Descripción de las actividades realizadas

The principle of “Lehrfreheit”, or “Academic Freedom”, originating in German universities, accords universities the privilege of teaching and researching in whatever way they wish allowing for any issue of human significance to be intellectually considered without limitation or restriction (Shoben, 1971). The principle has been studied at length by Metzger (1955:112) who emphasised the necessity of protecting it as a core value within research universities, espousing the specialisation and development of new ideas as crucial and quite distinct from the development of new skills.

Fundamentally the concept of Academic Freedom cannot be separated from its counterpart of Accountability. In the contemporary Ancient academic community, nothing will trigger an outcry of denial more than the claim that they should tailor their academic enquiry in line with society’s demands. In the original communities of intellectual stimulation and the “think tanks” of the medieval age, Ancients’ primary contribution to society was focused on challenging society’s ideas (still seen as a critical purpose by some of our institutions in the 21st Century).

However, the funding accountability in the early days was quite different from our publicly funded institutions of today. It can be argued that the roots of the traditional cultural beliefs were laid down in the 11th and 12th Century universities in terms of attitude towards monetary rewards and resources. Laurie (1891: 161) aptly sums up the system of beliefs in the original institutions:

“What rendered the University of Paris especially powerful, nay positively formidable, was its poverty. The university did not possess so much as a building of its own, but commonly was obliged to hold its meetings in the cloisters of friendly monastic orders. Its existence thus assumed a purely spiritual (intellectual) character, and was rendered permanently independent of the temporal authority” (in Lunden 1932: 97)

This philosophy, deeply detached from societal influence and application, defines money as being simply a tool, to provide a means to an end, without the power to influence the process or the nature of the outcome.

It is not difficult to see the latent tensions in a philosophy which cannot survive the modern age without challenge. In fact, as far back as the mid 17th Century this remote university position of “monkish erudition” (Minogue, 1973: 26) came under attack as calls emerged for universities to contribute to national wealth and power. A common criticism of universities, in varying degrees historically, is that theory must be applied to the needs of current society in order to be of value:

“If the lives of most people take place within the warm circles of practice, the academic world is to be found flying off at a tangent – a situation it shares with art and lunacy” (Minogue, 1973: 221)

The principle of Academic Freedom and of Accountability is inextricably linked in a triangular relationship to the concept of Purpose. In 1851 the influential philosopher and theologian John Henry Newman developed the classic text on traditional university purpose, “The Idea of a University” (published 1860 and examined comprehensively in the next chapter). Newman’s ideology rested fundamentally on the virtue of Academic Freedom and the core purpose of a

university being to provide a liberal learning opportunity rather than a professional or vocational training. Refutations of Newman’s stance, not difficult to find in his own day, are still maintained in the contemporary literature (Turner, 1996).

Throughout exploration of the literature, discussed in this chapter, I welcomed this vision of people within universities on unfettered, intellectual adventures together. However, the necessity for this vision to be funded has introduced the inevitable pragmatism. Newman’s vision seems restrictive and shallow when the luxury of academic freedom depends upon personal financing thus clearly clashing with the principle of equality of access to education. In the 21st Century, the principle of academic freedom is unlikely to be applied in a standard fashion throughout an HE sector currently pressurised by contesting stakeholders, with individual institutions carrying accountability burdens to varying extents. Funding considerations can sharpen the focus of purpose somewhat. Freedom is a luxury that some simply cannot afford.

Thatcher’s arrival to the Westminster Government in 1979 intensified the political control, with an implicit expectation of institutional accountability in return. The interdependency between Ancients and the UK State grew slowly, and, almost imperceptibly. As the sector expanded in the second half of the 20th Century, the measure of independence allowable to a publicly funded institution came into question. The high degree of internal autonomy remained, however, a fundamental cornerstone of Ancients culture and their lack of experience in dealing with the concept of accountability has been documented (Becher, 2001: Moodie, 1991: Trow, 1991). The implication has been that the pressure exerted by Governments is felt more acutely, and consequently resented more, in the Ancient environment, in spite of the fact that some interference by the State had been experienced in 19th Century in Scottish HE (see section 3.2).

