1

“The vision of actual things” Institutional Research Conference SSU

Professor Sir David Watson

26 June 2008

Centre for HigherEducation Studies

3

Self-study and institutional strategy: six traps•Over-simplification: the seduction of scenarios•The lure of change: change or change for the better?•Bench-marking for comfort or for challenge: “Inside the whale”•Following the crowd: RAE-fixation•Reputation over quality•Only good news: dealing with the counter-intuitive

4

“All we can do is to search the world as we find it, extricate the forces that seem to move it, and surround them with criticism and suggestion. Such a vision will inevitably reveal the bias of its author; that is to say it will be a human hypothesis not an oracular revelation. But if the hypothesis is honest and alive it should cast a little light upon our chaos. It should help us to cease revolving in the mere routine of the present or floating in a private utopia. For a vision of latent hope would be woven of vigorous strands; it would be concentrated on the crucial points of contemporary life, on that living zone where the present is passing into the future. It is the region where thought and action count. Too far ahead there is nothing but your dream; just behind there is nothing but your memory. But in the unfolding present, man can be creative if his vision is gathered from the promise of actual things”.

(Lippmann, 1914: 18)

5

1. Scenarios

•The wired/wireless universe

•The new cold/hot war

•Here come the “Asian tigers”

6

The seven basic plots (Christopher Booker, 2004)1. Overcoming the monster

2. Rags to riches

3. The quest

4. Voyage and return

5. Comedy

6. Tragedy

7. Rebirth

7

2. The change fetish

“I tell my people that change and change for the better aren’t necessarily the same thing”

Karen Brady, Businesswoman of the Year, Desert Island Discs

8

9

3. Bench-marking

10

Inside the whale

“The passive attitude will come back, and it will be more consciously passive than before. Progress and reaction have both turned out to be swindles. Seemingly there is nothing left but quietism – robbing reality of its terrors by simply submitting to it. Get inside the whale – or rather, admit that you are inside the whale (for you are, of course). Give yourself over to the world-process, stop fighting against it or pretending that you control it; simply accept it, endure it, record it.”

(George Orwell 1940, Inside the Whale)

12

Percentage change in enrolments by subject area, 1996/7 to 2005/06

13

0

250000

500000

750000

1000000

1250000

1500000

1750000

2000000

2250000

2500000

1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

FT First Degree FT Other Undergraduate PT First Degree PT Other Undergraduate FT Postgraduate PT Postgraduate

UK HE student numbers by mode and level, 1979 - 2005

14

4. Following the crowd

15

Research concentration

HEFCE QR

Four HEIs receive 29% of HEFCE

research funds

Ten HEIs receive 50% of HEFCE

research funds

23 HEIs receive 75% of HEFCE research

funds

Research Council funding

Three HEIs receive 25% of Research

Council funding

Eight HEIs receive 50% of Research

Council funding

18 HEIs receive 75% of Research Council

funding

16

Right-sizing QR: 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”

Rank Institution Research % Rank Institution Research %

1 Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine 60.30% 21 University of Birmingham 36.00%

