Less than the sum? What is missing in UK mass HE?

John Aubrey Douglass

doi:10.1080/1360310052000324875

Home
Search
Less than the sum? What is missing in UK mass HE?

3
https://doi.org/10.1080/1360310052000324875

Less than the sum? What is missing in UK mass HE?

Jan 1, 2005
Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education
John Aubrey Douglass

Listen

Abstract
Literature Map
References
Citations
Similar Papers

Abstract

Roger Brown, the Chair of the Editorial Advisory Board, and I are delighted that John Aubrey Douglass, Senior Research Fellow of the Center for Studies in Higher Education at the University of California Berkeley, has agreed to edit this special issue of perspectives. The papers arise out of contributions to a Symposium in September 2004 on UK and US Higher Education Funding and Access, organised by the Oxford Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies (OxCHEPS) and the Center for Studies in Higher Education at the University of California Berkeley campus. It was co‐chaired by John and David Palfreyman, the Director of OxCHEPS, and it is a pleasure and privilege to publish some of the main papers. We are indebted to the AUA, the Sutton Trust, the Higher Education Policy Institute, the Rothermere Institute, the Institute for Governmental Studies (UC Berkeley), the Center for British Studies (UC Berkeley), and the University of California Office of the President, all of whom provided support for the Symposium. John’s first paper sets the scene on the UK funding environment and student support, and provides a context for those that follow. Ed.

Similar Papers

Research Article
10.14244/198271993592

Os perigos do conceito de impacto no ensino superior (The dangers of the concept of impact in higher education)