The timing of the funding initiatives coincided with the introduction of the centrally funded Plate Glass institutions in the 1960s. Initially the academic communities welcomed the funding as a method of universities receiving what they saw as a fair income, direct rather than via students. There could be many reasons for this. Initially it could have been interpreted by institutional managers and governors that Government funding would not tie institutions to the requirements of business and industry, allowing them to retain their academic freedom of curriculum. The funding mechanism distanced them from the culture of fee-paying customers. The visionary scholar would demand an essential separation of finances and knowledge (Lunden, 1932) and a refusal which could sit uncomfortably with the visionary scholar who would demand an essential separation between finances and knowledge and a distancing of reducing their vision to one of product marketing. With hindsight it might be argued that it should have been obvious that they were unlikely to get something for nothing. Cobban (1975:119) comments on the challenge to institutional independence:

“They [the universities] must long since have realised that academic freedom, in any purist sense, was a chimera and that society would not tolerate or financially support academic groupings without exacting some kind of quantitative return”

Wagner (1995:67) describes the change in government intervention using the following analogy of popping a cheque through a letter box and then:

“…they wanted to knock on the door, open the door, peek inside, walk inside, observe what they saw, ask questions, expect answers, suggest changes and then change their size of the cheque if they don’t get them”

Conditions started to creep in. As universities learned to dance to the tune of the piper, being paid (Shinn, 1986), in this case to upgrade their labs, provide funds to students to attend, build their estates and fund their research, the recommendations of the Robbins Report (1963) began to bite and government conditions were applied. The Government “encouraged” universities to widen their recruitment; numbers of students had not only to be increased, but, as a government agenda of social inclusion became important, the profile of these students would also need

adjustment. Universities were viewed increasingly as central to the goal of universal social betterment. To enforce this further they produced legislation ensuring that previous criteria barring entry to higher education, such as gender, financial strength or disability, became initially irrelevant, and eventually, illegal. Internal policy came to be externally dictated (Shattock, 2006).

Up to this point reference has been made to “the State” and to “the Government” as if this were an entity, a united body. In practice, this has been far from the case. As Scott (1995) reminds us, Universities today have to deal with sub-systems of Government; ministries and government agencies with multiple missions and distinct agendas are creating pluralism in university-Government liaison which often has to find a route through on a business contractual basis.

Very recently, the funding pendulum has started to swing back. Other stakeholders are entering the frame and the balance between public and private funding of HE shows considerably less governmental input than 20 years ago (Universities- Scotland, 2002a) with claims that this will decrease further in future (Adnett, 2006). Palfreyman (2004:4) describes the muddling through of the HE sector by contributing less to each student in the UK as it faces:

“The steady retreat of the taxpayer in funding students and HEIs”

The accountability has not decreased, however; quite the contrary. Accountability is now complicated with alternative stakeholders to the Government, including, in some case, general society, demanding their justifications for spending. Staff, students; expectations are raised all around.

3.7 Summary

Within UK universities sits a small core of deeply committed, ideologically traditional institutions in Scotland. They are 4 of the original 7 Ancients and within

them the changes experienced throughout the rest of the UK have been mirrored. Their historical background, rooted in medieval times, has influenced their current format and culture.

Although the prestige of a university rests on a number of factors, institutional age, taken as symbolic of tradition, endurance and robustness, is a major factor. Philosophies developed early on in Ancients have included maintenance of intellectually rigorous standards, the equal access by anyone with intellectual standard on entry, developing a lifestyle of intellectual pursuit and a freedom to choose the direction of the intellectual enquiry which supersedes financial conditions.

Contemporary Ancients are, however, facing a very different set of challenges from their predecessors, albeit that their traditional, historical background has to operate with an ancient operational influence and under the terms of the traditional culture and belief system. In these institutions these influences result in an interesting blend of past and present, creating a social construction of a “student” or a “graduate” which differs from those emerging from modern or Post-1992 universities.

It is my contention that, although evolving for over 600 years, the changes in the past 40 years have targeted the university and particularly the Ancient institutional culture which some claim (Trow, 1987), now places HE in the UK in a position of “crisis”. The “Gold Standard” of HE (Eustace, 1991) is perhaps an outmoded model unable to be operated without flexibility being increasingly applied, in turn resulting in doubts over credibility and validity of degree (a matter discussed at length in Chapter 6). The tensions increase for institutions pursuing standards dictated by government targets combining research excellence and widening participation simultaneously, rather than giving them the ability to follow their freestanding missions (Tight, 2006).

