From our discussions of dilemmas of diversity and diversity in 'the academic heartland', a number of implications about policy and procedures for funding and regulating universities can be drawn. We have clustered them around factors 'inhibiting diversity' and 'enhancing diversity'. In our view, there is a need to weaken the inhibitors to diversity in Australian higher education today, and to strengthen the factors that enhance it. Among other things, this requires reconsidering the regulatory and funding mechanisms by which Australian higher education is administered.
Inhibiting diversity
In our view, 'bureaucratically fair' regulatory and funding mechanisms aimed at 'equal treatment' (on the right) or the pursuit of 'equal outcomes' (on the left) both produce tendencies towards convergence rather than diversity (though the former may lead to diversity in the short term). A more complex theory of justice can avoid the difficulties of distributional theories of justice which underpin these views. A contender is the theory of justice as difference proposed by Iris Marion Young, who argues that injustice consists in unreasonable constraints on the self-development and self-determination of individuals. We argue that this conceptual framework can be applied not only at the level of individuals but also at the level of institutions - universities.
The issue of diversity is currently fudged in Australian higher education today. Instead of addressing the real and substantive differences between universities in terms of what they do, real differences are swept away by an abstraction: treating all universities as similar in the sense that they are all representative of the same (abstract) class; treating differences as phenotypic rather than both phenotypic and genotypic; failing to attend to the tensions and interconnections between different kinds of differences (in context and constitution, inputs, processes and programs, and outputs). Moreover, there is a difficulty in recognizing that some differences are more significant than others in the regulation and funding of universities - in working out how best to support the general task of developing Australian higher education as a whole, through each unique university.
Problems of supporting diversity and diversification have also arisen as a result of the application of public sector reforms to education systems that place too much faith in market mechanisms. A laissez-faire market approach may stimulate diversity in the short term, but threaten the integrity of the system as a whole in the long term, as the proper pursuit of the public good through the steering medium of state administrative power is converted over to the steering medium of money.
Competitive behaviour between universities produces tendencies towards convergence and isomorphism. This is most evident in mimicry of older and bigger universities by younger and newer ones, mimicry of competitors to capture market share, and the status anxieties of institutions.
The administration of Australia's higher education system faces two opposed dangers. On the one hand, there is a danger of over-regulation, in which Australian higher education is increasingly controlled more centrally from Canberra. On the other, under-resourcing of the administration of the system as a whole leads to 'hands off' and simplistic forms of regulation and funding (increasing the tension between the effectiveness and the efficiency of administrative practices).
Despite changes in recent decades, there is still a culture of conformity in Australia, especially in thinking about an institution as culturally significant as the university. Unlike the situation elsewhere in the world, Australian universities are encouraged to fit a common mould. There is unease about, and suspicion of, departures from the ideal of the university modeled by the pre-1958 universities, or, on a more open reading, the pre-1987 universities. This unease is to be found at the level of the system as a whole, among federal policy-makers and administrators (and in forums like the Australian Vice Chancellors' Committee), and within individual universities, among academics and administrators. People talk about diversity and innovation, but there is great reluctance to approve, much less encourage, genuinely innovative practice. Indeed, the university template has become so narrow that even traditional areas like the humanities have trouble 'fitting in'.
This conformity is also evident in the 'league tables' approach to difference in universities and among administrators of the Australian higher education. The 'league tables' mentality produces strong tendencies towards uniformity by relentlessly comparing whole institutions with one another on any and every dimension.
A comprehensive common system of regulation of Australian higher education (for example, via the profiles process and the relative funding model) creates pressure for universities to maximize institutional rewards by offering more highly weighted courses, at more highly weighted levels.
Accountability mechanisms that standardize institutional self-reports and self-assessments by requiring them to conform to a common framework of meaning and value also produce tendencies towards convergence. They orient all universities towards assessing their work in terms of the same criteria of meaning and value, and, between universities, they breed a relentless climate of comparison (so institutions become still more watchful about their competitors).
