Professional Documents
Culture Documents
autonomous university?
Professor Keri Facer, Graduate School of Education, University of Bristol
Cite as: Facer, K (2014) Ms all de la desagregacin y el elitismo: Un nuevo futuro para la
universidad autnoma popular? Gewerc, A. (Coord.). (2014). Conocimiento Tecnologa y
enseanza. Polticas y prcticas universitarias. Barcelona: Grao.
1. Introduction
The idea that the university is in crisis, or at least a state of significant flux, has
been around for some time. Indeed, struggles over the meaning and purpose of
universities have been a topic of debate in most traditions of western thought
since the Enlightenment (Readings, 1996; Barnett, 2011) Arguably, however, we
are now in a distinctive phase in this debate, which has moved inexorably away
from the competition for primacy between culture, religion and science towards
an existential concern with the very continuation of the university itself (Calhoun,
2011; Barber, 2013). These distinctive contemporary concerns are underpinned,
in particular, by changing economic and technological conditions. The former
provides a particular political impetus and rationale; the latter provides the
infrastructure and mechanisms, to provide a plausible basis for imagining the
radical disaggregation of universities as we know them today and their dispersal
across multiple institutions, practices and services.
What I want to discuss in this chapter is first, the broad contours of the arguments
in favour of the radically deconstructed (or, in Barber et als terms unbundled
university); second, the distinctive mode of resistance to this argument that is
captured in the appeal to the liberal autonomous university; and third, the limits
to this particular form of resistance. Finally, I want to explore some emerging
ideas of the popular university to propose a different way of framing the grounds
of the debate, in the hope that this might enable the identification of productive
areas for future research and for the formation of new alliances. This reframing is
intended to resist both the headlong rush towards the radical deconstruction of
the university by either neoliberal or popular social movements, as well as the
nostalgic retreat into the enclave of the elite, autonomous university.
the familiar narrative that higher education develops human capacities for society
as a whole, while simultaneously increasingly the importance of higher education
as an individual positional good essential for maintenance of middle class status
(Brown et al, 2011; Calhoun, 2011). Such conditions limited public finances,
declining public confidence in the benefits of the institution are propitious
foundations for the wholesale opening up of universities to the logic of market
forces and economic instrumentalism.
Alongside these changes to the political economy of the university is the
emergence of a growing online learning industry that promises access to high
quality higher education independent of geographical location. Wholly online
courses are proliferating as lucrative spin-offs for universities and entrepreneurial
academics, as well as for publishing and technology companies seeking to open
up the education market (Isaacson, 2011). University teachers can make
information and resources available to thousands of students with limited
infrastructure and skills, lectures can be promoted widely through distribution
channels from YouTube to TED, and online discussion groups are being adopted for
international, dispersed student groups to high levels of reported student
satisfaction and comprehension. The proliferation of universities online offerings,
their advocates argue, creates more equitable access to university education in
opening up university access, by reducing costs and by allowing students to
manage what and how and when they learn. The emergence of new forms of
online assessment and accreditation, moreover, promises to be equally disruptive
of traditional university roles. The digital, from this perspective, offers a significant
opportunity to ensure that higher educational practices really meet the personal,
idiosyncratic and urgent needs of students in a way that the traditional 18-24
place-based model cannot offer.
Taken together, these technological and economic shifts set the scene for a
radical deconstruction of the research university as a place, as a community and
as an institution characterised (sometimes more in the idea than in the
observance) by a commitment to the wider public good through the collegiate
production of new knowledge and learning. A practice of online, individualized and
modular teaching and assessment determined by market need, surrounded by
academics practicing in distributed think tanks and research labs, perfectly fits a
culture of micro-payment on demand. This is the nature of the avalanche that
some loud voices in the debate argue is coming (Barber, 2013); an avalanche
that will see universities swept aside in a transformation that parallels the
disruptions of the publishing, retail and music industries:
nothing has more potential to enable us to reimagine higher education
than the massive open online course, or MOOC, platforms that are being
developed by the likes of Stanford and the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology and companies like Coursera and Udacity. (Friedman, 2013).
This discourse and the technologies that potentially enable it, perfectly elide
populist imperatives for more accountable and publicly responsive universities
with the logic of the market. This creates a new vision for the university premised
almost entirely on a principle of economic instrumentalism, governed solely by
consumer choice, and delivered almost wholly online.
This idea of the university and the relative absence of powerful popular moves to
resist it (within the UK at least) provides a useful corrective to the idea that
universities are unchanging institutions, necessarily immune to changing
technological and economic conditions. While such a shift may be possible,
however, it is far from clear that such a change is desirable.
