INTRODUCTION
Higher education as a field of study is a relatively new concept. Moreover it doesn’t encompass a specific body of knowledge but rather can be considered as a multidisciplinary subject. The disciplines contributing to higher education research include, among others, educational sciences, psychology, sociology, economics, political science, history or law. Depending on the interest and perspective of studies, emphasis can be put on specific approaches: educational with educational sciences and psychology as leading disciplines, management approach relies on business studies, economics and public administration. A third approach consists in addressing higher education research in social science perspective with the help of disciplines such as sociology, political sciences, social history and history among others. Such a broad range of subjects involved provides opportunities for a broad set of theories in the field of higher education research. One of those theories concerns the reasons behind higher education system and their subsequent changes in time. In other words what are the major theoretical approaches contributing to the explanation of higher education systems and their dynamics? It should be noted here that many authors deal with these development based on empirical analysis of specific countries and from that provide theories based on these findings (Fairweather, 2000; Scott, 2007). Other authors approach this question essentially on the process of differentiation or diversity (Clark, 1983, 1996; Huisman, 1995, 1998). There is also a third method by which aspects of changes in systems of higher education are analysed broadly and therefore aims at an explanation convering larger scope than patterns of diversity (Gellert, 1993; Teichler, 1988, 2007). Important also is the fact that our analysis of systems of higher education specifically addresses the aspects of structural development (shape and size) and not the patterns related to teaching and learning. Taking all these aspects into consideration our analysis tries to point from these approaches the aspects specifically providing theoretical explanation of the systems and their evolution and changes. As a first we therefore need to clear the meaning of concepts such as higher education and higher education system, but also provide a common typology of higher education systems in the world. The second part of our task, based on a range of authors’ works is dedicated to the causes behind the existence of specific types of higher education systems and the subsequent changes and evolution it has encounter and might head to in the future.
1. Definition of concepts and typology of higher education systems in the world
1.2 Definition: Higher education - Higher education system
The Cambridge Online English Dictionary defines higher education as “education at a college or university where subjects are studied at an advanced level”. The bottom line here is the degree of intellectual capacity required at this level of education. Some definitions also point out the organisation feature of education and associate higher education with post-secondary, tertiary or third level education. (OECD; The World Bank). This latter approach in defining higher education tends to consider universities and other forms of post-secondary education as having commons features in the sense that they come after primary and secondary education.
In a historical perspective the term higher education is relatively new and its use became wide spread only in the 70s when universities lost their monopole as higher education providers. Scott (2007) points out the following evolution: from the middle age to the 60s university was the main and sometimes the only post secondary institution. From the 60s, with the emergence and increase of other forms of tertiary education, there was a shift from the university appellation to higher education including therefore universities and vocational or professional institutions. The trend nowadays is in grouping these types of education in an umbrella called lifelong learning.
A system is a set of connected items or devices which operate together (Cambridge). It can be added that in a system the items are different but nevertheless have something in common and are relatively interdependent. A higher education system can thus be defined as a set of autonomous post-secondary institutions each having their specific characters but still close enough by providing teaching, learning and / or research to students.
1.2 Typology of higher education systems
While intellectually demanding education can be traced far back in time, university in its modern form as organised teaching and learning has its origin in the middle ages. The first institution to be considered by many as a university was set up in Bologna in the 11th century. The characteristic of this medieval university, apart from using Latin “lingua franca” (Altbach, 1991, p. 294) is its “sceptical, systematic, innovative” organisation of teaching and learning. (Teichler, 2007, p.11). Such institution will subsequently constitute the basis for universities around the world.
A British model of university emerged in the 19th century with Oxford and Cambridge taking the lead. There is here a close relationship between the teacher and the student with an emphasis on personality development through “liberal education”. (Gellert, 1993, p.237). At almost the same period appeared a Napoleonic model in France with a state coordination and organisation of curricular. Then the end of the same century witnessed the emergence of a German university type based on the idea of a public administrator called Wilhelm von Humboldt. Considered to be the most influential internationally in the 19th century it has as principles, among others: academic freedom, the unity of teaching and research, the autonomy of institution and the freedom of learning. (Gellert, id.).
