in university-owned inventions and seek to commercialize it. Many countries that once prohibited professors from working in or owning a firm have reversed course: Legislation allowing professors to own intellectual property or join start-ups has been passed in European, Latin American, and Asian countries (Sá 2016). The amalgam of academic discovery and commercialization has become visible in the

Commercialization of Science, Higher Education

life sciences. University researchers file patents for both personal pecuniary interest and professional reasons (Powell and Owen-Smith 2002). Patents allow scientists to control their own research program against intellectual property claims of rival groups, whether in the case of using research tools or in pursuing knowledge on certain organisms of processes. Further, the dynamics of research in biotechnology involve an important role for research carried out in industry, which compels scientists to participate in research networks that cut across the academic and commercial worlds (Powell et al. 1996). Overall, patents and start-up companies are intertwined with cutting-edge research in the life sciences, rather than representing a departure from it. Commercialization has become a strategy through which scientists advance professionally and pursue their economic interests. The diffusion of research commercialization in universities has historically raised several concerns. Critics question the appropriateness and point to the possible unintended consequences of these activities in academia. The profit motive inherent to the commercialization process is often viewed as corrupting the public mission of universities (Slaughter and Rhoades 2004; Bok 2009). Moreover, specific issues arise when faculty members and graduate students engage in both academic and commercial pursuits, which sometimes overlap in the laboratory. Conflicts of interest and conflicts of commitment have therefore entered the lexicon of higher education (Campbell et al. 1999), as universities have had to regulate the terms under which professors may get involved in spin-off companies and patenting and not neglect university obligations and academic duties. Another unintended consequence of the commercialization of science is the potential reinforcement of resource asymmetries across universities and of inequities across academic disciplines and university departments (Campbell et al. 1999). Benefits from commercialization flow disproportionally to universities and fields of science and technology that are more likely to generate inventions, reinforcing gaps between the haves and have-nots of academia.

Commercialization of Science, Higher Education

More broadly, criticism has mounted about what scholars see as an unwarranted focus on intellectual property protection, which poses increasing constraints on the free flow of research knowledge that can paradoxically slow down both science and innovation (Nelson 2004). The concern is that the growing number of patents on ideas, materials, and techniques that are important components of scientific activity may inhibit research advances and technological progress.

Conclusion The experience of the last quarter century has shown that the commercialization of science is far from an economic panacea to financially starved universities or profit-seeking ones. Extraordinary cases of commercial success give a false impression to the casual observer that fortunes are waiting to be made in each sponsored research program. However, the reality is that commercializing research requires painstaking effort and sustained investment. Very rare are the inventions that emerge from university laboratories that are close to ready to be sold in the marketplace. Instead, the majority of cases offer rather grim prospects to those seeking to pursue a commercialization path: Research discoveries need extensive development before they are ready to be brought to the marketplace; failure rates are high among start-up companies; and among the inventions that are worth being patented, few will ever generate any revenue. This is not to say that commercialization is a Sisyphean endeavor doomed to failure. Rather, the point is that the purpose of pursuing the commercialization of research for universities has to be broader than the expectation of generating near-term revenue. Universities should engage in these activities to ensure that relevant research discoveries reach society, as they are turned into useful products, processes, or solutions to pressing problems. This outlook provides a more reasonable and realistic justification for universities to make the long-term investment in seeing inventions through the tortuous commercialization process.

199

Cross-References ▶ Entrepreneurial Universities ▶ Social Contract of Science, The ▶ Universities and Enterprises

C References Bok, Derek. 2009. Universities in the marketplace: The commercialization of higher education. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Campbell, Teresa, Isabelle Daza, and Sheila Slaughter. 1999. Faculty and administrators’ attitudes toward potential conflicts of interest, commitment, and equity in university-industry relationships. The Journal of Higher Education 70 (3): 309–352. Colyvas, Jeannette A., and Walter W. Powell. 2007. From vulnerable to venerated: The institutionalization of academic entrepreneurship in the life sciences. In Sociology of entrepreneurship, ed. Martin Ruef and Michael Lounsbury, 219–259. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing, Limited. Etkowitz, Henry. 2002. MIT and the rise of entrepreneurial science. London: Routledge. Fisher, D., and J. Atkinson-Grosjean. 2002. Brokers on the boundary: Academy-industry liaison in Canadian universities. Higher Education 44 (3): 449–467. Geiger, Roger L. 1993. Research and relevant knowledge: American research universities since World War II. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Geiger, Roger L., and Creso M. Sá. 2009. Tapping the riches of science: Universities and the promise of economic growth. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Geuna, A., and F. Rossi. 2011. Changes to university IPR regulations in Europe and the impact on academic patenting. Research Policy 40 (8): 1068–1076. Kenney, Martin, and Donald Patton. 2009. Reconsidering the Bayh-Dole Act and the current university invention ownership model. Research Policy 38 (9): 1407–1422. Leslie, Stuart W., and Robert H. Kargon. 1996. Selling Silicon Valley: Frederick Terman’s model for regional advantage. The Business History Review 70 (4): 435–472. Mowery, David C., Richard R. Nelson, Bhaven N. Sampat, and Arvids A. Ziedonis. 2004. Ivory tower and industrial innovation: University-industry technology transfer before and after the Bayh-Dole Act in the United States. Stanford: Stanford Business Books. Mowery, David C., and Bhaven N. Sampat. 2005. The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and university-industry technology transfer: A model for other OECD governments? In Essays in honor of Edwin Mansfield, ed. Albert N. Link and F.M. Scherer, 233–245. New York: Springer-Verlag. Mowery, David C., and Bhaven N. Sampat. 2006. Universities in national innovation systems. In The Oxford handbook of innovation, ed. Jan Fargerberg, David C. Mowery, and Richard R. Nelson, 209–239. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