Regulation of other aspects of university work by open competition (for example, in the quality rounds and in funding for national priority projects and innovations in teaching and learning) may also inhibit diversity. In some areas (like research) it may deprive some institutions of the capacity to develop in key areas. It may also lead to progressive accumulation of advantage and disadvantage, limiting opportunities for self-development and self-determination. It can also be inefficient, wasting resources in unnecessary or ineffective competitive behaviour.
Universities also regulate their affairs in ways that sometimes foster convergence rather than diversity, both between themselves and others and, internally, between departments, faculties and schools. Some institutional structures and practices are conservative in the sense that they idealize past ways of working, prizing them as essential to present and future modes of operation (in a changed world).
As already mentioned, uniform funding frameworks and formula funding push universities towards uniform comprehensiveness. An explicit and transparent mechanism like the relative funding model, even if technically only a 'one-off' exercise, has the further problem that it begs to be mirrored in the internal distribution of funds within universities, eroding the discretionary power of universities to shape their development in terms of local values, priorities, needs and opportunities.
Distribution of funds through open competitive mechanisms, especially when the pool of resources is stable or declining, produces a zero-sum game for the system as a whole, in which resources are transferred from 'losers' to 'winners'. In a time of expected expansion and diversification of the system as a whole, in the interests of national development through higher education, the zero-sum game approach is disabling for the system as a whole. Meeting the demands of expansion and diversification requires new resources. The resource situation for universities has been made worse by government decisions not to fund salary supplementation, further constraining universities in their attempts to diversify.
Where competitive mechanisms are used, segmented competition is likely to be preferable to unsegmented competition. In segmented competition, competition is limited around clearly-targeted purposes (as happened to some extent in the competition within fields of study for ARC Large Grants). In unsegmented competition, competition is open (as in national priority funding, quality funding, funding for innovation via mechanisms like CUTSD, CRC and SPIRT funding); this kind of competition maximizes the inefficiencies of competitive behaviour.
Funding mechanisms that distribute funds principally on the basis of past performance (as happened through the composite index and research quantum), also have a tendency to 'freeze' diversity at past levels, inhibiting further diversification.
Existing practices and structures constrain diversification within universities. In teaching, traditional and conventional modes of teaching (the lecture, tutorial and laboratory, for example) remain widespread, and some mechanisms of collegial control of the content, form and assessment of teaching and learning also conservatively limit innovation.
In the scholarship of application, established management and work practices sometimes limit opportunities for staff to form stronger linkages with business, industry and the professions. In some quarters, there is also unease about activities with strong commercial components. Institutional structures for the management of contract research and development work may constrain developments in the scholarship of application. Sometimes, intending to guard the interests of propriety, they become unnecessarily bureaucratic. Central university control of strategic funds may limit the capacity of departments to respond to emerging needs and opportunities in their areas. The use of performance indicators to distribute research and development funds to departments can limit diversification, if they are weighted in favour of one kind of research over another - that is, rewarding discovery research at the expense of the scholarship of application.
In the scholarship of integration, there are fewer limits on diversity and diversification, but there is some evidence that university public relations policies sometimes limit the extent to which staff can speak freely on matters of public interest. There is also the general constraint of time: as workloads rise, academic staff have less time to be involved in community affairs through the wider public sphere.
In discovery research, a number of forces in universities and in different fields and disciplines discourage diversity and diversification: convergence on preferred problems and methods, mimicry of the practices of successful competitors, and management practices that reward some areas at the expense of others. The same competitive pressures imposed outside the university are frequently mirrored in practices and structures for distributing institutional funds for research.
Differentiation and specialization are concomitants of the development of every field of scholarly work. The availability of resources always constrains the pace of diversification and innovation, as much within the university as outside it. If the university remains aloof from its clients, it will also distance itself from sources of support for further scholarly development. Ensuring that staff have adequate time and support to build linkages with new clients and new resources is a crucial challenge for university leaders. It seems essential that they do so if universities in Australia are to have access to the variety of sources of funding necessary to maintain and develop the scholarly work once supported principally by governments.
