Why is Greater Diversity Needed?

Despite some government policies encouraging diversity⁴, it has not yet been achieved to the extent, or in the ways, anticipated. Among these policies (of recent Labor and Coalition governments) are: the deregulation of higher education intended as a feature of the Unified National System; the new public sector reforms which have affected higher education along with other areas, encouraging self-regulation and market-like competition; the shift towards a 'user pays' principle intended to change the balance between public and private funding of higher education; support for commercialization of university research and development; enhanced relationships of universities with industry and the private sector; and corporate models of university management.

Nor is there yet a sense that the (rather vaguely articulated) expected benefits of a more diverse system have been attained for the range of clients of universities: for different groups of students; for the range of clients of higher education and university research in business, industry and the professions; for participants in the range of research fields and disciplines to which university research contributes; and for the wider community for whom universities are an important social and cultural resource. Apparently, the 'itch' for diversity has not yet been scratched.

Arguably, all else being equal, increased systemic and programmatic diversity would maximize the range of potential types of higher education (and higher education institutions) and thus maximize the potential for niche production of higher education services in a global environment. Increased programmatic diversity would maximize the cultural, social and economic benefits of more diverse curriculum offerings and modes of teaching, and the potential values to be derived from educational innovations.

The Current Situation

The impression given by such arguments is that Australian higher education is not diverse enough. As has been shown in a variety of studies⁵, however, it is clear that Australian higher education is diverse, and becoming more so. Meek and Wood (1998, p.19) recently described a range of types of diversity, among them systemic diversity (the different types of institutions to be found in a system), programmatic diversity (diversity in programs and services within institutions and across the system), and structural diversity (differences in the history, constitution, and governance structures of universities). A range of measures shows that universities are increasingly diverse in terms of a range of inputs - for example, funding from government versus non-government sources, research funding as a proportion of total funding, or characteristics of commencing students. They also show increasing diversity in terms of outputs - for example, in the range of qualifications of graduates, or the range of research and development contributions to industry.

The Appendix to this paper is a table showing some of the dimensions of diversity between universities in Australia. It includes 39 universities - but not the developing University of the Sunshine Coast in Queensland, or Bond University and the University of Notre Dame (the two major private universities in Australia). It groups them into clusters defined by Marginson (1999)⁶: 'sandstones', 'redbricks', 'unitechs', 'gumtrees' and 'new universities'. These labels reflect something of the history and formation of Australian universities. We want to emphasize that the labels are intended descriptively, not prescriptively: we hold no brief for defending this set of clusters⁷. We can readily imagine a bigger range of types, and different clusterings that could emerge over time. Indeed, we will argue, how the system will look in twenty or fifty years time is a matter to be decided by universities themselves, in consultation with government (in the interests of Australian higher education as a whole), and with the clients of higher education programs and services. But we also believe that it is more difficult than it was twenty years ago for universities to move between the current clusters. In the 1970s, it might have been expected that the distinctions would blur relatively easily over time. We will argue that current policy and funding arrangements, as well as some practices of universities themselves, inhibit significant repositioning.

The following table summarizes some of the main factors characterizing diversity in Australian higher education today:

Acknowledging this diversity, Meek and Wood (1998) and Marginson (1999) nevertheless draw attention to tendencies in contemporary Australian higher education towards convergence and 'isomorphism' (mimicry by one university of the successful programs and strategies of others). For younger and smaller universities, developing towards maturity as a university requires acquiring at least some of the characteristics of older and more established institutions. And all universities have an interest in knowing what their competitors are doing, and, in some cases, modeling their own innovations on the successful programs and strategies of others. Many universities in Victoria, for example, have developed regional campuses as feeder institutions and as satellites with distinctively regional commitments - to the point where 'regionality' becomes a difficult basis on which to distinguish metropolitan-based from rural-based institutions. Similarly, many universities have become distance education providers, so (even while some have a far greater proportion of distance education students than others) about three-quarters of Australian universities now have some involvement in distance education.