Furthermore we see at the beginning of the 20th century the birth of an “American model”. Interestingly this type cannot be characterised as a model in its own since it is considered as the first result of the spread of European models across the world. For some authors it is a combination of the British undergraduate, with an emphasis on a liberal and multidisciplinary education; and the German graduate education stressing the importance on research. (Gellert, 1993, p. 238). Generally speaking higher education around the world, including the in the USA, have been hugely influenced by European models. In Asia for instance Japan looked for academic and educational models in Germany, England, France and other European countries and in general, institutions with similar names and books, organised in similar ways and more interestingly claiming the same values and goals, would produce widely different outcomes (Schwartzman, 1992, p.970). As it was the case in formal colonial territories, universities were patterned directly on institutions in the metropole, but often without the autonomy and academic freedom in the model country (Gilbert as cited in Altbach, 1991, p.294).
To summarise it can be said that universities all over the world derive from the Western patterns, except Al-Azhar in Egypt (although its science and engineering programmes are based on western model) (Altbach, 1991, p. 294).
2. Higher Education Structures: Origins and Causes of Changes
2.1 The idea of “Elite”, “Mass” and “Universal” higher education
The idea of “Elite, Mass and Universal” higher education is from the American higher education scholar Martin Trow. His classification of the phases of higher education growth in advanced societies was first introduced at the OECD Conference on Future Structures of the Post – Secondary Education in 1973 (Trow, 1974, p. 55). It deals with the consequences associated with such an expansion in terms of access, functions of higher education, curriculum, institutional characteristics and boundaries, governance and power level.
In an “elite” higher education system, about 5 % of the “proportion of an age grade”(Trow, 1974, p. 58) is enrolled in a higher education institution. These institutions are essentially “universities” where academic standards are high, with a qualitative homogeneity in the student population. University main function in such a system is to train students by developing their personality for high positions in society.
With the emergence of a “mass” system, new institutions are created with new functions and increased participation of the age cohort (at least 15%). Here boundaries are fuzzy and permeable from an institution to another and emphasis is put on the “transmission of skills” (Brennan cited in Trow, 2007, p.244). Another important aspect is that universities lose their monopole in providing higher education and in some cases boundaries between them and the other institutions (vocational and professional institutions) are weak or non existent.
“Universal” higher education implies a percentage of the age cohort beyond 50%. The main function of higher education institutions in such a system is to prepare a great part of the population “to rapid social and technological change” (Brennan cited in Trow, 2007, p.244.) or what is now called lifelong learning.
Trow’s main point here is to show how growth affects and is the main cause of higher education system changes. Expansion seems to be a blind force triggering changes and evolution in the system. The more students a system of higher education admits the likely it is to change not only its structures but also revise its objectives and purpose and the way it operates. It should be noted here that Trow considers these models as ideal and has since then adjusted his original idea of the 70s to modify “and illuminate contemporary conditions” as far as this could be possible (Trow, 2006, p. 245). However despite his acknowledgement that his prediction has happened “on a modest scale” he still adheres to his original classification (Trow, 1999, p. 327).
2.2 Higher education system changes: Beyond a “traditional” explanation
Theories of the causes of higher education system changes have been analysed by some authors and each with his specificity concerning the possible explanations. There is no such a thing as a categorisation of these theories since it is sometimes a matter of wording. Though there are recurrent terms across much of the literature, the meaning they carry depends pretty much on an author approach.
Teichler (1988) gave in the late 80s a theoretical explanation of higher education system changes. His work, relying on an analysis of the evolution of the situation in western countries in the three preceding decades, provides three main explanations of the causes of higher education systems changes:
- An idiosyncratic approach, according to which changes and restructuration can be attributed to historical characteristics. A higher education system is shaped from a country specificities and any change (whether minor, huge or innovative) on the shape and size of the system is most likely to reflect and conserve these historical features. An example is the Humboldtian idea of university intrinsically present across changes, in most European university systems. (Teichler, 1988, p.14)
- The functional approach assumes that different stages of economic and societal development correspond to a specific stage in higher education system. A country economic and social evolution influences its higher education system and an illustration of such evolution, according to Teichler (id., p.14), is Trow’s model of “elite-mass-universal” higher education.
