10 1 1 113 2532 PDF

Journal of the Programme on Institutional Management
«
Journal of the Programme
Volume 16, No. 2

in Higher Education
on Institutional Management
Higher Education Management and Policy
in Higher Education
Volume 16, No. 2
CONTENTS
Teaching and Research: Some Framework Issues
Maurice Kogan 9 Higher Education
Teaching and Research: The Idea of a Nexus
Mary Henkel 19
Management and Policy
Information and Communication Technologies: A Tool Empowering and Developing
the Horizon of the Learner
Olivier Debande and Eugenia Kazamaki Ottersten 31
Managing University Clinical Partnership: Learning from International Experience
Stephen Davies and Tom Smith 63
Systemic Responsiveness in Tertiary Education: An Agenda for Reform

William G. Tierney 73
Incentives and Accountability: The Canadian Context
Michelle Gauthier 95
Student Satisfaction in Higher Education: A Turkish Case
Ceyhan Aldemir and Yaprak Gülcan 109
Subscribers to this printed periodical are entitled to free online access. If you do not
yet have online access via your institution's network contact your librarian or, if you
subscribe personally, send an email to
SourceOECD@oecd.org
www.oecd.org
IMHE ISSN 1682-3451

2004 SUBSCRIPTION
(3 ISSUES)
89 2004 02 1 P
-:HRLGSC=XYZUUU:
Volume 16, No. 2 Volume 16, No. 2
JOURNAL OF THE PROGRAMME
ON INSTITUTIONAL MANAGEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Higher
Education
Management
and Policy
Volume 16, No. 2
ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT

ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION
AND DEVELOPMENT
Pursuant to Article 1 of the Convention signed in Paris on 14th December 1960, and
which came into force on 30th September 1961, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD) shall promote policies designed:
– to achieve the highest sustainable economic growth and employment and a rising
standard of living in member countries, while maintaining financial stability, and
thus to contribute to the development of the world economy;
– to contribute to sound economic expansion in member as well as non-member
countries in the process of economic development; and
– to contribute to the expansion of world trade on a multilateral, non-discriminatory
basis in accordance with international obligations.
The original member countries of the OECD are Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark,
France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway,
Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The
following countries became members subsequently through accession at the dates indicated
hereafter: Japan (28th April 1964), Finland (28th January 1969), Australia (7th June 1971), New
Zealand (29th May 1973), Mexico (18th May 1994), the Czech Republic (21st December 1995),
Hungary (7th May 1996), Poland (22nd November 1996), Korea (12th December 1996) and the
Slovak Republic (14th December 2000). The Commission of the European Communities
takes part in the work of the OECD (Article 13 of the OECD Convention).
The Programme on Institutional Management in Higher Education (IMHE) started
in 1969 as an activity of the OECD’s newly established Centre for Educational Research and
Innovation (CERI). In November 1972, the OECD Council decided that the Programme would
operate as an independent decentralised project and authorised the Secretary-General to
administer it. Responsibility for its supervision was assigned to a Directing Group of
representatives of governments and institutions participating in the Programme. Since 1972,
the Council has periodically extended this arrangement; the latest renewal now expires on
31st December 2006.
The main objectives of the Programme are as follows:
– to promote, through research, training and information exchange, greater
professionalism in the management of institutions of higher education; and
– to facilitate a wider dissemination of practical management methods and
approaches.
THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED AND ARGUMENTS EMPLOYED IN THIS PUBLICATION ARE THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHORS AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT THOSE OF THE
OECD OR OF THE NATIONAL OR LOCAL AUTHORITIES CONCERNED.
*
* *
Publié en français sous le titre :
Politiques et gestion de l’enseignement supérieur
© OECD 2004
Permission to reproduce a portion of this work for non-commercial purposes or classroom use should be obtained through the
Centre français d’exploitation du droit de copie (CFC), 20, rue des Grands-Augustins, 75006 Paris, France, tel. (33-1) 44 07 47 70,
fax (33-1) 46 34 67 19, for every country except the United States. In the United States permission should be obtained through the
Copyright Clearance Center, Customer Service, (508)750-8400, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 USA, or CCC Online:
www.copyright.com. All other applications for permission to reproduce or translate all or part of this book should be made to
OECD Publications, 2, rue André-Pascal, 75775 Paris Cedex 16, France.
HIGHER EDUCATION MANAGEMENT AND POLICY

● A journal addressed to leaders, managers, researchers and policy makers in
the field of higher education institutional management and policy.
● Covering practice and policy in the field of system and institutional
management through articles and reports on research projects of wide
international scope.
● First published in 1977 under the title International Journal of Institutional
Management in Higher Education, then Higher Education Management from 1989
to 2001, it appears three times a year in English and French editions.
Information for authors wishing to submit articles for publication
appears at the end of this issue. Articles and related correspondence should be
sent directly to the Editor:
Prof. Michael Shattock

OECD/IMHE
2, rue André-Pascal
75775 Paris Cedex 16
France
To enter a subscription, send your order to:

OECD Publications Service
2, rue André-Pascal, 75775 Paris Cedex 16, France
2004 subscription (3 issues):

€ 95 US$100 £64 Y 12 100 MXN 1 040
Online bookshop: www.oecd.org
HIGHER EDUCATION MANAGEMENT AND POLICY – ISSN 1682-3451 – © OECD 2004

3
EDITORIAL ADVISORY GROUP
Editorial Advisory Group

Elaine EL-KHAWAS,
George Washington University, United States (Chair)
Jaak AAVIKSOO,
University of Tartu, Estonia
Philip G. ALTBACH,
Boston College, United States
Berit ASKLING,
Göteborg University, Sweden
Chris DUKE,
RMIT University, Australia
Leo GOEDEGEBUURE,
University of Twente (CHEPS), Netherlands
V. Lynn MEEK,
University of New England, Australia
Robin MIDDLEHURST,
University of Surrey, United Kingdom
José-Ginés MORA,
Technical University of Valencia, Spain
Detlef MÜLLER-BÖHLING,
Centre for Higher Education Development, Germany
Christine MUSSELIN,
Centre de Sociologie des Organisations (CNRS), France
Jamil SALMI,
The World Bank, United States
Sheila SLAUGHTER,
The University of Arizona, United States
Franz STREHL,
Johannes Kepler Universität Linz, Austria
Andrée SURSOCK,
European University Association, Belgium
Ulrich TEICHLER,
Gesamthochschule Kassel, Germany
Luc WEBER,
Université de Genève, Switzerland
Akiyoshi YONEZAWA,
NIAD, Japan

5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents
Teaching and Research: some Framework Issues
Maurice Kogan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Teaching and Research: the Idea of a Nexus

Mary Henkel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Information and Communication Technologies: a Tool Empowering

and Developing the Horizon of the Learner
Olivier Debande and Eugenia Kazamaki Ottersten . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Managing University Clinical Partnership: Learning

from International Experience
Stephen Davies and Tom Smith. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Systemic Responsiveness in Tertiary Education: an Agenda for Reform

William G. Tierney. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Incentives and Accountability: the Canadian Context

Michelle Gauthier. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Student Satisfaction in Higher Education: a Turkish Case

Ceyhan Aldemir and Yaprak Gülcan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

7
ISSN 1682-3451
Volume 16, No. 2
© OECD 2004
Teaching and Research:

some Framework Issues
by
Maurice Kogan
Brunel University, United Kingdom
This paper assesses some of the framework issues, of policy and

provision, which affect the connections between teaching and
research in higher education.
The presumption of an essential linkage between research and
teaching has in recent years been eroded by the sheer quantities of
the system. In spite of the enduring appeal of the Humboldtian
model, it was not always assumed in the UK and is not assumed in
many other systems.
The arguments for and against the connection are noted and
assessed. The arguments in favour are mainly in terms of the
advantages to research; and arguments from teaching are more
difficult to specify. Both sets of considerations entail thought about
the nature of knowledge as it is created and mediated through
universities, and the corresponding identities and roles of
university teachers.
A broadening of concept from research to that of disciplined
enquiry enables the scope of university forms of enquiry to be
widened to include applied research, research and development as
well as scholarship. It is argued that all university teachers should
be involved in one or other form of disciplined enquiry, even if only
a minority can be involved in research in the traditional meanings
of the word.

9
TEACHING AND RESEARCH: SOME FRAMEWORK ISSUES
Teaching and research: some framework issues

In this paper I attempt to assess some of the framework issues, of policy
and provision, that affect the connections between teaching and research in
higher education. This should be taken in conjunction with Mary Henkel’s
paper which covers parallel themes but from the perspective of the intrinsic
contents of higher education activity.
The relationship between teaching and research has been thrust into the
policy arena, partly by the desire of ministers to proclaim their reformist
credentials, but also by the evolving logic of change imposed by the actual and
intended further massification of higher education in the UK.
The questioning of what has been, since the end of the first world war
(when Treasury grants to UK universities first became available), a virtually
uncontested characteristic of the system seems appropriate given where our
system now is. One hundred and sixty nine institutions now have university
or university college status. All are eligible to apply for research funding from
the funding and research councils, and from private foundations. The
amounts of research resources, however, that they receive from the HEFCs,
and other sources vary enormously. In 1999/00 only 28 received over 20% of
their total revenue from research grants and contracts, whilst 115 received
less than 10% (Lewis, 2002). And there are recurrent reports of intentions to
make the variations even steeper
There is already a duality in the total system. Of the approximately
105 thousand full-time teachers in the system, only 43% were entered for the
RAE competition in 2001.
If we then turn to the recipients of teaching, there were 221 000 first year
“young” UK entrants in 2000-2001. Leave aside doubts about the standards of
qualifications, on which it seems difficult to get an objective evaluation, just
over 100 thousand had over 19 points (i.e. 2Cs and one B). Only 68 000 – less
than on third – had 2Bs and one C or better or an equivalent combination
(HEFCE 2002). We must not make hasty assumptions about student potential
and it is known that some students with a poor entry qualification do well at
university. But it is fair to assume that many are unlikely to have expected or
to receive the Humboldtian treatment of apprenticeship to a life of research
and scholarship, the implicit assumption underlying honours degree curricula
in the years before massification.
10 HIGHER EDUCATION MANAGEMENT AND POLICY – ISSN 1682-3451 – © OECD 2004

Thus the presumption of an essential or appropriate linkage between

research and teaching has at least in recent years been eroded by the sheer
quantities of the system.
Nevertheless, the connection has persisted as a comforting assumption
at least until quite recent times. Wilhelm von Humboldt established as an
enduring principle the encompassing idea of a unity of research, teaching, and
study (Clark,1991). The Humboldtian contribution and style have been
brilliantly described more recently by Thorsten Nybom (2003). Those who
taught at the most advanced levels of the educational system should be
deeply involved in research. The research-centred professor should not only
train students for research but should involve them in it. This “breathtaking
principle” has dominated many systems and has been institutionalised in
budgetary allocations that presuppose a substantial proportion of teaching
staff time will be spent in research.
But this principle was not always followed in eastern and central Europe
or in France or in Norway where powerful institutes and academies of science
have housed the most important research. And, of course, it is no longer a
universal enduring principle in British higher education, a least in its earlier
form. The dominance of the teaching-research connection has been
weakened, too, up by the elaboration of academic tasks as working with
outside interests and institutions, and the work pressures induced by quality
assurance requirements, compel faculty to go well beyond the original
assumptions about academic work.
The arguments against separation have been made at varying levels of
generality, as follows:
● Some (e.g. Council of Europe seminar, 1994) emphasise the importance of
the link for the social, political and economic development of society, but
these arguments tend to lack precision.
● It would be demoralising for staff in universities wishing to and qualified to
undertake research if the best resources are allocated elsewhere. It might
prevent some of the best people participating in the education of the ablest
members of the next generation of researchers.
● Teaching is good particularly for young researchers because it keeps them
in touch with the wider subject and reinforces their ability to expound and
clarify their thinking. It might also provide contact with wider social groups
than might be experienced in the often lonely career of those engaged
wholly in research.
● Some countries are too small to provide for a dual system.
Roger Geiger (1985b) has extended the case as follows: there are
manpower benefits that result from the combination. Teaching supplies

11
positions for scientists that are more numerous and dependable than those
which pure research could ever supply. The teachers who are intermittently
researchers as well greatly augment the potential size and diversity of a given
scientific community (p. 55).
“The annual circulation of students is one dynamic factor in the lives of
universities which should not be taken for granted. Compared with their
mentors, students possess a different generational receptivity to new
ideas. The ways in which they choose ideas has an immediate effect upon
course offerings and a longer term impact on the reproduction of
scholars.”
But these advantages are mainly to the benefit of research. The
connection with teaching applies most strongly to that aimed at graduate or
perhaps advanced undergraduate teaching, when the results of research flow
back into the thinking of students, into the wider dissemination of knowledge
and into innovation.
Barnett (1992a), arguing from an essential characteristic of teaching
charted by Malcolm Frazer, maintains that it is essential for teachers in higher
education to have time and resources to be engaged in research or some other
professional or scholarly activity. “… Research activity is part of preparing for
teaching.” But he makes no case for research as essential. He also argues
(1992b) that, “in the institution which gives high marks for teaching, teaching
can come to influence research.” and that “… staff might be encouraged to
undertake research into their own teaching activities.” (p. 141).
The differences between the two are, however, noted (Barnett, 1990, p. 125):
“Research is an attempt to produce objective knowledge, independent of
personal viewpoint. … a level of impersonal knowledge standing outside
individuals. … Higher education… is oriented differently. It is directly
concerned with individuals, with their minds and with their own way of
looking at things. … It is shot through with subjectivity.”
Clark, too, (quoted by Geiger) notes how the dual characteristic creates a
duality of structure within universities: “disciplines … concentrate on
research and scholarship (whilst) universities and colleges … concentrate on
teaching and dissemination. The research role of universities is thus a source
of relative homogeneity in the system because it depends upon faculty acting
in their professional capacities as chemists, etc. But each university combines
its research role with a different combination of other institutional objectives
and capacities. Teaching responsibilities, in particular, are largely defined by
the number and types of students a university enrolls. This, then, is the
principal source of heterogeneity or diversity.” (pp. 77-78)
Students are a distraction from intensive research activities, and “the
inner logic of the research imperative contains a divisive tendency. The high

knowledge components of HE steadily become more esoteric.” Students need

holistic and non-esoteric teaching which is better provided by those whose
motivation is driven by teaching. Among the forces leading to division are the
massification of higher education and “the growth in academic tribes that
follow from the proliferation of academic territories.” Each discipline
intensifies and diversifies itself and the knowledge components of higher
education steadily become more esoteric. “It becomes difficult, if not
impossible, to develop and maintain these necessary concentrations in the
traditional locales of teaching and study. Hence the development of research
devoted groups without teaching programmes and students” needs on their
minds. In addition, research is extending itself outside the universities in
centres financed by industry or government in which teaching has virtually no
place.
Clark adds that separate institutions allow for concentrations of talent
and resources; they more easily account for use of resources than when tasks
are multiple; it is possible for separate institutions to collaborate; and some
doctoral students can get access to the best of specialist resources, even when
they are separate.
Massification lends speed to the argument that differentiation within
systems and within universities is necessary. All systems that have expanded
from the elite stage find themselves stratifying institutions according to their
mix between teaching and research, although this is denied by some national
authorities (e.g. Sweden). As institutions face the challenges of selectivity of
funding and of the requirement to satisfy external markets so, perforce, they
diversify the allocations of tasks within their faculties.
In the United Kingdom, the central authorities have come to the policy
issue quite late in their progress from an elite to a mass system. Thus, the UFC
declared itself in 1989 to be “uniquely concerned with the quality and strength
of both teaching and research in universities. Although this does not mean
that all university departments will be outstanding in research, the UFC might
aim to ensure an effective distribution of research centres which strengthens
teaching in the universities” (UFC, Circular Letter, 22/89, 1989). The notion of
separate research, teaching and mixed research teaching universities was
rejected by an elite group of policy makers in the 1990s (Kogan and
Hanney, 2000). Now, however, the 2003 White Paper is fairly unequivocal in the
official intention to go the way of RTX. There seems no doubt that the
arguments will be resolved by the force majeure of student numbers and
ministerial impatience with research other than that of instrumental
usefulness or at the peaks of excellence. A group of elite universities will be
allowed resourcing for the connection, but it will be an input particularly to
graduate studies.

13
Already in the United Kingdom, as in the United States, implicit

separation has not so much followed as has been confirmed by the
massification of the system. The precise technical break came when the
government ceased to include hypothecated resources (assumed to be about
one third) in each full – time university teacher’s salary. Many more teachers
are now on part-time contracts which makes them unlikely to have time and
other resources for research. The issue is not simply one of resources, though
the stringency and selectivity of award are critical policy tools in pushing
forward on a largely subterfugous policy. The critical and basic issue turns
on the definition ascribed to the university. Is there a higher education
“essentialism” prescribing irreducible and defining characteristics? And that
definition largely turns on the quality of student admitted and the level of
education that are offered. What is the difference between higher education
and training? From there, the syllogism moves somewhat uneasily to ask
whether student preparation need depend on active research by the teachers.
In answering this, we can dismiss any historical or comparative
justification for that connection: the United Kingdom until the turn of the
century, and possibly longer, did not assume research excellence in teachers
for the inculcation of a liberal education. The elite liberal arts colleges in the
United States and some other European systems (notably the French) did not
either. Research in such systems was regarded a technical and vocational
matter, to be pursued separately. (Wittrock, 1985)
This brings us, finally, to the nub questions: do all students need or want
a research based education? Can one discern from the detailed instrinsics of
the two activities essential connections and overlaps? If they exist do they
depend on active participation of both or won’t reading and scholarship do?
This are questions which Mary Henkel tackles in her paper.
There are issues concerned with staffing and provision to be taken into
account. These will make many institutions anxious not to give up the
connection, quite apart from any loss of status that it might entail. There is a
stock of faculty qualified and assumed to do both, as noted above. Many
teachers in universities that might fall outside research funding have
contracts implying the duty/right to pursue research.
Many undergraduate courses now culminate in a research exercise. How
far their teachers need be active researchers to lead them in this is an open
question. Almost all universities depend on masters courses to sustain their
incomes and student numbers. Again this will be a matter of definition, but
hitherto such courses have assumed acquaintance with research methods
and teachers’ leadership in formulating and conceptualising research
questions. (See Mary Henkel, in this issue.)

The way forward

At this point, it is appropriate to take stock of where our argument is
leading us. Given the massification of the system, it is clear that the
Humboldtian notion of the research teaching unity, “the breath taking
principle”, in Clark’s words, only might still hold good for a minority of
students and their teachers and in a minority of elite institutions. Indeed, that
principle has never been of universal application even for such groups. That
being so, we have to search for some other construction more applicable to the
generality of higher education in its expanded state.
To do so we are forced back to consider the nature of knowledge as it is
created and mediated through universities, and the corresponding identities
and roles of university teachers.
The nature of knowledge as it is created and mediated through

universities
The classic forms of knowledge as developed in universities have sailed
under the flags of research and scholarship. However, in considering the range
of knowledge generation required in US educational research, two American
scholars (Cronbach and Suppes, 1969) used the term disciplined inquiry. This
would allow for different emphases on different types of knowledge in
different subjects, which might also defer to different reference groups,
including some outside academe.
Disciplined inquiry may take several forms:
● Research: the discovery and testing of new knowledge. It may range from
highly technical laboratory science to research with the function of
sustaining collective memories of a people’s culture and history. It allows for
distinctions between disciplines, in which the starting point is existing,
tested knowledge and which defers to the disciplinary reference groups. Inter
and multi-disciplinary research defer to more than one discipline.
● Research and development (R&D): the systematic application and testing of
knowledge for use. Whilst disciplinary formations may remain important in
R&D, it may also find its home within domains, in which the knowledge
seeker starts from a problem which may have a social or practical dimension
and then raids the disciplines and the world of practical knowledge for
concepts and information. The reference groups are equally multiple. There
may be testing of and feedback to discipline based knowledge from domains.
● Scholarship: the reworking and redefinition of existing knowledge and
concepts. This is an activity often associated with research, but in some
subject areas may be a stand alone activity, for example in classics or
philosophy or the humanities. In many areas scholarship would be
prerequisite of research enquiry.

15
● Other forms of knowledge – may be different forms of R&D targeted on

different purposes, such as curriculum development. They may contribute to
the solutions of practical concerns by helping public authorities and industry
to solve problems. They may be motivated by a belief in meeting the need for
knowledge in social, political and economic construction as much as
intellectual curiosity. But these knowledge seeking activities remain within
the covenant of higher education only if they observe the criteria stated
above in demonstrating the logic and evidence for conclusions reached.
What might unify these highly disparate forms of intellectual activity?
Whilst the mandate for research is fairly rigorous and clear, the mandate for the
wider disciplined enquiry is still to be stated. Whilst it may well in many areas
refer to social utility and application, we have to look for some unifying
principle to which all disciplined enquiry would defer. That essentialist position
does not take up far away from traditional depictions. The principle might be:
Work undertaken within higher education is demonstrable and testable
by a wider audience than one’s own students and one’s own immediate
colleagues. It is based on, and is tested by, its deference to logic, evidence
and demonstrability.
Some would give answers on a different dimension altogether, such as its
applicability and usefulness in solving social problems. But many other forms
of activity legitimately do that, for example, journalism, or preaching or
political activity. Disciplined enquiry can reinforce those activities, but is
separable from them.
We can then turn to the issue of what this potential range of enquiry says
about the nature of the university teacher. On the assumption that there will
not be enough resources for all to undertake research as defined above, or
indeed that only a substantial minority will have the capacity for it, we have
to make some assumptions about the essential components of a university
education as it to be offered to students and match them to the disciplined
enquiry spectrum. If we consider the characteristics necessary for research
and teaching there is a great deal of overlap. Both require: mastery of
substantive subject matter; an ability to conceptualise; to be conversant with
main concepts and theories; the ability to present and disseminate research
findings; to engage in collective administrative chores within basic unit;
participation in disciplinary or subject area outside their own institution and
country; ability to supervise and examine doctoral learning methods for
varied groups and levels of students. There are tasks and skills that are
specific to the two activities, however, such as, for researchers, creating
research questions or seeking research funding and, for teachers, converting
research findings into curriculum or developing pastoral methods. So both
combination and separation are feasible.

Two broader guaged questions remain. First, if we accept that the wider
concept of disciplined enquiry mandates a great deal of intellectual activity
beyond the classic definitions of research, would we expect all university
teachers to be engaged in one form or other of it? Secondly, are their forms
and styles of intellectual activity beyond those explicit engagement in
disciplined enquiry that are not only appropriate to the university teacher but
will also enhance the teaching?
On the first question, the answer must be “yes”. Otherwise there is no
difference from the work of further education or schools. Moreover students
are likely to respect and perhaps emulate the behaviour of those who actively
contribute, at one level or another, to their subject area
Secondly, universities have traditionally been the guardians of free
enquiry and social critique. It may be that that avocation has been swamped
by the press of student numbers and government demands for certain
instrumental foci. It is essential, however, that academics will continue to take
up the function of the critical intellectual, and to do that effectively must
require the sustenance of expertise and involvement in their own subject
areas. Within the range of disciplined enquiry is the potential for the broader
critical intellectual function.
We thus need to both change and yet remain the same. We are the
custodians of important continuities which include the perhaps slow growth
and dissemination of wisdom. In this teaching and research are two sides of
one coin. But increasingly they will be seen as two sides.
The author:
Maurice Kogan
48 Duncan Terrace
London UB8 3PH
United Kingdom
E-mail: maurice.kogan@brunel.ac.uk
References
BARNETT, R. (ed.) (1990), The Idea of Higher Education. Total Quality Care, Buckingham.
SRHE and Open University Press.
BARNETT, R. (ed.) (1992a), Learning to Effect, Buckingham, SRHE and Open University Press.
BARNETT, R. (ed.) (1992b), Improving Higher Education. Total Quality Care, Buckingham,
SRHE and Open University Press.
BECHER, T., M. HENKEL and M. KOGAN (1994), Graduate Education in Britain, London:
Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

17
CLARK B. R. (1991), “The Fragmentation of Research, Teaching and Study: An

Explorative Essay” in M. A. Trow and T. Nybom (eds) University and Society. Essays on
the Social Role of Research and Higher Education, Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
COUNCIL OF EUROPE (1994), Teaching and Research: Separation, Cooperation or Integration,
Report of the Multilateral Workshop: Kaunus, 20-22 October 1994. Report prepared
by Maurice Kogan.
CRONBACH, L. J. and P. SUPPES, (eds.) (1969), Tomorrow’s Schools: Disciplined Inquiry for
Education, Macmillan.
GEIGER, R. (1985), “Dinosaurs and Dolphins? Rise and Resurgence of the Research-
Oriented University” in B. Wittrock and A. Elzinga, The University Research System.
The Public Policies of the Home of Scientists, Stockholm: Almqvist and Wicksell.
GEIGER, R. (1985), “The Home of Scientists. A Perspective on University Research
Universities” in Wittrock and Elzinga. (op. cit), Ch. 3, pp. 53- 76.
GEIGER, R. (1985), “Hierarchy and Diversity in American Research Universities”, in
Wittrock and Elzinga (op.cit) Ch. 4, pp. 77-100.
HEFCE – Higher Education Funding Council for England (2000), Table B3 “Young
Entrants to Full-Time Degree Courses by Subject and Entry Qualifications, 2000-
01” in Performance Indicators in Higher Education.
LEWIS, R. (2002), “UK Higher Education – On a Converging or Diverging Path?” Higher
Education Digest Supplement, Summer 2002 – Issue 43.
NYBOM, T. (2003), “The Humboldt Legacy: Reflections on the Past, Present, and future
of the European University”, Higher Education Policy, 16 (143).1.793.
TROW, M. (1974), “Problems in the Transition from Elite to Mass Higher Education” Policies
for Higher Education, OECD.
WITTROCK, B. and A. ELZINGA (1985), The University Research System. The Public Policies
of the Home of Scientists, Stockholm: Almqvist and Wicksell.
WITTROCK, B., “Dinosaurs or Dolphins? Rise and Resurgence of the Research Oriented
University” in Wittrock and Elzinga (op. cit.), Ch. 1, pp. 13- 37.

ISSN 1682-3451
Volume 16, No. 2
© OECD 2004
Teaching and Research: the Idea of a Nexus
by
Mary Henkel
Brunel University, United Kingdom
The article explores whether the idea of a nexus between research

and teaching is still influential, what meanings are attached to it
and within what concepts of higher education. It draws on research
into the perceptions of two groups of actors, academics and
students, and some recent scholarly analyses of the issues.
It argues that the idea of the nexus is still important to academics
and a range of students. It is embedded in a world in which
academic definitions of knowledge and higher education remain
largely dominant. The recent writings examined are attempts to
tighten the conceptual connections between teaching and research
but to relocate them in arguments centred on the needs of
contemporary “knowledge societies” for systematic and reflexive
learning and inquiry.

19
TEACHING AND RESEARCH: THE IDEA OF A NEXUS
Introduction
This article is concerned with understandings of the teaching-research
relationship, in terms of how two human activities, teaching and researching,
are related to each other in the lives and work of academics and of their
students. Its central interest is in examining the idea of the relationship as
necessary, integral or, in Ruth Neumann’s terms a “nexus” (Neumann, 1994).
As is clear from Maurice Kogan’s paper, the ideas that teaching and research
together form the core of academic work and, further, that they are in some
way intrinsically related to each other have come under strong pressure. The
pressure has come, in part, from the drivers of higher education and science
policies but also from sociological analysis of the internal as well as external
forces pulling them apart (Clark 1991; 1997). It has been reinforced by
substantial empirical research, which has concluded that there is no clear
statistical correlation between academic performance in research and
teaching (Ramsden and Moses 1992; Hattie and Marsh 1996; Lindsay et
al. 2002). For good accounts of the shortcomings of much of that research,
however, see Brew and Boud (1995) and Elton (2001), who themselves provide
more creative approaches to understanding and evaluating the relationship.
It is perhaps not surprising that much contemporary discourse is
informed by conceptualisations of research and teaching as activities that are
not just distinct but incompatible in the working lives of today’s academics.
Against this background, the paper will explore how far the idea of a
nexus between research and teaching continues to have influence, what
meanings are attached to it and within what normative contexts and concepts
of higher education. It will do so, first, by drawing on research into the
perceptions of two different groups of actors, academics and students, and,
secondly, by considering some recent scholarly analyses of the issues.
The overall argument of the paper is that the idea of the nexus, as
perceived by academics and students, is primarily one of the “functional
interdependence” of two academic roles. It is embedded in a world in which
academic definitions of knowledge and higher education remain largely
dominant. The recent writings examined are attempts to tighten the
“conceptual connections” between teaching and research and to relocate
them in arguments centred on student roles in education and the needs of
contemporary “knowledge societies”.