The relative funding model and other mechanisms for funding universities from the public purse have created a set of rules that have an effect on institutional development, determining in advance what developments will bring the larger rewards. All universities experience the push towards becoming more comprehensive in their offerings - as has happened, for example, with the spread of law and legal studies programs across the system. One of the few strong constraints on even greater sameness is the limitation on the establishment of medical schools; most universities without one would probably like to have one if they could. As well as the relative funding model, the research quantum as a component of operating grant funding has had a particularly powerful effect in establishing a reward structure that has shaped a single research management strategy across the higher education system.

In short, in the relationships of universities to government, and in their relationships with one another, the rewards for sameness seem greater than the rewards for difference and diversity. We will explore some of the dimensions of this proposition in later sections of this paper.

The question of diversity is complex. Policies encouraging diversity may anticipate that more diverse needs can be met through more diverse kinds of institutions doing more diverse things, but the stakes are high. Difference per se is an insufficient justification for policies encouraging diversity. What differences really make a difference in terms of improving higher education in Australia? Encouraging diversity may produce differences between institutions, but for what, and at what cost to universities and the clients they serve?

Why Greater Diversification is needed

Greater diversity and diversification are needed for two broad clusters of reasons. They reflect the changing world context that shapes, and is shaped by, higher education.

The first is the changing nature of social relations, which is having profound effects on cultures and individuals around the world. Old boundaries of nationhood, geography, race, ethnicity, class, and gender have become fluid and are shifting. Individual and cultural values seem everywhere under threat. The changes being experienced come particularly from increasing exposure to 'the other' through the influence of international news and media, information technology, and consumer products, as well as greater travel and features of modernization such as the push to increase the education levels of most of the world's populations. These increases in cultural globalization are experienced as pressures towards both homogeneity and heterogeneity at the same time, leading towards a resurgence of localized cultural identities as well as the development of globalised identities. At times, individuals and groups experience both the push to difference and the push to similarity as threats, and there is no doubt that social relations everywhere are being affected.

Historically, universities have been transnational institutions, sitting in a special pivotal cultural position, able to influence the interpretation of exogenous elements as they come into a culture, and how they are understood in relation to endogenous elements. At the very core of traditional universities is a notion of respect for knowledge and for learners. The increasing diversity of learners' needs means that universities must be plugged into these changing social relations. The shift from elite to mass higher education is just one face of this epochal change. Today, universities are vital nodes in global networks, with key roles in mediating the production, transmission and critical development of knowledge in many fields. They must be actively inclusive to recognize and respect the diverse needs and interests of as many participants in these networks as possible. To connect with increasingly diverse client groups, and to be relevant to their diverse needs, universities must diversify.

The second contextual factor is the changing global knowledge economy. Among other features, this includes: an exponential increase in the quantity of knowledge; an acceleration in the rate of development of knowledge; an acceleration in the transfer of knowledge globally; a growth in the centres of knowledge creation, including many outside universities; an increase in the numbers of experts working in many kinds of organizations outside universities; and a huge development in knowledge mediated industries and services.

As mentioned earlier, universities have traditionally played a crucial role in knowledge production and transmission, and there is no doubt they contain the kinds of knowledge processes that are sought today. Yet universities have not always connected well to external communities in ways which would facilitate the exchange of knowledge. By strengthening their relationships with industries and societies, they could facilitate the flow of knowledge between them. They are sometimes perceived to have held knowledge to themselves, and like mandarins, shared developments amongst themselves. Yet the most significant feature of the current changes is the democratization of knowledge and expertise.

Universities are centered in the knowledge enterprise yet - increasingly - they are facing significant competition in terms of both their knowledge production and knowledge transmission functions. At the same time, knowledge is an increasingly important determinant of success not only for individuals but also for industries, economies and societies - it is in demand. Part of the demand is that the public expects that some of the knowledge produced is not so remote, so abstract, or so specialized that it cannot be utilized in addressing the significant social, environmental and technical issues facing society. The key to the future for universities will be connecting their knowledge enterprise with the new comprehensive demands. Furthermore, globalization has important effects in relation to knowledge as well as culture and values. Universities have the ability to mediate the global locally and the local globally. Given their role in international networks, they are well placed to contribute to these exchanges. To connect with increasingly diverse global knowledge, and the alternative sources of such knowledge, and to meet the new democratized demands for knowledge, universities must diversify.