200 Nelson, Richard R. 2004. The market economy, and the scientific commons. Research Policy 33 (3): 455–471. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2013. Commercialising public research. Paris: OECD Publishing. Pavitt, K. 2001. Public policies to support basic research: What can the rest of the world learn from US theory and practice? (And what they should not learn). Industrial and Corporate Change 10 (3): 761–779. Powell, Walter W., Kenneth W. Koput, and Laurel SmithDoerr. 1996. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly 41 (1): 116. Powell, W.W., and J. Owen-Smith. 2002. The new world of knowledge production in the life sciences. In The future of the city of intellect: The changing American university, ed. Steven Brint, 107–130. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Sá, Creso M. 2016. Globalization, business, and the research enterprise. In Higher education, commercialization, and University-Business relationships in comparative context, ed. Joshua Powers and Edward P. St. John, 25–54. Norwalk: AMS Press. Sá, Creso M., and Andrew J. Kretz. 2015. The Entrepreneurship movement. The entrepreneurship movement and the university. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Sá, Creso M., Andrew Kretz, and Kristjan Sigurdson. 2013. Techno-nationalism and the construction of university technology transfer. Minerva 51 (4): 443–464. Slaughter, Sheila, and Gary Rhoades. 2004. Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Wadhwa, Vivek. 2013. Silicon valley can’t be copied. MIT Technology Review. https://www.technologyreview. com/s/516506/silicon-valley-cant-be-copied/. Accessed 27 Jan 2016. World Intellectual Property Organization. 2016. Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP). Geneva: World Intellectual Property Organization. http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/mdocs/en/cdip_17/ cdip_17_9.pdf. Accessed 27 Jan 2016.

Communicating Science Online, Higher Education Ana Delicado Instituto de Ciências Sociais da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal

Synonyms Science communication blogs; Science communication in social network sites; Science communication in the internet

Communicating Science Online, Higher Education

Definition Communicating science online refers to the use of digital platforms by academics or higher education institutions for disseminating research results and engaging with different audiences. It covers the use of platforms such as websites, blogs, social networks, or YouTube for disseminating scientific content.

Background The use of various digital platforms for communicating science online is a fairly recent development and performing research on this issue is notoriously difficult, due to the swift pace of technological and social change associated with new media. As late as 2014, Gerber still noted that “the use of even the most common online tools is still a niche phenomenon in the scientific community” (Gerber 2014, 78), while Puschman described the widespread skepticism among the scientific community about the use of social media: “The current consensus among scientists appears to be that blogs and Twitter are somewhat interesting to promote one’s own research (to journalists and perhaps a few colleagues), and more broadly, one’s field (to potential students, the general public), but that the payoff is not always worth the time and effort” (Puschman 2014, 102). Though the internet has been in use across the world since the 1990s, with close connections to academia since the very beginning, it can be argued that its real potential for science communication has not been fulfilled until the emergence of Web 2.0, a widespread shift towards usergenerated content and online social networks (Brossard and Scheufele 2013). Borchelt (2008: 151) was among the first to point out the potential of the internet to foster symmetrical communication between universities and their publics: “The World Wide Web provides a number of platforms, from online discussion groups to chat forums to blogs, that allow real-time, person-to-person communication with members of the public valuable to an institution.” He nevertheless warned that “the commitment to symmetrical communication

Communicating Science Online, Higher Education

falls short if the organisation hears, but does not respond to, the concerns or issues of its public.” Gerber (2014) considers interactive online media as the driving force for the fifth stage of science communication. Science communication through the internet currently covers a wide array of formats and platforms, from science blogging to TED-talks, from Facebook pages to live tweeting from conferences, from podcasts to video-abstracts, from YouTube channels to discussion groups (Brossard 2013; Puschmann 2014; Davies and Horst 2016). In general, it fundamentally differs from most traditional means of communication for its ability to reach a huge audience (unbound by time and geographical constraints) with fairly low costs (Davis 2014). Content for online science communication is produced by a highly diversified roll of social actors: scientists, universities, research institutions, professional science communicators, journalists, citizens, activists, companies, civil society organizations. The ascendance of online science communication has also been marked by its popularity among the public, with several surveys showing that the internet has become the preferred source for science news and that the public expects scientists themselves to communicate science (Brossard 2013; Bik and Goldstein 2013; Gerber 2014; Davies and Horst 2016).

Research on Online Science Communication The literature in this field includes papers analyzing particular online communication platforms, such as science blogs (e.g., Puschmann 2014), science-specific social network sites such as Mendeley and Research Gate (Nentwich and König 2014), or online science videos (Erviti and Stengler 2016). Other papers focus on the representations of particular aspects of science and technology in online platforms, such as nanotechnology (Anderson et al. 2014). Other articles are eminently practice oriented. For instance, Bik and Goldstein (2013) list several online tools and resources for scientists and give advice for new users. Bultitude (2014) provides an overview of web-based channels for science

201

communication, discussing their potential and limitations, explaining the main platforms and providing recommendations for their use, as well as pointing out the relevance of designing a communication strategy, deploying search engine optimization and monitoring tools. More recently, Carrigan’s (2016) book on social media for academics provides guidance on its use for publicizing research, engaging with students and the public, building networks, or managing online identities. Another body of work concerns the use of online science communication by universities. Bélanger et al. (2014) analyze the use of social media by universities in Canada as a tool for institutional branding, recruitment and engagement of students. Universities can encourage academics by providing blog hubs or space in their websites for online communication (Puschmann 2014; Davis 2014; Gerber 2014). This encouragement can be an effect of the new trend for including social impact in evaluation procedures. Altmetrics (nontraditional measurements), including indicators such as number of visualizations, likes, or shares, are increasingly being used to assess public engagement of researchers (Bik and Goldstein 2013). However, social media policies in universities can also include limitations to what and how researchers can communicate with the public. Murphy (2014) addresses controversies on the use of social media by academics, highlighting the risk of academic institutions supervising their staff and thus threatening academic freedom. An additional body of research concerns the risks and negative impacts of online science communication. Several authors point out that the rise of online science communication has been accompanied by (and is one of the causes of) the demise of science journalism, with many newspapers foregoing dedicated science reporters (Colson 2011; Brossard 2013; Brossard and Scheufele 2013; Gerber 2014; Davies and Horst 2016). Brossard (2013, see also Brossard and Scheufele 2013 and Anderson et al. 2014) also calls attention to the bias introduced by search engine algorithms based on user preferences, which cause self-reinforcing informational spiral and the risk that debates on emerging technologies are being skewed by the

C

202

Community Colleges

undifferentiation of news from opinions in science blogs and the tone of comments and tweets, affecting the perceptions and attitudes of readers. Brossard and Scheufele (2013) thus call for more research in the field of online science communication on issues such as the motivations for searching for scientific information online, the evaluation of scientific content online, and the impact on public knowledge and attitudes.

