'The roles of, and consequences for, Universities in building the 'Europe of Knowledge'

1. 'The roles of, and consequences for, Universities in building the 'Europe of Knowledge' Roger Dale, University of Auckland, University of Bristol Presentation to URGE Symposium Globalization, Higher Education and the Knowledge Economy: Refiguring Subjects and Spaces in the Neoliberal University University of Auckland, 1 December 2011

2. The Europe of Knowledge • The EoK has taken many different forms (culminating in the designation of ‘the free movement of knowledge’ as the 5th freedom in the Lisbon Treaty), but the continuing ambition is to transform Europe into a single space of knowledge-production and dissemination. • This ambitionhas two maindrivers: the critical importance of Europe being able to compete economically with the United States, and increasing the cohesion of ‘Europe’ • ‘Competitiveness’ the master discourse of the (2000) Lisbon Agenda; ‘smart, sustainable and inclusive growth’, with ‘knowledge at its heart’, the central elements of the 2020 growth strategy. • Europe’s Universities seen as central to achieving the EoK

3. ‘Contexts of context’ • A tendential separation of the trajectories of capitalism and modernity under neoliberal globalisation, with the ‘reduction of modern emancipation to the cognitive-instrumental rationality of science and the reduction of modern regulation to the principle of the market’ (Santos 2002,9). • The limitations of methdological nationalism, statism and educationism • ’Knowledge’ here is both a key factor of production and a medium for the functioning of market relations….’A new concept both of knowledge and of its relation to those who create it (. . .) Knowledge should flow like money to wherever it can create advantage and profit. Indeed, knowledge is not just like money: it is money’ (Bernstein (1990)

4. Expectations of Universities in the EoK; Logics of Intervention • LoIs have three components: problematisation, goals and mechanisms—though not necessarily in that sequence. • In the case of EU intervention in areas of national discretion—like HE—the mechanisms become salient, because they set limits to the possible. They frame the problematisation (what is this a case of?) and the goals (what would a successful intervention look like?) • In looking at EU ‘policies’ for HE, then, we need to start with the range of mechanisms available to the EU

5. Mechanisms of EU intervention in European HE:Formal Formal governance methods commonly used in EU interventions in HE: • Community Method; essentially ‘law making’ through Parliament and council approval mechanisms; setting priorities and budgets =‘policy-making’ • Open Method of Coordination (mutual learning; common timetables, etc) • European Law itself, through cases brought by students for instance

6. Mechanisms of EU intervention in European HE:‘Practical’ • ‘There is no such thing as European higher education policy, but that does not mean that the Commission has not been influential in the area’ (former Head of DGEAC) • ‘Practical’ governance methods used by EU • Bologna Process, formally intergovernmental, and not confined to MS of EU. Commission not originally a member, but now very influential—sees BP as part of Lisbon agenda (very much dominates discussion of EU HE) • Discourse • Funding • Involvement of ‘social partners’ • Standard setting • Coordination

7. The Discourse of the need for University ‘modernisation’ • Over the past decade, a shift from highly critical ‘De-’ discourses to constructive ‘inter-’ discourses • 3 Communications in 2000s • ‘The EU has supported the conversion process of sectors such as the steel industry or agriculture; it now faces the imperative to modernize its “knowledge industry” and in particular its universities” • a shift to an externally determined and driven project, concerned with “Europe” and a conception of knowledge that goes well beyond Bologna. The focus is the responsibilities of and for “Europe,” rather than European universities, or the university in Europe • the Europe of Knowledge is now seen essentially as a regionally based and governed space of innovation, which includes but is by no means confined to universities, and which is very selective as to which universities qualify for membership in the Europe of Knowledge • Emphasis now moves to interdisciplinary, intersectoral, international, intercultural, interdependence, interaction as levers of modernisation

8. The EU’s 2011 ‘Agenda for the modernisation of Europe’s HE systems’ • Increase quantity of graduates • Improve quality and relevance of human capital development (sic) in HE • Create effective governance and funding mechanisms • Strengthen the Knowledge Triangle • Internationalisation of HE will have a strong impact on quality and affect each of the other areas • Hardly surprising, but presentation is quite novel