The academic perspective

Academics are the strongest exponents of the argument that research
and teaching are central to their work and its value. I will explore how they
represent this view, mainly by reference to interviews in England for our
research on academic identities, undertaken as part of a three-country study
of higher education reforms in the last quarter of the 20th century (Henkel, 2000).
The range of disciplined inquiry in the study included, broadly, basic and
applied research in the sciences and the social sciences and research and
scholarship in the humanities. The demarcations between these latter are
not always easy to define when work includes not only re-interpretation and
re-contextualisation but also finding new objects of inquiry and drawing on
new sources, new methods of inquiry and new paradigms as disciplines
evolve. I will, for the most part, use the term most often used by the academics
themselves, research.
Not all academics, it must be said, regard the relationship between teaching
and research as intrinsic, even if they see it as functionally complementary. Some
regard themselves as essentially either researchers or teachers. Some describe
the combination of research and teaching as important to them in bringing a
balance to their role, in sustaining their morale or motivation and thus indirectly
affecting the quality of their work. Scientists, who are most likely to see their
identities as rooted in research, were unique in this study in seeing teaching as an
ethical obligation or as a justification for public support for their research.
The pressures to separate research from teaching manifestly affected our
scientist respondents. However, their belief in the need for what Clark (1995;
1997) calls the “research-teaching-study” nexus, in which engagement in
research…. “is the means of teaching and the pathway offered for student
learning” (1997, p. 243) was equally manifest. It was undoubtedly strongest in
relation to postgraduate levels of study, as exemplified by the following excerpt
from an interview with a young chemist in a pre-1992 university, most of whose
research group were postgraduate students: “The research is an educational
vehicle. It is easy to think of my students as instruments but they are not part of
[my] research enterprise. They are here to develop as researchers. He drove his
students hard: ‘they are here to do things’ [as members of his group, as well as
as students] and would be judged by the same criteria as I am.”
However, interviews with scientists across a wide spectrum of universities
also made it clear that exposure to active researchers and the involvement of
students in projects generated from their research were still seen as basic
features of undergraduate education. Undergraduates needed to experience
research at first hand.
There were some differences between scientists in the importance they
attached to the substance as well as the process of scientific inquiry. Some

21
certainly also emphasised that the rate at which science is changing means
that teachers must be active researchers to give proper grounding in the
concepts and theories as well as the methods of the discipline to students.
Academics in the humanities and the social sciences tended to describe
the research-teaching relationship in more complex and varied terms, with
differing emphases on what Neumann (1994) calls the “tangible” and the
“intangible” aspects of the research-teaching relationship. The “tangible”
aspects are those in which transmission of new knowledge and research skills
or techniques occurs and the “intangible”, those in which transmission of
understanding of and approaches and attitudes to knowledge takes place.
A specialist in American literature in a post-1992 university said, “There
is no doubt at all that during that initial three or four year period [in teaching]
… when I wasn’t doing research, I didn’t get the experience of how doing
research in the area can lift your ability to teach in that area … when I did the
research on Mark Twain, the reading... and the research I did into language
and narrative structure gave me a … deeper grasp on the topic that meant that
when I was in seminars with the students I could draw them out in
discussions because I had more to draw on, in order to build on what they
were saying – so that they could build on that.”
Others might emphasise awareness of and being in tune with current
conceptions of the subject, current debates or current methodologies. “I have
a set of strong feelings about the relationship between teaching and
research. … My whole experience has been that my teaching is only any good
when it is connected with research. It is axiomatic to me. … It was not so
much a matter of directly drawing on his own research because that’s often
very difficult: the material is too obscure … it is more about shaping the
climate of ideas in which the course is being run.” (Mid-career English
scholar.) Underlying such observations were beliefs about knowledge in a
constant state of flux, to which academics themselves were contributing and
about the importance of students learning within current epistemological
configurations and trends.
A colleague of his in an old university English department found both
teaching and research intellectually exciting and both to be integral to his
academic life. It was clear from his narrative that his own intense interest in his
period informed his teaching and fuelled his enthusiasm for it. The teaching, in
turn, enabled him not just to sustain a broader engagement with his subject
than was possible in his research but to gain directly from sharing it with
students and collaborating with others in finding new ways in which to do so.
Excitement and enthusiasm were strong themes in discussions of the
value of research for teaching. For a young physicist, excitement was an
impetus to share his research findings with students and with the wider

public. His belief in the nature of the university was at one with how he felt
about his own work. “I see myself as a researcher and a teacher. There is no
point to having a university if you don’t pass on your knowledge to other
people. If you are not telling people about how exciting astronomy is, as far as
I am concerned there is not a lot of purpose in doing it. But equally, if you are
not actively doing it, it is hard to be enthusiastic about it.” A lecturer in theatre
expressed a passionate commitment to renewal, rethinking and encouraging
the same attitudes in students: “if we didn’t do research as well as we do, we
couldn’t teach as well as we do, I’m quite sure about that. Because there is a
temptation for everyone under the sun, to go in on a wet Tuesday in November
and churn out the mixture before and you mustn’t do it. And you don’t do it.
… If you did do it, you would be failing.”
Four general points might be highlighted from the material so far
reported. The first is that belief in a research-teaching nexus is widely held,
and can, in some respects, be seen to be extending. However, it is clear that it
has multiple meanings.
The second and related point is to do with disciplinary differences. The
research-teaching-study nexus, in which academics aimed to advance
students’ learning by engaging them in research, featured explicitly and
strongly in the narratives of scientists in contrast to those of other disciplines,
where it was rare. It applied to scientists’ work with undergraduate as well as
postgraduate students, although this was more evident in universities with a
strong research tradition. The research-teaching nexus was important to the
identities of academics in the humanities. Far more academics in the
disciplines of English and history than social science or science saw their
identity as bound up with research and teaching equally. They discussed this
issue largely in connection with undergraduate teaching.
Whereas hardly any scientist talked about the influence of teaching on
his or her research in the undergraduate context, this was often discussed by
those in the humanities, and some in the social sciences. In other words,
where teaching and learning were seen to depend upon vertical or hierarchical
progression, academics were less likely to talk about reciprocity between
research and teaching or between their students’ and their own benefits, at
least at undergraduate level. Scientists and some economists saw their
research and the knowledge required to engage with it as too distant from
their students’ level of development at that stage.
Third, almost all of the narratives reflect strong common assumptions
about the actors and their responsibilities in the educational process at
undergraduate level. Discussions tended to be teacher-centred, emphasising
what the teacher brings to the educational process, including how that is
influenced by being a researcher. Concepts of learning and learners were far

23
less evident. Where they were discussed, it was likely to be in the context of
the relationship between teaching and learning rather than that between
research and learning or the academic researcher and the student learner.
Thus the following two comments, in which such links are made are
atypical in our study, (as I think they were not in Stephen Rowland’s study of
academic perceptions [Rowland, 1996]). A young medieval historian, highly
motivated to encourage her students to engage with what might be an alien
culture and a daunting area of study, wanted them to know that she was also
a learner in the subject. It was a priority for her from the beginning to convey
to them that you never stop learning. An experienced theoretical economist
talked about how doing research could deepen understanding of the learning
process and the demands upon students. “Doing research necessarily makes
you struggle with new methods and concepts. This, in turn, makes you more
sympathetic and understanding to students but also more demanding of high
standards of achievement.”
The fourth point concerns the strength of feeling with which many of the
respondents expressed themselves about the meaning of research for them
and about the research-teaching relationship. The view that research is the
sole or even primary source of enthusiasm for the subject is, of course, highly
contestable. However, the evidence from this and other studies echoes
Polanyi’s views about how deeply welded into one another passion and
intellectual vibrancy can be (Polanyi, 1958). It also brings to mind Lewis Elton’s
observation that if there is a connection between good research and good
teaching, that may be because there is a third factor that can be seen as
generating both (Elton, 2001).
The student perspective

Research into student views of the research-teaching relationship is still
relatively rare, although this is changing. I draw here on two sets of studies, the
first by Ruth Neumann (1994) in Australian universities with a strong research
tradition (in depth interviews with 28 students) and the second by Alan Jenkins,
Rosanna Breen and Roger Lindsay at a post-1992 UK university (Breen and
Lindsay, 1999; Lindsay et al. 2002). Both sets of studies included undergraduate
and postgraduate students, although in the British study the latter were on
taught Master’s courses and in the Australian study they were doctoral
students. The importance for (and of) student motivation of the research-
teaching relationship is a strong theme in both these research studies.
Both studies also stress that while students express a variety of views,
negative and positive, about the impacts of teacher involvement in research
on their experience, there is substantial evidence that it can and does enhance
many students’ motivation to study their subject. Students made strong links

between this and the enthusiasm of their teachers, which they saw as a
function of their involvement in research.
Overall, their comments reflect an understanding of the research-
teaching relationship in both tangible and intangible terms. Students strongly
appreciated those of their lecturers who passed on to them new knowledge
from their research. Science students in the UK university saw it as essential
to them that their courses introduced them to the “cutting edge” of their
discipline. Science students in the Australian settings were particularly
enthused when they had the opportunity not only to learn research skills and
new techniques from their teachers’ own current work but also to undertake
experiments themselves. They felt they were finding out about “what research
is about”. This was reinforced when research active teachers gave them
assignments requiring them to engage in forms of disciplined inquiry.
Particularly interesting in the Australian study was the extent to which
students appreciated the intangible benefits. There was evidence in most
interviews here of how direct exposure to contemporary research and the
research process had enabled students at all levels to develop questioning and
critical approaches to knowledge and to articulate a sense of knowledge as
continually evolving and changing in both science and the humanities.
Moreover, all except one of the academics cited by the students as particularly
good teachers were active researchers. At the same time, they felt that some
teachers’ research interests could bias the content of their courses to the
detriment of the learning opportunities offered.
There were, however, significant influencing factors on student perceptions.
Both studies identified a correlation between students’ ability and motivation
for being in higher education and their responses to research-informed
teaching. Those who felt positively were likely to have more intrinsic interest
in their subjects and to demonstrate more “course competence” (Jenkins et
al., 2003). Those who were negative or indifferent or unaware of the research-
teaching relationship were more likely to have predominantly extrinsic
motivation for being in higher education.
However, the two studies differed on the importance of the stage
students had reached in higher education. In the Australian study, which
involved only universities with a strong research tradition, there were
students at all levels, from first year undergraduate to doctoral studies, who
appreciated the research-teaching relationship. In the British study, while
both undergraduate and postgraduate students thought that lecturers who
were active researchers were more enthusiastic and more credible, there was
a clearer division of attitude between the two groups. Undergraduates were
more passive and dependent and saw it as the teachers’ responsibility to
capture their interest and to present them with current knowledge. Master’s

25
students tended to be more “inner directed” and had clearer goals. Many of
them were seeking knowledge that they could use directly in different forms
of professional practice. They were discriminating in what they wanted from
their researcher-teachers and critical if the research base of their teaching did
not meet their criteria. The research must be salient to their world.
Both studies commented on some disciplinary differences. Neumann
found that the tangible dimension of the research-teaching connection was less
evident in humanities subjects than in the sciences and social sciences. As
indicated above, science students seemed most aware of being introduced to
and involved in using research techniques and skills. Jenkins et al. found that
students in hard-pure-life types of discipline had more positive attitudes to
research than some (not all) applied disciplines. However, there might be
reasons for this that had more to do with the teachers and/or their epistemic
communities than the students: for example, limited traditions of research or,
by contrast, inappropriately narrow or esoteric conceptions of what might
constitute valuable forms of disciplined inquiry in the subject. This is an
important area for further research, particularly in the light of shifts towards
more instrumental programmes and curricula. What forms of disciplined
inquiry are being developed in new areas of study that are domain-based,
rooted in social or economic rather than academic conceptions of need? And
what functions can or should they have in the learning and teaching process?
What conclusions can be drawn from these studies? They demonstrate
that various aspects of the research-teaching nexus have meaning and value
for students at different levels and in a variety of contexts. They suggest
that academic concepts of knowledge and higher education continue to
have influence and that a range of students have benefited from being part
of academic cultures, including achieving high levels of epistemological
sophistication. There is also evidence that some categories of student are
articulating for themselves needs for access to research that may be different
from what is offered by academics.
However, they also suggest caution about insisting on research-led
teaching for all students in higher education. Such caution might be
reinforced in a mass or universal system of higher education by Neumann’s
finding that a further factor determining whether or not students derived
benefits from a research-teaching nexus is access to close and frequent
contact with their teachers. It is also not altogether clear how far research-
based teaching affects student motivation, as distinct from tuning into it.
Teaching-research relationship and conceptions of higher education

It is still possible to characterise the picture that emerges from these
studies as one in which a research-teaching nexus is a hallmark of a relatively

elite, closed and stratified system of higher education, in which academic

norms, values and epistemologies are broadly uncontested. Teaching is
informed by peer-legitimated research and scholarship, as distinct from other
wider definitions of “disciplined inquiry”. The studies do not, however,
support the most conservative conclusion: that in the context of mass or
universal access, the traditional meaning of higher education can only be
realised at the postgraduate level and that is where the research-teaching
relationship and certainly the research-teaching-study nexus should find its
place. (Thorsten Nybom, for one, has no doubts that that, indeed, is where
Humboldt, albeit in a different era, intended it to be [Nybom, 2003]).
They are, however, compatible with a stratified system in which a line is
drawn between the levels where students experience research-based teaching
and learning and those where “teaching and learning are centred on codified
material, lacking an inquiring attitude.” (Clark, 1997, p. 252). In such a system,
some but by no means all undergraduates need the former.
Clark himself posits a different conception of educational systems,
invoking the idea of an “inquiring society”. This, he argues, requires an
extension and an embedding of an inquiry-based model of education, in
which the research-teaching-study nexus would be a key component.
Although in the end he is equivocal about how extensively such a model can
be generally realised at undergraduate level or below, he does contend that
contemporary societies need graduates with “habits of mind” through which
they can engage in “informed and disciplined problem solving” (ibid.)
The concept of inquiry figures strongly in the project of Jenkins et
al. (2003) to reshape teaching in higher education by strengthening the links
between teaching and research. They also believe in the possibility of
achieving this within a wide range of institutions and their emphasis is
slightly different from that of Clark’s concern with discipline or rigour.
Their argument centres on the need for students to develop critical and
sophisticated conceptions of knowledge (and truth) in order to cope with a
changing knowledge environment. They see academic commitment to and
involvement in research as the key to designing and implementing teaching
strategies through which students can appreciate that knowledge is contextually
defined and contested. It is constructed within epistemic communities or
networks with their own goals, histories, presuppositions, epistemic rules and
conceptual frameworks. They draw on recent research (Baxter Magolda, 1999)
to support empirically the view that students can be helped to move from a
naïve stance towards existing knowledge and its creation to an informed
ability to criticise and analyse it by understanding how it is developed within
their own chosen discipline or field. They learn within a model strongly
influenced by ideas of active inquiry. It entails, for example, participation in

27
the research process as well as being given opportunities to demonstrate that

they have grasped a range of research structures, methods and approaches.
If these approaches to reinforcing the link between research, teaching
and study are to reconceptualise education in terms of inquiry, Brew and
Boud’s approach (1995) to the conceptual links centres on learning. They
suggest that research can be understood as new collective or public learning,
learning that is new to everyone, while students can be seen to engage in new
individual or private learning, learning that is new to them. Learning thus
becomes “the vital link between research and teaching” (p. 268). Brew and
Boud are at pains to emphasise that research cannot be reduced to learning
alone and also that teaching consists of more than enabling students to learn.
They do, however, begin to articulate some cognitive processes, which they
see as common to research and learning. Both are “informed by the tradition
and forms of inquiry characteristic of the discipline”, both involve critical
engagement with existing knowledge and yet seek to go beyond it, “both
involve the human act of making meaning, making sense of phenomena”
(p. 267). Some of the comparisons they draw may be contestable but, as
Elton (2001) points out, what is significant about this approach is that it is
grounded in a student-centred rather than a teacher-centred model of
education. Interest is transferred to the activities of the learner rather than of
the teacher and the affinities between students’ learning and teachers
researching.
Barnett (2000) also focuses on the importance of developing such
affinities. The issue for him is whether lecturers will “adopt teaching
approaches that are likely to foster student experiences that mirror their
lecturers” experiences as researchers (p. 163). His central concern is with the
context in which this matters. Like Jenkins et al., he depicts a world of
uncertainty but he focuses most strongly on its complexity. It is a world, he
argues, in which there are multiple and competing frameworks for
understanding and problem-solving that not only change but also are not
necessarily commensurable. This implies changing conceptions of academic
work. In their research function, academics become responsible for
“contributing to the supercomplexity of the life-world”, creating new
conceptual and epistemological frameworks but also promoting public
understanding of and engagement with this notion of the world. In their
teaching function, they will be helping their students to manage, but also
prepare themselves to contribute to, an ever-evolving supercomplexity.
Conclusions
There may be different conceptions of the researching-teaching nexus
but academics and students from a relatively wide range of institutions testify

to what it means for them and why they value it. Recent literature tends
towards the idea of a research-teaching-study nexus.
Research-informed teaching and learning are seen as important for:
a) the acquisition and critical appreciation of substantive knowledge in the
context of assumptions that that knowledge is partial and in process of
development and revision within a regulated environment;
b) understanding of the processes through which that knowledge is acquired;
c) learning the skills to practice “disciplined inquiry” sanctioned by an
epistemic community or institution.
The studies in themselves leave open the question of whether research-
based learning is for everyone in higher education.
Two main views of the aims, value and context of research-informed
teaching and learning have been depicted. The first remains rooted in academic
activities, identities, cultures and institutions. Students are inducted into and
can benefit from learning within them and, indeed, take those benefits away
with them. There is an underlying assumption of an accepted hierarchical
ordering of knowledge and that lies in academic hands.
A more extensive view is that the aims and value of research-informed
teaching and learning should be defined by reference to the changed societies
in which they are now located. Recently a number of higher education
scholars have sought to justify them in these terms, either analytically or by
reference to empirical study.
They suggest two ways of thinking about the nexus between research,
teaching and learning in contemporary “knowledge” societies.
a) Knowledge societies are understood as depending upon continuing
systematic or disciplined inquiry to drive them economically and socially
and to solve their problems. The value of research-informed teaching and
learning is primarily that students learn attitudes, techniques and skills
that enable them to adopt the appropriate roles and provide as robust forms
of knowledge as possible in a context where knowledge generates demand
for further inquiry and problem-solving.
b) nature of knowledge. The value of research-informed teaching and learning
(or the research-teaching-study nexus) is that students learn from their
teachers how to manage that complexity but also to contribute new
frameworks in which it can be understood.
In many ways these approaches re-state long held values. However, there is
a shift of emphasis from substance to process, as well as from academic teaching
to student learning. The shifts are important and valuable but they risk
overstating the importance of modes of knowledge acquisition and
underestimating the importance of substantive knowledge in the process of and

29
as a purpose of learning. Substantive knowledge is not only itself a resource for

different ways of seeing, understanding and solving problems but also a source of
pleasure, memory, imagination, human consciousness and human values.
The author:
Mary Henkel
Senior Lecturer, Department of Government
Centre for the Evaluation of Policy and Practice
Brunel University, Kingston lane, UB8 3PH Uxbridge
Mary.Henkel@brunel.ac.uk
References
BARNETT, R. (2000), Realizing the University in an age of supercomplexity, Buckingham and
Philadelphia: SRHE and Open University Press.
BAXTER MAGOLDA (1999), Impact of the Undergraduate Summer Scholar Experience on
Epistemological Development, Florida, University of Miami.
BREEN, R. and R. LINDSAY (1999), “Academic Research and Student Motivation”,
Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 75-93.
CLARK, B.R. (1991), “The Fragmentation of Research, Teaching and Study: an
explorative essay” in M. A. Trow and T. Nybom (eds.) University and Society: Essays
on the Social Role of Research and Higher Education, London: Jessica Kingsley
Publishers, pp. 101-111.
CLARK, B.R. (1995), Places of Inquiry: Research and Advanced Education in Modern
Universities, Berkeley, Los Angeles and London, University of California Press.
CLARK, B.R. (1997), “The Modern Integration of Research Activities with Teaching and
Learning”, Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 68, No. 3, pp. 241-255.
HATTIE, J. and H.W. MARSH (1996), “The Relationship between Research and Teaching:
a meta-analysis”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 66, No. 4, pp. 507-542.
HENKEL, M. (2000), Academic Identities and Policy Change in Higher Education, London:
Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
JENKINS, A., R. BREEN, R. LINDSAY with A. BREW (2003), Reshaping Teaching in Higher
Education: Linking Teaching with Research, London: Kogan Page.
LINDSAY, R., R. BREEN and A. JENKINS (2002), “Academic Research and Teaching
Quality: the views of undergraduate and postgraduate students”, Studies in Higher
Education, Vol. 27, No. 3.
NEUMANN, R. (1994), “The Teaching-Research Nexus: applying a framework to
university students’ learning experiences”, European Journal of Education, Vol. 29,
No. 3, pp. 323-339.
NYBOM, T. (2003), “The Humboldt Legacy: reflections on the past, present and future
of the European University”, Higher Education Policy, Vol. 16, pp. 141-159.
POLANYI, M. (1973), Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy, London:
Routledge and Kogan Paul.
RAMSDEN, P. and I. MOSES (1992), “Associations between Research and Teaching in
Australian Higher Education”, Higher Education, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 273-295.
ROWLAND, S. (1996), “Relationships between Teaching and Research”, Teaching in
Higher Education, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 7-19.

ISSN 1682-3451
Volume 16, No. 2
© OECD 2004
Information and Communication

Technologies:
a Tool Empoweringand Developing
the Horizon of the Learner
Information and Communication Technologies a Tool Empowering...
by
Olivier Debande and Eugenia Kazamaki Ottersten
European Investment Bank*
In this article, we focus on the implementation and development

of ICT in the education sector, challenging and developing the
traditional learning environment whilst introducing new educational
tools including e-learning. The paper investigates ICT as a tool
empowering and developing learners lifelong learning opportunities.
It defines a model of ICT development and identifies three core
development stages through which basic skills, ICT skills, and
lifelong learning skills are acquired. The paper further gives a
description of the ICT impact on labour and education markets, the
current state of development of ICT at school in EU and the needs for
further investment in this area. The findings of this paper suggest
that such investment is likely to have positive effects when geared
towards blended learning approaches built on comprehensive policy
and strategies to cover all stages, as well as all agents in its
interesting but complex development.
* The views expressed in this paper are solely those of the authors, and do not
necessarily reflect the position of the European Investment Bank.

31
INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES
Introduction
The information-based economy underlines the importance of knowledge,
i.e. human capital, as a key input in the production/service process. A core tool
in this process are the advances in information and communication
technologies (ICT), which are transforming most modern economies while
presenting new challenges to labour markets, the traditional learning
environment and everyday life in industrialized and developing countries.
ICT is a combination of manufacturing and services industries, which
capture, transmit and display data and information by electronic means.1 The
definition of ICT adheres to “industries that capture, transmit and display data
and information by electronic means”, these industries and the new associated
markets increasingly are creating challenges and opportunities both in terms of
their technical advancement and their socio-economic impact; but also in
terms of finding adequate financial instruments to deal with the challenges
they offer. Meanwhile ICT has pervasive effects affecting the evolution of both
labour and education markets, generating new needs and challenges in each of
them while at the same time furthering the interaction between these two
markets, as described in Figure 1. The introduction of ICT technologies presents
tremendous opportunity in the traditional education market.
Figure 1. The ICT impact on the labour and education markets

Blended learning approach
Hard/software
ICT skills Information and Content
E training communication technologies Training D
m Service provider e
p v
o ICT skills gap e
Labour market Traditional education
w l
market
e o
r e-Learning p
i Life long learning Digital/virtual i
n On-the-job training learning n
g g
Skill
Educational
Corporate
R&D institutions
Definition
of projects
Broadening learning horizon
Source: Author.

