RESEARCH, TEACHING AND KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER: SEPARATE AND DISTINCT?
PETER URWIN
Westminster Business School
University of Westminster
35 Marylebone Road, London NW1 5LS
Tel: 0207 911 5000 ext 3080
Email:
September 2003
Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, 11-13 September 2003.
Abstract: In January 2003 the present UK government set out its ideas for change in the White Paper, The Future of Higher Education. The focus of this paper’s discussion is on the main thrust of the White Paper, that not all institutions should try to teach, research and engage in knowledge transfer and that each institution should focus on its particular strengths. Such an approach raises the possibility of an institution being given university status without engaging in research, a controversial development. The White Paper also ignores the possibility that an institution’s success in one particular area of activity, for instance teaching, may be predicated on the need to retain at least something of a profile in other areas of activity, for instance research. In this paper two particular examples are considered where institutions may face problems in delivering certain aspects of their portfolio if they ignore one or more of the additional elements of the higher education experience. Firstly, the possible threat to postgraduate programmes in institutions that have a teaching-only focus and, secondly, the possibility that an institution with little research output will face problems when trying to develop a focus on knowledge transfer.
1.Introduction
Over the past two decades an increasing number of individuals in OECD countries have enrolled in tertiary education in an attempt to improve their labour market prospects (OECD, 2001). For many commentators (see, for instance, Autor et al., 1998), this increase in the supply of graduates has been closely linked to an increase in the skills required to perform many jobs. Thus, in countries such as the UK, returns to additional years of tertiary education have remained buoyant, even in the face of significant increases in the number of graduates (OECD, 1998).
If one studies the figures, the implication is that the skill requirements of employers have increased significantly since the early 1980s, as the total number of students enrolled in UK higher education institutions (HEIs) has grown by approximately one million, from a base of 800,000 in 1980/81 (Times Higher Education Supplement, 2001). Much of this growth can be attributed to the expansion of undergraduate education, which was particularly strong during the 1990s. For instance, between 1990 and 2000 the number of first-year UK-domiciled students increased by approximately 400,000, with the highest rates of growth occurring in the years up to 1994/1995 (Times Higher Education Supplement, 2001).
Growth in postgraduate study has also contributed significantly to the expansion of UK HE over the past two decades, with similarly high growth rates during the early 1990s. Thus, according to Burgess (1997), between 1989-90 and 1993-94 the number of full-time postgraduates on taught courses increased by 62 per cent, whilst part-time postgraduate numbers increased by 85 per cent. Between 1996 and 2000 total postgraduate enrolments grew at a faster pace than those at undergraduate level, with growth rates of approximately 17 per cent observed in both part-time and full-time modes of study. As a result, there are now 400,000 students enrolled on postgraduate courses (Higher Education Statistics Agency, 2001) in the UK.
Despite this considerable expansion, the proportion of 18-22 year olds in UK HEIs is still much lower than the average for the countries of the OECD (ibid.) and, whilst the gap has narrowed in recent years, many have expressed concern that such a rapid increase in graduate numbers may have compromised the quality of delivery. For instance, whilst increasing employer demand for higher-level skills seems to have kept wages buoyant in the face of an increasing supply of graduates, employers are often unhappy with the skills that graduates possess and claim that they lack some of the more basic skills required for most jobs. Many comment that the skills they require of graduates are ‘those least developed by [UK] Higher Education Institutions’[1].
In addition there is an extensive literature on the extent of graduate ‘over-education’ in the UK labour market – a situation where those with graduate-level qualifications find themselves occupying a job that requires a level of education lower than the level they have achieved (see for instance, Dolton and Vignoles, 2000). These workers are found to earn less than those with the same educational attainment who work in jobs for which their level of qualification is appropriate. Thus, whilst the returns to a higher education qualification may have remained buoyant over the past two decades, employers seem to consider that many UK HEIs are supplying graduates with inappropriate skills and this may have led to a mismatch between the demands of employers and the supply of graduates.
Even if one discounts these fears over falling graduate quality, many commentators have expressed concern simply because the amount of funding provided to HEIs has not kept up with the expansion in student numbers and, as a result, the unit of resource for each student has fallen dramatically. For instance, Stiles (2000) suggests that between 1994 and 2000 the real value of teaching funds per student fell by 3.6%. The author also points out that this reduction in the unit of resource is a continuation of a trend seen in the 1980s, though the lower rate of student expansion during this decade meant that the fall in funding per student was less dramatic.
