The University Purpose Debate

If purpose is examined within the historical context, we can see that it has been shaped through the years by government demands, societal need and internal culture for centuries. Arguably the greatest challenge has come in the questioning of the value of a course of study at university level when the government purpose for the sector, the staff aims and the student expectations are not necessarily congruent.

A literature search on the subject revealed four broad bases of thought: teaching, research, societal betterment and knowledge transfer, with the prioritisation of these being highly significant. Each Scottish institution will account to a number of stakeholders, each of these influencing the direction of that institution’s purpose. These stakeholders, and the resulting focus of purpose, may well change from year

to year. Specialisation may seem a tempting route to take, but some warn that the interdependency of these requires consideration (Jaspers, 1960). Institutions strive to maintain their individuality, each establishment triggered by different drivers, catering for different populations, teaching different academic curricula.

Starting with the first two purposes highlighted, arguably the most obvious, Universities-Scotland (2005) states:

“Since they were established, universities have had two main “missions” – to teach students and to create new knowledge”

4.2.1 Teaching and Research

Historical or contemporary, the teaching role of universities is one of those placed at their critical core. However, when considering the appropriate selection of students to teach, the level of intellectual strength necessary for university engagement is debateable, echoing the observation of the Greek scholar, Rhodes, that, out of 100 students, 99 did not understand his teaching while the 100th did not need him (quoted in Jaspers, 1960:73). I would suggest that what differentiates universities is the level of depth of theoretical learning; the development of critical awareness, gaining insight to a depth and width of theoretical understanding not necessarily appropriate for applicability which fits with university rather than other forms of tertiary education. If this is the case, then the selection of candidates for university programmes would have to include the capacity to think critically.

The key task for a state-funded HE sector is identifying the correct level at which to pitch the university teaching and degree. The appropriate level has to maximise the intellectual potential of students who come already able to perform academically at a high level and with some initiative already, but who require academic guidance and encouragement to expand their knowledge base. If levelled at the lowest common denominator, teachers become anxious that those intellectually able for

academic challenge remain un-stretched.21Schuller (1995) highlighted the dilemma faced by institutions committing effort directly to their students and yet balancing that with commitment to the generation of scholarship and knowledge.

This leads on to the second but, some may argue, stronger core purpose of some universities (especially Ancients) - research. For some academics, teaching is a necessary burden which allows them the finances and the resources (laboratories, libraries, etc.) to escape to their research wherever possible (Ylijoki, 2000). Research portfolios are the key criteria for promotion and recognition within academics’ discipline-based, peer group. It follows therefore that one of the greatest sources of tension is the resultant requirement of academics to attain high levels of research performance when an increasing proportion of their time is occupied by student-related work (Becher, 1989; Harley, 2004; Tapper and Palfreyman, 2000). Henkel (2000: 139) describes a role of teaching, which no longer involves standing up in the afternoon and simply describing that which you have been researching in the morning:

“staff must not only generate new courses; they must cost them, determine and stimulate markets for them, evolve new ways of delivering them and ensure they can stand up to hard external scrutiny.”

Ancients, in particular, are dependent on the funding resources allocated by the Funding Councils based on the outcome of the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE). As in any competitive process, the RAE has been the source of great tension and political struggle within universities, to the point where it is now credited with having made distributing funding selectively more difficult, ironically an initial objective of the process (Tapper and Salter, 2004). For the competing institutions, there is a clear difference between being labelled “research-led” and “research-

21

This, in 2007, has become a regular cry of frustration from teachers in the primary and secondary school sectors. However in these, teaching is compulsory, inclusive and addresses all in the class according to mixed ability. HE differs in that it is based on exclusive ability, originally voluntary and ultimately testing pending appraisal.

intensive”, with the latter commonly accepted as an optimum target, while the former implies a deliberate downgrading of the other university purposes. In Scotland academic departments rating less than a 4 in the exercise22 have no research funding provided23 and this can lead to a situation where the “research lead” starts to go down the route of separation of “teaching” from “research” universities (Neave, 2006). This system of measurement is scheduled to be replaced in 2008 with a metrics led system, with little or no emphasis on peer review. Interestingly, a consequence of this is envisaged to be even further administrative burdens on institutions, with pressures to evidence function in terms of, for example, research income, student numbers and citations.

Fierce debates are commonplace in Ancient universities about whether teaching or research should be given greater resourcing. However this separate comparison could carry intrinsic danger. The leading philosopher and existentialist, Karl Jaspers (1960) insisted that universities are founded on a critical interdependence of purposes and, as an example, maintained that teaching divorced from research would be robbed of its basic impetus. Whatever priority was highlighted, however, Jaspers confirmed that a side product of the experience was the betterment of people in some way, individually and collectively.