There would be merit in exploring the features that inhibit diversity by inhibiting reasonable specialization of university activities and types across the system as a whole. For example, one might consider factors that inhibit the emergence of universities with a strong postgraduate and research balance (like some of the major research universities in the USA), strong regional universities with a key role in regional development (socially and culturally as well as economically), strong cross-sectoral professional universities with vocational training and education as well as higher education (like some German universities), or strong specialist universities oriented to the needs of specific industries (like some in China). One might also explore the extent to which 'balanced development' of the system as a whole might be strengthened by forms of 'cluster' or 'consortium' development, with some universities developing in the direction of US liberal arts colleges, and others along the lines of community colleges, emphasizing excellence in undergraduate work and building special relationships with others that emphasize postgraduate work and research.
It hardly seems possible to envisage such arrangements emerging in Australian higher education, under the relatively uniform regulatory and funding arrangements we have today, except as an unintended outcome of rewarding some institutions at the expense of others. To make such developments possible, it is necessary to find mechanisms that would reward universities for making such choices. Regulating and funding universities differentially in relation to different missions and functions might make it possible to do so.
At the same time, it seems to us that imposing a 'hard' view of diversity (deciding on a number of different types of universities and implementing a regulatory system to produce these different types) is neither feasible nor desirable in contemporary Australia. To do this would be to prejudge the issue of what kind of diversity is most appropriate to contemporary Australian circumstances. Instead, a 'soft' view of diversity is needed - an evolutionary approach which creates genuine opportunities for different universities to choose and determine their own developmental paths, in ways appropriate to their own particular circumstances and opportunities. Because it is relatively uniform, the current system of regulation and funding universities sets the developmental path for universities. It is likely to generate diversity only in the sense that it produces a national hierarchy of universities segmented into broad ranks in terms of quality, reputation and resources.
The evidence suggests that, despite overlaps, there are strong family resemblances among five groups of universities, described by Marginson (1999) as the 'sandstones', the 'redbricks', the 'unitechs', the 'gumtrees', and the 'new universities'. To some extent, the groupings reflect histories; to some extent, different (past) purposes (for example, the new universities frequently emerged from colleges of advanced education, with a culture and climate more oriented to teaching than research). There is little encouragement for these groups of universities to define themselves in terms of different kinds of missions, purposes and functions; indeed, most compete for funds within the same general regulatory framework. A more complex system of support for universities in terms of their missions, purposes and functions could avoid the emergence of a single hierarchy, and encourage the development of strong but different kinds of universities.
Enhancing diversirty
National policy fostering diversity is needed in order to recognize and respond to two purposes of diversity in higher education: changed social conditions, and the global knowledge economy. Valuing diversity is not enough; achieving it requires setting it as a policy objective, and adopting mechanisms that will enhance it. Pursuing the public good of greater access to university functions and services (for students; for business, industry and the professions; for the wider community; and for people working in the intellectual fields and disciplines) requires substantive policy in support of diversity, not a 'hands off' approach.
We have also argued that there is a need for greater systemic and programmatic diversity in Australian higher education. Under some conditions, government support for stronger differentiation between types of universities would help institutions to achieve their own purposes better, and to meet the needs of their particular clients in different fields and regions. First among these conditions is that universities should choose these directions for themselves, in consultation with their clients and with government; different developmental pathways should not be imposed by government. Most importantly, however, government needs to examine the extent to which its regulatory and funding mechanisms can enhance diversity. Over time, the current common framework seems likely to produce a single hierarchy of institutions, with institutions clustered 'vertically' in the hierarchy, rather than 'horizontally'. Governments should explore regulatory and funding mechanisms likely to foster 'horizontal' diversity.
