Comments on: The future of higher education: the key issue is autonomy

By: Ernie Ball

Ernie Ball — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 14:59:03 +0000

You'll find my response to this on my blog here. I went into more detail about these matters in the comments to a blog post by Stephen Kinsella from a little over a year ago here.

By: We Have Ways to Make you Talk! | Ernie Ball's Blog

We Have Ways to Make you Talk! | Ernie Ball's Blog — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 14:55:10 +0000

[...] von Prondzynski had a post on his blog lamenting the loss of university autonomy implied by HEA Head Tom Boland’s recent speech in [...]

By: universitydiary

universitydiary — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 12:41:34 +0000

I suppose it depends whether you think research was as good 20 years ago as it is now. On the whole the nature and quality of university research, in Ireland at least, is immeasurably better now than it was back then; in the sense that there was hardly any taking place back then. I agree that the integrity and independence of researchers is important. I’m less sure about ‘autonomy’, when historically that tended to mean that you didn’t do any. The correct approach is not at all as easy as you suggest. All these things are complex. Where I agree is that some research management was not well judged. But we are all learning.

By: Ernie Ball

Ernie Ball — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 12:13:46 +0000

My point was that it makes no difference to me as a researcher whether the bureaucrats interfering and attempting to “direct” my research are from the university bureaucracy or from the government bureaucracy. In other words, the discussion of “autonomy” never seems to get to the level where actual autonomy should be located: at the level of the individual researcher. Any other arrangement has nothing to do with the university and everything to do with the importation of ill-considered models from business management. It’s supposed to be some great tragedy if the very university presidents who constantly attempt to deny my autonomy and direct my research somehow have their autonomy of action curtailed.

By: Brian Mulligan

Brian Mulligan — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 08:42:03 +0000

An strategic objectives are offensive why? Perhaps, I misunderstand and you think “directed diversity” is a good thing.

By: Brian Mulligan

Brian Mulligan — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 14:26:31 +0000

Duplication is not the worst offender in driving up costs. If the government wants unit costs reduced then they should gradually reduce the unit payment to institutions. Then those unable to supply at that cost will withdraw as they will be losing money. It is unlikely that the government will be competent at picking the best supplier.

By: Ernie Ball

Ernie Ball — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 08:25:10 +0000

“Directed diversity” is no more nor less offensive in an academic context than is the notion of “strategic objectives.”

By: Al

Al — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 08:04:08 +0000

Good point.
One could argue the oligopoly is already established?
But I don’t think that describes this situation.

By: no-name

no-name — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 07:50:49 +0000

Government sanctioned monopolies have a better track record of averting waste than openly competitive systems?

By: Al

Al — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 07:13:15 +0000

It isn’t my intention to be defending Govt intentions, but what you say ignores what may be considered waste by duplication. Excessive duplication may be considered wasteful in term of financial costs and also in terms of academic ability that could have been better focused.
If Uni’s want to have an X department in every uni in the country, when there may not a demand among students, and maybe even employers and/or civil society, then who pays for it?
Or course this applies to IOT’s, etc.