View in EDS HTML Full Text

Freedom, Funding and the Future of the Universities.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Freedom, Funding and the Future of the Universities.
Language: English
Authors: Tasker, M. E., Packham, D. E.
Source: Studies in Higher Education. 1990 15(2):181-195.
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 15
Publication Date: 1990
Document Type: Journal Articles
Opinion Papers
Descriptors: Academic Freedom, College Role, Educational Finance, Ethics, Financial Support, Foreign Countries, Futures (of Society), Government School Relationship, Higher Education, Institutional Autonomy, School Business Relationship, Universities, Values
Geographic Terms: United Kingdom (Great Britain)
ISSN: 0307-5079
Abstract: To achieve its intellectual and social purpose, a university needs autonomy and freedom. The dangers of large scale and uncritical acceptance of industrial funds can lead to a value shift within universities with the result that technology generation would become a prime aim. (Author/MLW)
Entry Date: 1991
Accession Number: EJ413560
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN9706306563;she01jun.90;2012Mar19.12:08;v2.2.460</anid> <title id="AN9706306563-1">Freedom, Funding and the Future of the Universities </title> <p>ABSTRACT</p> <p>We argue that a university has an intellectual and a social purpose. The former involves the advancement of knowledge and the provision of a liberal education, purposes which are not inconsistent with vocational ends. The social purpose includes upholding standards of freedom and democracy in society and acting as an independent source of criticism within a university's area of competence. The scope of such criticism must reflect the scope of the university and so will often involve cultural and ethical, as well as scientific, technological and economic, dimensions. In order to achieve these purposes a university needs autonomy and freedom its members in teaching and research. This concept of a university is being challenged in Britain partly by some within the universities who regard it as an impossible dream, and partly by a radical reforming Government. We discuss case studies of the erosion of university autonomy by means of the UGC and CVCP policies on academic standards, research selectivity and small departments. We suggest that the `crisis' in universities is a philosophical rather than a financial one, and that it is being used to increase the control by government and industry. The dangers of large scale and uncritical acceptance of industrial funds are pointed out: as possibly leading to a value shift within universities with the result that technology generation would become a prime aim. In such a shift we suggest that there is a danger of compromising the proper role of the university in society. We point out that the problems facing Western industrialised society require primarily an ethical and cultural response. It is therefore of paramount importance for universities to address these problems from an ethical standpoint, and in this way play their part in the intellectual and moral development of society.</p> <hd id="AN9706306563-2"> Introduction </hd> <p>The universities of Britain can be seen as the inheritors of an intellectual tradition going back for nearly a millenium to the studia generalia of medieval Europe. At a time of crisis it is natural for such institutions to examine their fundamental principles to try to determine what is central and what is peripheral to their essential purpose. In this paper we put forward one view of the nature of a university and discuss some of the pressures on universities in Britain today, and make some suggestions about the way forward.</p> <hd id="AN9706306563-3"> The Purpose of a University: its values and constitution </hd> <p>In the first section of this paper we explore aspects of the `liberal' concept of a university which are of particular contemporary relevance to its intellectual and social purposes, and emphasise some important social contributions which a liberal university makes to a free society.</p> <p>By `liberal' we mean that idea of a university which, with obvious differences in emphasis, was expounded by Newman in 1852, by Jaspers in 1946, and which in the 1980s has been restated, inter altos, by scholars like Amy Gutmann and Anthony O'Hear arguing their cases from very different political and philosophical perspectives (Newman, 1852; Jaspers, 1946; Gutmann, 1987; O'Hear, 1988). The classic exposition of the liberal ideal is Newman's in The Idea of a University. Its aim is the cultivation of the intellect giving it a talent for speculation and original enquiry. This is achieved by study in an intellectually-balanced community where the mind is broadened by contact with those representing the `whole circle' of knowledge.</p> <p>In discharging its intellectual function, the university necessarily fulfils a social purpose. The values and ethos of the education system will influence, and be influenced by, those of society as a whole. For this reason the Robbins Committee, when considering the aims of higher education, argued for the fundamental importance of the transmission of a "common culture and common standards of citizenship", as well as for the "advancement of learning", and "instruction in skills" (Robbing, 1963, Section 25-28). A recent White Paper has endorsed these very words (Secretary of State for Education, 1987). On a European level, H. Carrier, formerly Rector of the Gregorian University, emphasised the importance of the universities' humanist mission and cultural role in enlivening social and economic development (Carrier, 1988).</p> <p>The link between the nature of a state and its system of education was recognised by Aristotle who argued "the citizens of state should always be educated to suit the constitution of their state" (Aristotle). It follows, then, that in a free society a university has a moral purpose in the sense of upholding certain standards of truth, freedom and democracy. These may best be arrived at through rational debate and the practice of intellectual rigour in addressing questions which are of major significance to society. The university has the responsibility of extending these values to society at large and not confining them to an ivory tower. This duty of the university is even more pressing today, in late twentieth century Britain, where there is widespread moral confusion, little cultural consensus and a marked decline in traditional cultural values, yet many of the most pressing problems facing society are ones which have to be addressed in moral and ethical terms. Questions such as pollution of the environment, genetic engineering and nuclear power have a serious moral element: they cannot adequately be resolved by technological and financial criteria alone.</p> <p>It is almost a definition of a free society that the powers of the government should be circumscribed. Within the constitution there must be institutions, which, within their areas of competence, can act as a balance to government power, and challenge it when necessary. The independent judiciary and the free press are two such institutions, the autonomous university provides a third. For long it was beyond controversy that (except in the broadest outline) politicians should not have the power either to dictate the teaching curriculum or to control what research was or was not done. "Freedom of institutions as well as individual freedom is an essential constituent of a free society and the tradition of academic freedom in this country has deep roots in the whole history of our people" (Robbing, 1963, Section 703). This academic freedom carries with it a corresponding obligation on the part of the university to strive to conduct its teaching and research to the highest standards of integrity and impartiality.