We have argued that distributional theories of justice (which underpin the slogans of 'equal treatment' or 'equal outcomes' in higher education) are flawed. Instead, the philosophy of difference provides a way of understanding just treatment of universities that can support diversity. According to this view, injustice consists in institutional structures and practices that unreasonably constrain self-development and self-determination - as much for universities as for individuals. Consequently, different treatment and different outcomes are not unjust, so long as support for the self-development and self-determination of each university does not unreasonably constrain the self-development and self-determination of all. This approach also requires that those administering the system of higher education as a whole have in mind a criterion like that of the 'balanced development' of the system as a whole, considering the development of each university in relation to the development of higher education throughout the system.
The current and future climate favours increased diversity. There is a heightened responsiveness within and beyond universities to the needs and interests of a variety of clients of university scholarship, and to local/regional needs: the needs and interests of students; users of knowledge in business, industry, professions, government; the community and the wider public sphere; and colleagues and peers in scholarly fields and disciplines.
Administering the higher education system for diversity requires government to be more actively engaged with universities on a different level. It requires more informed and inclusive forms of policy and administration capable of mediating between national interests, on the one hand, and institutional self-interests on the other, to achieve the interests of higher education as a whole. It requires conceptual work by government done in partnership with universities.
Beyond government, it also requires that universities and their potential partners in a variety of enterprises develop a culture of cooperation, alliance and partnership to pursue shared goals using shared resources (including matched funding arrangements). Along with this, it requires continuing development of a culture of civility, in which difference is actively recognized and respected (not just tolerated, and not treated as through policies of integration or assimilation).
To achieve increased diversity across the system as a whole, there would be merit in developing 'buffering' arrangements that permit fair negotiation between national interests and priorities on the one hand, and universities' own interests and priorities on the other. Such mechanisms should permit the exercise of judgment in decision making about different treatment of different universities, on a criterion like 'balanced development' of the system as a whole. The Australian Universities Commission and the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission exercised this kind of judgement using the criterion of 'balanced development'. We do not advocate a return to the days of those Commissions, but we do favour the development of a more robust, neutral and independent commission for higher education able to mediate between universities and the Commonwealth in the interests of national development of higher education as a whole, and the interests of individual universities and their different clients.
A laissez-faire approach to administration of Australian higher education cannot achieve this goal. More active and engaged policy and administration is needed to achieve a better balance between institutional self-development and self-regulation, on the one hand, and, on the other, national development and regulation.
In the development of Australian higher education as a whole, we see it as necessary that individual universities become more assertive in such negotiations with government, not less. In order to define their aspirations for self-development and self-determination more clearly, they must be regarded as responsible, active and effective in the exercise of their constitutional powers, as autonomous entities interacting with a changing environment. Only through active negotiation and engagement with current and potential clients of their functions and services, can they shape realizable plans for self-development and self-determination. Under such conditions, we would expect to see much more diversity than now exists in the mission statements and strategic plans of universities. Only on the basis of such clearly articulated plans can they enter effective negotiations with government about how their own goals and strengths relate to the development of Australian higher education as a whole.
On the other hand, it also seems necessary today for governments to reconsider the nature of their relationships with universities to ensure that self-development and self-determination are supported and rewarded. In relation to self-determination, we believe it is also necessary for governments to consider the extent to which they have become intrusive in the control of individual universities because they are big shareholders in the economic life of the institutions, and because they are bound to consider national interests and the public good. When forms of government regulation become too intrusive, however, they undermine institutional capacities for self-determination.
We have been critical of some aspects of the profiles process (and the relative funding model). Nevertheless, we would wish to preserve some of its conceptual elements - those elements that provide stability, and those that foster local development and innovation while retaining some sense of 'balanced development' of the system as a whole.