The move towards wider access of students to these institutions has followed a societal shift and government agendas in the direction of an equalising of opportunity. The establishment of Plate Glass and Post-1992 universities as a component part of post World War II expansion has been, I would argue, one catalyst behind the development of a particularly elitist culture in the Ancients in their defensive striving to retain their uniqueness. Ironically, I believe the introduction of equal opportunity political agendas may have increased the inequality between Ancients and other formats of university and, in an era where comprehensive secondary education strives to even the playing field, has offered a class structure system opportunity at tertiary level.

All Higher Education Institutions have started to understand their public body status but there is discomfort with the recent acquisition of a variety of stakeholders to whom they are now accountable. These include society, government, local and national economies and industry, funding and research councils staff, students (with a “customer” mentality) and their parents who pay, each having a clear expectation of what they hope to reap in return for their financial contributions.

Viewing HE as a scholastic venture, seeking to open minds and offering a rounded education, its use for teaching Mature students has been encouraged through a developing philosophy of lifelong learning. However, this may be more congruent with Newman’s vision (1860) rather than the assumption of a more affluent lifestyle based on the value of a degree in monetary gains. One could argue that it is an assumption allowed, indeed encouraged, by the Government to develop in the minds of potential students (or customers of the service), is reinforced in news items or speeches at political conferences, and promises made by specific political parties.

The crisis of the Ancient, Scottish university, in a nutshell, sees its vision undergoing transition amidst a level of turmoil (Dill, 1992; Eustace, 1994; Dearlove, 2002). It has to widen access and expand disproportionately while

maintaining standards, identifying stakeholders, regulating its duty to society and the applicability of its teaching. Alongside, it is important not to understate the influence of tradition, internally expressed by the urge to construct a student from an Ancient in a particular traditional format which discourages students from a non- traditional background.

I would contend that the critical avenue for being able to harmonise these opposing tensions lies at the core of universities’ culture in the concept of purpose, focusing targets and expectations of outcome delivery. This concept is examined in the next chapter, both from the perspective of the institution and from that of the Mature students within this study.

This completes Part I, the contextual background of my personal motivation, the theoretical landscape offering perspectives of organisational analysis and the specific context of the universities providing the locus for this study. Part II takes the focus down to the literature surrounding the students themselves, in particular those studying at a Mature age, starting with the period of time before their full interaction with the Ancient and, crucially, centring on their understanding of university purpose.

PART II – THE LITERATURE Chapter 4

PurposeversusExpectations Before the Interaction 4.1 Introduction

The next three chapters outline the literature surrounding each of three points of the interaction between Mature student and university20. Within the wider participation agenda, the literature, which focuses on age as a defining category of diversity, is well developed historically. However, of those studies investigating Mature student education, the literature landscape reveals that few have been undertaken in the Scottish HE sector and even fewer taken from a holistic perspective, incorporating life outside of the academic role. This could be seen as surprising considering the focused promotion in the 1990s of the lifelong learning by the, then, Scottish Executive. It is, however, worth mentioning some notable exceptions in universities (Osborne et al, 1997; Hall and Powney, 1998; Tett, 2004) and some other studies which particularly concentrated on health with Medical, Nursing and Occupational Health students (Fleming and McKee, 2005; Cuthbertson et al, 2004). Furthermore, in recognition of Mature students’ role as funding assets, the hub of recent studies has turned to retention issues (Bolam and Dodgson, 2003). It is also important to highlight that this does not include a much larger area of literature which, although including maturity, chooses to focus on other definitions of non- traditional students, for example, “working class” (Bamber & Tett, 1999). Although these may be referred to, I will concentrate on those which take age as the defining criteria.

The focus of the Mature student literature search conducted for the purposes of this study was restricted to those UK wide studies dated from 2000 until 2007 in order to offer a manageable set of studies (29) and those identified are outlined in

Appendix 4. This set, although comprehensive in terms of spanning the spectrum of the issues highlighted most commonly in Mature student studies, is not absolute. Other studies preceding the time frame have been screened and some earlier studies (or important ones from outside the UK) have occasionally been included in comments where a sense of context is seen as important or where studies are identified as groundbreaking.

Mindful of the Social Constructionist Framework, the theoretical approach to be used in the empirical section of this study, the literature search was undertaken with the basic premise of Bourdieu and Passeron (1979) and Hesketh (1999) in mind, that the social and cultural origins of students influence their interpretations of their experiences.

This chapter begins my investigation by examining the purpose of universities and their product on one side of the equation compared with student expectations on the other. I would suggest that the success and/or failure of the marriage of the two, dictates, to a major extent, the nature and quality of the student experience.