Tag: knowledge

  • Policy change can help manage the demand for graduate knowledge and skills

    Policy change can help manage the demand for graduate knowledge and skills

    “Our universities have a paramount place in an economy driven by knowledge and ideas.”

    These are the opening words of the 2016 white paper Success as a Knowledge Economy, which created the funding and regulatory architecture governing English higher education today. The arrangements are founded on a broad faith in the economic benefits of generating and communicating knowledge.

    This vision assumes that an increasing supply of university graduates and research, coupled with open markets that reward enterprise, leads to endogenous economic growth. That can happen anywhere because ideas are boundless and non-rivalrous, but particularly in England because our universities are among the best in the knowledge business.

    English higher education has grown by integrating the development of specific skills for the workplace alongside universally applicable knowledge. This is clear from the progress of most English universities from institutes established for professional and technical training towards university status, the absorption of training for an increasing range of professions within higher education, and the way in which universities can now articulate the workplace capabilities of all graduates, regardless of their discipline.

    Notwithstanding this, the reforms proposed in 2016 emphasised knowledge more than skills. By that time, most of the cost of teaching in English universities had been transferred to student tuition fees backed by income-contingent loans. So, the reforms mostly focused on providing confidence for the investments made by students and the risks carried by the exchequer. This would be delivered through regulation focused on issues important to students and the government, whilst positioning students as the pivotal influence on provision through competition for their choices.

    Universities would compete to increase and improve the supply of graduates. This would then enhance the capacity of businesses and public services to capitalise on innovation and new technologies, which would yield improved productivity and jobs requiring graduates. That is a crude characterisation, but it provides a starting point for understanding the new imperatives for higher education policy, which are influenced by challenges to this vision of nearly a decade ago.

    From market theory to experience in practice

    Despite an expansion of university graduates, the UK has had slow productivity growth since the recession of 2008–09. Rather than the economy growing alongside and absorbing a more highly educated workforce, there are declining returns for some courses compared with other options and concerns that AI technologies will replace roles previously reliant on graduates. Employers report sustained gaps and mismatches between the attributes they need and those embodied in the domestic workforce. Alongside this, ministers appear to be more concerned about people that do not go to university, who are shaping politics in the USA and Europe as well as the UK.

    These are common challenges for countries experiencing increasing higher education participation. The shift from elite to mass higher education is often associated with a “breakdown of consensus” and “permanent state of tension” because established assumptions are challenged by the scale and range of people encountering universities. This is particularly the case when governments place reliance on market forces, which leads to misalignment between the private choices made by individuals and the public expectations for which ministers are held to account. Universities are expected to embody historically elite modes of higher education reflected in media narratives and rankings, whilst also catering for the more diverse circumstances and practical skills needed by a broader population.

    In England, the government has told universities that it wants them to improve access, quality and efficiency, whilst also becoming more closely aligned with the needs of the economy and civil society in their local areas. These priorities may be associated with tensions that have arisen due to the drivers of university behaviour in a mass market.

    In a system driven by demand from young people, there has been improved but unequal access reflecting attainment gaps in schools. This might not be such a problem if increasing participation had been accompanied by a growing economy that improves opportunities for everyone. But governments have relied on market signals, rather than sustained industrial strategies, to align an increasing supply of graduates with the capabilities necessary to capitalise on them in the workplace. This has yielded anaemic growth since the 2007 banking crash, together with suggestions that higher education expansion diminishes the prospects of people and places without universities.

    In a competitive environment, universities may be perceived to focus on recruiting students, rather than providing them with adequate support, and to invest in non-academic services, rather than the quality of teaching. These conditions may also encourage universities to seek global measures of esteem recognised by league tables, rather than serving local people and communities through the civic mission for which most were established.

    Market forces were expected to increase the diversity of provision as universities compete to serve the needs of an expanding student population. But higher education does not work like other markets, even when the price is not controlled as for undergraduates in England. Competition yields convergence around established courses and modes of learning that are understood by potential students, rather than those that may be more efficient or strategically important for the nation as a whole.

