Enhancing Diversity in Australian Higher Education (Summary)

Stephen Kemmis, Simon Marginson, Paige Porter and Fazal Rizvi

This paper was prepared by Stephen Kemmis Research & Consulting Pty Ltd, under contract to The University of Western Australia. The authors take sole responsibility for the views expressed in the paper.

Stephen Kemmis Research & Consulting Pty Ltd
ACN 081 107 164
1 Bluff Road, Cannons Creek, Victoria 3977, Australia
Telephone (03) 5998 7530 - International + 61 3 5998 7530
Fax (03) 5998 7530 - International + 61 3 5998 7530
email: kemmis@sx.com.au

The Authors

Stephen Kemmis is Director of Stephen Kemmis Research & Consulting Pty Ltd, and Professor Emeritus of the University of Ballarat. Simon Marginson is Director of the Monash Centre for International Education, Monash University. Paige Porter is Executive Dean of the Faculties of Economics and Commerce, Education and Law, University of Western Australia. Fazal Rizvi is Pro Vice Chancellor (International), Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology.

This is a summary version of a longer paper addressing the central problem of diversity in Australian higher education. The problem is important for many reasons. Diversity is complex, and has many dimensions. It is currently inhibited, and needs to be enhanced. The paper makes some suggestions about enhancing diversity in Australian higher education.

The paper argues that Australian higher education is now more systemically diverse (with more different kinds of universities) and more programmatically diverse (with more various kinds of programs of teaching and research, for example) than ever before. Yet this diversity is under-recognized and under-rewarded. Government policies encouraging diversity have not been carried through changes to regulatory and funding mechanisms. Common funding and regulatory mechanisms now press all universities towards the same goal: to maximize resources by being as comprehensive as possible, with as many highly weighted fields of study and students as possible. The system favours convergence and inter-institutional mimicry rather than innovation and distinctiveness. If the current system continues, it is most likely to produce only a single hierarchy in which different universities cluster at different levels in terms of quality measured against a few key indicators (like research productivity and the resources available to support their work).

It is argued that the changing nature of social relations in the contemporary world, especially in multicultural, post-industrial societies, and the changing global knowledge economy are the two central reasons for encouraging diversity in Australian higher education. If Australian higher education is more systemically and programmatically diverse, it is more likely to serve these purposes.

To disentangle some of the issues surrounding diversity in higher education, the paper explores five dilemmas of diversity.

(1) Diversity and conformity: unease about difference

Australian universities conform to a common definition of what it means to be a university, and there is unease about departures from this model. Elsewhere in the world - especially in the USA - there is a much greater variety of higher education institutions, serving a wider range of purposes.

(2) Diversity and competition

Some mechanisms for funding higher education in Australia have homogenizing effects. Foremost among these is formula funding of university teaching and learning. Other mechanisms are competitive. Funding of universities through the research councils, the research quantum, and schemes for funding innovations in teaching and learning are examples of these. When the pool of resources available through competition is fixed, competition may be a zero-sum game: 'winners' can only accumulate more resources at the expense of 'losers', and some institutions are progressively advantaged in relation to others. These effects are mitigated when competition is segmented rather than unsegmented - that is, when the competition is in more specialized and differentiated domains (as in the case of ARC fields of research) rather than generalized (as in the case of the research quantum). The reliance on competitive mechanisms is founded on a belief in the efficacy of markets for producing diverse products to meet different consumer needs and interests. As the paper shows, education is a positional good which does not operate on classical market principles. Those who want high-status education can only get it from high-status institutions; other institutions cannot compete with them in status terms (so competition between institutions generally operates only at the low end of the status hierarchy); and it is in the interests of the high-status institutions to remain as selective as possible to maintain their status position. Higher education is a cultural good, and state investment in higher education is justified by its contribution to the formation not only of professionals with economically-desirable skills, but also in terms of the circulation and development of knowledge in the society. Competitive market funding is not a reliable mechanism for ensuring that these cultural goods will be developed and distributed through the wider community and the nation as a whole. Moreover, competition can be an inefficient way to distribute opportunities (like research opportunities). Resources expended in unsuccessful competitive behaviour are a cost against teaching and research productivity. And finally, the ethos of competition across the system has effects reaching within universities, corroding the cooperative relationships necessary for strategic development of a university as a whole in relation to its students and the other groups it serves (the professions, industry and government; the disciples; and local and national communities).