Sep 02, 2019
Revista Eletrônica de Educação
Tristan Mccowan

The impact of higher education institutions on society has become the focus of significant policy attention in recent years, most prominently as part of research evaluation. This paper presents a theoretical exploration of the notion, identifying the key dimensions as source, form, trajectory, intensity, timescale and destination. While acknowledging the importance of porosity between universities and society, and the need to address critical contemporary challenges, five dangers of the impact agenda are highlighted: the normative dimension; the linear relationship; unpredictability; measurement; and instrumentalization. As a response to dominant conceptualizations, the paper proposes the notion of the generative intrinsic as a more robust basis on which to base the work of universities.ResumoO impacto das instituições de ensino superior na sociedade tem se tornado o foco de atenção política significativa nos últimos anos, mais proeminentemente como parte da avaliação da pesquisa. Este artigo apresenta uma exploração teórica da categoria noção, identificando as dimensões-chave como fonte, forma, trajetória, intensidade, escala de tempo e destino. Embora reconhecendo a importância da porosidade entre as universidades e a sociedade, e a necessidade de abordar desafios contemporâneos críticos, cinco perigos da agenda de impacto são destacados: a dimensão normativa; o relacionamento linear; imprevisibilidade; medição; e instrumentalização. Como resposta às conceituações dominantes, o artigo propõe a noção do intrínseco generativo como uma base mais robusta sobre a qual basear o trabalho das universidades.Keywords: Higher education policy, Impact, Instrumentalization, Public engagement, Research evaluation, Universities.Palavras-chave: Políticas de educação superior, Impacto, Instrumentalização, Engajamento público, Avaliação da pesquisa, Universidades.ReferencesASHWIN, P. (2016) ‘From a teaching perspective, “impact” looks very different’. Times Higher Education, 21 March. Online. www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/teaching-perspectiveimpact-looks-very-different (accessed 3 May 2018).BARNETT, R. (2004) ‘The purposes of higher education and the changing face of academia’. London Review of Education, 2 (1), 61–73.BELFIORE, E. (2014) ‘”Impact”, “value” and “bad economics”: Making sense of the problem of value in the arts and humanities’. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 14 (1), 95–110.BRENNAN, J., KING, R. AND LEBEAU, Y. (2004) The Role of Universities in the Transformation of Societies: Synthesis report. London: Association of Commonwealth Universities and the Open UniversityBYNNER, J. AND EGERTON, M. (2001) The Wider Benefits of Higher Education. Report by the Wider Benefits of Learning Research Centre, Institute of Education, University of London.CHUBB, J. AND WATERMEYER, R. (2017) ‘Artifice or integrity in the marketization of research impact? Investigating the moral economy of (pathways to) impact statements within research funding proposals in the UK and Australia’. Studies in Higher Education, 42 (12), 2,360–72.COLEMAN, J.S. (1986) ‘The idea of the developmental university’. Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning and Policy, 24 (4), 476–94.COLLINI, S. (2012) What are Universities For? London: Penguin. Dewey, J. (1967) ‘The continuum of ends-means’. In Archambault, R. (ed.) John Dewey on Education: Selected writings. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 97–107. ESRC (Economic and Social Research Council) (n.d.) ‘What is impact?’. Online. www.esrc.ac.uk/ research/impact-toolkit/what-is-impact/ (accessed 22 April 2018).FIELDING, M. (2003) ‘The impact of impact’. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33 (2), 289–95.FRANCIS, B. (2011) ‘Increasing impact? An analysis of issues raised by the impact agenda in educational research’. Scottish Educational Review, 43 (2), 4–16.GIBBONS, M., LIMOGES, C., NOWOTNY, H., SCHWARTZMAN, S., SCOTT, P. AND TROW, M. (1994) The New Production of Knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: SAGE Publications.GUNN, A. AND MINTROM, M. (2016) ‘Higher education policy change in Europe: Academic research funding and the impact agenda’. European Education, 48 (4), 241–57.GUNN, A. AND MINTROM, M. (2017) ‘Five things to consider when designing a policy to measure research impact’. The Conversation, 12 January. Online. http://theconversation.com/fivethings-to-consider-when-designing-a-policy-to-measure-research-impact-71078 (accessed 22 April 2017).ILIE, S. AND ROSE, P. (2016) ‘Is equal access to higher education in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa achievable by 2030?’. Higher Education 72 (4), 435–55.JUMP, P. (2015) ‘The impact of impact’. Times Higher Education, 19 February. Online. www.timeshighereducation.com/features/the-impact-of-impact/2018540.article (accessed 3 May 2018).LEE, S.T. (2017) ‘The Structure of a University: A Karatanian interrogation into instrumentalism, idealism and community in postwar British higher education, 1945–2015’. Unpublished PhD thesis, Birkbeck University.MACFARLANE, B. (2011) ‘The morphing of academic practice: Unbundling and the rise of the paraacademic’. Higher Education Quarterly, 65 (1), 59–73. Marginson, S. (2011) ‘Higher education and public good’. Higher Education Quarterly, 65 (4), 411–33.MARGINSON, S. (2016) ‘The worldwide trend to high participation higher education: Dynamics of social stratification in inclusive systems’. Higher Education, 72 (4), 413–34.MARTIN, B. (2011) ‘The Research Excellence Framework and the ‘impact agenda’: Are we creating a Frankenstein monster?’. Research Evaluation, 20 (3), 247–54.MARTIN, C. (2011) ‘Philosophy of education in the public sphere: The case of “relevance”’. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 30, 615–29. McCowan, T. (2009) Rethinking Citizenship Education: A curriculum for participatory democracy. London: Continuum.MCCOWAN, T. (2015) ‘Should universities promote employability?’. Theory and Research in Education, 13 (3), 267–85.MCCOWAN, T. (2016a) ‘Three dimensions of equity of access to higher education’. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 46 (4), 645–65.MCCOWAN, T. (2016b) ‘Universities and the post-2015 development agenda: An analytical framework’. Higher Education, 72 (4), 505–23.MCCOWAN, T. (2017) ‘Higher education, unbundling and the end of the university as we know it’. Oxford Review of Education, 43 (6), 733–48.McDowell, G. (2003) ‘Engaged universities: Lessons from the land-grant universities and extension’. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 585 (1), 31–50.MCMAHON, W. (2009) Higher Learning, Greater Good: The private and social benefits of higher education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.NIXON, J. (2004) ‘Education for the good society: The integrity of academic practice’. London Review of Education, 2 (3), 245–52.OANCEA, A. (2013a) ‘Buzzwords and values: The prominence of “impact” in UK research policy and governance’. Research Trends, 33, 6–8.OANCEA, A. (2013b) ‘Interpretations of research impact in seven disciplines’. European Educational Research Journal, 12 (2), 242–50.OKETCH, M., MCCOWAN, T. AND SCHENDEL, R. (2014) The Impact of Tertiary Education on Development: A rigorous literature review. London: Department for International Development.OVSEIKO, P., OANCEA, A. AND BUCHAN, A. (2012) ‘Assessing research impact in academic clinical medicine: A study using Research Excellence Framework pilot impact indicators’. BMC Health Services Research, 12 (478), 1–23.PARKER, J. AND VAN TEIJLINGEN, E. (2012) ‘The Research Excellence Framework (REF): Assessing the impact of social work research on society’. Practice: Social Work in Action, 24 (1), 41–52.PENFIELD, T., BAKER, M.J., SCOBLE, R. AND WYKES, M.C. (2014) ‘Assessment, evaluations, and definitions of research impact: A review’. Research Evaluation, 23 (1), 21–32.PERKIN, H. (2007) ‘History of universities’. In Forest, J.J.F. and Altbach, P.G. (eds) International Handbook of Higher Education. Dordrecht: Springer, 159–206.PHIPPS, A. (2014) ‘The dark side of the impact agenda’. Times Higher Education, 4 December. Online. www.timeshighereducation.com/comment/opinion/the-dark-side-of-the-impactagenda/2017299.article (accessed 3 May 3018).READINGS, B. (1996) The University in Ruins. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.REF (Research Excellence Framework) (2011) Assessment Framework and Guidance on Submissions: Research excellence framework 02.2011. Online. www.ref.ac.uk/2014/pubs/2011-02/ (accessed 22 April 2018).RESEARCH COUNCIL ECONOMIC IMPACT GROUP (2006) Increasing the Economic Impact of Research Councils. London: Department of Trade and Industry.Research Councils UK (2017) Excellence with Impact. Online. www.ukri.org/innovation/excellencewith-impact/ (accessed 15 July 2017).SALL, E., LEBEAU, Y. AND KASSIMIR, R. (2003) ‘The public dimensions of the university in Africa’. Journal of Higher Education in Africa, 1 (1), 126–48.SANTOS, B.S. (2004) A universidade do século XXI: Para uma reforma democratica e emancipatória da universidade. São Paulo: Cortez.Siegfried, J., Sanderson, A. and McHenry, P. (2007) ‘The economic impact of colleges and universities’. Economics of Education Review, 26 (5), 546–58.SMITH, S., WARD, V. AND HOUSE, A. (2011) ‘”Impact” in the proposals for the UK’s Research Excellence Framework: Shifting the boundaries of academic autonomy’. Research Policy, 40 (10), 1,369–79.UNIVERSITIES UK (2014) The Impact of Universities on the UK Economy. London: Universities UK.UPTON, S., VALLANCE, P. AND GODDARD, J. (2014) ‘From outcome to process: Evidence for a new approach to research impact assessment’. Research Evaluation, 23 (4), 352–65.WALTER, I., NUTLEY, S.M. AND DAVIES, H.T.O. (2003) Research Impact: A cross-sector review. Research Unit for Research Utilisation, University of St Andrews. Online. www.ruru.ac.uk/pdf/LSDA%20 literature%20review%20final.pdf (accessed 22 April 2016).WATERMEYER, R. (2016) ‘Impact in the R