Figure 1 should be seen in a dynamic way reflecting the convergence

between the introduction of ICT at school, workplace and home. Over time
there will be larger coherence on the development and use of hardware/
software (content) in these three spaces to make products and services
available, accessible and transferable between these spaces.
Clearly, globalisation, the rate with which organisational changes take
place and new technologies develop have led to an increased demand for
human capital to promote the knowledge society in which the development,
application of information and communication technology and continuous
training to producers and consumers is crucial. Emerging dynamic labour
markets offer an increasing supply of jobs with normally abstract tasks,
requiring significant training and skills. There is subsequent pressure on the
education market to deliver the appropriate knowledge base. Learning and
training in a lifelong learning context are key to work life, growth and social
cohesion. EU policies and guidelines strive towards an enhancement of the role
of ICT-tools in schools so as to provide an up to date learning environment.
In this article, we will primarily focus on the implementation and
development of ICT in the education sector, challenging and developing the
traditional learning environment whilst introducing new educational tools
including e-Learning. In the OECD terminology,2 the notion of e-Learning refers
to the impacts of new ICT on education and training, involving new
mechanisms for communication such as computer networks, multimedia
technologies, electronic libraries, distance learning and web-enabled
classrooms. It encompasses three different strands which have to be integrated
into a comprehensive policy: i) infrastructure and equipment; ii) educational
multimedia resources and training services; and iii) training facilities for
teachers and for lifelong learning. The nature of the e-Learning assets are
characterised by i) the level of asset specificity (i.e. transactions requiring
intangible or tangible capital assets that are “specific” and exclusive to them)
and complementarity between the different stages required to ensure the
appropriate delivery of the services (i.e. infrastructure/connectivity, content and
teachers’ training); ii) the wide range of useful life of the different blended
assets (30 months to 30 years); and iii) the uncertainty and rapid technical
change requiring to integrate the rate of obsolescence linked to asset life in the
terms of the contract.
The inclusion of ICT in education is related to four main rationales:
i) social based on the recognition of the role played by technology in society,
the need for education to reflect the concerns of society, to demystify
technology for pupils/students and to provide the basic competences or
understanding of ICT to ensure participation in society and to foster social
cohesion; ii) economic or vocational driven by the requisite of ensuring that
the system is preparing students for jobs which require skills in technology;

33
iii) pedagogical linked to the fact that technology will assist the teaching
learning process through better communications and higher quality
pedagogical materials and hence enhance the teaching of traditional subjects
in the curriculum; and iv) catalytic through external effects on society by
improving the cost-effectiveness of the delivery of educational services; on the
education system by reshaping the power relationships between teachers and
learners and by facilitating the transmission of knowledge and the acquisition
of skills for disadvantaged communities.
Figure 1 summarizes some of these interactions by focusing on the
impact of the inclusion of ICT on the education and labour markets, where
eLearning is a core element of ICT in these markets. The eLearning concept in
a wider sense refers to the use of network technologies to create, deliver, and
facilitate learning anytime anyway! This means that the core of e-Learning is
the learning as such: often referring to computer-based training, web-based
training, on-line training and just-in-time training.
Experience so far has shown that the eLearning should come in a
“blended learning approach” delivery. This means that there is a need of
designing and delivering the right content, in the right format, with the right
media often providing a mix of the different tools normally “just in time”.
Hence the new learning vision bears in large on “learning” development
allowing innovative tools empowered by ICT technology. This learning refers
to a life skill developing and broadening the horizon of school.
In the recent years boosted by the development of the ICT, a largely
uncritical consensus emerged among policy-makers about the potential
benefits of new information and communication instruments in education. As
an illustration of this trend, in the US a web-based education commission3
emphasised the awe-inspiring power of the Internet to transform the
educational experience and to meet the education challenges of the
information age. In the European Union, in addition to the various national
policies supporting the introduction of ICT into the educational system, the
European Commission4 was implementing different measures to accelerate
the changes in the education and training systems for the move to a
knowledge based economy in parallel to various policies concerning the
telecommunication industry, the labour market. The potentialities of the ICT
in education have been also considered for developing countries through
various initiatives supported by the UNESCO and the World Bank.5
However despite the different initiatives supported at the national or
European level, the dissemination of ICT into the educational systems
essentially focused on the provision of infrastructure and equipment to
schools and higher education institutions but with a lack of effort to develop
in parallel the appropriate learning materials and to train the teachers to

make an efficient use of this new instrument. In other words, the process has
been driven by technology rather than by pupils, teachers and wider
community need. In addition, very few papers trying to assess the potential of
ICT to transform the learning process in a sustainable and viable way are
available given the novelty of the process.
The paper uses a wide e-Learning concept underlining that eLearning
simply serves a way of learning where to be a successful tool the focus needs
to be on the learning part rather than on the e. The main result of our paper
stresses the importance of a blended educational learning approach, which
deals with the ICT challenges facing the development of the education system
particularly at the school level.
We opt at identifying the current state of ICT, needs and possible education
effects so far. The developing market of e-Learning and its links to the corporate
world is briefly assessed. The study discusses potential investment
opportunities, including the development of public private partnerships, to
achieve national and European targets of ICT/e-learning. The starting point will
be the different stages of development, referring to Connectivity, Integration, and
Deployment – what they have in common and how to identify the next stage and
subsequent needs in EU countries. We suggest that the next stage is to develop
a balanced ICT Blended Learning Strategy Approach.
In the second section we review the current development of ICT in
education in Europe. The third section presents the cost of ICT. The fourth
section discusses the current policies implemented across Europe. Investment
needs are presented in the fifth section. Concluding remarks feature in the
last section.
ICT State in Europe

The ICT penetration in Europe
The diffusion of ICT has been very important over the last years. The rate
of penetration of ICT equipments has been different in the workplaces, at
home, at schools and in community places like the libraries. Indeed, ICT
contributes to economic growth by facilitating the adoption of innovations
and organisations changes in the enterprises and by increasing in some
markets the level of competition. The growth of the ICT sector has also a direct
impact on the economic growth. The share of ICT expenditure in the European
Union is increasing. In 2001, this share was 4.2% of the GDP, up from 3.6%
in 1991. In comparison with the United States, there is a clear catching-up
process of Europe: the corresponding estimated GDP share was 5.3% in 2001, a
decrease compared to the level of 5.7% reached in 1991. Among the European
countries, Sweden, the United Kingdom and Luxembourg are investing more
ICT than the United States in 2001, with a respective share of ICT expenditure

35
in GDP equal to 6.8%, 5.6% and 5.4%. There is an important disparity between
the North and the South of Europe: in Greece, they are only investing 1.2% of
GDP in ICT; and Italy, they reached 2.5% of GDP in 2001.
Considering the number of PC base (see Figure 2), a sharp increase was
observed between 1990 and 2001, with an average number of PCs installed per
100 inhabitants in the European Union rising from 7 to 31, corresponding to an
increase of 16% p.a. Although the annual average increase is higher in the EU,
the gap with respect to the US still remained important where the number of
per inhabitant increases from 20 to 62.3. No EU countries outperform the
United States, even if Scandinavian countries are converging to the United
States level of PC equipment. Among the European Union, some clustering
appears between countries. The Nordic countries, the Benelux, Ireland, the
United Kingdom and Germany have a high level of PC penetration, while
Southern and Candidate countries are lagging behind. For example, in 1999,
Greece had 8.5 PCs per 100 inhabitants while Sweden had 56.3, which
corresponds to 6.6 times more computers in per capita terms.
“The Internet is perhaps the most transformative technology in history,
reshaping business, media, entertainment, and society in astonishing was.
But for all its power, it is just now being tapped to transform education”
(Kerrey report, 2000).
Figure 2. Average PCs installed per 100 inhabitants in Europe, United States
and Japan
1990 2001
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Po blic
Au ion
Fin nds
pu ic
Be dom
s
J ny
xe ed s
ec u y
ia
Cz ak R La in
ng d
d rel d
rm m
M ia
G and
n a
ov ia
Sp ia
m ia
pe ra n
I l
Un e
h pu a
id L nga e
Cy alta
rtu s
Es taly
Ne en urg
b n
er rk
ga
Bu trie
Lu Swtate
ou ani
at ith r
an nc
ec e tvi
Hu reec
Po pru
Ki an
ite I lan
ro F apa
m e
Re bl
an
en
Sl str
Ro lgar
a
Ge lgiu
th ma
to
D o
la
l
S
d
ite
Un
ov
Un
Eu
Sl
nd
Ca
Source: Eurostat (2002), NewCronos database.

Figure 3. Internet users per 100 inhabitants in Europe, United States

and Japan
1998 2001
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
ou blic
Ire ion
d ds
rtu c
rm m
s
Ne en den
xe us y
d inl s
th ry
ia
ov n
Be land
La ia
ng d
ak Po nia
p d
bo a
Es ium
a
m ia
Un n
nd ch Gr gal
at ep ce
Bu tvia
Fr aly
S e
ro J urg
Un ther ark
Po ubli
Hu trie
Lu A an
ite F ate
m tri
ni
c
Sl pai
Ki an
Re lan
an pa
an
n
Ro gar
Ge do
Li nga
ite lan
id R ee
an
It
ua
e
to
m
ec u
D e
pe a
lg
St
n
Sw
l
ov
Ca ze
Un
Eu
C
Sl
Considering another indicator reflecting the rate of penetration of ICT, i.e.

the number of Internet users per 100 inhabitants, the difference between the
Nordic countries plus the Netherlands; and the rest of the European Union is
even more striking as described in Figure 3. In this case, Sweden, Denmark
and the Netherlands are outperforming the United States in 2001, reflecting a
strong growth over the last year. The discrepancy between the United States
and the European Union still remained in 2001 denoting an increase in the
disparity between EU countries.
The last indicator reflecting the penetration or diffusion of ICT is the
average number of Internet hosts per 100 inhabitants. The leadership of the
United States in 2001 is obvious as described in Figure 4, while the same
difference in terms of Internet hosts per capita among European countries
prevails.
This analysis of the global diffusion of ICT in the different European
countries allows to rank the countries in function of their responsiveness to
the introduction of the information technologies.
Extending the discussion to the education sector, we could infer that
there is great variation in the deployment of ICT. It is also plausible that the
countries, which have come furthest in terms of development of ICT are the
most likely to be the adopters of e-Learning.

37
Figure 4. Average number of Internet hosts per 100 inhabitants in Europe,

United States and Japan
1995 2001
30
25
20
15
10
0 S lic
Es nion
nm ds
id L La lic
U m
Ro lgar s
Au den
ey
Ire any
pu ta
Ne Fin ates
pu s
Po ary
Tu nia
ov in
Fr and
er nd
G nia
ak Cy and
n ia
J tria
pe g m
xe I a
m ia
Eu d lg n
h M al
ng e
e c u ia
Ge bou y
rtu e
rm rg
e k
Bu trie
Re pru
Lu toni
Hu reec
m tal
Po anc
Sw ar
ite Be apa
ou an
g
at ith tv
Re al
Sl pa
an do
ro Kin iu
rk
De lan
th la
a
e
s
l
St
d
ite
ec
Un
ov
Cz
Un
Sl
nd
Ca
ICT in schools at a glance6

The development of ICT in schools in the European Union reflects to
some extent the pace of diffusion of ICT at a more global level and has been
supported by the implementation of national policies in all European
countries. The objectives at the national level generally cover the equipment,
the acquisition and development of software, the skills of teachers and pupils
and the use of Internet. Two recent Eurobarometer studies7 showed that the
level of uptake of new technologies in Europe’s schools has been picking up,
and that it goes beyond mere equipment levels, meaning that the level of
training, the attitude of teachers and usage patterns are also important.
These two studies, performed by means of interviews with principals
in 2001,8 show that there are 12 pupils per computer in European Union
schools on average, with large discrepancies between countries as described
in Figure 5. Denmark, Finland, Luxembourg and Sweden, present low numbers
of pupils per computers, while Greece and Portugal present high numbers.
Important differences also exist between levels of education, secondary
schools being in general better equipped with computer facilities.
With regard to discrepancies to computers connected to the Internet (i.e.
on-line computers), the EU average more than doubles at 24 pupils per on-line
computer with figures ranging from 5 to 75. The difference between the ratios

Figure 5. Percentage of pupils per computer (off-line computers)

in 2001 in the European Union
Primary Secondary Professional/technical All schools

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
n
ds
m
en
y
ain
d
d
ria
ce
l
ce
ly
g
ga
an
io
ar
lan
lan
ur
Ita
do
iu
lan
ee
an
ed
st
Un
Sp
rtu
nm
bo
rm
lg
Ire
Fin
Au
ng
Gr
Fr
Sw
er
Be
Po
m
Ge
an
De
Ki
th
xe
pe
Ne
d
Lu
ite
ro
Un
Eu
Source: Eurobarometer survey Flash 101 “Head teachers – June 2001”.
is higher for the primary schools reflecting the fact that Internet connections
are less used for educational purposes at this level than at the secondary level.
In terms of number of schools connected to the Internet, the European
Union were close to reach the target of having an access for all schools by the
end of 2001 (see Figure 6). Most European countries achieved a level of Internet
access higher than 80%, except Austria, Portugal and Greece. The level of
connection differs between the type of education, less schools being
connected at the primary level compared to secondary and professional/
technical education.
The preceding indicator has to be compared with the proportion of pupils
that could really use the connection to Internet in the schools. The EU average
shifted from 89% to 80%, the discrepancy between the number of schools
connected and the ones in which pupils have access to the Internet being
particularly for the primary education.
Although the ranking between the countries remains similar, the Internet
offer is substantially reduced in Germany, Spain and Luxembourg when
considering the percentage of schools in which pupils have an Internet access.
Most of the computers used in EU schools are rather recent, mostly less
than three years old. In addition, countries that recently have started to equip
their schools with computers have the most updated ones. Further, 76% of EU

39
Figure 6. Percentage of schools connected to the Internet in 2001

in the European Union

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
n
ds
m
en
ain
d
d
ria
ce
ly
ce
g
k
ga
an
io
ar
lan
lan
ur
Ita
do
iu
lan
ee
an
ed
st
Un
Sp
rtu
nm
bo
rm
lg
Ire
Fin
Au
ng
Gr
Fr
Sw
er
Be
Po
m
Ge
an
De
Ki
th
xe
pe
Ne
d
Lu
ite
ro
Un
Eu
Figure 7. Percentage of pupils having access to the Internet in 2001

in the European Union

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
n
ds
m
en
ain
d
d
ria
ce
ly
ce
g
k
ga
an
io
ar
lan
lan
ur
Ita
do
iu
lan
ee
n
ed
st
Un
Sp
rtu
nm
bo
rm
a
lg
Ire
Fin
Au
ng
Gr
Fr
Sw
er
Be
Po
m
Ge
an
De
Ki
th
xe
pe
Ne
d
Lu
ite
ro
Un
Eu

schools have a computer laboratory, while more than half of EU schools have
classrooms fitted with computers, a third of the schools have equipped the
school’s library with computers, while about 11% of EU schools are equipped
by laptops.9
One important feature of Internet connectivity for schools is the type of
connection. The European landscape is dominated by the ISDN (72% of school
connections) and standard dial-up (33%). Broadband connection is progressing,
depending on the technologies available in each country. Geographical factors,
i.e. urban versus rural, and the types of education, i.e. professional/technical,
secondary and primary, are at the origin of important differences. Broadband
technologies are more developed in densely populated areas and the need for
bandwidth is higher in professional/technical and secondary educations.
Reviewing the use of off-line computers used by teachers, Figures 9a and
9b demonstrates the wide use of computers in the education process, with an
indicative strong correlation between level of equipment and frequency of
usage..
The same applies to the use of Internet. Two other factors that seem to affect
the usage are firstly, the type and level of education (usage level is lowest in
primary education) and secondly the gender of teachers (males are more frequent
users of computers and ICT in education). So far concerning the types of
Figure 8. Type of Internet connections in schools in 2001
Standard dial-up ISDN line ADSL line Cable modem

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
ds
ce
m
n
d
l
g
om
y
ain
ce
xe aly
en
Po a
k
ga
an
ri
io
lan
ar
ur
lan
iu
ee
lan
an
ed
st
It
rtu
Sp
Un
nm
d
bo
rm
lg
Ire
Fin
Gr
Au
ng
Fr
Sw
er
Be
m
Ge
De
an
Ki
th
pe
Ne
d
Lu
ite
ro
Un
Eu

41
Figure 9a. EU teachers (%) using off-line computers with pupils in 2001

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
n
ds
m
en
ain
d
d
ria
ce
ly
ce
g
k
ga
an
io
ar
lan
lan
ur
Ita
do
iu
lan
ee
an
ed
st
Un
Sp
rtu
nm
bo
rm
lg
Ire
Fin
Au
ng
Gr
Fr
Sw
er
Be
Po
m
Ge
an
De
Ki
th
xe
pe
Ne
d
Lu
ite
ro
Un
Eu
Source: Eurobarometer survey Flash 102 “Teachers – June 2001”.
Figure 9b. EU teachers (%) using on-line computers with pupils in 2001

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
n
ds
m
en
ain
d
d
Ne ium
ce
ce
ly
rg
k
ga
an
io
tri
ar
lan
lan
Ita
o
u
lan
ee
an
ed
Un
Sp
rtu
gd
nm
bo
rm
lg
Ire
Fin
Au
Gr
Fr
Sw
er
Be
n
Po
m
Ge
an
De
Ki
th
xe
pe
d
Lu
ite
ro
Un
Eu
Source: Eurobarometer survey Flash 102 “Teachers – June 2001”.

education, ICT is essentially considered as a tool in primary education for

carrying out projects and is not included in the curriculum per se, while for
secondary education, ICT is an integral part of the minimum curriculum in most
countries. The main reasons advocated by teachers for not using the Internet are
linked to connectivity (school is not connected to the Internet –40%), and
equipment (the school has no computers for education 24%, there is no Internet
access in the classrooms –26%). Only one in five teachers does not use the
Internet because he/she does not believe it is relevant to his/her teaching with a
striking feature: the percentage is the highest in the countries where Internet is
more developed, i.e. Denmark (43%), Finland (48%) and Sweden (49%).
Meanwhile teachers’ Internet use at home is high – nine out of ten
European teachers have a computer at home and seven out of ten have an
Internet connection at home with the exception of Greek teachers. And, again
with the exception of Greece, the overall picture is much less contrasted than
at school level. Further, in 92% of cases teachers have themselves paid for their
personal computers. In only 4% and 2% of the cases have they been paid for by
the government or school respectively. As for government sponsorship it is
particularly common in Sweden (over 20%), and to a lesser extent in Denmark,
Spain, the Netherlands, and Britain (10%). School sponsorship is further
significant in Denmark and Sweden (10%).
Finally we have seen some data on the development of the ICT tools in
schools. Having a traditionally passive role, this is gradually changing making
the tools an integral part of the teaching with a need to reform the curricula.
However, although some individual schools have reached this level it is by far
the general experience and many countries have a long way to go to reach there.
ICT stages of development

As demonstrated in the previous section today dissemination of ICT in
the education sector in Europe is at different stages with varying needs of
further development. Southern European countries overall have a low rate of
penetration in terms of coverage as well as in terms of variety of educational
tools proposed to pupils and students, while countries like Sweden and the
United Kingdom, for example, have a higher rate of penetration. In most pre-
accession countries, projects for the use of ICT at all levels of education are
gradually implemented, while concurrent measures are taken in the labour
market and for community and lifelong learning enhancement.
The introduction and wide dissemination of ICT in schools and universities
requires substantial investment in organisation, facilities, equipment,
management and teacher training programmes. This is further an area that
develops in a quick pace and therefore it also comes with a need for future
strategies. Software and curriculum development are particularly lagging

43
behind and consequently also have to be developed, as need is to enhance the

skills of managers, teachers, and service suppliers. The home environment
will also play a significant role in support of development and interest.
eLearning has to be seen in such a wider context.
Herein the ICT market is analysed in view of its different stages of
development – connectivity, integration and deployment – in view of its inputs
which mainly are its components, defined by its infrastructure and hardware,
software and e-learning, services, teacher training and support and research
and development and its outputs defined as i) Computer literacy and basic
skills, ii) Flexibility, e-Learning activity and proficiency and deeper skills,
iii) Community enhancement and lifelong-learning as shown in Figure 10.
The stages as such represent gradual introduction into a wider Blended
Learning Approach where ICT is fully implemented and works. This means that
having reached the third state of development, countries are moving towards
a state where new opportunities for learning are provided within a blended
learning approach be it in schools, work life or at home, with a mix of different
Figure 10. ICT stages of development
INPUT
TEACHER TRAINING
INFRASTRUCTURE/ SOFTWARE/ AND
SERVICES SUPPORT
HARDWARE CONTENT ORGANISATIONAL
CHANGE
Building
Design/infrastructure
I. CONNECTIVITY ICT areas/
laboratories
Wining, cabling,
Networks, computers
Software Facilities Curricula
management
S
T Educational Network Management
A II. INTEGRATION content services training
G
E Helpdesk Teacher
activities training
Community use
of computers
Learning centres
III. DEPLOYMENT
E-links between
schools/universities
and business (SMEs)
and labour market
I. COMPUTER II. FLEXIBILITY III. COMMUNITY

LITERACY ENHANCEMENT
Basic skills ICT skills Life long

learning
OUTPUT
Source: Author.

means and tools to achieve this and where these three spaces interact. In fact
so far we have looked at quantities mostly in terms of how many and to which
degree computers are used at schools.
Recent evaluations show that even in the countries, which appear to
have the most number of computers implementation of ICT as such into the
school and the curricula has not yet succeeded. A case is Sweden moving
into the third stage of development and in spite of huge efforts and money
spent on ICT technology, the technology has not been fully used to the
satisfaction of teachers and pupils. Basically it has to do with the approach
taken – to supply computers – later this approach was complemented with
training to the teachers – finally the teaching as such has still not changed
fundamentally and there is need to refocus targets, where exactly targets
and standards and aims to be reached need to be set in advance. In other
words this calls for a strategy.
Hence, the risk of implementing EU-guidelines can be that too much
focus is placed on the number of computers/connexions, etc., per pupil while
loosing sight of the wider framework of aims, targets and compliance to
country specifics.
However, despite the long way to go before ICT is fully integrated in the
school environment clearly there are benefits related to the output described
in the preceding Figure and subsequent effects and externalities of ICT, e.g.:
I. Computer Literacy and Basic Skills:
● Enhancement of teaching tools and curriculum to fit modern needs.
● Enhancement of hard/software, helpdesk facilities and management
within this area.
● Enhancement of educational achievement.
● Decrease in dropouts and repetition rates.
II. Flexibility, E-learning Activity and Proficiency, Deeper Skills
● Advancement in modern curricula being developed, applied and
monitored.
● Enhancement of virtual learning opportunities.
● Enhancement of educational networks.
● Enhancement and research and development to further ICT educational
tools.
● Enhancement of just in time learning.
● Enhancement of creativity and innovation in learning.
● Closer integration of formal, non-formal and informal learning.

45
III. Community Enhancement, Lifelong Learning

● Regional development.
● Probability of being employed will increase.
● Given employment, higher rates of return (higher salary).
● Community use-at-large of computers when they are not being used for
educational purposes.
● Enhancement of lifelong-learning opportunities.
● Higher educational and social aspirations, and ability to assess learning
at different stages in life, ages and when necessary with a just-in-time
approach.
● Overall positive spill over effects.
● Improved partnerships (public-public and public-private) between
schools and museums, between universities and industry, for example.e
IV. Blended Learning Approach – an integrated view
● A final reach of a blended just in time and lifelong learning approach
encouraging an integrated school (applying a variety of tools)-work-
leisure approach.
● Opening opportunities between schools all over the world – using the
most up to date tools.
● Learning transcending the borders of schools, colleges and universities
to offer a more lifelong learning approach.
Hence, the wider implementation and integration of e-Learning in a
blended learning approach where all the above fall into place is expected to
resume in cost efficiencies as well as cost effectiveness to the schools/pupils/
teachers/staff, companies, and to the community in large.
The costs of educational information and communication technology

In terms of financing ICT investment resources are most commonly
coming from the public school sector. However, a small fraction of school
computers (14%) have been donated by private sources to a varying degree
between countries. Private sponsorship is most common in Austria, Germany,
and the Netherlands (28-30%), less common in Portugal, Greece and Ireland
(20-22%), and least common in Luxembourg, Denmark, Sweden and Finland
(4% and below).
Few countries provide a distribution of expenditure among the various
categories, i.e. equipment and human resources. Based on the existing
information, 10 it appears that expenditure on equipment and facilities
dominates in the budget dedicated to ICT. Finland and Greece are the two only
countries allocating more funds for the training of human resources. In large

this demonstrates the state of development that the countries are in and also
that it will yet take time until a fully integrated approach is launched.
We will briefly assess the kind of costs that programmes implementing,
maintaining and developing information technology in schools would induce
with regard to the introduction, maintenance and development of ICT
technologies. However, we cannot present a comprehensive picture. This is an
area subject to fast development. Solutions have to be left to the experts.
Hence the cost table is a rough tool that indicates some of the costs that may
be included.
Table 1. Example of costs of the implementation of ICT
Fixed F/Variable V Capital C or recurrent R

cost cost
Infrastructure Furniture F C
Equipment Computers
Power protection
Backup generator
Broadband
Installation Air conditioning F C
Software site licences For V depending on the C

agreement
Learning management/ V R
content/organisation
Training of teachers and F C
laboratory instructor/
constructor
Helpdesk /training/ V R
management/organisation
Training/professional C & R1
development
Electricity V R
Teacher time V R
Peripherals V
Telecommunications Telephone V R
Internet provider
Computer supplies F C
Maintenance and services Equipment V R
provision Software
Routine
Insurance F R
More…
1. The professional development of staff generates recurrent costs to provide follow-up training
teachers and administration to enable them to use information and communication technology in
a more efficient manner.
Source: Author.

47
An example of costs is provided in Osin (1998) were estimates for costs for
Israel to implement such a program are assessed. With a ratio of 12 students
per computer (which is very close to the current EU average), the total
annualised costs were estimated to be approximately USD210 per student.
Other studies, undertaken for the United States as quoted in Osin, present
cost estimates ranging between USD120 to USD450. A ballpark figure of
USD300 per student could then be a qualified first good estimate of the unit
cost to estimate the impact of such programs in country budgets.11
Cost comparison may involve the cost per student computer contact-
hour of a computer laboratory configuration versus a classroom configuration
and in the last instance a laptop configuration. However, as indicated, because
we wish to see a more integrated learning strategy approach all these figures
will be poor indicators of the overall costs of the inclusion of ICT.12 Overall in
the long-run the investment in this area is expected to bring with it a number
of benefits as previously noted including savings in costs and increased
effectiveness.
Policies and implementation

In this section we review the policy recommendations of the EU
Commission on ICT and eLearning and the implementation of these policies.
The different stages of implementation will serve as our starting point.13
At the European level, the “e-learning: Designing tomorrow’s education”
initiative14 has been adopted by the European Commission in May 2000 following
the Lisbon Summit. This initiative is part of the comprehensive eEurope action
plan15 aiming to exploit the European strengths and overcome the barriers
holding back the uptake of digital technologies. Managed by the Education and
Culture DG, the concrete lines of action have been defined in the e-Learning
action plan16 for the period 2001-2004 to develop the comprehensive use of ICT
into education and training:
● to create flexible infrastructures and equipment that will make e-learning
available to all;
● to promote universal digital literacy and create a culture of lifelong
learning;
● to develop high quality European educational content;
● to promote co-operation between players involved in the delivery of e-learning.
This European initiative will extend in the framework of the “e-Learning
2004-2006 programme” with a budget of EUR 36 million aiming to promote
effective integration of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in
education and training systems in Europe. The rationale for this programme is
grounded in the ability of using ICT as a new form of literacy – digital literacy

– which together with more traditional forms of literacy and numeracy allows
citizens to participate fully in the knowledge society and to sustain social
cohesion.
This initiative clearly demonstrates that eLearning is primarily a concept
of “learning” making use of ICT technologies, subsequently organising the
learning bits differently than accustomed by the traditional educational
environment offering new opportunities and bringing learning to a larger
public. This is also demonstrated by the inclusion of ICT in a number of other
programmes and EU activities.17
Implementation stages
Connectivity
There is a gap between European Union member countries with regard to
ICT implementation at all educational levels as demonstrated. Within this
area given the general guidelines and targets set by the Commission,
countries are faced with needs to narrow the gaps to meet guidelines (see
www.elearningeuropa.info/dir_national.php?lng=1 for information on national
strategies in eLearning). Accession countries will have to catch up with the
rest (average) of Europe and there is a wide spread on where the different
countries are currently.
Briefly falling out of our previous discussion in terms of the European
Union countries – there are countries at the stage of dissemination or close to
dissemination (Sweden, Finland, UK and to some extent Denmark,18 the
Netherlands and Ireland), countries on average we would characterise as
being those in the middle of integration, and we have a few real low key
performers in the state of connectivity (Greece19 and Portugal).
Considerable progress is being made with the implementation of coherent
and effective policy and regulatory framework. Over the last years, the
candidate countries have made great strides in basic access to communications.
Accession countries all come in at the lower level of implementation. With a few
exceptions, there is still a low penetration of computers in schools. The costs of
the Internet access vary widely in candidate countries. Costs are considered
relatively high, and that means lower regular usage. In addition, there is
substantial divergence between the countries for all three levels (primary,
secondary, and tertiary), although individual countries have made different
efforts to keep up with the European Union (15) and Estonia in particular is an
example of fast development within this area.20 As such Estonia serves as an
example of the measures to take for the countries coming in late but catching
up fast. As far as we can see no country to date lives up to an integrated blended
learning approach at the school level.