There is little evidence from institutions spearheading these developments, for
example, that the radically unbundled university will find a place in its activities
for curiosity driven research, for protecting a wide range of teaching programmes,
or for civic activities and responsibilities. There is little guarantee in this model
that the present demands of the market will sustain the research and teaching
that may be needed by societies further down the line for new and different
environmental, technological and social conditions. If universities should be, as
Michael Young argues elsewhere in this volume, places where society conducts its
conversation about the future, such a restriction of activities would bring a
significant risks.
Indeed, the combined effect of an already stratified higher education market with
the increased reach of digital technologies driven by powerful publishing
companies, risks producing not the flowering ecosystem of innovation that its
advocates fondly imagine, but an unproductive monoculture of educational
experiences that can be rolled out globally. While recognising, therefore, the
important popular critiques of the contemporary university, as well as changing
economic and technological conditions, it is nonetheless clear that the ideas
currently being proposed for the future of the university have significant
shortcomings.
particular interest groups this defense pays insufficient attention to the critiques
of the elite liberal model that have helped to sustain popular political support for
intrusive accountability and audit in the university sector. Its advocates pay too
little attention to the elision between powerful knowledge (disciplinary specialised
knowledge) and the knowledge of the powerful (the embedding of power relations
within educational and research institutions) (Young & Muller, 2013).
Collinis defense of the university, for example, includes no reflection on the
extent to which the traditional liberal model has historically served as an efficient
mechanism for elite economic and social reproduction (Bourdieu, 1988; Brennan
and Naidoo, 2008). There is no critical examination of how it is that individuals
come to enter the academy and the sort of academy and forms of disciplinary
inquiry that this therefore produces. Indeed, there is nothing other than the
suitably vague and obfuscating aspiration that university education, both
undergraduate and graduate, be accessible to all students who can benefit from
it (CDBU, Website, Jan 2013, our italics). At a time when economic factors,
including private schooling, significantly determine the likelihood of higher
education and in particular elite higher education being judged beneficial, such a
statement is a facile refusal to be concerned with the inherent reproduction of
privilege in the academy. Indeed, implied in this analysis is the assumption that
widening access to universities is part of the problem of the creeping
managerialism of the university sector; it is other people telling them who to
teach and who should be allowed to aspire to their positions in future.
One difficulty with this defense of the university therefore, is that it positions the
defense of the powerful intellectual resources of the university in opposition to
those who would make the case for the university as a force that could and should
be articulated with wider social aspirations, such as democracy or social progress.
For such aspirations, after all, require reflection about who it is that comes to be in
and to hold positions of intellectual as well as political power; they require
attention to cognitive as well as to social justice (de Sousa Santos, 2007).
The definition of the public good upon which these defenders of the liberal
university premise their claims, moreover, seems strangely parochial. In
defending academic values from external audit and assessment, for example, the
CDBU makes reference primarily to the UKs high ranking in international league
tables in comparison with other nations (CDBU website, Jan 2013). Such claims
offer no acknowledgement of the historical contingency of these tables, the
extent to which they are heavily weighted in favour of english-speaking scholars
and the myriad cultural factors that shore up traditional patterns of prestige. More
importantly, they offer no recognition of the limits for both knowledge and for the
wider public good of premising the defence of the university on a narrowly
competitive nationalist agenda (Readings, 1996). To that extent, they echo the
impoverished parochialism of Barbers uber-neoliberal education manifesto with
its conceptualization of university purpose as winning the global war for human
capital (2013).
In the end, the demand for autonomy of inquiry, as Marginson (2000) has
demonstrated, provides few safeguards in itself against a shift towards economic
instrumentalism, particularly at a time of declining public finances. The
autonomous, self-managing scholar looking for the next unexamined terrain and
the next academic patron has much in common, after all, with the autonomous,
self-managing entrepreneur looking for the gap in the market (Marginson, 2007).
