Marketing adult education: an ideological dilemma?
8917
Marketing adult education: an ideological dilemma?
Philip Smith, University of Leicester
Throughout the 1980s there has been a concerted attack on the traditional structures and values within University Adult Education (as personified by Tawney). This shift in ideological perspectives has been the subject of much debate; perhaps most forceably expressed by McIlroy and Spencer when describing the wider debate on University education:
The traditional conservative University generated a knowledge related broadly to the radical and ideological concerns of the ruling élites, not the majority of its citizens. Within those ideological boundaries there existed a degree of intellectual autonomy and the possibilities of a free and liberal higher education for a tiny minority. Now there is an attempt to relate Universities more narrowly to the material and ideological priorities of capitalism.[1]
Influenced by models of a ‘market economy’ and the ‘enterprise culture’ the Government are now attempting to impose a new ideology on University Adult Education whose outward expressions are ‘managerial efficiency’ and a ‘marketing perspective.’ In their crude application these expressions appear to attack traditional University Adult Education and those engaged in its provision. Managerialism and marketing, with their aspirations to be rooted in the pure sciences, are by their nature depoliticised expressions of a wider ideology. In their purest form they cannot be applied to University Adult Education without some shift in its traditional liberal perspective. It is the aim of this paper to deconstruct the ‘marketing concept’ and to re-apply it constructively to University Adult Education.
I would however, contend that traditional University Adult Education cannot be seen as a unitary ideology, but a broad-church of conflicting perspectives. This new attack has shown itself not only capable of destroying traditional values, but also of being incorporated into the broad-church.
University Adult Education developed out of the paternalism of Victorian Britain, as reflected in the Oxbridge Extra Mural Departments[2]. However, a radical strand, located in the ideals of Owen and the autodidactic tradition of the Chartists, emerged behind the Workers Education Authority. The initial synthesis with Oxford’s Extra Mural Department produced the broad-based liberalism whose remnants are still present within our Department of Adult and/or Continuing Education[3]. More radical attacks came from the Central Labour Colleges and the ‘New Left’[4]. Nevertheless, they provided critiques of liberalism which liberalism itself could incorporate. Government direction in attempts to shape provision to the requirements of the economy (characteristic of the Callaghan[5] approach), formed another element in the plurality of ideals. Hence by the late 1960s and throughout the 1970s a contradictory but also workable system of University Adult Education had emerged. The overriding contradiction of a Universities’ élitism and critical investigation[6] is mirrored by Adult Education’s liberalism and an official view of ‘demand led/market sensitive structures’[7].
The ‘attack’ in the 1980s has shown itself more resistant to incorporation than previous encroachments.
If the 1970s had witnessed an intensification of political strategies for education informed by the economic ideology, it appeared that in the 1900s education had been dissolved into economics.
Indeed, University Adult Education has become increasingly marginalised, with provision centred around the replication of our economic structure. The broad liberalism of University Adult Education is now giving way to the narrow vocationalism of Continuing Education. While provision has clustered around what the employer is willing to pay for, or what the state is prepared to fund to secure its objective of economic growth and social control[8].
The main vehicles for the new ideology are found within the Professional, Industrial and Commercial Update initiative and the Training Agency[9]. It is an ideology informed by a vision of ‘corner-shop marketing’ rather than educational or pedagogic theory. Such a narrow view of marketing is of little value to the administrators of University Adult Education, because so many of its assumptions contradict the objective situation we find ourselves in. This view of marketing would appear to have been developed from an over-simplification of Kotler’s ‘marketing concept’[10]. In this simplified form this is a theory most applicable to the marketing of Fast Moving Consumer Goods in an unregulated economy. Its brutal application was most clearly expressed by Robert Jackson, the Minister for Higher Education:
Employ a market oriented approach. Not just up-front glossy brochures but a marketing which involves every member of staff. Delivery should not be determined by the competencies of staff. Rather the competency of the staff by the needs of the customer.[11]
Academic freedom and tenure are obvious restrictions to the changes in the labour process demanded by our market economy![12] The Professional, Industrial and Commercial Update initiative with its ‘short-term’ contracts being the most obvious expression of this phenomenon.
In its ideal form the ‘marketing concept’ implies a shift from a production orientation to a ‘customer-centred approach’ (marketing acting as a buffer to other functions such as personnel, finance and production).[13] Success for the marketing organisation depends upon good strategic planning and the application of the ‘marketing mix’[14] (place, price, product and promotion). Departments of Adult and/or Continuing Education are equated with commercial marketing organisations, courses become our products and students become our customers[15]. As a customer a student must not only ‘desire’ a course but also ‘want’ to pay for it[16]. (This is sometimes a distinction which becomes blurred in the official euphoria for a student-centred and open learning pedagogy)![17]
There is some irony in that more sophisticated models of marketing (adapted to our mixed economy) exist in North America[18]. Curtis argues that education has more in common with the service sectors of the economy than Fast Moving Consumer Goods, because in the service sector products and markets are intangible entities.
The consumers of education are buying its intangible products. Courses, awards and facilities are simply tangible means which serve intangible ends. [19]
Even Kotler[20] concedes that the marketing concept is not essential to the survival of non-profit organisations. He argues that non-profit organisations are characterised by primary markets (e.g. students) and secondary markets (e.g. Professional, Industrial and Commercial Update, the Training Agency and the Universities’ Funding Council). Newman and Wallender[21] note that the ‘professional orientation’ characteristic of non-profit organisations can act as an obstacle in the development of a ‘marketing orientation’. Ultimately marketing becomes a useful tool to the non-profit sector but not its ‘raison d’être’.
