1. Introduction
This essay examines issues of availability, allocation and management of resources at the
Commencing with an overview of issues arising for HE out of globalisation processes, a macro analysis examines the local and global context in which the institution operates. Relevance is attributed to a restructuring and refocusing of HE as a mass market-driven sector.
The first four paragraphs explore issues emerging from globalisation as neo-liberal ideology, the concept of mass HE, the associated marketisation of HE and the opportunities and realities of new global markets for universities in
Paragraph five introduces issues brought about by the globalisation and marketisation of HE with regard to conceptions of knowledge, quality and the role of resource management in building a quality provision. The emphasis is from here upon identifying dissonances between approaches to assuring quality of the educational provision at local and global levels, created by commercially-motivated resource allocation decisions. Particular regard is given to issues encountered in transposing curricula and assumptions about quality of knowledge to other non-local contexts.
Dissonances are further examined via a micro-analysis contemplating examples of resource management at the
Conclusions highlight conflict arising from the deployment of resources, between the pursuit of commercial gain and maintaining quality and equity for diverse educational needs. Particular concerns centre on the colonisation of knowledge represented within the University’s approach to its overseas provisions. The changing role of resource management towards reinforcing power and control via the production of commercially profitable pre-packaged knowledge products and aggressive marketing for the purpose of generating financial resources for reinvestment in commercial enterprises and properties, is discussed. It is argued that resources are managed in a way oriented to profit generation without due regard to the equity and quality of the system from the perspective of the target ‘clientele’, representing a poor investment in educational terms.
2. Globalisation and marketisation in Higher Education
Globalisation
It has been widely argued that globalisation is first and foremost an economic and technological phenomenon (Hallak, 2000). However, while the detached rationality of economics does not appeal to social, cultural, political or humanitarian values for ratification or condonation, globalisation is not an amoral concept. It is more accurately understood as a utopian rhetoric (Fitzsimons, 2000) and device for the reconversion of dependency (Stromquist & Monkman, 2000). It functions to disguise serious social problems created by economic policies (ibid) and drive the persistent machinery of capitalism sustained by structures of economic and political power and influence and by ‘rational choice as a principle of legitimacy’ (Fitzsimons, 2000).
Accordingly, the roots of modern globalization within historic events of settlement, colonisation and cultural mimesis of western cultures over others, have been widely emphasised (Yang, 2003), with many critics referring to globalisation in education and other sectors as a form of neo‑colonialism (Altbach, 2004). It is accordingly associated with the creation of inequalities through continual flows of capital, people, information and culture (King, 2003).
Underpinned by neoliberalism, globalisation emphasises free enterprise and unfettered markets whereby individuals are valued for their ‘records of consumption’ (Fitzsimons, 2000) and their success at dominating the less powerful and profit-seeking firms embrace the destruction of social welfare as a fundamental objective (Ghoshal et al, 2003). However, as Fitzsimons (ibid, p.520) suggests,
“the problem for liberalism is that rationality is its central tenet, and hence for relations of domination to be rationally defensible, they must be argued for”.
As such, globalisation, as an essentially market-induced rather than policy-led phenomenon, driven by market expansion through processes spearheaded by the vested interests of multinational financial and industrial conglomerates (Yang, 2003), implies contradictory ideals and indefensible social consequences. It disguises sinister oppressive ramifications in a rhetorical postmodern language of freedom and economic liberalisation.
In pushing towards the world as a single economic space, the processes of globalisation rely on the internationalisation of trade, financial markets, network communications systems and a commodity culture to bring about fundamental changes at social, political and cultural, as well as economic levels (Stromquist & Monkman, 2000). Insipid homogenisation of societies and increased awareness of diversity are mutually irreconcilable consequences, as people become increasingly aware of receding geographical constraints on social and cultural arrangements (Edwards & Usher, 2000).
The concept of Mass HE
Globalisation implies a doctrine of economic salvation, wherein the market is revered as a positive force and state intervention as a negative, upholding a bias towards the privatisation of public enterprises. While globalisation has not brought about the end of the state altogether, it has forced a reconstitution and restructuring in response to the growing complexity of processes of governance in a more interconnected world. Yang (2003) has argued that this is particularly true for HE sectors where no powerful interest groups exist to oppose state spending cuts, although the political influence of Vice‑Chancellors, should surely not be underestimated.