</p> <p>The recognition which society gives to the universities' moral independence of both political and industrial power is shown by the frequent use of university teachers as unbiased arbiters in matters of controversy. Lord Frank's committee on the events leading to the Falklands War, Mary Warnock's report on embryo research and the CEGB's funding of university research into the causes of acid rain are three such examples of this kind of work. The intervention of academics into matters of public concern where their knowledge and expertise can be of practical benefit is also an acknowledgement of the obligation to society that academic freedom places on universities.</p> <p>The need of medieval universities to combat external encroachments of a stifling nature, A. B. Cobban argues, helped them to formulate more sharply their views of corporate and individual academic freedom (Cobban, 1975, p. 75). Thus they fought with vigour to free themselves from both municipal and ecclesiastical control. From this has developed the concept of the university as `a society of equal scholars who are able to govern their own affairs' which R. Eustace (1987) has described as an "ideal of university governance". This "ideal" he shows has become increasingly prominent in charters granted since the 1830s.</p> <p>The broad concepts known by the terms `autonomy' and `academic freedom' emerge then as a requirement for a university to be able to fulfil its intellectual purpose--free and open enquiry in teaching and research--and its social purpose--a source of social criticism independent of political authority and economic power.</p> <p>`Academic freedom' is a complex concept used by different authors in different ways. In a valuable chapter Robbins analysed some of its ramifications (Robbing, Chapter XVI). The present importance of the subject is shown by two recent publications, a collection of critical reviews published under the aegis of the Society for Research into Higher Education (Tight, 1988) and a declaration on `Academic Freedom and Autonomy' issued by the general assembly of the World University Service (WUS, 1988). Both emphasise that freedom is not licence and that it places cognate responsibilities on academics to act "according to the canons of truth adopted by their academic disciplines" (Gutmann, 1987, p. 175) and to "respond to contemporary problems facing society" (WUS, 1988). In this paper we are concerned not to delineate the boundaries of the concept, but to consider its central territory--freedom of teaching, of research and of expression necessary for a university to achieve its purposes--and to determine whether the central territory has been, or is in serious danger of being, whittled away.</p> <p>Neither academic freedom nor institutional autonomy can ever be absolute. Both are constrained by the law of the land and by the availability of funds. Both are ultimately dependent on the good will of the state. For a university to thrive, or even to exist, the state must have a sympathy with its basic purposes (cf. Aristotle supra). As Karl Jaspers says, "No state intolerant of any restriction on its power for fear of the consequences of a pure search for truth, will ever allow a genuine university to exist" (Jaspers, 1946). It is worth remembering that Jaspers wrote this in the light of his experience in Nazi Germany.</p> <p>However, where this basic sympathy does exist, structures can be established whereby public money can be channelled to universities without compromising their integrity. A good example of such a structure was the University Grants Committee (UGC) in the United Kingdom. The UGC, originally set up at the end of the First World War, was designed to provide Government funds without prejudicing university autonomy. The grants originally came from the Treasury, not from the Board of Education, and the Committee which decided on how it should be allocated consisted of academics and only gave broad advice. As a contemporary commentator said "The creation of this intermediate body has, like the creation of a buffer state, preserved the complete autonomy of the university which has always been such a marked feature in English education" (Brereton, 1929). The Robbins Committee saw this arrangement as an essential safeguard for academic freedom: "There is no reason why the needs of the future should infringe the fundamental freedoms. Where co-ordination is necessary, there are means to achieve it that do not involve compulsion and that provide an effective insulation from inappropriate pressures" (Robbing, 1963, Section 732).</p> <hd id="AN9706306563-4"> Erosion of University Autonomy in Contemporary United Kingdom </hd> <p>(a) The Education Reform Act</p> <p>The liberal concept of the university, with its emphasis on academic freedom and institutional autonomy, has occupied such an important place in the intellectual culture of the nation that it has an element of immunity from direct frontal attack. Nevertheless, a change in attitude on the part of the Government has been developing for more than a decade and has culminated in the Education Reform Act (1988). This Act replaced the UGC by the UFC as the body through which funds from the Department of Education and Science would come to universities. The members of the UFC, of whom the majority must be nonacademics, are all appointed by the Secretary of State. They may attach to the payments "such terms and conditions as they think fit" (italics added).</p> <p>Some indication of the consequences of this change can be predicted on the basis of experience as in recent years, particularly since 1981, the UGC operated in an increasingly `UFC-like' mode. It had "been receiving much clearer indications from Ministers" (Jarratt, 1985, Section 3.9), grants "have been accompanied by more and, more specific, advice, and it was becoming harder for universities to ignore that advice" (ibid., Section 4.13). Here we see lipservice being paid to liberal ideas of autonomy by using words like `indications' and `advice' where the plain meaning is `instructions'. It is significant that it was a report of a Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals (CVCP) committee which acknowledged that the UGC had come to be regarded by universities as "a tool of the DES" (Jarratt, 1985, Section 4.14). A logical consequence of "strengthening the relationship" between UGC and the CVCP, urged by the same Report (ibid., Section 4.15(c)), is that the latter too came to act as "a tool of the DES".</p> <p>Thus fundamental values which, until now, have been safeguarded by university autonomy are under attack. Neither Government policies nor public opinion seem concerned with preserving such values. Indeed, Eustace (1987) quotes the misgivings of a number of senior academics about the ideal of a university of scholars governing their own affairs. Carrier, too, notes with concern that there are some within the university itself who see the traditional ideal as an impossible dream, and regard the institution not as a community, but as a service centre activated by the laws of supply and demand in providing specialised courses to satisfy the dictates of industry (Carrier, 1988, p. 24). Government pressure is being put on universities to implement the recommendations of the Jarratt Report (1985) which conceived the role of the UGC as `managing' the university system (Section 4.18) and which advocated lay dominated university councils playing a much more active role in academic planning (Section 3.50(d)). The Education Reform Act (1988) gives the Government more formal power over the universities. A recent report by a committee consisting entirely of professors of physics on `The Future of University Physics' considered that "the primary aims of universities coincide with the requirements of industry" (Edwards Report, 1988, 2.1).