EDUCATIONReport of 1st Regional Scientific Committee meeting for Europe and North America, 5-6 June 2003, Paris
Over the two days, a list of potential areas for exploration was developed. It was first noted that the project would pursue issues of relevance to policy and to the development or testing of theory, or preferably both.
The Committee members committed themselves to write papers on following themes:
A) Management and evaluation
B) Structures and diversification
Members of Committee present:
Prof Lynn Mytelka (Canada and USA) Chair
Prof Ulrich Teichler (Germany) (Vice-Chair)
Prof Maurice Kogan (UK) Rapporteur
Dr Christine Musselin (France)
Prof Helena Sebkova (Czech Republic)
Prof Sarah Guri-Rosenblit (Israel)
Prof. Francisco Michavila-Pitarch
Prof Sverker Sorlin (Sweden)(6 June only)
Professor Rivza was unable to attend the meeting but the points made in her note of reflections were found to match many of those taken into account by the Committee.
1. The meeting was preceded by a welcome address delivered by Mr N.V. Varghese, Head of Training Programmes Unit, IIEP, which was acting as the host institution for the meeting, and a presentation on UNESCO higher education activities by Mr Komlavi F. Seddoh, Director, Division of Higher Education, UNESCO.
The mandate
2. After Committee members made presentations of their main interests in higher education research, Mrs Katri Pohjolainen Yap explained the nature of the Forum’s mandate. The forum was part of a long term initiative focusing on research, higher education and knowledge. There was intended to be an emphasis on developing countries. It was a follow –up of the world conference on higher education of 1998 and the result of collaboration between UNESCO and Sida. Its starting point was that there was a limited amount of research on higher education systems and structures within national contexts, particularly in the third world, which could exploit local knowledge and be based on more than official statements or those from donor bodies. The research should be contextualised by the great changes in higher education everywhere.
3. Working within these contexts meant that there were no single answers and questions must be addressed through critical approaches. In reducing the knowledge gaps between the developed and developing world the project could enhance available capacities. Issues of access and equity must also be addressed.
4. The objectives would be to promote ongoing research; to bring to the fore relevant research results and identify new areas of research and identify gaps; to promote dissemination and publications in these areas; to reaffirm the importance of research; to create arenas for critical debate; to broaden the discourse space. Whilst Sida, which was providing finance for the work of the committee, hoped that the Forum as a whole would focus on developing countries, and particularly Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean, the main focus of this committee was to be on Europe and North America.
Structures and terms of reference
5. Attention was drawn to the papers showing the structure within which the committee was to work, including three different sectors, six scientific committees, of which this committee was one, partners and the Coordinating Committee to link sectors. There will be Forum publications and a web page for the Forum.
6. Nomination procedures for committee memberships were based on wide sources and selection made on academic, geographical and gender criteria. Members were not to represent institutions. Committees were autonomous and were asked to work in a critical discourse. There would be three meetings in each of two-year cycles. Committees could work together.
Contexts for research choices and development
7. Over the two days, a list of potential areas for exploration was developed. It was first noted that the project would pursue issues of relevance to policy and to the development or testing of theory, or preferably both. Policymaking led to action, which required complexity reduction, at which point academics could be felt to be a nuisance. This would make the dichotomy difficult to operate.
8. There was some discussion on whether research covered practice. It was agreed that some practitioner perspectives might be included in the seminar. (NB Not MKs point which is that there is a lot of research purporting to concern teaching and learning practice).
9. For the most part, given the time limits, it would be necessary to encourage secondary research on what had already been done. There was need for synoptic scholarship based on the research, which we already have, as well as new research. Whilst UNESCO’s hope to promote change was noted, researchers also needed to identify factors of stability and continuity but in such a way that this analytic stance did not seem merely reactive. Many actors made sweeping standards about HE and research and how they should change, and wrongly typified critique and reservations as being from academics living in an ivory tower; researchers were in fact network builders.