Cross-References ▶ Engaged University, The ▶ Factors Influencing Scientists’ Engagement

Public

References Anderson, A.A., D. Brossard, D.A. Scheufele, Michael A. Xenos, and Peter Ladwig. 2014. The “nasty effect:” Online incivility and risk perceptions of emerging technologies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19 (3): 373–387. Bélanger, Charles H., Suchita Bali, and Bernard Longden. 2014. How Canadian universities use social media to brand themselves. Tertiary Education and Management 20 (1): 14–29. Bik, Holly M., and Miriam C. Goldstein. 2013. An introduction to social media for scientists. PLoS Biology 11 (4): e1001535. Borchelt, Rick E. 2008. Public relations in science: Managing the trust portfolio. In Handbook of public communication of science and technology, ed. M. Bucchi and B. Trench, 147–157. London: Routledge. Brossard, D. 2013. New media landscapes and the science information consumer. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110 (Suppl 3): 14096–14101. Brossard, Dominique, and Dietram A. Scheufele. 2013. Science, new media, and the public. Science 339 (6115): 40–41. Bultitude, Karen. 2014. Web-Based Channels for Science Communication. In Communicating science to the public: Opportunities and challenges for the Asia-pacific region, ed. L. Tan Wee Hin and R. Subramaniam, 225–246. Dordrecht: Springer. Carrigan, Mark. 2016. Social media for academics. London: Sage. Colson, Vinciane. 2011. Science blogs as competing channels for the dissemination of science news. Journalism 12 (7): 889–902. Davies, Sarah R., and Maja Horst. 2016. Science communication: Culture, identity and citizenship. London: Palgrave Macmilan.

Davis, Lloyd Spencer. 2014. Outreach activities by universities as a channel for science communication. In Communicating science to the public: Opportunities and challenges for the Asia-pacific region, ed. L. Tan Wee Hin and R. Subramaniam, 161–182. Dordrecht: Springer. Erviti, M. Carmen, and Erik Stengler. 2016. Online science videos: An exploratory study with major professional content providers in the United Kingdom. JCOM Journal of Science Communication 15 (6): A06. Gerber, Alexander. 2014. Science caught flat-footed: How academia struggles with open science communication. In Opening science: The evolving guide on how the internet is changing research, collaboration and scholarly publishing, ed. S. Bartling and S. Friesike, 73–80. Heidelberg: Springer. Murphy, Maria Helen. 2014. The views expressed represent mine alone: Academic freedom and social media. SCRIPTed 11 (3): 210–228. Nentwich, Michael, and René König. 2014. Academia goes facebook? The potential of social network sites in the scholarly realm. In Opening science: The evolving guide on how the internet is changing research, collaboration and scholarly publishing, ed. S. Bartling and S. Friesike, 107–124. Heidelberg: Springer. Puschmann, Cornelius. 2014. (Micro)Blogging science? Notes on potentials and constraints of new forms of scholarly communication. In Opening science: The evolving guide on how the internet is changing research, collaboration and scholarly publishing, ed. S. Bartling and S. Friesike, 89–106. Heidelberg: Springer.

Community Colleges ▶ Non-university Higher Education

Community Colleges and the Massification of Higher Education Eboni M. Zamani-Gallaher Department of Education Policy, Organization and Leadership, University of Illinois, Champaign, IL, USA

The prototype of community colleges in the United States can readily be found across the globe. US community colleges have come to

Community Colleges and the Massification of Higher Education

symbolize increasing access, broadening opportunity, and diversified pathways for youth and adults seeking postsecondary education. The US model of 2 years of college post-high school that is affordable and combines liberal, occupational/ vocational, career and technical education via an open-door concept is far-reaching with many countries utilizing community colleges as a tier in their educational hierarchies (Brint and Karabel 1989; Raby and Valeau 2009). Given the historical segmentation of opportunity to postsecondary education, arguably, the massification of US higher education can be credited to the American community college. The community college is a unique American invention with an emphasis on open access to higher education that made these institutions known as the People’s Colleges with the image of democracy’s doors (Beach 2012; Kelsay and Oudenhoven 2014). From the start, community colleges were rooted in democratizing higher education by challenging the notion that postsecondary education was for the elite and not the masses, which broke racial/ethnic and class barriers and provided entrée to those without other postsecondary opportunities.

Origins and Evolution of the Community College Desiring to assist high school students pursue baccalaureate degrees, J. Stanley Brown pushed for advanced placement courses that would transfer to nearby 4-year colleges/universities for his students. As principal of Joliet High School and later superintendent of Joliet High School District in Illinois, J. Stanley Brown along with William Rainey Harper, president of the University of Chicago, and other elite 4-year university presidents pushed for the alignment of the freshman and sophomore college years with secondary education (Beach 2012; Cohen et al. 2013). In fact, Joliet High School sparked the beginnings of the community college as the first and most successful high school-based community college (Witt et al. 1994) founded in 1901.

203

During the early formative years (i.e., 1900–1930s), community colleges generally reflected high school needs, had a liberal arts and transfer focus, and were establishing an institutional identity as outgrowths of secondary education. This period of community college development was also marked by broadening the mission to provide more than general education. Two-year institutions offered accelerated pathways and transfer to 4-year colleges and universities while providing workforce training for the middle/semiprofessional occupations and community outreach. The community college expansion (mid-1940s–1960s) was marked by unprecedented growth in colleges across the country particularly after World War II and the Higher Education for American Democracy Report to President Harry S. Truman commonly referred to as the Truman Commission Report. The Truman Commission marked the first time in US history that a presidential directive to examine the American education system was charged. The Truman Commission reported on the state of higher education in the United States calling for an expanded role of community colleges summoning for a 4year college within commuting distance of nearly all Americans. The Truman Commission Report resulted in greater support in the late 1940s for 2year institutions, which raised the profile of community colleges in the higher education landscape especially with nearly half of all 18-year-olds being returning WWII soldiers. Therefore, this single report contributed to increasing access, firmly rooting community colleges, and fostering equity for decades to follow (Gilbert and Heller 2013; Witt et al. 1994). The community college expansion era produced over 450 new community colleges in the 1960s (Cohen et al. 2013). The 1960s was also a period marked by liberal state and federal politics, the civil rights movement, and greater emphasis on the professionalization of community college leadership and federal legislation such as the Vocational Education Act of 1963 that expanded funding to occupational education. The growth in occupational curriculum boosted 2-year terminal degrees as nimble and efficient means to

