Higher Education Review Process

Varieties of Excellence: Diversity, Specialisation and Regional Engagement

2. rationale for diversity and specialisation

• a. the importance of diversity and specialisation

• b. types of diversity and specialisation

• c. specialisation through selective excellence

• d. strategic national and regional networks

It is important… that diversity should be seen as a means of making higher education more effective, not simply as differentiation for its own sake. 
(Karmel, 1998, p.47)

a. the importance of diversity and specialisation

9     Diversity and specialisation in the Australian higher education sector are desirable for a number of reasons. 

10   Emeritus Professor Peter Karmel proposed three “desiderata” in support of diversity in the Australian higher education system: 

• the desirability of meeting the widely differing requirements of students with respect to courses (both general and vocational), modes of instruction and the students’ inherent capacities; 

• the desirability of responding to a range of national priorities (for example, widening access, promoting basic research, developing special skills etc.); and 

• the desirability of escaping from the strait-jacket of uniformity so that progress can be achieved through experimentation, change and the adoption of successful practice. 
  (Karmel, 1998, p.45)

11    As noted in the first issues paper, Striving for Quality: Learning, Teaching and Scholarship, the evolution to a mass higher education system has resulted in a complex web of diverse student needs and expectations. It is a significant challenge for any one institution to be able to cater for the varied demands of all students. Within the network of higher education institutions, Australia needs a variety of institutions capable of catering to an increasingly diverse range of student needs. 

12   A diverse system should therefore offer a range of educational opportunities for students: 

Some students are particularly stimulated by being taught by theoretical researchers, some by staff who are active in public policy discussion and others by staff whose principal interest lies in teaching…It is important that each institution develop its own distinctive mission and publicise it so that student demands can be appropriately matched to institutional profiles.
(Williams in West, 1998, p.49)

13   Marginson argued that as a justification for diversity, educational benefit for students “has more policy beef than the others” on the basis that institutional homogeneity can “suppress the capacity for educational variety and creativity” (1999, p.15). 

14   No single institution is in the financial or logistical position to meet all the higher education needs of a community, particularly in a country the size of Australia, with such a dispersed population. Following from this, no one institution is capable of achieving international excellence in all disciplines or fields of study. This reality has been recognised in relation to the much larger US higher education system: 

No single higher institution can meet all of the current and emerging needs of society…Given limited fiscal and human resources, the efficient, effective and quality state system of higher education will be one in which different campuses devote their energies to addressing different needs.
(Western Interstate Commission on Higher Education, 1992, p.3) 

15   This is a view that has also been recognised and supported by the AVCC: 

It has long been argued that it is in Australia’s interests that a country with a population dispersed over a large area will be best accommodated if the university system does not converge around a single model. The AVCC supports this position and recognises that our universities will serve Australia best if they are encouraged to continue to diverge rather than converge.
(AVCC, 2001)

16   A diverse system may encompass a more expansive understanding of higher education and the nature of a ‘university’. As will be discussed later in the paper, a relatively homogenous higher education system based on the ‘ideal’ of a comprehensive and research intensive university cannot be construed as a diverse system. Acknowledging the prevalence of such a model in many higher education systems around the world, Skilbeck (2001, p.65) identified a number of policy objectives in relation to strengthening differentiation and diversification in tertiary education, including the desire to “break or curtail a university monopoly”. 

17   In terms of challenges to the university ideal, Neave argued that calls for diversity may result in broader systemic differentiation, including more radical variations on what has been constructed in Australia as the university ‘norm’: 

But we would be well advised to note – and it is significant even today- that in its earliest form, institutional diversity was in effect an alternative to the university. Diversity began where the classical definition of academic ceased.
(2000, p.9)

18   The Education Group of the World Bank has recently put the case for the inevitability of differentiation in terms of structure and mission even more strongly: 

The hegemony of classical tertiary institutions, especially universities, has been definitively challenged and institutional differentiation is bound to accelerate, resulting in a greater variety of organizational configurations and patterns, with the emergence of a myriad of alliances, linkages and partnerships within tertiary institutions, across institutions, and even reaching beyond the tertiary education sector.
(Education Group, 2002, p.27)

19   Another major reason for a diverse higher education system is the need to maximise Australia’s competitive advantages in the global knowledge-based economy and international market for higher education. Kanter argued that those who succeed in the global economic context are those with three “intangible assets”: 