9. Traditional format of EU Communications

11. EU Contribution to achievement of Agenda • Evidence-based policy analysis • Assistance for Mobility (student loans for Masters, European Framework for research careers) • Strategic cooperation between institutions (Knowledge Triangle, but also EU industrial doctorates and doctoral school) • Strategy for internationalisation of HE; provide framework to support interaction of European HE with the rest of the world • NB, these all depend on deployment of EU funds

12. Funding: the power of the purse • ‘EU can significantly support (MS) efforts to reform higher education systems through the different EU policy and budgetary instruments’. • Marginal and targeted • Standing as alternative/additional funds for HEIs, ‘scale-jumping’ national Ministries—e g, Erasmus Mundus • New major institutions—ERC, EIT—as well as continuing FP • Enables steering of research and disciplining of institutions—EC rules and timescales

13. Involvement of ‘social partners’ • Especially EUA—the ‘European V-C C’--who share interest in reducing grip of national Ministries, and offer legitimation and reassurance to the sector. • Very important case of reform of doctoral education—the whole programme dependent on Commission support for EUA to develop the programme—similarly with joint degrees. • They also seem to share –or at least be agnostic towards– the whole Modernisation programme, and maintaining their three key interests, autonomy, funding and professional development of HE management, which parallel those set out in the 2011 Agenda

14. Criteria creation: U-Multirank • An EU version of University rankings, intended to be more wensitive to important dimensions of differnce between Universities • ‘The objective of the feasibility study (now completed) is to design and test both a number of focused institutional rankings (along the dimensions of a multi-dimensional classification) and a set of field-based rankings (for different programmes in groups of institutions with high levels of similarity in relevant profiles as defined by the dimensions of the classification)’

15. Example of EUA-CDE (Council for Doctoral Education • Different national traditions but also a number of commonalities due to general policy developments • a general shift in policy-making for doctoral training and advanced research from the national to the supra-national level. Both the Bologna Process and the Lisbon Strategy have reinforced this trend. • innovative models and new ideas generated in (EU sponsored) European-level working groups or associations • Characterised by shift from the individual and/or departmental responsibility in reforming doctoral education to the institutional level.

16. What does this tell us about the (?aspirations for?)missions and practices of the neoliberal University? • Missions become targets and tasks • Instrumentalised as HE becomes (seen and treated as) a key factor of production—and means of reconciling competitiveness and social cohesion • Practices become subject to audit and professional management • ‘Autonomy’ remains, but more narrowly interpreted • Shift from institutional to systems logic, moving the ‘idea of the university’ (in a Humboldtian sense) into the background and focusing on the structure and configuration of a higher education system at the macro level (Kehm)

17. What new kinds of subjects and spaces are being created? • Subjects become ‘inter-ed’, especially through massive emphasis on need for mobility—of ‘brains’, staff, students, knowledge, qualifications • New spaces of governance also become ‘inter-ed’ (e g, Erasmus Mundus), new forms of ‘public’ • New forms of ‘grooming’, ‘teaching’ of potential new members

18. How do students and staff react to/resist new policy imperatives? • Welcome (some) new opportunities in interstices (e g, URGE and this Symposium) • Welcome some aspects of institutional autonomy, but resist many more • Resist audit accountability • Attempt to come to terms with professional management • But how long before these become the norm, as memories (and members) of the Golden Age fade

19. How sustainable is the current corporate model? • Shift from the chair holder logic to the institutional logic in which academic work is more closely controlled and monitored and embedded in the new corporate identity of the institution. (Kehm) • It’s embraced by Universities (and their peak associations?) as enabling new missions, freedom, tools, cost efficiency, support and encouragement • Institutional autonomy is increased, but with no expansion of academic freedom • Coherence of HE as a sector undermined, through encouragement of competition between Universities (‘Bologna was intended to stimulate a race to the top’ (Furlong)