C

204

Community Colleges and the Massification of Higher Education

advancement for those that desired postsecondary education but not baccalaureate degrees. Between the 1970s and 2000, other developments in community colleges such as remedial/ developmental education and adult and community/continuing education were on the rise. Overall student attendance continued to grow, and the diversity of students enrolling in community colleges became increasingly diverse. As a result, the institutional diversity of community colleges produced more institutional types (i.e., minorityserving 2-year institutions emerged beyond already established tribal colleges and universities (TCUs) or historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) to include 2-year Hispanicserving institutions (HSIs), Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) institutions, and predominantly Black institutions (PBIs)) (Aragon and Zamani 2002). Additionally, the institutional diversity among 2-year institutions produced divergent goals/missions in which classification models revealing the breadth, depth, and range of community colleges relative to access, enrollment, location, student demographics, etc. emerged (Cox and McCormick 2003; Hardy and Katsinas 2006).

quickly saw the value of community colleges as engines for innovation, retooling, workforce development, and getting Americans back to work in high-skill, high-demand, and high-wage occupations. Among the policies enacted by the Obama administration that bolstered community colleges within the higher education landscape include the American Recovery and Reemployment Act (ARRA) using the American Graduation Initiative (AGI) that sought to provide billions of dollars into community college programs to increase 2year institution graduation rates by five million by 2020 (Wood and Harrison 2014). However, the Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career Training (TAACCCT) with only $2 billion of the $12 billion sought by President Obama through AGI was authorized (Bragg 2014). All told, the Obama administration has raised the profile of 2-year institutions in many of their postsecondary education reform efforts from the White House Summit on Community Colleges in 2010 to the 2015 announcement of “America’s College Promise” calling for at least 2 years of postsecondary education for all citizens free at community colleges (The White House 2015).

Post-millennium: Toward Mass Access and Equitable Outcomes

Broadening Participation

Since the turn of the twenty-first century, community colleges have come full circle reminiscent of the 1940s when the Truman Commission emphasized them as centers for economic initiatives and a public good that “must prepare [their] students to live a rich and satisfying life, part of which involves earning a living” (President’s Commission on Higher Education 1947, pp. 6–7). While community colleges are often overlooked within the higher education landscape, the importance of the 2-year college sector has been acknowledged by President Obama as he positioned community colleges as a centerpiece of his college completion agenda. When President Obama entered office in January of 2009, he was met with the Great Recession – the largest US deficit and unemployment since the Great Depression. President Obama

Currently, the nation’s community colleges enroll over 12 million credit and noncredit students representing 45% of all undergraduates (American Association of Community Colleges 2016). A disproportionately higher number of students of color attend community colleges (i.e., 62% Native Americans, 57% Hispanics, 52% Blacks, and 43% Asian/Pacific Islanders are community college students) accounting for 46% of the enrollment at 2-year institutions of higher learning (American Association of Community Colleges 2016). Thirty-six percent of community college students are first-generation collegians, one-third of 2-year college students are Pell Grant eligible, 22% of attendees work full time, 40% work part time, and 62% are enrolled part time (American Association of

Community Colleges and the Massification of Higher Education

Community Colleges 2016). According to the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center (2015), during the 2013–2014 academic year, 46% of students who completed a bachelor’s degree enrolled at a community college during some point in the past 10 years. There is greater diversity among those attending community colleges with 2-year institutions of higher learning providing on-ramps to postsecondary education, further education, and gainful employment for scores of individuals. Community colleges are essential to the educational enterprise though often overlooked. Among the challenges, facing community colleges are navigating being seen as a gateway to and gatekeeper from opportunity depending on the source. This is due in part to the multiple missions, divergent students, varied educational backgrounds, community interests, and local economic and industry needs that 2-year institutions seek to meet (Dowd 2007). However, despite attempting to be all things to all people, this sector of higher education (like the students they serve) is not marginal but matters. By design, community colleges are novel and not generic given their distinctive role in the educational pipeline. They have and will continue to be different from their 4-year college/university counterparts and justly so as it is this uniqueness that renders them relevant in the communities they serve as they evolve to meet people where they are and provide the area with the necessities (basic and beyond) to the best of its ability. Today, like in their humble beginnings, community colleges hold an important place in mass higher education, sitting at an ideal intersection of social justice and educational change. Historically, ideologically, demographically, politically, and operationally, community colleges continue to bring postsecondary opportunity to broad segments of the populace. Community colleges from birth advanced a context of social change relative to who can, should, and will have access to postsecondary education. The next wave is significant change in moving beyond people entering college but ensuring that they exit with connected credentials to equitable educational outcomes and greater social mobility. The changes the American

205

community college has undergone in its 115-year existence have yield profound results demonstrating that 2-year colleges are significant, sustainable social change engines that have opened higher education to the masses.

C References American Association of Community Colleges. (2016, February). Fast facts. Retrieved from http://www. aacc.nche.edu/AboutCC/Documents/AACCFactSheets R2.pdf Aragon, Steven R., and Eboni M. Zamani. 2002. Promoting access and equity through minority serving institutions. In Equity and access in higher education: Changing the definition of educational opportunity, Readings on equal education, ed. M.C. Brown, Vol. 18, 23–50. New York: AMS Press. Beach, J.M. 2012. Gateway to opportunity? A history of the community college in the United States. Sterling: Stylus Publishing. Bragg, Debra D. 2014. A perfect storm? President Obama, the great recession, and community colleges. In The Obama administration and educational reform, ed. E.M. Zamani-Gallaher, 93–118. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Brint, Steven, and Jerome Karabel. 1989. The diverted dream: Community colleges and the promise of educational opportunity in America, 1900–1985. New York: Oxford University Press. Cohen, Arthur M., Florence B. Brawer, and Carrie B. Kisker. 2013. The American community college. 6th ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cox, Rebecca D., and Alexander C. McCormick. 2003. Classification in practice Applying five proposed classification models to a sample of two-year colleges. In Classification systems for two-year colleges, New directions for community colleges, ed. A.C. McCormick and R.D. Cox, Vol. 122, 103–121. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Dowd, A. 2007. Community colleges as gateways and gatekeepers: Moving beyond the access “saga” toward outcome equity. Harvard Educational Review 77(4): 407–419. Gilbert, Claire Krendl, and Donald E. Heller. 2013. Access, equity, and community colleges: The Truman Commission and federal higher education policy from 1947 to 2011. The Journal of Higher Education 84(3): 417–443. Hardy, David E., and Stephen G. Katsinas. 2006. Using community college classifications in research: From conceptual model to useful tool. Community College Journal of Research and Practice 30(4): 339–358. Kelsay, L.S., and B. Oudenhoven. 2014. Junior grows up: A brief history of community colleges. In Working with students in community colleges: Contemporary strategies for bridging theory, research, and

