Irish universities and a tale of efficiency

There is, I think, a growing sense of alarm in Irish higher education that when the 2010 global university rankings are compiled, the position of Irish institutions may be found to have slipped; or if not in 2010, then certainly in the following years. As the available funding declines, various metrics commonly used to determine rankings will begin to work against us, from higher student-staff ratios to lower research funding and outputs. We are, as I have pointed out before, talking the language of education and innovation, but we are not paying the bills.

However, if it’s any comfort, we are right up there in another league table: the table of the most ‘efficient’ universities. A little while ago the European Commission published a Study on the efficiency and effectiveness of public spending on tertiary education. In this Ireland was found to have the 5th most efficient university sector in Europe, coming behind the UK, Japan, the Netherlands and Finland, but ahead of such countries as Germany, Belgium, France, Finland and the United States. It must be pointed out that the most recent year in the study was 2005, and given all the cuts we have probably become massively more ‘efficient’ still. In essence the table measures the funding and other revenues received by universities, and then looks at the various outputs achieved on the back of that funding. Ireland does well, and this has been noted in the media.

But what does this mean? Is it being suggested that the silver bullet of higher education is high quality education and research funded by very little? Is the process of pushing through ‘efficiencies’ a limitless one? In other words, can further cuts be applied incrementally more or less for ever without compromising quality? I remember vividly the then UK government’s policy in the early 1990s of applying an annual ‘efficiency gain’ to university budgets, meaning an annual reduction in the core grant. It did not take too long before serious questions began to be raised as to whether the universities could maintain quality in such circumstances.

At one level it is good that we are doing more with less. Maximising performance is always great. But efficiency is not a strategy. It is merely a form of good management, and there isn’t really any credible route to better results via less money. The ultimate efficiency, if this policy were extended logically, would be to give up teaching and to hand out degree parchments on the day the students first register. But I doubt that would impress the world; and that’s whom we have to impress.

Ireland’s EU Commissioner: Research, Innovation and Science

The European Commissioner-designate for Research, Innovation and Science, Ms Máire Geoghegan Quinn, had her confirmation hearings before the European Parliament last week, and by all accounts acquitted herself very well – the Irish Times described her as ‘unshakeable in her self-confidence’, which perhaps is the more remarkable as this is a new area for her. But she was clear and emphatic in her views, by all accounts well informed, and she drew a favourable response from the MEPs present.

However, her views are also reported to have created some tensions between Fianna Fail and the Green Party back in Ireland. The Commissioner designate does not of course represent Ireland at the Commission, much less the government parties, but of course she was nominated by the Taoiseach and to that extent what she says can have a political dimension back home. At the confirmation hearings she is reported to have expressed support for research into nuclear energy and genetically modified crops, both of which were rejected by the original FF/Green programme for government, presumably at the instigation of the Green Party.

If the reports of her statements at the hearing are correct, I think it is important to express strong support for the Commissioner designate. As I have mentioned previously, I am extremely uneasy about a commitment (for whatever reason) not to undertake research on something: rejecting additional knowledge for ideological reasons is not a respectable position and should not find its way into anyone’s programme. In fairness, individual Green politicians have been open to research and debate on nuclear power, while however still declaring that they will remain opposed to its use. I am not aware of any similar openness to a GM foods debate.

It would be hugely damaging for Ireland to be seen as a place that is hostile to innovation and research, and these elements of the programme for government always seemed to me to be counter-productive in our current ambition to develop an effective knowledge economy. I hope that Ms Geoghegan Quinn’s strongly stated views have an impact back in Ireland and that they prompt us to redouble our efforts to provide ethically aware research leadership in all areas, even those that make some of our politicians uncomfortable.

A European research agenda?

I dare say you have never even heard of the European Research Area Board, but if you work in a university anywhere in Europe you may just want to start taking an interest. But let’s back up a little further. The Board is designed to support the concept of the ‘European Research Area‘ which was established by the European Union in 2000 and which is a concept to develop world class research across the EU. The European Research Area Board was created in 2001 to provide advice on the implementation of the European Research Area. It has 22 members, a majority of whom are European public servants and higher education administrators – but including Ireland’s Frank Gannon, Director-General of Science Foundation Ireland.