One might be in strong agreement with defenders of the liberal university,
therefore, that universities should not be broken up and sold to the highest bidder
(although the extent to which the divide between public and private in terms of
university economics is currently policed is already unclear). One might also agree
that research and teaching should not be made subject to the dictats of either
emancipatory, collective and democratic social learning practice. They are formed
of allegiances between academics and activists, social researchers and policymakers; they bring together existing groupings, from patients advocacy groups to
local community organisations. They are concerned with participatory modes of
research (co-production, action research, co-design, social innovation) and with
uncovering older forms of teaching (dialogue and seminars). In particular, they
demonstrate different criteria for judging quality of both research and teaching,
concerned not primarily with unique contributions to scholarship, but with
beneficial action both on the ground and in respect of wider social movements
(Mignolo, 2009)
In the remainder of this chapter, I would like to suggest that it may be through
forging new allegiances between these ideas of the popular university and the
traditional practices of the elite liberal university that a new idea of the public
research university, capable of contesting the popular and economic appeal of the
unbundled university, might be formed.
produce totalizing and universalizing knowledge claims that have been closely
allied to support for existing elite power. The core of the argument is that the
knowledge produced by the liberal university is, in fact, not autonomous, but
deeply implicated in support for elites with significant and negative consequences
for other forms of knowledge and ways of life. This argument has been very well
rehearsed elsewhere (e.g. Connell, 2011) so I will not expand on it here.
The reciprocal critique of the popular university is that it is concerned only with
the local and the specific, that it fails to use the cognitive resources that have
already been developed through traditional science and scholarship, and that it
thus renounces the claims to use and generate knowledge that enables them act
in and on the world more widely. This is often premised on a Gramscian critique of
populist education movements, as Apple argues:
When Gramsci (1971) argues that one of the tasks of a truly counterhegemonic education was not to throw out elite knowledge but to
reconstruct its form and content so that it served genuinely progressive
social needs, he provided a key to another role organic and public
intellectuals might play. Thus, we should not be engaged in a process of
what might be called intellectual suicide. (Apple, 2012, p42)
More substantively, Young and Muller encourage us to pay attention to
the irreducible differentiatedness of knowledge. Knowledge is
structured, in part independently of how we acquire it, and knowledge
fields differ in their internal coherence, their principles of cohesion, and
their procedures for producing new knowledge. These internal differences
are mirrored in the different forms of social relation between the actors
that practice in the institutions of those fields: knowledge relations and
social relations vary in tandem. (2013)
Creating alliances between autonomous and popular universities isnt, from this
analysis, a simple matter of breaking down the walls and saying these practices
are interchangeable or equivalent. Rather, it involves the recognition that the
different contexts, structures, procedures for judging value and social relations
that are involved in the intellectual work of these different forms of the university,
will produce different forms of knowledge. Such different forms of knowledge will,
moreover, be differently articulated with existing social, material and
technological structures and therefore will be able to effect different forms of
social action. These different forms of knowledge are often defined as differences
between theoretical and practical knowledge, between knowledge that travels
and knowledge that has meaning in place, between knowledge that provides
cognitive tools and knowledge that provides a basis for practical action.
To date, however, the point of difference between these two positions has too
often been focused in public debates around the question: whose knowledge
should count? And who gets to create knowledge? Should it be the knowledge of
those able to produce grand theories or those who can bring insights from lived
experience? Should it be the knowledge of those who are affected by changes or
of those who are originating the technologies that effect such changes? Success,
when defined on these grounds, is achieved by having particular voices heard
more clearly than others, by successfully including or excluding groups from the
debate. More problematically, attention to this question alone can lead to
tokenism, a politics of identity that locks non-dominant groups into specific
positions in the knowledge hierarchy, and a proliferation of representational rather
than truly transformative, knowledge politics.
Perhaps we might therefore ask a different question: how might the different
knowledge production practices of popular and liberal universities be put into
dialogue? This does not imply eroding the barriers between the different modes
and practices of knowledge production, but the creation of conditions for debate
between these positions. It sees barriers between knowledge practices not as
constraints, but as productive foundations for examining difference and exploring
points of action in different conditions.
I would like to conclude this paper by arguing that both the conceptual tools and
the widespread collaborative research processes are emerging that will allow us to
begin to theorise and test this question empirically. The conceptual tools emerge
from Eikelunds re-reading of Aristotle as a means of contesting the
theory/experience split that so often underpins antagonisms between liberal and
popular ideas of the university. The large-scale changes in research practice are
happening around the world, as academics are beginning to work with community
organisations, social movements, public bodies and social enterprise under the
auspices of ideas of the civic university. What is required now, however, is
systematic and critical reflection on these processes to examine whether they are
opening up the potential for a powerful articulation of liberal and popular ideas of
the university.
