Higher Education in a Post‐Binary Era: National Reforms and Institutional Responses

Citation

Smith, B. (1999), "Higher Education in a Post‐Binary Era: National Reforms and Institutional Responses", Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 222-225. https://doi.org/10.1108/jea.1999.37.4.222.2

A reader who had taken the title of this collection of essays as indicating a comprehensive account of where higher education is now headed, given the replacement of a binary system in a number of countries, would be disappointed. However, the editor, David Teather, makes it clear in his preface that the book deals with the experience of a selection of institutions in Australia, Britain and Hong Kong which had fairly recently been designated as universities and “explores, through the eyes of senior members of these new universities, how they perceived these changes and how their institutions are responding to the opportunities and challenges of the new order”. Against this more limited objective the book succeeds in painting a vivid picture of the development of six institutions and is enhanced by the overviews given of the developments in each of the three locations, or “jurisdictions” as Teather chooses to call them. The editor provides an introductory context and concluding comments on some of the issues arising from the more detailed essays.

The three overviews are very different in character and flavour reflecting the particular background and, perhaps, personality which the different writers bring to the task. Roger Scott, writing about Australian higher education in the period 1957‐97, provides an account of government policy and the committees which were influential in forming that policy combined with the personal anecdotes of one who during much of this time was directly involved in academic institutions in Australia. The personal account enlivens the essay and when contrasted with the more formal account which concentrates almost exclusively on governmental policy, points up that there surely is much more which contributes to the development of higher education than the formalities of governments and their committees. However little else is mentioned.

Ronald Barnett and Svava Bjarnason treat the changes occurring in British higher education from a more philosophical point of view, providing an interesting and provocative explanation of the demise of the binary system which had its roots in the development of mass higher education and the need for changing the orientation and attitudes in the existing universities. They point out that academic drift was not the sole prerogative of the polytechnics who found that as they became more like the universities those universities became more like them. In the view of the writers the binary policy was abandoned “because it was no longer appropriate for a higher education system now being reorientated by the State towards a global economy”. These and other interesting perspectives give cause for regret that other authors were not able to comment on their particular experiences as confirming or denying the explanations provided by Barnett and Bjarnason.

Nigel French writes with the clarity, precision and attention to detail expected from a senior Hong Kong civil servant about the developments in the territory. His account is understandably almost entirely from the perspective of the University Grants Committee of which he is the Secretary General. The essay would be even more informative if French had been less discrete and given more commentary on why certain decisions were taken and, more particularly, whether these were good decisions.

It is probably asking far too much, but if each of the three essays were able to combine the individual strengths of each other the accounts would have been very valuable indeed.

The two Australian institutions which have been chosen are the University of Canberra and the Queensland University of Technology. Whilst the two institutions arose in somewhat different ways and circumstances, they now share the distinction of being two of the successful “new” universities in Australia. Don Aitkin, writing about the University of Canberra, reflects this success and describes the steps by which the university has developed. He gives a good account of how the mission of the university was developed and ownership shared, how a distinctive identity was created, how an international perspective was achieved and how research was strengthened. Again it is perhaps asking too much but it would have been valuable to read more about the particular problems encountered on the way and what was learned from failures as well as successes. Lawrence Stedman and Peter Coaldrake tell a somewhat similar story for the Queensland University of Technology, with a greater emphasis on structure and management issues. Again, this appears to be a university where everything is fine and no cautionary tales or advice for the inexperienced are given.

David Foster and Roger King describe the development of the University of Humberside which, in the space of 20 years went from a merger of six independent institutions as a college of higher education through further merger, was designated as a polytechnic and then became a university. They give a quite detailed account of the academic development of the institution, in passing making some thoughtful observations on the need for different approaches to teaching when higher education draws its student body widely rather than from an intellectual elite. In contrast with the Australian essays there is a degree of self‐criticism here, including a frank admission of the real difficulties in achieving the common aspiration for a high quality student experience at the university.

The development of the University of Napier appears in many ways to parallel that of the University of Humberside. However, the account by James Murray reads a little like the search for the Holy Grail. A succession of upgradings and name changes do not bring the benefit of enhanced status which has been the driving motivation but do bring the need to do more and different things, thereby changing the mission of the institution. Britain (and those who have higher education systems which derive from the British) has been cursed with the status accorded to the title “university” so that many are drawn to seek to be called universities. This is not always in the best interests of those institutions, nor indeed of the existing universities who have tended complacently to believe that what they do must be good because, after all they are universities. The developments in the proliferation of universities have clearly shown it to be invalid. Murray frankly details some of the problems in the search for status and is alone in this book in doing so. Napier is far from alone in suffering these problems.

In somewhat similar vein to the Australian section, Hong Kong Baptist University and City University of Hong Kong are two new universities which appear to be thriving in the changed environment. The accounts of the two universities differ markedly from those of the Australian universities and from one another. Daniel Tse gives a personal account of his remarkable period since becoming President in 1971 which has seen the struggling college devoid of government funding achieve a standard, presence and support which warrant the university designation. Along the way he has learned a great deal and some of this is set out in his essay. Some of these reflections are worth quoting:

... The college has since learned a great lesson: that keeping its goal alive with private and community support is very important and allows the institution to continue until the goal is reached.

... Work, as if we were going to die today and Plan, as if we were going to live forever.

There is much that an ambitious head of a small institution can gain from reading this essay.

In contrast the essay by David Mole and Enoch Young is a disappointment. City University of Hong Kong has a good story to tell but it does not appear here. Mole and Young are so obsessed with demonising the University Grants Committee that they make errors of fact and logic but, far worse, create the impression that the City University is a self‐satisfied institution which prefers to blame others for not recognising its standing. Perhaps they should read Daniel Tse′s account and learn that no coordinating body can, in the long term, prevent an institution with good ideas and determination from thriving. Fortunately for Hong Kong, City University has developed strongly as a university but the reader will have to look elsewhere to learn how and why.

In sum the book provides a range of perspectives on the transformation which has occurred in higher education in three systems. The essays will be of “... use to all those who wish to make sense of the recent reforms of our higher education systems and to all who have an interest in the development of universities” as David Teather claims in his preface.

Of even greater use would be a book which combined the coverage of this one with an account from the perspective of the “old” universities, perhaps including some comparisons with systems which have not had a clear binary divide, and looked more to the future. Within such a book would be found a more thorough examination of issues such as:

What do we now mean by a university?

Are universities all that are required for higher education?

Will mass education become even more massive and if so what will be the consequences for higher education?

Has the binary line been erased or as Teather claims in his final paragraph “repositioned”?

What impact will globalisation and the more widespread use of new technology have on the structure of higher education?

Perhaps the editor already has this under way. Let us hope so.