49
Integration
Historically, in February 1997 an agreement was reached regarding the
basic principles and policy issues required for the realization of an advanced
information and communications society and for the promotion of
international joint projects at the G7 ministerial meeting in Brussels. The
Lisbon summit in March 2000 put development of innovation and ICT into a
top priority.
At the Stockholm European Council in March 2001 ICT was again the
focus with new targets to be met, while the need for global commitment has
intensified. Examples – such as School-Net21 – of cooperation over borders
have become more common at all levels of education, and a prerequisite for
Member countries system so as to meet EU-guidelines. Individual countries
have set up national targets as well.
According to the recommendations of the Council of Europe, a desirable
goal for the year 2000 for all elementary and secondary schools was to have at
least one multimedia computer per classroom, connected to a local network
and to national and international networks. In large EU policies aim at
ICT enhancement at all levels of education: primary, secondary, tertiary,
vocational – lifelong learning, and wider e-learning framework activities (see
Section 2 for a short review of the EU policies and the EU e-Learning portal at
www.elearningeuropa.info/ and also Cisco Networking Academy Program website
at www.cisco.com/edu/emea/academy/academy_funding_programmes.shtml).
However, EU-recommendations are often complemented by national
guidelines to better cover national needs. A current trend in several EU
countries is the formation of committees with education and business
representatives to promote ICT in schools and at workplaces. This obviously is
a good step to make the link between the school-industry and finally also the
home/leisure areas all increasingly moving in the same direction in order to
assimilate innovation and allow a blended learning approach.
As discussed in previous sections, variations in European Union countries
with regard to ICT implementation are huge, and development is ongoing some
still exhibiting a large number of pupils per computers while others are in the
process of changing curricula, training teachers, and developing software
applications to be used in training. A complete blended approach has not yet
been formally introduced and there are many opportunities and room for
innovation within this area.
The countries that are further along and in the process of finishing
their first evaluations of the early stages of bringing information and
communication technology into schools – mainly the connectivity and in part
the integration stage are looking into promoting more comprehensive
measures in the future. In addition, the continuation of the development

towards a seemingly virtual world with opportunities of e-Learning is a key

priority with the emphasis on the learning part – however, this again has to be
put in its context.
Deployment
e-Learning creates new opportunities while raising concern and need for
learning management. Learning in this area even within schools and not just
for corporates relates to training and skills management and demands
inclusion in the curricula. Solutions will only be effective if they fit into a
strategy with standards and targets clearly spelled out from the start.
Although at each stage of development requirements will vary in a blended
learning approach a clear cut vision is needed from the start. Such an
approach will bring more long-term coherence in the solutions and practices
to be adopted in the different countries. In all this educational objectives will
be crucial to meet. These will be country specific but with the development in
markets likely to become more and more alike.
Impact of ICT on educational attainment

The availability of equipment in schools as measured by different
indicators such as the ratio of students to computers or the access to Internet
provide an indication of the level of implementation of national policies for
resourcing computers in education but does not give any information about
the quality or effective use of computers for learning.
There is a lack of studies evaluating the impact of the introduction of ICT
tools on pupils’ educational attainment. A first recent paper22 reviewing the
experience of the use of computers on pupils’ educational performance in
Israel does not provide evidence that computer-aided instruction improves
pupil performance. Based on the implementation of the “Tomorrow-
98 Programme” in 1994 aiming at increase the availability and hence use of
computers in elementary school and country’s middle schools, the study
identified a higher likelihood that fourth-grade teachers used computers to
teach mathematics. However, it does not translate into an improvement of
pupils’ attainment: mathematics scores of pupils in schools that received new
computers actually went down. One interpretation coming out of the study is
that either computer aided instruction is not better or less effective than other
teaching methods or alternatively computers may have consumed school
resources or diverted educational activities and teaching effort, which ceteris
paribus would have prevented a decline in educational performance of the
pupils. The study suffers from the following shortcomings: i) the impact of
introducing ICT on educational achievement will need time to develop and
requires an adequate measurement of the benefit streams associated to the
use of ICT as an additional pedagogical tool; ii) the lack of positive effect could

51
result from the need to design and implement a comprehensive e-learning

policy integrating teachers’ training (in terms of adequate pedagogical
methods and ICT skills) and educational multi-media materials development
as well as appropriately designed curriculum; iii) the results of the study need
to be completed by other evaluations of the impact of ICT on educational
performance of pupils.
Additional evidences are now available on the impact of ICT on the
learning process. At an international level, the PISA study integrated a
qualitative assessment of the effect of computers and multi-media resources
on the learning of 15-year-olds pupils. More specifically, school principals
were asked to evaluate to what extent the lack of computers and multi-media
resources for instruction hindered the learning of 15-year-olds pupils. These
results are summarized in Figures 11 and 12.
Evidences about the impact of the lack of computers on pupils’
attainment are mixed: in Germany, Greece, Sweden and United-Kingdom, the
lack of computers was perceived as negatively affecting the learning process
of pupils. On the contrary, in Belgium, France, Luxembourg and Spain, levels
of computer availability were not considered as an obstacle to learning.
Considering the relationship between the perceived intensity of the lack of
Figure 11. Impact of computers on the learning process

Not at all Very little To some extent A lot
% Learning is hindered by a lack of computers for instruction
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
ce
d
ds
ria
n
k
ain
ce
m
ly
en
m
ga
lan
ar
an
ea
lan
ur
Ita
do
an
iu
ee
lan
st
ed
rtu
Sp
nm
bo
m
rm
lg
Fin
Ire
Au
Fr
Gr
ng
Sw
er
Be
Po
m
tr y
De
Ge
Ki
th
xe
un
Ne
d
Lu
ite
Co
Un
Source: OECD (2002), Education at a Glance – OECD Indicators 2002, OECD, Paris.

Figure 12. Impact of multi-media resources on the learning process

Not at all Very little To some extent A lot
% Learning is hindered by the lack of multi-media resources
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
ce
d
ds
ria
n
k
ain
ce
m
ly
en
m
ga
lan
ar
an
ea
lan
ur
Ita
do
an
iu
ee
lan
st
ed
rtu
Sp
nm
bo
m
rm
lg
Fin
Ire
Au
Fr
Gr
ng
Sw
er
Be
Po
m
try
De
Ge
Ki
th
xe
un
Ne
d
Lu
ite
Co
Un
Source: OECD (2002), Education at a Glance – OECD Indicators 2002, OECD, Paris.
computers on the learning process and the number of pupils per computers, a
weak positive correlation could be identified (equal to 0.35): the perception
that the lack of computers is an obstacle to learning increases with the
unavailability of computers.
However, in countries like Sweden or the United-Kingdom, the
availability of computers in schools is high and school principals in these two
countries are concerned by the lack of computers on the learning process. On
the contrary, countries like Greece or Portugal have a low level of development
of ICT infrastructure at school associated with the perception that the low
availability of computers negatively affects the learning process of pupils.
Countries in a middle position in terms of available resources for ICT in
schools appears to be less affected by the lack of computers for instruction.
The perception about the impact of computers and multi-media resources
on the learning process of pupils is relatively similar: the ranking of countries
remains the same, demonstrating the importance of having a comprehensive or
integrated approach in the recourse to ICT tools to support learning.
The access to ICT resources (computers, software) for pupils is not limited
to schools. On the contrary, pupils’ use of computers at home is more frequent:
an average of 64% of 15-year-olds pupils in OECD countries reported having
home computers available for use every day, but only 27% had this facility at
school. To some extent, the introduction of ICT tools at schools followed the

53
rapid pace of development of computers at home requiring to achieve an

adequate complementarity between the availability of resources within and
outside schools. Independently of the effect of ICT on the learning process in
schools, the access to computers in schools will reduce the risk of digital divide
between pupils from different socio-economic background. The PISA study
illustrated that the proportion of pupils saying that they never have a computer
available to use is 10% points higher in the home than at school suggesting a
potential positive effect of schools in helping to bridge the educational gap
between the ones having and having-not access to ICT materials. At the same,
the inclusion of ICT in the curriculum and pedagogical practices has to avoid
creating a disruptive effect between the school and home environment,
especially for pupils not benefiting from the support of digital literate parents.
Investment needs
Based on schools already using computers the major obstacles in
realising the schools ICT related objectives as reported by school principles
were (amongst a list of 18 options):
● that not enough computers were available;
● that the teachers lack the knowledge/skills;
● that it is hard to schedule computing time.23
These issues are indeed basic. Hence, the first investment step is to
overcome the connectivity phase, however, this should be achieved based on
a full strategy being in place.
As a first step ahead the European School Net (EUN) workshop in
March 2000 put forth the following propositions:
1. Create a critical mass of digitally literate teachers;
2. Dare and share – that is do take risks and to promote change;
3. Evidence for the decision-makers speeds up change;
4. Reach the critical mass quickly;
5. ICT is not necessarily subversive – allow teachers to adopt to ICT and
change their teaching methods on their own terms;
6. Organisational change is about individual and collective change and will be
deeply affected by the wider social impact of ICT;
7. Learning in virtual environments can provide real added value;
8. Teacher training should reflect priorities and be achievable;
9. New assessment methodologies and a common measure of ICT competency
will reduce the ICT skills gap;
10. Change requires sustainable business models and possibly a period of
experimentation.

These guidelines are wide encompassing empowering, developing and

providing far-reaching skills/competence. They call for the need for a vision, a
comprehensive policy “beyond just spreadsheets in maths and word-
processing in English” (Mc Kinsey). Hence, a blended learning strategy
approach should be taken in consideration allowing and demanding change in
a number of areas at the school level.
There is a shared recognition that the potential bottlenecks for the
dissemination of ICT in schools (with differences between countries in function
of the level of implementation of the required infrastructure and connectivity)
are essentially in terms of the provision of adequate educational content
complementing the traditional textbook integrated in new pedagogical
methods and organisational framework requiring an upgrading and refocus of
the teachers’ training.
In most European countries, a substantial reduction in the proportion of
public expenditure on education as a proportion of GDP has been observed,
only four countries – Denmark, Greece, Portugal and Sweden – recorded an
increase in the percentage of GDP spent education. The most important part
of the public funds invested in education corresponds to current expenditure,
the most significant part (around 75%) being earmarked for teachers’ salary. At
the same time; on top of budgetary restrictions, public authorities are
confronted with the emergence of new investment needs created by the
promotion of lifelong learning policies, requiring new prioritisation among the
education budget. The reduction or stabilization of the public funds allocated
to the education sector is not compensated by an increase in the private
funding of education and training.
In this environment, despite the “fashion effect” of ICT for education, the
implementation of ICT policies could be slowed down, or at least be reviewed
with the objective of spending existing resources more efficiently. At the same
time, ICT provides opportunities to funding, including the option to recourse to
public-private partnership (PPP). The nature of PPPs will be based on a mix of
the private sector providing technical skills and taking financial risk, with the
public sector contributing long term financial commitment and educational
skills and taking some educational risk, i.e. that the teachers can be trained and
the pedagogy can be developed to ensure effective learning outcomes.
Considering the different provision of the different inputs of a e-Learning
strategy, the infrastructure component is a potential candidate for PPP
solution. Indeed, buildings do reliably predictable things, which can be
contractually defined in terms of the outcomes they make possible. It is
possible to make a reasonable definition of the basics of networks, computers
and software but much more than this is needed for effective e-learning
environments. For the software/content component of an eLearning strategy,

55
it is possible to develop interactive content that has a sufficiently good track

record of producing appropriate educational outcome across large numbers of
pupils for there to be some kind of PPP involved in its provision, distribution,
operation, maintenance and support. However, this is an area probably an
order of magnitude more complex than the “new school buildings”, requiring
additional investigations to learn about really effective e-learning content and
the surrounding pedagogy.
The creation of content remains an important issue. Indeed, the
uncertainty about the relationship between the nature of the educational
content and educational achievement limits the recourse to PPP, at least as a
contractual structure where the learning process and outcome that will result
from the interaction between the pupils and the teachers is used to allocate
risks and define rewards for the private contractor. The risk that the learning
process itself should be effective will remain with the teachers, trainers and
the educational establishments. These key players will wish remain in control
of the content, modifying it; rather like they do at present for a traditional
lesson. This provides a key challenge in terms of the design of content (which
should be modular in order to allow such manipulation) and intellectual
property rights (IPR) (which should allow teachers to add to and mix content,
whilst respecting the underlying property rights). Hence the infrastructure
and learning resources (pre-requisites) are “delivered”, but the eLearning itself
is very much “tailored” to the educational context.
For the teaching component, the recourse to PPP is only possible for the
training aspect. The procurement of teaching through PPP is not adequate
given the complexity of the tasks performed by the teachers and the
associated uncertainty related to the measurement of the outcome of the
teaching process (how to disentangle between the impact of the family, socio-
economic and school environments on pupils performance?).
There are also new opportunities for schools in a wider framework. As
human capital/intellectual capital has become a core asset in the corporate
world, because a modern firm’s performance is reflected in part by the
competencies and skills of its workforce, a schools performance has to be seen
fairly much in the same way. Schools working in an environment of cut
budgets and change need to be more focused as well as skills oriented, at all
levels, on an organisational, staff/service and pupil level. Solutions have been
sought in giving schools more autonomy promoting competitiveness and
innovative financial solutions, including PPP arrangements.
The development will create opportunities while challenging the classic
didactic strategy. A blended learning solution has to deliver at many levels
(organisation/management/staff/service/pupil). Performance indicators spelled
out from the start will measure its success.

Concluding remarks
Given that the ICT sector is characterised by a dynamic evolution the key
role for the education sector is to provide a solid base empowering, developing
and broadening ICT use in schools.
Each country is currently at its own stage in building up the necessary
ICT skills at schools and workplaces. So far evaluations of ICT show that the
initial phases of bringing in computers into schools have not had as positive
effects as was expected on educational attainment (for example based on
the experience in Sweden and the United Kingdom). The cause has been
foremost, connectivity, the lack of an implementation policy and the failure
to train teachers. Hence, even if the number of computers in each country is
a poor measure of the effectiveness of computers in teaching or the
effectiveness of ICT implementation it is a first threshold to overcome. We
have pointed at the different stages of development in this study. Foremost
our focus has been on the provision of a blended learning approach, where
ICT is one source of tools used in a dynamic educational process be it at
schools, at firms or at home.
Educational objectives need to be clear albeit flexible to allow and
develop new educational possibilities and continual training – and in
particular measures in line with growing needs for lifelong learning and social
cohesion.
Teacher training is one crucial part of this development in the
deployment of information technology in the classroom and computers are
powerful instructional tools. But their potential will not be realised without
teachers being trained in their use and continual development. Therefore a
need for blended learning approaches emerges. This area is an area of
opportunity to reach European ICT goals and development.
It is crucial that governments incorporate funding in their recurrent
budgets to follow the development within this area and to provide schools
with means to upgrade their computer skills and familiarise themselves with
the latest software/innovation/development on the market for teaching their
disciplines and to import management learning. Quality educational software
is critical for maximising the instructional benefits of information technology
in schools. All this demands both improved software supply but also improved
ICT services, including the parts of networks – reviewing network costs –
cabling etc it is likely that schools to a larger extent will have to acquire
expertise in these areas employing a business oriented approach, also
profiting from a standardised integrated school/business approach to
capitalise on the lessons learned on the business side.
In particular a comprehensive view needs to be taken to understand from
where investment comes into a fuller picture of future educational development.

57
Possible institutional barriers and regulations within this area may have to be
looked at more carefully, due to differences with regard to legislation, regulation,
and/or security within this area others are in the initial stage.
The authors:
Olivier Debande Eugenia Kazamaki Ottersten
European Investment Bank European Investment Bank
100, Boulevard Konrad Adenauer 100, Boulevard Konrad Adenauer
2950 Luxembourg 2950 Luxembourg
Luxembourg Luxembourg
E-mail: o.debande@eib.org E-mail: e.kazamaki@eib.org
Notes
1. Following an OECD definition (there are several definitions on ICT in the literature).
2. OECD (2001), E-Learning – The partnership challenge, OECD, Paris.
3. See www.webcommission.org.
4. See http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/elearning/doc_en.html.
5. See The World Bank Institute at www.worldbank.org/worldlinks/english/.
6. Analysis of the introduction of ICT into European Education Systems could be found
in the following publications: Eurydice (2001), Basic Indicators on the Incorporation
of ICT into European Education Systems – Fact and Figures, 2000/01 Annual Report,
EC, Brussels (www.eurydice.org/Documents/TicBI/en/FrameSet.htm), European
Commission (2001), eEurope 2002 Benchmarking –European youth into the digital
age, SEC(2001) 1583, 9.11. 2001, Brussels (http://europa.eu.int/information_society/
eeurope/news_library/documents/education_staff_paper/education_en.pdf) and the
related Eurobarometer analysis available at: http://europa.eu.int/information_society/
eeurope/benchmarking/list/2001/index_en.htm.
7. European Commission, DG’s Information Society and Education, Culture, and
Audiovisual, Working Document, Europe 2002, Benchmarking, European youth in
digital age, February 2001.
8. Although the data can be questioned with regard to comparison quality they
provide an overview of the current situation.
9. “The conjunction of high figures for computer labs and low figures for equipped
classrooms in countries that have a high number of pupils per computer, in particular
Italy, Greece and Spain, suggests that the first phase of equipment is to put computers
in dedicated rooms to share them between classes. The second stage would be to
equip classrooms and libraries. Eventually laptops would come into the picture; as is
the case in Finland, Sweden and the UK. However, laptops could also be an alternative
to computer labs to give access to the widest possible number of pupils, as could be
the case in Germany.” p. 12, DG Information Society, DG Education, Culture and
Audiovisual, Europe 2002, Benchmarking, European youth in the digital age.
10. See Eurydice (2001), Basic Indicators on the Incorporation of ICT into European
Education Systems – Fact and Figures, 2000/01 Annual Report, EC, Brussels
(www.eurydice.org/Documents/TicBI/en/FrameSet.htm).

11. Sensitivities around this value could be looked at.

12. In addition, as a comparison companies that have introduced e-learning to take
one example suggest there are many benefits to these investments.
13. See Eurydice study www.eurydice.org/Documents/Survey4/en/FrameSet.htm.
14. COM(2000) 318 final, 24.5.2000, “e-learning – Designing tomorrow’s education”, EC,
Brussels. (http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/e-learning/doc_en.htm)
15. COM(2000) 330, 14.6.2000, “eEurope Action Plan”, EC, Brussels. (http://europa.eu.int/
information_society/eeurope/action_plan/index_en.htm).
16. COM(2001) 172 final, 28/03/2001, “The e-learning Action Plan-Designing tomorrow’s
education”. (http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/e-learning/doc_en.htm). See also the
eLearning portal launched by the EC:
17. In addition to the inclusion of eLearning in different programmes (Leonardo da
Vinci, Lifelong Learning…) of the Education and Culture DG, these action lines
defined in this plan are part of other initiatives taken by various DG of the EC,
among them the Information Society DG with its Information Society Technologies
programme (IST) launching several research measures or initiatives on e-learning,
on mobile e-learning and on the use of emerging technologies; the Research DG
with some proposals for research on e-Learning in the key action “Improving
the Socio-Economic Knowledge Base”; the Entreprise DG involved in the
implementation and promotion of programmes on appropriate standards or on
the monitoring of ICT skills and the impact of eEconomy on European firms
competitiveness, the Employment DG in the context of the European employment
strategy and the e-accessibility and social inclusion fields. Including the analytical
support provided by Eurostat for the collection of indicators, by Eurydice and
Cedefop for the analysis of ICT on the education sector, it provides a broad overview
of the complexity of the European actions in the eLearning field.
18. Danish ICT characteristics:
● Information technology has for long been on the agenda for action in the Danish
educational system and ICT has been introduced in the basic education system.
In Denmark ICT is vital, therefore continual investment in this area is a
prerequisite for its maintenance and further development. A strategy for
information technology in the training of teachers and their in-service and
further training was launched in 1997 following the Act for IT policy which was
launched in 1995. The initial 1995 IT Act emphasized efforts to be established in
basic school. The newer strategy on teacher training effort is focusing on New
teaching environments and forms of study and education
● New forms of evaluation.
● Flexible further training and teaching practice.
● Cooperation and the development of organisation.
19. Greece has put forth a large educational reform that also incorporates measures to
develop ICT in schools within the Third Community Support Framework, 2000-
2006. At this stage ICT is rather underdeveloped both in schools and at
workplaces. A large operational programme for ICT in schools therefore has been
put in place. The Greek ICT Targets are as follows:
● By end of 2001, all Greek schools should have access to Internet and multimedia
resources, with adequate web-based support services.
● By end of 2001, fast Internet for researcher and students, by continuing the
upgrade of the academic Greek network.

59
● By end of 2002, all teachers should have been individually trained as necessary
in the use of internet and multimedia resources.
● By end of 2003, the target is that all pupils leaving compulsory education are
digitally literate.
20. Estonia has developed e-readiness fast and is a success story in this area. The
development is sustained by a good climate for development according to an
international study. In addition, Estonia and Japan obtained the highest rating
with regard to governmental leadership, worker training, and business climate. All
of which promotes growth and development.
The success in Estonia refers to the introduction of ICT is explained by the
following facts:
● No old economy.
● Efficient know-how transfer – closeness to Finland and Sweden.
● Good academic background.
● Good overall level of technical education.
● Use of de facto standards.
● Embraced openness.
● Under regulation.
● Liberal economic environment.
● Foreign technical assistance.
● Public investments.
● The highest priorities within this area are the quality of education and ensuring
equal opportunities for access.
21. School-net: www.school.net.
22. Angrist J. and Lavy V. (2002), “New Evidence on Classroom Computers and Pupil
Learning”, The Economic Journal, October, 112, pp. 735-765.
23. These observations are based on the following countries Belgium, Czech Republic,
Denmark, Finland, France, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, New Zealand, and
Norway. Major differences are reported between the different countries.
References
ANGRIST J. and V. LAVY (2002), “New Evidence on Classroom Computers and Pupil
Learning”, The Economic Journal, October, 112, pp. 735-765.
ELIASSON G. (ed.), (1998),“The Macroeconomic Effects of Computer and
Communications Technology – An intermediate report”, The Swedish Transport
and Communications Research Board.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2000), 318 final, 24.5.2000, “e-learning – Designing tomorrow’s
education”, EC, Brussels.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2000), 330, 14.6.2000, “eEurope Action Plan”.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2001), 172 final, 28/03/2001, “The e-learning Action Plan-
Designing tomorrow’s education”, EC, Brussels.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2001), eEurope 2002 Benchmarking – European youth into the
digital age, SEC(2001) 1583, 9.11. 2001.

EURYDICE (2001), Basic Indicators on the Incorporation of ICT into European Education
Systems – Fact and Figures, 2000/01 Annual Report, EC, Brussels.
HAWKRIDGE, D., J. JAWORSKI and H. MCMAHON (1990), Computers in Third-World
Schools: Examples, Experience and Issues, Mac Millan, London.
KERREY report, 2000.
MAC KEOGH K. (2001), “National strategies for the Promotion of On-Line Learning in
Higher Education”, European Journal of Education, 36(2), pp. 223-236.
OECD (2001), E-Learning – The partnership challenge, OECD, Paris.
OECD (2002), Education at a Glance – OECD Indicators 2002, OECD, Paris.
OLIN L. (1998), “Computers in Education in Developing Countries. Why and How?”,
Education and Technology Series, 3(1), Human Development Department – Education.
World Bank, Washington D.C.
POTASHNIK M. and D. ADKINS (1996), “Cost Analysis of Information and Technology
Projects in Education: Experiences from Developing Countries”, Education and
Technology Series, 1(3), Human Development Department – Education, World Bank,
Washington D.C.
WORLD BANK (1995), Priorities and Strategies for Education, World Bank, Washington D.C.

61
ISSN 1682-3451
Volume 16, No. 2
© OECD 2004
Managing University Clinical Partnership:

Learning from International Experience
by
Stephen Davies and Tom Smith
Addenbrooke’s nhs trust and British Medical Association,
United Kingdom
Dialogue between the leaders of academic clinical organisations in

different countries has revealed that the core elements of the
partnership between universities and health care systems are
remarkably consistent across national boundaries. There is now
an impetus to move beyond analysis of common challenges
and towards strategies for success that draw on international
experience. This paper summarises some of the conclusions that
emerged when leaders of teaching hospitals, health care systems,
health professional schools and universities met to learn from
international experience and to identify strategies for success. The
conclusion reached is that these organisations must articulate their
unique role in national health systems, communicate their
underlying values and redefine the social contract with their
national and local communities.

63
MANAGING UNIVERSITY CLINICAL PARTNERSHIP: LEARNING FROM INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE
Introduction
Complexity in the relationship between schools of clinical education,
their parent universities and health care providers has long been a subject of
discussion within individual national systems (Commonwealth Fund, 2003;
Lozon and Fox, 2002; Smith, 2001). Where this discussion has been extended
to international comparisons a consistent theme emerges: that the core
elements of the partnership between university and health care are
remarkably consistent across national boundaries (Davies, 2002; Smith and
Whitchurch, 2002). What lies behind this phenomenon is the increasing
globalisation of biomedical research, clinical education and even health care
itself (Owen, 1998). Despite these global forces, university clinical centres
remain rooted in the local communities that they serve, and may consider it
important to emphasise their community contribution (AAMC, 1998. These
paradoxical forces have led to the observation that universities and their
clinical partners must “think globally and act locally”.
Shared experience of the common tensions faced in developing
partnership is now sufficiently well recognised that leaders of these centres
want to move the debate on, transcending national policy boundaries. There
is an impetus to move beyond analysis of common challenges and towards
strategies for success that draw on international experience. This paper
summarises some of the conclusions that emerged when leaders of teaching
hospitals, health care systems, clinical schools and universities met to
develop a forward-looking and strategic agenda.1
An overview of the key issues facing university clinical partnership

Participants from fifteen different countries were asked to share in
writing their individual views on the organisational issues they see as key to
the partnership between universities and health care systems. This exercise
was undertaken before the participants came together in seminar mode,
ensuring a range of contributions unconstrained by group dynamics. Analysis
of the responses reveals issues that are “the same yet different”: there are
common underlying issues that present in different ways according to specific
aspects of national context.
The interface between health services and universities was described as a
critical point of transformation and as the interface between the present and
the future in healthcare. As an ideal, research informs education and clinical

practice. Academic clinical organisations are characterised by a culture of

inquiry, reflection and innovation and are successful in integrating the
elements of the “tripartite mission” (clinical care, education and research). In
practice, there may be a slow separation of goals, driven by differing and
poorly integrated incentive structures for service, teaching and research.
Participants identified a range of questions about the future of university
hospitals and medical faculties. At the heart of these questions was the notion
of the “social contract” between academic health organisations and the
societies which support them and whom they serve. A perception that the
issues of concern to institutional leaders had low political salience sat
alongside a concern that university hospitals and medical faculties might not
be reforming their activities in line with changing expectations.
A core challenge from most countries was the view that health and
education policies are developed in isolation from each other. This is not
conducive to the development of university clinical partnership and presents
serious impediments to working across organisational boundaries. This point
was illustrated with reference to the United Kingdom, where a variety of
ministries and government agencies pursue a range of policy goals from those
related to health care delivery through workforce development to innovation
and technology transfer. However, there is no central overview of these goals
and the onus is on individual academic health centres to integrate these at
the institutional level. This task has been made more difficult by the
fragmentation of health care systems and reluctance to pursue radical models
of governance.
However, there are exceptions to this picture. One example is the
Academic Medical Centre of the University of Amsterdam. Here the university
hospital and the medical faculty have been operational as an integrated
organisation for the past eight years. This model has facilitated the bringing of
both laboratory and clinical research as well as teaching of medical
informatics and traditional medical education into close contact with clinical
care. At the time of the integration a great effort was made to provide primary
health care and public health with a practice component to complement
teaching and research. For the geographic area that the hospital serves, GPs
and public health services have also been integrated into the Academic
Medical Centre. This model has now been adopted in most of The
Netherlands, where seven out of eight medical schools have merged with their
affiliated teaching hospitals.
This raises the question: why has there been so little progress made with
new organisational models elsewhere? One view is that funding for clinical
science and health services research is losing out relative to funding for basic
science. In the United Kingdom, the Academy of Medical Science has drawn
attention to the inbuilt bias towards basic science in career structures, funding

65
and other incentives. This has meant that the model of the academic clinical
centre as a place for applied and translational research has been eroded in
practice, though many still subscribe to this ideal.
Other changes in the external environment have placed stress upon
existing models. Education is being extended beyond formal programmes into
a system of lifelong learning. It will be increasingly decentralised and the
university will have to expand its range of clinical partners to encompass all
service providing organisations. Tertiary care will be further centralised in
order to increase the use of capital-intensive equipment and specialised
expertise. University hospitals will need larger catchment areas and a greater
capacity to meet the pressures of international competition.
Another consistent theme is the complexity of financing of academic
clinical organisations, and the consequences for transparency and
accountability. Funding from different sources is combined locally to produce
the outputs of the tripartite mission, which are, in economic terms, joint
products. National systems, whether market-based or more centrally directed,
have not fully recognised these outputs or provided the right incentive
structures to encourage the balance of outputs that meets societal goals. This
appears to be the case for both market-based systems and systems of
performance management.
A commonly expressed view is that there is a reluctance to permit a unique
identity and role for academic clinical centres. These centres make a distinctive
contribution in developing the quality of health care services, integrated
delivery systems, knowledge management, innovation and wealth creation.
Yet politicians and policy-makers do not always acknowledge this
contribution. However, politicians only respond to public views and academic
clinical centres must ask themselves why it is that the issues that pre-occupy
them as institutions have so little salience with the public.
The difficulties in influencing the external environment and engaging with
government indifference has led to something of a crisis of confidence amongst
those who work in academic clinical centres. There is uncertainty about the
goals of the organisation, its identity, and the future of the university hospital.
Leaders of academic centres acknowledge that they need to better engage
with other institutions in local health systems. There is a need for a more
systematic focus on partnership. To return to an earlier example, this appears to
have been central to the success of the Amsterdam Medical Centre, which has a
politically sponsored clear internal identity and external mandate to link
research, education and service as a designated centre of excellence. Its success
has been underpinned by the development of a network of primary care
academic partners and a strategic approach towards organisational design.

