Search

This article questions the assumption that increasing competition among higher education institutions is the best method of achieving a strong higher education sector in developing countries. It notes that there has been increasing emphasis on the importance of higher education institutions for sustainable development, particularly because of their importance to the global knowledge economy. For the same reason, the appropriate management of the relationship between the state and higher education institutions is vital to a strong and dynamic future for these institutions. This paper proposes a menu of options for higher education governance, grouped around ‘state-centric’ and ‘neo-liberal’ models of development. The ‘state-centric’ model proposed is based on a variety of examples of high performing Asian economies, in particular, while the ‘neo-liberal’ model is based on emerging trends in higher education management in countries such as Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom. The paper suggests that despite pressure across the globe to encourage a market among universities, this may not always be the most efficient use of resources, or the best way to integrate universities in a country’s drive for economic growth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The ‘independent learner’ is a key construct within discourses of educational policy and practice in the UK. Government policy statements stress the importance of developing learner independence, and higher education pedagogical practices tend to rest on the assumption that students are independent learners. This paper draws on research with undergraduate students in a post-1992 university to offer a critical appraisal of the discourse of the independent learner. The paper examines students’ perceptions of independence in both their first year of undergraduate study, and in the later years of their degree courses. Support for learning and issues related to asking for help are discussed. Whilst students tend to both expect and want to be independent, it is suggested that dominant constructions of the independent learner are gendered and culturally specific, and as such are inappropriate for the majority of students in a mass higher education system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper explores the dynamics of competition in higher education. National competition and global competition are distinct, but feed into each other. Higher education produces ‘positional goods’ (Hirsch 1976) that provide access to social prestige and income-earning. Research universities aim to maximise their status as producers of positional goods. This status is a function of student selectivity plus research performance. At system-level competition bifurcates between exclusivist elite institutions that produce highly value positional goods, where demand always exceeds supply and expansion is constrained to maximise status; and mass institutions (profit and non-profit) characterised by place-filling and expansion. Intermediate universities are differentiated between these poles. In global competition, the networked open information environment has facilitated (1) the emergence of a world-wide positional market of elite US/UK universities; and (2) the rapid development of a commercial mass market led by UK and Australian universities. Global competition is vectored by research capacity. This is dominated by English language, especially US universities, contributing to the pattern of asymmetrical resources and one-way global flows. The paper uses Australia as its example of system segmentation and global/national interface. It closes by reflecting on a more balanced global distribution of capacity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

National mechanisms for comparing the research profiles of higher education institutions (HEIs) have become increasingly common. Probably the best known of these is the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) conducted in the United Kingdom, and used as the basis for the allocation of research funding. Such exercises are expensive. They would have additional value if the data could be used by HEIs to inform the development of their research strategies. In this paper we use publicly available RAE outcome data to demonstrate this potential. We contrast the two units’ research profiles with other units of assessment within the HEI, with other like-units nationally, and finally we examine the relative performance of all the HEI’s units of assessment against their national counter-parts. Finally we discuss the kinds of insights these data may offer in the development of research strategy at the level of the institution, and at the level of the School or Department. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While not the only title used by UK university leaders, the term Vice Chancellor will be used throughout this paper to include the other titles used (including Rector, Provost, Principal and President). According to data obtained pre-1997, UK Vice Chancellors (VCs) were predominantly scientists, largely former professors, Pro-VCs or deputy directors in universities, with only a few recruited from industry or the civil service. There have been changes in the fundamental demands being placed on UK universities in the recent past and the aim of our study was to explore if there had been changes in the socio-demographic characteristics of UK VCs since 1996. Our analysis of data available in the public domain on VCs appointed between 1997 and 2006 established that several changes had occurred. Most interestingly, we report an increase in the numbers of women and social scientists, and an increase in the age at which appointments are made. We also report an increase in appointments to universities established post-1992 of academics previously working in institutions established pre-1992. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The global expansion of access to higher education has increased demand for information on academic quality and has led to the development of university ranking systems or league tables in many countries of the world. A recent UNESCO/CEPES conference on higher education indicators concluded that cross-national research on these ranking systems could make an important contribution to improving the international market for higher education. The comparison and analysis of national university ranking systems can help address a number of important policy questions. First, is there an emerging international consensus on the measurement of academic quality as reflected in these ranking systems? Second, what impact are the different ranking systems having on university and academic behavior in their respective countries? Finally, are there important public interests that are thus far not reflected in these rankings? If so, is there a needed and appropriate role for public policy in the development and distribution of university ranking systems and what might that role be? This paper explores these questions through a comparative analysis of university rankings in Australia, Canada, the UK, and the US. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study builds upon the concept of alignment within the curriculum (due to Biggs) and suggests, in the context of two current examples, an integrated methodology for effectively aligned development activities within universities. Higher Education institutions face important challenges. Firstly, quality enhancement of the curriculum is now an institutional concern, if not a priority, in the face of governmental pressure and in a competitive environment. It is no longer a matter of individual endeavour. Secondly, we now have a basic pedagogy for adult learning, and should put that into practice systematically. And thirdly, staff are now faced with the demand to commit themselves to professional development, and to determine what that means in terms of their particular profession. This paper considers these challenges, and relates them to the argument for an integrated methodology for institutional, staff and curriculum development, which aligns these activities rather more effectively than hitherto. At the same time, it advocates a logical model for curriculum development, as a complementary tool of alignment for student-centred curriculum development. The argument is illustrated by recent work in the Open University in the UK and in the Universidade de Aveiro in Portugal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]