206 practice, ed. L.S. Kelsay and E.M. Zamani-Gallaher. Sterling: ACPA/Stylus Publishing. President’s Commission on Higher Education. 1947. Higher education for American democracy: Volume III, Organizing higher education. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Raby, Rosalind L., and Edward J. Valeau, ed. 2009. Community college models: Globalization and higher education reform. Dordrecht: Springer. The White House. (2015, January 9). Fact sheet – White House unveils America’s college promise proposal: Tuition-free community college for responsible students. Retrieved at http://www.whitehouse.gov/thepress-office/2015/01/09/fact-sheet-white-house-unveilsamerica-s-college-promise-proposal-tuitio?amp&& amp& Witt, Allen A., James L. Wattenbarger, James F. Gollattscheck, and Joseph E. Suppinger. 1994. America’s community colleges: The first century. Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges. Wood, J. Luke, and John D. Harrison. 2014. The 2020 American graduation initiative: A clear vision or dim view? In The Obama administration and educational reform, ed. E.M. Zamani-Gallaher, 119–139. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Community Engagement ▶ Civic Engagement in Higher Education ▶ Public Engagement in Higher Education

Community Engagement in Higher Education Kelly A. Ward Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA

Synonyms Civic engagement; Democratic education; Outreach; Public service; Service

Definition Community engagement is about institutions leaving behind notions of ivory tower ideals that

Community Engagement

separate campus and community and shift instead to integrated views where public spaces include knowledge and science and where institutions and their publics connect. Community engagement is a way for institutions and communities to reconsider how they interact to address larger needs that transcend an individual institution or one community. More permeable boundaries between campus and community where colleges and universities are at the center of community life and not on the edge of it allows for more engaged, responsive, interesting, and creative communities and postsecondary institutions.

Evolution of an Idea Community engagement is at once a mission and a set of actions. As a mission, community engagement is about connecting the resources of the university with the needs and resources of communities to address mutual needs. As a set of actions, community engagement encompasses the type of work faculty, staff, and students do to link campuses and communities (e.g., research focused on community organizations, students using service learning in their classrooms). Questions often asked about community engagement include: How is community defined? What is engagement? Engagement with whom? The responses to such questions can be broad depending on the context. In a mission statement, community typically encompasses all the communities served by an institution including local, regional, national, and international communities. In contrast, when a professor refers to his or her research as part of community engagement, this typically refers to specific communities – for example, connecting faculty through research with an international community (e.g., a professor from Scotland working with a community in Nepal) or students participating in a service learning class where they connect with youth in a local community based organization adjacent to campus. These examples help illustrate the ways that community engagement charts a course through overarching mission statements at the same time that community

Community Engagement in Higher Education

engagement is action based and guides direct activities. Community engagement is an outgrowth of the other related terms of service and outreach. As with many terms used in academic contexts, the difference in definition is one of nuance and has resulted in what Sandmann (2008) refers to as “definitional anarchy” related to community engagement and outreach. Words like community engagement, public outreach, community service, civic engagement, and social responsibility are usage and context dependent. Community engagement is a term that is used by higher education institutions as a way to reflect and comment on the relationships that higher education systems and institutions have with their respective communities (writ large and with particular communities). Historical Overview Community engagement as a mission was (and is) related to service roles of postsecondary institutions and the relationships they have with their respective home communities. Service refers to the work done on a campus to meet the needs of a community. Institutions do their part to contribute to a learned society. In this way, service can refer to the integral work institutions do to prepare graduates for progress in society or to prepare a work force in a particular vocational area or to meet the needs of particular communities. Historically, campuses and communities have always been connected although how and to what extent varies from community to community. Colleges and universities were closely tied to their local communities to recruit students, offer housing, and provide services for faculty and students ranging from food to health care. Institutions benefited from their communities to support, house, and feed students and faculty. Communities benefited economically in the exchange of services and they benefitted socially by having access to higher education for personal benefit and for the larger benefit of social progress. Having a campus in town was a sign of development and status. The public and governmental support for higher education grew out of a social covenant between institutions and the publics they served

207

(Bender 1988). Partly as a result of post–World War II economics that shifted from social and public interests to private and corporate interests, what many refer to as neoliberal economics, the social covenant between higher education and related communities was compromised. Public support for higher education diminished and put a spotlight of accountability onto higher education that resulted in less synergy, reduced support, and suspicion between campuses and their respective publics. Regardless of how institutions are funded, the privatization and marketization of higher education comparable to other goods and services relationships, created a rift between campuses and communities. In response, institutions of higher education need to attain public support through increasingly competitive processes (e.g., lobbying for funding, competing for grant support). Although they manifest differently by setting, the trends are consistent internationally (Gibbons 1999). What the context of economic constraints meant and continues to mean for universities is a need to respond to public demands as a condition of funding and support. In the research realm, faculty have to engage in research that has clear outcomes that are linked to social needs as part of receiving funding. In the teaching realm, there is pressure for student curricular offerings and majors to be directly tied to career outcomes and gainful employment. The privatization of the exchange between higher education and communities created and contributed to a critique of higher education as self-serving. Visions of ivory towers have been enduring and represent ideals that separate campuses and their communities based on intellectual foundations. In contemporary settings, rifts between colleges and universities and their respective communities are often a result of a failure for campuses to deliver on goods perceived as promised or as a result of a failure for the public to support colleges and universities. The concept of community engagement in the contemporary university is a means for institutions to communicate more fully to their respective publics of what it is that universities actually do to support their communities. Community engagement also suggests reciprocity between