10. Although this committee’s focus was not primarily on the gap between poor and rich, it was noted that in the west, the concern was for improving the best, through competition for excellence. That might not be the optimum approach for countries that needed research, and other forms of disciplined enquiry, that would be directly related to current problems. It might be necessary to use new tools to initiate and exploit research, perhaps backed by academic philanthropy. At the same time it was difficult to define political priorities.
11. Within the committee’s area, there were important regional differences of perspective. For example, problems of Eastern and Central Europe were different from those in the west. Managers at both the national and institutional levels underestimated the relevance of research into higher education. There were severe problems of organisation and management of education and research, at all levels. Research was conducted largely in institutes that did not connect with the universities. Teaching content was not well enough related to research. Staffs were often over qualified for the levels they taught. The autonomy of institutions weakened the capacity for long term planning.
12. The Committee’s provisional decisions on the listing of topics took account of an analysis of six major assumptions of current trends, although these assumptions were not necessarily borne out by the facts, and it was possible that other trends were occurring. They were:
a. A trend towards vertical diversification, with the reinforcement of elite universities, a concentration of funds and stratification. There was an associated differentiation between teaching and research.
b. Increasing instrumentalisation of research and HE.
c. Reduction of room for distinct national policies
d. Increased managerialism and reduction of academic freedom.
e. Moves towards evaluative systems.
f. Modes of research driven by ICT.
13. In compiling a list of likely themes some general points were noted:
a. the need to observe the importance of both theory building and testing, and policy usefulness
b. responsiveness to two outside dimensions. How do the phenomena being analysed affect academic values? What are their outputs to and impacts on knowledge and society?
c. all of the themes suggested offered highly complex treatments. It might be possible to think in terms of substantive projects but also of synoptic works linking them together.
Our list
14. The first and provisional list decided by the committee was as follows. (These notes vary in detail according to the amount said about them at the meeting).
A. Managerialism and Evaluation
This would consider the values underlying managerialism and the impacts of stronger managerialism and evaluation on the values and working lives of academics. It would evoke a range of normative models incorporating underlying assumptions about the effects on academic behaviour, and particularly those of researchers, of different managerial, government and evaluative patterns. It would also map the outcomes for society and the range of expectations derivable from the different models.
It would incorporate an analysis of power distributions. Organisational models have been transferred from universities to firms and back again. Analytic work might produce a new model not imported from outside.
For the purpose of this theme, evaluation could be considered as an important indicator of the modes of management and government that were being followed
B. Structures and diversification
The effects of increased differentiation-structuration on academics.
Diversification took three forms: the division of labour, regional divisions, and ranking. Access was a related issue.
It was noted that the US structures were fairly stable whereas Europe was changing, although there were invisible actors in the USA e.g. the Carnegie Foundation through its vertical classifications. The mix of vertical and horizontal was now gone. In Europe stratification was affected by the greater importance of public universities.
Non-university HE would be included in the analysis.
The impact of Bologna needed to taken into account. It constituted a third trend. Alongside vertical and horizontal through its standardisation of change.
C. Changes in the knowledge system
Changes in knowledge system and its effects on HE, to include inter-disciplinarity and how it affects research system and the effects of ICT
How the multiple demands for knowledge are reflected in structures. Rigidity of subject barriers creates problems for the interdisciplinarity required for useful application. The dynamics of knowledge systems.
D. Role of Higher Education in regional development
Current studies are undertaken mostly from a regional rather than from a university point of view. The theme could be linked to diversification and European developments.
E. ICTs and their impact on HE and Research
The impact of ICT on the academic environment (copies of overheads handed out). The many problems of exploitation ICT faces. Its six models. Fundamental questions such as who will determine content and style of higher education. Impact on the training of teachers. The difference between information and knowledge. How far modes of research could be driven by ICT?
F. Access to Higher Education from a socio-structural perspective
Democratisation of higher education. There was no research linking the modes of selection to access - some countries do not select; does that affect access? Links between higher education access and preparation in schools.
