Views on Purpose

In Chapter 7, pulling together the emerging themes on purpose, the question highlighted was:

“Is there a common vision of University purpose amongst the study participants or a recognisable pattern of clusters reflecting distinct purposes for groups of participants sharing particular characteristics?”

9.2.1 Shared Staff Understandings

The staff participants, on the whole, shared the view that knowledge transfer was rightfully placed as the current lowest priority for ancient universities (supporting the view of Minogue [1973: 26], in Chapter 3). They claimed legitimacy in the view, espousing the core institutional belief that it should not be a prime concern of an ancient university to prepare people for employment or to conduct research in line with Government or industry targets only. Furthermore, they refuted the notion that their structure be used to minimise individual agency of students to determine, harvest and control their own future (supporting Chomsky in Davidson, 1997, Norris, 2001) or to limit the search field for research. Academics stressed that knowledge transfer is investment intensive and that the driving demand for immediate results from the Government would encourage “window-dressing” only.

“All academics would like to think that their work will filter through to use in society, but the imparting of knowledge will mutate through people to a finished product which may be a combination of perspectives depending on whom it passed through” (Academic B)

“It’s happening – laser stuff, Cancer blast science, Sustainable development. But it’s way down the list and we’re not happy about any hint of us being used as social engineers…” (Manager J)

“The university sees in its head that it can feed back to society but this purpose hasn’t dug right into the university heart” (Governor E)

One Academic (D) thought the university should grasp the current opportunity to exercise more of a role in terms of political, social, educational and community relations. He thought the opportunity for universities to provide knowledge for the

industrial sector was being lost where it could provide an incentive to create knowledge. However representing the majority view, the counter-argument that this limits the breadth of knowledge, was summarised by Academic B:

“Government seems to be expecting universities to support [them] when, actually, it should be the other way around”.

All staff identified the importance of interdependency between the four listed purposes which were upheld as touching the main bases by the staff data, with some additional suggestions of purpose which I can collectively term “Ideology”. This term was first promoted by Academic B who was particularly passionate on stressing society’s consistent need for an ideology or an intellectual stimulus and nominated university as the provider. However others supported the theme by suggesting university should be “an adventure” or the centre to “promote mental agility” and to “enthuse people with similar creative minds to share their ideas”.

Alongside the shared perceptions, there were distinct priorities of purpose to each of the three pre-identified staff categories.

9.2.2 Governors

Generally, the Governors gave more priority to the role of Ancient universities in the personal developmental process linking directly to an overall better society:

“Bettering Society has to be the priority aspiration” (Governor, C)

Research and teaching were identified as tools to achieve that aim. Relating to Newman’s (1860) “better people” debate discussed in Chapter 3, the Governor opinion made a consequential link between intellectual development leading to better people and thereon to collective, societal, betterment. The Governors, with regret, doubted that the betterment of society was prioritised as a core purpose by managers and academics.

Indeed they were correct in this, and the majority of the student participants supported their stance. Student participants referred to an enhancement of self (examined in detail in Chapter 11), but fundamentally rejected Newman’s extension of “goodness” in a collective sense and did not accept a legitimacy of the Scottish Executive’s use of universities as instruments of social change, claiming to create an informed, cultured population (Universities-Scotland 2002c). This purpose would take us potentially into what I would term a Foucauldian perspective (Foucault, 1982), but which they rejected in terms of “able to be manipulated”.

“We may make better people. Good. That’s laudable. But we don’t make a better society – no way” (Manager J)

Why do Governors share such an idealistic goal? One supposition might be that the altruistic volunteering by Governors is driven by the belief (and the reward) that they are contributing to the potential for a better society as a result. The salaried Managers and Academics seemed reluctant to assume responsibility for making better people seeing it as an “accidental” outcome of education. However, it was acknowledged that, even in an Ancient, an external relevancy was creeping in:

“……a decade ago [Academics] may have argued that this was not their business, but they accept concepts now that they have not in the past – e.g. employability and transferable skills. They seem defeated in accepting this has to be partly their business, but it is in a “ticking box” way – not necessarily absorbing or embracing the core spirit of the agendas. (Academic A)

It would seem that the ability to remain remote from the external relevance has been the privilege of Ancient staff for longer than those in new universities or vocational colleges, although even that would seem to be changing.