- A political approach presumes the importance of deliberate policies in the changes of higher education systems (id., p. 15). Systems of higher education are shaped according to political decisions. In relation to this approach it can be said that the Bologna Process of convergence of higher education systems in Europe was triggered by a deliberate policy. Orivel (2005). Teichler (2007) seems to share this political consideration when he says that “the basic assumptions triggering off Bologna Process were not well founded statistically” (p.169).
In addition to these theoretical explanations of system changes, Teichler (1988, p. 29) suggests in relation to the trends observed in the early 60s in Europe, a structural classification of models of higher education: An elitist model advocating a quantitative limitation of students based on future needs; a vertical model in which institutions are structured and separated; a unitary model with a uniformity of institutions and courses; and a recurrent model favouring an acquisition of a broad range of competencies at the pre-career higher education, the occupation qualification taking place through the life in what is called “lifelong-learning”. However these models are in many aspects structural and a descriptive classification and do not fall in the explanatory category of systems of higher education.
Next to these arguments, coexist other theories concerning higher education system changes. Departing significantly from Teichler’s theoretical considerations, Gellert (1993, p. 243) considers functional approach more relevant in describing structural modification in tertiary education. His area of analysis specifically refers to the phenomenon of differentiation or diversification observed in European higher education systems between the 60s and the 80s. However “functional” here bears a different meaning: It is explained as been the “roles and tasks of higher education and includes historical dimensions and recent societal and political development and influences”. This is of significant importance since it differs from the Teichler’s functional approach which states a “deterministic” view of higher education evolution common to every country at a specific stage of economic and social development. In substance, Gellert (1993) argues that a functional approach not only helps understand European universities but also the historical and political development occurring: “it is only if we possess a fairly clear idea of what the historical origins of higher education (…) before the diversification processes began, that we can try and understand some of the shifts and modifications (…)” (p. 243).
Others have provided a theoretical frame of changes in higher education systems based on empirical findings: After a review of the British higher education system since the 60s, Scott (2007) concludes that “deterministic teleological models are difficult to reconcile with the much more random, and politically contingent, development of actual higher education systems(…)” (p. 26). He argues that there is no clear linear deterministic evolution of higher education system, nor a prognosis or a historical sequence. These are rather a result of “complex constructions” constituted of “dominant” and “recessive features never totally absent from any higher education system” (Scott, 2007, p. 26). Moreover, he distinguishes two levels of factors affecting the evolution of a system of higher education: External conditions which can be historical, cultural or administrative regimes. Internal dynamics, common to all higher education systems, are also present and include socio-economic, scientific and cultural changes (Scott, 2007, p.15).
2.3 The trends in higher education systems: Where do we go?
In explaining the trend of higher education systems towards diversity, van Vught (1996) brings two contrasting views: Some authors see a tendency to a more diversified system. Among the prominent supporters of this view is Clark who bases his assumptions toward diversity on “the growing complexity of the bodies of knowledge, the variety of the student body and the labour market” (as cited in van Vught, 1996, p. 47). Basically, from Clark’s theory, different types of institutions of higher education exist and will continue to do so because there are more and more students with different capacities and motivation. And these students need to be accommodated with different types of learning and teaching through, among other vocational/professional or academically oriented institutions and programmes. Another argument is the “growing complexity of the body of knowledge”. With increasing number of sub-divisions in academic and professional disciplines it is becoming almost impossible for a university (etymologically meaning whole, aggregate) to host all types of disciplines. As a consequence subject-based institutions emerge contributing to diversity. Finally the labour market has its influence with specific expectations in terms of what type of graduates it needs on one hand, but also what type of institution students are willing to attend based on their future career, on the other. An illustration of such a need was the establishment of fachhochschulen in Germany to answer the need of the economy for a highly qualified labour force, but also the students’ demands for shorter and more vocationally-oriented education (Kyvik, 2004, p. 398)
On the contrary Riesman argues that there is a clear trend toward increasing isomorphism and dedifferentiation. In an analysis based on U.S. higher education he sees a clear tendency from lower status institutions to imitate higher status institutions: “a kind of reptilian procession during which certain higher education institution will move to the positions where other institutions were before” (as cited in van Vught, 1996, p.47). Professionally oriented institutions tend to become increasingly academically oriented in what Neave calls “academic drift” (as cited in van Vught, 1996, p.27); meanwhile universities are trying to including a professional aspect in their programmes in a “vocational drift” (Kyvik, 2004, p.406).