    Navigating the new policy environment

    After more than a decade of reforms encouraging competition and choice, there appears to be less faith in well-regulated market forces positioning knowledgeable graduates to drive growth. Universities are now expected to become embedded within local and national growth plans and industrial strategy sectors, which prioritise skills that can be deployed in specific settings ahead of broadly applicable knowledge. This asks universities to consider the particular needs of industry, public services and communities in their local areas, rather than demand from students alone.

    Despite these different imperatives, English higher education will continue to be financed mostly by students’ tuition fees and governed by regulatory powers designed to provide confidence for their choices. We suggest four ingredients for navigating this, which are concerned with strategy, architecture, regulation and funding.

    The government has promised a single strategy for post-16 education and a new body, Skills England, to oversee it. A more unified approach across the different parts of post-compulsory education should encourage pathways between different types of learning, and a more coherent offer for both learners and employers. But it also needs to align factors that influence the demand for graduates, such as research and innovation, with decisions that influence their supply. That requires a new mindset for education policy, which has tended to prioritise national rules ahead of local responsiveness, or indeed coherence with other sectors and parts of government.

    Delivery of a unified strategy is hampered by the fragmented and complex architecture governing post-16 education. Skills England will provide underpinning evidence, both influencing and drawing on Local Skills Improvement Plans (LSIPs), but it remains uncertain how this will be translated into measures that influence provision, particularly in universities. A unified strategy demands structures for convening universities, colleges, employers and local authorities to deliver it in local areas across the country.

    That could be addressed by extending the remit of LSIPs beyond a shopping list of skills requirements and enhancing the role of universities within them. Universities have the expertise to diagnose needs and broker responses, aligning innovation that shapes products and services with the skills needed to work with them. They will, though, only engage this full capability if local structures are accompanied by national regulatory and funding incentives, so there is a unified local body responsible for skills and innovation within a national framework.

    Regulation remains essential for providing confidence to students and taxpayers, but there could be a re-balancing of regulatory duties, so they have regard to place and promote coherence, rather than competition for individual students alone. This could influence regulatory decisions affecting neighbouring universities and colleges, as well as the ways in which university performance is measured in relation to issues such as quality and access. A clear typology of civic impact, together with indicators for measuring it, could shift the incentives for universities, particularly if there is a joined-up approach across the funding and regulation of teaching, research and knowledge exchange.

    Regulation creates the conditions for activity, but funding shapes it. Higher education tends to be a lower priority than schools within the Department for Education, and research will now be balanced alongside digital technologies within the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. A new Lifelong Learning Entitlement and reformed Growth and Skills Levy may provide new opportunities for some universities, but any headroom for higher education spending is likely to be tied to specific goals. This will include place and industry-oriented research and innovation programmes and single-pot allocations for some MSAs, alongside the substantial public and private income universities will continue to generate in sectors such as health and defence. In this context, aligning universities with the post-16 education strategy relies on pooling different sources of finance around common goals.

    Closer alignment of this kind should not undermine the importance of knowledge or indeed create divisions with skills that are inconsistent with the character and development of English higher education to date. The shift in emphasis from knowledge towards skills reframes how the contributions of universities are articulated and valued in policy and public debate, but it need not fundamentally change their responsibility for knowledge creation and intellectual development.

    This appears to have been recognised by ministers, given the statements they have made about the positioning of foundational knowledge within strategies for schools, research and the economy. We have, though, entered a new era, which requires greater consideration of the demand for and take-up of graduates and ideas locally and nationally, and a different approach from universities in response to this.

    Source link

  • Can knowledge exchange fix a broken economy?

    Can knowledge exchange fix a broken economy?

    There’s always a challenge in trying to describe knowledge exchange, how it’s funded, why it’s worth worrying about, and what it actually does to the economy.

