Intra-Institutional Diversityor Diversity of Institutional Missions?

Contribution to the

Slovenian National Conference 2012

on Higher Education

Ljubljana, 15 February 2012

by Ulrich Teichler

International Centre for Higher Education Research Kassel (INCHER-Kassel)University of Kassel, Germany

Email: teichler@incher.uni-kassel.de

Ulri

ch T

eich

ler:

Intr

a-In

stitu

tiona

l Div

ersi

ty o

r

D

iver

sity

of I

nstit

utio

nal M

issi

ons?

2 Themes of this Presentation

• Major themes of higher education policy in Europe

• Diversity trends and discourse

• The Bologna Process and diversity

• The “employability” discourse

• The Slovenian case

Ulri

ch T

eich

ler:

Intr

a-In

stitu

tiona

l Div

ersi

ty o

r

D

iver

sity

of I

nstit

utio

nal M

issi

ons?

3 Themes of Trend Reports, Policy Statements and Future Scenarios (I)

Five Major Issues in Higher Education in Europe in the First Decade of the 21st Century

(Teichler 2010)

• Management and strategy

• Internationalisation/globalisation

• Quality

• Relevance (“knowledge economy”, “employability”, etc.)

• Diversity

Source: U. Teichler. Equal Opportunity, Quality, Competitiveness (Contribution to the Conference „The Future of the European University after Bologna”, Fondation Universitaire, Brussels, 13 December 2010)

Ulri

ch T

eich

ler:

Intr

a-In

stitu

tiona

l Div

ersi

ty o

r

D

iver

sity

of I

nstit

utio

nal M

issi

ons?

4 Themes of Trend Reports, Policy Statements and Future Scenarios (II)

“Higher Education Looking Forward” (HELF) Project of Key Higher Education Researchers Sponsored by European Science Foundation

(ESF) (2005-2008)

• “Knowledge society”: The role of knowledge dynamics vs. external demand

• Expansion and the changing role of HE as regards to social equity/jus- tice/cohesion vs. meritocracy and vs. acceptance of traditional privileges

• Widening of functions (knowledge transfer, “third mission” etc.) or response to “mission overload”?

• Steering and “academic power”: the changing roles of governments, other external “stakeholders”, “market forces”, university managers and academic profession; a new “balance” or a new “steering overload”?

• Pattern of the higher education system: extreme vertical stratification or flat hierarchy? Imitation of the top or “horizontal diversity” of profiles?

Source: J. Brennan, & U. Teichler, eds. Special Issue: The Future of Higher Education and the Future of Higher Education Research. Higher Education (56)3, 2008

Ulri

ch T

eich

ler:

Intr

a-In

stitu

tiona

l Div

ersi

ty o

r

D

iver

sity

of I

nstit

utio

nal M

issi

ons?

5 Themes of Trend Reports, Policy Statements and Future Scenarios (III)

The Bologna Process (1999-)

• Introduction/functioning of a cycle system of study programmes and degrees

• Expansion of lower ranks of higher/tertiary education (?)

• Increasing inwards mobility of students from other parts of the world

• Increasing intra-European student mobility

• “Employability”

• Coordination of teaching/learning-related quality assurance

• Strengthening the “social dimension” of HE (?)

Ulri

ch T

eich

ler:

Intr

a-In

stitu

tiona

l Div

ersi

ty o

r

D

iver

sity

of I

nstit

utio

nal M

issi

ons?

6 Themes of Trend Reports, Policy Statements and Future Scenarios (IV)

The Lisbon Process (2000-)

• Increase of public and private expenditure on research

• More research serving the “knowledge economy” (Europe as “most competitive economy”)

• More intra-European research cooperation and mobility (?)

• More competition within higher education and research (?)

• A more stratified higher education and research system (?)

Ulri

ch T

eich

ler:

Intr

a-In

stitu

tiona

l Div

ersi

ty o

r

D

iver

sity

of I

nstit

utio

nal M

issi

ons?