It is primarily due to changes in the political economy in
Certainly the recent trend towards the transformation of universities into centres for mass education (Filmer, 1997) has been accompanied by a rise in managerial organisational cultures which are themselves a by-product of underlying neo-liberal ideals.
Such centres for mass education exist not only to provide training in support of changing occupational needs, but also to produce epistemological research and contribute to cultural production (Filmer, 1997). However, various researchers conceptualise contemporary, and therefore mass, HE as a resource for competitive knowledge societies (Yorke & Knight, 2006), implying the relevance of the economy in driving educational developments (Morrison, 1998) and painting a picture of a commoditised enterprise system of education (Bauer & Henkel, 1999) in which apparently social ideals of widening participation are in truth linked to government targets and satisfying intense employer demand for useful labour.
However, despite aligning ever more closely with the private sector (Brown, 2004), universities are still expected to provide both efficiency and quality in returning on society’s investment in them; arguably required to be all things to all people (Henkel & Little, 1999) (Garrett, 2001).
This sets up a dichotomous relationship between the function of the university as a place to promote learning and encourage knowledge construction and its postmodern realisation, as a place to acquire transferable and valuable skills relevant to the prevailing economic and social culture. The superficially laudable goal of making higher education available to a larger section of the population must in this sense be viewed alongside the economic and political realities accompanying it; universities can no longer maintain competitiveness by relying on state funding alone and must now compete within both state-managed and private sector markets for funds (Shattock, 2003).
The marketisation of HE
In the
The language of performativity thus crept into the discourse of mass HE by way of the introduction of a national system, based upon a belief in external market forces of both the state and private sectors (Shattock, 2003) linked to an expansion of global HE markets and the discourse of global competition underpinned by commercial interests (Yang, 2003).
With regard to the global market, though, the
Subsequently, as a result of further legislation, including the recent deregulation of ‘home’ student fees, various forms of competition have become evident within state managed (e.g. competition for funded student places and research funding through RAE)
and private (e.g. fees from overseas students, commercial spin-offs and exploitation of facilities) markets of HE (Shattock, ibid).
Resources are accordingly now, primarily in the form of funding to obtain and retain staff, services and physical goods. Outside of the state managed market, universities have freedom to obtain resources and compete for the most lucrative and stable stakeholders, treating state and non-state funding within a single forecasting and resource allocation process.
New global markets
The search for new ‘markets’ and clientele’ ensuing from the marketisation of HE is leading universities such as
Healey (2007) identifies four primary areas of trans-national HE based on the ‘
- Exporting
- Licencing production
- Joint ventures
- Sole ventures
The export of HE services is first and foremost evident within the recruitment of overseas students to study at an institution. In 2006, the European Association of International Education voted to amend the constitution to make explicit a greater focus on for-profit export education (Healey, 2007). One year prior to this time, the student population at
The university has further sought to exploit the areas of licensing production and joint ventures. With the former, franchising or sub-contracting of all or part of degree programmes to other providers has attracted much criticism. Often deprecated as the McDonaldisation of education, this usually involves franchising to a local partner which does not have degree-awarding powers in its own right.
Joint ventures instead involve the establishment of ‘offshore production facilities’ involving partner organisations in delivering courses and services collaboratively (Healey, 2007).
As the Wolverhampton web pages (University of Wolverhampton, 2007a) clearly illustrate, the nature of the University of Wolverhampton presence in various regions varies from, in South Asia, brand-building and smoothing the transition of students into the university’s provision, to coordinating programmes taught by Wolverhampton University staff directly in Hong Kong. Various regional offices provide support for the identification, creation and management of the University's strategic international relationships with several partner institutions and companies across
To date, the
Despite the lucrative financial opportunities such trans-national enterprises offer
3. Quality and resources for HE at local and global level
Knowledge and quality under globalisation of HE
Under globalisation, a rapid and sustained shift is occurring in the ways people learn and do. As Stromquist & Monkman (2000, p.50) suggest;
“globalisation enters the education sector on an ideological horse, and its effects on education are largely a product of that financially-driven, free market ideology, not of a clear conception for improving education”.