CONCLUSION
In addressing the theories explaining higher education system changes we have noticed a tendency for many authors to deal with this issue in terms of diversity vs. homogeneity. These are the issues that mostly capture the attention of researchers and treated as the only major changes happening in higher education systems. However some authors provide a general frame of theories explaining the major changes happening in higher education and are meant to explain changes beyond the traditional diversity – homogeneity debate. Meanwhile, and no matter suitable these theories could be in providing explanation for one or many aspects of changes in higher education, one could argue that there are solely based on “western” models of higher education systems. Moreover, the idea of a system in itself becomes increasingly questionable since institutions of higher education tend to develop their own characteristics and loose this interdependency and common features present in a system. Scott (2007) seems to share this view when he says “if they are systems at all. They are only systems in the context of ephemeral political discourses not of well-regulated bureaucratic regimes (p.25)
REFERENCES
Altbach, P. (1991). Patterns in higher education development. Review of Higher Education, 14 (3), pp.
Cambridge Online Dictionary, Retrieved in December 2007 from http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=37079&dict=CALD
Clark, B. (1983). The Higher Education System. Berkeley: University Press of California.
Clark, B. (1996). “Diversification of Higher Education: Viability and change”. In Meek & al. The Mockers and Mocked: Comparative Perspectives on Differentiation, Convergence and Diversity in Higher Education. Oxford: Pergamon, pp. 16-25.
Fairweather, J. (2000). Diversification or homogenization: How markets and government combine to shape American higher education. Higher Education Policy, 13 (1), pp. 79-98.
Gellert, C. (ed.). (1993). Higher education in Europe. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Huisman, J. (1995). Differentiation, Diversity and Dependency in Higher Education: A theoretical and Empirical Analysis. Utrecht: Lemma.
Huisman, J. (1998). “Differentiation and diversity in higher education: A theoretical and empirical analysis”. In Smart, C. (ed.). Handbook of Theory and Research. Vol. 13. New York: Agathon Press, pp. 75-110.
Kyvik, S. (2004). Structural changes in higher education systems in Western Europe. Higher Education in Europe, 24 (3), pp. 393-409.
Orivel, F. (2005). The Bologna process in France: Origin, objectives and implementation. Retrieved in December 2007 from http://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/08/67/96/PDF/05010.pdf
Scott, P. (2007). “Back to the future? The evolution of higher education systems”. In Kehm, B. (ed.). Looking back to look forward: Analyses of higher education after the turn of the millennium. Kassel: INCHER. Pp. 13-28.
Teichler, U. (1988). Changing patterns of the higher education system: The experience of three decades. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Teichler, U. (2007). Higher education systems. Conceptual frameworks, comparative perspectives, empirical Findings. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Trow, M. (1974). Problems in the transition from elite to mass higher education. In Policies for Higher Education – General Report on the Conference on the Future of Post-Secondary Education. Paris: OECD. Pp. 51-101.
Trow, M. (1999). From mass higher education to universal access: The American advantage. Minerva, 37(4), pp. 303-328.
Trow, M. (2006). “Reflections on the transition from elite to mass to universal access: Forms and phases of higher education in modern societies since WWII”. In Forest, J. & Altbach, P. (Eds.). International handbook of higher education. New York: Springer. Vol. 1, pp. 243-280.
Vught, F. van (1996). “Isomorphism in higher education? Toward a theory of differentiationand diversity in higher education systems”. In Meek & al. The Mockers and Mocked: Comparative Perspectives on Differentiation, Convergence and Diversity in Higher Education. Oxford: Pergamon, pp. 42-58.
Popularity: 68% [?]
Be The First To Comment
Related Post
Please Leave Your Comments Below