Media Release

DIVERSITY, SPECIALISATION AND REGIONAL ENGAGEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION

MIN 136/02 31 July, 2002

The latest in a series of discussion papers to inform the Review of higher education identifies a number of possible options to facilitate further diversity and specialisation in higher education.

While there is already diversity in the Australian higher education sector, the current funding arrangements have encouraged duplication across a range of university activities. The status quo facilitates competition, rather than collaboration.

Varieties of Excellence: Diversity, Specialisation and Regional Engagement explores the scope for greater differentiation between institutions in terms of their teaching, research and community service activities.

Many submissions to the Review argue for a more diverse system of higher education with an enhanced role for specialisation and differentiation.

The paper suggests that this could be manifested in a variety of ways, including the structure, mission, course offerings and partnerships developed by institutions in the sector.

The paper also examines a range of issues relating to institutional engagement and partnerships with communities, students, businesses and other institutions. The challenges faced by universities and campuses in the regions are particularly considered.

The paper canvasses a range of issues for consideration and discussion, asking:

• Should Australia adopt a vision of an appropriately and responsibly diverse and specialised higher education sector?

• How can the Commonwealth best facilitate diversity and specialisation in the Australian higher education sector?

• Is there value in the creation of more specialist higher education institutions?

• Is there a need for strategic rationalisation of course provision in the Australian higher education sector?

• What incentives and support would be most appropriate to facilitate regional engagement?

• Should universities and campuses in regional Australia receive additional support?

• How can institutions forge more productive partnerships with their regions?

• How can higher education institutions further enhance their involvement in community service?

The paper raises a number of possible options for greater specialisation while maintaining equity of opportunity and student choice. These options have been informed by submissions to the Review, are not exhaustive and do not represent Government policy.

Further discussion papers will be issued in the coming weeks focusing on governance and workplace relations, the interface between higher education and vocational education and training and Indigenous participation in higher education.

A dedicated Secretariat within my Department has been working on the Review and a Reference Group has been assisting to guide me through the issues raised during the consultation process.

The Review will conclude towards the end of the year with a forum to consider all the issues raised and the subsequent development of a package of policy measures for consideration by Government.

Varieties of Excellence, together with previous discussion papers can be accessed through the Department of Education, Science and Training website at www.dest.gov.au/crossroads.

A summary of the issues raised in Varieties of Excellence: Diversity, Specialisation and Regional Engagement is attached.

Copies of the full report are also available by contacting my Canberra Office on 02 6277 7460.

For further information:

• The evolution to a mass higher education system has resulted in a complex web of diverse student needs and expectations. Australia needs a variety of institutions capable of catering to an increasingly diverse range of student needs.

• No single institution is in the financial or logistical position to meet all the higher education needs of a community, particularly in a country the size of Australia, with such a dispersed population.

• Submissions indicate that advantages may be likely to derive from institutional difference rather than similarity and that this difference will be most advantageous if it is achieved through a degree of specialisation.

• As examples to stimulate discussion, the paper focuses on two of these types of diversity. Systemic diversity relates to the essential functions or missions of the higher education institutions within a system. Programme diversity reflects the institutional missions and range of courses or fields of study offered, the orientation of the courses and the forms of programme delivery.

• A number of commentators and submissions have endorsed a policy direction that would encourage universities to focus on their strengths.

• Selective excellence may not necessarily mean that each university would pursue only one major area.

• Institutional strengths could be complementary yet diverse and strategically determined according to institutional histories, location, capacity and the needs of students and the nation.

• Some submissions argue for a conceptualisation of the sector as ‘national’ and ‘regional’ networks.

• Close collaboration with the schools and vocational education and training sectors also needs to be forged to ensure that pathways and articulation between education and training sectors are seamless and serve students’ and the nation’s interests.

A number of possible options are raised in relation to the issues in this section. While not an exhaustive list, these questions have been included for consideration and discussion:

• Is there benefit in facilitating a national and regional network of institutions, using State and Territory regions as the organising framework?