The emphasis on ‘product specifications’ in this new marketised HE, serves to delineate expectations, rights and responsibilities, and reinforce a technocratic and instrumental view of knowledge, distinct from epistemological foundations (Morley, 2003, p.129).
The neoliberal ideological foundations of globalisation can consequently result in real struggle for academics to offer and disseminate ideas that bear a weak connection to the market. In a climate of knowledge as production, universities may be hostile or indifferent to subjects dealing with ethics, social justice, critical studies and gender studies (Stromquist & Monkman, 2000) and disinterested exchange of knowledge may be penalised or minimized, putting conceptualisations of quality education under strain
Indeed, with the agenda of universities being increasingly linked to market success over and above disinterested knowledge exchange, it is likely that the establishment of quality will be borne out through managerial rather than academic enterprise (Cowen, 1996).
Inexorably tied to this are judgments about quality in terms of efficiency and effectiveness and conceptualisations of quality learning as that which enables a student to gain employment and the institution to gain reputation and growth of market share.
Reinforcing the role of students as consumers of an expensive product, the
However, when such a mechanism is transposed to a different country, with its own political context, society, environment and culture, the apparently rational link between knowledge transmission and automatic return on investment is severely strained.
In particular, the quality assurance procedures and norms adopted within the
On top of this, there is much contention that the language of audit and accountability pervading the
As Brennan and Shah (2001) explain, such models of quality assessment are inherently political and aimed at making sure that the quality ‘values’ across the institution remain stable and invariant. From this emerge serious ramifications in the way quality learning is subsumed in relevance by the need for commercially‑responsive curricula.
Attempts to transpose ways of designing and evaluating quality of learning and teaching across national and cultural borders, can accordingly be understood in terms of the oppressive effect this is likely to have over quality values held by the ‘client’ population.
In a globalised economy of HE, the pursuit of profit emerges to be inseparable from the pursuit of power and control over not only the production, but also the consumption of knowledge; the latter being necessary to sustain the former (Jarvis, 2007). Thriving in a competitive neo-liberal market then implies the need to prioritise profitable areas of research and curricula, and moreover to control both the supply and the demand of knowledge and how it is understood, qualitatively, to have been furthered by a university or its subsidiaries. For this, in the pursuit of capital growth, via the penetration of capital into social space, globalisation relies on education itself as a technology by which to constitute appropriate subjectivities (Fitzsimons, 2000). In this sense, education may be exploited as a resource in itself to disguise the workings of power and help facilitate and sustain the political ideology of neo-liberalism and reform existing notions of quality in line with market ideals.
In a market economy of HE, the educational good is a standardized, knowable commodity, while reputation is a market variable constructed via quality scores. As Morley (2004, p.2) points out;
“Quality procedures translate particular rationalities and moralities into new forms of governance and professional behaviour. As such, quality is a political technology functioning as a regime and relay of power – that is, it serves as both a mechanism and ideology through which certain values, behaviours and structures are prescribed”.
The core of such new forms of governance and professional behaviour is in the management of risk, productivity and performance, where individuals in the organisation are valued for their contribution to organisational performance. Resistance is seen as incapacity to adjust to the inevitable force of capitalism.
However, contrary to the rhetoric implying globalization as the journey toward the ultimate capital good, the one world culture and in effect the end of history achievable through the natural selection process of competitive entrepreneurialism (Fitzsimons, 2000), there is no final and universal meaning of quality. Instead, academics are being asked to constantly reinvent themselves, curricula, research and cultural capital into marketable commodities (Morley, 2004).
Resource Management and quality
Managing quality invariably requires appropriate investment in resources and the participation of individuals. By broad definition, quality is difficult to quantify and describe; being an abstraction of ideas and thoughts about properties of an object which can be shared within a group of individuals and appreciated or rejected for their well‑being and growth.