In addition to fears of a possible fall in the quality of delivery to students, it has also been suggested that the present funding environment and the structure of universities threatens to undermine the UK’s international reputation for high quality research. Thus it is felt that public research funding is spread too widely across UK institutions and, as a result, they face the possibility of decline in their relative standing. In a related point, the UK government has also suggested that universities are not making the most of their research. As a result institutions have come under increasing pressure to commercialise their ideas by, for instance, producing ‘spin-off’ companies. These concerns are underlined in recent reports by the Institute of Physics[2] and the Centre for Urban and Regional Development Studies[3], with the former identifying low rates of research commercialisation, insufficient investment in research and development, and skills shortages, as increasing problems. The latter report, whilst underlining the increase in technology transfer activity in 2000-2001, notes that this has been associated with higher costs of ‘spin-off’ and lower total revenue.
Given the rapid expansion of the sector, and the associated fears over quality, it is perhaps to be expected that a steady stream of reports have been commissioned to tackle various aspects of the perceived problems of UK HE (the more important of these are mentioned later in this paper). UK HEIs have seen two decades pass with similar reports, significant changes to the funding environment in 1992 and numerous other initiatives since then. In fact it would seem reasonable to argue that one of the problems of higher education in the UK is the constantly changing regulatory environment and the consequent inability of HEIs to confidently plan for the longer term. Despite this, in January 2003 the present government set out its ideas for change in the White Paper[4], The Future of Higher Education[5].
There are many detailed policy proposals in the White Paper and a summary of these is provided where appropriate. However, the focus of this paper’s discussion is on the main thrust of the White Paper, that not all institutions should try to teach, research and engage in knowledge transfer. Specifically, in his accompanying statement to the house of commons, the architect of the 2003 White Paper, Charles Clarke, insists that HEIs must recognise that the UK already has a, ‘multi-tiered University System’, with some institutions stronger in research, others in teaching and others in knowledge transfer. The Secretary of State then goes on to admit that the White Paper starts from the premise that, historically, a focus on rewarding research excellence in the UK has been carried out at the expense of enhancing knowledge transfer and teaching.
The first of these statements seems to imply that institutions should obtain focus and concentrate on their strengths. When one combines this with the second assertion, it would seem reasonable to deduce that the main driver of the White Paper is to set out a future for UK higher education, where each of the three strands of activity are equally rewarding for successful institutions that achieve a greater focus, whatever their particular area of expertise. However, this approach ignores the question of what it takes to be successful in each one of the three areas identified in the White Paper.
At first glance such a question would seem trivial, given that the White Paper simply sets out the reward mechanisms for those institutions that are successful – the idea being that institutions are free to experiment, identify the areas where they are most successful and develop their expertise further. However, it is quite possible that the key to success is to have a presence in all three areas, as pedagogical, prestige and other considerations are mutually re-enforcing. The White Paper ignores the possibility that an institution’s success in one particular area of activity, for instance teaching, is predicated on the need to retain at least something of a profile in other areas of activity, for instance research and knowledge transfer. The White Paper ignores the argument that each of the three areas may be essential to the successful delivery of any individual aspect.
In order to provide background to the discussion around this question, Section 2 begins with a brief description of the funding environment from 1992 to the present day. The paper then sets out two particular areas where we may expect an institution to face problems in its ‘core’ elements of delivery if it ignores one or more of the additional aspects of the higher education experience. Specifically, section 3 sets out the possible threat to postgraduate programmes in institutions that have a teaching-only focus. Section 4 then discusses the possibility that an institution with little research output will face problems when trying to develop a focus on knowledge transfer. Section 5 then moves on to conclude with an evaluation of the possible impact of the White Paper and how we may expect institutions to respond, given the findings of Sections 3 and 4.
2.The Funding Environment in UK HE, 1992-2003
As mentioned in the previous section, the UK HE sector has undergone significant change over the past two decades and the present 2003 White Paper should be viewed within the context of previous policy initiatives. Whilst many policy-makers from different governments have been involved in various initiatives over the past two decades, a central theme has been the perceived need to increase competition and, therefore, efficiency in HE. For instance, Stiles (2000) points out that, “after the failure of the internal market in higher education [in the 1980s], alternative reforms were attempted to encourage competition and remove structural barriers between institutions”. The 1991 White Paper, Higher Education: Meeting the Challenge set out the ways in which these structural barriers could be removed and competition encouraged.