C

208

institutions and communities in the exchange as a way to reduce the barriers created by economic constraints. Contemporary Issues Concerned that service was too passive as an interpretation of what institutions do to actually connect with their communities and that institutions had become increasingly disconnected from their communities, educational organizations and community leaders throughout the world have looked at ways to more clearly connect the resources of a campus with the needs of communities (again, writ large as stated in mission statements and in particular communities when it comes to activities and actions). The language of engagement is used to convey clearer lines of communication as well as synergy and reciprocity (Ward 2003). Throughout the past 30 years, there have been deliberate initiatives across the world to question how communities and campuses relate and to provide suggestions for improvement. Examples include the UNESCO group in Community Based Research and Social Responsibility in Higher Education (Tandon and Hall 2012), with partners in Africa, Arab states, Asia and the Pacific, Europe and North American, and Latin America and the Caribbean. The mission of the cooperative is to promote linkages between postsecondary institutions to share resources and bridge knowledge between and among partner institutions and communities. Other examples include Australian Universities Community Engagement Alliance (2008) and Campus Compact and the Carnegie Foundation in the United States whose work have helped to articulate principles, provide resources, and highlight key components related to delete connection and collaboration between higher education institutions and the communities they serve. Reports and related material from these initiatives typically focus on and encourage social responsibility, faculty involvement, and improved student outcomes related to civic participation, democracy, and community service. Faculty Work Community engagement is about integrating the teaching, research, and service of faculty to be more deliberately focused on

Community Engagement in Higher Education

meeting community needs. Faculty are key players to carry out community engagement missions and activities. Faculty need to actively participate in civic life as a means to fully realize goals for higher education institutions to prepare students for participation in a democracy (Hartley and Huddleston 2010). An international champion of all causes related to connecting campus resources with community needs was Ernest Boyer, an American scholar and leader of university reform to create greater synergy between campuses and communities. Although he talked frequently about the covenant between higher education and society, it was in his definitive work, Scholarship Reconsidered, where Boyer (1990) first synthesized thinking about faculty work and how the overemphasis on research was excluding service and teaching missions. Boyer was passionate about the need to connect the resources of the academy with the social needs in communities beyond the campus. Part of Boyer’s legacy was providing clear definitions of what it actually means for an institution and its faculty to be community engaged. Boyer’s work made clear how faculty can link with communities through their teaching, research, and service. Although Boyer was an American scholar, his conceptualizations of engagement and faculty work are recognized and have been built upon internationally by institutions and related collectives. Part of Boyer’s impact on the update and reconsideration of faculty work was the deliberate look at what it means for faculty to engage in service that is tied to meeting community needs and as part of larger faculty roles. Boyer’s legacy is that he named the problems associated with faculty being too focused on research that was insular and self-serving. Boyer was also critical of institutions that had narrow reward systems that failed to consider the totality of faculty work to include community perspectives. Boyer’s expanded model of scholarship gave language for faculty to explain their scholarly work across teaching, research, and service, underlying the need to tie the resources of campuses to the needs of communities. Boyer’s model also gave academic leaders language and guidance to

Community Engagement in Higher Education

provide direction for reward systems for faculty engaged in community work. Comparative Perspectives In the European context, community engagement as a concept resonates and is expanded to focus more on democracy and human rights (see for example the work of Hartley and Huddleston 2010). In Australia, community engagement is talked about in more local terms as a means to react to neoliberal policy contexts (Winter et al. 2006). Based on a review of literature related to community engagement, it is clear that the often-cited works of Boyer (1990), as well as other authors that have built on Boyer’s concepts, have played a key leadership role in articulating goals and visions for community engagement across different country settings and institutional contexts. Boyer’s work helps articulate a big picture vision that has been integrated and adapted to different global settings. The UNESCO project (2015) is also an example of international collaboration related to connecting campus and community in different country contexts. The UNESCO collaborative is focused on supporting intellectual cooperation to promote knowledge exchange and to share information across borders between countries and between institutions of higher learning and global partners. Areas of Critique As an umbrella term, community engagement can at times be too encompassing leaving critics fixated on what the term actually means instead of the action it is intended to carry out and the mission intended to realize. Community engagement can be too passive or limited in comparison to concepts like civic education or education for democratic citizenship – terms that suggest more educative value and connection. There is also an assumption embedded in community engagement, especially in the U S context, that service activities like volunteerism and service learning, will lead to outcomes associated with democracy and civic life when, in reality, the links are not always so direct (Hartley and Huddleston 2010). Another area of critique is related to the role of higher education versus the role of communities in

209

enacting community engagement. Colleges and universities as the drivers in community engagement dialogues can still maintain power hierarchies and pursue self-motivated agendas at the expense of community needs. In response to such critique, reflection by students, faculty, and organizations is encouraged as a principle of good practice as a way to move from hierarchical community relationships to ones driven by social change, reciprocity, and partnership. To move away from top-down models of community engagement, it is helpful to think in terms of polycultural connections where multiple viewpoints and needs are considered as part of community engagement (Moore et al. 2009) or to ecological or multilateral approaches (Hartley and Huddleston 2010). An additional critique related to community engagement comes from the lack of institutional support to carry out community engagement related activities. For example, in African universities, community engagement is included in the priorities of many universities, but institutional and governmental support to recognize faculty for their work in communities is marginalized (Mugabi 2015). Ongoing structural support is necessary to realize community engagement missions and carry out community engagement initiatives. There is perpetual concern about keeping community engagement a priority in light of multiple demands on faculty and student time, varying institutional priorities, and seemingly perpetual fiscal stress. Conceptual Models Community engagement can be thought of in terms of phases or levels. There are two conceptualizations that are particularly helpful to guide readers in thinking about community engagement more generally. Hartley and Huddleston (2010) in their work about democratic citizenship that builds on ideas from the United States and Europe address the differences in partnerships embedded in democratic citizenship and those that are not. They articulate levels of partnership that can guide reflective thinking about campus and community relationships. Morton’s (1995) work is also a helpful metric for those engaged in work related to campus and community partnership that offers a way to think about work in

C

210

communities that is organized not just for providing help and charity, but instead to foster thinking and action oriented to social change. Both of these models are examples of macroscopic conceptual views about community-oriented activities. The models can help guide faculty and student development activities as well as a way to describe the work taking place between campuses and their communities. Not all community engagement has the same means or end.

Next Steps Existing work of faculty, institutions, communities, and organizations (e.g., UNESCO) make clear that the concept of community engagement holds great promise as a means to shift from narratives of individualism within higher education to narratives of societal connection and commitment. An important component of furthering agendas related to community engagement is ongoing support. For community engagement to become and stay a central part of the important roles of colleges and universities, and not be perceived as a passing fad, it is vital for community engagement to be viewed not solely as a passive idea or a trite mention in a mission statement, but instead as a specific set of activities to be integrated into institutions. Given the important role of faculty in carrying out community engagement missions, it is important for reward structures and faculty job descriptions to clearly outline how community engagement is integrated into faculty work and part of promotion and recognition. Professional development related to community engagement is also important so that faculty are aware of how to integrate community-based work into their teaching, research, and service. Further, as institutions look to enact engagement, there must be support to shift from passive connections with communities to true community engagement where work is taking place that is reciprocal and mutually benefits institutions and communities. Engagement takes time and energy and for faculty and students to participate, there must be infrastructure in place and resources to support the work. Increasingly, research is rewarded given

Community Engagement in Higher Education

the promise of self-financial support for faculty through grants and contracts to support initiatives. For community engagement to be integrated into the fabric of faculty and institutional life, it must be rewarded as part of what faculty do in their classrooms, in their research, and in their outreach and connection to different communities.

