Teaching Matters Danny O'HareThe institutes of technology's somewhat hostile reaction to the recent OECD report tends to mask that the report comes out strongly in favour of all the things the sector has been asking the Government for in recent years.
The report is the most authoritative (and will hopefully be the most influential) statement of the institutes' case so far. Its positive approach is summed up in this sentence:
"It is essential that the institutes which have performed so well in the last decade should be given every incentive to continue to do so because the future economic success of their local and regional communities is strongly linked to their success and their freedom of manoeuvre."
To facilitate this, the OECD calls for "parity of esteem" in the way the State deals with the two components of our third-level education, the universities and the institutes of technology. For instance, it argues for:
- managerial freedoms for the institutes;
- the same freedom as universities to initiate new academic programmes;
- the same multi-annual funding for both sectors;
- the power to elect their own chairs of governing authority, just as universities have;
- business incubator units at institutes and universities alike;
- a common quality assurance machinery across third-level;
- greater collaboration between all higher education institutions; and
- expansion of research exploitation services in all institutions.
If adopted by Government, and implemented in full, these recommendations add up to a charter that maps out a valuable and sustainable role for the institutes of technology into the future. As such, it is long overdue.
However, this strongly positive side has tended to be overshadowed by the vocal reaction from a small number of the institutes to some of the other OECD recommendations - to keep the institutes out of basic research and to require them to award PhD degrees only under the aegis of an associated university. The institutes, perhaps understandably, see these restrictions as designating them as second-class citizens in the higher education pecking order.
However, a different view of what the OECD is saying might emerge if their recommendations on the institutes are seen in the context of its vision for research in general in Ireland.
In fact, the institutes of technology are by no means the only ones to have their feathers ruffled by the OECD's views on how we should develop our research capability. Looking at the issue of research from a global perspective, the OECD is concerned about the small scale of what we do in Ireland.
It notes, for instance, that while Ireland is well supplied with universities, "the current number of doctoral students at 3,000 is not much more than can be found at a single major research intensive university in some other countries in Europe." And that "a significant proportion of university staff are not research active and will need supplementation by a new generation of doctoral students".
Clearly, the OECD sees a tension between our aspiration to be world-class and the scale of our present research efforts. Its preference is for an even greater concentration of research funding than exists at present.
In this context, extending the role of the institutes of technology to include basic research would compound the problem, rather than contribute to its solution. The OECD's wish to avoid the proliferation of PhD-awarding powers is fully in line with international practice; for instance, in the US the number of universities with the power to award PhDs is very limited indeed.
However, the OECD does see an expanded role for the institutes of technology in the research area, one that is fully consistent with what it recognises as their distinctive mission in our economy. To quote again from the report:
"The role of the institutes of technology should be much more targeted towards particular areas of applied research so that they can act as technology development partners to industry, especially SMEs, particularly on a regional or even a national basis. To undertake this role they will require research infrastructure support to identifiable areas of specialist expertise."
What the OECD envisions is a strong institute of technology sector, driven by a vision that it sees (rightly, in my view) as crucial to the overall development of our economy.
I believe that considerable changes need to be made by the institutes if they are to realise this vision, and that their energy would be far better employed on bringing about these changes than in pursuing the lost cause of university status, or in seeking to ape universities by insisting on a substantial role in relation to basic research.
Among the issues the institutes of technology urgently need to address are:
- the fact that so few of their staff are currently research-active;
- the fact that their average teaching load is so high as to leave little or no time for research;
- the absence of a suitable structure in which applied research can be carried out in partnership with local firms and with Enterprise Ireland.
By seeing the OECD glass as half-full, the institutes of technology open up for themselves a sustainable future, which will put research at the centre of their mission and remove most of the governance issues they have had with the Government in the past.
On the other hand, by seeing the OECD glass as half-empty, they risk diverting the Government from a thorough-going implementation of the OECD recommendations. That would doom the institutes of technology to continue in their present, highly unsatisfactory situation.
Danny O'Hare is a former president of DCU
