Misunderstanding contemporary

HE: some category mistakes

Professor Sir David Watson

Honorary President

SRHE Annual Conference

7 December 2011

William Empson, Seven Types of

Ambiguity (1930)

• Meaning several things simultaneously

• Resolving two or more things into one

• Two ideas in one word

• Two meanings not agreeing

• Incomplete performance

• Saying nothing

• Having two opposite meanings

William Empson, Seven Types of

Ambiguity (1930)

• Meaning several things simultaneously QUALITY

• Resolving two or more things into one EFFICIENCY

• Two ideas in one word TEACHING

• Two meanings not agreeing CHOICE

• Incomplete performance DIVERSITY

• Saying nothing MODULARITY

• Having two opposite meanings THE UNIVERSITY

Watson, D. (1994) Living with Ambiguity: some dilemmas of academic leadership. In Bock, J. and Watson, D. (eds.) Managing the University Curriculum: making common cause (SRHE/Open U. Press).

Gilbert Ryle, The Concept of Mind

(1949)

The “foreigner visiting Oxford or Cambridge for the first time” is “shown a number of colleges, libraries, playing fields, museums, scientific departments and administrative offices. He then asks ‘But where is the University? I have seen where the members of the Colleges live,where the Registrar works, where the scientists experiment and the rest. But I have not yet seen the University in which reside and work the members of your University.’ It then has to be explained to him that the University is not another collateral institution, some visible counterpart to the colleges, laboratories and offices which he has seen. The University is just the way in which what he has already seen is organized. When they are seen and when their coordination is understood, the University has been seen.” (pp. 17-18)

The “category mistake”

• “a sentence that says one thing in one category what can only intelligibly be said of something of another, as when speaking of the mind located in space”

• “what does blue smell like?”

1. University “performance”

• to what extent the individual university is the most sensible unit of analysis.

Ramsden, P., Batchelor, D., Peacock, A., Temple, P. and Watson, D. (2010), Enhancing and Developing the National Student Survey: report to HEFCE by the Centre for Higher Education Studies at the Institute of Education. Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) (August).

2. Access

• the pursuit of “excellence,” or “social mobility,” or even “social justice”

• “Widening participation” or “fair access”

• “Wasted talent.”

Sutton Trust (2008), Wasted Talent? Attrition Rates of High-achieving Pupils Between School and University. London: Sutton Trust

3. The HE “sector”

• talking about “higher” when we should be talking about “tertiary” education.

University of Peshawar: http://www.upesh.edu.pk/about_uop.html

4. Research “selectivity”

• talking about institutional research intensity when we should be talking about inter-institutional collaboration.

The scientific world is becoming increasingly interconnected, with international

collaboration on the rise. Today over 35% of articles published in international

journals are internationally collaborative, up from 25% 15 years ago.

The primary driver of most collaboration is the scientists themselves. In

developing their research and finding answers, scientists are seeking to work

with the best people, institutions and equipment which complement their

research, wherever they may be.

The connections of people, through formal and informal channels, diaspora

communities, virtual global networks and professional communities of shared

interests are important drivers of international collaboration. These networks

span the globe. Motivated by the bottom-up exchange of scientific insight,

knowledge and skills, they are changing the focus of science from the national

to the global level. Yet little is understood about the dynamics of networking and

the mobility of scientists, how these affect global science and how best to

harness these networks to catalyse international collaboration (RS, 2001:6).

Knowledge, Networks and Nations: global scientific collaboration in the 21st

century

Royal Society Policy Document 03/11. London: The Royal Society DES2096

Funding of research through the dual support system as a

percentage of total income, 2008/09, by interest groups

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Sector

Russell

1994

Million+

GuildHE

Alliance

Research grants and contracts as a percentage of funding council research grants, 2008/09

0%

500%

1000%

1500%

2000%

2500%

3000%

Sector

Russell

1994

Million+

GuildHE

Alliance

The balance of dual support

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

1981

/82

1982

/83

1983

/84

1984

/85

1985

/86

1986

/87

1987

/88

1988

/89

1989

/90

1990

/91

1991

/92

1992

/93

1993

/94

1994

/95

1995

/96

1996

/97

1997

/98

1998

/99

1999

/00

2000

/01

2001

/02

Research income to HE sector (£m)

Grants and contracts Core UGC/HEFC

Dual support

transfer

Trend projected

on original line

1414

Life after REF

QR winners

•Decline in dual support

•The mirage of Full Economic Costing

•Narrowing of mission

•Dominance of medicine and science

•Partnership aversion

•Gearing reduction

The rest

•Mode 2 opportunities

•Creative and service economies

•“Liberal” curriculum

•“Translational research”

•“The science of performance”

•“University-like businesses”

5. “World-classness”

• politicians and institutional leaders (the latter should know better) are obsessed with a poorly designed concept of comparative “world classness” when they ought to be talking about geographically specific “engagement.”