    Mechanisms

    The default is to talk about its underpinning mechanisms. The way that money goes to universities, their partners and then circulates into the real economy, and then hopefully something good happens. The problem with this approach is that outside of experts and hardy enthusiasts like me this approach is, well, rather dull.

    And knowledge exchange is a less than glamorous name for some of the most important work universities do. ESRC, one of UKRI’s funding councils, has a rather elegant way of describing it:

    The Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) is committed to encouraging collaboration between researchers and businesses, policymakers, the public and third sector organisations (for example charities and voluntary groups). This can create mutual benefits and contribute to positive economic and social impacts outside academia, for example through changes to policy and practice or new products and services created by commercialising research. Two-way interactions of this type are often collectively referred to as knowledge exchange. This is an umbrella term that covers a wide range of activities researchers might engage in, including policy engagement, public engagement, commercialisation and business engagement.

    A less elegant way is to say that universities working together with other organisations can make the economy and society stronger. It is not a dry technocratic thing but the very way in which the wonderful things that are produced in universities become useful. Great ideas without an audience are interesting but fruitless. An expectant audience with no great ideas are bound for disappointment.

    This means that there must be both the conditions for useful ideas to be produced and the conditions for organisations to make use of them. Research England, another funding body of UKRI, funds knowledge exchange through the Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF) and the Connecting Capability Fund (CCF). While HEIF is a more general knowledge exchange fund the CCF is focussed on the commercialisation of research with business. These funds are small compared to the overall research funding pots. HEIF is a formula based fund of £260m compared to an overall UKRI budget of over £8bn.

    The key question isn’t whether knowledge exchange is a good thing. It self evidently is. But whether the intervention by funders is producing bigger impacts than would naturally happen through universities working with businesses, policy makers, and other groups. After all, universities would still benefit from equity in spin-outs and bask in the warm glow of civic participation even if they weren’t supported to do so.

    Reports

    UKRI has brought out three new reports that look at knowledge exchange funding.

    The first report is an evaluation of HEIF carried out by Tomas Coates Ulrichsen. The part which UKRI will be most proud of, and should definitely cause them to consider whether their funding is enough, is that every £1 invested in HEIF produces £14.8 return on investment if you crowd in actual and estimated external impacts. Perhaps even more impressively the report also suggests that “38% of knowledge exchange outputs and incomes would not have happened in the absence of HEIF.” This isn’t activity that is being paid for twice but activity that is actually being created.

    However, while this makes the case persuasively for the value of HEIF it’s the summary which gives us a bigger clue into what is going on in the economy. The report notes

    The past two decades has seen KE income secured by English HEPs grow significantly in real terms, with KE income 81% higher in 2022/23 than in 2003/04 for HEPs in receipt of HEIF during the period 2017/18 – 2022/23 (the vast majority of HEPs in England). However, what is clear is that this twenty-year period is characterised by two very different decades. While KE income grew strongly – and faster than the economy as a whole – during the first decade, the past ten years has seen this growth largely stagnate. The limited growth in KE income may well reflect the multiple crises and shocks the UK has faced since then, not least with the Covid-19 pandemic, cost of living crisis, and departure from the European Union and the effects of this on R&D with research grants and contracts income to HEPs from European sources declining almost 30% in real terms since the EU referendum in 2016. KE income now appears to track trends in the economy more widely (as measured by the UK’s GDP).

    To read the inverse of this is that the wider economy is a constraining factor on the ability of universities to deploy their research for social and economic benefit.

    There is perhaps a tacit assumption that if universities produce great and useful research it will lead to great and useful things in the economy and society. This is only true as long as the economy has the absorptive capacity to keep the cycle of knowledge exchange investment which leads to knowledge exchange outputs which supports knowledge exchange income churning.