Research Article
82
10.1086/259995

On Tuition and the Costs of Higher Education: Prolegomena to a Conceptual Framework

May 01, 1972
Journal of Political Economy
Marc Nerlove

Previous articleNext article No AccessOn Tuition and the Costs of Higher Education: Prolegomena to a Conceptual FrameworkMarc NerloveMarc Nerlove Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Journal of Political Economy Volume 80, Number 3, Part 2May - Jun., 1972Part 2: Investment in Education: The Equity-Efficiency Quandary Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/259995 Views: 32Total views on this site Citations: 26Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1972 The University of ChicagoPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Jaekyung Lee, Taeyoung Kim, Mengchen Su Reassessing school effectiveness: Multi-objective value-added measures (MOVAM) of academic and socioemotional learning, Studies in Educational Evaluation 68 (Mar 2021): 100972.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100972Bernhard Eckwert, Itzhak Zilcha Improvement in information and private investment in education, Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 34, no.44 (Apr 2010): 585–597.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jedc.2009.10.012Rita Asplund, Oussama Ben Adbelkarim, Ali Skalli An equity perspective on access to, enrolment in and finance of tertiary education, Education Economics 16, no.33 (Sep 2008): 261–274.https://doi.org/10.1080/09645290802338102Zafer D. Ozdemir, Kemal Altınkemer, John M. Barron Adoption of technology-mediated learning in the U.S., Decision Support Systems 45, no.22 (May 2008): 324–337.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2008.01.001Zafer D. Ozdemir, Jason Abrevaya Adoption of Technology-Mediated Distance Education: A longitudinal analysis, Information & Management 44, no.55 (Jul 2007): 467–479.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2007.04.006Carlo Salerno Using Data Envelopment Analysis to Improve Estimates of Higher Education Institution’s Per‐student Education Costs 1, Education Economics 14, no.33 (Sep 2006): 281–295.https://doi.org/10.1080/09645290600777485B. Jacobs, F. van der Ploeg Guide to reform of higher education: a European perspective, Economic Policy 21, no.4747 (Jul 2006): 536–592.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0327.2006.00166.xMichael S. McPherson, Morton Owen Schapiro Chapter 24 US Higher Education Finance, (Jan 2006): 1403–1434.https://doi.org/10.1016/S1574-0692(06)02024-1Macki Sissoko, Liang-Rong Shiau Minority Enrollment Demand for Higher Education at Historically Black Colleges and Universities from 1976 to 1998: An Empirical Analysis, The Journal of Higher Education 76, no.22 (Nov 2016): 181–208.https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2005.11778910Bas Jacobs, Sweder van Wijnbergen Capital Market Failure, Adverse Selection and Equity Financing of Higher Education, SSRN Electronic Journal (Jan 2005).https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.701222Miguel Palacios Lleras, Nicholas Barr Investing in Human Capital, 7 (Jan 2010).https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511585982Peter J. Sloane The Impact of Research Assessment and Teaching-Quality Exercises on the UK University System, (Jan 2004): 109–126.https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230522657_5David D. Dill An Institutional Perspective on Higher Education Policy: The Case of Academic Quality Assurance, (Jan 2003): 669–699.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0137-3_12Vani K. Borooah Modelling institutional behaviour: A microeconomic analysis of university management, Public Choice 81, no.1-21-2 (Oct 1994): 101–124.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01053268Robert C. Dolan, Robert M. Schmidt Modeling institutional production of higher education, Economics of Education Review 13, no.33 (Sep 1994): 197–213.https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-7757(94)90008-6Paul Miller, Paul Volker SOCIOECONOMIC INFLUENCES ON EDUCATIONAL Attainment: EVIDENCE And IMPLICATIONS FOR THE TERTIARY EDUCATION FINANCE DEBATE, Australian Journal of Statistics 31A, no.11 (Jun 2008): 47–70.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-842X.1989.tb00974.xJulie Hope, Paul Miller Financing Tertiary Education: An Examination of the Issues, The Australian Economic Review 21, no.44 (Jun 1988): 37–57.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8462.1988.tb00566.xJames C. Hearn, David Longanecker Enrollment Effects of Alternative Postsecondary Pricing Policies, The Journal of Higher Education 56, no.55 (Nov 2016): 485–508.https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.1985.11778714Michael L. Tierney The impact of institutional net price on student demand for public and private higher education, Economics of Education Review 2, no.44 (Sep 1982): 363–383.https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-7757(82)90025-5Richard J. Murnane New evidence on the relationship between mother's education and children's cognitive skills, Economics of Education Review 1, no.22 (Mar 1981): 245–252.https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-7757(81)90046-7P. G. Hare, D. T. Ulph Imperfect capital markets and the public provision of education, (Jan 1981): 103–129.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-7398-5_10P. G. Hare, D. T. Ulph Imperfect capital markets and the public provision of education, Public Choice 36, no.33 (Jan 1981): 481–507.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00128732Paul Davenport La disponibilité des diplômés universitaires sur le marché du travail québécois, Cahiers québécois de démographie 10, no.33 (Oct 2008): 427–451.https://doi.org/10.7202/600861arStephen A. Hoenack, David J. Berg The roles of incentives in academic planning, New Directions for Institutional Research 1980, no.2828 (Jan 1980): 73–95.https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.37019802806Moheb Ghali, Walter Miklius, Richard Wada The demand for higher education facing an individual institution, Higher Education 6, no.44 (Nov 1977): 477–487.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00132530L.R. Maglen Higher Education: Externalities, The Public Purse and Policy**An earlier draft of this paper was presented at the Fifth Conference of Economists, Brisbane, August 25–29, 1975. I am indebted to Mark Blaug, Colin Clark, Ross Parish and Yew Kwang Ng for their helpful commrnts., Economic Analysis and Policy 6, no.44 (Sep 1976): 27–43.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0313-5926(76)50018-X