</p> <p>In the light of these developments, it is worth asking whether these pressures represent a rational way ahead for the universities in the context of the present times, or whether they constitute a threat to the very nature of a university. In the rest of this paper we attempt to address these questions, first by analysing some recent examples of strong pressures by the UGC and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and secondly, by considering in detail some of the implications of large-scale acceptance of industrial and commercial funding, a lifeline being urged on universities in their present crisis. We conclude by putting forward some guidelines for transcribing the liberal values and adapting them to the situation of the late twentieth century.</p> <p>(b) The `Action Plan'</p> <p>As a consequence of the July 1981 recurrent grant allocation by the UGC, many British universities were confronted by a financial crisis. "Reductions faced by individual universities varied from 44% to 6% with an average of 17% over the university system" (Jarratt, 1985, p. 10). A letter from the Chairman of the CVCP, published in Hansard in November 1986, spoke of "the stark fact that the recurrent grant has fallen by one-fifth in real terms since 1980/81" (Baker, 1986). The effect in many universities was reduction of levels of academic staff and closure of courses.</p> <p>The funding crisis has enabled the DES to exert stronger pressures on the universities through the UGC and CVCP. The extent to which both UGC and CVCP have fallen under the sway of the DES can be judged by the well-documented `Action Plan' announced jointly by the Secretary of State and the Chairmen of the UGC and CVCP early in November 1986. The Minister told Parliament ". . . additional funding for the universities [depends] crucially on evidence of real progress in the development of the policy of selectivity, the rationalisation of small departments . . . and improved standards of teaching. I have now agreed with the University Grants Committee and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals a major programme of work in these areas.... I shall expect individual universities to co-operate fully and positively in this programme. Progress will be closely monitored, and future funding of the universities will depend significantly upon its implementation year by year" (our italics) (Baker, 1986).</p> <p>Complementary letters from the two Chairmen signified their acquiescence and threatened universities with annual reports to ministers on the implementation of the Plan, with submissions to Ministers of action the UGC intended to take where a university's response "appears to be unsatisfactory" (ibid.). It is interesting to contrast the style of these statements with the ideal of university autonomy "which has always been such a marked feature in English education"!</p> <p>There is then an irresistible prima-facie case that the traditional autonomy of universities is being eroded by the attitude taken by the Government through the DES. On the other hand, autonomy, as such, is not compromised by the acceptance of advice. Does this `Action Plan' represent a blatant attempt by the Government paymaster to dictate policy, if necessary overriding university autonomy, or does it represent a reasonable agreement between the two sides? An obvious objection to the latter view is that constitutionally the CVCP is not able to commit the individual universities to any course of action: the "major programme of work" to which the Minister referred was not agreed by the autonomous bodies expected to carry it out. The crucial test in these circumstances would seem to be the attitude of the adviser towards reasonable dissent on the part of the advised. If strong pressure is applied to overcome such dissent, particularly if this pressure is applied where no large sums of Government money are involved, the conclusions must be that university autonomy is not being respected.</p> <p>In an attempt to elucidate this question, we examine pressures brought to bear on universities by the CVCP as part of its academic standards policy and the UGC policies of research selectivity and `rationalisation' of small departments.</p> <p>(c) Examiners of Research Degrees</p> <p>As part of its work on academic standards the CVCP published the Reynolds Report in 1986 containing codes of practice for such things as examinations and appeals (CVCP, 1986a). In particular for research degrees it recommended (p. 26) that "the candidate's supervisor should be the internal examiner in exceptional circumstances only". This recommendation represented a departure from the practice most commonly found where the examining board consisted of the supervisor as internal examiner and an external examiner. Opinion in universities is divided on the wisdom of the change. An enquiry among academic staff at Bath, for example, found 57% of respondents to a questionnaire were against the CVCP recommendation (Meakin & Tasker, 1987). A similar lack of consensus in favour of change must have been widespread as many universities declined to accept the CVCP `advice.</p> <p>It might have been expected that the matter would rest there: advice had been given, considered and, in some cases, rejected. However, in 1988 the CVCP, as it said "reiterates again [sic] its recommendation [about the supervisor]" (CVCP, 1988). It renewed its pressure on universities, expressing concern about non-compliance and promising "to discuss these matters further with relevant universities" (ibid.). In a report of an interview with the Chairman of the Committee, The Times Higher Education Supplement (THES) (8 July 1988) said that the CVCP would not hesitate to criticise individual universities which were thought to be dragging their heels and that recalcitrant universities were to be brought into line.</p> <p>There is a basic contradiction between the attitude of the CVCP in 1988 and the Reynolds Report two years earlier which, in its introduction, lays emphasis on the importance of academic freedom and institutional autonomy. In particular, it said "Control of any of these matters by a body external to the university. . . could cause requirements to be formulated which in the best judgement of the properly-constituted university authorities were wrong. In that case the university would be unable to comply without breaking its charter" (CVCP, 1986a, p. 7). It might be that the Reynolds introduction was simply intended as verbal genuflection to a venerable, but outmoded, tradition. On the other hand the contradiction might reflect differing views within the CVCP or perhaps, what is most likely, a response to Government pressure to which the `Action Plan' bears witness.