4.2.2 Social Change

In 2005, Universities-Scotland identified a mission for the HE sector to use its universities as conduits for social change highlighting the link between education and social class, reverting back to the vision of education as “The Great Equaliser” as outlined in the Lifelong learning promotion in Chapter 3. Archer et al (2003) confirm assumptions that more graduates should result in a number of social and economic benefits at a national level for individuals (and under-represented groups). The Universities-Scotland publication, “A Space to Create” (2002c), 22

Maximum score is 5*

launched an acknowledgement by the sector itself that Higher Education Institutions should have a necessary balance between the business role and the role in developing a cultured, intellectual society.

It is important to separate two purposes here: making better people and making better societies. Both aims are riddled with challenges. The definition of “better” must be determined. No cause and effect link between a university education and a changed lifestyle has been made. Given that the expansion of universities is relatively recent, the effect of the increased access on social class mobility would require a longitudinal view and would be likely to cross over an organic definition of class boundaries. (The equating of a university degree with more wealth is an argument which will be critically examined throughout this thesis.)

However, if we follow this train of thought further, even if increased earnings or more lucrative job were to be a guaranteed result from a university degree, there is doubt over the influence of wealth over class status. Goldthorpe et al’s influential “Affluent Worker” study (1969) examined the effect that money had on car workers’ class status and tried to identify attitude changes in comparison to those of the middle classes. The findings indicated that, despite the increase in finance, working class values were maintained due to the unfamiliarity of middle- class trappings which they could now afford (for example, bank savings accounts) but were uncomfortable with using. Methodological challenges to the Affluent Worker study have come forward (Saunders, 1990) with the suggestion that capitalism has opened up new opportunities for social mobility. In addition, the view of the class boundaries of society as closed and static is being increasingly challenged. This refutation of the fundamental class determination relates to any study of non- traditional students. It would seem that one product being perceived as sold by universities is a new determination of class based on intellectual assessment although this claim should recognise the possibility of distinct academic standards in specific areas of study at different universities as discussed in Chapter 3.

Without being explicit in the gains expected from a university education, some accuse governments of using educational establishments as part of a deliberate strategy to manage societal culture in terms of identity, control and power. The work of Michel Foucault (1980, 1982) is a core text in this area. Foucault describes cultures which are seen overtly to evolve and change while, in parallel, a hidden subtle system, the established institutions, e.g. universities, the NHS, etc., are used by governments to maintain the status quo through the use of traditional language and norms. The opposite also holds true, claims Foucault, in that society can be manipulated into introducing new ideas and accepting them as the norm, using institutions, for example, schools, churches, prisons, hospitals. The Foucauldian approach to analysis of the educational experience takes a broader perspective on what is taught, including the subtle rules of the institutional format within which the education is presented and in this he is joined by others of the “critical pedagogy” perspective (Giroux, 1989, 1997). However, the crediting of the institution as the centre of power is insulting to the concept of human freedom and clearly underestimates agency. Those in opposition to Foucault, for example, Chomsky (Wilkin, 1999) and Norris (2001) deny that we are in a powerless position, unable to act through autonomous thinking - the result of Foucault’s drastic view of institutional manipulation. Marshall (1995) cites Foucault’s response, insisting that institutions are used by governments to ensure their citizens are governed, and accountable (Hoskin and MacVe, 1986) but this is done by manipulating them into believing that they are free; the double bluff and not a little ironic. Nevertheless, Tett (2005) reminds us:

“the personal and social damage inflicted by inequality, social exclusion and restricted opportunity is immense”

My own view therefore, while holding firm to therightof an individual to question a governmental agenda, separates this from an individual’s ability with all the informed and educated subject knowledge required in these sorts of situations. Crucial to society is the establishment of a body of critical thinkers, with focus on remedial trials and advanced hypotheses, continuing to equip others with this

ability, and it is in this sphere that the work of universities is so important, ever questioning and providing a safeguard against government control.

Of particular interest in the debate is the autonomy of the institution. As has been shown in the last chapter, Scottish universities sit within a fast-changing political context with, as yet, untested accountability which is now, reluctantly, recognised. While this debate can question a philosophical stance, the influence of Foucauldian analysis suggests that complacency and acceptance of universities as evolving institutions in response to what the people want is naïve.

An additional concern, running throughout this debate, raises the question as to whether this “social engineering” or engineering change (Scott, 1998) is appropriate, or even possible, inalluniversities? Furthermore, is it applicable to the same standard timescale at each or does the specialising of certain institutions, in reality, prioritise their purpose?

4.2.3 Knowledge Transfer

The fourth major purpose could follow as a directive if one takes Foucault’s view of government control over universities, control assumed as a consequence of its considerable financial subsidising of that sector. I am struck by the apparent acknowledgement in recent years of the value of the HE sector to the Government. Porter’s (1985) model describing the “Value Chain Framework” as a tool for organisations to develop “Competitive Advantage” offers a structure for the recognition of advantages to the Government supporting an HE sector with international acclaim, financial marketing benefits and knowledge credibility. Even with differences in their strategic approaches, the HE sector has developed from European roots, but adapted to individual application and is now hosting prestige. Accreditation from one of these institutions is unlikely to be of questionable credibility. In parallel, universities have been costing the government increasingly

large sums of money and it is not surprising that they are coming under governmental scrutiny looking for a return on their financial investment.