Cross-References ▶ Civic Engagement ▶ Community Partnership ▶ Factors Influencing Scientists’ Public Engagement ▶ Public Engagement ▶ Public Engagement Measurement

References Bender, Thomas. 1988. The University and the city: From medieval origins to the present. New York: Oxford University Press on Demand. Boyer, Ernest L. 1990. Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Lawrenceville: Princeton University Press. Gibbons, Michael. 1999. Science’s new social contract with society. Nature 402: C81–C84. Hartley, Matthew, and Ted Huddleston. 2010. Schoolcommunity-university partnerships for a sustainable democracy: Education for democratic citizenship in Europe and the United States of America. Moore, Tami, Jocey Quinn, and Lorilee Sandmann. 2009. A comparative analysis of knowledge construction in community engagement. Paper presented at the international conference on lifelong learning revisited. Centre for Research on Lifelong, University of Stirling, Scotland, June 2009. Morton, Keith. 1995. The irony of service: Charity, project and social change in service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning 2 (1): 19–32. Mugabi, Henry. 2015. Institutionalization of community engagement at African universities. International Higher Education 81: 21–23. Sandmann, Lorilee R. 2008. Conceptualization of the scholarship of engagement in higher education: A strategic review, 1996–2006. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement 12 (1): 91–104. Tandon, Rajesh, and Budd Hall. 2012. UNESCO Chair on community based research and social responsibility in higher education, a framework for action 2012–2016. Victoria: University of Victoria. Ward, Kelly. 2003. Faculty service roles and the scholarship of engagement, ASHE-ERIC higher education report. Jossey-Bass higher and adult education series. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Community Partnerships, Higher Education Winter, Alexandra, John Wiseman, and Bruce Muirhead. 2006. University-community engagement in Australia: Practice, policy and public good. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice 1 (3): 211–230.

Community Outreach ▶ New Modes of Student Mobility, Work Experience and Service Learning

Community Partnership ▶ Community Partnerships, Higher Education

Community Partnerships, Higher Education David J. Maurrasse Columbia School of International and Public Affairs, New York, NY, USA

Synonyms Anchors institution; Asset-based community development; Collective impact; Community partnership; Institutional collaboration; Placebased initiatives

Definition Collective community ownership and responsibility that is built through collaborations among key stakeholder groups.

Universities as Anchor Institutions: US Case Study Globally, institutions of higher education are increasingly becoming more engaged and active participants in revitalizing their respective

211

communities. The Talloires Network is an international coalition of 250 university members in 62 countries – representing a total of six million students (Holden 2012). The secretariat for the Talloires Network is based at Tufts University in the United States, a country where trends continue to show a rise of involvement among these institutions in strengthening local communities. The dynamics that have given rise to deepening the local engagement of universities are universal. An understanding of how institutions of higher education in the United States came to be known as anchor institutions expected to play an expanded role in their local communities and economies can be instructive in the geographical context shaping contemporary universities. As the United States has shifted economically over the last half century, universities and hospitals have become increasingly important assets to American cities. Whereas manufacturing firms, retail business, and other private or public companies were the most significant local employers in many localities and regions, in recent years, institutions of higher education and hospitals tend to be the most substantial local employers. These institutions are often referred to as “anchors” because of their permanence and physical and social ties to surrounding communities (Feldman 2014). The shift from older industries depending on substantial employees with low to moderate technical skills or formal training is a global economic phenomenon. In many cities, anchor institutions are magnets for economic development and urban or rural revitalization. Leading practitioners define anchors as “institutions that consciously and strategically apply their long-term, place-based economic power, in combination with their human and intellectual resources, to better the welfare of the community in which they reside” (Hodges and Dubb 2012). The Anchor Institutions Task Force defines “anchor institutions” as “enduring organizations that play a vital role in their local communities and economies.” Some examples of these institutions include churches, museums, libraries, performing arts facilities, as well as universities and their affiliated hospitals. Anchors have often been referenced as urban, but the notion of enduring

C

212

local institutions transcends various geographical contexts. It is relevant in urban and rural settings, and across national boundaries. All communities experience economic transitions, and some form of capital flight. Anchor institutions are those entities that remain. And institutions of higher education tend to be designed to endure in their geographic settings. Beyond fulfilling their respective missions to educate, heal, cultivate the arts or provide other services, these institutions should also be considered economic engines for their cities (Feldman 2014). Institutions of higher education bring unique missions in this context. Like other anchors, they are employers, they own real estate, and they procure contractual work from firms. But their economic and physical capital rest alongside a particular blend of knowledge and human capital. Higher education-community partnerships have been challenged to harness all of these forms of capital. Not only can colleges and universities provide employment and procurement, they can leverage student volunteers and faculty research. Over recent decades, higher education/ community partnerships have evolved from mostly emphasizing students’ participation in the local community (with the encouragement of organizations such as Campus Compact) to greater recognition of the potential of research to address critical problems facing local communities (with support from entities such as the, now defunct, US Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Community Outreach Partnership Centers program) to more recent efforts to purchase from local businesses and hire locally (as the University of Pennsylvania had pursued significantly, catalyzing similar behavior at other universities and colleges). Now it is much more likely that an effective higher education-community partnership is perceived as a comprehensive endeavor that taps students, faculty, facilities, human resources, and beyond. The field of higher education-community partnerships has influenced a broader discussion about the role of all anchor institutions in their neighborhoods, cities, and regions. A report from the Office of University Partnerships at the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) features commentary from Barbara Holland, former