</p> <p>(d) Research Selectivity</p> <p>In May 1986 the UGC graded individual university `cost centres' into three main categories: `better than average', `about average' and `below average' (the `average' referring to the United Kingdom). In addition, some cost centres were marked with an asterisk to designate their being `outstanding' (THES, 30 May 1986). The assessment was made on the basis of data held by the UGC and supplied for the purpose by universities a year or so earlier (Swinnerton-Dyer, 1985). The grading exercise provoked an angry response throughout the universities, especially as would be expected, by those departments graded `below average'. The uncertainty of the criteria used, the ambiguity of the UGC's initial request for information and the secrecy of the procedures used by the UGC subject sub-committees which were responsible for the gradings were all heavily criticised (THES, May-November 1986, passim; UGC, 1988). In one example where the Chairman of the UGC admitted an error, the financial penalty consequent upon it was not rescinded (THES, 1 August 1986). The rankings of politics departments were described by the Political Studies Association, representing the heads of 45 of the departments concerned, as commanding "no confidence within the profession" (THES, 18 July 1986, 5 September 1986).</p> <p>It might be thought that in scientific disciplines obvious objective criteria of research quality were readily available. By examining the particular example of materials science and metallurgy, the problems associated with the selectivity exercise become apparent.</p> <p>The assessment was formally made by the UGC technology sub-committee which consisted of 11 members, only one of whom belonged to the discipline concerned. Five departments, nearly a quarter of the total, were given `below average' gradings. When the rank order is compared with available statistics on research activity, a strong suspicion emerges of heavy reliance on the total values of grants awarded by the Materials Committee of the SERC to each department. Such a criterion is unjust because it takes account neither of department size, nor of grants from other SERC committees. When these factors are examined, it becomes very difficult to understand many aspects of the ranking order. It might be argued that by taking into account more nebulous factors, such as the quality of the work and the perceived reputation of a department, the gradings by the sub-committee could be justified. Nevertheless, it is difficult to accept that three of the departments coming in the top half of the per caput comparison of research income, should have been classified as `below average'. It is clear that there was a marked arbitrary element in the assessment made.</p> <p>The selectivity exercise had financial consequences: UGC recurrent grant allocations to universities were adjusted to take it into account. In addition, pressure has been put on universities to reflect these adjustments in their internal distribution of monies (Swinnerton-Dyer's letter in Baker, 1986; THES, 10 March 1989).</p> <p>(e) Small Departments</p> <p>An early statement of the UGC/DES policy talked of small departments not necessarily being weak, but expressed concern about departments which were both small and weak (UGC, 1984, Section 10.4). Since then the rhetoric, at least, has moved away from the reasonable position to one where small size as such is seen as objectionable. This can be seen in the reports of some of the subject review panels.</p> <p>The panel on materials science and technology started with the statement that "industry needs more graduates of high quality than are currently available" and concluded, not with the recommendation that the subject area should be strengthened with more resources, but that four out of 18 undergraduate schools should be closed without transfer of resources to the survivors. The assertion was that this would cut off the `tail' of undergraduates with low A-level scores. This accords badly with the emphasis currently being laid on widening access to university courses (UGC, 1984, Section 1.8; Secretary of State, 1985)!</p> <p>The `hispanics' panel report produced problems at Bath, where French and German were offered with a selection from Italian, Spanish and Russian as `minor' languages. The UGC letter announcing the 1986/87 recurrent grant had expressed the hope that the university would "deploy some of the resources it had gained to strengthen provision in languages other than French and German". However, within a few months it became clear that the subject review panel would recommend closure of the Spanish course. The group responsible for the course was a small one (two lecturers, a rector and a tutor) and eventually it was closed, despite buoyant applications (180-200 for 12-13 places), a high quality of intake (A-level point score 12 to 13), and despite the increased demand expected for graduates with a knowledge of Spanish following Spain's entry to the EEC.</p> <p>These two examples show a number of common features. Each, in a different way, suggests inconsistency of policy within the UGC. In both cases the decision for closure appears arbitrary: cogent counter-arguments were readily suggested. Despite this, pressure was applied to the universities concerned to conform. As there was no net resources consequence for the UGC--the funds saved being transferred elsewhere within the same institution--the UGC was essentially making a purely academic judgement, and forcing it on the senates concerned.</p> <p>(f) A Rational Way Forward?</p> <p>Will these pressures from the CVCP and UGC lead to a rational way ahead for universities? There is much to be said for a systematic review of academic procedures such as the Reynolds Report provides. To support research strengths and to concentrate a university's attention on weak departments and research groups should in principle enable universities better to fulfil their academic and social purposes. However, in practice it has proved very difficult to establish rational criteria by which to judge the effectiveness of a department. Even where there are no misgivings about the soundness of the advice given, an autonomous institution should have the discretion to act upon it as it sees best.</p> <p>Have the strong pressures on university autonomy from the UGC and CVCP impaired the ability of universities to fulfil their function? The early retirement or emigration of many of the most experienced academic staff may have reduced `unit costs', but it is a manifestation of a widespread decline in morale. The pressures on university autonomy described in this paper have aggravated the demoralisation. They have also upset the intellectual coherence and balance of many institutions by forcing contractions and closures. There is now at least one technological university which has lost both physics and mathematic departments.</p> <p>The continual chipping away at autonomy is generating a climate of opinion where universities are expected to engage in activities which are inimical to their primary function. For instance, it is worrying that the Government Training Agency (formerly Manpower Services Commission) sees "a substantial and productive role for employers. . . in the work of institutions particularly in curriculum design, delivery and assessment" (our italics) as the 'cornerstone' of the `enterprise education' scheme which it is encouraging universities to adopt (Training Agency, 1989).</p> <p>Again, both peers and MPs have been worried by a growing tendency on the part of the Government to retain a power of veto over the publication of university research it commissions, even in such fields as health, medicine and education (Hansard, 1988a-c).</p> <p>Once a precedent is established of universities' giving way on significant academic issues against the better judgement of their `properly-constituted authorities', or of responding to external judgements based on hidden or unintelligible criteria, the fundamental purpose of the university is under threat. A mechanism has then been established which an unscrupulous minister or official could use against a university or department which was deemed politically or ideologically embarrassing.