Shifting conceptualisations of both knowledge and quality challenge traditional notions of curricula, reliability and allocation of resources for the production of knowledge, as do cross-border migrations of educational services.
When allocating resources in a way that ensures quality outcomes, it thus becomes necessary to take account of efficiency, effectiveness and value-for-money on one level and of equity and value more broadly on another. In doing so, those managing resources are required to account for both the measurable and the intangible outcomes that may be sought or realized (Levačić, 2000).
It is possible to witness other intangible qualities of education being brought out when education is sold as a marketable product. Qualities such as participation, democracy, identity, independence of thought, political activism, critical thinking, space, place, culture and identity emerge through a process of defamiliarisation when the prerogatives of a different state or culture form the frame of reference. Far from a redefinition, or overtaking, such defamiliarisation acts in contraposition to the McDonalidisation-like process of making a foreign system seem more palatable through effective marketing.
4. Dissonances in local and global resource availability, allocation and management at the
A changing role for resource management
As Preedy et al (1997) suggest, it is important that resource policies in an educational organisation are directed by the institution overall goals and curriculum plans, rather than allowing resource considerations to dictate educational priorities. In so far as resource management should then be a matter of balancing interests and maintaining a degree of harmony across the institution, the setting of strategic priorities is pervaded by the organisational culture and management approach (ibid).
According to a rational model of resource management, outputs, in terms of the direct effect the organisation has on students in acquiring knowledge and skills (e.g. increased income) and outcomes, as the longer-term impact of the education received on society and individuals (e.g. democratic participation) should be informed by the resources invested towards achieving them (Levačić, 2000). This inevitably depends upon the nature of the operational core, which, for a university, is assumed to be learning and teaching.
Resources are accordingly obtained, allocated and used in support of that core, both in terms of direct resources such as teaching staff, books and IT and indirect resources including the provision of a suitable environment in which learning can occur (ibid).
In this scenario, finance is purposefully understood to be a means, as opposed to an end in itself (Shattock, 2003). However, in the context of a marketised and globalised HE, the spectre of profit emerges, questioning both the nature of the operational core and the priorities established in the strategic planning process.
Decisions about resource allocation also depend on the nature of the anticipated outcomes and outputs themselves. Accordingly, tensions emerge as to the way in which the quality of the provision and related outcomes is to be conceptualised and furthered.
The three examples summarised in Appendix 2, help to illustrate some core functions of resource management at the University of Wolverhampton. In each of the examples, the prioritising of commercial interests and bolstering of the University image at local and global level is evident. A pattern of investment in areas such of consultancy, properties and marketing is identified alongside a relative decline in the budget allocated to areas such as staff development, books and teaching materials. The examples highlight a central and consistent policy towards strategic increases in prioritising budgeting towards areas projected to provide a financial, rather than social or educational, return on investment. It is this fundamental transformation in the strategic allocation of resources that emerges as an insurmountable dissonance, not least with regard both to the need to provide equity and quality in the provision, as well as to the University Mission Statement as‘an agent for social inclusion and social change’ and ‘an arena for the development of ideas and critical thinking’ (University of Wolverhampton, 2007b). A fourth example explored next, helps to highlight such dissonances with regard to the local and global issues of quality discussed above.
Curriculum development – local and global
The design and validation process for courses delivered at the home campus is a prolonged and resource-intensive event spanning several months. Not only does the new curriculum need to meet QAA standards, it must also take into account the staff expertise needed and available to deliver it, the educational relevance of the content, according to the university strategic plan and the availability of other resources required to teach the course effectively. The process adopted in the
In seeking to conduct this process for a course intended for delivery in an international context, it might be anticipated that the demand on resources during the design phase would be even more intensive. However, in the case of a course being developed in 2007 for delivery in
Staff in the affected software development division, were first made aware of the planned course in an email from a line manager (Appendix 1), by which time, negotiations between the commercial company and a
Academic staff would from here be required to work according to the university and wider British quality system, planning any new areas of teaching and learning according to their own values, political, religious and cultural context. They would be required to make use of the standard array of western texts and the English language to develop materials which they hope would be understood and appreciated by students working in a context likely to be different in every one of these areas.
