It is wrong to suggest reform in our universities means they are being privatised or that teaching is being downgraded, writes Brigid Laffan
Brian Cowen's Budget, which contained a commitment to a strategic fund for the Irish universities, must be welcomed. In his speech, the Minister acknowledged the fundamental intellectual, cultural, social and economic role of the universities in Irish society. In 1575, William of Orange offered the people of Leiden 10 years free of tax or a university in appreciation of their stand against the armies of Philip II during the Siege of Leiden. They opted wisely for a university. That farseeing decision taken by the civilised burgers of Leiden led to the establishment of one of Europe's first and great universities. The benefits of a tax cut would have been dissipated in immediate consumption. Investing in education paid dividends.
The Minister calls for change in the universities. All of the Irish universities are already engaged in a variety of reform processes. The pressures for reform emanate from a combination of global forces, notably internationalisation, and national forces, such as the increase in the numbers of students entering our third-level institutions.
All over Europe, universities are grappling with change. Institutional and organisational reform is a dynamic and usually contested process. Inevitably there is conflict about the nature, scope and pace of reform. Moreover, change may engender fear particularly if it is felt to involve a challenge to the deep culture of an institution.
Eddie Holt, in a recent column in The Irish Times, provided an account of opposition to the reform process within my own institution, UCD. His account was dominated by three themes, the supposed privatisation of the university sector, the downgrading of teaching to promote research, and the centralisation of authority within the university. For Eddie Holt, this amounted to a new feudalism. These claims need to be interrogated.
The privatisation argument simply does not bear scrutiny. In 2003, 85 per cent of university funding came from the State. The remainder consisted largely of postgraduate fees. Less than 4 per cent came from private sources. This proportion may well increase but this does not imply privatisation. The Irish public purse will continue to fund the predominant share of university budgets.
Fear that reform represents a centralisation of authority is frequently mooted. Academics value their autonomy, both as individual scholars and within their academic disciplines. Autonomy must however be balanced by an institutional capacity to take strategic decisions that cut across traditional structures. All institutions have to develop an ability to respond to changing demands. If not, there will be a disjuncture between external opportunities and the ability of the institution to grasp opportunities.
In the past, UCD had far too many individual units and faculties. Because it had a weak centre, UCD was prey to veto players who could always provide a myriad of reasons why something should not happen. UCD had become risk averse and hesitant about innovation. The replacement of 11 faculties and 93 departments and centres with five colleges and 35 schools is not a mechanistic exercise to streamline the institution. Rather, it will enable the university to plan for its future. The old UCD reminded me a collection of city states jealously guarding their prerogatives, long after the need for consolidation had become apparent. Following the restructuring, UCD is more akin to a federation with a stronger centre.
The argument concerning the balance between teaching and research is an important one. UCD's strategic plan commits the university to becoming a research intensive university. This however will not be at the expense of teaching. In fact, one of the main drivers of change within UCD is the New Horizons modularisation programme. Modularisation opens up far greater choice to students and enables them to combine courses in ways that were not possible in the past. It allows for innovative degree programmes, such as law and politics and law and philosophy, that are being launched in the next academic year. This year, UCD's first-year students opted in overwhelming numbers to avail of the new opportunities. Medical students are taking modules in psychology and languages, and social science students opted for modules in management and law.
The renewed focus on research should be welcomed. The craft of a university lecturer includes teaching, research and contributing to the wider society. There are concerns, occasionally mooted, that the emphasis on research will favour the life sciences at the expense of the humanities and human sciences. Undoubtedly, funding opportunities are far greater in the life sciences. That said, the human sciences and humanities have a vital role to play in mapping and explaining broad processes and patterns of social and cultural change.
There is a lively European debate about the role of the social sciences and humanities in preparation for the EU's seventh framework research programme. The contribution of the social sciences and humanities is to identify broad trends in the social, economic, political and cultural spheres and to seek to understand them. Historically, the humanities have expressed and articulated the ideals of society and have helped us address fundamental normative questions.
High-quality social research is required to understand the impact of dual-career families, flexible labour markets, geographical mobility and changes in family structure on individual and societal well-being. It is the social, political and cultural context into which scientific and technological developments are inserted that determine their impact on the quality of life for individuals and society. We have to understand the dynamics and texture of our societies if the promise of science and technology is to be fulfilled.
Prof Brigid Laffan is principal at the College of Human Sciences UCD