Research Article
20
10.1086/446526

Elite and Mass Higher Education in Britain: A Regressive Model?

Aug 01, 1985
Comparative Education Review
Guy R Neave

Previous articleNext article No AccessElite and Mass Higher Education in Britain: A Regressive Model?Guy R. NeaveGuy R. Neave Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Comparative Education Review Volume 29, Number 3Aug., 1985 Sponsored by the Comparative and International Education Society Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/446526 Views: 13Total views on this site Citations: 12Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1985 The Comparative and International Education SocietyPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Dilnoza Ubaydullaeva Securitization of Higher Education Expansion in Authoritarian States: Uzbekistan’s Seemingly “Elite” Tertiary System, Problems of Post-Communism 9 (Oct 2021): 1–12.https://doi.org/10.1080/10758216.2021.1974886Malcolm Tight Mass Higher Education and Massification, Higher Education Policy 32, no.11 (Nov 2017): 93–108.https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-017-0075-3Peter Mandler EDUCATING THE NATION: II. UNIVERSITIES, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 25 (Sep 2015): 1–26.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0080440115000079Karen Bradley Higher Education, (Feb 2012).https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470670590.wbeog267Guy Neave, Alberto Amaral Introduction. On Exceptionalism: The Nation, a Generation and Higher Education, Portugal 1974–2009, (Oct 2011): 1–46.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2135-7_1Nicholas h. Foskett, Anthony J. Hesketh Constructing Choice in Contiguous and Parallel Markets: institutional and school leavers’ responses to the new post‐16 marketplace, Oxford Review of Education 23, no.33 (Jul 2006): 299–319.https://doi.org/10.1080/0305498970230303Paul Trowler Beyond the Robbins trap: Reconceptualising academic responses to change in higher education (or … quiet flows the don?), Studies in Higher Education 22, no.33 (Jan 1997): 301–318.https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079712331380916Michael J. Harrison Access ? the Problem and Potential, Higher Education Quarterly 44, no.33 (Jul 1990): 193–214.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2273.1990.tb01537.xAlbert H. Yee Cross‐cultural perspectives on higher education in East Asia: Psychological effects upon Asian students, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 10, no.33 (Sep 2010): 213–232.https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.1989.9994375Oliver Fulton Elite survivals? Entry ‘standards˚s and procedures for higher education admissions, Studies in Higher Education 13, no.11 (Jan 1988): 15–25.https://doi.org/10.1080/03075078812331377935Karen Bradley, Maria Charles UNEVEN INROADS: UNDERSTANDING WOMEN’S STATUS IN HIGHER EDUCATION, (): 247–274.https://doi.org/10.1016/S1479-3539(03)14011-6John Lilly Researching the ineffable — That which cannot be expressed in words, (): 187–210.https://doi.org/10.1016/S1529-210X(02)80029-8