International league tables: what

doesn’t count

• Teaching quality

• Social mobility

• Services to business and the community

• Rural interests

• Other public services

• Collaboration

• The public interest

International league tables: what

counts

• Research

• Media interest

• Graduate destinations

• Infrastructure

• International “executive” recruitment

6. The “public/private divide”

• how the private sector can be used for public purposes.

• The “university-like business”

21

“University-like businesses”

“Anyone who has ever run a university, a film studio, or an open source software project will tell you that getting the most out of people seldom means managing them more, and usually means managing them less” (60).

“Whole Foods approach to management twines democracy with discipline, trust with accountability and community with fierce internal competition” (72).

“[W.L.] Gore wins big by not betting big, but betting often and staying at the table long enough to collect its winnings” (95).

“Like an elite engineering school, Google’s management model is built around small work units, lots of experimentation, vigorous peer feedback, and a mission to improve the world (107).” “As is true in academic life or on the Web, control at Googled is more peer-to-peer than manager to minion (111).”

“Torvalds [Linux] understands that in a community of peers, people bow to competence, commitment, and foresight, rather than power” (207). “Like professors vying to get published in prestigious journals, coders hanker for the peer recognition that comes from making a visible contribution….The lesson: a successful opt-in system is one that allows contributors to take their ‘psychic income’ in a variety of currencies” (209).

Gary Hamel, The Future of Management, Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2007.

7. “Informed” choice

• who is really running the show?

Percentage change in enrolments by subject area,

1999/2000-2008/09

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Mas

s co

mmun

ications

& doc

umen

tatio

n

Biologica

l scien

ces

Mathe

matical scien

ces

Edu

catio

n

Creative arts & des

ign

Law

Hum

anities

Soc

ial, ec

onom

ic & politica

l studies

Architecture, building & plann

ing

Sub

jects allie

d to m

edicine

All su

bjec

ts

Med

icine & den

tistry

Bus

ines

s & adm

inistra

tive stud

ies

Lang

uage

s

Veterinary scienc

e

Phy

sica

l scien

ces

Agriculture & re

lated su

bjec

ts

Eng

inee

ring & te

chno

logy

Com

puter s

cien

ce

Percentage of full-time first degree students ineach subject area,1994/95-2008/09

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16%

Medicine & dentis try

Subjects allied to medicine

Biological sciences

Veterinary science

Agriculture & related subjects

Physical sciences

Mathematical sciences

Computer science

Engineering & technology

Architecture, building & planning

Social s tudies

Law

Business & adminis trative s tudies

Mass communications &

documentation

Languages

Historical & philosophical s tudies

Creative arts & design

Education

Combined

1994/95

1995/96

1996/97

1997/98

1998/99

1999/2000

2000'01

2001/02

2002/03

2003/04

2004/05

2005/06

2006/07

2007/08

2008/09

Fig 1: Data from the ROSE study showing students' responses to the question ‘I like school science better than

most other school subjects’. Percentage answering Agree plus Strongly agree. Male and female symbols.

No rw a y

De nm a rk

Sw e de n

Ice la nd

Finla nd

Ja pa n

Eng la nd

N. Ire la nd

Sco t la nd

Ire la nd

Ge rm a ny

Aust ria

S lo v e n ia

Es t o n ia

La t v ia

Cze ch Re p.

Po la nd

Russ ia ( Ka r)

Spa in ( B a l)

Po rt ug a l

Gre e ce

Turke y

Trinida d & T.

Ma la y s ia

Ind ia ( Mum b)

India ( Guj)

B a ng la de sh

Philippine s

B o t sw a na

Zim ba bw e

Sw a zila nd

Le so t ho

Gha na ( Ce nt r)

Ug a nda

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Me an F5 . I like s ch o o l s c ie n ce b e tter th an m o s t

Science Educationin Europe: criticalreflections

The Nuffield FoundationJanuary 2008

26

Frand, “the information age mind-set”

(2000)• Computers are not technology

• Internet better than TV

• Reality no longer real

• Doing rather than knowing

• Nintendo over Logic

• Multitasking way of life

• Typing rather than handwriting

• Staying connected

• Zero tolerance for delays

• Consumer/Creator blurring

Educause Review 35:5, 14-24

8. Reputation and quality

• “you won’t necessarily learn more if you go to a posh place”

Social and Organisational Mediation of University Learning (SOMUL) (2005) Working Paper 2. SOMUL: York (December).

Truth to power and truth to ourselves

1. University “performance”

2. Access

3. The HE “sector”

4. Research “selectivity”

5. “World-classness”

6. Public/private

7. “Informed” choice

8. Reputation and Quality

SRHE

1965-2015