</p> <p>The `action plan' shows how close are the links--almost a chain of command--between the DES, UGC, CVCP and individual universities. With the change from UGC to UFC this chain will become stronger. The question must be raised as to whether the Government in fact still has the sympathy which Jaspers implied was necessary for a university to flourish, or even to exist.</p> <p>The nature of the pressure applied for securing acquiescence to inimical recommendations is quite clearly the threat, not necessarily explicit, of withdrawal of funds at a time of financial and economic crisis (Baker, 1986). It is difficult to resist the conclusions of M. Dummett (1987) that the apparent `funding crisis' is being used as a justification for increasing governmental control over universities and that this form of control is to the universities' detriment. The economic crisis would appear to be a fact of life in all Western industrialised countries. But is the resulting `funding crisis' more a crisis of priorities than of economics? In the United Kingdom there has been a radical re-evaluation of the function of universities in society by the current Government. Universities are to be seen in cost benefit terms and in what Herve Carrier, writing in the Conference of European Rectors' publication `Universities and Culture', calls "la froide rationalite du pragmatisme, du props, de la concurrence" (Carrier, 1988). An important argument put forward in this paper is that there are other equally valid ways of perceiving the place of universities in society and that the `crisis' that is before us is philosophical rather than financial.</p> <hd id="AN9706306563-5"> Industrial Funding and Universities </hd> <p>At the University of Bath the reality of the `financial crisis' and the strictures of Government have produced a swift response. The need for economic survival has always been high on the university's agenda, for Bath is a small (3500-4000 students) and minimally endowed institution. There is no financial `fat' to fall back on. Economic resilience over the past few years has been maintained by several new and important ventures in the university/industry `interface' which taken together amount to a significant shift in emphasis. By emphasising contract research and by markedly increasing its volume and value over the past few years, by instituting endowed chairs, by establishing a new structure of external relations with a strong marketing flavour and by pushing for a prestigious local science park, along the lines of the Research Triangle Park in the USA, Bath is `signalling' its entry into the age of enterprise.</p> <p>What is the rationale for such a policy shift? The Vice-Chancellor of Bath, opening the Second National PICKUP Conference at Lancaster University in 1988, stated that as a result of government pressures "universities are having to commercialise themselves much more than they use to" and that "this demands the emergence of a new type of academic" (Love, 1988). Certainly, since 1981, government pressures in the form of financial cuts have forced universities to look elsewhere for funding. They have turned increasingly to industry and have been encouraged to do so by the CVCP, for example (CVCP, 1986). In an official DTI publication dated January 1988 the case is put for closer links with industry and commerce and we read: "Such links have multiplied and strengthened over the past six or seven years, though much remains to be done [our italics]. University income from industry grew from £23 million in 1981/2 to £59 million in 1985/86" (DTI, 1988, p. 20). At the University of Leicester funding from industry rose by 162% in 1987 but at Bath the University Council is worried that the academics are not earning enough.</p> <p>Industry's high profile and the extent of its penetration into the higher education domain is reflected in the publications of its national pressure group, CIHE (Council for Industry in Higher Education). In his speech to the CVCP in September 1988, Kenneth Baker referred twice to the CIHE, highlighting in particular its views on teaching. "A striking change is the corporate concern, now widespread and often passionate, in the process and output of teaching" (CIHE, 1988). It is, however, rather sinister to read in the CIHE document published in spring 1987 that "where research emphasis declines it should be matched by a much sharper focus on the business of teaching itself". The overall ends of the CIHE are unexceptionable: the opening up of higher education and the regeneration of national prosperity. But the means that are suggested are more open to question. The 1987 document urges that "the system [of higher education] be rationally organised for the type of expansion needed". But whose needs and who is to do the organising? It goes on "We must move progressively to a situation where the customers of Higher Education, both individuals and industry, contribute significantly to its cost, and exercise significant influence as customers" (CIHE, 1987). "Companies planning to invest in science will wish to know in the first place that their long run interests are, at least broadly, taken into account in the setting of national research priorities" (CIHE, 1987). Such close coincidence of Governmental and industrial interests and their mediation through the industrial `arm' has worrying political overtones.</p> <p>The CIHE agenda for `reform' resonates strongly with some of the more radical provisions of the Education Reform Act. A majority industrial presence on the UFC, a core national secondary school curriculum and student loans had already been powerfully argued in the 1987 document Towards a Partnership. It is also worth noting an interconnection of right wing politics, and business interests. Thus, Kenneth Durham, Chairman of Unilever and founder member of CIHE, wrote about `Refunding Higher Education to Increase Technological Application and Growth' in a 1984 publication entitled Trespassing? Businessmen's views on the Education System. This was a publication of the Social Affairs Unit, (commonly described as a right wing `think-tank') and took as its brief universities' "insulation from economic and technological reality" (Anderson, 1984). Kenneth Durham in his paper argues the case for 'responsiveness' by universities to industry's needs by claiming that "industry already largely provides the finance for education through the tax regime" (Durham, 1984).</p> <p>In the United Kingdom university sector in the late 1980s, the industrial model would seem to be dominant and the evidence that universities have come to see industry as their most important lifeline is overwhelming. The argument that will be developed in the remainder of this paper is that we may clutch at this `lifeline' at our peril. We argue that the development of intimate links between university and industry is a process fraught with dangers for traditional liberal values and that the rapidity with which we are proceeding down this path is blurring, even suppressing, the moral issues and value conflicts that should now be publicly debated.