Research Article
4
10.1080/00221546.2005.11772297

Toward an Empirical Delineation of a Normative Structure for College Students

Sep 01, 2005
The Journal of Higher Education
Timothy C Caboni + 5 more +5

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Additional informationNotes on contributorsTimothy C. CaboniTimothy C. Caboni is Lecturer in Public Policy and Higher Education and director of the academic program in institutional advancement in the Higher Education Leadership and Policy program at Vanderbilt University's Peabody College. John M. Braxton is Professor of Education in the Higher Education Leadership and Policy Program at Peabody College of Vanderbilt University. Molly Black Duesterhaus is a doctoral candidate in Leadership and Policy Studies specializing in Higher Education Leadership and Policy at Vanderbilt. Meaghan E. Mundy is a doctoral candidate in Leadership and Policy Studies specializing in Higher Education Leadership and Policy at Vanderbilt. Shederick A. McClendon is Assistant Professor of Higher Education at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.John M. BraxtonTimothy C. Caboni is Lecturer in Public Policy and Higher Education and director of the academic program in institutional advancement in the Higher Education Leadership and Policy program at Vanderbilt University's Peabody College. John M. Braxton is Professor of Education in the Higher Education Leadership and Policy Program at Peabody College of Vanderbilt University. Molly Black Duesterhaus is a doctoral candidate in Leadership and Policy Studies specializing in Higher Education Leadership and Policy at Vanderbilt. Meaghan E. Mundy is a doctoral candidate in Leadership and Policy Studies specializing in Higher Education Leadership and Policy at Vanderbilt. Shederick A. McClendon is Assistant Professor of Higher Education at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Molly Black DeusterhausTimothy C. Caboni is Lecturer in Public Policy and Higher Education and director of the academic program in institutional advancement in the Higher Education Leadership and Policy program at Vanderbilt University's Peabody College. John M. Braxton is Professor of Education in the Higher Education Leadership and Policy Program at Peabody College of Vanderbilt University. Molly Black Duesterhaus is a doctoral candidate in Leadership and Policy Studies specializing in Higher Education Leadership and Policy at Vanderbilt. Meaghan E. Mundy is a doctoral candidate in Leadership and Policy Studies specializing in Higher Education Leadership and Policy at Vanderbilt. Shederick A. McClendon is Assistant Professor of Higher Education at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Meaghan E. MundyTimothy C. Caboni is Lecturer in Public Policy and Higher Education and director of the academic program in institutional advancement in the Higher Education Leadership and Policy program at Vanderbilt University's Peabody College. John M. Braxton is Professor of Education in the Higher Education Leadership and Policy Program at Peabody College of Vanderbilt University. Molly Black Duesterhaus is a doctoral candidate in Leadership and Policy Studies specializing in Higher Education Leadership and Policy at Vanderbilt. Meaghan E. Mundy is a doctoral candidate in Leadership and Policy Studies specializing in Higher Education Leadership and Policy at Vanderbilt. Shederick A. McClendon is Assistant Professor of Higher Education at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Shederick A. McClendonTimothy C. Caboni is Lecturer in Public Policy and Higher Education and director of the academic program in institutional advancement in the Higher Education Leadership and Policy program at Vanderbilt University's Peabody College. John M. Braxton is Professor of Education in the Higher Education Leadership and Policy Program at Peabody College of Vanderbilt University. Molly Black Duesterhaus is a doctoral candidate in Leadership and Policy Studies specializing in Higher Education Leadership and Policy at Vanderbilt. Meaghan E. Mundy is a doctoral candidate in Leadership and Policy Studies specializing in Higher Education Leadership and Policy at Vanderbilt. Shederick A. McClendon is Assistant Professor of Higher Education at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Stephanie D. LeeTimothy C. Caboni is Lecturer in Public Policy and Higher Education and director of the academic program in institutional advancement in the Higher Education Leadership and Policy program at Vanderbilt University's Peabody College. John M. Braxton is Professor of Education in the Higher Education Leadership and Policy Program at Peabody College of Vanderbilt University. Molly Black Duesterhaus is a doctoral candidate in Leadership and Policy Studies specializing in Higher Education Leadership and Policy at Vanderbilt. Meaghan E. Mundy is a doctoral candidate in Leadership and Policy Studies specializing in Higher Education Leadership and Policy at Vanderbilt. Shederick A. McClendon is Assistant Professor of Higher Education at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Book Chapter
10.1057/9781137491923_9

US Public Higher Education: The Challenge to Lower Costs and Increase Access and Quality

Jan 01, 2015
Linda Johnsrud

Referred to as the “iron triangle” in 2008, the three factors—access, cost, and quality—continue today to challenge the best thinking in US higher education policy and practice (Immerwahr, Johnson, and Gasbarra 2008). The interaction and tension among these three goals characterize the dilemma facing US higher education. At the very time President Obama and the majority of state governors call for a significant increase in the percentage of the working age population holding an associate’s degree or higher by 2025, the federal and state resources available for public higher education have constricted. The most obvious avenue for raising revenues—increasing tuition and fees—is denounced by parents, students, governors, and Congress. The most obvious ways to cut costs and increase the production of undergraduates—increasing the numbers of students per class and per faculty member, and decreasing time and credits to degree— are widely viewed as threats to quality. The demand equation facing US higher education is high quality and globally relevant degrees for more students, in less time, albeit with less revenue.

Research Article
8
10.47678/cjhe.v21i3.183112

On the Study of Higher Education in Canadian Universities

Dec 31, 1991
Canadian Journal of Higher Education
Michael L Skolnik

Although research on Canadian higher education has advanced considerably over the past few decades, the opportunities for university level study of higher education in Canada are still quite limited. Only four universities offer higher education programs; only one has a higher education department; and only a handful of other institutions offer even a course in higher education. The number of students enrolled in higher education programs in Canada is about 200, compared to about 6,000 in the United States; the number of faculty about 15 compared to 700 in the U.S. Moreover, while American higher education journals have, since the early 1970's, regularly featured articles about university higher education programs, there has not been a single article on this subject in The Canadian Journal of Higher Education. This paper attempts to fill some of that gap by providing some basic information about the study of higher education in Canadian universities and by examining the role of these programs in the overall development of higher education research and the possible reasons for the very limited scale of such programs in Canada. The author's conclusion is that the factor which has most limited the development of higher education studies in Canadian universities is neither insufficient student demand nor limited employment opportunities of graduates, but reluctance of Canadian universities to allocate resources for this area of study. This reluctance is attributed to the combination of the low prestige of higher education as a field of study and the lack of a strong lobby for this program area outside the university. It is suggested that - in contrast to their American counterparts - presently Canadian higher education programs have less than the minimum resources necessary to make the advances that would be required to overcome this "prestige barrier".