7 Diversity (I)The Desirable Configuration

of the Higher Education SystemPopular views since the 1960s

• Expansion of student enrolment is desirable; expansion is linked to diversity

• Diversity of higher education institutions and study programmes is the response to the increasing diversity of motives, talents and career perspective of students

• There is a trend towards increasing diversity

• Research quality is the single most powerful element of diversification in Europe: vertical diversification among universities, segmentation between universities both in charge of research and teaching and other HEIs without a major research function

• The vertical dimension shapes the discourses and actions as regards diversity more strongly than the horizontal dimension

Ulri

ch T

eich

ler:

Intr

a-In

stitu

tiona

l Div

ersi

ty o

r

D

iver

sity

of I

nstit

utio

nal M

issi

ons?

8 Diversity (II)Three Generations of Diversity

Discourses and Trends in Europe

• 1960s and early 1970s: Diversification according to sectors, notably types of higher education institutions

• Mid-1970s and 1980s: Moderate inter-institutional diversity according to types of higher education institutions, vertical ranks and occasional profiles

• Since the 1990s: Stronger vertical stratification, establishment or extension of intra-institutional diversity of study programmes through a cycle system (Bologna), stratification goes global, lip-service for profile diversity

Ulri

ch T

eich

ler:

Intr

a-In

stitu

tiona

l Div

ersi

ty o

r

D

iver

sity

of I

nstit

utio

nal M

issi

ons?

9 Diversity (III)The new Zeitgeist at the Time of the

Third Diversification Era

• The more diversity the better (no chance for profiles?)

• Emphasis of steep stratification

• Growing belief that steep stratification contributes to quality, relevance and efficiency of the higher education system

• Increasing attention paid to ranks at the top and increasing belief that success at the top is important (“elite knowledge society”?)

• Assumption that top universities do not play anymore in national leagues, but rather in global leagues (“world-class universities”)

Ulri

ch T

eich

ler:

Intr

a-In

stitu

tiona

l Div

ersi

ty o

r

D

iver

sity

of I

nstit

utio

nal M

issi

ons?

10 Diversity (IV)The Biased Diversity Discourse on the Part of

Ranking and Classification Advocates (I)

• Polarisation: Either you are in favour of my notion of desirable diversity or you defend counter-productive homogeneity of higher education systems (disregards of different extents of diversity).

• Extremism: The more diversity the better (steep diversity is beneficial, moderate diversity is old-fashioned)

• Normative bias: Diversity is vertical diversity, and vertical diversity is the sexy game of today – Marginson: “compelling popularity of vertical diversity” (horizontal diversity is negligible)

Ulri

ch T

eich

ler:

Intr

a-In

stitu

tiona

l Div

ersi

ty o

r

D

iver

sity

of I

nstit

utio

nal M

issi

ons?

11 Diversity (V)The Biased Diversity Discourse on the Part of

Ranking and Classification Advocates (II)

• Preoccupation with inter-institutional diversity (neglect of intra-institutional diversity)

• Biased claim of transparency (only partially transparent, driven by availability of data)

• Claim of benefits with at most reference to “unintended consequences” (neglect of endemic weaknesses of the various models of diversity)

Ulri

ch T

eich

ler:

Intr

a-In

stitu

tiona

l Div

ersi

ty o

r

D

iver

sity

of I

nstit

utio

nal M

issi

ons?

12 Diversity (VI)Major Arguments in Favour of a Steep,

Mostly Vertical Diversification (I)

• Learning is more successful in relatively homogenous environments

• The HE institution as a whole is crucial for the quality of academic work of its parts (the quality of the academic work of the individual depends to a large extent on the institution)

• A steeper stratification of resources is needed to ensure quality at the top

Ulri

ch T

eich

ler:

Intr

a-In

stitu

tiona

l Div

ersi

ty o

r

D

iver

sity

of I

nstit

utio

nal M

issi

ons?

13 Diversity (VII)Major Arguments in Favour of a Steep,

Mostly Vertical Diversification (II)

• The demand for research in higher education institutions is smaller than the demand for teaching

• Quality of research is more steeply stratified than quality of teaching

• A transparent steep hierarchy is a strong motivator for enhancement all over the higher education system

Ulri

ch T

eich

ler:

Intr

a-In

stitu

tiona

l Div

ersi

ty o

r

D

iver

sity

of I

nstit

utio

nal M

issi

ons?

