May 26 - 28th, 2011, Wenner Gren Centre, Stockholm.
Background for the symposium In the modern society trust and reputation have become increasingly important. This implies that not just commercial actors like corporations are focussing on their brand. The same is true also for other types of institutions. Even representatives of higher education institutions (HEIs) are to an increasing extent talking about their reputation and their brand (cf. e.g. Engwall, 2008, p. 41). This development can be understood as a response to increasing market pressures on HEIs. In order to attract students and research resources it has become important for academic institutions to communicate positive images of their educational and research environment.
Even if there is a general tendency in the present day society with its media orientation to strengthen institutional reputation, it can be argued that HEIs institutions have particular motives to work actively with their trust. This is the case, since the two main activities of such institutions, education and research, are associated with very high uncertainty.
In terms of education at least three reasons can be mentioned for this uncertainty. First, by definition students who select an education should not know the content of a particular programme. Second, it takes a long time for most students before they really know whether their education was good for their career or not. Third, educational programmes seldom have openly dissatisfied customers, since negative views would be self-destructive for alumni.
Regarding research similar arguments can be raised. First, the outcome of research should be associated with uncertainty, i.e. it should in principle be new knowledge. Second, it is difficult in the short run to envisage the consequences of scientific findings. Third, scientists, like alumni, are reluctant to criticize the scientific system. This tendency of individuals is reinforced by the ambitions of scientific institutions to protect their reputation and therefore to withhold negative information.
Despite, or perhaps due to, the mentioned uncertainties, over time HEIs have gained considerable trust in society. This confidence can be explained by the successful careers that have been achieved by their alumni, which have made higher education attractive for younger generations. In addition, research during the post-war period has produced results which have led to innovations exploited by corporations and supposedly economic growth. As a result, politicians all over the world, nationally and locally, have found it crucial to invest in HEIs. The number of universities and university colleges has in this way increased considerably during the latter part of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first century.
Four factors behind challenges of the trust in HEIs The trust in HEIs is not unchallenged, however. In the public debate, critical voices can thus be heard regarding their position in society. At least four factors can be mentioned as explanations to this state of affairs: *The advance of information technology, *The strengthening of the media, *The increasing call for accountability, *The rising stress of utility.
As for the development of information technology, it has implied a revolution in terms of access to information. Information is now globally available through the Internet for wide audiences. This has led to the argument that HEIs have lost their raison-d’être. It is argued that electronic universities, like the University of Phoenix will drive HEIs out of the market. Some even question the Internet universities, since it is nowadays possible for any individual to seek the information they want to have. Nevertheless, it can be argued that HEIs so far to have a future due to its quality control but also by offering young people a stimulating environment during a very sensitive part of their life. Still, the expansion of the Internet implies strong challenges of the position of HEIs. While this questioning of HEIs is serious, it is even worse for their trust that the Internet provides opportunities for less scrupulous students and scholars to copy information from the Internet and use the texts of others as their own. As these cases of fraud increase and get generally known the trust in HEIs are likely to be seriously damaged.
Regarding media, it is evident that the post-war world has implied a considerable growth of different kinds of media. The latter part of the twentieth century saw the introduction of a number of new media as well as a deregulation of various media markets. At the same time we can notice a professionalisation of journalism and communication experts. This in turn has implied that all types of organizations nowadays employ people for communication purposes. As mentioned by means of introduction this is true also for HEIs. In universities strong communication departments close to the leadership can increasingly be observed (Engwall, 2008). These in turn may even imply a risk for “science through the media” rather than “science through the scholarly scrutiny” (cf. e.g. the cold fusion case at the University of Utah in 1989; Gieryn, 1999, Chapter 4 and Beaudette, 2002). In this way there are risks that the scholarly examination of research is set aside with a high risk of deceptive behaviour. However, also the review processes in scientific journals are now and then reported to have failed (cf. e.g. Peters and Stephen, 1982, and the Sokal hoax; Sokal, 1996a and b). As a matter of fact this is not completely surprising in times of a growing inflow of manuscripts to journals and an increasing competition among scholars. A result may therefore be an increase in fraudulent behaviour. The latter has of course occurred earlier (cf. e.g. Broad and Wade, 1985 and Judson, 2004), but the pressure on individuals as well as their institutions for bibliometric victories is likely to reinforce such misconduct. For the trust in HEIs, it will be devastating when detected. Therefore, teaching of ethics and the conduct of good practices is crucial in any academic training.
In terms of accountability, it is, as pointed out by e.g. Power (1997) generally called upon in the modern society. It is requested that outsiders should be able to see what different institutions are doing, and that institutions should be able to show that they are efficient in their use of provided resources. In this world HEIs have a considerable problem, since both education and research are accomplished in relatively closed environments. As a result they have increasingly faced various measures of scrutiny: evaluation, accreditation and ranking. In these exercises publication indicators have come to play an increasing role through more and more sophisticated control systems of scientific impact. These have in various disciplines led to a critique of the research drifting away towards “more rigour than relevance”. This in turn may contribute to the undermining of HEIs by providing an image that their researchers are just doing research in their own self-interest as a l’art pour l’art. In addition, the strong emphasis of scientific publications may reinforce a view that faculty members ignore their students, thereby neglecting the quality of teaching.
The call for accountability is closely related to the call for utility, since it is nowadays widely requested that the output of research should not only keep up with high scientific standards but also make contributions to society. This demand seems to have increased in the last decades as a result of the tendency of politicians world wide to stress the role of HEIs as motors in the economic development of their countries. High ambitions are set with respect to the share of the populations going to higher education. In addition investments in research are pointed out as crucial for economic growth and welfare. Although, the rhetoric is not always translated into economic resources, these views on HEIs have led to high expectations on useful results. As such effects are not always possible to observe – particularly not in the humanities and the social sciences, but even so in the hard and applied sciences – the trust in HEIs is challenged. In addition, trust is threatened as HEI scholars are too closely related to economic interests in roles as consultants, co-owners or part-time employees of companies.
The 7th HUMANE study trip: Uppsala University, Sweden, 17th -21st of May 2011 Quality and Renewal - administrative support for excellence in teaching and research
/https%3A%2F%2Fprofilepics.canalblog.com%2Fprofilepics%2F1%2F0%2F1076071.jpg)