The university planners, working in collaboration with a commercial company would rely upon effective marketing to create a demand for the course and control supply and demand. Fixing course contents locally would act as an essential aspect of this to maintain control over the range of possible knowledge outcomes.
It is not clear how an accurate costing of priorities could be established via this process, given that costs were established prior to the involvement of the course designers. No alternatives are presented to staff and there is no evidence of ‘participative budgeting’ (Handy, 1993) or other attempts to motivate employees by involving them in the planning process prior to the requirement to deliver a new curriculum (Arnold & Hope, 1989). Costs and benefits are clearly not balanced against one another as costs are already established before educational benefits have been considered.
Dissonances emerging
The process adopted in this example is a good indicator of the commercial motivations underpinning such a venture. While the
There is no exchange of knowledge in what is essentially a one-way process of imposing an unfamiliar educational product upon an overseas market. In an inversion of the model of management placing learning and teaching at the operational core of the university and employing financial resources as a means to an end, in this instance, the learning and teaching is but a means to the end of financial return. Thus the operational core becomes the production of packaged courses rather than the teaching and learning itself.
In this there is no concern for quality education, with the emphasis being upon the use of resources as a tool of power (Preedy et al., 1997); controlling resources for commercial gain, with the Wolverhampton academics playing a role as gatekeepers of knowledge through the imposition of western norms and paradigms and reverence to western textbooks (Yang, 2003).
While the move towards mass HE has been in part predicated upon the view that financial incentives will induce organisations to improve their performance (Levačić, 2000), this should not be at the expense of quality or equality in education. It has proven convenient for
However, providing an equitable education product requires more than offering high tech modern facilities. The concept of vertical equity (Levačić, 2000), implies the requirement to meet the different learning needs of students. Yet in the process of planning and allocating resources for the delivery of a new course overseas, there is no evidence that the
There may be no question as to the efficiency, effectiveness or value-for-money resulting from the
By comparison, the question of equity is more uncertain, not because it is more subjective, but because of a clear mismatch between educational values and the way resources are targeted to create a presence for the University overseas.
As the discussion on quality above indicates, implications of this approach are to be found within a desire to oppress, dominate and above all, control, other cultures. To this end there is an absence of respect towards the prevailing assumptions about knowledge and quality, students in
As Shattock (2003) advises, it is important to distinguish between universities which sacrifice excellence for a new commercialisation and those who become entrepreneurial to generate funds to maintain and enhance academic position.
5. Conclusions
Through a brief analysis of examples of resource allocation priorities and practices, the global agenda of the
The
The equity of this approach is called into question, given the intended operational core of the organisation being the furthering of higher education for individuals and society more widely. In particular, it has been discussed how the university’s activities abroad are closely aligned with a domineering colonisation of knowledge and learning across national borders. Courses designed at the University’s UK campus - by academic staff there who have no knowledge of the legal, cultural or societal context in which the course will be taught, who will not teach the course themselves, who are expected to make use of western texts, using the English language and working under the norms of quality ascribed by the British HE system - are highlighted as an example of how local resources of the university are channelled into developing a course on economic bases. There is no consideration encouraged towards the conceptions of ‘quality education’ which may be held by the students who are the target consumers of such courses.
Moreover, implicit in this process, is the need for the university to control the production and consumption of knowledge for the intended ‘clientele’, to safeguard the production process and intended output of scores of newly-qualified individuals.
The mass HE system has placed significant pressure upon universities to adapt to a market ideology; an ideology which the
The result, however, is that the University of Wolverhampton, has become entrapped in a paradox of trying to enhance its profile globally while struggling to perform competitively on quality grounds at home.
Meanwhile it worryingly pursues a model of managing resources which enacts a colonisation of minds and cultures, a dominance of ideas in the curriculum, the loss of intellectual and cultural autonomy for less powerful cultures and the subordination of politics and ideology to profits and market policies.
In this light, the management of resources towards a fundamentally inequitable system, can only ever be considered to be at least misguided and at worst, negligent and opprobrious; either way, a cost not worth bearing for the university or society.
