Who needs higher education research, and why? by Dr Vassiliki Papatsiba

By Vassiliki Papatsiba. The last seminar of the Centre for Higher Education Research and Information (CHERI)
On June 21st, around 30 present and former CHERI staff, associates, visiting professors, collaborators and friends gathered for a final seminar at Kings Place in Central London. The seminar theme was ‘Who needs higher education research, and why?’. Notes on some of the seven presentations can be accessed here. The seminar also received a message from Professor Craig Calhoun, President of the US Social Science Research Council in New York. Read Professor Calhoun’s message.
‘Who needs higher education research, and why?’ by Dr Vassiliki Papatsiba
Thanks very much for your invitation to share with all of you here today a few thoughts, my emotion, and finally a great deal of hope about CHERI’s lasting contribution to higher education research, nationally and internationally. For this special event, you asked us to reflect on an interesting question about ‘who needs higher education research, and why’. Although I was initially tempted to jump in with both feet, I progressively came to realise that I had three problems with the question, but please let me explain.
My first problem was with the pronoun ‘who’. I wondered: would this assume that we can identify and name distinctive constituencies, users, customers, stakeholders, and so on, such as government officials, chief executives of funding agencies, senior managers at HEIs, other researchers, interest groups, various categories of citizens, and so on?
Second problem: I felt puzzled by the expression Higher Education Research and started wondering about its boundaries. How broad and comprehensive should one be when considering the field, especially given the ways in which it has developed, its stage of maturity, and finally its institutional basis? In other words, what ought to be defined as research in or on higher education? Would that mainly be theory-informed (or less frequently theory-based) empirical studies, research primarily seeking to find out ‘what is out there’ and collecting ‘evidence’ (including institutional or in-house research, commissioned work, etc.), or would one include other forms of inquiry and knowledge-seeking endeavours as well, such as scholarship and critical reflection and finally practitioner research?
Finally, my third problem was about the verb ‘need’. It seems to me that there is a connotation here about some kind of lacuna that the use of research findings will satisfy, in a fairly instrumental and linear way: pressing, acute issues will be smoothed or even cured, knowledge gaps will be filled, and finally efficient decisions will be reached. It follows that appropriate action will be taken which ultimately addresses and satisfies that need. Additionally, the verb ‘need’ bears the expectation of a transaction that focuses on user’s satisfaction. I wonder: is there an underlying view that research should address the requirements of customers, and their agendas, goals, aspirations and so on or has it a way to signpost to an outward looking inquiry mindset? Clearly, these are value-laden questions that, in addition, mirror more fundamental ones about who ought to define research agendas, who should participate in defining research problems, and finally, and perhaps more fundamentally, to what extent these should be closely mapped against social and policy issues. As early as in the 1930’s, scholars such as J.D. Bernal and Michael Polanyi inquired into the purpose and utility of science (and social science) and their disagreement is indicative of a difficult, continuing debate, while it exemplifies the polarization that has taken place.
To sum up, in the light of these three problems, one can safely conclude that “Who needs higher education research?” is a good question!
Pursuing my questioning about the meaning of ‘who’, and acknowledging CHERI’s fate, it may be tempting to conclude that not an overwhelming number of identifiable individuals, groups, or organisations would ‘need’ higher education research, at least not exactly right now, nor in a near foreseeable future. Having said that, I will try to present a reflection that might help us to overcome the disenchantment with CHERI’s closure, event which can indicate something of an apparent lack of interest/usefulness of higher education research. Before that, I shall briefly touch upon on the ‘why’ of such an apparent lack of a ‘need’ for higher education research, via a series of further questions. I wondered: is it because priorities have to be set and choices have to be made within a world of finite resources, hence more urgent or bigger needs are to be addressed first? Alternatively or additionally, is it because other fields of research and inquiry are more valued intellectually, socially, economically, and if so, would preferences for disciplines reflect the extent to which social sectors and activities enjoy different degrees of legitimacy? Furthermore, one can question whether higher education research would have yielded outcomes that satisfy the stakeholders’ utility expectations? Finally, one could question the nature/quality of higher education research and the extent to which the field is ripe for ‘exploitation’? Although legitimate, these questions are, as Toulmin (1964) put it, a ‘chalk-and-cheese’ problem, pointing to choices that have to be made and are at heart political ones. All too often, these choices are presented as economic or technical problems, qualification that disguises their political dimension.
