Professor Adam Gamoran, University of Wisconsin-Madison
This paper is drawn from a comparative study of inequality in higher education in 15 countries and can be downloaded from: http://www.wun.ac.uk/ideasanduniversities/seminars.html
More inclusion than diversion: Expansion, differentiation, and market structure in higher education
January 23, 2009 by ideasanduniversities
Dear Adam,
Many thanks once again for a wonderful paper. Vigorous discussion continued in Bristol after the video links went down.
Can I ask you about how ‘equality’ as an idea or a value sits in your analysis? Did everyone in all the various countries that you and your colleagues explored understand it to mean the same thing? Was it being pursued as a policy goal by all the governments and universities? Taking the answers to these questions into account, is it possible for you to reflect on how successfully ‘equality’ has been pursued as a goal, by whom and by what means?
Very best wishes,
Ian
The answers are yes and no.
Yes: The scholars on our team understood ‘equality’ in the same way to mean the degree to which persons from different social origins (i.e. those whose parents have different jobs and different levels of education) have equal chances to become eligible for and enroll in higher education. Each chapter used a standard way to measure this association and the synthesis chapter compared the associations across countries as well as within countries over tiime.
No: ‘Equality’ of enrollment rates in higher education was not an explicit policy goal in all countries. As I recall, this issue did not figure prominently in discussions in the eastern European countries (Russia and the Czech Republic). Nor was it a major element of discussion in the east Asian cases, to the best of my knowledge. (This despite the fact that equality increased in from the 1980s to the 1990s cohort in Japan and Taiwan.) By contrast, equality is a perennial policy pursuit in the US (at least rhetorically). Likewise in the UK, I know from my research in Scotland that seeking equality was a policy goal in reforms of both secondary and postsecondary education. (See my web site for citations to my research in Scotland.)
Adam
Many thanks to Adam, indeed. A very interesting talk!
I had a follow-up historical question/comment for Ian. You mentioned the potential for reconsidering the role and forms of differentiation in the earliest universities.
Might we also consider that — while the largest universities went on to become the top-tier institutions — the Paris, Bologne, and other medieval cases actually demonstrate early forms of differentiation as they began to open and expand their curricula such as the increased availability and visibility of medicine, law, and humanities (even if the traditional power structure still favored theological faculties)?
That is, not only were these institutions destined to become *part* of a differentiated higher education landscape but they also provided early signs of differentiation and inclusion in their *internal* developments? Perhaps we could consider it in terms of institutional developments that later emerged as national or global trends that Adam described?
Many thanks to all who participated.
-Ed
Grad. Student and WISCAPE Assistant
UW-Madison
Thank you, Adam, for your prompt response. It was very clear from your presentation that you and your colleagues shared a precise definition of ‘equality’, and that it was embedded in your research procedures. You’ve now also answered my question about policy goals. If I’ve understood you correctly, there is no clear correlation between states having equality as a policy goal and actual reductions in inequality.
Thank you, Ed, for your comment. I think you’re right: we could usefully think about internal developments at Paris and Bologna at least in part as instances of differentiation resulting from expansion. The development of internal hierarchies and ‘academic generations’ could only take place when there were many masters and students. Expansion meant external groups having ‘their men’ in the university,and therefore wanting to secure their standing; hence the carefully circumscribed involvement of the friars and monks; also colleges with local or regional affiliations. That said, there were surely other reasons for differentiation as well. Thus intellectual innovation also had a role in generating specialization/faculties. Does the expansion/differentiation dynamic come into your particular area of research?
Ian
Ian,
A delayed response to your question… Yes, sort of. My interests (as far as I can truthfully nail them down) are the uses and purposes of the university, where they came from, where they stand now, and where they might be headed — from an intellectual history and philosophical perspective.
Thanks for your response. I think we definitely share similar perspectives on this.
We had some technical difficulties here at Madison this morning, but were able to catch almost all of Ivar’s talk and heard all (saw most) of the discussion period. It was a very interesting discussion for someone who both studies the nature of the university and has worked as a policy analyst for a faculty senate.
Have a great week.
-ed