Teaching Matters Danny O'HareObserving from a comfortable distance the disputes about the change programmes proposed by some university presidents, it strikes me that their argument is starting in the wrong place.
The first thing that needs to take place is a national discussion on the strategic direction for our third-level as a whole. The OECD report has highlighted the almost total absence of strategic planning at national level, and the urgent need to create a mechanism to achieve this. It also called for collaboration (with a broad hint at rationalisation) because of the small size of our system and institutions.
Given that we have highly ambitious objectives for third-level education, it is surely too much to hope that we could reach those objectives through the unco-ordinated strivings of seven universities and many more institutes of technology - all seeking the holy grail through individual treasure hunts.
A change programme in any individual college needs to flow from a national consensus about how we tackle the future challenge, and how the tasks are divided among the players. Arriving at that consensus will not be a trivial task, but it should be among the first of our priorities.
The reality is, however, that the change programmes are either already on the table or in gestation. In looking at them, again my reaction is that that they start in the wrong place. They assume that the basic case for change does not need to be made, and that the only question is about the details.
Yet it is clear from the reaction to these proposals that there is a strong constituency within the colleges that is not yet convinced of the overwhelming need for change. For this reason, a better strategy might have been first to get everyone in the universities on board with regard to the need for change, and then to involve as many people as possible in devising a strategy to meet the agreed challenge.
The present approach, of diving right into a discussion of a detailed plan for change handed down from on high, seems to be almost designed to invite the opposition of those it is most necessary to convince. For some, the idea of a university appears to be cast in stone, to be defended at all costs against any attempt at change. If such people are to be brought along, the case needs to be made that the world of knowledge is essentially a world of change, and that universities have always recognised this in adapting to changing circumstances.
We are perhaps too slow to remember that it was as late as the 1850s that history and science were first taught at English universities. Or that the PhD was introduced as the research degree in Britain as recently as 1918.
Those who invoke Cardinal Newman in this debate tend to forget that he was seeking not to preserve a long-established tradition, but to bring about change in a status quo that did not satisfy him. If Newman were alive in Ireland today, he would surely be in the forefront of the argument for radical reform.
What changes did the OECD call for, at the level of individual institutions? Among its priorities are to:
... Radically increase the number of doctoral students (more than double them by 2010). Inherent in this is the belief that a true "research university" of the kind we aspire to needs to have at least 90 per cent of its academics active in research, something that is far from being the case at any Irish institution now. A significant proportion of university staff are not active in research and will need supplementation by a new generation of doctoral students.
Give more priority to staff development issues.
Create greater flexibility in academic salary structures, to attract or retain key individuals.
Make the probation period for academic staff longer and the granting of tenure more rigorous, with promotion routes to personal chairs as a reward for exceptional research performance or leadership.
Give heads of departments limited terms to encourage rotation, and encourage external candidates for posts of university president or institute director.
Slim down governing bodies to improve effectiveness, with lay members in a substantial majority.
This suggests a useful initial checklist for assessing the change programmes that are on the table. Do these programmes in fact go far enough, or is their focus too much on merely saving money?
Predictably, opposition to whatever proposals are made can be expected from academics involved in "minority" disciplines, which they fear will be threatened by change. These people need to be convinced their future is in their own hands, and will depend on how they adapt.
Assuming that nobody would argue that such subjects should be provided without regard for the cost of providing them, there seem to be three options:
Continue to ignore those realities until university administrations intervene to eliminate them - much as has happened in Queen's University Belfast, a decision coupled with its poor research record;
Amalgamate them in their existing university with like disciplines to make cost savings and other benefits;
Amalgamate them across institutions or federalise them, much as Dean Cox from UCC suggested recently to Maynooth and NUIG - an idea that, regrettably, did not find favour.
The greatest threat to the survival of minority subjects may well be the unwillingness of academics to depart from traditional models.
But whatever change programmes the universities adopt, one thing is certain: the transformation will be costly. The Government cannot expect the universities to reform themselves without being prepared to foot the inevitable bill. At Queen's, the changes put in place to improve their research rankings were made possible by the availability of a multimillion-pound fund.
A reform fund should be created, following deep analysis of the changes that are required and assessment of the financial and regulatory changes needed to give effect to them.
Danny O'Hare is a former president of DCU