(3) Diversity and equity

While the discourse of diversity aims to recognize and celebrate difference, it also raises enduring questions about equity, especially the equitable distribution of resources and opportunities. The paper presents a brief critique of distributional theories of justice and draws on the theory of justice as difference to argue that, at the institutional level as well as at the level of individual persons, justice is served by practices that support self-development and self-determination. If mechanisms for regulating and funding universities are designed in order to defend against maldistribution of available resources (that is, in terms of distributional theories of justice), they are more likely to produce homogeneity than heterogeneity (difference, diversity). They nevertheless remain open to criticism wherever competitive mechanisms produce inequities in distribution. The current system of regulating and funding higher education in Australia is of this kind. If mechanisms for regulating and funding universities were designed to support the reasonable aspirations of universities for self-development and self-determination in relation to realistic missions and strategic purposes related to their service to their various client groups (students, industry, intellectual fields, communities), they would become more diverse. The question of equity of distribution of resources would still arise, but differences in distribution could be justified not by appeal to 'equal opportunities' or 'equal outcomes', but by appeal to the overall development of the higher education system as a whole in relation to the needs and interests of different kinds of client groups, in different balances in different places. That is, it would be justified by appeal to the interests of self-development and self-determination of universities in relation to the kinds of clients it is their particular mission to serve. Such a system would require the exercise of a measure of judgment in the governance of the system as a whole, and for this reason the paper countenances the formation of a higher education commission capable of exercising judgment accountably, in the interests of clients and the nation as a whole. (4) Diversity and accountability Mechanisms for institutional accountability to government require that each university presents an account of its work according to standard criteria - as, for example, in the annual profiles process. This common regulatory framework creates representations of every university on the same terms as every other university. It also generates considerable pressures in each university to present itself in the best light in relation to every other, further entrenching a 'league tables' mentality, and further entrenching inter-institutional competitive behaviour and attitudes. These accounting practices, intended simply to make the practice of accounting neutral and efficient, have the unintended effect of inhibiting substantive diversity and encouraging convergence. (5) Diversity and autonomy The common regulatory and funding mechanisms in Australian higher education create a tension over the control of universities. Though established under the constitutional powers of (mostly) state governments to exercise autonomous powers over teaching and research (among other things), in practice the funding arrangements for universities subjugate them to the control of the Commonwealth (for example, through the profiles process). While a particular university may determine its directions for self-development and self-determination in terms of service to particular client groups (for example, in particular fields, or in a particular region), it remains constrained by Commonwealth policies and procedures. A greater responsiveness to (and even proactivity by) the Commonwealth in relation to the plans for self-development and autonomous self-determination of individual universities could enhance the systemic and programmatic diversity of Australian higher education.

Discussions of diversity in higher education tend to be abstract. It is difficult to get beneath the level of systemic diversity to fully comprehend the programmatic diversity of higher education in Australia. It is also difficult to see how programmatic diversity can feed and enhance systemic diversity - how the different patterns of higher education activities within institutions could help to form and shape diversity among institutions. To bring the discussion of diversity to a more substantive level - the level of what universities actually do - it is necessary to think about diversity in terms of 'the academic heartland'. The paper begins this kind of discussion using Ernest Boyer's conceptualization of university scholarship, drawing attention to the substantive practices of connection and communication through which universities relate to different kinds of groups. Boyer discusses this in terms of

• the scholarship of teaching
• by which a university relates to its students,
• the scholarship of application by which it relates to the professions, commerce, industry and government,
• the scholarship of integration by which it relates to wider communities and the general public sphere, and
• the scholarship of discovery by which it relates to the communities of scholars whose work constitutes intellectual fields and disciplines.