…three C’s that translate into pre-eminence and power in a global economy: concepts – the best and latest knowledge and ideas; competence – the ability to operate at the highest standards of any place anywhere; and connections – the best relationships, which provide access to the resources of other people and organizations around the world.
(1995, p.23) 

20   For higher education institutions to develop capacity in each of these areas, it would be necessary to couple an assessment of national needs in terms of educational outcomes and research, with an assessment of areas in which we are currently, or have the potential to become, internationally competitive. It would be a matter of identifying areas of competitive advantage and facilitating their growth and capacity to compete and succeed internationally. The Business/Higher Education Round Table (BHERT) argued that: 

Diversity must be manifested in ways that imply dynamism, competition, continual improvement, adaptation and innovation – as is required to position the sector to meet the considerable demands imposed by mass higher education, lifelong learning and globalisation.
(2001a, p.2) 

21   Recognising the need to achieve competitive advantage for Hong Kong’s higher education system, Sutherland noted the need for increased specialisation: 

The goal of international competitiveness will almost certainly require… institutions to concentrate on fewer areas of teaching and research, with increases in student numbers largely in postgraduate research student places.
(2002, p.42) 

22   The submissions indicate that advantages may be likely to derive from institutional difference rather than similarity and that this difference may be most advantageous if it is achieved through a degree of specialisation. Poole suggested that:

…it does not make academic or economic sense to have many universities researching and teaching the same things. University specialisation is to be applauded.
(2002, p.3)

23   BHERT noted that a diverse system will provide “a richness of vision where new markets and new approaches are sought” (2001a, p.4). Gaining a position within such new markets and seeking to establish a niche may be an integral way for many institutions to strategically position themselves within a more open higher education market.

24   Diversity in a higher education system is a dimension valued and fostered by many other countries. In the United States, the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education has been used since 1973 as a typology of the institutional diversity of American colleges and universities. In its most recent iteration in 2000, it classifies institutions by variables such as degrees awarded, field coverage and specialisation, into six major categories - doctorate-granting institutions, master’s colleges and universities, baccalaureate colleges, associate’s colleges, specialised institutions and tribal colleges and universities (with a number of additional sub-categories). It is interesting to note Graham and Diamond’s observation that the Carnegie Classification was originally designed to: 

…pull the attention of policy makers away from the nation’s research institutions, and to emphasize instead the variety and social importance of the vast majority of institutions that were not research oriented.
(1997, p.53)

25   In their report for the Dearing Committee in the United Kingdom on higher education and the regions, Robson et al (1997) stated: 

…that a mass system of higher education needs to maintain, or indeed to increase, the diversity of mission across the various types of Higher Education Institution provision...Diversity is valued in order to provide a flexible set of pathways through a multiplicity of levels of training and learning. At a national level and at a regional scale it is therefore thought important that there is a sufficient range of types of provision to cater for the needs of an increasingly diverse labour market.
(Robson et al, 1997, p.3)

26   The final Dearing Report accepted this view in concluding “diversity and distinctive missions should be encouraged, valued and fostered by national funding schemes” (NCIHE, 1997, 1.8). 

27   Diversity is also seen as important in much smaller higher education systems. In reviewing the Hong Kong higher education system, which includes only eight higher education institutions funded by the University Grants Committee, Sutherland (2000) recommended that: 

Hong Kong needs to continue to develop a diverse set of institutions with distinctive missions, acknowledging that the higher education system is greater than the sum of its parts.
(2000, p.vii)

top

b. types of diversity and specialisation

28   An exploration of diversity and specialisation needs to discern potential types or categories of diversity and specialisation in higher education. Meek and Wood (1998) offered a useful typology of diversity, adapted from a model developed by Birnbaum (1983): 

• systemic diversity—the different types of institutions to be found within a higher education system;

• structural diversity—institutional differences that exist due to historical and legal foundations of institutions or differences in the division of authority within institutions;

• programmatic diversity—differences in programs and services provided by different institutions within a system;

• procedural diversity—differences in the ways that teaching, research and/or services are provided by institutions;
  reputational diversity—perceived differences in institutions based on status and prestige;

• constitutional diversity—differences in students served and other constituents in the institutions (faculty, administration); and

• values and climate diversity—differences in social environment and culture.
  (Meek & Wood, 1998, p.19)

29   As examples to stimulate discussion, this paper will focus on two of these types of diversity – systemic and programmatic. Systemic diversity is the foundation of other ‘types’ of diversity, since it relates to the essential functions or missions of the higher education institutions within a system. It is the overarching type of diversity, as indicated by BHERT: 

Systemic diversity in the higher education sector implies the existence of universities that exhibit differences in such features as institutional missions, stakeholder groups, course offerings, pedagogical approaches, industrial relations environment, research foci, funding base, size, location etc.
(2001a, p.2)

30   Programme diversity (or programmatic) within the sector should reflect the diversity of institutional missions and be demonstrated in the range of courses or fields of study offered, the orientation of the courses (professional/general) and the forms of programme delivery. 