Currently a key political mission, outlined specifically by Universities-Scotland, the representative body for the Scottish HE sector, has identified “knowledge transfer” as crucial (Universities-Scotland, 2005). Extending the skills training element of a university’s purpose, Universities-Scotland claims that the practical application of key ideas and researched discoveries should be relevant and linked with both industry and the Scottish economy. Universities are encouraged to liaise closely with potential employers to provide graduates with the development opportunities to raise Scottish Competitiveness (Universities-Scotland, 2005). Not unique to Scotland, recognition is there for what Mills (2004: 218) calls:

“the global discourses that define universities in terms of their contributions to national economic competitiveness”

However, Universities have, as far back as the middle ages, devoted their thoughts to academic ideas which were not necessarily critical to immediate matters affecting current society:

“They have, therefore, often been found infuriatingly unresponsive to what have seemed to many to be the obvious and overriding needs of mankind”(Minogue, 1973:26)

Previous faculties created to serve the local economy, for example those in engineering centres of Red Brick universities, are now accepted as legitimate intellectual avenues. The creation of new disciplines, however, leads us into areas of apparent public confusion in a new society where awarding of degree status to courses traditionally attributed with skills status (e.g. golf management) conflict with opposing opinion that students should be attracted away from liberal arts courses and encouraged to take more degrees in directly vocational study (Edwards, 2006).

Throughout this debate, I would contend that vocationalism is not necessarily to be equated with employability. This is a theme which I shall pursue with the empirical data of this study.

4.2.4 Newman

No discussion of university purpose can be considered without the backdrop of John Henry Newman’s core text “The Idea of a University” (1860). The first part, containing nine discourses, argued essentially for two principles: firstly that universal knowledge must, necessarily, include religion, and secondly a university was required to deliver a liberal, not professional or vocational, education. He passionately defended the university purpose to be that of expanding intellectual outlook and referred to debates, held earlier that century in Oxford, which had concluded that university purpose was three-fold: critical intelligence, moral decency and to produce persons of knowledge. He denied that there was a remit or role for universities to concern themselves with whatever people did with that knowledge, once attained. The encouragement of direct economic application of university teaching and research in a vocational education format would have proved distasteful to Newman. His text ignited a debate, now of long standing, as historians, educationalists, politicians and business employers contemplate this concept of purpose of universities.

Newman was recognised as a core theoretical text at the centre of the “academic freedom” and “purpose” debates with key writers for over a century re-examining his discourses as the universities continued to develop, especially throughout the latter half of the 20th Century (Ker, 1976; McGrath, 1951; Culler, 1955; Turner, 1996). McGrath (1951:509) encapsulates Newman’s idea in a testimony to his achievement, admitting a lack of realism, but claiming his contribution as nonetheless vital for:

“……….the noble idea which he had sketched in immortal prose, the idea of a university courageously treading every field of human knowledge, and valuing that knowledge not merely as the revelation of the wealth of the university, not merely as the revelation of the deepest thoughts and loftiest aspirations of the human mind, but most of all as the revelation of that which gives it all its value and meaning, the ultimate Truth and Good”.

One of Newman’s most criticised claims (Pelikan, 1992) was that of a university’s purpose rightfully being concerned with looking inward and training good members of society rather than the institution recognising any duty to society itself. Newman’s defence of this would have been that if universities produced “good” citizens in accordance with his understanding of university purpose, this would be a valued and worthy service in itself, rather than having to utilise that “goodness” in a specified direction. The “goodness”, in Newman’s thinking, was defined in terms of mental refinement based on literary and philosophical training, allowing an individual thereafter to organise their thoughts, express their ideas in an articulated manner, and address challenges in life with principles of rationale. In his view this would be far superior to the narrow vocational training which lacked a breadth of liberal knowledge. However, within business’ global market and international education, it is a complex process to delineate boundaries to which “society” an institution owes that duty. The local context of duty as an employer, economic source, and landowner is the first layer of “society” to be considered before attention is turned to national and international duties.

4.2.5 Specialist Institutions

Halsey suggests that Britain needs universities for the scholarly few, but higher education in its broadest sense, pluralistically funded, should be provided for everyone (Cuthbert, 1991: 341). The balance ratio between certain purposes may be unique to each institution and does raise the question as to whether specialist focus should be an option for current universities, taking us back to Halsey’s suggestion. Taking, for example, the purpose of societal betterment, geographical environment may critically influence the potential demographic profile of student it

could attract. The impracticality of attracting students from a low-income background to a university which is far away, necessitating high resettlement costs, can only be partly alleviated by bursaries. Non-traditional students are more likely to have a background of family responsibilities, including dependent children or disability. Their circumstances cannot be transferred by a simple move away from home and family support. Students accustomed to living in cities may experience culture shock of living at a rural HEI, and this too can cause problems.

In short, the practicality of socially engineering a fixed expectation of adjusted recruitment targets to all institutions, without making allowances for their particular physical barriers, is one which is naïve and idealistic. Justifying the institutional