</p> <p>The New Model University</p> <p>It might be helpful to imagine the `alternative' university that could emerge at the end of a process of university/industry interfacing. Intimations of such a future can be found in developments in higher education in the USA and in the Pacific Rim (specifically Australia and Japan). A `new model' institution has been described by R. Stankiewicz in his book Academics and Entrepreneurs and the argument for an autonomous, privately funded university system put by Elie Kedourie in Diamonds into Glass: the government and the universities. In Stankiewicz's view the "ideal type" of university would "be designed to function as an integrating factor in the larger R&D system" and its prime aim would be "technology generation and transfer". In order to achieve this goal there would have to be major changes in academic organisation. In knowledge areas where the greatest commercial exploitation is likely, for example, electronics, computer science and biotechnology, university interdisciplinary units, or centres, funded by industry, would provide the `cutting edge' in research. Examples of such centres, known as Cooperative Research Centres, may be found in the USA where a policy of industry/university collaboration has been fostered by the National Science Foundation. The Centre funded by the Whitehead Institute (Edwin C. Whitehead is a multimillionaire entrepreneur, former owner of Technicon Inc. and now expanding into biotechnology) and the Biology Department of MIT, is well known for its outstanding `curiosity driven' research record. The extent of private funding that this kind of university/industry collaboration entails would demand changes in the government of the university. Representatives from the Centres, who were not university appointments, would sit on the `statutory committees' of the university. This 'crossing of boundaries' would be reflected in a changed policy towards staff appointments. Stankiewicz refers to the "emergence of new role-hybrids", people who could combine teaching in traditional university departments with research work in the cross-disciplinary centres and possibly with marketing the university's knowledge and service in the `world outside'. Mobility and flexibility of personnel would be features of the `new model'. In its relationship with the outside world the institution would pursue an active `marketing strategy', tapping into as wide a constituency of `users' and `customers' as possible. Finally, for the `new model' to be in the forefront of `technology transfer', anticipating the fluctuations in the intellectual market, a high degree of institutional autonomy would be needed. Privatised or corporate universities would be in the best position to achieve this.</p> <p>Such a future may have appeal to many university leaders as well as to industrialists. The idea of institutional autonomy, freedom from bureaucratic control and governmental intervention and the resulting `managerial flexibility' may be particularly attractive to university vice-chancellors, or chief executives as they would presumably be called. To academics the prospect of working in exciting new areas like biotechnology in laboratories generously funded by industry must be tempting. And among the public at large, for so long indifferent or uncomprehending, there must be many who would give support to an entrepreneurial university released from its `dependency mentality' and giving value for money at last.</p> <p>There are, however, some objectionable features about the `new model'. The idea of cross-disciplinary work is a welcome one towards which many universities are working in research and teaching. There is nevertheless a profound difference between a university academic trained in the critical demands of a subject discipline working with members of other departments within a community of scholars, and a `role-hybrid' who is funded by industry and whose concern is with the commercial applications and profitability of the research topic. The task of the intellectual discipline is to advance knowledge and to do this an open and critical stance must be fostered. Industrially funded projects may, however, carry with them the demand for secrecy or delayed publication on the part of the sponsoring company, thus transgressing the academic principle of the free and unfettered dissemination of knowledge.</p> <p>Attempts to foster collaborative research between private companies, or corporations, and university departments have met with problems of ownership and control. For example, the prestigious Whitehead Institute/MIT Biology Department ran into trouble over the appointment of academic staff, the selection of research topics and the nature of the relationship with commercial interests. The inclusion of corporate appointees on university committees and statutory bodies raises the issue of value of conflict: the norms and values of large industrial organisations and those of universities may be at different ends of an ideological continuum. A beginning has been made in the USA to discuss the ethical problems arising out of industry/university links and to create new ethical frameworks. The two `Asilomar' conferences held in Pajaro Dunes in California in 1975 and 1981 were such an attempt. We are not aware of any such move taking place in the United Kingdom and no recommendation for ethical debate is made in either of the CIHE documents. Stankiewicz acknowledges this value chasm but his position is that it is the universities who will have to undergo cultural and organisational change in order to adapt to high-tech society. Finally, it needs to be stressed that most university/industry `interfacing' is with big business. Thus in the USA it is apparent that the Cooperative Research Centres, for example, are best adapted to serving the long term R&D needs of large companies (Dean, 1981). In Japan the coming together of big business, the higher education system and of government, all three arms of the state working together on the basis of cooperation and consensus, has, it is claimed, led to the economic miracle. Whether the 'Japan Incorporated' model of government, industry and universities, is transferable to the United Kingdom and if so, what consequences for academic freedom might follow, is a prospect worth debating.</p> <p>Ten years ago the idea of a university as an `integrating factor in a larger R&D system' would have sounded crassly reductionist. Nearly 20 years ago the publication of a book entitled Warwick University Ltd caused ripples of shock and even disdain (Thompson, 1971). Ten years ago liberal values prevailed, philosophy departments were still open, academic tenure was safe and the academic life was seen as a vocation. Today the language and values of entrepreneurialism and managerialism have become common currency in higher education: "Le dur language de la productivite moderne ne s'accorde pas avec notre discours humaniste" (Carrier, 1988).</p> <p>The force of the new thinking can perhaps be judged by the extreme statement made by the newly formed Council for Academic Autonomy in its first publication The State and Higher Education: restoring academic autonomy. "Gone is the old idea of self-regulating communities of scholars and teachers, devoted to the common cause of the pursuit of knowledge. Instead we have a Government conception of academic institutions es `carters of knowledge', units of production with a managerial elite and a workforce of intellectual producers, whose labour will be increasingly casualised in the interests of `managerial flexibility' and `value for money'" (1988). This extraordinary value shift in higher education resonates with a profound cultural shift in society that has taken place over the last ten years. The devaluing of humanistic values, the primacy of `making it' or `loadsamoney' values, the elevation of entrepreneurial values into an ideology and the penetration of this ideology into areas of life, like education, that had previously been resistant, are trends which, if taken together, amount to a cultural revolution.