Research Article
6
10.1111/j.1365-2702.2006.01485.x

Editorial: Nurse education: time to get it right

Aug 09, 2006
Journal of Clinical Nursing
Jan Draper

Editorial: Nurse education: time to get it right

Dissertation
4
10.51415/10321/3257

Exploring inequality in institutional marketing : access to higher education by marginalised communities

Jan 01, 2018
Sathishah Ramrathan

In South Africa widening participation in higher education is located within a transformation discourse that sought to change the demographics of the student population in public higher education institutions. Current literature on public higher education participation demographics suggests that the transformation agenda of increasing the participation of previously disadvantaged population groups have been met in terms of headcount. There are, however, concerns raised about equality of opportunity to access public higher education institutions, especially with regard to potential students from deep rural contexts and who have attended school education in impoverished communities. In attempting to address these concerns, higher education institutional marketing became one of the communication tools through which higher education studies were promoted across the country. Although, higher education institutional marketing at Universities of Technology has been well established within South Africa, the marketing recruitment strategy employed was largely intended for the urban and sub-urban contexts. This study focuses on this challenge within a social justice and equality discourse. The study, therefore, engages with the literature on higher education transformation, marketing, social justice, equity and equality to show the complexity of higher education institutional marketing and highlights the inequalities in current marketing strategies and practices that continues to disadvantage marginalised communities from accessing higher education studies. The primary aim of this study is to explore the inequalities in current higher education institutions’ marketing processes to recruit potential students from geographically marginalised communities, with a view to reducing these inequalities. The study explored the marketing strategies employed by a University of Technology to understand the experiences and concerns identified by learners and teachers of deep rural schools in accessing higher education. The case study approach to methodology required a mixed method for the data collection from stakeholders (grade 12 learners and educators) of three secondary schools in three different deep rural contexts. A survey was conducted using a questionnaire to obtain information from grade 12 learners. In addition, the Life Orientation educators of these three schools were interviewed. In order to obtain a holistic perspective of the institutional marketing efforts, current first year university students from deep rural contexts were interviewed to explore their experiences into higher education. The analysis of the data revealed that learners in deep rural contexts were aware of higher education studies, but the information received about accessing and studying at a higher education institution was inadequate to make informed decisions. The study also found that there was a mismatch between what was marketed by higher education institutions and the needs of the learners and the community. Furthermore, the needs and resources for the potential students from disadvantaged communities were identified. Therefore, a customised recruitment strategy is proposed with regard to the promotional materials and processes to encourage and support aspiring higher education students. The findings proposes a marketing strategy that is located within a social justice, equity and equality framework that aligns institutional marketing with the needs of the communities located in deep rural and impoverished contexts. In other words, a strategic community engagement action plan between the university and the department of education is suggested. The study, therefore, makes recommendations to higher education institutions about marketing strategies that would be relevant to a diverse target market, particularly to marginalised or rural areas in KwaZulu-Natal. In addition, the study makes recommendations to address inequalities in institutional marketing that could lead to views about substantive equality needed for higher education transformation within the current South African context.

Single Book
10.1093/oso/9780190650940.003.0004

Sustaining Gender Parity in College Aid

Jan 18, 2018
Deondra Rose

Chapter 4 considers how lawmakers used the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965 to further entrench higher education programming in the fabric of US social policy and to amplify individual-level aid for college students. The HEA provides a valuable example of how “targeting within universalism” can help to generate broad political support for a social policy. Moreover, its creation provides a powerful example of the role that path dependency has played in the development of higher education policy. In addition to illustrating the significance of policy design to the political viability of social policy reforms, this case study highlights the pivotal role that executive leadership has played in the development of US higher education policy. Taken together, these forces were central to lawmakers’ ability to reinforce and build upon the gender-egalitarian higher education policy that had emerged during the late 1950s.