The obstinacy of social differentiation. Few working class students go on to Ph.Ds. Drop-out from undergraduate course is strongly differentiated by class of origin. The growth of the system had been linked with economic development but the focus was or should be shifted towards the importance of personal development.
15. Three cross-cutting approaches should be taken into consideration during
each analysis:
1. The implications of and relations between Higher Education and Research in Europe and North America and the rest of the world
2. The financing and funding of Higher Education and Research
3. To question underlying assumptions, taking nothing as given or for granted
16. The following Committee members committed themselves to:
Theme A. Management and evaluation (Coordinator: Prof. Kogan)
* Prof. Michavila
* Prof. Musselin
* Prof. Kogan
Theme B. Structures and diversification (Coordinator: Prof. Teichler)
* Prof. Sebkova
* Prof. Sorlin
* Prof. Guri-Rosenblit
* Prof. Teichler
17. The following Committee members also expressed their interest in other
topics:
* Prof. Sorlin: Theme D. Role of Higher Education in regional development
* Prof. Guri-Rosenblit: Theme E. ICTs and their impact on HE and Research
* Prof. Musselin: Theme F. Access to Higher Education from a socio-structural perspective.
18. In addition, several other topics were mentioned or canvassed
a. the relationship between the European Research Area and the European Education Area. This was relevant to the theme of globalisation.
b. university-society relations.
c. Internationalisation: of quality and accreditation systems; of studies. Scope of demands of society.
d. training of faculty e.g. selection. Educational contents of training of faculty. Use of new technologies.
e. content and methods of HE. Cross subject contents - interdisciplinarity. How can content take account of the demands of society? Rigidities of university structures and need for multi—disciplinarity. This different in teaching and research. Multi-disciplinarity inhibited by forms of funding. Rigidity in dealing with teaching and research. The separation of research and teaching structures.
f. role of universities in educating for citizenship.
g. within massification, the diversification needed to cope with it. Connection between programmes at different levels and different types of research.
h. how finance affects HE.
An example of the impacts of finance was given in the Swedish case. From strong dependence on national funding Swedish universities now had multiple external funders. What does this mean? What kind of universities would result? Who owns and guides the university? Who is to perform research? Is there a place for other performers? How far will traditional values be sustained?
i. internal and external boundaries – defining the university system.
19. For the next meeting, theme A and theme B were selected as working topics,
without excluding the other topics for future meetings.
20. Prof. Kogan was designated as coordinator for the A.-theme, and Prof.
Teichler for the B.-theme. They have agreed to submit ToRs on their themes
no later than July 5, 2003. The Secretariat will circulate these so that
Committee members are able to give their comments. Based on comments
received, the coordinators will finalise the ToRs, circulate them to all the
Committee members, and commence the papers with the other concerned
Committee members. The final papers should be submitted to the Secretariat
one month before the next meeting, thus with the deadline January 2nd, 2004.
21. The final meeting report will be produced by Prof. Kogan and the
Secretariat, and will be circulated to the committee for comments. Once
final, it will be made available to the public through the Forum web site.
Future events
22. The following provisional timetable was agreed. :
● 2 - 3 February 2004: A full two-day meeting for committee members only.
● October 2004: Second Regional Research Seminar, the discussion will be based on committee members’ research papers.
● Early 2005: Committee meeting, possibly to also include a wider seminar.
● The Secretariat informed the committee with regard to the Forum Global Research Seminar “Knowledge Society versus Knowledge Economy: Knowledge, Power, and Politics”, which will take place December 8–9, 2003, in Paris.
Closure
Following the meeting, Mr Varghese thanked the Forum Secretariat for choosing IIEP as the host for this first scientific Committee meeting for Europe and North America. Mr Varghese also thanked the Committee members for letting him take part in the discussion during the meeting.
The chair and the vice chair of the Scientific Committee, Prof. Mytelka and Prof. Teichler, closed the first regional scientific committee meeting for Europe and North America thanking Mr Varghese for hosting the meeting, the committee members for their active participation, and the Forum Secretariat for the organisation of the meeting.