2 University of Oxford 59.40% 22 University of Nottingham 35.80%

3 University of Cambridge 59.10% 23 University of Essex 33.50%

4 University College London 59.00% 24 University of Leeds 33.40%

5 University of York 47.10% 25 University of Durham 33.20%

6 University of Southampton 45.40% 26 Goldsmiths College, University of London 32.00%

7 University of Manchester Institute of Science & Technology44.80% 27 University of Leicester 31.90%

8 University of Surrey 44.10% 28 University of Liverpool 30.70%

9 University of Reading 42.90% 29 University of Exeter 28.30%

10 University of Manchester 42.30% 30 Birkbeck College 26.40%

11 Royal Holloway, University of London 42.20% 31 Queen Mary, University of London 25.80%

12 King's College London 41.90% 32 Loughborough University 25.70%

13 University of Warwick 41.70% 33 Keele University 24.60%

14 University of Sheffield 40.90% 34 Aston University 22.50%

15 University of Bristol 39.70% 35 City University, London 21.60%

16 University of East Anglia 38.80% 36 University of Bradford 19.80%

17 University of Sussex 38.60% 37 Brunel University 17.60%

18 Lancaster University 36.30% 38 University of Kent at Canterbury 16.70%

19 University of Bath 36.20% 39 University of Hull 15.30%

20 University of Newcastle upon Tyne 36.10% 40 University of Salford 13.60%

HEFCE funding: R as a percentage of T+R, 2000-01

Rank Institution Research % Rank Institution Research %

41 University of Brighton 10.80% 61 University of Sunderland 2.60%

42 University of Portsmouth 8.20% 62 University of Central Lancashire 2.50%

43 De Montfort University 7.20% 63 Kingston University 2.30%

44 Oxford Brookes University 6.60% 64 Bournemouth University 2.20%

45 University of Surrey Roehampton 6.20% 65 University of Luton 2.10%

46 Sheffield Hallam University 5.20% 66 Coventry University 2.10%

47 Nottingham Trent University 5.20% 67 University of Northumbria at Newcastle 2.00%

48 Liverpool John Moores University 5.00% 68 University of Central England in Birmingham 1.70%

49 University of Hertfordshire 4.80% 69 Leeds Metropolitan University 1.60%

50 University of Plymouth 4.60% 70 Anglia Polytechnic University 1.60%

51 University of Gloucestershire 4.20% 71 Staffordshire University 1.50%

52 Manchester Metropolitan University 4.20% 72 University of Teesside 1.40%

53 London South Bank University 4.20% 73 University of Wolverhampton 1.30%

54 University of Huddersfield 4.00% 74 University of Derby 1.20%

55 Open University 3.90% 75 London Metropolitan University 1.00%

56 University of East London 3.90% 76 University of Lincoln 0.80%

57 University of the West of England, Bristol 3.80% 77 Thames Valley University 0.30%

58 Middlesex University 3.80% HEI Total 25.20%

59 University of Westminster 3.70%

60 University of Greenwich 3.20%

19

University of Brighton: sources of research funding 2003-04 (£8.4m)Research Councils 19.0%UK-based charities 1.3%UK government (including health) 13.4%UK industry & commerce 7.3%EU government 7.7%EU other 1.3%Other overseas 1.0%TCS/KTP 9.5%HEFCE QR 39.5%

Watson & Maddison, Managing Institutional Self-Study (2005), 112

20

5. Reputation over quality

21

22

Reputation over quality

“Institutions such as my own are outposts of serious and bright students of modest or low-income background taught by dedicated faculty who are often respected researchers as well. These institutions are home to a democratic institutional culture simply not possible at elite institutions…It is time that the national agonizing about the income bias of elite institutions shifts its focus to these institutions.” Lawrence Blum, The New York Review of Books.

23

Higher education and lifelong learning: a framework of change

Source: Schuetze and Slowey 2000

24

Ten top tens

1. “World-classness”

2. Times League Table

3. “Research Intensity”

4. International recruitment

5. Graduate employability

6. National Student Survey

7. Degree results

8. Social mobility

9. Financial security

10.Gay friendliness

25

Shanghai Jiao Tong Academic Ranking of World Universities (2007)

– 1. Cambridge (4)– 2. Oxford (10)– 3. Imperial (23)– 4. UCL (25)– 5. Manchester (48)– 6. Edinburgh (53)– 7. Bristol (62)– 8. Sheffield (72)– 9. Nottingham (81)– 10. KCL (83)

(Institute of Higher Education. Shanghai Jiao Tong University 2007)

26

Times League Table (2007)

– 1. Oxford– 2. Cambridge– 3. Imperial College– 4. LSE– 5. St Andrews– 6. UCL– 7. Warwick– 8. Bristol– 9. Durham– 10. KCL