Community Partnerships, Higher Education

Director at HUD, highlighting how anchor institutions can impact cities’ “resilience” which it defines as a “quality emerging from specific practices, including efforts focused on educational improvement, initiatives to improve residents’ quality of life and social well-being” (HUD 2013). As communities confront volatility and uncertainty, the stability of anchor institutions is seen as a source of potential strength that can be leveraged and extended to influence greater consistency of opportunity in communities. More recently, colleges, universities, and other anchor institutions have made conscious efforts focused on strengthening their local communities. Some strategies include: payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILOTs), a payment by the anchor to the city in order to offset its tax exempt status; Community Benefit Agreements (CBA), a binding contract between an anchor and community members requiring the anchor to accommodate the interests and provide certain benefits to garner community support for a project; and local procurement of services through locally owned businesses. Albeit not without flaws, the growing popularity of anchor development strategies is a turn toward asset-based economic growth, rooted in the idea that cities and regions must develop human talent and cultural and commercial assets from within (Bartley 2014). While many colleges and universities around the world have come to embrace the idea that community involvement is a key part of their academic mission, it is equally important that institutions commit to engagement with their communities and work in partnership, not independently (Smith 2014). Therefore, given the growing popularity of anchor strategies, and the large public investments flowing to anchors, now is the time to define them in ways that ensure maximum community benefit. However, some institutions that we might categorize as anchors have not always acted as beneficent community partners (Bartley 2014).

US Examples Rutgers University–Newark is one of the three campuses encompassing Rutgers University,

Community Partnerships, Higher Education

established in 1766 as the eighth oldest college in the United States. Located in the State of New Jersey, Rutgers–Newark is a diverse, urban, public research university that embraces its role with the community as an anchor institution. For the past 50 years, Rutgers–Newark has looked to expansively recruit talent and to engage urban partners with a plethora of participation endeavors that have had a ripple effect in the city of Newark and beyond. This is consonant with its vision of “Jersey Roots, Global Reach” which, based on its public mission, is fulfilled through engagement in three areas: research, education, and economic development (RBS 2017). As an anchor institution, Rutgers–Newark cannot be seen as “doing things to” or “bringing solutions to” communities in a one-way transaction; there has to be a very broad reach to a wideranging “community of experts” engaged in these partnerships (Cantor 2016). Thus, the University has excelled in establishing significant efforts to promote strong, safe, healthy neighborhoods and support the revitalization of Newark and other urban areas in New Jersey. Most notably, the creation of a department in 2001 focused on strengthening ties with the community – aptly renamed the Office of University-Community Partnerships (OUCP) in 2010 – was created to focus on three integral elements, one of greatest relevance being “community partnerships and engagement.” From this, various institution-wide community engagement initiatives were established. For example, The Center for Urban Entrepreneurship and Economic Development (CUEED) is dedicated to providing programs aimed at increasing the level of entrepreneurial activity in urban areas. In order to do this, CUEED offers the Entrepreneurship Pioneers Initiative (EPI) which provides firstgeneration entrepreneurs who have established businesses with training, individual counseling, peer counseling, and networking opportunities (OUCP 2013). Rutgers–Newark has formed very inclusive collaborations with numerous stakeholders to achieve many of its initiatives. One such example can be seen with the Rutgers Institute for Ethical Leadership which collaborates with nonprofits, local businesses, government entities, and

213

university staff to bring together leaders within the community to engage in conferences, speaker series, and customized training and leadership development programs which serve to advance ethical leadership and strengthen civil society (OUCP 2013). The services include critical, long-term education and training on an individual level to nonprofit leaders from the mid-level to the executive. Wishing to tackle the challenges facing the local community in regards to cultivating programs in creative, visual, and performing arts, Rutgers–Newark began looking at specific factors and developing initiatives accordingly. These initiatives include: A Dance Symposium Series which partners with numerous local institutions to present performances by a broad array of artists, educational workshops, and access to these programs free of charge to a public audience; The Gallery at the John Cotton Dana Library exhibits displays from featured artists based in the greater Newark area; and additionally, the Hoboken Dual Language Charter School (HoLa) is an elementary school where Rutgers students fluent in Spanish serve as teaching interns and later receive credit within the Department of Spanish and Portuguese Studies (OUCP 2013). In all its endeavors, the aim of Rutgers–Newark is to co-create interventions on the ground with as much weight given to those who live the issues day to day as to those who teach it or research it (Cantor 2016). When the Health, Education, Advocacy, and Law (H.E.A.L.) collaborative, for example, works with medical students and residents in training programs at the intersection of poverty, health, and disability advocacy, they do so by deeply engaging community and patient groups in the problem-definition and intervention-treatment process, as well engaging State legislators and the legal community in writing progressive policies to strengthen client rights (Cantor 2016). Recently, under Rutgers 2014 Strategic Plan, there has been a greater focus on increasing local procurement. In fiscal year 2015, local procurement was 21.26% of Rutgers overall procurement spends (Rutgers 2017). In fiscal year 2016, it was, 24.45%, showing an increase of 15% (Rutgers 2017). Rutgers–Newark now is among a leading

C

214

group of anchors focused on increasing local procurement. In this endeavor, Rutgers greatest challenge had been finding local vendors who have the capacity to produce the volume and/or quality of products/services that the university may need. Another challenge was making their local procurement priority better understood and embraced by their system-level organization. The motivation from the strategic plan continued into its emphasis on local hiring. In the fall of 2015, 170 employees of Rutgers–Newark were residents of Newark, whereas in the fall of 2016, that grew to 181 employees, a 6.5% increase (Rutgers 2017). To accomplish this, their human resources office had been working intensively with local organizations to increase local hiring for staff positions. Since the start of these initiatives, Rutgers– Newark continues to extend their outreach locally and consider ways to build capacity among local residents and businesses. Many anchors, understanding that their fates are closely tied to the health and well-being of the surrounding neighborhood and city, have devised broad development strategies that extend beyond their campuses in order to counter challenges such as those tackled by Rutgers–Newark (Ehlenz and Birch 2014). A successful example of other similar strategies is unfolding in Cleveland, Ohio, where the Cleveland Clinic, Case Western, the Cleveland Foundation, and other leading institutions have built an innovative partnership in the Greater University Circle district, called the Greater University Circle Initiative. One highly innovative feature of the Cleveland strategy began with a thorough analysis of the anchor institutions’ procurement policies, which revealed that some services, such as laundry and food service, could be re-localized in a way that generated new entrepreneurial opportunities. Thus, the Cleveland project leaders took the unorthodox step of seeding the Evergreen Cooperatives, a network of worker-owned cooperatives that now grow produce and provide industrial laundry services (Bartley 2014). For anchor institutions lodged in urban areas, engaging with and investing in local communities

Community Partnerships, Higher Education

and businesses is i