|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|||||||
Higher Education Review ProcessVarieties of Excellence: Diversity, Specialisation and Regional Engagement5. a diverse and specialised system112 Whilst there is diversity in the stated missions of universities, it is argued that there is limited systemic diversity. Meek and Wood claimed that “systemic diversity has all but disappeared” (1998, p.195). There is a degree of homogeneity in the types and structures of Australian universities, with almost all institutions aspiring to and conforming to the norm of a comprehensive, research-intensive, campus-based university. As noted by the Australian National University’s submission, “it would be inimical to the national interest to have one model of a university with variations to scale; there must be purposeful differences between universities” (Submission 323, p.3). 113 The Melbourne University Private submission canvassed a range of types of higher education institutions – traditional universities, specialist colleges, distance education universities, specialist niche market universities, joint partnership universities, networked universities and corporate universities (Submission 218, p.1). It argued that:
114 Phillips Curran foreshadowed a ‘brave new world’ in which:
115 In order to achieve a more diverse higher education system, institutions could evolve more distinctive and focused missions and functions. Some of the possibilities for systemic differentiation and specialisation are discussed below. a. undergraduate-only institutions116 All higher education institutions should aspire to excellence in teaching, learning and scholarship. However, within a higher education system that demonstrates quality teaching and produces appropriate learning outcomes for students, there is scope for some institutions to specialise in offering particular courses or fields of study; particular modes of delivery; and focus on teaching of particular groups of students. It is conceivable that some institutions may make a strategic decision to specialise in teaching and scholarship and consequently, primarily offer undergraduate programmes. 117 Australia currently has no university that focuses on the provision of courses for only undergraduate students. A more diverse system could include universities that evolve into specialists in undergraduate programmes, as suggested by the Australian Scholarship Group in their submission:
118 Although not seeing their own institution as one, the Faculty of Engineering at the University of Melbourne claimed that:
119 In such an environment it may be possible that an institution focusing on undergraduate programmes could collaborate closely with institutions that provided postgraduate programmes in similar areas. Kemmis et al mooted such a possibility in their recognition that institutions that emphasised excellence in undergraduate work would need to build “special relationships with others that emphasise postgraduate work and research” (1999, p.66). 120 In the United States, it is fair to say that most of America’s three thousand colleges and universities are devoted primarily to teaching. The former president of Yale University, Richard Levin observed that:
121 The Carnegie Classification has a category for baccalaureate colleges, institutions that are primarily undergraduate colleges with a major emphasis on bachelor level programmes. Of the 3 941 higher education institutions recorded in the 2000 Classification, 15.4 per cent were baccalaureate colleges (Carnegie Foundation, 2000). A third of these colleges specialise in the teaching of liberal arts fields. Given the calls from employers for a greater focus on generic skills, these may present a possible model for an undergraduate-only institution in Australia. As suggested by Business/Higher Education Round Table (BHERT), “a much larger and more diverse system has the scope to support more specialist institutions – such as Liberal Arts Colleges which do not tend to be associated with pure research” (2001a, p.3). 122 A number of submissions raised the liberal arts college as a worthy consideration. Miles described the mission of such institutions:
123 The higher education sector is not the only possible locus for liberal arts or generalist education. If there is acceptance in the sector of the value of a generalist education as an introduction to a more specialised bachelor degree, it could be introduced in the context of a segmentation of the bachelor degree to what is referred to as a ‘2+2 model’. A ‘2+2 model’ could consist of two years of generalist studies followed by two years of more specialist studies. This model will be discussed in more detail in the issues paper entitled, Varieties of Learning: The Interface Between Higher Education and Vocational Education and Training. 124 A strong view represented in submissions was the rejection of the possibility of a ‘teaching-only’ institution. Interestingly, few couched this debate in terms of specialisation in undergraduate programmes, preferring to present the arguments in terms of a binary between teaching-only and research and teaching. Most sustained their argument on the essential presence of the ‘teaching-research nexus’ in the traditional conception of a ‘university’. As argued by the University of Adelaide, “the nexus between teaching and research is one of the core values of university culture” (Submission 135, p.3). Victoria University of Technology went as far as to say that the “idea of separating teaching from research is a destructive one”:
125 A number of post-Dawkins institutions led the opposition to the creation of ‘teaching-only’ institutions. Edith Cowan University, recalling the binary system, warned against the “extremes of returning to ‘teaching-only’ institutions”:
126 For its part, Charles Sturt University was opposed to the notion of an undergraduate only institution basing its arguments on a traditional definition of a ‘university’:
127 The Commonwealth, State and Territory Ministers of Education, meeting as the Ministerial Council on Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA) in July 2002, agreed that:
128 At that meeting, the Commonwealth Minister, Dr Brendan Nelson, made it clear that the re-establishment of a binary system of ‘teaching’ and ‘research’ institutions is not being contemplated. The objective is to examine a wide variety of specialisations along a spectrum of institutional diversity, within which each university can develop its ‘selective excellence’. An undergraduate-only institution, for example, may have a particular commitment to the highest quality of teaching and learning but would be founded upon teachers who engaged in a variety of scholarship and had the capacity and opportunity to participate in research projects. 129 Similar issues have been addressed overseas. Sutherland, for example, rejected the idea that any higher education institution in the Hong Kong sector should become a ‘teaching-only’ institution but accepted that there will be “significant differences in the volume and types of research undertaken in each institution” (2002, p.42). He envisaged that “a future emerging institution could focus its mission on teaching as its distinguishing point of excellence” (2002, p.42). b. undergraduate and specialised postgraduate institutions130 There is a hybrid form of the undergraduate-only institution which may be in the early stages of development in the sector. This university would offer a range of undergraduate courses, some postgraduate coursework courses, but only a narrow selection of postgraduate research degrees. The development of this model may be supported by the current research funding approach, which calls for institutions to identify and focus on areas of research strength. 131 The principle of selective excellence could be applied by institutions to determine their areas of specialised postgraduate research and research training. Deakin University, for example, argued that:
132 Such a hybrid model may be particularly attractive and appropriate for some institutions in regional areas. Whilst strongly arguing that all Australian universities must conduct research, the University of Ballarat accepted that “for some universities, this will not be in all areas, but will always be at exacting international standards” (Submission 139, p.2). 133 Networks and linkages could be established to ensure that academic staff in areas without a postgraduate presence would, if they desired, have research opportunities. One possibility was suggested by the National Committee for Chemistry:
c. research intensive institutions134 The extension of the argument in favour of the evolution of institutions with a focus on undergraduate programmes, is that some institutions maintain the dominant conception of a university as comprehensive, research-intensive institution offering both undergraduate and postgraduate courses. At present, all Australian universities have aspirations to such a model of the university. Karmel has asked whether “Australia can afford 36 public universities all placing high value on research and research training” (1998, p.61). 135 There have been recent calls for the development of a number of ‘world class’ universities. One of the strongest advocates of such a position has been the Group of Eight. It argued that:
136 The distinctiveness of the Group of Eight universities is most significant in their dominance in research. These universities acquire 66.7 per cent of the national research income, with shares varying from 4.6 to 11.3 per cent and averaging 8.3 per cent (Higher Education Research Data Collection 2000, unpublished data). They are the highest-ranking institutions on ‘weighted publications’ and all appear in the top ten in the number of higher degree research students in areas of research strength (Higher Education Research Data Collection, 2000; and Research and Research Training Management Reports, 2001). 137 The achievement of ‘world class’ status carries with it the presumption of additional funding, as inferred in Kanter’s definition:
138 It is useful to ask what it actually means to be a ‘world class’ university and how ‘world class’ may be judged, particularly as there are no league tables comparing all higher education institutions or universities in the world. 139 There are, however, a number of national ‘league tables’ that rate higher education institutions within particular countries. For example, in the United States there is the higher education institutions’ own ranking, the National Survey of Student Engagement. There are also a number of media generated rankings, such as the US News and World Report’s annual college issue, which rates programmes and institutions. In Canada, Macleans magazine publishes an annual ranking of institutions in groupings according to their structure or mandate. The Guardian newspaper in the UK publishes a guide to good university teaching and ranks institutions. 