31   Systemic and programme diversity can be achieved through specialisation by different institutions in particular areas of the higher education endeavour. Strategic specialisation within institutions should be based on a determination of an institution’s strengths, opportunities and potential markets, and should be derived from the institution’s mission. 

32   Differentiation of the traditional elements of higher education, research, teaching, scholarship and community service, will result in some degree of specialisation. Kemmis et al (1999) supported the use of Boyer’s four scholarships – discovery, integration, application and teaching (Boyer, 1990; discussed in Striving for Quality: Learning, Teaching and Scholarship) to conceptualise the operation of diversity in Australian universities. They advocated the integration of “a new framework which allows us to ‘see’ diversity, to talk about it, and to create structures and processes which facilitate its development” (1999, p.x). 

33   Glassick et al argued that the broader notion of scholarship advocated by Boyer would enable institutions to define their mission and goals more precisely. It could lead to specialisation in one or several of the scholarships: 

Although the full range of scholarship could flourish on a single campus, every college and university should find its own special niche. This may mean that an institution, while recognizing all types of scholarly work, may choose to stress teaching, or application or integration, or research. Whatever the scholarly emphasis, the approach deserves dignity and respect, insofar as it is performed with distinction. Excellence must be the only yardstick.
(1997, p.10)

34   The Boyer framework was also supported by the West Committee as a way of achieving specialisation, reflected in their recommendation that “every higher education institution should seek to find its own special mission within this spectrum” (West, 1998, p.50). 

top

c. specialisation through selective excellence

35   Over the past decade, a number of leading universities in other countries have subscribed to the principle of ‘selective excellence’ to determine their strategic directions. The term was coined by a former president of Yale University, Richard Levin, who used it in the mid nineties to describe his academic vision for “Yale’s Fourth Century”. Levin argued that:

No university…has the resources to be best in the world in every area of study. We must strive for excellence in everything we do, but we cannot do everything…Yale’s programs should be shaped more by an aspiration to excellence than a compulsion to comprehensiveness.
(1996, p.6 & 8)

36   Yale used the guiding principle of selective excellence to invest in, build and sustain excellence in selected areas within programmes and departments, particularly for research support and graduate students. 

37   Selective excellence has been used by a number of other US universities to justify selectivity of investment and achieve strategic positioning in teaching and research (for example - Columbia, Stanford, Syracuse, Brandeis, Ohio State, Boston and Northeastern Universities). Such institutions have systematically identified comparatively weak academic programmes and areas of low student demand, reducing some programmes to a service role or reallocating staff to other academic fields. 

38   At a macro level, the principle has also been adopted by an increasing number of nations, to guide decision-making in relation to investment in research capacity. Sutherland referred to the Asian context:

The evidence from international comparators points unreservedly towards strategic and concentrated investment. Singapore has clearly followed this policy, and in the People’s Republic of China, the strategy of building research capacity in a small group of universities is already paying dividends…The international evidence is that competitiveness implies selectivity.
(2002, p.33)

39   He strongly supported the maintenance of “selective concentration” in the Hong Kong system of higher education: 

Because resources are always limited, it will be necessary to selectively identify outstanding performance where that occurs in institutions, learners and researchers, to ensure they receive the support to achieve international excellence in the application of their expertise.
(Sutherland, 2002, p.vii)

40   Should the principle of selective excellence be applied in the Australian higher education context and how? 

41   Selective excellence can be seen as an extension of the principle that institutions should build on their strengths. A number of commentators and submissions have endorsed a policy direction that would encourage universities to focus on their strengths. The Opposition spokesperson for Education, Jenny Macklin, stated that “we do need to make sure that our universities are able to focus on their strengths” (2002). BHERT suggested that policy makers “adopt a broad base for the consideration of excellence” (2001a, p.6) and agreed that: 

The identification of niche markets or the concentration of activities to emphasise recognised strengths should be options pursued by universities as legitimate business strategies to improve their contribution to the sector and their long-term prosperity...
(2001a, p.2)

42   Phillips Curran in their strategic review of the South Australian higher education sector argued for the “identification of distinctive ‘flagship’ areas for each university” in the State (2001, p.8).