9.2.3 Managers

Although research was recognised as the financially lucrative purpose, all except one manager (an ex-academic) thought teaching should be the key institutional purpose. One justification was that, while research could be an isolated activity, teaching united the institutional staff from divergent sectors, offering the physical

focus of students around whom an institutional vision is created, a critical factor of successful management.

Far from aiming for a “better society”, Managers were the one group who were even uncomfortable with aspirations of managing the process to make “better” individuals, preferring to limit institutional responsibility to making knowledge available, but placing the ownership and motivation for using that knowledge on the student.

“…….it gets us into the sphere of what’s better?...We offer knowledge,

sources of ideas. We present a different way of looking at something.

Individuals decide what they’re going to take out of that and ultimately what they’re going to do with it.” (Manager I)

9.2.4 Academics

Unsurprisingly, in a research institution, the Academics prioritised research. They justified their focus as being for the students’ benefit also, even though the students may not realise it.

“Research. Students would say Teaching, but indirectly they would need Research to be high in priorities. The Research is what makes them come to the institution...it’s what gives the institution its elite profile. Ultimately the students are buying a ticket and they need the high research profile”. (Academic A)

Without the research, the belief was that the institution would turn into a skills training college. Recognition of this view sits uncomfortably with the Quality Audit process which is Teaching-led, thus distracting Academics from their main focus. University teaching was viewed as dependent on research. However, all staff groups supported a “Research-Intensive” institution, while rejecting a “Research-Led”one.

9.2.5 Mature Students

In contrast to Academic staff, the student participants’ data showed all, without exception, understood the primary purpose of a university, any university, to be

teaching. The students, acknowledging the interdependency (supporting Jaspers, 1960), viewed it from the reverse angle to A’s quote, stressing the reliance of research on teaching for its focus, guidance and drive. The student data placed knowledge transfer second and used it as a justification for the investment of public funds in HE. Research was seen by some as playing an underpinning role in teaching.

Overall Academic A’s observation is clearly supported:

“in this respect [university purpose] there’s a mismatch between what the students think and what the staff think the priorities are.”

Students also referred to a belief, prior to arrival, that there would be social and career networking opportunities at university, (in particular, at Ancients) striking chords with Scott’s (1995) description of the university in the middle ages creating a school for the social elite (Chapter 3). They equated “Ancients” with prestige and with higher social classes, providing opportunities to network with international students and breaking down class barriers, flattening out hierarchies ingrained by birth. One example is Lesleywho arrived, with her husband, after being guided to the study university by a “firebrand”of a teacher on the basis that this was where they would make the networks to function better in their lives. Lesley thought this particularly important for her since she wanted to work in Human Rights when qualified.

She was not the only participant who had a clear vision through to employment on graduation. Almost all of the Mature students under the age of 50 years viewed the course teaching as a means to an end, equipping for the world of employment.

“I wouldn’t choose to stay here if I had another option, but I need the degree…I’m doing this to get the job at the end and so I’ll do whatever I have to do.” (Sarah30).

30

Where all student participants are quoted, their names have been changed. Occasionally, where other specific details have been supplied which can also identify (for example, residential address, course of study) these have also been changed topseudostatus.

The difference between “vocational” and “employable” was noted, identifying the courses with vocational leanings as preferable for the Mature student. The low availability of these courses in the liberal arts and pure science profile of the study university was acknowledged. Nevertheless, for many students with family commitments, pragmatism of location had outweighed the consideration and they were just hoping that the degree would make them more employable, although unable to describe in what ways (this will be explored further in Chapter 11).

“I thought I would be a more employable commodity” (Linda)

Already different interpretations on university purpose have begun to emerge, the significant policy implication relates to the mismatch of expectations between students and staff. It would seem that while the staff think they are offering the opportunity for students to enhance their knowledge without any inferred promise of direct application to employment, if understood by the students in this study it would have come as an unpleasant shock. The lack of Government involvement in reviewing the expectation or tackling the mismatch was commented upon by many participants, suggesting the management of expectations as a necessary core task faced by universities on a local level.