The paper discusses the ways Australian higher education is diverse, and becoming more diverse, in each of these aspects of scholarship. It also identifies institutional practices and structures that enhance and inhibit diversity in each of these kinds of scholarship. It makes some suggestions about things that might be done to weaken forces inhibiting diversity and strengthen forces that enhance diversity in relation to each kind of scholarship.

It is argued that, in addition to encouraging each university to become more enterprising and entrepreneurial in its scholarship, the higher education system as a whole must become more entrepreneurial. This includes

1. developing a strong steering centre capable of encouraging the balanced development of Australian higher education as a whole,
2. enabling the 'developmental periphery' - encouraging each institution to develop and pursue a distinctive mission in relation to its own pattern of connections and productive work with its various key clients in the scholarships of teaching, application, integration and discovery,
3. increasing the resources available to universities through a mixture of public and private funding capable of supporting developments in each area of scholarship,
4. strengthening the academic heartland - the practical scholarly work of every institution - to permit and encourage universities to act strategically to develop the quality and impact of their scholarship for the different clients of each kind of scholarship, and
5. generalizing the entrepreneurial culture throughout the system - so all universities can more actively pursue opportunities for self-development and self-determination in their work.

The current arrangements for regulating and funding universities do not seem to have these characteristics - or do display them sufficiently to produce more diverse higher education in Australia.

Key points: Factors enhancing and inhibiting diversity

Drawing on the arguments of earlier sections, the paper draws a number of implications about factors inhibiting and factors enhancing diversity in Australian higher education.

• Diversity and differentiation in the higher education system are essential because of the changing nature of social relations in the world and the changing global knowledge economy.
• The nature of diversity in higher education can be illuminated by exploring five key dilemmas:
  1. diversity and conformity,
  2. diversity and competition,
  3. diversity and equity,
  4. diversity and accountability, and
  5. diversity and autonomy.
• Treating all universities as representatives of the same abstract class hides actual diversity. In Australia, with a young higher education system, characterized in part by a culture of conformity, treating universities in the same ways encourages conformity to one mould for universities.
• Federal government reform efforts to introduce market mechanisms and competition have produced convergence and isomorphism. Because education is a positional good (class, status, occupation-based power), a pure market is not possible. Moreover, the cultural functions of higher education are obscured if it is understood solely or chiefly in terms of market principles.
• In a context of under-resourcing, the result of current arrangements for administering Australian higher education has been over regulation by the government of a formulaic kind that does not engage with the substantive work or aspirations of diverse universities.
• The reality of the contemporary scene in Australian higher education is both a great deal of diversity and much conformity. The diversity is real as different universities attempt to engage with their changing environments and internal and local needs. The conformity is a reality as all universities try to respond to a common conceptual template, a common regulatory framework, and common accountability requirements. Conformity is also the result of isomorphism and conservative academic norms and values.
• In the conceptualization of difference and diversity, distributional theories of justice are not as helpful as the theory of justice as difference. The latter offers useful insights into the issue of diversity in higher education - especially the principle that just treatment consists in supporting the self-development and self-determination of each university (consistent with self-development and self-determination for all). On this principle, it is just to treat universities differently, in line with their own views of how they might best develop. Adopting this principle is likely to lead to greater systemic and programmatic diversity in Australian higher education.
• The Boyer conceptualization of university work as being constituted by four scholarships (teaching, application, integration, and discovery) may provide a framework for better understanding diversity both systemically and programmatically. The Boyer view offers a way of understanding diversity more substantively - in terms of the scholarly work that universities actually do. On this view, strengthening scholarship means intensifying the relationships between the university and the kinds of client groups associated with each face of scholarship. It means stronger and more vital connections, more open two-way communication, and closer ties of partnership and collaboration with each. Arguably, this more active engagement with its partners leads a university in the direction of becoming more "entrepreneurial". This responsiveness to client groups has led, and is leading, to increased diversity in Australian higher education.