projects provide some insights into how different ways of knowing are being
articulated and negotiated in the programme. Consider, for example, the Walking
Interconnections project, in which the substantive topic of living with loss is
explored through collaborative research between social scientists, environmental
activists and disability rights advocates. As the lead researcher, Dr Sue Porter,
describes it, the project enables exploration of different ways of knowing about
and living with spoilt futures. The project has worked towards this by creating
walking encounters between activists and scholars working in different traditions,
to explore how different accounts of loss and the future might be used in different
settings. Consider, also, the project Woven Communities, in which the experience
and expertise of museum curators, archivists and botanists is combined with the
experience and expertise of basket weaving communities in Scotland to produce
new insights into the history and implications of mechanization of production for
local ecosystems. Both of these projects involve, not a repudiation of each others
knowledge communities and practices, but the creation of new grounds for
encounter between them, where they can be put into dialogue with each other,
where different ways of knowing provide a skohle for all participants, and where
the theories of each group are debated against the new grounds of the other. This
is neither a craven capitulation of academic disciplinary knowledge to the masses,
nor the exploitation of popular knowledges by academic elites; it is the careful,
systematic attempt to create new grounds to articulate these different ways of
knowing.
What is also notable is that the academics involved in projects such as those in
Connected Communities often use a language of play and freedom to describe
these activities. They sometimes shamefacedly admit to doing this work because
it is enjoyable. On reflection, it may be the case that, rather than closing down
academic research to narrowly instrumental ends, as the typical liberal argument
against such collaborations would go, the very processes of phronesis that are
required to design such research projects across multiple knowledge communities,
and the opportunities for reflection that they entail, may be reinvigorating
precisely the curiosity-driven, intellectually playful, form of inquiry that is so dear
to the advocates of academic autonomy. After all, a research project cannot be
determined wholly in advance by a funder if principles of dialogue are embedded
in its methodology. Whether these encounters truly fulfill the aspirations of
advocates for the popular university, however, remains unclear.
6. Concluding remarks
It is tempting for some, when faced with the powerful discourses of economic
instrumentalism, to seek to put up the walls and, claiming allegiance to academic
values, to resist the incursion of any external influence or intervention into the
university. Such a retreat, however, only serves to fuel the popular critique of the
university as a site more concerned with the protection and maintenance of
privilege than with the wider public good. It is equally tempting, for others, to
pronounce the death of the university and to turn to the different pressures and
rewards of social movement building and popular knowledge production. Such a
move, however, risks leaving the powerful tools and resources of universities to
those who already benefit from them. In this chapter, I have outlined a different
approach, which is to explore whether there is a potential alliance to be made by
articulating these two positions that often see themselves as in opposition.
There is not space here and it is in any case too early to determine what is
emerging from these encounters between different knowledge practices. What
merits further exploration, however, is whether these encounters truly enable the
different sites to act as skohle for each other, as sites of reflection and play and
theorization; and whether new forms of phronesis are being developed to enable
the highly diverse groups involved in these research activities to reflect together
and test out their theories with each other.
Ibn Khaldun once made the case that all great civilisations and institutions are
subject to periods of growth and decline. The trick, he suggested, was to
recognise when those moments of decline were beginning and to welcome in the
Bedouin at the gates in order to reinvigorate the institution and to bring in new
allegiances and power bases. Barber and others, advocating the unbundled
university, are arguing that the Bedouin at the gates of the university today are
the major publishing corporations and the technology companies. It might behove
the defenders of the liberal university instead to explore whether productive
alliances might also and more usefully be made in collaboration with the other
publics making up the popular universities beyond their walls.
References
Apple, M (2012) Can Education Change Society? Routledge: London & New York
Barber, M (2013), An Avalanche is Coming: Higher Education and the Revolution
Ahead, London: IPPR
Barnett, R. (2011) Being a University. Routledge: London
Bourdieu, P (1988) Homo Academicus, Stanford University Press
Brennan, J and Naidoo, R (2008) Higher Education and the achievement (and/or
prevention) of equity and social justice, Higher Education, 56, 287-302
Brown, P., Lauder, J., Ashton, D (2010) The Global Auction: The Broken Promises of
Education, Jobs and Rewards, New York: Oxford University Press
Calhoun, C (2006) The University and the Public Good, Thesis Eleven, 84:7, 7-43
Calhoun, C (2011) The public Mission of the Research University, in D Rhoten and C
Calhoun (eds) (2011) Knowledge Matters: the public mission of the research
university, Colombia University Press: New York, 1-33
Collini, S (2011) What are Universities For? London: Penguin
D Rhoten and C Calhoun (eds) (2011) Knowledge Matters: the public mission of the
research university, Colombia University Press: New York
Zagorianakos, A (2012) The law for tertiary education in Greece and the reaction
of academia paper presented at the European Conference on Educational
Research, Cadiz, September 2012