140 Since 1997, Asiaweek has published a ranking of universities, which has included Australian universities. On the 2000 rankings a number of Australian universities rated in the top twenty of the multidisciplinary category. A further five Australian universities rated in the top 40 of the science and technology category. Asiaweek magazine did not publish its 2001 rankings, apparently because many of the ‘leading’ Asian institutions declined to be included. 141 There are also a number of discipline specific comparative lists and some Australian universities are represented in their top 100 rankings. The London Financial Times’ annual list of the world’s top management educators includes ‘schools’ outside of North America and Europe. There have also been at least two international rankings of institutions in terms of their economics departments (Coupe, 2000; Kalaitzidakis et al, 2001). 142 Bibliometric studies using citation indices can also generate some analysis of institutional performance in research. Using the Science Citation Index produced by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) in the US, Butler (2001) found that Australia’s relative citation impact is falling behind most other comparable OECD countries, but that in the science disciplines, a few universities stand out in their overall performance (2001, p.xi). A media report of a recent study by Evans and White indicates that in using citations from the ISI, they found nine Australian institutions “made it into the world’s top 100 in one or more categories in the past 10 years” (Illing, 2002). 143 Many argue that the capacity of league tables to make determinations of the quality of institutional educational and research outcomes is questionable. McKinnon et al acknowledged the significant influence that international media rankings have on the reputations of institutions, but argue that they “do not yet do justice to the real strength, particularly in research, of Australia’s universities” (2000, p.34). 144 Many of the rankings are based on ‘input’ measures such as institutional ‘wealth’, number of staff, size of library, number of applicants and quality of commencing students, and most use some sort of indicator of institutional reputation. As noted by the Queensland University of Technology submission, the phrase ‘world class’ “appears to be too simplistic given the range of dimensions on which a university can be ranked nationally and internationally” (Submission 96, p.15). The Australian Council of Deans of Science (Submission 38, p.4) argued that the concept of a ‘world class’ university is “principally one of perception”. They acknowledged that “perception is very important, but perhaps more important are informed measures of standing across a range of international communities” (Submission 38, p.4). 145 The Australian University Alumni Council submitted that determination of a ‘world class’ university was a vexed issue:
Clarke (2002, p.11) has argued that “simplistic league tables, by their nature, serve only to promote conformity and, too often, old-fashioned elitism”. 146 It is true that league tables are simplistic. However, for the public at large, the notion of competition that underlies them is well understood. In an environment in which higher education has to compete with strong alternative demands for public expenditure, an understanding of Australia striving for university excellence in a global market is a difficult but important concept to convey. Pride in the quality of Australian higher education may be instituted by the challenge of universities or their research strengths achieving world-class status. 147 Of course, league tables and terms such as ‘world class’ status should not be employed uncritically. It is important to acknowledge that given Australia’s history and size, it is unlikely that its universities will ever be able to compete with some of the Ivy League institutions in the US, or Cambridge or Oxford, in terms of their institutional wealth, endowments or historical advantage in research. Many submissions, however, reflect an expectation that some Australian universities should be able to compete internationally in terms of the quality of teaching and learning and in terms of research performance in a number of areas where Australia has currently a competitive advantage or wishes to build future excellence. 148 The debate about ‘world-class universities’ was sparked last year by comments about the ‘idea of a university’ by the Vice-Chancellor of The University of Melbourne, Professor Alan Gilbert:
149 The Reserve Bank Governor, Ian Macfarlane, observed earlier this year, that:
150 The President of the Business Council of Australia, Dr John Schubert endorsed this view in his claim that:
151 BHERT argued in its submission that:
152 The University of Melbourne described its aspirations to be “one of the world’s finest universities” but accepted that it should not be done by ‘picking winners’:
It believes that a competitive process will facilitate the same goal, as universities focused on their strengths and concentrated resources in areas where critical mass could be achieved (Submission 287, p.8). 153 Some countries, particularly in the Asian region, are pursuing a strategy of focusing government investment on one or two institutions. In reviewing the Hong Kong higher education system, Sutherland (2002) noted that a number of Asian countries are choosing to focus on select institutions as their ‘flagships’ for international competitiveness:
154 A number of submissions identified the Australian National University (ANU) as already having the position as the ‘national’ university. Some argued that it serves as an example of the failure of preferential funding to an institution to reap appropriate outcomes. The Western Australian Department of Education Services considered the “idea of focussing funding on one or two additional ‘world class’ universities highly problematic” but added that they believed such a model already existed in the ANU (Submission 176, p.4). 155 Murdoch University posited “the weaknesses of the old ANU model” as an argument against preferential funding for one or two institutions (Submission 166, p.2). Queensland University of Technology, similarly argued that Australia had attempted an ideal of one world class university in the preferential funding arrangement once in place for the ANU and its Institute of Advanced Studies, however:
156 Others were opposed to a policy framework that identified one or two universities for preferential treatment to become ‘world class’. Submissions also argued that the preferred approach should be to develop a ‘world class’ system rather than one or two institutions:
157 Other submissions argued that history had shown that excellence in teaching and research was as likely to develop in smaller institutions as in large research-intensive universities. The Flinders Medical Research Institute claimed that:
158 The capacity of many Australian institutions to achieve ‘world class’ status in fields in both teaching and research was recognised by James Cook University:
159 Many argued that a competitive funding and policy approach was more appropriate than an approach that included preferential elements. The University of Western Sydney recommended that “selectivity and concentration in research must continue to be based on transparent national and international competition based on peer review” (Submission 263, p.4). Swinburne University of Technology was concerned that the ‘chosen’ institutions would “rest on their laurels” and this would be bad for the nation because “new, more dynamic universities would have fewer incentives to try and overhaul them by pursuing new directions in research” (Submission 194, p.14). The University of South Australia similarly preferred:
160 The University of Tasmania advised that it would be:
161 Concerns have been expressed that given the level of investment that would be required for an Australian institution to be competitive with leading international universities and the likelihood that it would be a ‘zero-sum game’, such an approach would result in the weakening of existing areas of research excellence in those institutions not selected. Victoria University feared “the pursuit of this goal could undermine or destroy many existing high quality initiatives in teaching and research across Australian universities without any institution actually succeeding in achieving full world class status” (Submission 215, p.3). 162 Other submissions strongly argued that funding for research should be competitive and directed to excellence in particular disciplines, departments or centres, rather than focused on one or two institutions. In positing a broader vision for excellence in national research, this view found support in a submission from five of the government funded research agencies, which argued that:
163 Specialisation by each institution in particular areas of research was well accepted. The spectrum of institutional specialisation could range from an institution specialising in one or two areas of research and research training, to an institution with the capacity to specialise in many areas of research and research training. 164 The role of government should not be to skew funding away from some institutions to favour others, rather to ensure that the policy framework allows institutions, no matter what their goal, to achieve their maximum potential. d. international specialists
165 An institutional type that is arguably already emerging in Australian higher education is one that has a distinctive focus on creating a specialised international presence, through for example, international operations, programmes and students. 166 The numbers of overseas students have grown rapidly over the last decade, but this growth has been disparate across universities, in terms of amount and categories of enrolment. For example, the majority of overseas students at the University of Melbourne, Central Queensland University, and the University of Sydney are onshore internal students. In these institutions, this category experienced the greatest growth in overseas student numbers from 1994 to 2001 (Higher Education Statistics Collection, unpublished data). The majority of overseas students at Charles Sturt University and the University of South Australia are offshore internal students, with this category indicating the largest growth for these two universities. The majority of overseas students at the University of Southern Queensland are offshore external students. 167 The universities with the most overseas students, Monash, RMIT, and Curtin University of Technology have mixes of categories. Monash University has large proportions of onshore internal and offshore external students with substantial growth evident in all three categories. RMIT and Curtin have large proportions of onshore and offshore internal students, with substantial growth in both these categories. Australian higher education institutions have clearly approached entry into the international market in different ways and there are indications that some universities are focusing recruitment efforts on particular categories of prospective students. 168 Most universities lay claim in their mission statements to maintaining international standards. A number of universities go further and articulate a commitment to an international perspective or focus in their mission statement or vision. The University of New South Wales’ mission statement declares that:
169 In mapping its vision for 2020, Monash University described itself as “a self-reliant, broad-based, global university and learning organisation” (Monash University, 2000). It draws a distinction between ‘internationalisation’ and ‘becoming global’ on the basis that the latter is about the “process of locating operations, either physically or virtually” (Monash, 2000). 170 No institution is yet to focus on ‘internationalisation’ as its primary mission or goal and it is unlikely that any publicly funded higher education institution could position itself in such a way. However, there may be scope in the sector for some Australian providers of higher education to choose to specialise in this way. Melbourne University Private suggests that it sees itself as forging such a mission, noting that it “makes a much more substantial contribution to the international community than many of Australia’s publicly funded universities”. It posited that this strategy:
e. specialised institutions171 Higher Education at the Crossroads asked whether Australia should develop highly specialised institutions with a focus on particular disciplines or fields of study, for example, education or agriculture. In the US Carnegie Classification, specialised institutions are defined as offering “degrees ranging from bachelor’s to the doctorate, and typically award a majority of degrees in a single field” (2002). They include schools of law, art, music, design, engineering and technology, theological seminaries and teachers’ colleges. 172 In Australia, the majority of private providers of higher education can be described as specialist institutions. In the most recent national study of Australian private providers, Watson (2000) found that there were 86 private providers registered to offer higher education in Australia (as of 31 March 1999). She grouped these providers into four categories: professional and industry associations (11 institutions); theological colleges (16 institutions); niche market operators (54 institutions); and private universities (5 institutions, including Avondale College) (Watson, 2000, p.29). 173 In their submission, The Securities Institute of Australia drew attention to the contribution of such organisations to higher education:
174 There are no publicly funded Australian universities that could be categorised as specialist institutions within the Carnegie definition. However, several self-accrediting higher education institutions can be described as specialised institutions. The Australian Maritime College (AMC) is a self-accrediting higher education institution specialising in maritime studies and research. Marcus Oldham College in Geelong, is a self-accrediting higher education institution that offers specialist courses to develop professionals in agriculture and the horse industry. Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education is also specialised in terms of its structure and student body, although not in terms of offering courses in a single field. It is owned and controlled by Indigenous Australians and offers higher education courses to Indigenous Australians. 175 Is there value in the creation of more specialised higher education institutions? Harman and Selby Smith argued that overseas models should be treated with caution:
176 The Australasian Association of Philosophy stood by the traditional conception of a ‘university’ as an institution with disciplinary breadth, and argued that “too much narrowness of focus in institutions is likely to make institutions less able to meet the changing knowledge needs of the contemporary world” (Submission 47, p.3). 177 If more specialist institutions do emerge, should some of these be recognised as universities? The Australian Maritime College and Batchelor Institute both have aspirations to be recognised as a university, as do a number of private providers. The Commonwealth Government has indicated that students enrolled in postgraduate coursework programmes at four private higher education institutions will be eligible for loans under the Postgraduate Education Loans Scheme (PELS). Two of these institutions are specialist institutions, namely Tabor College (Adelaide) and the Christian Heritage College. There will be challenges for specialist institutions in meeting a narrow interpretation of the National Protocols criterion that an Australian university demonstrates “authorisation by law to award higher education qualifications across a range of fields” (National Protocols, 2000, 1.14). In the interests of achieving a more diverse higher education sector, a broad interpretation or perhaps even a re examination of the criteria in the Protocols may be necessary. some possible responses178 A number of possible options have been raised in relation to the issues in this section. Questions include:
|
|||
|
Any comments or
queries should be sent to:
highered@dest.gov.au
Department of Education, Science and Training
|