(Timesonline 17.11.07)

27

Research as a proportion of total FC grant (2005-06)

– 1. Imperial (29%)– 2. UCL– 3. School of Pharmacy– 4. St. Andrews– 5. Southampton– 6. Oxford– 7. Sussex– 8. Institute of Cancer Research– 9. Sheffield– 10. Bristol

(UUK Patterns 7)

28

Number of international (non-EU) students (2005-06)1. Warwick (5,602)2. Manchester3. Nottingham4. London Metropolitan5. UCL6. Oxford7. Birmingham8. LSE9. Middlesex10. Leeds

(UUK Patterns 7)

29

First destination survey in employment (2005-06)

– 1. Buckingham (100%)– 2. Courthauld Institute of Art– 3. Cranfield– 4. Royal Academy of Music– 5. Royal College of Music– 6. Royal Veterinary College– 7. St George’s Hospital Medical School– 8. The School of Pharmacy– 9. Trinity Laban– 10. Dundee

(UUK Patterns 7)

30

National Student Survey (2007)

– 1. Buckingham– 2. Oxford– 3. Open– 4. Loughborough– 5. Leicester– 6. Exeter– 7. Institute of Education– 8. St. Andrews– 9. East Anglia– 10. Birkbeck

(THES 14.9.07)

31

Proportion of Firsts and Upper Seconds (2005-06)

– 1. Oxford (90%)– 2. Courthauld Institute of Art– 3. Royal Welsh College of Music and Drama– 4. Cambridge– 5. Royal Academy of Music– 6. Bristol– 7. St Andrews– 8. Royal Veterinary College– 9. University College Falmouth– 10. University of London (Institutes)

(UUK Patterns 7)

32

Percentage of students from social groups 4-7 (2005-06)

– 1. Harper Adams College (59%)– 2. UHI Millennium Institute– 3. Wolverhampton– 4. NEWI– 5. East London– 6. Greenwich– 7. Trinity College, Camarthen– 8. Ulster– 9. Bell College– 10. Teesside

(UUK Patterns 7 – note that the definition of lower class includes [absurdly] self-employed parents; hence the agricultural tendency).

33

Gay Friendly Universities (according to Diva 2005)

– 1. Manchester Metropolitan– 2. Brighton– 3. University of London (!)– 4. Birmingham– 5. Lancaster– 6. Leeds– 7. Hull– 8. Bradford– 9. Durham– 10. Edinburgh

(Guardian Online 10.8.05)

34

World-classness

•Statistics

•Politics

•Journalism

35

What makes a university world-class?

The objective score board

The subjective beauty contest

36

Shanghai Jiao Tong: 2004 and 2005

Alumni prizes 10%

Staff prizes 20%

Highly cited researchers 20%

Science citations 20%

Soc. Sci./Humanities citations 20%

Adjustment for size 10%

37

THES 2005

Peer review 40%

Employer ratings 10%

Citations per FTE staff 20%

SSR 20%

International staff 5%

International students 5%

38

World-classness

What counts

•Research

•Media interest

•Graduate destinations

•Infrastructure

•International “executive” recruitment

What doesn’t count

•Teaching quality•Social mobility•Services to business and the community•Rural interests•Other public services•Collaboration•The public interest

39

6. Dealing with the counter-intuitive

•Debt and liquidity•“Course not appropriate” as dominant reason for withdrawal•Elder care out-weighs child care needs•Part-time work not related to financial circumstances•Part-time students prioritise staff contact over services•No growth in % Firsts and Upper Seconds•No correlation between widening participation and retention at School level

40

Conclusion: know your history

“What would George do?”

41

Discussion

Institute of EducationUniversity of London20 Bedford WayLondon WC1H 0AL

Tel +44 (0)20 7612 6000Fax +44 (0)20 7612 6126Email info@ioe.ac.ukWeb www.ioe.ac.uk