There is room for the development of further funding mechanisms likely to enhance both systemic and programmatic diversity. While the current system seems to favour the production of a single hierarchy of institutions, with some differences between segments in the list, we favour a more robust negotiated approach aimed at supporting universities pursuing different kinds of missions and goals. Certainly, some are likely to be larger research universities - some, but not all, of these are among the 'sandstones' and 'red bricks' in Marginson's list. They will have stronger research programs of research and research training, both in discovery research and in application research and development work, with greater synergies across fields, and greater overall institutional infrastructure for research (in line with policies of research concentration and selective strategic development already adopted at many universities). Other kinds might also emerge with other kinds of strengths (for example, in different areas of teaching, or in areas of application R&D, though they may also have strength in selective areas of discovery research and research training). We can also imagine greater programmatic diversity developing in relation to more localized needs and opportunities, and in relation to the needs and interests of specific client groups.
Among funding mechanisms likely to enhance diversity, we favour mechanisms which have a sense of 'fitness for purpose' in the way they distribute funds, and mechanisms that distribute 'venture capital' funds on the basis of universities' realizable aspirations in relation to strengths, needs and opportunities. As earlier remarks suggest, however, we believe that this must generally be moderated by judgements about the 'balanced development' of the higher education system as a whole. In our view, this requires having a view about the system as a network of services to be developed through each university, not regarding the system as a uniform collection of individual (competitor) institutions.
In short, we favour mixed models of funding. One element of this mix must provide some stability and certainty (as institutional block grants once did, and as some parts of the profiles process do today). Another element must provide opportunities for development and innovation, for example, via 'venture capital' funding, though here we add the caveat that distributing these funds through unsegmented competition is unlikely to be responsive to local needs and opportunities. Still other elements should give access to scarce national resources through fair competition in appropriately targeted fields via segmented competition. At a time when the system is expanding and expected to diversify, new resources from government are justified.
Critical to the development of Australian higher education as a whole is tapping new resources from a variety of non-government sources. Such resources are extremely valuable in terms of increased discretionary power for universities, enabling them to set and pursue their own strategic goals.
In each area of scholarly work, there are shifts in the proportion of private funds in the public/private funding mix. In teaching, there are increased contributions from students via fees, particularly for overseas and postgraduate coursework students. In relation to clients for university services in business, industry and the professions, the public/private mix is changing as universities receive more funding via fee-for-service work, contract research and development, and cooperative partnerships and strategic alliances. Matched funding from government, for example through cooperative research centres and other 'linkage' funding schemes, frequently increases the value of these funds. In connection with the wider community and the public sphere, universities are receiving more funds in relation to work done with community organizations, the media and other community sources. In research aimed at the development of the disciplines and the core of the research-teaching nexus, however, most funding still comes from government, though there is some increase in the funds available through gifts, donations and bequests specifying support for studies in particular fields. In terms of the real value of this work, of course, academics themselves also make a substantial contribution through working longer hours without additional salary rewards.
In teaching, universities are becoming more diverse in terms of course content, modes of delivery, and assessment and examination. There is a strong sense that teaching must be more client focused, and a range of innovative practices and approaches are being tried, in the interests of students, potential employers, and the professions.
Similarly, universities are diverse and diversifying in their linkages to business, industry and the professions. Here, too, a sense of strategic responsiveness to local needs and opportunities and to clients and potential clients is driving diversification. There is also a widespread recognition that universities need to expand the resources available to them through various forms of commercial contracts and partnerships, though usually with proper caution about ensuring that scholarly values are preserved.
In the scholarship of integration, universities are also becoming more diverse. It is in their interests to see that specialist work is widely publicized, and that it has an impact in public debates. It demonstrates that the university serves social and cultural interests in the wider community, as well as serving the educational and economic interests of students and employers.
In discovery research, there is great diversity and diversification, as more differentiated problems emerge in every discipline and field of study. The focus on users of knowledge also has an impact here, as researchers orient to the changing environments for their disciplines and fields: changes in technology, policy, culture and society that sometimes redefine the fundamental problems for research. |