Book Chapter
10.1007/978-94-017-7369-0_13

Main Findings and Discussion

Jan 01, 2016
Jussi Välimaa + 4 more +4

This chapter ‘connects the dots’ between the outcomes of the CINHEKS study and relates these to contemporary higher education research practice and policy. This conclusion summarizes our main theoretical and conceptual findings, central empirical results and methodological advances in a way that illuminates the key issues and questions brought into view by the CINHEKS study, as a whole. Our findings are critically contextualized in terms of general challenges in higher education studies, which borrow far more than we generate, especially in terms of theory, conceptual problematization, methodology and methods. Theoretically, the analytical synthesis of network knowledge society is highlighted, as is our coining of the term universtasis, a conceptual problematization resulting from the cross-case analysis of fieldwork carried out by all CINHEKS project teams. The competitive horizons heuristic is spotlighted, as CINHEKS was the first time it was used in an international comparative higher education study. The chapter secondly focuses on the most important empirical findings of the CINHEKS study, focusing on findings regarding the role of place, higher education traditions, academic fields and the way in which comparative framing reveals the way these obscure – in distinct ways – the tensions between policy discourse, actual scholarly practice and societal outcomes. The cross-case analysis of the CINHEKS mixed-methods sequential studies; moving through descriptive, interpretive and explanatory levels of analysis reveals the limitations associated with much of the normative framing used every day by researchers and policy makers alike. In addition, interdisciplinary inquiry focused on comparative policy analysis, novel historical framing, shifting competitive horizons and the use of social network analysis sheds new light on both established and emergent forms of stratification within academe – and societies – in a manner that defies much of the oversimplification and guess work that passes for local and national-level ‘explanations’. Comparative framing spotlights that much publically available information profiled by higher education may obscure more than it reveals across distinct methodological nationalism(s), particularly regarding changing values. Methodological advances are also featured, as they were integral to the outcomes of this study. These include our team’s focus on process and the relationship between challenges, opportunities and research team dynamics and how these resulted in the development of the HEI profile, the incorporation of social network analysis in a comparative study, along with key lessons learned, regarding research design and execution. We conclude the chapter with some of the key questions and issues we believe now come into view because of the overarching finding of the CINHEKS study. These questions and issues are important for policy makers, researchers and higher education’s most important stakeholders.

Research Article
2
10.1353/tt.2017.0029

Acting in the Academy: The History of Professional Actor Training in US Higher Education by Peter Zazzali

Jan 01, 2017
Theatre Topics
Chase Bringardner

Reviewed by: Acting in the Academy: The History of Professional Actor Training in US Higher Education by Peter Zazzali Chase Bringardner Acting in the Academy: The History of Professional Actor Training in US Higher Education. By Peter Zazzali. New York: Routledge, 2016; pp. 236. In Acting in the Academy: The History of Professional Actor Training in US Higher Education, Peter Zazzali offers a critical contribution to ongoing discourse on the role, structure, and purpose of acting training programs located within US academic institutions. Relying upon an extensive archive of materials, he traces the rise and significance of the League of Professional Theatre Training Programs, and uses this rich historical context to argue for curricular change. Specifically, Zazzali calls on contemporary acting programs to embrace a different, more entrepreneurial model that empowers actors within the “given circumstances” of this particular contemporary moment. Zazzali’s book is both a groundbreaking historical work and a future-looking treatise that will be an invaluable resource for professors and acting students alike as they seek to determine the trajectories of acting training for the next fifty years. As the author states in his introduction, this book is primarily a history of the “‘professional’ training of actors in US higher education,” an underrepresented chapter in the larger history of acting technique in the United States (5). Throughout the work Zazzali strengthens his argument by consistently reminding his readers of the parameters of his study. He asserts the league’s legacy as the most important to the development of acting technique in the country since the Group Theatre of the 1930s. He thus places the league and its professional training programs within the larger narrative both of acting training in higher education and the development of US acting technique in general. Zazzali bookends the core of his historical analysis with more polemic chapters. His opening chapter on the challenges facing actor training today establishes the stakes for his examination, while his concluding chapter suggests a pathway forward for acting programs to consider for the future. While he is careful to note that his work does not “substantially address important issues regarding race, gender, age, social class, disabilities, and sexual identity relative to American acting training” (5), he does couch his assessment of contemporary actor training and call for change within some economic and social systems. For example, he discusses the impact of celebrity on standards or measures of actor success. Zazzali skillfully positions these concerns as a result of a continued reliance upon a league-training approach that fails to take into account the realities or “given circumstances” of the contemporary performance landscape. These concerns lead him ultimately to argue for an emphasis on entrepreneurship as a way of cultivating skills in young actors to empower them to create their own opportunities, defy the celebrity system, and redefine the very measures of a successful career. To arrive at these conclusions, Zazzali investigates US actor training from various angles. In the second chapter he examines the creation of the league out of the seeds of the Stanislavski system. The league focused on a psychophysical approach that combined the psychological approaches of Stanislavski with the physical training found in Barba or Growtowski. The newly formed league schools of the early 1970s became crucibles for the teaching of these techniques and the creation of a generation of actors prepared for work in regional theatres. Yet, as Zazzali importantly reminds us, this relationship between the league and regional theatres was often not simpatico. To illustrate this uneasy relationship, he uses chapter 3 to place the league within the sociohistorical context of the 1960s in order to provide the groundwork for the fraught relationship between professional training programs and the US university system. Specifically, he details specific moments, such as conferences, speeches, and grants awarded, to show the incremental steps that led to the standards and practices established for these emerging programs. After establishing that the newly formed league (in 1971) created eleven programs in its first year as an incorporated body, Zazzali transitions in chapter 4 to specific case studies of three disparate representative models of the league: Carnegie Mellon, Julliard, and American Conservatory Theater. These case studies represent an appropriate...