Going back to my questioning of the meaning of ‘who’ and trying to address it, I shall err on the optimistic side. I want to argue here that despite the apparent lack of nominated customers or ‘stakeholders’, ‘who need higher education research’, higher education research benefits society because it can infuse into ways of thinking and acting of a society. I will try to develop my argument building on March and Olsen’s (1989) elaboration of the ‘aggregative’ and ‘integrative’ models of social organisation which, in turn, draws on ‘contractual’ and ‘communal’ approaches of political systems. I shall combine this political approach with propositions about the ways in which research can be ‘utilised’, especially in the policy arena, but also more generally in society. Weiss’s (1974) models of research utilisation are relevant to this discussion. I shall focus on two of her models, in particular the Enlightenment Model and the model of Research as Part of the Intellectual Enterprise of the Society.
In trying to identify ‘who’ needs higher education research, my first response is society at large, in a view that does not consider it as an aggregation of identifiable individuals, groups, organizations and so on, but in an integrative view which posits that the whole exceeds its individual constitutive parts. The aggregative and integrative approaches of social organisation rest on two contending world views, as I will go on to explain. To start with the aggregative view, this considers society as an aggregate of self-interested actors who act rationally in order to maximise their resources. Thus, transactions are committed with certain resources (power) and interests. Actors engage in bargaining and exchange in the service of prior preferences and calculated expected utility. Briefly put, the aggregative approach highlights the instrumental premises and purpose of a transaction: there is a need and a goal justifying a certain transaction between actors within a system governed by economic rationality.
However, despite the currency of this approach and its aptness to shed light on several situations, it cannot fully explain social order. If rational exchange, in the service of utility maximisation and self-interest, was the glue of society, then individuals would consistently use force and fraud to achieve their ends. Although this is happening, and social anomie is indeed part of social phenomena, economic theory falls short in fully explaining social order. Society can only exist where there are shared traditions, cultures and institutions. This dimension is emphasised by the integrative approach.
The integrative approach conveys an ideal of collective synergy and externalities, implying that outcomes may benefit not only those who are directly involved in a certain interaction (and not simply transaction), but the wider environment in which the interaction takes place. The integrative approach involves a commitment to something larger than the individual, the creation of shared history and culture, in a configuration characterised by the logic of unity, rather than the logic of exchange. Reasoned deliberation in search of common good, instead of bargaining, is the guiding principle. Although this approach does not deny asymmetries of power, coupled with enduring tension and potential conflicts, it considers them as a basis for engaging in deliberation in order to build a “mutual understanding, a collective will, trust and sympathy. (...). The key integrative processes (...) seek the creation, identification, and implementation of shared preferences.” (March & Olsen 1989, 126). Hence, a socialisation process is at work here, bearing project and aspiration. During this process, moral and competent actors engage in the interpretation of a situation, seeking and creating meaning that exceeds the purely instrumental calculation. This ‘communal’ approach places them in a historical perspective conducive to shared values and norms, joint purpose and trust. This is a continuous, yet not hopeless, challenge.
Bringing these strands of my argument together, I will try to address how these approaches can inform the definition of ‘who’. According to the aggregative model of social organisation, a customer, a policy body for instance, would have a clearly identified need and a goal which can be met by use of research. This need is usually a certain problem and the goal would be a preferred course of remedial action. The way they can go about these, at least in an ideal world, is to either directly commission research, or draw on available research, in order to solve the problem and proceed in decision making and action taking. In the integrative view of society, defining ‘who’ would need higher education research is not as straightforward as
simply nominating distinctive customers and stakeholders and identifying their problem. ‘Utilising’ higher education research would not just be taking a piece of research to fill an information gap. Here research findings are not simply delivered to the interested customer, following a linear transaction between producer and user. The broader issue of research ‘ownership’ and potential benefit is more complex than the aggregative model of exchange would suggest.