14 Diversity (VIII)Major Counter-Arguments Against a Steep,

Mostly Vertical Diversification

• Learning benefits from moderate diversity

• There is always a certain degree of intra-institutional diversity

• “Over-competition” undermines the valuable potentials of HE

• In the global ICT-based society, quality of academic work is less dependent than ever before on the physical locality

• Steep vertical diversity undermines horizontal diversity (imitation of the top instead of variety of profiles)

Ulri

ch T

eich

ler:

Intr

a-In

stitu

tiona

l Div

ersi

ty o

r

D

iver

sity

of I

nstit

utio

nal M

issi

ons?

15 The Bologna Process and Diversity (I)

The obvious aims regarding diversity

• Growing attractiveness of short study programmes and growing proportion of graduates with a short-cycle degree

• Increasing weight of level of study programmes among formal dimensions of diversity

Ulri

ch T

eich

ler:

Intr

a-In

stitu

tiona

l Div

ersi

ty o

r

D

iver

sity

of I

nstit

utio

nal M

issi

ons?

16 The Bologna Process and Diversity (II)

Possible/hidden aims regarding diversity

• Decreasing weight of types of higher education institutions?

• “Intra-institutional diversity” or/and “inter-institutional diversity”?

• Flat hierarchy of institutions and programmes guarantees large “zones of mutual trust for student mobility?

• “Employability”: A call for horizontal diversity?

• Or is the Bologna Process “neutral” as regards diversity?

Ulri

ch T

eich

ler:

Intr

a-In

stitu

tiona

l Div

ersi

ty o

r

D

iver

sity

of I

nstit

utio

nal M

issi

ons?

17 Recent Developments ofVaried Institutional Mergers

• In Finland and South Africa

• In both countries various models of mergers: Universities with universities, universities with other HEIs, other HEIs with other HEIs

Ulri

ch T

eich

ler:

Intr

a-In

stitu

tiona

l Div

ersi

ty o

r

D

iver

sity

of I

nstit

utio

nal M

issi

ons?

18 Graduate Employment in Various European Countries according to

Institutional Type and Degree Level_____________________________________________________________________ Bachelor graduates Master graduates Single-cycle/ traditional degrees Univ. Other HEIs All Univ. Other HEIs All Univ. Other HEIs All__________________________________________________________________________________________

CZ Managerial/Prof. Position • • 31 • • 60 • Associate Prof. Position • • 52 • • 34 • • •

FR Managerial/Prof. Position 17 15 • 63 81 • 91 • •Associate Prof. Position 64 67 • 29 15 • 7 • •

HU Managerial/Prof. Position • • 62 • • • 62 58Associate Prof. Position • • 29 • • • 31 34 •

NL Managerial/Prof. Position 57 52 • 71 • 71 71 52 •Associate Prof. Position 11 22 • 10 • 10 9 23 •

NO Managerial/Prof. Position 27 • • • • 75 • • •Associate Prof. Position 11 • • • • 13 • • •

UK Managerial/Prof. Position 36 • • 73 • • • • •Associate Prof. Position 30 • • 18 • • • • •__________________________________________________________________________________________

Prof. = Professional / Univ. = University Other HEIs = Other Higher Education Institutions (e.g. Fachhochschulen, Grandes Écoles etc.) Source: Schomburg/Teichler, eds. Employability and Mobility of Bachelor Graduates in Europe. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 2011.

Ulri

ch T

eich

ler:

Intr

a-In

stitu

tiona

l Div

ersi

ty o

r

D

iver

sity

of I

nstit

utio

nal M

issi

ons?

1919 The “Employability” Narrative (I)

The “Employability” Debate in Europe

• Bologna Declaration (1999) expresses concern that the new Bachelor programmes might have too little relevance for the work of graduates

• A growing “instrumental” and “utilitarian” expectation in general

• The spread of a British debate all over Europe

Ulri

ch T

eich

ler:

Intr

a-In

stitu

tiona

l Div

ersi

ty o

r

D

iver

sity

of I

nstit

utio

nal M

issi

ons?