Book Chapter
7
10.1016/b978-0-12-818630-5.02130-8

Regimes of research and development funding in higher education

Nov 18, 2022
International Encyclopedia of Education
Bailey A Brown

Regimes of research and development funding in higher education

Research Article
4
10.1111/1467-8462.12330

Productivity and Policy in Higher Education

Jun 01, 2019
Australian Economic Review
Kenneth Moore + 2 more +2

Understanding and improving the performance of public higher education institutions is a matter of growing interest to university and government leaders. To this end, this article surveys dimensions of recent approaches to productivity measurement in higher education, illustrating trends, limitations and developments, and exemplifies these with reference to Australian universities. The article closes by discussing policy considerations that would help augment the design of policy, making comment on the implications for performance‐incentivised funding of higher education.

Single Book
410
10.1007/978-1-4020-4012-2

International Handbook of Higher Education

Jan 01, 2007
James J F Forest + 1 more +1

The purpose of this publication is to provide a reference source on key topics in higher education. Chapters in the first volume cover central themes in the study of higher education, while contributors to the second volume focus on contemporary higher education issues within specific countries or regions. Part one 'Global themes and contemporary challenges' contains the following chapters: Introduction / Philip G. Altbach and James J. F. Forest; The academic profession / Jurgen Enders; Accountability and quality assurance: new issues for academic inquiry / Elaine El-Khawas; Curricula in international perspective / Lisa R. Lattuca; Doctoral education: present realities and future trends / Philip G. Altbach; Higher education finance: trends and issues / Arthur M. Hauptman; For-profit higher education: US tendencies, international echoes / Kevin Kinser and Daniel C. Levy; Globalization and the university: realities in an unequal world / Philip G. Altbach; Governance and administration: organizational and structural trends / Barbara Sporn; History of universities / Harold Perkin; Internationalization: concepts, complexities and challenges / Jane Knight; Higher education management: challenges and strategies / George Keller; Reflections on the transition from elite to mass to universal access: forms and phases of higher education in modern societies since WWII / Martin Trow; The private fit in the higher education landscape / Daniel C. Levy; Beyond private gain: the public benefits of higher education / David E. Bloom, Matthew Hartley, and Henry Rosovsky; Research and scholarship / Grant Harman; Student politics: activism and culture / Philip G. Altbach; Teaching and learning in higher education / James J. F. Forest; Rhetoric or reality?: technology in borderless higher education / Svava Bjarnason; Part two 'Regions and countries' contains: Section one 'Regional perspectives': Higher education in the Arab world / Linda Herrera; Higher education in Central and Eastern Europe / Peter Scott; Higher education developing countries / David E. Bloom and Henry Rosovsky; European integration in higher education: the Bologna Process towards a European high education area / Hans de Wit; Higher education in French-speaking Sub-Saharan Africa / Juma Shabani; Latin American university transformation in the 1990s: altered identities? / Marcela Mollis; Higher education in Scandinavia / Evanthia Kalpazidou Schmidt; Higher education in Southeast Asia in the era of globalization / Molly N. N. Lee; Higher education in Sub-Saharan Africa / Damtew Teferra; Section two 'National perspectives': Argentina / Ana M. Garcia de Fanelli; Australia / Simon Marginson; Brazil / Simon Schwartzman; Canada / Glen A. Jones; Chile / Jose Joaquin Brunner and Anthony Tillett; China / Ruth Hayhoe and Qiang Zha; Egypt / Iman Farag; France / Christine Musselin; Germany / Barbara M. Kehm; India / N. Jayaram; Indonesia / M. K. Tadjudin; Iran / Abbas Bazargan; Israel / Yaacov Iram; Italy / Roberto Moscati; Japan / Akiyoshi Yonezawa; Kenya / Charles K. Ngome; Korea / Namgi Park; Mexico / Hugo Casanova-Cardiel; The Netherlands / Egbert de Weert; Nigeria / Munzali Jibril; Poland / Wojciech Duczmal; Russia / Anna Smolentseva; South Africa / Chika Trevor Sehoole; Spain / Jose-Gines Mora; Turkey / Hasan Simsek; United Kingdom / Michael Shattock; United States / Peter D. Eckel and Jacqueline E. King.

Research Article
3
10.2399/yod.21.815607

Higher Education Policy and Objectives Based on Development Plans

Dec 31, 2022
Yuksekogretim Dergisi
Hamza Öz + 1 more +1

As a country prioritizing development and economic growth, Türkiye needs to set policies and targets for the development of human capital. To be able to do this, it is necessary to start with the analysis of the higher education (HE) policies and objectives in the development plans that have been prepared since the beginning of the planned development period. Aiming to determine HE policies and objectives on the basis of development plans, this study is expected to contribute to the field by guiding HE policymakers and quality system practitioners in Türkiye. Focusing on the HE policies and objectives in 11 development plans prepared in Türkiye from 1963 to 2019, the study was designed as a document review, following the qualitative research paradigm. The data obtained in the research were analyzed by applying the content analysis technique. During the analysis of the data, first of all, the development plans were subjected to content analysis, and the results related to the HE policies and targets were then identified and interpreted. The research revealed five themes related to the policies and objectives in the development plans (development of HE, support in HE, planning in HE, cooperation in HE, and financing of HE). Some policies and targets in the development plans were found to recur frequently. It was also observed that the dominant philosophical paradigm of the period was followed in the preparation of the plans, with no paradigmatic blindness. Based on the findings, decision-makers are suggested to adhere to the policies and objectives determined in the development plans, and researchers are suggested o conduct research by analyzing the development plans and the National Education Council decisions together.