It should be apparent that Departments of Adult and/or Continuing Education are distinctly different from commercial marketing organisations. It is difficult to describe, or even identify, our customers and our products. This is not due to confusion within University Adult Education but within the marketing theory itself. In developing a ‘customer orientation’ do we address our primary or secondary markets (to use Kotler’s terminology)?
University Adult Education (as has been argued earlier in this paper) developed a pluralistic ideology from the influence of a number of contradictory positions. Departments of Adult and/or Continuing Education have always consciously or unconsciously marketed themselves to these influences. If we apply the concept of ‘pluralism’ to all our markets (students, Professional, Commercial and Industrial Update, the Training Agency, the Universities’ Funding Council, etc.) a new theory of marketing begins to emerge (I recognise that there is not an equal distribution of power between these groups, only that the concept of pluralism is useful in recognising their individual and collective ‘needs’). University Adult Education becomes a provider of services which address the needs of multifarious, but interdependent ‘client groupings’.
When the concept of ‘client-groupings’ is applied to University Adult Education the definition of our ‘product’ becomes increasingly problematic. Our ‘product’ is certainly a service, but often an intangible service whose tangible expressions are our courses. In adopting a ‘client-centred orientation’ it is necessary to stress the benefits of our service, rather than its features. Therefore we can employ a flexible definition of our product, providing we are clear of its benefits. Benefits will differ between ‘client-grouping’ according to their perceived ‘needs’ or requirements, we should therefore present different benefit statements to each ‘client-grouping’. Perhaps the most useful approach in preparing these benefit statements is the use of the ‘case study’ which provides tangible evidence of the benefits of our service.
Curriculum development can be advanced by the application of the modified marketing model; as courses are designed around perceived client-benefits. Curriculum design focuses on what ‘client-groupings’ will get from a course rather than well-defined course outlines, facilitating a more heuristic approach.
Because University Adult Education displays both professional and product orientations (as categorised by Kotler[22]) marketing can never become a central function and remains at best a tool for educators and administrators. The modified marketing model is largely a theoretical exercise, on the fringe of University Adult Education. It cannot be seen as a defensive mechanism, but as tool for that mechanism. The model is still a model within a market-economy, but a model somewhat removed from the ideological confines of the ‘enterprise-culture.’ Because of its inherent pluralism it is also a model capable of incorporation into the broad-based liberalism of University Adult Education. It is my contention that in order to defend University Adult Education we must depoliticise the ‘attack’ and reassert our traditional pluralism.[23]
Reproduced from 1989 Conference Proceedings, pp. 154-162 SCUTREA 1997
[1] McIlroy, J. and Spencer B. (1988) University adult education in crisis. Leeds, Leeds Studies in Adult and Continuing Education. p.86
[2] Thompson, J. (1982) Adult education and the disadvantaged. In Thompson, J. (ed.) Adult education for a change. London, Hutchinson, p.93
[3] McIlroy and Spencer, (1988) op. cit. pp.3-19
[4] Thompson, J. (1982) op. cit. p.93
[5] McIlroy and Spencer, (1988) op. cit. p.45.
6 ibid p. 9
[7] Westwood, S. (1988) Enterprise culture and the re-structuring of British adult education. SCUTREA Conference Proceedings, 1988, p. l.
[8] McIlroy and Spencer, (1988) op. cit. p.50.
[9] Waldron, G. (1986). PICKUP in the Nineties. In Scown, C.L. and Chivers, G.E. (eds) PICKUP in universities: proceedings of the first national PICKUP in universities conference, held at the University of Sheffield 20-21 November 1986, Sheffield PICKUP/CCVEE, pp.58-64
[10] Kotler, P. (1975) Marketing management: analysis, planning and control. Englewood Cliffs N.J., Prentice Hall, pp. 20-28
[11] Department of Education and Science (1989) Education and Science News, London, DES, United Kingdom, April 1989, p.l
[12] McIlroy and Spencer, (1988) op. cit. p.ix
[13] Kotler, (1975) op. cit. p.25
[14] Robinson. G. (1984) Marketing - an overview. EMFEC Marketing for Colleges, Polytechnics Universities, Nottingham, BACIE, pp. 11-20
[15] ibid
[16] Arnfield, R.V. (1984) Delivering PICKUP: identifying needs. EMFEC Marketing for Colleges, Polytechnics Universities, Nottingham, BACIE, pp. 21-26.
[17] Department of Education and Science (1988) Report by HM Inspectors on the contribution of further ant higher education to professional, industrial and commercial updating. London, DES, United Kingdom
[18] see Kotler P.. Ferrell. O.C. and Lamb. C. (eds) (1984) Strategic marketing for non-profit organisations: cases and readings. Englewood Cliffs NJ, Prentice Hall; Rotler, P. and Fox, K. (1985) Strategic marketing for educational institutions. Englewood Cliffs NJ, Prentice Hall; Lovelock, C.H. and Weinberg, B. (eds) (1984) Public and non-profit marketing: cases and readings. Palo Alton CA, The Scientific Press
[19] Curtis, R. (1987) Marketing and education. In Twining, J., Nisbet, S. and Megarry, J. (eds.) World yearbook of education 1987: vocational education. London, Kegan and Paul, pp. l89-201
[20] Kotler, P. (1975) Marketing for non-profit organisations. Englewood Cliffs NJ. Prentice Hall, p. 34
[21] Newman, W.H. and Wallender III, W.H. (1984) Managing not-for-profit enterprises. Academy of Management Review, 9, 1, pp. l28-137.
[22] Kotler, P. (1975) op. cit. p. 25
[23] McIlroy and Spencer (1988) op. cit. p. 146