    Help/HEIF

    The evaluation of HEIF carried out by PA Consulting is particularly illuminating within this frame. The key findings are that in a changing policy environment HEIF has anchored the sector to make some significant social and economic impacts. It is the flexibility of the fund which has allowed specialisms to develop, the autonomy of the fund has found favourability in the sector, its stability has allowed for long-term partnerships, and a more permissive approach to accountability has allowed providers to demonstrate their value without drowning under administration.

    The report is full of examples of how HEIF funding has catalysed wider social and economic activity but the examples have two things in common. The first is that allowing flexibility in the fund means it can be deployed in multiple partners in multiple ways. This means that even where there are wider economic challenges the funding can be tailored to suit the challenges of local economies. The second is that the long-term nature of the fund allows for greater stability within partnerships to withstand adverse economic headwinds.

    Together, the two reports point toward HEIF as being successful as it demonstrably supports economic growth but does so through flexibility and provider autonomy linked, to a lesser or greater extent, to national priorities. It’s only a small fund but it is impactful.

    Same old SMEs

    The final report on CCF by Wellspring again demonstrates a positive return on investment. The programme has led to 200 new spin-outs and supported over 1,500 SMEs. The programme has led to the launch of at least 338 products and services and it is expected more will be launched over time, particularly in high-tech spin-outs.

    The obvious albeit incorrect conclusion to draw would be that if each of these interventions induce such strong economic benefits then making the intervention larger would make the economy stronger. In fact, if the economic returns are so strong then the projects could presumably be 10, 100, or 1,000 times bigger, and continue to provide economic return.

    Instead, what these reports highlight is that knowledge exchange funding is a product of the wider economy. There is a natural limit to how much activity can take place as there comes a point where the economy is not large enough or dynamic enough to absorb the benefits of universities’ work. In fact, these reports indirectly demonstrate how economies get stuck into a death spiral. Productivity stalls which prevents the absorption of innovative products and services. Without innovative products and services the economy cannot become more productive. And so on.

    The benefits these schemes are realising would suggest they are not close to meeting the capacity of the economy and could therefore be much larger. It is also a matter of purpose. The funds are designed on a premise that there is capacity to make use of university work. It is a much harder question to imagine how funding should be designed where it is necessary to restart a broken economy.

    The impact of these funds is striking, the reports written about them are convincing, however they open a door to a wider question of whether knowledge exchange funding is big enough, well directed enough, or tooled properly, to fix the UK’s entrenched economic issues including its collapsed productivity.

    Source link

  • Hume’s Fork and the Truth About Knowledge (Thoughtforge)

    Hume’s Fork and the Truth About Knowledge (Thoughtforge)







    Higher Education Inquirer : Subjective & Objective: Hume’s Fork and the Truth About Knowledge (Thoughtforge)




    Source link

  • Bridging borders in knowledge: the internationalisation of Chinese social sciences

    Bridging borders in knowledge: the internationalisation of Chinese social sciences

    by Márton Demeter, Manuel Goyanes, Gergő Háló and Xin Xu

    The dynamics of Chinese social sciences are shifting rapidly. As policies aim to balance domestic priorities with global integration, the interplay between China’s academic output and its international reception highlights critical challenges and opportunities. In a recent study published in Policy Reviews in Higher Education, we analyzed 8,962 publications by the top 500 most productive China-affiliated scholars in Economics, Education, and Political Science between 2016 and 2020.

    Uneven impacts across disciplines

    Our analysis reveals that most Chinese-authored works in these disciplines are published in Western-edited journals. Political Science publications often focus on China-specific topics, creating what may be interpreted as intellectual silos.

    By contrast, Economics stands out for its significant global impact, with Chinese scholars’ publications frequently outpacing the citation rates of their Western peers. Meanwhile, Education and Political Science publications from China generally attract fewer citations compared to those from the U.S., U.K., and Germany.

    Why does Economics perform so well? The field’s emphasis on data-driven, globally relevant research – addressing topics like economic policy, market dynamics, and financial crises – positions it effectively within international discourse. Substantial funding and resources further strengthen Economics’ visibility and impact.

