Abstract

This paper considers diversity in Australian higher education. It argues that there is greater diversity among universities in Australia than is sometimes recognized, and that, as the higher education system has expanded, both heterogeneity and homogeneity are increasing. It argues that greater diversity in higher education is needed for two reasons: to respond to changes in the nature of social relationships among people and groups in the contemporary world, and because of changes in the global knowledge economy. The paper explores five dilemmas of diversity in higher education: (1) diversity and conformity, (2) diversity and competition, (3) diversity and equity, (4) diversity and accountability, and (5) diversity and autonomy. This exploration of diversity reveals a number of issues about the way higher education in Australia is currently regulated and funded. For example, it suggests that higher education does not operate according to classical market principles, because higher education is a 'positional good' unlike other kinds of goods. Higher education also serves key cultural functions that the market model cannot encompass. Universities are central to contemporary societies because of their transformative role, and diversity is needed in higher education to undertake diverse kinds of knowledge production and transmission, and to serve a variety of crucial social, cultural and economic interests. The exploration of dilemmas also suggests an alternative way to think about equity issues affecting universities as institutions, based on a view of justice as difference rather than the more familiar distributional theories of justice. This suggests that just treatment of different universities consists in supporting the self-development and self-determination of each university in relation to the balanced development of Australian higher education as a whole. Key arguments of the paper are that the current common regulatory and funding frameworks have a tendency to produce homogeneity among institutions and programs. The operation of these common frameworks in tandem with some competitive mechanisms (for example, for research funding) is likely to produce a clustering of Australian universities at different levels on a simple hierarchy. The paper argues that stronger form of diversity is needed: one in which different institutions have different missions to serve the interests of different kinds and patterns of clients (students; business, industry and government; research fields; and the wider community). This requires a more substantive view of diversity: grasping diversity in 'the academic heartland' - the scholarly work of universities (described here in terms of four aspects of scholarship outlined by Ernest Boyer). The paper draws a number of conclusions and implications for Australian higher education and for universities. Among other things, it recommends the formation of a new independent higher education body able to advise government and universities on the development of each university in relation to the balanced development of Australian higher education as a whole. It also suggests 'venture capital' funding for universities, to assist them to pursue more distinctive missions in relation to the particular clients they serve.