</p> <p>How have we arrived at this depressingly uncivilised state of affairs? The purpose of this section of the paper has not been to point the finger at businessmen and to place the responsibility for the collapse of liberal values on the shoulders of industry. Industrialists are only doing their job in demanding a supply of well qualified and competent young graduates to enter their ranks. It is the university's job to educate them and this must mean fostering in them a commitment to free scholarly enquiry--the disinterested pursuit of knowledge--as well as to the values pertaining to a democratic society.</p> <p>Amy Gutmann (1987), writing about education in a democratic society, says "Universities are more likely to serve society well not by adopting the quantified values of the market but by preserving a realm where the non-quantifiable values of intellectual excellence and integrity and the supporting moral principles of non-repression and nondiscrimination flourish. In serving society well by preserving such a realm, a university acts as an educator of office holders rather than simply a gatekeeper of office". Industry is an essential component of our democratic society and many industrialists share in its values. Thus at a recent meeting of the Council of Bath University lay members, including several businessmen, voted in favour of the democratic principle in the governance of the university.</p> <p>So, too, industry expects of universities a willingness to participate in scientific research which will advance productivity and profit. In responding to this quite justifiable expectation it behoves a university academic not to make a Faustian contract. Certain scholarly rules need to be followed: freedom to pursue lines of enquiry which may not be directly `relevant' to the industrial sponsor and freedom to publish results. It is hypocritical for universities to persist in claiming academic freedom when at the same time researchers accept classified research which, by the demand for secrecy, negates the fundamental academic freedom--the right to publish. University academics should be aware of the dangers of accepting short term research with an immediate `pay off'. Too much work of this kind would skew research in an unacceptable way, deflecting academics from research which in the long term might be of greater value to society, if of less immediate profit to the industrial sponsor and to the university. It is important that university academics uphold the principle of social justice by serving not only those groups who can pay large sums for research, for example business corporations and governments, but also other less powerful and less established groups. In this way a university can carry out its social purpose of acting as a cutting edge in society, challenging established orthodoxies and forging new and possibly uncomfortable theories and value positions.</p> <p>University academics, however, have failed to assert strongly and publicly their function of intellectual and moral leadership within society, and to assert it, moreover, in language proper to a university. The intellectual and linguistic vacuum that was the result has been filled by the values and terminology of the market place. Such is the bankruptcy of university leadership and the loss of faith and confidence amongst lecturers that we find resistance difficult and now, with some exceptions, we pay lip service to the primacy of the market. Resistance is nevertheless legitimate. We have an obligation to society to state publicly that governmental policy is destroying the proper environment for research and teaching in universities and that `selling out' to industry is not in the interest of universities or of society.</p> <p>The Council for Industry and Higher Education makes an urgent case for improving university teaching. The Government would for ideological reasons wish to see industry further involved in the work of universities and not only in a funding capacity. It would be of considerable benefit to society if industry and higher education could work together towards the common goal of regenerating the university, thus enabling it to carry out its proper role of moral leadership in society. But in any such partnership it is the university that must play the dominant part. Many of the most crucial questions facing society are, as Carrier points out, ethical and cultural. Thus, "La premiere mission de l'Universite' est de servir ['elevation intellectuelle et morale des etres humains". Universities, by virtue of their traditional freedoms, are equipped to fulfil this role but the debate that must take place needs to be carried forward not in the commercial language of profit and loss, of marketability and accountability, but in the ethical language of purposes and responsibilities.</p> <hd id="AN9706306563-6"> Conclusions </hd> <p>The intention of this paper has not been to set up a defensive barrier against change by invoking traditional arguments for the liberal ideal of the university. We have tried to stress the value of an historical perspective which emphasises the principles on which university education rests. Much of the material we have presented stands as a depressing testimony to loss of a sense of purpose, failure of leadership and an erosion of community. The case studies we have described should be seen as warnings, rather than self-fulfilling prophecies, for it is possible that the defensive and negative climate which oppresses university life in Britain today may lift. The effect of 1992 will be revivifying and will be challenging. In signing the Magna Charta of European universities on September 1988, the university rectors not only commemorated the 900 years of the university--studium generale--of Bologna, they also laid claim to the future. The `new model' of the European university will be one in which programmes like COMETT (university-industry exchange) and ERASMUS (international mobility for staff and students) will be of increasing significance. The European university, while conscious of its historical past, will address itself even more urgently to the problems of the present and the future and will assume responsibility for reviving the economy and promoting employment. It will also see as its task the transforming of traditional values to meet the needs and values of the rising generation. To achieve these ends the European university will need to co-operate and interact with governments, with industry and with society as a whole, while affirming the basic need that, in the words of the Magna Charta, "a university's research and teaching must be morally and intellectually independent of all political authority and economic power" (Caputo, 1988).</p> <p>Correspondence: M. E. Tasker, School of Education and D. E. Packham, School of Materials Science, University of Bath, Claverton Down, Bath BA2 7AY, United Kingdom.</p> <hd id="AN9706306563-7"> REFERENCES </hd> <p>ANDERSON, D. (Ed.) (1984) Trespassing? Businessmen's Views on the Education System (London, Social Affairs Unit).</p> <p>ARISTOTLE The Politics, VIII, i, Section 2: E. BARKER (Ed.), 1948 edn, p. 390 (Oxford, Oxford University Press).</p> <p>BAKER, K. (1986) House of Commons Official Report, 103, c. 489, 6 November.</p> <p>BRERETON, C. (1929) Education, Encyclopedia Britannica, 14th edn, 7, p. 987.</p> <p>CAPUTO, G. (1988) For a Magna Charta of European Universities. CRE-action, No. 2, p. 81. The text of the Charta is on pp. 85-86 and in French, pp. 79-80.</p> <p>CARRIER, H. (1988) Les Universites et le Devenir de l'Europe. CRE-action No. 2, Universite et Culture, p. 19.</p> <p>COMMITTEE OF VICE CHANCELLORS AND PRINCIPALS (1986a) Academic Standards in Universities (Reynolds Report) (London, CVCP).</p> <p>COMMITTEE OF VICE-CHANCELLORS AND PRINCIPALS (1986b) The Future of the Universities (London, CVCP).</p> <p>COMMITTEE OF VICE CHANCELLORS AND PRINCIPALS (1988) Academic Standards in Universities. Second Report (London, CVCP).