In order to show the complexities of the public dimension of knowledge, I shall combine this reading of social organisation with Weiss (1974) models of research utilization. Two models, in particular, would be of interest in this discussion of knowledge trajectories, from an integrative view of society. The first one is the Enlightenment Model. Here, research findings slowly permeate the public sphere, broadly conceived, and gradually shape the way people think about particular issues or problems. Knowledge diffusion, as assumed in this model, rests on a conception of society as democratic organisations. Release of research findings, even unpalatable ones, filters through to the public and increases its wisdom, and its disposition towards action. Research, and knowledge in general, distils into ways of public framing of social issues. In many societies, particularly open, democratic ones, an informed public is a very powerful lobby group, and can influence policy decisions gradually over a period of time. The existence of scholarly journals and informed discussion of policy issues through the mass media are indicators of the Enlightenment Model. Finally, this model does assume transactional linearity between produces and users within a problem-solving context, neither does it consider compatibility between ‘need’ and ‘response’ a necessary condition for a successful use of research.
The second model, also compatible with the integrative view of society and political systems, sees research as Part of the Intellectual Enterprise of the Society. One might call it an embedded model, according to which research is not an insular activity that takes place within bounded ‘holly’ spaces but is indeed an interconnected part within the intellectual enterprise of society. Thus, it is embedded in its ways of thinking and acting and can influence public policy, alongside other activities and considerations, be they political, social and economic. Weiss considers this conception of research (and social science research) as susceptible to influences from wider social paradigms. As she puts it ‘like policy, social science research responds to the currents of thought, the fads and fancies, of the period. Social science and policy interact, influencing each other and being influenced by the larger fashions of social thought.’ (ibid, p. 430).
In the scholarship of Higher Education Research, this approach can be qualified as an ‘externalist’ approach to higher education, science and knowledge generation as it encompasses arguments about the embedded nature of scientific knowledge within wider social relations. It also conveys a critical view on the University establishment, with the legitimacy it affords to scientific status and academic autonomy in defining research agendas. Nowotny and colleagues (2001) have portrayed this view of society as a Mode 2 society in which ‘the categorisations of modernity into discrete domains’ such as state, society, market, culture and science itself are dissolving, and institutional boundaries are getting increasingly porous. They call for knowledge to be integrated in the ‘new public space’ - the so-called agora, where science and society, the market and politics co-mingle (p. 203) allowing for socially distributed expertise to emerge. This knowledge integration becomes a structural feature of knowledge societies, according to Knorr Cetina (2007). The epistemic cultures, as she puts it, have permeated society to the extent that “a knowledge society is not simply a society of more knowledge and technology and of the economic and social consequences of these factors. It is also a society permeated with knowledge settings, the whole sets of arrangements, processes and principles that serve knowledge and unfold with its articulation.” (p. 362).
I will here try to bring my reflection to a close while I remain conscious of the shortcomings in my proposal. Above all, sadly, it cannot satisfy an identified need, that is, it cannot efficiently address the acute problems that CHERI has been faced with. However it is an optimistic approach of the research endeavour which takes a historical view and the socialization process into account. It can be a long-term ally and stay with us, while it will continue to remind us that CHERI has made a contribution in this field of higher education research. No one has the ability to foresee and accurately predict the ways in which the work undertaken by CHERI will continue to address the needs of various communities, be they policy, scholarly
or civic one. However it can offer plenty of hope that CHERI’s research will infuse, resurface, shape and frame the ways in which people think of higher education nationally and internationally. As CHERI is slowly entering the realm of legacy, one can only consider this to be the privilege of those who have had a distinguished contribution, and have influenced the ways in which people, in an increasingly interconnected world, think of social and public issues.
References
Knorr Cetina, K. (2007). Culture in global knowledge societies: Knowledge cultures and epistemic cultures. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 32(4), 361-375.
March , J., and Olsen, J. (1989). Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics. New York: Free Press.
Nowotny, H., Scott, P. and Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity press.
Toulmin, S. (1964). The Complexity of Scientific Choice: A Stocktaking. Minerva 2(3), 343–359.
Weiss, C. (1979). The Many Meanings of Research Utilization. Public Administration Review 39(5), 426-431.