    In contrast, Education often highlights region-specific practices that may resonate less with a global audience, while Political Science is constrained by political sensitivities and limited opportunities for broad international collaboration.

    Patterns of collaboration

    Collaboration offers another perspective of Chinese academia’s strengths and limitations. Scholars in Economics and Education often engage in diverse partnerships, with strong connections to both Western and Asian institutions. In contrast, Political Science remains more insular, with most co-authorships occurring within mainland China. This inward focus may restrict the field’s integration into global academic conversations.

    At an institutional level, hybrid collaborations – combining domestic and international partnerships – highlight China’s strategic approach to bridging local and global aspirations. However, the predominance of Western collaborators, particularly from the United States, underscores a continued reliance on established academic hubs.

    The duality of “siloed internationalisation”

    A significant finding of our study is the duality evident in Political Science research: while these publications often appear in international journals, their focus on China-specific issues reflects a form of “scientific nationalism”. This approach limits their global engagement, confining them to niche scholarly communities rather than positioning them as contributors to broader, international dialogues.

    The “international in format but national in essence” approach underscores a broader challenge for Chinese academia. It must navigate the tension between adhering to global visibility standards while championing non-Western perspectives and priorities.

    Policy and practical implications

    Our findings also carry critical implications for policymakers, institutions, and global academic networks. For China, fostering more diverse collaborations – beyond traditional Western partners – can reduce overreliance on dominant paradigms and contribute to a more equitable global knowledge production system. Initiatives with an emphasis on partnerships with Asia-Pacific, Africa, and Eastern Europe, could play a key role in reshaping these dynamics.

    We believe that, for the global academic community, greater inclusivity requires deliberate efforts to decenter Western paradigms. Platforms that ensure equitable participation and strategies to protect collaborations from geopolitical tensions are vital for sustaining open and impactful scientific exchange.

    Looking forward

    The field of Economics exemplifies how targeted investment and international integration can amplify visibility and impact. To replicate this success in Education and Political Science, expanding international collaboration and addressing thematic silos are essential. At the same time, global academic networks must also embrace diverse perspectives to ensure that voices from regions like China enrich rather than merely adapt to dominant discourses.

    Importantly, in an era of geopolitical uncertainty, research can serve as a vital conduit for mutual understanding and collaboration. By prioritising equitable partnerships and sustaining global dialogue, we can work toward a more inclusive and, therefore, more resilient academic ecosystem.

    Our study offers practical guidance for addressing the challenges of internationalization in Chinese social sciences, providing valuable tools for scholars, institutions, and policymakers working to advance global knowledge production.

    For more details, explore our full paper:

    Demeter, M, Goyanes, M. Háló, G and Xu, X (2024) ‘The Internationalisation of Chinese Social Sciences Research: Publication, Collaboration, and Citation Patterns in Economics, Education, and Political Science’ https://doi.org/10.1080/23322969.2024.2438240.

    Márton Demeter is a Full Professor at the University of Public Service, Budapest at the Department of Social Communication, and he is the Head of Department for Science Strategy. He has extensively published on academic knowledge production in communication studies and beyond.

    Manuel Goyanes serves as Associate Professor of Research Methods at Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. His interdisciplinary work revolves around theoretically designing, and empirically testing, cutting-edge quantitative and qualitative methodological procedures to scientifically address challenging aspects of social science inquiry 

    Gergő Háló, an assistant professor at the National University of Public Service Budapest, specialises in socio-critical studies of geopolitical and gender inequalities in science, academic performance, research assessment frameworks, and higher education policies.

    Xin Xu is a Departmental Lecturer in Higher/Tertiary Education at the Department of Education, University of Oxford, and the deputy director of the Centre for Skills, Knowledge, and Organisational Performance (SKOPE). Her research focuses on tertiary education and the research on research.

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link