So why is it important just now? Well, the Board has been looking at the relative under-performance of European universities compared with US ones in terms of research, and has been advising on ways in which the situation might be improved. A report setting out some proposals has been published, though curiously not on the ERAB website; so I am relying on a summary of it in the journal Times Higher Education. In short, the Board appears to be suggesting that EU research funding – which is based on a number of principles that include a need for research groups covering several member states – is not producing competitive excellence, so that not only is the United States managing to stay well ahead of European research performance, but there are now signs that China and other Asian countries may be about to overtake Europe also. In fact, the only European country that manages to maintain an internationally strong position in research is the United Kingdom.

The Board therefore suggests that funding should focus more deliberately on excellence and on achieving critical mass in key research fields. They also suggest that the task of awarding research grants should not be carried out directly by the European Commission. Perhaps more worryingly for Ireland, the Board suggests that it is not feasible for all European countries to have ‘top 20’ universities.

Regardless of how exactly Europe addresses research performance, it is clear that so far the EU significantly under-performs globally. I suspect that this is not just (and maybe not even mainly) a matter of how funds are distributed, it is also about the absence in many European countries (including the leading economies of France and Germany) of independent universities that can develop and pursue their own research strategies. I am inclined to conclude (as I have done before) that the European higher education area cannot become internationally competitive unless and until it is based on a very different understanding of how universities operate. There is still some way to go.

An Irish EU Commissioner for ever?

On the Fianna Fail party website, there is a news item on the Lisbon referendum, which opens as follows:

Ireland’s voice will always be heard at European Commission level if the Lisbon Treaty is passed as Ireland will always have a European Commissioner according to Minister for Foreign Affairs and Director of the Fianna Fáil Referendum Campaign Micheál Martin TD.

The background to this assurance is the belief that a significant number of people voted against the Lisbon Treaty at the first referendum because they were unhappy at the prospect of Ireland not having a European Commissioner at all times as a matter of right. As part of the negotiations that followed the last vote, Ireland secured agreement that the current arrangement, under which all EU member states have a commissioner, will continue in force. And so the Fianna Fail item goes on to say:

Having listened to those concerns and secured new guarantees we now know that if we vote in favour of Lisbon we will always have a Commissioner representing Ireland. We will have a Commissioner fifteen years out of fifteen.  That is a significant improvement on what we were voting for last year and a key difference to last year’s referendum.

A similar point is made on a Fine Gael website, and also on the Labour Party’s website.

Two points could be made on all this. One is that the entire EU debate over the past year or two has been stuffed full with confusion and misinformation. Ireland’s entitlement to a Commissioner was compromised by the Nice Treaty, not Lisbon, and voting last year for Lisbon would have made no difference to that whatsoever (though admittedly, voting no provided a bit of leverage in the matter). But secondly, and much more importantly, are we at risk of producing a parish pump framework for Europe? Ireland’s EU Commissioner is not there to represent Ireland, but rather to apply him- or herself to the tasks of the portfolio. They are not there (to pick up the wording of the Fianna Fail item above) to make Ireland’s voice heard. Furthermore, if every member state (including, say, Malta) must have a Commissioner all the time, and if we are not yet finished with new accessions, then it will not be long before those portfolios become meaningless because they will have to be distributed to so many. The wonderful 1970s satirical TV programme Hall’s Pictorial Weekly had a government with some interesting ministerial responsibilities, including the ‘Minister for Gateposts and Telegraph Poles’, and the ‘Minister for Foreign Air Fares’. We might not be too far from that in the European Commission.

I suppose it will help the yes campaign to have this assurance, but I cannot help wondering whether its achievement is a sign of a European project that is more and more at risk of being dragged down to something increasingly meaningless. Of course it would be less satisfactory if, for some periods, there were not to be an Irish Commissioner. But we can make our presence felt in many other ways, and the place to protect Ireland’s interests is not in the Commission, but the Council of Ministers.

Oh well.