Reference list
Altbach, P. G. (2004) Globalisation and the university: Myths and realities in an unequal world. Tertiary Education and Management. Vol. 10; pp. 3-25.
Arnold, J. & Hoe, T. (1989) The budgeting process. In Levačić, R. (Ed.) Financial Management in Education.
Bauer, M. & Henkel, M. (1999) Academic Responses to Quality Reforms in Higher Education:
Brennan, J. & Shah, T. (2000) Managing Quality in Higher Education.
Brown, R. (2004) Quality Assurance in Higher Education: The
Clark, B. R. (1998) Creating Entrepreneurial Universities.
Cowen, R. (1996) Performativity, Post-Modernity and the University. Comparative Education. Vol. 32 (2); pp. 245-258.
Edwards, R. & Usher, R. (2008) Globalisation and Pedagogy: Space, Place and Identity (2nd Ed.).
Filmer, P. (1997) Disinterestedness and the
Fitzsimons, P. (2000) Changing conceptions of globalization: Changing conceptions of education. Educational Theory. Vol. 20 (4); pp. 505-520.
Garrett, R. (2001) The Coming Challenge: Private Competition in English Higher Education. Minerva. Vol. 39. pp. 99-114.
Ghoshal, S.,
Gosling, D. & D’Andrea, V-M. (2001) Quality development: a new concept for higher education. Quality in Higher Education. Vol. 7(1); pp. 7-17.
Hallak, J. (2000) Globalisation and its impact on education. In Mebrahtu, T., Crossley, M. & Johnson, D. (Eds.) Globalisation, Educational Transformation and Societies in Transition.
Handy, C. (1993) Understanding Organisations.
Healey, N. M. (2007) Is higher education really ‘internationalising’? Higher Education. [Available online: http://www.springerlink.com/content/b3qthm64024k0058/.]
Henkel, M. & Little, B. (1999) Introduction. In Henkel, M. & Little, B. (Eds.) Changing Relationships Between Higher Education and the State.
Jarvis, P. (2007) Globalisation, Lifelong Learning and The Learning Society: Sociological Perspectives.
King, R. (2003) Globalisation and Higher Education. [Available online: http://www.acu.ac.uk/yearbook/may2003/kingfull.pdf]
Lemaitre, M. J. (2002) Quality as Politics. Quality in Higher Education. Vol. 8(1), pp. 29-37.
Levačić, R. (2000) Linking Resources to Learning Outcomes. In Coleman, M & Anderson, L (Eds.) Managing Finance and Resources in Education.
Levačić, R., Glover, D., Bennett, N. & Crawford, M. (1999) Modern headship for the rationally managed school: combining cerebral and insightful approaches. In Bush, T & Bell, L. (Eds.) The Principles and Practice of Educational Management.
Lillie, E. (2003) Convergence and divergence: differing approaches to quality and accreditation in
Morley, L. (2003) Quality and Power in Higher Education.
Morley, L. (2004) Theorising Quality in Higher Education.
Morrison, K. (1998) Management Theories for Educational Change.
Narula International (2005a) Study in
Power, M. (1997) The Audit Society.
Power, M. (1994) The Audit Explosion.
Preedy, M., Glatter, R. & Levačić, R. (1997) Introduction: managing quality, resources and strategy. In Preedy, M., Glatter, R. & Levačić, R. (Eds.) Educational management: Strategy, Quality and Resources.
Shattock, M. (2003) Managing Successful Universities.
Shore, C. & Wright, S. (1999) Audit Culture and Anthropology: Neo-Liberalism in British Higher Education. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, Vol. 5:4; pp. 557-575.
Stromquist, N. P. & Monkman, K. (2000) Defining Globalization and Assessing Its Implications on Knowledge and Education. In Stromquist, N. P. & Monkman, K. (Eds.) Globalization and Education: Integration and Contestation Across Cultures. pp. 3-25.
Yang, R. (2003) Globalisation and Higher Education development: A critical analysis. International Review of Education. Vol. 49 (3-4); pp. 269-291.
Yorke, M. & Knight, P. (2006) Curricula for Economic and Social Gain. Higher Education, Vol. 51; pp. 565-588