The successful academic clinical centre of the future will be a distinctive

partnership managed according to shared values. It will attract new paradigms,
for example medical humanities and operations research, as well as excelling
in biomedical science. Teaching, learning and workforce development would
not be overshadowed by research and service priorities. There would be a
strong multidisciplinary ethos and systems for translating clinical and health
services management research into improvements in public health. Academic
centres need to become integrated parts of wider networks for service, teaching
and research, linking in primary care and community services.
Some participants stressed the cultural demands of moving towards this
vision, including the need to apply non-linear thinking to university clinical
partnerships. The capacity to work across boundaries is central to the social
missions of relating scientific knowledge to practice and instilling critical
faculties in future clinical professionals. Research from Sweden has shown
that structural separation between sectors has had a significant cultural
impact. Yet many seem uncomfortable with structurally led change, preferring
to emphasise the need to create an environment conducive to innovation and
learning (Smith, 2002).
Developing strategies on the basis of international experience

The seminar provided an opportunity to begin to think about strategies to
steer university clinical partnership, drawing on international experience
whilst remaining mindful of the pitfalls of comparative studies (Klein, 1991).
Defining the distinctive nature of the university teaching hospital

University hospitals are defined by complexity, intensity of teaching and
research, range of services and their complex financing arrangements. In
discussing academic clinical organisations, the emphasis should shift from
hospitals and from the academy to health care systems. Networks will be
necessary to deliver all aspects of the tripartite mission: research, teaching
and care. University hospitals need to focus on communicating their
contribution to society in all its dimensions.
Measuring the performance of academic clinical centres

Identifying key performance indicators for the separate elements of the
tripartite mission is challenging but possible. However, the risk of only doing
this is that the use of such performance indicators may actually undermine
the integration of activities that is the essence of the academic clinical centre.
The challenge is to develop performance indicators that actually measure
success in integrating the tripartite mission and the value added by this. For
example, how would one measure the effectiveness of interactions between

67
clinical and basic science researchers or the teaching effectiveness of clinical

attachments? Potentially perverse effects from performance management
systems are a major area of concern for the leaders of academic clinical
centres
Maintaining teaching as an equal partner

The academic centre needs to move beyond its historical medically
dominated character and become more multi-disciplinary in its approach to
education. Although scepticism about multi-professional education may
remain, given the poor evidence base, this has become a political imperative.
Not all academic health centres will share the same emphases and strengths.
Some will be strong on basic science, others on health services research or
multi-professional education. There is a need for managerial academics as
well as clinical academics. Effective governance structures and leadership will
be needed to overcome the tendency for teaching to be the “poor relation” in
the academic centre.
Developing networks for service, education and research

There is an international trend towards decentralization and primary
care led services. This trend is leading to delegation of power and resources to
authorities responsible for very small populations. This creates a problem
for academic health centres that may need to deal with multiple authorities
and require a large planning focus for more specialist services. Network
development will be an essential response to this and to other changes, for
example new paradigms for education of clinical professionals. The
requirements for successful network development include communication,
leadership, funding, organisational models and adequate informatics.
Good governance and accountability

It is tempting to believe that issues of governance can be solved by a
particular set of organisational arrangements, for example ownership of clinical
facilities by the medical school. However, the essence of good governance is the
maintenance of dialogue in a spirit of shared endeavour, rather than any
particular structure. In this way, the tensions that are inherent in the relationship
can be used to create a positive dynamic. Good relationships between key
individuals and a willingness to solve problems at an early stage will also be
essential to the success of the combined venture. Although they may not be
sufficient, clear structures and mechanisms for liaison will be necessary.
Achievement of the missions of both parties requires both mutual trust between
the health care provider and the university and written agreements as to roles
and responsibilities. Effective innovation at the local level by academic clinical
centres may prove more influential than central policy initiatives.

Responding to the challenge of workforce development

The challenge of maintaining an adequately skilled clinical workforce has
become a global issue, with significant under-supply of clinical professionals in
many countries and over-supply in others. The challenge of expanding the
clinical workforce raises many issues for academic clinical centres. Government
responses are likely to include a push for greater workforce flexibility and new
professional roles linked to multi-professional education; a demand for wider
access and shorter training programmes; and for accreditation of foreign
nationals. These pressures may prove uncomfortable for universities that have
historically provided pre-registration education to high standards of academic
attainment. Governments may become frustrated with what they see as the
inflexibility and elitism of the universities as they look for new approaches to
delivering the clinical workforce. In this area, there is a sense that major re-
positioning by universities might be required soon but that this will be fraught
with ideological divisions that have yet to be fully articulated.
Conclusions
It is important not to lose sight of the fact that academic health centres are,
by any standards, remarkably successful institutions. They have proved durable
and transformed the lives of millions. The risk is that policy-makers will fail to
recognise their special contribution and the onus is on academic centres to
articulate this. They also need to communicate their underlying values and
redefine the social contract with their national and local communities.
The challenge for academic clinical centres is to re-define their unique
role in national health systems. These contain many other players, many of
who neither understand what academic centres do, nor appreciate their
contribution to shared goals. Universities must change to reflect changing
societal expectations. There must be innovation in pre-clinical education and
research must be focused on issues that will affect the quality of health care
delivery.
Ensuring that a fast developing knowledge base has an influence on
practice, preparing professionals to practice in increasingly complex
environments, and improving health delivery are goals shared by academic
clinical centres in different countries. The pursuit of these goals will be aided
by international dialogue between institutional leaders concerned with
developing strong relationships between research, service and practice. This
offers the opportunity to compare models of governance and leadership as
well as the identification of incentives to stimulate working at the interfaces
of the tripartite mission. Performance indicators that measure this interface
activity are needed, with a particular requirement to measure the translation
of research into improved practice.

69
Academic clinical centres should not lament their lack of political salience
but engage directly in the public debate. Patients and the public may prove to be
the greatest allies of academic health centres if properly engaged. Effective
collective representation is needed and this may need to be multi-national,
especially in the context of the European Union.
The commonality of issues across different national settings becomes ever
more apparent. In different countries, the leaders of academic clinical centres
are identifying the same issues and arriving at similar solutions. Possible areas
of international collaboration include: defining the benefits that academic
health centres offer to society; performance measurement; strategies for
supporting clinical research; multidisciplinary education and training;
leadership in academic health centres. However, this is a dialogue that has only
just begun and can be developed further.
The authors:
Stephen Davies Tom Smith
Director of Corporate Development Senior Policy Analyst
Addenbrooke’s NHS Trust British Medical Association
Hills Road BMA House
Cambridge CB2 2QQ Tavistock Square
United Kingdom London WCIH 9JP
E-mail: Stephen.Davies@addenbrookes.nhs.uk United Kingdom
E-mail: TSmith@bam.org.uk
Notes
Note
1. In November 2002 more than 50 participants from 15 countries came together to
examine the key organisational issues at the interfaces between health services,
teaching and research. The OECD Programme on Institutional Management in
Higher Education (IMHE) hosted the event. As an international forum for
institutional leaders and policy makers IMHE has a long-standing interest in this
area and seeks to promote the exchange of information and expertise between
member countries. The European Health Management (EMHA) and the UK’s
Nuffield Trust for Research and Policy Studies in Health Services supported IMHE
in the organisation of the event. The combination of these three supporting
organisations resulted in an assembly of individuals rich in expertise and insight.
Participants from North America, Australia and Europe covered a range of
disciplines and included academics, clinicians and managers. Many of the
individuals attending combine these roles in an illustration of the ethos of
academic health institutions. The meeting followed on from a similar event in
August 2001, which was understood to be the first international meeting to
consider this subject matter.

References
AAMC (1998), Meeting the Needs of Communities, How Medical Schools and Teaching
Hospitals Ensure Access to Clinical Services, Association of American Medical
Colleges, Washington DC.
COMMONWEALTH FUND (2003), Envisioning the Future of Academic Health Centres, The
Commonwealth Fund, New York.
DAVIES, S. (2002), Ideology and Identity. A Comparative Study of Academic Health
Organisations in the UK and USA, The Nuffield Trust London.
KLEIN, R. (1991), “Risks and Benefits of Comparative Studies: Notes from Another
Shore”, The Milbank Quarterly, 69, No. 2, pp. 275-289.
LOZON, J. C. and R. M. FOX (2002), “Academic Health Sciences Centres Laid
Bare.”Healthcare Papers 2, No. 3, pp. 10-36.
OWEN, J. W. (1998), E. R. Rubin (ed.), “The Globalization of Health Care”. In Mission
Management. A New Synthesis, Washington DC: Association of Academic Health
Centers, pp. 387-407.
SMITH, T. (2001), University Clinical Partnership. A New Framework for Nhs/University
Relations, Nuffield Trust Series, London: The Stationery Office.
SMITH, T. (2002), What Happened to Clinical Research? A Cultural Perspective on Global and
Local Tensions in Relating Scientific Understanding to Clinical Development, University of
Lund, Sweden.
SMITH, T. and C. WHITCHURCH (2002), “The Future of the Tripartite Mission: Re-
Examining the Relationship Linking Universities, Medical Schools and Health
Systems,”Higher Education Management and Policy, Vol. 14, No. 2

71
ISSN 1682-3451
Volume 16, No. 2
© OECD 2004
Systemic Responsiveness in Tertiary Education:

an Agenda for Reform
by
William G. Tierney
University of Southern California,
United States
Over the last several years the author conducted 126 interviews
and held four focus groups with academic staff, administrators and
others associated with Australian universities, about the problems
and challenges they believed faced the system of tertiary education.
Widespread concern and pessimism pervaded the interviews about
the future of tertiary education in Australia. Approximately three
quarters of the interviewees said that the system was worse, or
certainly no better, today than a decade ago; a similar number held
out little hope that the system would improve, if not deteriorate
further, in a decade. In this article the author outlines what he sees
as systemic barriers to change and then offers suggestions for
overcoming those barriers and enacting reform.

73
SYSTEMIC RESPONSIVENESS IN TERTIARY EDUCATION: AN AGENDA FOR REFORM
R ecently, there have been several, careful analyses about the causes and
consequences of the decline. Simon Marginson and Mark Considine have
written about how universities are now less sure of themselves, and how they
exist within a morass of intellectual incoherence about governance and
change (2000, p. 6). Sheila Slaughter and Larry Leslie (1997) have discussed
how a new form of global capitalism has forced universities to respond in
unconventional ways, mostly to their detriment. Tony Coady (2000) has edited
a work that critiques the reforms of the last decade and a half from a sharply
critical viewpoint. Jan Currie and Lesley Vidovich (1998, 2000) have discussed
how the movement toward market principles has placed fundamental
academic values at risk. Craig McInnis (1992; 2000a; 2000b) has tracked
changes in the nature of academic work and shown how general job
satisfaction has declined while workload has increased. Peter Coaldrake and
Lawrence Stedman (1999) have pointed out the stresses that confront
academic work, and Don Smart (1997) has argued that the loss of autonomy in
Australian universities has made them weaker institutions. Finally, the
National Tertiary Education Union (2000), the Group of Eight (self-named
“Australia’s leading Universities”) (2000a; 2000b), and the Australian Vice-
Chancellor’s Committee (2000a; 2000b) all have issued dire reports that
provide various portraits of a system in decline.
The interviews and focus groups I conducted offered similarly gloomy
commentary. A majority of the respondents commented that they would not
encourage graduate students to pursue academic careers. An equally
significant number of interviewees expressed the opinion that Australian
universities were not competitive with elite institutions in other parts of the
world, and that the best Australian academics frequently found better salaries
and working conditions abroad. Perhaps most worrisome, a majority also felt
that systemic decline was inevitable. “We will drift along”, commented one
interviewee, “We will continue to get worse, gradually. A few institutions might
merge or close. One or two might actually get stronger somehow. Most will sink
to mediocrity. There’s just not much we can do.”
I disagree. While I fully appreciate the simultaneous compression and
hemorrhaging that the system faces, as well as the intellectual and almost
existential exhaustion that many within the system feel, I am equally aware
that systemic reform is imperative in a time of rapid change and globalization.
One point is certain: the failure to reform will neither ameliorate the problems
that currently exist nor encourage creative new directions and initiatives to
occur at a campus level.

Many previous analyses and the vast majority of the interviews have
pointed to the reduction in federal funds as the main culprit in the decline of
the universities. Indeed, the shortfall of resources is so often mentioned as the
problem that it is frequently hard to move beyond an economic discussion of
the university to a consideration of non-economic initiatives that might be
considered. When a university loses 50-60% of its budget in a decade’s time
one ought not to be surprised that the organisation’s constituents obsess
about how to recover lost income. In this article, however, I work from a
slightly different perspective. The analysis follows from two assumptions:
● universities need to be able to capture additional income; and
● any future federal government (Liberal or Labor) will not provide that
additional income as it has been traditionally defined (e.g. grants to
universities) equivalent to previous levels.
Although some may hope to a return to previous levels of government
funding, I have found no evidence that there is any sentiment – or ability – to
make such a decision. True, a new Labor government may seek to provide
additional funds to tertiary education, but significant new funds will still be
needed from additional sources. Thus, in an environment where universities
need to be innovative and strategic, what actions might be taken to enhance
organizational creativity that, in turn, will increase the economic strength of
the institution?
Accordingly, I outline below what I see as systemic barriers to change and
I then offer suggestions for overcoming those barriers and enacting reform. I
learned of the barriers from the interviews and the extensive literature that
exists. The suggestions come in part from previous work I have done on
organizational responsiveness (Tierney, 1998; 1999). Caveat emptor! This is an
“essai” in the root sense of the word: a trial of some ideas. Based on the
interviews that I have conducted, I am trying to move the discussion away
from a sense of pessimism about the future and a sense that the only
alternative is a return to previous paths that have been taken. Instead, I am
trying to come to terms with the barriers to change and how we might
overcome them by taking new paths.
Roadblocks to change
An overly centralized system: One key precept of academic life is that
universities ought to be immune from political interference. Such an
assumption does not mean that tertiary organizations are free to be non-
responsive to the needs of society or unaccountable for their performance.
Indeed, in organizations that serve the public good an accompanying precept
must be a willingness to ensure that quality improvement is ongoing and
measurable. However, the changes in the governance system in Australian

75
universities over the recent past have made them too much like a government
agency and not enough like a coordinated system of self-directed
organizations whose challenge is to be responsive to the needs of society.
When a university begins to resemble a government agency three distinct
problems arise: 1) a possibility for political intrusion, 2) a lack of coordination,
and 3) a disincentive for particular forms of innovation.
First, a system that is directed by the federal government opens itself up
to becoming a political effort where political processes, desires, and goals
confuse what should be regionally or state coordinated, strategic choices of
the institution. As a governmental entity decisions are likely to occur on a
political, rather than an impartial, level. By raising such an issue I neither
mean to disparage those in the political realm nor suggest that institutions
that receive public support are not ultimately responsible to those individuals
whom the public elect. However, certain organizations ought to be more
independent from public control than others. Just as we do not want a
politician to decide if an airplane is fit to fly, we also do not want a politician
to decide what should be taught in a university. Those who are knowledgeable
about airplanes ought to decide about an aircraft’s fitness. Similarly,
institutions where the stated goal is to search for truth need to be free from
outside interference – such has always been the case at the world’s best
universities. At the same time, where an institution is placed, how big or small
it is, and whether a new institution opens or a current one closes, ought to be
based on a strategic vision rather than a political imperative.
Relatedly, the second problem with a university being forced to act as a
government agency pertains to the lack of systemic coordination. As one
observer has commented, “Australian higher education currently exists in a
policy vacuum” (Schwartz, 2000, p. 5). One needs to consider distinct
geographic regions of the country and coordinate what is best for the state or
territory. What should not take place is that degree and course offerings occur
because an institution simply wants to offer a particular degree either for
fiscal gain or prestigious enhancement.
In effect, Marginson’s analysis of “steering from a distance” rightly points
out a conundrum of the worst kind: institutions are lost in a world of perceived
autonomy where they develop courses or provide classes anywhere in the
world because of the fiscal constraints that the system has placed on them;
such a freedom of necessity to offer any classes anywhere allows no systemic
coordination. Indeed, some might claim that the ability to offer classes
anywhere points out the freedom institutions have rather than the
straightjacket I claim they must wear. However, when government provides
and takes away funds and determines the fiscal parameters of institutional
life, then what kind of institutional autonomy actually exists?

Consider, for example, Western Australia. How many universities ought

to offer degrees in education? How many universities ought to have an
engineering faculty? My purpose here is not to offer an answer, but instead to
suggest that an unregulated system where any institution may offer whatever
it wants does not enhance the system. Universities need to have finite and
unique visions rather than expansive ones that appear geared toward simply
adapting to the needs of the marketplace. In previous work I have pointed out
how high performance universities are cultural entities that need to be
interpreted to internal and external constituencies; they are not simply
businesses that adapt to the whims of the marketplace (1998; 1999). Duplication
of degrees ends up with institutions competing against one another for a finite
number of students; the system ends up less, rather than more, than the sum
of its parts. In effect, there needs to be some form of buffer between the
federal government and the individual institution.
The third problem of a centralized political system is that at a time when
business and managerial philosophies continually point to the importance of
decentralized decision-making processes, the opposite occurs in a centralized
system. In effect, decisions are determined at a centralized level and
accountability is measured at a decentralized level. Such a system creates the
frantic search for additional funding; when combined with an unregulated
system, we see the proliferation of law schools and the like. Decision-makers
end up making instrumental choices based on the desire for a quick fix and
fiscal need, rather than deciding on strategic choices based on long-term
viability and health.
A form of organizational schizophrenia exists where the centralized unit
increases its control over the organization while it decreases its fiscal
contribution. In a system where the overarching goal is to encourage the
organization to be more fiscally independent there needs to be a concomitant
organizational structure that encourages entrepreneurial activity. The
opposite currently occurs in Australian universities.
A lack of mission differentiation: One problem related to the lack of
coordination is that the universities in Australia more or less appear to be
attempting to undertake similar activities and philosophies. True, the
University of Melbourne has created a private university and it has
spearheaded a drive to create a consortium of universities in an on-line
initiative (Universitas 21), and other institutions are building campuses in
different countries in Asia, but the similarities are greater than the
differences. In many respects, such a problem vexed much of tertiary
education throughout the 20th century. One sees, for example, that after
World War II in the United States there was a rapid rise in research at the
expense of teaching; by century’s end, within all sectors of higher education in
the US, academic staff were more rewarded for doing research than teaching.

77
The point is not that research is bad and teaching good, but that a system
needs differentiation. Not everyone should be attempting to do the same
activities; surely some institutions might emphasize teaching while others
focus on research.
The importance of mission differentiation in the 21st century will be even
clearer. In a world of finite resources, some institutions should be able to make
inroads in undertaking research while others will have its academic staff
teach more. Currently, such differences are implicit rather than explicit. When
I asked individuals, for example, how their institution differed from a
neighboring institution, they were unable to explain the difference except in
the most generic of terms. “They are larger”, said one, and another said at a
different institution, “They have a better endowment because they are older.”
The point is not that there is one correct answer, but rather, individuals who
work in an organization perform better when they have a sense of where they
are heading and how they differ from other institutions.
Institutional differentiation does not get defined by the nature of its
funding; rather, funding gets defined by the mission of the organization. A
clearly defined mission of a university revolves around four primary issues:
1) What are the curricular offerings of the institution and how are they taught;
2) How does one define a productive member of the academic staff; 3) What is
the nature of the institution’s external environment, and 4) How might one
define the organisational culture of the institution?
In a system that has clearly differentiated missions, one will not see the
proliferation of the same kind of degree offerings or the same pedagogical
style from one institution to the next. One would expect, for example, that
some institutions would focus on small seminars and tutorials and another
might engage in larger lecture classes. One institution might experiment with
different kinds of interdisciplinary-based degree offerings, while another
might have more traditional-based courses and degrees. Rather than assume
that all institutions will emphasize business and commerce degrees as a way
to capture funding, some institutions will try to be more focused on the
humanities while others emphasize the sciences. From this perspective, an
institution might try to engage with countries in Asia in culturally specific
manners that impacts teaching and learning for all students, rather than
simply see Asian students as the way to generate much needed income, or as
a way for Australia to educate students in the former colonies.
Similarly, when institutions have differentiated missions then explicit
expectations of academic staff will be clearer and will vary from institution to
institution. Rather than expect that applied research is the sine qua non for all
academic staff, one institution will privilege teaching while another will
emphasize applied, rather than basic, research. Again, in an institution that

emphasizes teaching one expects to find unique and innovative ways to teach
as well as to evaluate teaching. Instead, what I have found is that most
institutions are more similar than different in their approaches to measuring
productivity because their missions are unclear. The question, “what is the
mission of your institution” ought to evoke a clear, simple statement that sets
an institution off from others, which in turn, marshals activity in one direction
and not another. At best, such differentiation currently occurs implicitly,
rather than explicitly, so that some institutions have their staff teach more
and others hope to work with Asia in a particular manner. But one senses that
the choices are less strategic and more driven by a concern for generating
capital than developing a philosophical consensus about the nature of the
university.
Obviously, the environment in which the institution is embedded also
helps define the nature of academic work and the type of courses to be
offered. The institution will define its environment in any number of ways,
and over time, the nature of its relationships will change. Rather than assume
a deterministic model where institutions and environments react in a
predetermined manner, I am working from the assumption that a form of
symbiosis exists where an institution has significant latitude in determining
how to work with external constituencies.
Each point speaks to the import of the organization’s culture. Culture
pertains not only to instrumental activities such as teaching and research, but
also to the manner in which governance is enacted, who gets heard and who
does not, how people interact with one another, and a myriad of symbolic
activities which help the institution’s participants make sense of academic life.
A rigid, rather than experimental, environment: High performance systems
are ones that encourage experimentation and innovation (Tierney, 2001). Such
organizations are different from others that are able to exist by a repetitive
series of activities that enable the system to function effectively in a stable
environment. A good example of an organization that works well in a stable
environment is a McDonald’s hamburger outlet. The manager of the outlet has
a precise idea how many hamburgers will be sold; the customer knows what
he or she wants upon entering the store. The employee knows the finite
number of skills required to complete the task. A repetitive series of activities
has served McDonald’s well, and they have sold billions and billions of Big
Macs. McDonald’s is not an innovative organization, and it thrives in a stable
environment.
Australian universities, however, need to be innovative organizations in
large part because their environment is no longer stable. Technological
changes presage dramatic innovations in teaching and learning. A turbulent
fiscal environment demands entrepreneurial activity that enables new

79
income streams to occur. New competitors will challenge traditional

universities so that research and teaching activities will face challenges that
force universities to act in ways that depart from “business as usual”. Students
who are raised in the era of e-mail have different needs and preferences. Such
changes necessitate an organizational culture that rewards experimentation
and innovation. One expects to see universities trying to undertake new
activities in unique ways.
However, the present climate in Australia is precisely the opposite.
Governmental regulations stifle creative activity and the lack of fiscal support
forces innovation to be geared almost entirely toward capturing funds.
Australian public funding has been cut more than virtually everyone else in the
OECD (Considine, Marginson and Sheehan, 2001). A system that encourages
creative activity is not one that rewards all institutions similarly, sets mandates
and targets with regard to enrollment, tuition funding, and productive
activities, and does not make an attempt to reinvest in tertiary education.
My point is not that universities can ignore being accountable, or that
measures on which to base quality can be overlooked. However, the strongest
performance measures are those that internal constituencies develop and a
regulatory agency is able to approve. Rather than a “one size fits all” mentality,
an innovative environment is one where the government loosens its hold on
monitoring and evaluation, and the organization increases its concern for
quality improvement based on beliefs about institutional purpose. Instead of
continually pointing out that the government role in fiscal support of tertiary
education ought to be minimal and force institutions to seek funds in a helter-
skelter manner, one might suggest a more systematic approach about where
wise reinvestment of public funding is warranted, and where private monies
might be developed. In a high performance system a governing body tries less
to prevent bad things from happening and tries more to make good things
happen. Rather than a punitive model, one develops an incentive-based
model. Currently, Australian tertiary education is mired in a system of checks
and balances that depresses the entrepreneurial spirit precisely at a time
when innovation is necessary.
A disinterest in pedagogical issues: On an international level, we are
currently in a period of greater pedagogical ferment than at any other time in
a generation. The Internet and web-based learning have facilitated changes in
traditional teaching. The advent of distance learning and computer generated
courseware has precipitated a great deal of interest in developing entirely
different teaching and learning modalities than could have been envisioned
less than a decade ago. A tremendous amount of research has been generated
about how one might successfully evaluate good teaching; breakthroughs are
finally happening with regard to the measurement of learning. Indeed, there
is increased evidence not only on how much a student learns in class, but also

out of class, so that the entire university environment might be thought of as

a learning community. Such information enables different structures of
learning activities to take place if the classroom is tied together with what
takes place outside of the classroom. And too, the age-old questions of what a
student needs to know continues to stir thoughtful commentary based on new
social and cultural contexts of the 21st century.
Unfortunately, many of these kinds of conversations are not taking place
on a sustained or systematic level in Australian tertiary education. Yes, some
individuals have tried to foster meaningful dialogues, and one area or another
has taken an interest in teaching and learning. But when I asked individuals
about pedagogical activities the most common response I received was that
teaching is better today than a decade ago because teaching evaluations are
now done in classes. Although teaching evaluations are to be applauded, such
an activity is microscopic when compared to the wealth of additional
activities that should be occurring.
The response of why more pedagogical discussions are not taking place
on campuses is that most energy has been focused on either explaining to
governmental agencies what takes place on campus in order to meet new
requirements, or in creating new markets to generate capital. Again, the
problem lies with placing fiscal needs ahead of those that are more central to
the life and maintenance of the university. To offer a sequence of courses in
Pakistan, or to try to get students from Sri Lanka to study in Australia for no
other reason than because a market exists that will provide income is to
reduce academic life to that of a business; in the long-term such a strategy will
bring into question the raison d’être of the university. If students are simply
consumers and the curricula is nothing other than a product, then one can
justifiably ask whether a business might offer such services and products
more efficiently than a university.
There are very real, healthy pedagogical debates that ought to take place
on university campuses, but they do not seem to be happening largely because
of a systemic environment that makes such discussions difficult. Pedagogical
decisions that are made because of perceived fiscal imperatives rather than
philosophical beliefs contribute to confusion about the mission of the
organization, which further confuses an institution’s constituents about what
they should be doing. The possibility certainly exists for a coordinated
learning environment to occur on university campuses that in turn enhances
the economic well being of the institution, but until the systemic environment
changes, such discussions are not likely to take place.
A constrained, rather than elaborate, fiscal stream: I have purposefully
placed this problem last because, as I have alluded, in many respects the
prominence that fiscal shortfalls have played in freezing creative thought

81
exacerbates problems rather than solves them. Nevertheless, the fiscal

constraints that universities face at the start of the 21st century are severe and
do not have an easy solution. As I noted earlier, virtually no one I interviewed
assumed that a future government of one or another political persuasion
would return to funding tertiary education at the levels of support enjoyed a
generation ago. However, significant monies could be wisely reinvested in
areas of national interest and import even while one recognizes the country
will not return to its previous levels of support.
The problem, however, is not that the government will maintain its
current meager level of support, but that the systemic environment in which
universities exist do not support the development of coordinated and
alternative funding streams. Government policies could call for the
reinvestment in areas of national interest, and tax structures could be
developed that encourage philanthropy. Philanthropic giving in the United
States is a mainstay of private tertiary education. In the last two decades, it
also has become commonplace for public universities to undertake capital
campaigns that have relied on individual and industrial giving. Private
foundation support for research at America’s leading universities is
considerable. Differential tuition based on institutional decisions on what is
necessary and competitive have enabled some institutions to be more tuition
dependent than others, while other universities focus on generating revenue
streams from philanthropy, foundations and the like.
For creative fiscal activities to occur, Australian tertiary education faces
two hurdles. First, consistent with the other points outlined in this essay,
governmental regulations need to be lessened, and a more supportive tax
environment needs to be considered that encourages philanthropic giving.
Second, true institutional diversity needs to be fostered once the government
has outlined broad areas of systemic philosophical agreement. To elaborate on
these issues, I now turn to a discussion of how one might grapple with the
problems raised in the interviews I conducted.
Stimuli for reform