Necessary changes in higher education policy and administration

• We need a government approach which views the system as a national network of higher education services to be developed and provided for diverse clients, through a variety of different universities. This is to be contrasted with the current approach, which is inclined to treat universities as a relatively uniform collection of (competitor) institutions to be regulated in the achievement of narrowly defined central needs. The current approach treats universities as relatively uniform through the application of common procedures for funding (both through the relative funding model and through competitive funding mechanisms) and accountability, which encourage convergence on a singular model of the university. The result is a hierarchy of similar institutions rather than a variety of different institutions.
• Governments need to consider the extent to which, over time, the current common regulatory and funding frameworks will foster the formation of a single hierarchy of institutions, with universities clustering in 'vertical' segments on this hierarchy. To counterbalance this tendency, governments may wish to consider what regulatory and funding mechanisms might be implemented to foster greater 'horizontal' and systemic diversity (diversity of institutional types), as well as greater programmatic diversity (already fostered to some extent by the increased responsiveness of universities to the various clients of their scholarly services).
• In our view, these aspirations would be fostered by the development of a new independent higher education body, composed of representatives of government, the universities and the different kinds of client groups served by higher education programs and services. The principal function of such a body would be advising governments and universities on regulation, funding and the development of higher education nationally, through the work of each university. A second function - perhaps one that could be formed by a separate body - would be advising government and universities on quality assurance and management, both in relation to existing operations and proposed developments.
• We need a new national higher education policy direction that fosters diversity in the context of balanced development of the system as a whole. This could be achieved through the new, independent higher education body we have proposed, with a role in actively assisting institutional development in the context of balanced national development. On the one hand, this means assisting institutions to become more responsive and proactive in meeting the needs of current and future clients of their scholarly work, and to do so in terms of the directions each university identified for its own future development. On the other side, it means assisting government to improve the quality and availability of these services through the whole network of autonomous universities, as a contribution to national economic, social and cultural development. Such a body could also play a role in overseeing quality in universities and in the Australian higher education system as a whole, though this could be done by another agency.
• We need mixed modes of funding coming into universities, with elements of operational stability and predictability; and with 'venture capital' funding for strategic development, innovation and diversity. Where competitive funding mechanisms are appropriate (as in some areas of national funding for discovery research), there should be a greater emphasis on segmented (targeted) competition and a reduced emphasis on unsegmented (open) competition (since the latter maximizes the inefficiencies of competitive behaviour).
• To meet the new and emerging needs of a changing social relationships and a changing global knowledge economy, and to respond more effectively and innovatively to the needs of the different clients of higher education services, the capacity of Australian higher education system must be expanded and diversified. This expansion requires additional government funding.
• Additional resources from other sources are also required - though non-government sources are unlikely to be sufficient to meet the need for balanced development of the system as a whole, through each individual university. Universities have already increased the proportion of their total budgets coming from these sources, and will need to secure still more. Government policy and investment are needed to assist universities to secure more of these resources (for example, through matched funding arrangements and tax rebates), and to increase the proportion of private funding in the mix of private and public funding available to universities.

Implications for universities

• Universities also need to look internally at their own structures, processes, norms and values and assess the extent to which their own conservatism hinders diversity and innovation.
• Universities need to continue to become more client-focused in relation to the whole of their scholarly work. They need to strengthen their connections, communication and collaboration with
  • students (as clients of the scholarship of teaching);
  • business, industry and the professions (as clients of the scholarship of application);
  • the wider community and with co-inquirers across disciplinary boundaries (as clients of the scholarship of integration); and
  • peers and colleagues in the disciplines (as clients of the scholarship of discovery).

  It is a task for universities, as well as governments, to create conditions under which these clients can contribute to the costs of the services universities provide, though recognizing the complex balance of public interest and private benefit, and limits on the capacity of some clients and client groups to pay.

• Universities need to chart their own directions, be more vigorous in defining and their own missions, and operate in a climate that encourages and rewards diverse efforts within the general context of the balanced development of higher education in Australia.

The paper aims to be a contribution to understanding and debate about diversity in Australian higher education. The next task is to consider possible policy developments that build on these ideas. Among these might be further developments in measures for regulating and funding Australian universities.