The report concentrates on the role of higher education in servicing the economy to the neglect of its role in servicing society, writes Kathleen Lynch.
While the OECD report contains praiseworthy recommendations, the same is not true of all its proposals. On the positive side, it recognises that Irish higher education is significantly under-funded by comparison with leading EU and OECD countries, and that there is a need for strategic action to increase the intake of all types of disadvantaged students.
Yet it is far from being a comprehensive appraisal of higher education.
Perhaps its most serious limitation is its failure to respond fully to the terms of reference set out by the Government.The OECD team was asked to assess higher education in terms of its ability to contribute to the development of a "competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy and society", yet the report concentrates almost entirely on the role of higher education in servicing the economy to the neglect of its role in servicing society.
Not only does it not analyse the important role that higher education plays in meeting the vast array of political, social, cultural and caring needs of society, it also ignores the important role that cultural institutions themselves play in providing employment, be it in music, literature, the arts, or in terms of tourism or the sale of services, including the services of higher education.
It is also interesting to note that there is not a single reference to the agricultural sector in the report, while it ignores completely the role of the social economy in revitalising communities in both urban and rural areas.
The bias of the report is clear in some of its key recommendations. Recommendation 41, for example, proposes that a National Council for Tertiary Education, Research and Innovation be established and chaired by the Taoiseach.
This committee "would bring together the relevant Government Departments with an interest or involvement in tertiary education to determine a rolling national strategic agenda for tertiary education and its relation to innovation, skilled labour force and the economy."
Not only does this recommendation suggest that the role of higher education is simply about servicing the economy, it seems that the OECD team believes that the strategic agenda for higher education should be established by civil servants.
The proposal (R 33) to abolish the Irish Council for the Humanities and Social Sciences and to subsume it into Science Foundation Ireland is alarming to say the least. It demonstrates a clear lack of understanding as to the importance of research and innovation in the arts, humanities, social sciences and cognate areas, irrespective of their direct relevance to the economy. The proposal (R 35) that the "Government appoint a chief scientific (sic) adviser reporting to the Tánaiste and Minister for Trade, Enterprise and Employment, who would inter alia be responsible for co-ordinating the research investment conducted by other Departments and that of the expanded SFI and the new Tertiary Education Authority" is a further indication of the authors' beliefs that higher education is there primarily to service particular sectors of the economy.
The other issue that has not been subjected to scrutiny is the OECD's recommendations with respect to governance of the universities, most of which are thinly disguised forms of new authoritarianism masquerading as "modernisation". It proposes to halve the size of the governing authorities (to a maximum of 20 persons) replacing them with a "substantial majority of lay (sic) members" (R 12).
While it proposes that student representatives should be included in the 20 members, it makes no reference to staff representation. The rationale for this change is far from clear. Beyond vague references to the Dearing report in Britain and the Hoare report in Australia, it does not supply any evidence-based argument as to why such a new and undemocratic governance structure would be effective.
It is widely known that the governance model with strongest staff representation (the Oxford and Cambridge model) has been highly successful for several hundred years. In the US where there are "lay models", to use the OECD's term, many such boards are primarily entrusted with managing the university's investment portfolio. Managing investment portfolios is not to date a major task for Irish universities, and if and when it is, I have little doubt that the presidents and governing authorities will find the expertise to undertake such work.
What is also proposed in the OECD report is a very close alignment of higher education interests with Government economic interests and business interests, without any discussion of the fact that there can and is often a serious conflict of values and purpose between these.
Higher education institutes, especially universities, are established to promote independence of intellectual thought, to enable scholars to work outside the control of powerful vested interest groups; scholars are given the freedom to think, research and write on the assumption that they will work for the good of humanity in its entirety. Too close a liaison between the State, and other commercial and corporate interests, and the universities, could jeopardise the ability to critique and evaluate, which is after all the hallmark of university scholarship. It could also mean that the interests of the most powerful dictate the future research and teaching agenda of higher education.
Higher education institutes are designed to serve the weakest and most vulnerable in society as well as the powerful. They have a major responsibility to inform and vivify the work of the public sector, and the voluntary, community and care sectors, both locally and globally. In intellectual terms, higher education institutions are the linchpins of our cultural, political, affective, spiritual and social lives, as much as they are there to advance economic development.
Moreover, the civil, public and care infrastructure of society is the lifeblood that courses through the veins of economic development. It is the civil, public and care institutions that drive the heart of the body public. They ensure that the services, resources and understandings that are vital for change and development are renewed and reinvigorated on an ongoing basis. That the OECD report shows such little understanding of this is amazing.
Kathleen Lynch is professor of equality studies at UCD with a specialist research interest in education