Establish a tertiary education coordinating board: There needs to be a dual
buffer system established that removes tertiary education from needing to act
as if it were a governmental agency. A national tertiary education coordinating
body acts as an agency that follows the directions of the federal government,
but also mediates between the government and universities. Such a body is
particularly important in a country where the institutions derive the bulk of
their public funds from the federal government. In the United States, for
example, coordinating bodies take place at a state level because that is where
public institutions receive most of their public funds. As with other important

agencies, the coordinating body is independent of the federal government, but

ultimately responsible to it. The goals of the coordinating body are 1) to ensure
access for the broadest number of Australian citizens as possible; 2) to ensure
that each university offers a quality education; and 3) to control costs.
From these goals devolve four key roles for the coordinating body that
in part account for the subsequent suggestions I shall make. First, the
coordinating board translates into policy what the federal government has set
as its goals for tertiary education. Second, it enables policies to be developed
that allow differential funding schemes that ensure access and enable quality
to occur. Third, the coordinating body helps stimulate an experimental and
innovative environment that builds upon mission differentiation. Fourth, the
coordinating body works with state and territorial boards so that more
systematic planning takes place.
The second buffer pertains to regional coordinating bodies. The state/
territorial coordinating body reports to the federal one, but it has broad
discretionary power. Its work relates to approving or disapproving new
courses of studies, considering how institutions might work together,
amalgamate or merge, and setting directions about how new entities might (or
might not) arise. Universities have a key role to play not only in the
enhancement of the nation’s economy, but also within their states. At present,
the state role in university life is relatively mute. While I am certainly not
suggesting yet another layer of political control, it behooves us to acknowledge
the need for greater state and territorial coordination.
My purpose here is neither to determine the precise parameters of
coordination nor to delineate the steps to implementing such a reform, but
instead to suggest ways for the improvement of tertiary education. To be sure,
there are numerous pitfalls in the creation of such an entity. One problem is to
look to the past and assume that previous iterations of a particular structure
are what a new one would look like. A second problem is to develop a halfway
measure where the federal government maintains an active role in such a
coordinating body by appointing a majority of the members, but allows the
vice chancellors and other groups to appoint a few other members as well. A
third problem is to assume that any action the coordinating body takes needs
to be approved by the government.
Each problem will doom the initiative. Structures are not perfect and
timeless; as different problems and contexts arise, structures that once were
impediments to change or ahead of their time may take on a different
appearance. A new structure also is not a duplication of a previous one.
Although any number of constituencies ought to feel that they have a voice in
the direction of such a body, if the goal is to remove it from the political
process, then one needs to work to lessen political interference rather than

83
instill it with political representation. And such an agency needs autonomy on

issues of regulatory implementation while it implements the broad policies of
the government.
I appreciate the irony that on the one hand I write of too much
centralization, and in the next I suggest a coordinating body. However, the
coordination is of a different kind from that which exists now. Universities are
removed from the political realm. The degrees of freedom with which a
university may act increase if it fits their distinctive mission. The excessive
homogenization that steering from a distance requires is eliminated.
Creating a coordinating body on a federal and state/territorial level will
enable greater coordination across universities, an environment where
institutional differentiation and experimentation takes place, and where
access is increased while costs are maintained. Such outcomes are not now
taking place in Australian tertiary education. If they are not taking place, and
one disagrees with the creation of a coordinating body, then it is reasonable to
ask what structural reforms will stimulate these outcomes. At present, a great
deal of discussion is taking place at the federal level about some such buffer,
but nothing has yet taken place. Universities need a disinterested agency that
helps stimulate reform on a national level while the universities generate
unique initiatives at an organizational level.
Create explicit and finite differentiated missions: There needs to be a focus
away from the “one size fits all” mentality and toward the explicit definition of
what an institution does and how it differs from others. No system the size of
Australia’s can support thirty or forty universities that have an equal interest
in research or offer courses in a similar manner. Students also are not well
served if all institutions focus on research, or if all institutions try to reach out
to international students in similar ways. Instead, institutions need to develop
missions that set themselves off from one another.
One test of whether a distinctive mission has been developed is to
remove the identity of the institution and see if individuals know which
institution it identifies. An institution, for example, which states that its goal
is “to provide the highest quality education” or “to educate students for
employment in a rapidly changing environment” are generic goals that do
little to create an identity for the institution. Which institution is not
dedicated to quality education or employment for its students?
Alternatively, an organization with a stated mission to focus on urban
issues, to stimulate an environmental consciousness, or to promote
multiculturalism, are examples of unique initiatives that set the institution
apart. An institution where the academic staff believes that all of its students
should have a foundation year in the humanities and sciences if they are to be
well-rounded democratic citizens is a pedagogical example of how to create a

distinctive mission. Obviously, certain institutions have no desire to focus on

urban issues or the environment, and that is precisely the point. A mission
needs to be specific enough so that in a state of crisis those who work for the
organization believe in what they are doing to the extent that they will not
drop the mission at the first sign of trouble. The mission is also finite;
universities undertake discrete challenges.
The best examples of clear mission statements are those of institutions
that Burton Clark (1972) has defined as “distinctive”. As the overriding ethos of
the organization’s culture, a mission statement helps people make sense of
who they are as an institution and where they want to go. A mission
statement not only raises questions about which direction the institution
should move in the future, but it also offers answers.
Finally, an organization’s participants need a mission statement that
points people in two ostensibly different directions. One direction is grand and
sweeping; the statement inspires people and rallies them around a grand
cause. A mission statement is not the place to itemize or create objectives.
Nevertheless, what flows from a worthy mission statement is a sense of where
organizational units and individuals will focus. As Peter Drucker has pointed
out, “A mission statement has to be operational, otherwise it’s just good
intentions” (1990, p. 4). In effect, a mission statement should enable a
university’s participants to come together to enact the differentiated goals
that they have established. I emphasize the import of having the university’s
participants, and not merely a select few from the vice chancellor’s office,
participate in and advance the institution’s mission. A distinctive mission is
not successful if only a handful of senior executives know what it is. A mission
needs to permeate the organization and drive action.
Develop an innovative climate: In general, over the last generation, public
institutions have not been known for structural creativity or innovation. I have
suggested that creating a buffering agency between the government and the
university will in part enable universities to develop unique missions that
stimulate organizationally specific initiatives. In turn, an environment needs
to exist where structural innovation, rather than stasis exists. By “structural
innovation” I mean more than simply the ability to run after whatever funding
possibilities exist out in the world. Instead, an institution’s participants work
from differentiated missions in innovative environments that enhance
teaching, learning, research and the quest for knowledge. At present all
tertiary institutions in Australia are public universities. The assumption is
that one structural size fits all. In the future, institutional differentiation
needs to occur.
In the United States, for example, there are public state universities that
are under the purview of state control in a manner akin to Australian

85
universities. However, there are also institutions such as Pennsylvania State

University, which are “state-related”. State-related institutions have more
degrees of freedom to act than do “state” institutions; their monies from the
state are also less.
Further, because public monies continue to decrease in some states in the
United States, some individuals have argued that one or another public
university ought to become a private university because it will have greater
op tions that it might pursue. Other institutions have considered
amalgamating with a range of entities such as for-profit corporations or non-
profit agencies (i.e. museums) in an effort to provide better services. Some
institutions have opted to maintain the traditional structure and relationship
to the state as a public university, but they have internally reorganized
themselves by borrowing an idea from elementary and secondary education
in the United States: a charter.
That is, many concerned observers of public elementary and secondary
education in the United States consider schooling to be moribund and bound by
overly rigid rules that do not enable a sufficient degree of experimentation
precisely at a time when innovation is necessary for educational improvement.
Charter schools are examples of public experiments that have the endorsement
and support of the local school, the teachers and parents in the school, the
unions, and the school board. In effect, there has been broad agreement to set
aside many of the regulatory guidelines that mandate how one or another
action is conducted so that every teacher in every school teaches in the same
manner. Instead, the school develops a charter that enables it to conduct its
work in ways that make most sense to teachers, parents, and administrators. To
be sure, a charter must meet broad assurances that are set by the governing
board, but within that structure there is an equally great amount of leeway to
develop policies and procedures that are best for the local school, rather than
for the bureaucracy that has developed over time.
Although charter schools are a recent experiment that pertains to the
lower grades, charters are also occurring in a few locations in the United
States in tertiary institutions. A similar kind of innovation seems warranted in
Australian universities. The point is not that every institution necessarily
needs to develop a charter that frees itself from governmental regulation.
However, at a time where most agree that experimentation and innovation
will benefit the system as a whole, then the ability of a coordinating board to
develop similar kinds of reform will be useful.
At a minimum, we want institutions within a system to think “outside of the
box”. While I am not advocating any one of these structural reforms, I am arguing
that a range of options need to be considered that enable different universities in
Australia to operate in ways that will further access and equity, improve quality,

control costs, and meet the distinctive missions they create. Some institutions
will undoubtedly remain wedded to governmental regulations and they will be
able to provide quality services. But other institutions may benefit by becoming
state-related, developing a charter, creating relationships with other
organizations, or even privatizing. I am suggesting that structural diversity, rather
than similarity, will better serve the citizenry.
Focus on teaching and learning initiatives: One result of the development of
distinctive missions and the ability to generate unique structural arrangements
pertain to this fourth suggested reform. In an environment where structural
arrangements suggest institutions should be more alike than different and
fiscal issues drive change, no one should be surprised that courses in business,
commerce, and accounting are omnipresent, and the humanities vanish.
Certainly in some institutions a focus on business courses makes sense, but one
need not be an artist to assert that any country that ignores the centrality of the
humanities is a country that is culturally at-risk. In a time of rapid globalization,
the ability of different universities to emphasize courses in history, literature,
classics, the arts, seems not simply a pleasant sideline if one can afford it, but a
cultural imperative. How is the citizenry to function in an increasingly
multicultural world if the universities do not prepare students as multicultural
citizens? What does it mean to be Australian in the 21st century? Such
questions necessitate robust discussions and debates that are most likely to be
found in classrooms that are in less evidence today than a generation ago:
history, literature, the arts and humanities.
In an innovative environment where universities have distinct missions,
one might expect to find an academic staff that has reached agreement
pertaining to core educational requirements for all of its students. The
argument over what courses and credits a student needs to take is as old as
universities. Academic staff has continually gone back and forth about
parochial and universal requirements, and I do not see why such arguments
and debate will not continue into the foreseeable future. However, there now
seems to be a suppression of debate about what a student should learn as
curricula has been transformed from a pedagogical activity to a fiscal one.
Similarly, different pedagogical styles and methods need to be
encouraged and supported. At present there seem to be two broad comments
that virtually all university personnel make about the teaching and learning
environment. On the one hand, distance learning is the wave of the future,
and on the other, as I mentioned earlier, student evaluations are an
improvement from the past where there were none.
The problem is that distance learning is a technique. One ought to use
distance learning in unique ways that are in accordance with the
philosophical assumptions behind teaching and learning. What are those

87
assumptions? The assumptions flow from the agreement that has been
reached about the university’s mission. One institution, for example, might
see its purpose as serving low-income working adults, while another
institution might focus on providing a well-rounded education for full-time
traditionally aged students. If either point is part of a mission, then distance
learning will be used in different ways.
If a university wishes to educate significant numbers of international
students on campus, then when courses are offered may need to be
reconfigured. Why should universities be at a low-use capacity during the
summer months if 30-40% of its clientele desire courses? Further, ought not
some universities focus on service learning, cooperative learning, and out-of-
class experiences as an institutional strategy? My point here is not to advocate
for one or another pedagogical strategy. I am arguing, however, that a system
that encourages diversity and differentiation will develop curricula that are
specific to the institution and offer curricula that meet the needs of the
learners.
Generate multiple revenue streams: At present there are three broad
revenue streams: government funds, international full-fee paying students,
and national full-fee paying students. At least three additional revenue
streams need to be considered: reinvestment of public funds, philanthropy
and tuition differentiation.
Although no government will support funding to the equivalent of the
past, we ought not draw the argument in dichotomous terms such that either
public universities should rely entirely on the government for funds or they
should survive entirely on private monies. Instead, the federal government
might considering increasing their commitment to public tertiary in selected,
strategic areas in addition to baseline funds.
Further, while I acknowledge that the vast majority of interviewees from
which this work derives, believed that philanthropic giving is not a viable
revenue option. Individuals pointed out that Australia did not have a history of
philanthropic giving akin to the United States. Others stated that Australia did
not have the wealth of the United States. Still others commented that the tax
structure did not encourage private donors. And finally, some individuals said
that the affective identification that United States institutions had developed
with its alumnae did not take place in Australia. Most often, individuals pointed
out that if donations were to be given to an organization, the private school was
the most likely recipient. Not coincidentally, individuals pointed out that
private schools generated the strongest degree of alumni commitment. Thus,
my initial suggestion for fiscal reform seems to fly in the face of overwhelming
opinion to the contrary, although I should also point out that a small percentage
of respondents felt that private donor giving was quite possible.

I base my suggestion on several assumptions. First, one ought not look at

the state of philanthropic giving in the United States today and assume that
Australia will replicate it overnight. A century ago the United States did not
have a history of philanthropy either. True, the United States is more wedded
to capitalism and Australia is a more egalitarian country; one by-product
is that the wealthy in America have enormous resources to dispense.
Nevertheless, Australians hold one percent of the world’s wealth. For such a
small nation, such wealth offers enormous potential for philanthropy. Indeed,
a contradiction exists when some argue that not enough wealth exists to
donate monies to tertiary education, but others point out that enough wealth
exists to donate substantial income to primary and secondary schools.
I should also point out that not every institution should necessarily
embark on a philanthropic undertaking. However, if the system is the unit of
analysis, it seems self-evident that alternative resources need to be raised.
Accordingly, some institutions should be encouraged to embark on significant
capital campaigns. For such an activity to occur, three issues need to be
resolved. First, tax structures need to be reformed so that philanthropic giving
is not simply tolerated, but encouraged. Second, a professional development
office needs to be established that is cost-effective and held to clear
benchmarks about fund-raising. Third, alumnae relations need to be
cultivated.
I appreciate that philanthropic giving will not immediately generate vast
amounts of wealth for all institutions. However, I am predicting that the first
institution that embarks on a carefully planned capital campaign of a
substantial amount – 250 million dollars or more – will be surprised at how
fast the goal is reached if their purposes are clear and the environment is
supportive.
The final suggestion is perhaps the most controversial issue that I offer.
Public universities ought to be free to offer differentiated tuition if they receive
approval by the national and regional coordinating boards. My suggestion here
is based on the assumption that there is nothing sacrosanct with how much
an institution charges its students. What matters are the underlying
philosophies upon which those tuition charges are based. Australia and the
United States are systems that support mass education, but their funding
schemes are vastly different. Curiously, in the more inegalitarian of the two
countries – the United States – a greater percentage of students attend
postsecondary education. Again, I am not suggesting that the United States is
a perfect system; indeed, I have written elsewhere about the problems that
exist for low-income students in the United States (Tierney, 1992).
However, the issue ought to turn not on deflating the real costs of a
college education, but instead, on enabling the greatest number of students to

89
attend an institution without incurring enormous debt upon graduation.

Assume, for example, that tuition at all institutions is set at “X” dollars when
one studies engineering. However, the real cost for engineering is “X + Y.”
Certainly those students who come from wealthy families can afford to pay
“X + Y,” whereas poor students cannot. However, all students are subsidized
by government funds. The opposite needs to occur: those who can afford to
pay the real cost of studying at the university should pay for some portion of
it. A tuition scheme needs to be developed that takes into account the real
costs of tertiary education and how to ensure that those who cannot afford
that cost are enabled to attend without taking on enormous debt.
Further, institutions ought to be able to set their own tuition rates so that
one institution will charge “A” while another will charge “A + B.” Again, the
underlying principles are twofold. On the one hand, some institutions are
more highly valued and they ought to be able to set their tuition according to
that value. On the other hand, as long as funding schemes are in place that
ensures that not only the wealthy go to those institutions that cost the most,
then an unequal system has not been devised.
When we enable different institutions to develop alternative funding
streams, the system as an entirety benefits. Rather than force all institutions
to compete for the same research grants or the same international students,
we need to devise ways for institutional differentiation to develop that lessens
stress on the system as a whole. Philanthropic giving and differential tuition
are the two most significant ways to develop alternative revenue streams.
Conclusion
Organizational life is not a causal relationship where if we do “x” then “y”
will happen. Hence, I am not suggesting that if a coordinating board is put in
place, then fiscal health will automatically return to the universities.
Structures are enacted and interpreted by individuals, and these structures
exist in a dynamic, fluid system. The most that one can hope for is to develop
a system that creates the conditions for change. I have argued here that the
current system of tertiary education in Australia has a faulty structure that
gravitates against change rather than promotes innovation. A dual system
governing board will enable coordination in ways that are currently
unavailable and will remove universities from the political sphere. Innovation
and experimentation will be heightened, and the current mania for reporting
will be secondary to a results-oriented agenda.
The ability to create unique missions, in turn, enables different curricula
and pedagogies to develop. Although the final point pertains to increasing
revenues, I have suggested that the route to organizational health and high
performance depends upon the enactment of all five points. My argument has

been that without such changes the patterns that are currently in place will
simply repeat themselves: stress, anxiety and low morale will continue to
pervade the system.
As I noted at the outset, throughout the interviews I conducted there was
broad agreement that the system is worse off today than a decade ago, and
that if we maintain business as usual, then the system will continue to
deteriorate. The road to reform, always uncertain, always perilous, is surely
better than maintaining the status quo. I am not suggesting that if these
reforms are enacted academic staff and administrators will have created a
Paradise Regained as if universities are currently a Paradise Lost. Universities
need to be dynamic, changing entities with a stable core commitment to
values such as academic freedom and the search for truth. They are central to
the health of a country’s economic, social, and cultural well-being. New
contexts require new formulations. The reforms offered here move away from
trying to recreate what once existed or merely trying to adapt to the
marketplace. “Every man is the architect of his own destiny”, said Don Quixote
on his deathbed as he tried to give his friends courage to face the future. And
too, our universities are architects of their own destinies. We ought not simply
be buffeted by changed environmental conditions or simply react to
governmental initiatives. The reforms offered here provide the architecture on
which to build dynamic and democratic universities for the 21st century.
The author:
William G. Tierney
Wilbur-Kieffer Professor of Higher Education and Director
Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis – WPH 701
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, CA 90089-0031
United States of America
E-mail: wgtiern@usc.edu
References
AUSTRALIAN VICE-CHANCELLORS’ COMMITTEE (2000a), Key statistics, Australian Vice-
Chancellors’ Committee, Canberra, Australia.
AUSTRALIAN VICE-CHANCELLORS’ COMMITTEE (2000b), University facts 2000,
Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee, Canberra, Australia.
CLARK, B. (1972), “The organizational saga in higher education”, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 178-184.
CLARK, B. (1992), The distinctive college, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ.

91
COADY, T. (ed.) (2000), Why universities matter: A conversation about values, means and
directions, Allen & Unwin, St. Leonards.
COALDRAKE, P. and L. STEDMAN (1999), Academic work in the twenty-first century:
Changing roles and policies, Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs,
Higher Education Division, Canberra, Australia.
CONSIDINE, M., S. MARGINSON and P. SHEEHAN (2001), “The comparative
performance of Australia as a knowledge nation”, Report to the Chifley Research
Centre.
CURRIE, J. and L. VIDOVICH (2000), “Privatization and competition policies for
Australian universities”, International Journal of Educational Development, Vol. 20,
pp. 135-151.
DRUCKER, P. (1990), Managing the non-profit organization: Practices and principles (1st ed.),
HarperCollins, New York, NY.
GROUP OF EIGHT: AUSTRALIA’S LEADING UNIVERSITIES (2000a, August), Imperatives
and principles for policy reform in Australian higher education, Group of Eight:
Australia’s Leading Universities, Manuka, Australia.
GROUP OF EIGHT: AUSTRALIA’S LEADING UNIVERSITIES (2000b, December), Research
and innovation: Australia’s future. Manuka, Australia: Group of Eight: Australia’s
Leading Universities.
MARGINSON, S. and M. CONSIDINE (2000), The entrepreneurial university: Power,
governance and reinvention in Australia, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
MCINNIS, C. (1992), “Changes in the nature of academic work”, Australian Universities
Review, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 9-12.
MCINNIS, C. (1998a), “Dissolving boundaries and new tensions: Academics and
administrators in Australian universities”, Journal of Higher Education Policy and
Management, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 161-173.
MCINNIS, C. (1998b), Change and continuity in academic work, Higher Education Series
Report No. 35 (July), Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Higher
Education Division, Canberra, Australia.
MCINNIS, C. (2000a), Changes in Academic Work Roles, Department of Education,
Training and Youth Affairs, Canberra, Australia.
MCINNIS, C. (2000b). The work roles of academics in Australian universities, Department of
Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Evaluations and Investigations Programme
Higher Education Division, Canberra, Australia.
NATIONAL TERTIARY EDUCATION UNION (2000, July), Unhealthy places of learning:
Working in Australian universities, National Tertiary Education Union, South
Melbourne, Australia.
SCHWARTZ, S. (2000, February), “Australia’s universities: Last of the great socialist
enterprises”, Address to the Centre for Independent Studies, No. 1, Sydney,
Australia.
SLAUGHTER, S. and L. LESLIE (1997), Academic capitalism: Politics, policies and the
entrepreneurial university , Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, MD.
SMART, D. (1997), “Reforming Australian higher education: Adjusting the levers of
funding and control”, Education Research and Perspectives, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 29-41.

TIERNEY, W.G. (1992), Official encouragement, institutional discouragement: Minorities in

academe – The Native American experience, Ablex, Norwood, NJ.
TIERNEY, W.G. (ed.) (1998), The responsive university: Restructuring for high performance,
Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD.
TIERNEY, W. G. (1999), Building the responsive campus: Creating high performance colleges
and universities, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
TIERNEY, W. G. (2001), “Overcoming Obstacles to reform”, About Campus, Vol. 6, No. 2,
pp. 20-24.
VIDOVICH, L. and J. CURRIE (1998), “Changing accountability and autonomy at the
‘coalface’ of academic work in Australia”, in J. Currie & J. Newson (eds.), Universities
and globalization: Critical perspectives (pp. 193-211), Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

93
ISSN 1682-3451
Volume 16, No. 2
© OECD 2004
Incentives and Accountability:

The Canadian Context
by
Michelle Gauthier
Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC),
Canada
Since 1997, the Canadian federal government has introduced a

variety of new incentives to enhance significantly the funding of
university research in this country. While these funding initiatives
have been welcomed by Canadian universities, they are
accompanied by a heightened emphasis on accountability which
dictates new eligibility conditions for universities’ access to these
funds. Given that research and innovation have become more
central and significant spending categories for the federal public
purse, universities in Canada are increasingly subject to public
scrutiny, due to concerns for public accountability and safety.
The new programs often involve more strategic central co-ordination
and consequently require that the university administration, and not
just faculty, justify funding requests. Universities are also expected
to demonstrate compliance with a growing array of federally codified
guidelines and regulations.
These federal expectations of accountability are multiplying as
both the investment in research and the different types of funding
mechanisms grow. They are compounded by the fact that, in
Canada, universities operate under provincial jurisdiction, which
require an additional level of accountability. All these forms of
federal and provincial accountability require universities to devote
additional time and resources to the stakeholder management
process and to the justification of new funds sought and received.
The presentation will explore the cumulative impact of these
federal and provincial requirements and consider how Canadian
universities are positioning themselves to address growing
expectations to account for the use of public funds.

95
INCENTIVES AND ACCOUNTABILITY: THE CANADIAN CONTEXT
U niversities in Canada are increasingly recognised by policy and decision-

makers as catalysts of innovation and essential partners in a larger network of
knowledge creation and knowledge exchange which involves a host of other
organisations, both public and private. The active participation of universities
within these innovation networks is seen to provide a wide range of benefits
which include tangible outputs such as the education of future leaders and
citizens, basic and applied research, consulting and advisory services and the
commercialisation of university research, among others. Growing recognition
by all sectors of Canadian society of universities’ contribution to the social and
economic well-being of the nation is leading to heightened demand for
university education, research, and innovation.1
In its forthcoming publication, Trends in higher education, the Association of
Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC) estimates that the demand for
university enrolment may grow by as much as 30% or 200 000 students by 2011. It
is anticipated that this growth will be fuelled both by a population surge of
18 to 24-year-olds and by increases in participation rates.2 Participation rates will
be positively influenced by student responsiveness to labour market demand, by
a heightened recognition of the economic and social returns generated by a
university education and by a growing number of university-educated parents
who will likely encourage their own children to pursue a university degree.3
On the research front, Canadian universities currently perform one-third
of the country’s national research and development. OECD data on the share
of national R&D performed in higher education reveals that in Canada
universities occupy a far greater role in the performance of national research
activities than in most other industrialised countries – nearly 50% more than
in other G7 countries and more than twice as much as in the United States.4
By 2011, university research expenditures are projected to more than double
as Canada seeks to move from 14th to 5th place in terms of gross expenditures
on research and development as a percentage of its GDP.
Insofar as faculty is concerned, as many as 40 000 professors may be needed
by the end of the decade as Canadian universities confront massive faculty
renewal and respond to new enrolment and research demands. AUCC projects
that Canadian universities will need to replace 20 000 or 60% of their current
roster of 34 500 professors by 2011 due to retirement or attrition. As many as
20 000 more professors may be needed to respond to the growth in enrolment
demand and the push to enhance the quality of education and research.5

Canadian universities must address this growing demand for their

services at a time when citizens, communities, businesses and governments
have increasingly high expectations of the returns generated by both
individual and societal investment in universities. There are also growing
government expectations to manage federal, provincial, private sector and
student support more effectively and efficiently than ever before. The scope of
the challenge of responding effectively to demand and meeting accountability
expectations is exacerbated by the need for universities in all regions of the
country both to provide high quality services across the board and to nurture
their respective teaching and research niches.
While universities in Canada have long confronted competing priorities
for the use of available funds, as institutions across the country seek to meet
a wider array and growing list of stakeholder expectations, they cannot all
respond to the same degree to each need. The needs and challenges vary from
region to region, among universities of various sizes, and according to the
financial resources available to each institution. Consequently, Canadian
universities have and will continue to make choices with regard to which
programs and services will be offered and what types of regional or
institutional specialisation should influence their teaching and research
priorities. Nonetheless, as universities make more and more strategic choices
in response to the growing demand for their services, the need to demonstrate
and publicly account for the effective use of resources both to internal and
external stakeholders is only expected to escalate.
It is in this context – that of the centrality of Canadian Universities to the
success of its nation’s increasingly knowledge-based society and economy, of
the growing expectations placed on Universities by all sectors of society and of
the heightened emphasis on public accountability – that sections which follow
examine the nature and scope of federal and provincial expectations of
universities as well as the financial incentives provided by governments in
support of research and teaching. In the final section of the paper, the types of
accountability to which these new expectations and incentives give rise are
examined against the backdrop of Canadian universities’ current planning
and reporting mechanisms.
Federal and provincial governments’ expectations of universities

In response to signals from Canadians about the growing importance of
universities and in light of the fact that research and innovation are increasingly
central and significant spending categories for the public purse, both federal and
provincial governments have become more explicit in recent years in articulating
their expectations of the university community. These expectations, and the
accountability measurements to which they give rise, are being assessed carefully

97
by universities as federal and provincial governments in Canada remain the

primary source of funding for university activities. As of 2001-02, government
support accounted for just over 50% of all university funding.6
Given their direct constitutional responsibility for education, provincial
governments in Canada provide the majority of all government support to
universities. In 2001-02, this direct support from the provinces amounted to
almost CAD 7 billion. 7 For its part, the federal government exercises its
spending power to provide provincial governments with cash and tax
transfers to assist them in the delivery of postsecondary education. Moreover,
the federal government provides more than CAD 1.3 billion in direct support
of university research activities.8 Both levels of government also provide
grants, loans and tax incentives to students through student aid programs.
Each provincial government articulates formally and informally its
expectations of universities in its jurisdiction through such means as legislative
acts, government policy, public comment and/or private exchanges with senior
university administrators or their representative bodies. In 1999, however, all
provincial and territorial education ministers through the Council of Ministers of
Education, Canada (CMEC) collectively articulated a series of seven “expectations”
for postsecondary education across Canada.9 First and foremost was the goal of
ensuring that all qualified students have access to a high quality university
experience. The expectations also included an emphasis on ensuring that
university programs provide learners with relevant and diverse knowledge,
competencies and skills to facilitate their participation both in the labour market
and society. On the research front, the expectations highlighted the need for
university research and scholarship programs to contribute to the cultural, social
and economic development of Canada’s communities and regions.
Similarly, in February 2002, the federal government released two innovation
strategy papers intended to stimulate a national discussion regarding the
contribution of all stakeholder groups to improved innovation and productivity.10
The papers identified both broad and specific challenges for universities in the
decade ahead. These included, among others:
1. More than doubling basic and applied university research activities.
2. Identifying new and more cost effective ways for the treatment and
prevention of disease.
3. Contributing to a rapid expansion in the amount of R&D conducted in
Canada both by performing research for industry and government and by
supplying the economy with far more master’s and PhD graduates.
4. Tripling the revenues generated from commercialisation of university based
R&D.
5. Expanding university undergraduate enrolment “at the rate needed to
sustain growth in the knowledge based economy”.