43   Selective excellence may not necessarily mean that each university would pursue only one major area and minimise others, as suggested by Harman & Selby-Smith in their submission (Submission 15, p.4). It could mean that some smaller institutions would make such a choice, for example, in relation to one strategic focus in research and research training. Certainly it would require an environment in which institutions can make decisions about selective excellence based on their existing strengths, potential capacity and an assessment of regional and national needs. 

44   In a national context, decisions guided by selective excellence would need to be informed by, and possibly moderated by, national and regional priorities for all aspects of the academic enterprise. There is scope for differentiation between institutions in terms of selective excellence in research, teaching, scholarship and community service. There is scope for differentiation between institutions in a State-based regional network in terms of selective excellence. There is scope for varieties of excellence in the higher education sector, based on differentiated and strategic specialisation. 

top

d. strategic national and regional networks 

There is very little propensity within the university sector to operate on a truly national basis – by comparison, professional associations and other non-university providers excel at it. A national focus would resolve issues of mutual recognition and product and service transparency/comparability across state boundaries. Unless there is some effort to facilitate the formation of national alliances or national institutions, our universities will have to continue to compete against each other, instead of banding together to compete globally.
(The Securities Institute of Australia, Submission 246, p.3)

45   Any policy framework for a diverse Australian higher education sector should be strategic, balanced and driven by a national vision and regional understandings. Institutional strengths could be complementary yet diverse and strategically determined according to institutional histories, location, capacity and the needs of students and the nation. 

46   As a federation of six States and two internal Territories, higher education can also be considered within the regional contexts framed by each State and Territory. Regions are now recognised as the “best configuration of spatiality for generating economic distinctiveness in the global market place”, which means that the capacity of regional or State/Territory networks is essential to the strength of the national system (Garlick, 2000, p.1, see also Kanter, 1995). This paper will adopt the definition of regions suggested by the Department of Transport and Regional Services (DOTARS) in their submission to the Review. It suggests the use of “regions” to refer to both non-metropolitan and metropolitan regions and the use of the term “regional Australia” to refer to places outside capital cities (Submission 309, p.3). 

47   The Dearing Committee observed that: 

While there will continue to be competition between institutions, diversity will become the basis for collaboration between complementary institutions 
to their mutual advantage, and to the advantage of the communities of which they are part.
(NCIHE, 1997, 1.8) 

48   A report on a UNESCO conference on the contribution of higher education to society as a whole, reinforced the need for strong collaborative networks:

It is a matter of real concern that current pressures on universities are placing them more in a competitive mode than a co-operative one. Yet effective service for the community generally, in line with the best tradition of universities, implies a strong need for networks.
(UNESCO, 1998) 

49   As mentioned earlier, some submissions argued that a conceptualisation of the sector as national and regional networks could include a new understanding of centres of excellence. The conventional models are of research or research and teaching concentration in a single physical centre or a hub and spokes model with the hub controlling the venture. The model need not be universal. Given the sophistication of information and communications technology and the disperse locations of scholars; a network structure could link outstanding academics working in similar areas wherever they were located physically. 

50   Any national network would need to include links with other players in the national innovation system and the national education and training system. A submission to the Review from five of the government funded research agencies (GFRAs) noted that: 

Universities and GFRAs are both important components of Australia’s innovation system. There are complex interdependencies between each of them and between them and other components of the system. It is important to be aware that changes to the university system can have consequences for the overall health of the innovation system.
(Submission 154, p.3)

51   Close collaboration with the schools and vocational education and training sectors also needs to be forged to ensure that pathways and articulation between education and training sectors are seamless and serve students’ and the national interests. 

some possible responses

52   A number of possible options have been raised in relation to the issues in this section. While not an exhaustive list, these questions have been included for consideration and discussion: 

• Is there benefit in facilitating a national and regional network of institutions, using State and Territory regions as the organising framework?

• Should Australia adopt a vision of an appropriately and responsibly diverse and specialised higher education sector?

• Will greater systemic and programmatic diversity achieve such a goal?

• In what way should institutions aim for specialisation through application of ‘selective excellence’?

Return to the Top of the Page

Any comments or queries should be sent to: highered@dest.gov.au
This page was last updated on Monday, 04 August 2008

Department of Education, Science and Training
Copyright © Commonwealth of Australia
DEST Web Site Privacy Statement
Disclaimer