</p> <p>COUNCIL FOR ACADEMIC AUTONOMY (1988) The State and Higher Education: restoring academic autonomy (London, CAA).</p> <p>COUNCIL FOR INDUSTRY IN HIGHER EDUCATION (1987) Towards a Partnership. Higher Education--government-industry (London, CIHE).</p> <p>COUNCIL FOR INDUSTRY IN HIGHER EDUCATION (1988) Towards a Partnership. The Company Response (London, CIHE).</p> <p>COBBAN, A.B. (1975) The Medieval Universities (London, Methuen).</p> <p>DUMMETT, M. (1987) Universities at risk, The Tablet, 30 May, p. 578.</p> <p>DEAN, C.W. (1981) A study of university/small business interaction for technology transfer, Technovation, 1, p. 15.</p> <p>DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY Departmental Brochure, Ch. 4 (London, DTI).</p> <p>DURHAM, K. (1984) in: D. ANDERSON (Ed.) Trespassing? Businessmen's Views on the Education System (London, Social Affairs Unit).</p> <p>EDWARDS REPORT (1988) The Future of University Physics (London, UGC).</p> <p>EUSTACE, R.(1987) The English ideal of university governance, Studies in Higher Education, 12, pp. 7-22.</p> <p>GUTMANN, A. (1987) Democratic Education (Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press).</p> <p>MANSARD (1988a) Education Reform Bill, Lords amendments further considered, House of Commons Official Report, 137, c.1022-23, 19 July.</p> <p>MANSARD (1988b) Health and Medicines Bill, Report, House of Lords Official Report, 500, c.942-960, 17 October.</p> <p>MANSARD (1988c) Health and Medicines Bill, Third Reading, House of Lords Official Report, 500, c.1489-97, 28 October.</p> <p>JARRATT REPORT (1985) Report of the Steering Committee for Efficiency Studies in Universities (London, CVCP).</p> <p>JASPERS, K. (1946) The Idea of the University (English trans. London, Peter Owen, 1960).</p> <p>LOVE, J. (1988) `Stop beating about the bush' says Quayle, Pickup in Progress, Autumn, p. 20 (London, DES).</p> <p>MEAKIN, B.J. & TASKER, M.E. (1987) Higher Degree Examination Protocol (University of Bath) [available from the authors].</p> <p>NEWMAN, J.H. (1852) The Idea of a University (frequently reprinted Page references are to the Image Books Edition, New York, Doubleday, 1959).</p> <p>O'HEAR, A. (1988) Academic freedom and the university, in: M. TIGHT, op. cit., p. 6.</p> <p>ROBBINS, REPORT (1963) Committee on Higher Education (London, HMSO).</p> <p>SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EDUCATION AND SCIENCE et al. (1985) The Development of Higher Education in the 1990s, Green Paper Section 3.2 (London, HMSO).</p> <p>SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EDUCATION AND SCIENCE et al. (1987) Higher Education: meeting the challenge (London, HMSO).</p> <p>STANKIEWICZ, R. (1986) Academics and Entrepreneurs: developing university-industry relations (London, Six Countries Programme).</p> <p>SWINNERTON-DYER, P. (1985) The Times Higher Education Supplement, 15 November.</p> <p>THOMPSON, E.P. (1971) Warwick University Ltd (Harmondsworth, Penguin).</p> <p>TIGHT, M. (1988) Academic Freedom and Responsibility (Milton Keynes, Open University & SRHE).</p> <p>TRAINING AGENCY (1989) Enterprise in Higher Education. Key Features of the Enterprise in Higher Education Proposals, 1988-89 (Sheffield, Training Agency).</p> <p>UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMITTEE (1984) A Strategy for Higher Education into the 1990s (London, HMSO).</p> <p>UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMITTEE (1988) The next research selectivity exercise: consultative. Circular Letter 15/88 (London, UGC).</p> <p>WHITEHEAD, A.N. (1932) The Aims of Education and Other Essays, p. 74 (London, Benn).</p> <p>WUS (1988) The Lima Declaration on Academic Freedom and Autonomy of Institutions of Higher Education (Geneva, World University Service).</p> <aug> <p>By M. E. TASKER and D. E. PACKHAM, University of Bath</p> </aug>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ413560
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Freedom, Funding and the Future of the Universities.
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Tasker%2C+M%2E+E%2E%22">Tasker, M. E.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Packham%2C+D%2E+E%2E%22">Packham, D. E.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Studies+in+Higher+Education%22"><i>Studies in Higher Education</i></searchLink>. 1990 15(2):181-195.
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 15
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 1990
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Opinion Papers
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Academic+Freedom%22">Academic Freedom</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Role%22">College Role</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Finance%22">Educational Finance</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Ethics%22">Ethics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Financial+Support%22">Financial Support</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Futures+%28of+Society%29%22">Futures (of Society)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Government+School+Relationship%22">Government School Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Institutional+Autonomy%22">Institutional Autonomy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22School+Business+Relationship%22">School Business Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Universities%22">Universities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Values%22">Values</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22United+Kingdom+%28Great+Britain%29%22">United Kingdom (Great Britain)</searchLink>
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0307-5079
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: To achieve its intellectual and social purpose, a university needs autonomy and freedom. The dangers of large scale and uncritical acceptance of industrial funds can lead to a value shift within universities with the result that technology generation would become a prime aim. (Author/MLW)
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 1991
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ413560
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ413560
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 15
        StartPage: 181
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Academic Freedom
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Role
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Finance
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Ethics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Financial Support
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Futures (of Society)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Government School Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Higher Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Institutional Autonomy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: School Business Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Universities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Values
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: United Kingdom (Great Britain)
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Freedom, Funding and the Future of the Universities.
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Tasker, M. E.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Packham, D. E.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 1990
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0307-5079
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 15
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Studies in Higher Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1