6. Improving the participation rates of all Canadians, especially those from

economically disadvantaged backgrounds, from aboriginal groups and from
traditionally underrepresented groups.
7. Increasing the use of technology enhanced learning to improve access to,
and the quality of, university education.
These federal innovation papers also included a formal call to all
stakeholder groups, including the university community, to create an action
plan that would detail their collective commitment to achieving the national
innovation goals. AUCC responded in June 2002 with a plan outlining a series
of 15 major commitments including providing more learning opportunities for
traditional and non-traditional students, expanding graduate programs to
enhance Canada’s pool of highly qualified personnel and at least doubling the
amount of research universities perform by 2010.11 University presidents were
prepared to make these collective commitments insofar as federal and
provincial governments as well as the private sector were prepared to take the
complementary steps required to achieve the targets proposed and the
appropriate financial support for the realisation of the objectives was
forthcoming federal and provincial incentives for universities.
Federal and provincial incentives for universities

At the federal level, expectations regarding universities’ contributions to
innovation are not anticipated to come without financial incentives to
facilitate and encourage the participation of universities from across the
country in the national innovation strategy. As precursors to its innovation
strategy papers, the Canadian federal government has introduced a variety of
new incentives over the past five years to enhance the funding of university
research. Five of these initiatives have transformed the funding landscape for
university research in Canada since 1997.
● In 1997, the Canada Foundation for Innovation, with a cumulative
endowment of CAD 3.15 billion, was created to strengthen Canada’s research
infrastructure. Capital investments made by the CFI and its provincial,
institutional and private sector partners will approach CAD 8 billion by 2010.
● In 1998, after several lean years, the federal government restored funding to
federal research granting agencies to their 1993-94 levels and has since
provided additional funding for such targeted initiatives as the New
Economy Initiative, which provides CAD 100 million over four years for
research on new economy issues.
● In 1999, the federal government created the Canadian Institutes of Health
Research, a multidisciplinary approach to health research organised
through a framework of 13 virtual institutes. Funding for these institutes in
just the last five years is now double that of its predecessor.

99
● In 2000, the federal government created the Canada Research Chairs, a

CAD 900 million initiative to support the establishment of 2 000 research
chairs by 2004-05.
● In December 2001, the federal government made an initial contribution of
CAD 200 million towards the indirect costs of research, together with a firm
commitment to work with universities to establish an on-going program in
support of the indirect costs of research.
These new investments in research infrastructure, personnel and grants
represent several billion dollars since 1997. Between 1998 and 2001, the
federal government’s investment in university research grew by 54%. In light
of these increases, federal governments now fund 21% of higher education
R&D.12
Despite these increases, investment in university R&D in Canada still lags
behind several OECD competitors and arguably limits the extent to which
Canadian universities can meet national innovation goals. For example,
despite the amount of federally sponsored research performed by Canadian
universities, there is currently no ongoing support for the indirect costs of
research associated with these activities. In 2001-02, the indirect costs of such
federally funded research were estimated at approximately CAD 400 million.
In recognition of this fact, the next federal budget is expected to deliver on the
promise of long-term funding for indirect costs as well as support for smaller
universities seeking to build their research capacity.
For their part, provincial incentives for universities cover both research-
related support and more general operating support. On the research front,
the provinces have in recent years assumed a growing role in providing direct
support for the research function of universities. In some cases, these
represent initiatives taken by provincial governments independent of federal
programs; in other cases, provincial support has been complementary to that
provided by the federal government. A number of provinces have invested
heavily in university research with five of ten provinces having established
their own research granting agencies. Most provinces also provide support for
such activities as targeted research initiatives (for example, in health or
agriculture) or promotion of university-industry collaboration and technology
transfer. Many provinces also provide the 40% matching funds required by the
Canada Foundation for Innovation for research infrastructure. A few provinces
provide funds to cover some of the indirect costs of federally-funded research
and provincially funded research.
The bulk of the financial support provided by the provinces, however, is
in direct operating support which amounted to CAD 5.8 billion in 2001-02.13 In
relative terms, this amount represents a marginally smaller share of
provincial government spending in 2001-02 than at the outset of the 1990s. As
a result, government operating support for universities is 17% lower than

in 1992-93 and 30% (almost CAD 4 000) less than the CAD 12 000 per student
that governments provided at the beginning of the 1980s. In 2001-02,
governments provided only 61% of the operating revenues of universities
versus 83% in 1980. 14 Given the decline in per-student support at the
provincial level and the lack of internationally competitive levels of federal
funding for R&D (despite a renewed commitment to university research in
recent years), fulfilling increasingly explicit and ambitious federal and
provincial expectations will clearly be a challenge for universities.
Institutional, federal and provincial accountability

Accountability is by no means a new concept for Canadian universities.
Universities in Canada routinely account for the use of public funds to both
internal and external stakeholders via an array of communication and
reporting mechanisms. University administrators are accountable to their
boards of governors, which include representatives from the faculty and
student bodies as well as from local business and community leaders. Each
university also has a senior administrator who is responsible for overseeing
the sound financial management of all funds. In addition, universities
regularly provide reports to federal and provincial government departments
and granting agencies to document the use and outcomes of the funds
provided for operating grants, research grants and contracts, and domestic
and international outreach activities.
Nonetheless, both the nature and frequency of these accountability
activities are changing. While the articulation of federal and provincial
expectations and the accompanying commitment of universities to achieve
mutually agreed upon goals has long been part of the government-university
relationship, the public nature of this articulation has assumed a distinct new
force. Additional government support for universities is increasingly conditional
on the provision of institutional strategic plans that are publicly accessible; the
assessment of performance against government approved indicators; and
comprehensive and explicit expectations of managing research in the public
interest and with public scrutiny of means and results. This reality combined
with the proliferation of funding mechanisms, each with its own specific
expectations and forms of accountability, is placing new demands on universities
that have repercussions on how they account for the funds received.
Canadian universities must submit a growing number of qualitative and
quantitative reports that demonstrate more specific impacts of the funding
provided to a host of federal and provincial agencies each year. Their senior
administrators are also increasingly called upon to proactively and centrally
manage tensions over resource allocation and demand for public accountability.

101
These activities entail significant additional time and resources devoted to the
management of the teaching and research enterprise. In order to continue
capitalising on government funding opportunities, universities are therefore
becoming more strategic in planning and accounting for the linkages between
available funding and institutional priorities.
Universities’ strategic planning exercises enable them to determine to
what extent they are, or could be, more responsive to the variety of demands
they confront, both individually and collectively. This planning facilitates their
efforts to anticipate future needs, define their niches, ensure community buy-
in, manage creatively, maximise efficiencies, and leverage effectively across
all their services. It also requires them to communicate and demonstrate how
their financial and organisational choices support and fulfil the objectives and
priorities established for each institution. Overall, strategic planning
encourages the integrated co-ordination of research, teaching and community
service activities and a synergistic and shared vision of the role of the
university in the process of knowledge exchange.
Strategic plans developed by universities to date reinforce the degree of
diversity that exists across the university system and suggest the potential for
even greater diversity where and when appropriate. Universities typically
revisit their strategic plans every two to three years and regularly measure
their progress in achieving their objectives. While the scope and nature of
strategic planning exercises vary from one institution to another, and many
institutions have stand-alone plans for research, information technology and/
or academic programs, these planning processes are increasingly integrated
and their results made publicly available. As of 2001-02, strategic plans were
publicly available on most Canadian university websites.
The emphasis on strategic plans has been fuelled in part by new federal
research initiatives that promote more strategic central co-ordination by
institutions and consequently require that university administration, and not
just faculty, justify funding requests. For example, the Canada Foundation for
Innovation (CFI) requires that universities not only provide a summary of their
institutional strategic research plan, but also link their plan to the process for
securing matching funding from other public or private sources within six
months of a CFI decision.15 Universities must also submit their strategic
research plan, complete with linkages to research infrastructure requests
made of CFI, to justify the relevance of their nominations to the Canada
Research Chairs Program.
Universities seeking federal money also face escalating requirements to
comply with a wide array of guidelines and regulations related to the
administration of research funds such as the care and treatment of animals
involved in research, the support of research ethics boards for research
involving human subjects, and assessment of the environmental impact of

research. As part of this growing accountability on compliance issues, the
three federal granting agencies have engaged universities in a two-year
p rocess to create a Memorandum of Und erstand ing on roles and
responsibilities in the management of federal grants and awards. All
universities in Canada that receive funds from one or more of the federal
granting agencies are now expected to sign this MoU and its accompanying
schedules by the Fall of 2002 as a condition for future funding.16
The MoU not only defines the conditions Canadian universities must
meet before their researchers are considered eligible for funding, but also
seeks to document, through the signature of university presidents, that
presidents formally acknowledge and agree to comply, on behalf of all those in
their institutions, with these expectations. The memorandum and its
schedules constitute a contract that could create legal obligations for
institutions toward the agencies as well as to third parties. Its implementation
is requiring significant due diligence on behalf of institutions to ensure that
their own internal rules and procedures are consistent with those
expectations set out in the MOU. The current MOU, which covers eight distinct
aspects of research administration, will be followed by a second wave of
schedules that could address more than ten other aspects of university
oversight.
Federal accountability measures such as these are compounded by the
fact that, in Canada, universities operate under provincial jurisdiction, which
require an additional level of accountability. For example, universities in
several provinces now measure at least part of their performance against
provincial indicators. These performance indicators inform their respective
governments’ allocation decisions with regard to university funding.
In 1997-98, Alberta became the first province in Canada to link performance
to funding in the university sector.17 Since 1997-98, a performance envelope
award of approximately 2% of total operating grants (CAD 15 million) was
made available to universities. 18 There are two components to Alberta’s
Performance Based Funding Mechanism (the name given to the instrument
used to distribute the performance awards), the learning component and the
research component. The learning component is comprised of indicators that
are intended to measure institutional responsiveness, accessibility and
affordability. The research component (worth approximately 20% of total
performance envelope awards) is calculated by national peer group rankings
on a “report card’ using the following Key Performance Indicators (KPIs):
1) council monetary awards per full-time faculty member (based on 5 year
rolling average); 2) citation per research publication (based on 5 year rolling
average); 3) community and industry funding for sponsored research per
faculty member; and 4) research revenues as percentage of provincial grants.

103
In 1999-2000, an additional CAD 100 000 was available for each university with
outstanding research performance as measured by the institution’s report
card score on the KPIs.19
In Ontario, performance-based funding (PBF) was introduced in 2000-01 by
the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. The government’s official
rationale in introducing PBF was to establish a formative accountability
mechanism that would both improve the system and help the government to
achieve its legislated objectives in the university sector.20 The amount of
funding allocated to PBF in 2000-01 represented approximately 1% – or
CAD 16.5 million of universities’ total operating grants. 21 In 2001-02,
CAD 23.2 million or 1.34% of the operating grant budget was allocated to
universities for PBF.22
PBF for Ontario universities is currently based on three Performance
Indicators (PIs): 1) degree completion rate; 2) six month employment rate of
graduates; and 3) two year employment rate of graduates. Degree completion
rate is measured by comparing all first-year students who are seeking
bachelor or first professional degrees in a given year with the records of
students who received a bachelor’s or professional degree in the seven years
subsequent to that year (e.g. 1991 entrants/1992-98 graduates = degree
completion rate). Employment rate of graduates is measured by the number of
employed graduates (or those offered employment) divided by the total
number of graduates in the labour force.
Institutions are rank-ordered, and then divided into three groups based
on their scores in the three performance indicators. Universities in the highest
scoring group receive double the amount of funds of the second group, while
universities who score in the bottom third receive no performance funding.
According to the Report from the University Members of the University Working
Group on Performance Funding, universities in Ontario are deeply concerned
with the methodologies used in the measurement of these indicators and
with improving the link to performance based funding. Chief among their
concerns is the need for the government to recognise the diversity in university
policies and institutional missions, as well as the lack of control that
institutions have over external factors that influence the indicators.
In Quebec universities were recently required to sign performance
contracts. These contracts represent a different approach to the performance
base funds introduced in Alberta and Ontario in that fulfilment of the
performance contract becomes a precondition to any future increase in an
institution’s operating funding. Each contract negotiated between the provincial
government and the university established a number of indicators against
which improvements in each institution’s performance would be measured.23
Both parties shared in the development of relevant goals for the university and
were encouraged to reflect the diversity of the universities and their mandates
in the establishment of the objectives. To this end, each university’s
performance contracts were designed using a given set of indicators which best
suited their particular mission. The generic performance indicators from which
universities’ crafted their specific performance targets including the following
eight categories: graduation rate (Full-time programs); participation rate;
international students; student support; faculty recruitment; academic
programs; research; and balanced budget.
Once the goals for the institution were set, the performance contract
outlined the funding increases universities could expect if they met their
targets. Universities were given an extended time frame to adjust their current
practices to targets identified in the performance contracts. In 2000-01, the
Minister of Education announced approximately CAD 750 million in new
funding over three years for Quebec’s universities to cover commitments
made in its policy on finance regarding universities.24
Conclusion
Performance-based indicators, public performance contracts and detailed
reporting mechanisms are often double-edged swords. On the one hand, they
respond to a political need for a measurable indication of universities’ success
in meeting the objectives defined both from within universities’ own planning
processes and by external funding partners. On the other hand, given the need
for these indicators to provide some level of comparability or equity in
assessment among institutions, they are often crude measurements of the
objectives identified. Furthermore, given the challenge of defining provincially
or nationally relevant indicators, they often fail to account for the institutional
diversity that is both characteristic of, and demanded of, universities in
Canada.
As the appetite and requirement for accountability increase, universities
will need to continue planning strategically to meet stakeholder expectations
and to play an active role in defining accountability measures that value and
promote a diverse range of outcomes. Accountability measures that recognise
this diversity and yet promote effective, efficient and transparent use of finite
financial resources will enable un iversities to demo nstrate their
responsiveness to stakeholder expectations. The demonstration of this
responsiveness will in turn facilitate the attraction and retention of the
funding required for universities to provide more and better services in the
decade ahead.
The challenge remains, however, to respond to legitimate expectations to
account for the use of public funds while avoiding loss of institutional
autonomy, excessive cost and undue risk to institutions. Responding to this

105
challenge will require not a performance contract, but a social contract. Such
a contract would be based on open communication, ongoing co-operation and
mutual accountability among all stakeholders in Canada whose collective
success depends upon well-resourced and internationally competitive
Canadian universities.
The author:
Dr. Michelle Gauthier
Director, Research and Policy Analysis Division
Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC)
600-350 Albert Street
Ottawa, Ontario K1R 1B1
E-mail: mgauthie@aucc.ca
Notes
1. This background paper was created from excerpts of AUCC’s forthcoming
publication, Trends in higher education, a publication prepared by AUCC’s
Research and Policy Analysis Division. I acknowledge the permission of all authors
from the division for the right to use jointly produced material. Particular thanks
to Herb O’Heron, Lawrence Aronovitch, Steven McKibbin and Ann Gratton for their
comments and assistance in the preparation of this document.
2. Statistics Canada, Demography Division, Moderate Growth Population Projection
(Scenario 2), 2001.
3. Foot, D.K., and Stoffman, D., Boom, Bust and Echo: How to Profit from the Coming
Demographic Shift (Macfarlane, Walter and Ross, Toronto), 1996, p. 160.
4. Statistics Canada Science and Innovation Surveys Section, 2001 estimates and
OECD, Main Science and Technology Indicators 2001, 1999 data.
5. Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC), Trends in Higher
Education, 2002.
6. AUCC estimates, 2001-02.
7. Provincial government budget announcements and AUCC estimates, 2002.
8. Statistics Canada, Science and Innovation Surveys Section, 2001-02 estimates.
9. Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC), A Report on Public Expectations
of Postsecondary Education in Canada, February 1999.
10. Human Resources Development Canada, Knowledge Matters: Skills and Learning
for Canadians; and Industry Canada, Achieving Excellence: Investing in People,
Knowledge and Opportunity, Canada’s Innovation Strategy, 2002.
11. AUCC, A Strong Foundation for Innovation: An AUCC Action Plan, July 2002.
12. Statistics Canada Science and Innovation Surveys Section, op. cit.
13. AUCC estimates, 2001-02.
14. Statistics Canada, data and AUCC estimates, 2001.

15. Canada Foundation for Innovation, CFI Policy and Program Guide, 2002.
16. Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research
Council and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, Memorandum of
Understanding: Roles and Responsibilities in the Management of Federal Grants and Award,
June 2002.
17. Government of Alberta, News Release July 31, 1997.
18. Shale, D., The Other Side of Alberta’s Performance Based Funding Mechanism: The
Research Component, Office of Institutional Analysis, University of Calgary, 2000.
19. Ibid.
20. Council of Ontario Universities, Report from the University Members of the Working
Group on Performance Funding, March 2001.
21. Ibid.
22. Canada News Wire, “Universities Receive CAD 23.2 million funding based on
performance”, 2001.
23. Gouvernement du Québec, Quebec Policy on University Funding, 2000.
24. Gouvernement du Québec, ministère de l’Éducation, “Bilan des contrats de
performance conclus entre le ministère de l’Éducation et les universités”,
Communiqué de presse, May 2002.

107
ISSN 1682-3451
Volume 16, No. 2
© OECD 2004
Student Satisfaction in Higher Education:

a Turkish Case
by
Ceyhan Aldemir and Yaprak Gülcan
Dokuz Eylül University, Turkey
The aim of this paper is to determine the level and the factors
for university students’ satisfaction with the institutions
they are attending. Firstly, the concept of satisfaction will be
defined. Secondly, a conceptual framework to demonstrate the
relationship between the factors which lie behind university
student satisfaction will be presented. Thirdly, the results and
implications of a survey with which the authors tried to test the
presupposed relationships within the boundaries of the conceptual
framework will be given and discussed. The limitations of the
research are also given. The results of the research show that,
at least for some Turkish university students, the quality of
education, instructors, textbooks and being female and informed
before attending university can be considered important factors
of satisfaction.

109
STUDENT SATISFACTION IN HIGHER EDUCATION: A TURKISH CASE
A lthough there is a significant amount of research on student satisfaction,

Harvey (2001), Lee et al. (2000), Benjamin and Hollings (1997, 1995) argue that
student satisfaction is an important issue that has not yet been fully explored.
Satisfaction or dissatisfaction with a university or faculty does not only affect
student performance (Pike, 1991; Bean and Bradley, 1986) and the competitive
advantage of universities in an ever-increasing competitive environment (Lee et
al., 2000). More significantly, it also affects both the physical and psychological
health of students. Dissatisfaction causes stress and this in turn provokes
psychological and psychosomatic disorders (Öngider and Yüksel, 2002).
For a detailed report on the nature and impact of psychological and
psychosomatic disorders on students, one should refer to Stirling University’s
Mental Health Guidelines which were updated in March 2003. The guidelines
refer to research conducted among university students both in the United
States and in the United Kingdom. The results of this research consistently
suggest that students are at particular risk of mental health problems. Öngider
and Yüksel (2002) find similar results for Turkish university students studying
at the institution where this research was conducted. Thus, an attempt to
determine the sources of satisfaction becomes a very important endeavour
in itself.
The aim of this article is to determine the level and the factors for
university students’ satisfaction with the institutions they are attending.
Firstly, the concept of satisfaction will be defined. Secondly, a conceptual
framework to demonstrate the relationship between the factors which lie
behind university student satisfaction will be presented. Thirdly, the results and
implications of a survey with which the authors tried to test the presupposed
relationships within the boundaries of the conceptual framework will be given
and discussed.
“Satisfaction is a person’s attitude toward an object. It represents a
complex assemblage of cognitions (beliefs or knowledge), emotions (feelings,
sentiments or evaluations) and behavioural tendencies” (Hamner and Organ,
1978, p. 216). The object of satisfaction may be anything. When a person states
that he/she is satisfied with something, he/she is regarded as having a positive

110
attitude toward that specific object. Conversely, a person may be dissatisfied

with something. In that case he is regarded as having negative attitudes toward
that very object.
Probably, the simplest, most straightforward method to measure
satisfaction is to ask individuals questions as to what extent they are satisfied
with a given object (Hamner and Organ, 1978:217). Thus, accuracy can be
enhanced by defining the “object” of satisfaction very carefully.
In this article, the object is university students’ satisfaction and it is
defined as the positive and negative attitudes developed by the students with
regard to their institutions.
Conceptual framework
Before proceeding into the details of the conceptual framework, it seems
necessary to designate the level of analysis at which the following research was
conducted. According to Harvey (2001), the predominant satisfaction surveys
cover five areas: 1) institutions (university level), 2) faculties, 3) departments,
4) courses and 5) teacher-appraisal by students. In this study, we have collected
information regarding the faculties and unless otherwise stated, our analysis,
results, comments and conclusions must be interpreted at this level.
Taking previous research (Harvey, 2001, 1997; Lee et al., 2000; Donald
and Denison, 1996; Morrison, 1999; Marsh, 1991; Rich et al., 1988; Guolla,
1982; Feldman and Theiss, 1982) and the authors’ personal observations as
a basis, it is assumed that there are four major groups of factors which seem
to affect student satisfaction: 1) institutional factors 2) extracurricular factors,
3) student expectations and 4) student demographics (Figure 1).
Some of these factors are similar to Harvey’s 2001 study. According
to Harvey, most universities around the world conduct satisfaction surveys
among the students regarding the services they provide. These services
include: 1) learning and teaching, 2) learning supports facilities, 3) support
facilities, 4) external aspects of being a student, 5) the learning environment.
In this study, services one and two are classified under the heading “academic
factors”, services three, four and five are classified under “extracurricular
activities”. In addition to these, institutional, expectational and demographic
factors are also included in order to come up with a more comprehensive
framework.
Institutional factors break down into two major components: academic
factors and university administrators’ management philosophy and style.
Academic factors include: a) quality of education, b) communication with
instructors both in and outside the classroom, c) curriculum, d) textbooks and
other teaching materials and e) student evaluations of instructors (Guolla,
1999; Cashin, 1992; Marsh, 1991, 1987; Abrami, 1989). Administrative factors

111
include the philosophy and practices of university administrators (Donald and

Denison, 1996; Porter and McKibbin, 1988; Ames and Ames, 1984; Rigby, 1984;
Cameron, 1981).
Extracurricular activities consist of all social, health, cultural and sportive
activities plus transportation and boarding services (i.e. campus life) that a
university may provide to its students (Harvey, 2001; Harju et al., 1998; Donald
and Denison, 1996; Prieto, 1995; Cameron, 1981).
Another important factor that determines university students’ satisfaction
includes their preferences and expectations regarding their faculty. From the
process point of view, satisfaction is the difference between expectations and
achieved performance (Wanous et al., 1992; Feldman and Theiss, 1982). When
expectations and performance match, satisfaction occurs. A mismatch will
end up with dissatisfaction. Expectations do not only relate to the students’
faculty choice and probability of finding a job after graduation but also to what
he/she expects from higher education. In this study expectations include:
a) participation in faculty or university administration, b) the sectors in which
students expect to find jobs after graduation in Turkey, c) pursuing further
education abroad, d) finding a job abroad, e) whether they would send children
to the same faculty, f) whether the faculty prepares students for the labour
market or not.
Demographic factors are factors such as age, sex, class attendance,
cumulative average, etc. Figure 1 shows the relationship between the
satisfaction of university students and the factors mentioned above .
It can easily be claimed that there may be several other factors that can
determine the formation of satisfaction, which is indeed a highly complex
socio-psychological phenomena. Thus, the conceptual framework presented
in Figure 1 may be criticized from several points of view. For example, one can
Figure 1. A conceptual framework of factors relating

to university student satisfaction
INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS
A. ACADEMIC FACTORS
B. ADMINISTRATIONS
PHILOSOPHY AND STYLE
University
EXTRACCURRICULAR FACTORS
students
satisfaction
EXPECTATIONS
DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS
Source: Authors.