As a result of the adoption of the ideas set out in the 1991 White Paper, the 1992 UK Further and Higher Education Act created a unified higher education sector and abolished the distinction between polytechnics and universities. Previously polytechnics had a vocational focus and very little research activity, in contrast to universities that were more ‘academic’ and competed for research funds. In removing the ‘binary line’ separating the universities and polytechnics, government hoped to increase student numbers, improve efficiency and maintain the UK’s internationally competitive research base (aims which are strikingly similar to those of the 2003 White Paper). The 1992 Act created a single market for HE with students applying to both types of institution through one route, both polytechnics and universities competing for research funds, and polytechnics released from the control of local education authorities.
Specifically, four funding bodies were set up for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and, from 1993, these bodies were given responsibility for the public funding of all HEIs in the UK, with the two main funding streams being in the areas of teaching and research activity. The teaching grant allocations for each HEI are calculated on the basis of,
- the number of students
- subject-related factors
- student-related factors
- institution-related factors.
Until 2002 the system of allocation of teaching-related funds represented something of a brake on the expansion of student numbers in the UK. Thus, institutions that exceeded their Maximum Student Number (MaSN)[6], beyond a permitted range, incurred a one-off penalty. However, following the autumn 2000 recruitment period when 10,000 student places were left unfilled in English HEIs, the board of the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) decided to scrap the MaSN (January 2002). Thus whilst institutions in England still face penalties if student numbers are significantly below target, this change now allows for the expansion of institutions which are more successful in the recruitment process.
In the area of research, public funding is decided primarily by the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), previously held every four or five years. The level of funding for an institution depends mainly on the number of research active academic staff members and the quality of their research output. Following the results of the RAE carried out in 1996/1997, Quality Related research funding was allocated according to the following formulae.
1996 RAE ratingFunding weights in Quality Related model
10
20
3b1
3a1.5
42.25
53.375
5*4.05
The results of the most recent 2001 RAE, published in December 2001, showed a significant increase in the number of institutions with improved ratings and, as a result, funding was withdrawn from institutions achieving a 3b or less (January 2002 Report of the board of the HEFCE). Together with these two broad areas of funding (and on top of the additional premiums given to institutions for part-time and mature students), there are a range of much smaller additional funding streams to support areas such as innovation in learning and teaching and widening access of under-represented groups. Importantly, recent years have seen more funding provided to institutions which have higher numbers of students from ‘disadvantaged’ backgrounds (funding according to ‘student related factors’) and the 2003 White Paper has continued this trend with universities receiving more support for ‘non-traditional’ students[7].
Finally, since 1997 there has been an increase in information available on institutional performance. Whilst one might argue that the published results of the RAE in themselves constitute a clear indicator of performance, the Dearing Report (1997)[8] identified a need to increase the range of information available. The assumption is that performance indicators can be used by potential students to make better-informed higher education choices and also satisfy policymakers’ desire to improve the accountability of institutions (Coates et al., 2001). UK institutions now have to produce statistics on a range of factors, including indicators of the level of ‘access’ or participation of under-represented groups in Higher Education and the degree of non-continuation or rates of ‘drop out’.
From this discussion it would seem reasonable to deduce that policy initiatives within higher education have had an overriding aim of increasing the levels of competition for public funding. Thus, whilst all institutions may compete for research funding, it has been increasingly the case that only those at the top of the research performance league have received public funding. Furthermore, the removal of the MaSN has increased the levels of competition for public teaching related funds, with an increased incentive for many institutions to concentrate on the recruitment of large numbers of students (particularly those from non-traditional backgrounds). Both of these themes from the past decade have been continued in the 2003 White Paper and, as a result, the rewards for the best research institutions have increased, as have the rewards for being successful at attracting (and retaining) non-traditional students. Hence the ‘message’ from the White Paper; that institutions need to retain a focus on what they do best, as only the best will be rewarded.
The idea that institutions should focus on their ‘core competencies’ would seem to be sensible and has been a message in the wider business community for many years. However, the question is whether HE can be looked at in this way, with research, knowledge transfer and teaching seen as separate and distinct aspects of an institution’s mission or as three elements in the delivery of one higher education ‘service’. The following sections discuss two areas where we may expect institutions that achieve a greater focus on teaching (and allow their research profiles to fade) to face problems in particular areas of their delivery.