20 The “Employability” Narrative (II)

“Employability”: A Misleading Term

• “Employability” is a term of labour market research and labour market policy referring to potentials and measures of securing that “youth at risk” get somewhat employed at all. This is not the problem of university graduates.

• The “Bologna Process” means little for “employment” (e.g. employment vs. unemployment, remuneration social benefits, holidays, short-term vs. long-term contracts, etc.), but much for “work” (knowledge, competences, work tasks, job requirements, etc.)

20

Ulri

ch T

eich

ler:

Intr

a-In

stitu

tiona

l Div

ersi

ty o

r

D

iver

sity

of I

nstit

utio

nal M

issi

ons?

21 The “Employability” Narrative (III)

“Professional Relevance”: A Superior Term

• Impact awareness as common element of evaluation and accountability culture

• “Professional relevance” does not call for a certain direction of link or for a certain balance between training professional “rules and tools” and training of sceptics

• Problem: the meanings of “professional” in different languages and cultures

Ulri

ch T

eich

ler:

Intr

a-In

stitu

tiona

l Div

ersi

ty o

r

D

iver

sity

of I

nstit

utio

nal M

issi

ons?

22 The “Employability” Narrative (IV)

Key Areas of Competences (I)

(1) Academic/professional specialisation

(2) General cognitive competences (generic skills, broad knowledge, theories and methods, learning to learn, etc.)

(3) Working styles (e.g. working under time constraints and perseverance)

(4) General occupationally-linked values (e.g. loyalty, curiosity and achievement orientation)

(5) Specific professionally related values (e.g. entrepreneurial spirit, service orientation)

Ulri

ch T

eich

ler:

Intr

a-In

stitu

tiona

l Div

ersi

ty o

r

D

iver

sity

of I

nstit

utio

nal M

issi

ons?

23 The “Employability” Narrative (V)

Key Areas of Competences (II)

(6) Transfer competences (e.g. problem-solving ability)

(7) Socio-communicative skill (e.g. leadership, team work, rhetoric)

(8) Supplementary knowledge areas (e.g. foreign languages and ICT)

(9) Ability to organise one’s own life

(10) Ability to handle the labour market (e.g. job search relevant knowledge and good self-presentation to employers)

(11) International competences (e.g. knowledge and understanding of foreign cultures, comparative analysis, coping with unknown persons)

Ulri

ch T

eich

ler:

Intr

a-In

stitu

tiona

l Div

ersi

ty o

r

D

iver

sity

of I

nstit

utio

nal M

issi

ons?

24 The “Employability” Narrative (VI)

D F UK J

Work orientation Or Sit Or Sit Or Sit Or Sit

Work autonomy 94 89 87 74 70 59 75 52

Job security 80 56 70 60 80 66 79 59

Opportunity to learn 87 62 93 58 90 65 82 45

High earnings 55 28 60 20 62 33 68 23

Enough time for leisure activities 63 38 72 46 79 48 80 40

Chance: useful for society 52 45 72 55 63 48 67 47

Combine work and family 64 41 83 50 44 30 69 41Source: REFLEX Or = Work orientation Sit = Work situation

Select Dimensions of Work Orientation and Work Situation (% of 2000 graduates employed in 2005)

Ulri

ch T

eich

ler:

Intr

a-In

stitu

tiona

l Div

ersi

ty o

r

D

iver

sity

of I

nstit

utio

nal M

issi

ons?

25 Options for Slovenia

• Intra-institutional diversity: the option for small countries?

• The danger of steep stratification: over-competition, imitation of the top and reduction of horizontal diversity?

• The legacy of the heritage or how far-reaching might reforms be?

• Feasibility of horizontal diversity in inter-institutional and intra-institutional diversity?

• Future scenario of a knowledge society: “elite knowledge society or mass knowledge society?” Soft or fierce competition? Moderate or substantial horizontal diversity?