112
easily suggest that there might be numerous other factors that may determine
the formation of satisfaction. It may quite convincingly be argued that this
framework does not show likely interactions between the independent
variables. Furthermore the causal relationship invoked may turn out in fact to
be the reverse. That is, instead of a demographic factor such as success in class
(Grade Point Average) creating satisfaction, satisfaction may increase success
(Grade Point Average) (Donald and Denison, 1996; Pike, 1991; Bean and Bradley,
1986). However, this type of endeavour surpasses the researchers limits and
explains why the authors have chosen the factors which have been most
used in previous literature. One further reservation regarding the research,
and which is explained below, is that the authors had to omit administrative
style and philosophy from the research design due to an inadequate sample.
Quantitative analysis of this factor could not be given, yet some qualitative
interpretations will be provided through inference. After all, it is assumed that
the areas where students are dissatisfied are the points which both academics
and administrators pay attention to.
Method and sample

The Faculty of Business from which we have drawn the sample is a young
faculty which was established in 1992 at Dokuz Eylül University, Izmir, Turkey.
It has 4 departments and a total of 872 students, of which 182 students are first
year students. The language of instruction is English in all the departments.
Dokuz Eylül University is one of the largest state universities in Turkey. It has
36 000 students and ranks fifth among 52 state and 23 private (foundation)
universities. All 52 state universities are run, financed and controlled by a
constitutionally established body, the Higher Education Council. Foundation
universities are semi-private in the sense that they are controlled, but not
run and financed, by the Higher Education Council. There are laws, rules and
regulations which every state and foundation university has to observe.
Thus, almost all universities operate within the same legal framework.
The legal entity of universities is therefore not considered as a separate
variable and hence, not included in the institutional factors group.
In order to test the previously mentioned relationship in the conceptual
framework, a survey was conducted among the sophomore, junior and senior
students of the Faculty of Business in December 2001. First year students are
not included in the sample because information such as cumulative average
could not be obtained at the time of the survey. Another reason for omitting
first year classes was the presupposition that they were very new to the
Faculty and had not been able to develop realistic expectations and acquire
meaningful experiences. They were therefore not in a position to compare their
experiences with their expectations. The entire population of the students in

113
sophomore, junior and senior classes at the Faculty of Business at the time of
the survey was 690. The authors tried to reach the entire population, however
only 419 students responded. The rate of response was 60.7%. Detailed
information about the sample is given in Table 1.
Table 1. Research sample
Gender Age Previous Residence (Regions)

N = 419 N = 389 N = 419
Aegean- Mediter- Central

Female Male 17-18 19-20 21-22 23- Other
Thracia ranean Anatolia
Frequency 223 196 6 157 186 40 339 37 17 26

Percentage (%) 53.2 46.8 1.5 40.4 47.8 10.3 80.9 8.8 4.1 6.1
Source: Authors.
Survey and measures

A questionnaire of 63 questions was prepared by the authors and
addressed to students during December 2001. The authors tried to choose a
relatively less stressful period for the students (i.e. away from the stress of
examinations or presentations). Questions are grouped under four subheadings:
1) demographic (28 items), 2) institutional (18 items), 3) extracurricular
(5 items), 4) expectations (12 items). The questions were designed to address
the presupposed relationships in the conceptual framework.
The questions were prepared at nominal, ordinal and interval levels of
measurement. The variable “satisfaction” on the other hand was measured
at nominal level. Possible answers to this question were “Yes”, “No” or “I have
no idea”. Although literature is replete with Likert type measurements of
satisfaction, which allow for ordinal level of measurement and statistics, the
authors opted for nominal measurement. The reasons behind this choice were
firstly, that the authors were not interested in individual but rather the general
level of satisfaction of a large group; secondly, that by using such a method,
it became possible to see the net strength of student satisfaction (i.e. to what
extent this attitude is strong). Because the dependent variable was measured
on a nominal level, the statistics used were frequencies, ratios and chi square
tests. The test of significance level is determined to be at 0.05.
Results and discussion

The results concerning the satisfaction of students with this Faculty in
general are: 60.3% satisfied; 15.4% dissatisfied; 24% have no clear opinion. This
percentage of satisfaction can be considered quite high for a young Faculty.
A summary of the factors and sub-factors which seemed to be associated
with satisfaction are shown in Table 2. The results concerning factors of

114
satisfaction clearly show that academic factors, especially satisfaction with

the faculty, explain student satisfaction more than the others. Guolla (1999),
Cashin and Downey (1992), Marsh (1991), Conant (1985) also pointed to the
importance of the instructor’s performance. Highly performing instructors’
students are more satisfied not only with their instructors but also with their
institutions. Thus, even if a Faculty administration performs poorly, their
students remain satisfied as long as they have highly performing instructors.
However, if administrative problems keep piling up, this may cause competent,
high-quality instructors to withdraw or leave their organizations. Thus, we
should expect a decrease in students’ satisfaction if this were the case and an
indirect decrease in the satisfaction of students from the Faculty.
Table 2. Statistically significant factors relating to student satisfaction
Chi square (X2) Sample size
1. Academic factors
Faculty performance 50.38 (p < 0.00) 322
Communication with the instructor in the classroom 24.11 (p < 0.00) 315
Communication with the instructor outside the classroom 42.26 (p < 0.00) 314
Quality of education 73.89 (p < 0.00) 314
Textbook quality 8.02 (p < 0.04)
2. Extracurricular factors No significant relation has been found
3. Expectations
Those who wish to send their children to the same Faculty 84.42 (p < 0.00) 233
4. Demographic factors
Gender 15.25 (p < 0.00) 315
Age 6.55 (p < 0.00) 314
Previous information about the Faculty 4.83 (p < 0.03) 314
Source: Authors.
Other academic factors such as communication with the instructor in

and outside the classroom (Hong, 2002; Fredericksen et al., 2000), the quality
of education that professors provide and the textbooks that they choose, all
relate to students’ satisfaction. Rich et al. (1988) found that appropriately
chosen textbooks increase student satisfaction. According to our personal
observations, most of the highly performing instructors also have satisfactory
communication in and outside the class with their students. Because they
are open to two-way communication and hence feedback, they usually come
up with the best choices concerning textbooks. Thus, from the student’s
satisfaction point of view, it becomes crucial for university administrations
to recruit, motivate and retain highly performing instructors. News of the
mismanagement of instructors by the university administration or destructive
conflicts with them immediately starts circulating not only among faculty
staff and students but also in the home environment (Guolla, 1999). This type

115
of experience will not only lead to a decrease in the prestige of the university
but will also harm its competitive edge.
Among the second group of factors, namely expectations, only one
variable seemed to be associated with student satisfaction. Although the
expectation about whether the Faculty prepares students for the job market
seemed to be associated with satisfaction, it was not included because the test
of significance level was slightly above the 0.05 level (0.08). The only variable
that seemed to be associated with satisfaction is the students’ desire to send
their children to the same Faculty in the future. Those who answered “yes”
to this question showed and stated greater satisfaction with the Faculty in
general than those who replied “no”.
Due to the deep economic crisis and political instability in Turkey, the
authors of this paper expected students’ expectations about the contribution
of the Faculty to finding jobs after graduation to be highly associated with
student satisfaction. But the results of this research did not support this view.
In an attempt to explain this phenomenon, a rank-ordered question was put
to the students “In your opinion what is the purpose of higher education?”
43.6% of students stated that the purpose of university education is to improve
one’s intellectual skills (similar non-materialistic values were also reported in
İmamoğlu and Aygen (1999), Başaran (1991). Only 11.5% regarded university
education as a means to finding jobs. Thus, creating job opportunities for
the students does not greatly enhance student satisfaction. However, the
improvement and accumulation of knowledge is very much related to the
quality of education and hence directly and indirectly contributes significantly
to students’ satisfaction. This argument is in line with van den Bosch’s (2003)
argument. Bosch states that “The labour market for graduates is constantly
shrinking. Even five years after graduation, individuals have difficulty in
finding jobs which are appropriate to their specializations. The value of higher
education does not lie in its content anymore but rather in its capacity to help
students acquire the skills of a) proper and disciplined thinking, b) methodical
research and analysis, c) applying knowledge and d) with others”. It is almost
common knowledge in Turkey that a great many graduates work in jobs which
are totally different from their field of study. Students applying to the Faculty
of Business seem to be aware of this and they value the development of
intellectual skills more than anything else, just as van der Bosch stated. This
trend seems to be universal (Toulmin [2000], Emery [1994], Griffiths and Murry
[1985]).

116
Table 3. The purpose of higher education
Number of students Percentage

In your opinion what is the purpose of higher education?
N = 419 %
To receive a diploma 23 6.0

To meet the demands of my parents 4 1.0
To develop my intellectual skills 166 43.6
To become a sociable person 12 3.1
To specialize and have a profession 78 20.5
To find a job 44 11.5
To reach a more prestigious and high-status position in society 54 14.2
Source: Authors.
As stated earlier, of 28 demographic factors, only 3 seem to be significantly

associated with student satisfaction. Of these 3, the first 2, i.e. gender and age
are current characteristics of the respondents. However, the variable being
informed before joining the Faculty belongs to their past. A great majority
of female students (88.1 %) expressed satisfaction with the Faculty, against
70% of male students. Thus, being female increases the likelihood of being
satisfied with this Faculty. However, both parties seemed to be more satisfied
with the Faculty in their first years. A slight decrease has been noticed in the
satisfaction of juniors and especially seniors.
The reason male students are less satisfied than female students can be
explained by making use of the expectation-performance theory of satisfaction.
University education is a long-term process. Students who join a university or
faculty with predetermined expectations start comparing their expectations
with the performances of their respective educational institutions, during
this rather long period. If expectations are not met, i.e. if the performance
level is below the level of expectations, dissatisfaction occurs. Vice-versa,
if performance is equal or above what is expected, individuals experience
satisfaction. The results of this research seem to support this view. New
students (18-19 age group) seemed to be more satisfied than older students
(22-23 age group). In the Faculty of Business at Dokuz Eylül University, it seems
that with age, some of the students do experience slight dissatisfaction, due to
the increase in pressure, the stress of graduation and anxieties about what is
expected from them after school. This is especially true for male students. The
satisfaction of male and female students starts differing in and after junior
class. Male students, due to enormous social conditioning (Kağıtçıbaşı, 1981)
feel trapped between finding a job and the restrictions of the economic crisis.
Recent research by Yetim (2003) confirms this view. Yetim, who conducted
research among Turkish male university students, found that male students
have a deeper feeling of mastery than female students and that this feeling of
mastery is deeply rooted in their social conditioning. The feeling of mastery
is defined as the extent to which people feel to be in control of the important

117
circumstances in life (Pearlin and Radabaugh, 1976) and close to choosing

between fields of work, organizations and jobs. It stimulates traditional social
male conditioning (i.e. you have to master your life) and is the source of
enormous tension among male students.
Another expectational factor that seem to predict student satisfaction is
the information about the Faculty which students gathered before choosing to
apply. Those who are pre-informed are more satisfied than the ones who are
not. Naturally pre-informed students form sound and realistic expectations.
Thus they experience less disappointment and dissatisfaction. In the light of
this result, university administrators should pay serious attention to informing
new entrants about what to expect. As Morrison (1999, p. 10) states, “Specific
institutions of higher learning utilize tools available for identifying student
needs and ascertaining ways their programs might enable students to be more
successful in meeting their personal academic goals”.
Although several studies found a correlation between extracurricular
activities, such as campus life, and student satisfaction, no significant
relationship has been found in this research. Out of the five sub-factors, such
as the presence of student clubs, medical services, accommodation services,
transportation, sports and cultural activities only medical services have a
relationship with satisfaction at 0.08 level of significance which is above the
accepted 0.05 level.
The interpretation of this factor presents difficulties and is open to
speculation. The only rational explanation may lie in the answer to the rank
order question: “In your opinion what is the purpose of higher education”?
Almost none of the students mentioned or included in their rank ordering the
attractiveness and quality of extracurricular activities. Their major concern
seemed to be to develop both intellectually and professionally.
Thus, at least for some Turkish university students, the quality of
education, instructors, textbooks, and being a female and informed before
attending the university can be considered important factors of satisfaction.
Based upon the above results, some suggestions are being made to university
administrators. After all, as Watson (2003) states, “For student satisfaction
surveys, providing feedback also encourages the university management to
explain how they deal with the shortcomings that emerge from the survey”
Informing high school students who intend to pursue higher education
is very important. Students informed beforehand establish realistic
expectations.
• Special attention should be given to the recruitment, motivation and
retention of high quality instructors.
• Instructors must be trained to establish healthy communication with
students.

118
• In order to recruit the best students, financial help must be provided prior to
their entry (such as scholarships, funds etc.). In view of the deep and serious
Turkish economic crisis, many students and families would appreciate
this.
• The reasons behind male students’ relatively low level of satisfaction
requires further investigation.
• Although, social services seem to be unrelated to satisfaction, there is
still adequate evidence that especially low cost medical services are
indispensable for students.
Limitations of the research

One significant limitation of this study is that its sample size may not be
representative of all Turkish university students. Thus, care should be shown
if generalizations are going to be made.
The second limitation is the probability of having missed significant factors
in the conceptual framework which might have explained the satisfaction
phenomenon more thoroughly. Obviously, the topic covers a highly complex
social situation. There may not only be important independent but also
situation specific or moderator type variables which have not been included
in the framework.
The third limitation is the author’s difficulty collating information
from university administrators (presidents, deans, chairpersons, etc.). Thus,
administrative philosophy and style has not been analysed.
Despite these limitations, the authors would consider the study to be a
significant contribution were it to provoke some interest among the researchers
in the field.
The authors:
Yaprak Gülcan Ceyhan Aldemir
Dokuz Eylül Üniversity Dokuz Eylül Üniversity
Faculty of Business Faculty of Business
Kaynaklar Yerleşkesi, Buca, Izmir Turkey Kaynaklar Yerleşkesi, Buca,
Izmir Turkey
E-mail: E-mail:
yaprak.gulcan@deu.edu.tr ceyhan.aldemir@deu.edu.tr

119
References
ABRAMI, P. C. (1989), “How Should We Use Student Ratings to Evaluate Teaching?”,
Research in Higher Education, 30 (2).
AMES, R. and C. AMES (1984) (eds.), Research on Motivation in Education, Academic Press,
Orlando, FL.
BAŞARAN, F. (1992), “The University Students’ Value Preferences”, Ankara Üniversitesi,
Dil Tarih ve Coğrafya Fakültesi Araştırma Dergisi, 14, pp. 13-25.
BEAN, J. P. and R. K. BRADLEY (1986), “Untangling the Satisfaction-Performance
relation for College Students”, Journal of Higher Education, 57 (4), p. 393.
BENJAMIN, M. and A. HOLLINGS (1995), “Towards a Theory of Student Satisfaction:
an Explanatory Study of the ‘Quality of Student Life’”, Journal of College Student
Development, 36 (6), p. 574.
BENJAMIN, M. and A. HOLLINGS (1997), “Student satisfaction”, Journal of College
Student Development, 38 (3), p. 213.
BOSCH, van den H. (2003), “Yükseköğretim ve Öğrenim Konusunda İdealize edilmiş
Beş Görüş” in Oğuz Babüroğlu (ed.), Educational Futures: Shifting Paradigm of
Universities and Education, Sabancı University Publications, İstanbul, p. 155-166.
(In Turkish).
CAMERON, K. S., (1981) “Domains of Organizational Effectiveness in Colleges and
Universities”, Academy of Management Journal, 24 (1), pp.24-47.
CASHIN, W. E. and R. G. DOWNEY, (1992), “Using Global Student Rating Items for
Summative Evaluation,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, pp. 563-572.
CONANT, S.J., J. J. BROWN and M. P. MAKURA (1985), “Students are Important
Consumers: Assessing Satisfaction in a Higher Education Context”, Journal of
Marketing Education, Summer, pp. 13-20.
DONALD, J. G. and D. B. DENISON (1996) “Evaluating Undergraduate Education: the
Use of Broad Indicators”, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, pp. 21-
9, 23-40, March.
EMERY, F., “Üniversite Üzerine Bazı Düşünceler”, in Oğuz Babüroğlu (ed.), Educational
Futures: Shifting Paradigm of Universities and Education, Sabancı University
Publications, Istanbul, p. 353-370. (In Turkish).
FREDERICKSEN, E., A. W. PICKETT, P. SHEA and K. SWAQAN (2000), “Student Satisfaction
and Perceived Learning with Online Courses: Principles and Examples from
the SUNY Learning Network”, Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks.
FELDMAN, R.S. and A. J. THEISS (1982), “The Teacher and Student as Pygmalions: Joint
Effects of Teacher Student Expectations”, Journal of Educational Psychology, 74,
pp. 217-223.

120
GRIFFITHS, P. and M. MURRY (1985), “Whose Business? Radical Proposals for the
Reform of British Business Schools”, (Hobart Presentations No: 102), Institute
of Economic Affairs, London.
GUOLLA, M. (1999), “Assessing the Teaching Quality to Student Satisfaction Research
in the Classroom”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Summer.
HARVEY, L. (2001), “Student Feedback: a Report to the Higher Education Funding
Council for England, Centre for Research into Quality”, University of Central
England in Birmingham, Perry Barr, Birmingham, UK.
HARVEY, L. (1997), Student Satisfaction Manual, Open University Press.
HONG, K.-S. (2002), “Relationship between Students’ and Institutional Variables with
Satisfaction and Learning from a Web-based Course”, The Internet and Higher
Education, 5 (3), pp. 267-281.
HAMNER, W. C. and W.D. ORGAN (1978), Organizational Behaviour, Business Publications,
Texas.
HARJU, B. L., T. E. LONG and L. J. ALLRED (1988), “Cross-cultural Reactions of
International Students to US Health Care”, College Student Journal, March.
İMAMOĞLU, O., E. AYGÜN and Z. KARAKITAPOĞLU (1999), “1970’ lerden 1990’
lara Değerler: Üniversite Düzeyinde Gözlenen Zaman, Kuşak ve Cinsiyet
Farklılıkları”, Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 14 , 44, pp. 1-22.
KAĞITÇIBAŞI, Ç. (1981), Çocuğun Değeri:Türkiye’de Değerler ve Doğurganlık, Bogaziçi
Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
LEE, G., N. JOLLY, B. KENCH and B. GELONESI (2000), “Factors Related to Student
satisfaction with University” 4th Pacific Rim, First Year in Higher Education
Conference 1-8.
MARSH, W. H. (1991), “A Multinational Perspective on Students’ Evaluation of
Teaching Effectiveness: Reply to Abrami and d’Apollina”, Journal of Educational
Psychology, 83, pp. 416-421.
MARSH, W. H. (1987), “Student Evaluations of University Teaching: Research Findings,
Methodological Issues and Directions for Future Research”, International Journal
of Educational Psychology, 11, (3), pp. 253-388.
MORRISON, B.H., (1999), “Acknowledging Student Attributes associated with Academic
Motivation”, Journal of Developmental Education, 2, pp. 10-17,
ÖNGIDER, N. and I. YÜKSEL (2002), “Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Öğrencilerinin Psikolojik
Gereksinimlerinin Belirlenmesi Üzerine Bir İnceleme”, Türk Psikoloji Bülteni,
Şubat.
PEARLIN, L.L. and Radabaugh (1976), “Economic Strains and the Coping Function of
Alcohol”, American Journal of Sociology, 82, pp. 652-663.
PIKE, G.R. (1991), “The Effects of Background, Coursework, and Involvement on
Student Grades and Satisfaction”, Research in Higher Education, 32 (1), p. 15.

121
PORTER, I. W. and L. E. MCKIBBIN (1988), Management Education and Development, N.Y.

McGraw Hill.
POWERS, S. and M. ROSSMAN (1985), “ Student Satisfaction with Graduate Education:
Dimensionality and Assessment in College Education Psychology”, A Quarterly
Journal of Human Behaviour 22 (2), pp. 46-49.
PRIETO, S. L. (1995), “International Student Populations and Needs Assessment”, in
S.D. Stabb, M.H. Shmetle and J.E. Talley (eds.); Multicultural Needs, Assessment
for College and University Student Populations, pp. 203-223, Springfield, IL: C.C.
Thomas.
RICH, L. D., T. L. POWERS and J. D. POWELL (1988),“Textbook Satisfaction: a Preliminary
Examination of the Student Perspective”, Journal of Marketing Education,
Summer.
RIGBY, K. (1984), “The Attitudes of English and Australian College Students toward
Institutional Authority”, The Journal of Social Psychology, 122, pp. 41-48.
TOULMIN, S. (2000), “Pratiğin Önceliği” in Oğuz Babüroğlu (ed.), Educational Futures:
Shifting Paradigm of Universities and Education, Sabancı University Publications,
Istanbul, p. 121-132. (In Turkish).
UNIVERSITY OF STIRLING (2003), Mental Health Guidelines, “Section Two: Mental
Health”, Academic Registrar’s Office, Scotland.
YETIM, Ü. (2003), “ The Impact of Individualism, Self-esteem and Feeling of Mastery on
Life Satisfaction among the Turkish University Students and Academicians”,
Social Indicator Research, 61, pp. 297-317.
WANOUS, J. D., T. D.POLAND, S. L. PREMACK and K. S.DAVIS (1992), “The Effects of
Met Expectations on Newcomer Attitudes and Behaviour: a Review and Meta-
Analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, pp. 288-297.
WATSON, S. (2003), “Closing the Feedback Loop: Ensuring Effective Action from
Student Feedback”, Tertiary Education and Management, 9, pp. 145-157.

122
Information for authors
Contributions to the IMHE Journal should be submitted in either English or French and all articles are
received on the understanding that they have not appeared in print elsewhere.
Selection procedure and criteria

Articles are selected for publication by the Editor of the Journal and submitted to independent
referees for review.
The Journal is primarily devoted to the needs of those involved with the administration and study of
institutional management and policy in higher education. Articles should be concerned, therefore, with
issues bearing on the practical working and policy direction of higher education. Contributions should,
however, go beyond mere description of what is, or prescription of what ought to be, although both
descriptive and prescriptive accounts are acceptable if they offer generalisations of use in contexts beyond
those being described. Whilst articles devoted to the development of theory for is own sake will normally
find a place in other and more academically based journals, theoretical treatments of direct use to
practitioners will be considered.
Other criteria include clarity of expression and thought. Titles of articles should be as brief as possible.
Presentation
** Electronic submission is preferred. Three copies of each article should be sent if the article is
submitted on paper only.
Length: should not exceed 15 pages (single spaced) including figures and references.
The first page: before the text itself should appear centred on the page in this order the title of the
article and the name(s), affiliation(s) and country/countries of the author(s).
Abstract: the main text should be preceded by an abstract of 100 to 200 words summarising the article.
Quotations: long quotations should be single-spaced and each line should be indented 7 spaces.
Footnotes: authors should avoid using footnotes and incorporate any explanatory material in the text
itself. If notes cannot be avoided, they should be endnotes typed at the end of the article.
Tables and illustrations: tabular material should bear a centred heading “Table”. Presentations of non-
tabular material should bear a centred heading “Figure”. The source should always be cited.
References in the text: Jones and Little (1986) or Jones et al. (1988) in the case of three or more authors.
However, the names of all authors should appear in the list of references at the end of the article.
References at the end of the article: references should be listed in alphabetical order under the heading
“References”. Examples of the reference style used in the Journal are:
● For periodicals: DUKE, C. (2000), “Beyond ‘Delayering’: Process, Structure and Boundaries”, Higher
Education Management, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 7-22.
● For books: DE WIT, H. and J. KNIGHT (eds) (1999), Quality and Internationalisation in Higher Education,
OECD, Paris.
The covering letter

This should give full addresses and telephone numbers and, in the case of multi-authored papers,
indicate the author to whom all correspondence should be sent.
Complimentary copies
Each author will receive two complimentary copies of the Journal issue in which his article appears,
in the original language.
Questionnaire on the quality of OECD publications
We would like to ensure that our publications meet your requirements in terms of presentation and editorial
content. We would welcome your feedback and any comments you may have for improvement. Please take a
few minutes to complete the following questionnaire. Answers should be given on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = poor, 5
= excellent).
Fax or post your answer before 31 December 2004, and you will automatically be entered into the prize
draw to win a year's subscription to OECD's Observer magazine.*
A. Presentation and layout
1. What do you think about the presentation and layout in terms of the following:
Poor Adequate Excellent
Readability (font, typeface) 1 2 3 4 5
Organisation of the book 1 2 3 4 5
Statistical tables 1 2 3 4 5
Graphs 1 2 3 4 5
B. Printing and binding
2. What do you think about the quality of the printed edition in terms of the following:
Quality of the printing 1 2 3 4 5
Quality of the paper 1 2 3 4 5
Type of binding 1 2 3 4 5
Not relevant, I am using the e-book ❏
3. Which delivery format do you prefer for publications in general?
Print ❏ CD ❏ E-book (PDF) via Internet ❏ Combination of formats ❏
C. Content
4. How accurate and up to date do you consider the content of this publication to be?
1 2 3 4 5
5. Are the chapter titles, headings and subheadings…
Clear Yes ❏ No ❏
Meaningful Yes ❏ No ❏
6. How do you rate the written style of the publication (e.g. language, syntax, grammar)?
1 2 3 4 5
D. General
7. Do you have any additional comments you would like to add about the publication?
....................................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................................
Tell us who you are:
Name: .............................................................................................. E-mail: .............................................
Fax: ............................................................................................................................................................
Which of the following describes you?
IGO ❏ NGO ❏ Self-employed ❏ Student ❏
Academic ❏ Government official ❏ Politician ❏ Private sector ❏
Thank you for completing the questionnaire. Please fax your answers to:
(33-1) 49 10 42 81 or mail it to the following address:
Questionnaire qualité PAC/PROD, Division des publications de l'OCDE
23, rue du Dôme – 92100 Boulogne Billancourt – France.
Title: Higher Education Management and Policy
ISSN: 1682-3451 OECD Code (printed version): 89 2004 02 1
* Please note: This offer is not open to OECD staff.

OECD PUBLICATIONS, 2, rue André-Pascal, 75775 PARIS CEDEX 16
PRINTED IN FRANCE
(89 2004 02 1 P) ISSN 1682-3451 – No. 53569 2004

10 1 1 113 2532 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

10 1 1 113 2532 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

10 1 1 113 2532 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of the Programme on Institutional Management

Volume 16, No. 2

Higher Education Management and Policy

IMHE ISSN 1682-3451

Volume 16, No. 2

ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT

Higher Education Management and Policy

Prof. Michael Shattock

To enter a subscription, send your order to:

2004 subscription (3 issues):

Online bookshop: www.oecd.org

HIGHER EDUCATION MANAGEMENT AND POLICY – ISSN 1682-3451 – © OECD 2004

Editorial Advisory Group

HIGHER EDUCATION MANAGEMENT AND POLICY – ISSN 1682-3451 – © OECD 2004

Teaching and Research: the Idea of a Nexus

Information and Communication Technologies: a Tool Empowering

Managing University Clinical Partnership: Learning

Systemic Responsiveness in Tertiary Education: an Agenda for Reform

Incentives and Accountability: the Canadian Context

Student Satisfaction in Higher Education: a Turkish Case

HIGHER EDUCATION MANAGEMENT AND POLICY – ISSN 1682-3451 – © OECD 2004

Teaching and Research:

This paper assesses some of the framework issues, of policy and

HIGHER EDUCATION MANAGEMENT AND POLICY – ISSN 1682-3451 – © OECD 2004

Teaching and research: some framework issues

10 HIGHER EDUCATION MANAGEMENT AND POLICY – ISSN 1682-3451 – © OECD 2004

Thus the presumption of an essential or appropriate linkage between

HIGHER EDUCATION MANAGEMENT AND POLICY – ISSN 1682-3451 – © OECD 2004

12 HIGHER EDUCATION MANAGEMENT AND POLICY – ISSN 1682-3451 – © OECD 2004

knowledge components of HE steadily become more esoteric.” Students need

HIGHER EDUCATION MANAGEMENT AND POLICY – ISSN 1682-3451 – © OECD 2004

Already in the United Kingdom, as in the United States, implicit

14 HIGHER EDUCATION MANAGEMENT AND POLICY – ISSN 1682-3451 – © OECD 2004

The way forward

The nature of knowledge as it is created and mediated through

HIGHER EDUCATION MANAGEMENT AND POLICY – ISSN 1682-3451 – © OECD 2004

● Other forms of knowledge – may be different forms of R&D targeted on

16 HIGHER EDUCATION MANAGEMENT AND POLICY – ISSN 1682-3451 – © OECD 2004

HIGHER EDUCATION MANAGEMENT AND POLICY – ISSN 1682-3451 – © OECD 2004

CLARK B. R. (1991), “The Fragmentation of Research, Teaching and Study: An

18 HIGHER EDUCATION MANAGEMENT AND POLICY – ISSN 1682-3451 – © OECD 2004

Teaching and Research: the Idea of a Nexus

The article explores whether the idea of a nexus between research

HIGHER EDUCATION MANAGEMENT AND POLICY – ISSN 1682-3451 – © OECD 2004

20 HIGHER EDUCATION MANAGEMENT AND POLICY – ISSN 1682-3451 – © OECD 2004

The academic perspective

HIGHER EDUCATION MANAGEMENT AND POLICY – ISSN 1682-3451 – © OECD 2004

22 HIGHER EDUCATION MANAGEMENT AND POLICY – ISSN 1682-3451 – © OECD 2004

HIGHER EDUCATION MANAGEMENT AND POLICY – ISSN 1682-3451 – © OECD 2004

The student perspective

24 HIGHER EDUCATION MANAGEMENT AND POLICY – ISSN 1682-3451 – © OECD 2004

HIGHER EDUCATION MANAGEMENT AND POLICY – ISSN 1682-3451 – © OECD 2004

Teaching-research relationship and conceptions of higher education

26 HIGHER EDUCATION MANAGEMENT AND POLICY – ISSN 1682-3451 – © OECD 2004

elite, closed and stratified system of higher education, in which academic

HIGHER EDUCATION MANAGEMENT AND POLICY – ISSN 1682-3451 – © OECD 2004

the research process as well as being given opportunities to demonstrate that

28 HIGHER EDUCATION MANAGEMENT AND POLICY – ISSN 1682-3451 – © OECD 2004

HIGHER EDUCATION MANAGEMENT AND POLICY – ISSN 1682-3451 – © OECD 2004