misunderstanding contemporary he: some category mistakes · william empson, seven types of...
TRANSCRIPT
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