• Should Australia adopt a vision of an appropriately and responsibly diverse and specialised higher education sector?

• Will greater systemic and programmatic diversity achieve such a goal?

• In what way should institutions aim for specialisation through application of ‘selective excellence’?

• There is considerable diversity in the Australian higher education system in some areas, just as there is in all higher education systems. Some argue that there is diversity between universities in the composition of their student population, in terms of enrolment levels, salary structures and the offering of a full suite of courses in a wide range of disciplines.

• While it is important to recognise that some level of homogeneity between institutions and within the sector is to be valued, some commentators have observed that institutions are convergent in their behaviour resulting in a homogenous rather than diverse sector.

• There are claims in submissions that the current funding model fosters competition rather than collaboration.

• There is considerable potential for greater diversity through strategic specialisation and differentiation.

• There may be scope for some institutions to specialise in offering particular courses or fields of study; particular modes of delivery; and focus on teaching of particular groups of students.

• Many submissions rejected the possibility of a strictly ‘teaching-only’ institution.

• There is a hybrid form of the undergraduate-only institution which may be in the early stages of development in the sector. This university would offer a range of undergraduate courses, some postgraduate coursework courses, but only a narrow selection of postgraduate research degrees.

• Some submissions oppose a policy framework that identifies one or two universities for preferential treatment to become ‘world class’, instead promoting an approach which would see the development of a ‘world class’ system where any university may aspire to such.

• Specialisation by each institution in particular areas of research is supported.

• An institutional type that is already emerging in Australian higher education is one that has a distinctive focus on creating a specialised international presence, through for example, international operations, programmes and students.

• The paper also considers whether there is value in the creation of more specialised higher education institutions.

A number of possible options are raised in relation to the issues in this section. Questions include:

• Should Australia aim for a more systemically diverse higher education system?

• Should some existing universities specialise in provision for undergraduate students?

• Should some universities offer a range of undergraduate and postgraduate courses, but only offer a selection of postgraduate research degrees?

• Should Australia aim for a number of ‘world-class’ universities? If so, how could this be achieved?

• Should some universities focus on an international perspective?

• Is there value in the creation of more specialist higher education institutions?

• There is breadth in, and perhaps duplication, in field offerings at a national level. The breadth of field offerings at the State level is in some cases extensive.

• There are a number of fields with similarly small enrolments, which continue to be offered by many universities, some within very close proximity to each other.

• Most of the more popular fields of education are offered at most universities, but there are signs of national and regional concentrations of students in some States and within some fields.

• Clearly some of this is warranted. However, duplication and low enrolment may represent inefficient use of public funds.

• In recent years, many institutions have engaged in strategic planning that has resulted in varying degrees of rationalisation of courses.

• Some universities also argue that there are considerable costs involved in rationalisation of courses and subjects.

• The rationalisation of course provision should not take place without careful consideration about the implications of any consolidation.

• Some submissions cautioned against excessive or non-strategic specialisation, particularly in relation to campuses in regional Australia.

• There is some support in submissions for organising course provision on a State-basis.

• The frailty of some ‘enabling’ fields of study has been raised by a number of submissions. Strong arguments were put for maintaining their presence in most institutions.

• Some submissions argue that every university should not support every single discipline, but within a national system there is a need to identify which disciplines are essential for the long term future.

• The implication for students, particularly students in non-metropolitan areas, could be that there may not be a university offering every course of choice within easy access.

• Several regional institutions argue that a strong force against rationalisation of courses in their areas would be the strength of community expectations for local availability of comprehensive course offerings.

• The paper canvases some options for achieving greater rationalisation, specialisation and collaboration in course provision.

• A central body could be created to promote, encourage and facilitate rationalisation and collaboration with respect to existing and future higher education course provision.

• Given the need for course provision to address national and regional needs, some sort of body jointly convened by the States and Territories and Commonwealth, could promote and facilitate the rationalisation of course provision and act as a broker between the higher education institutions to facilitate course collaboration.

• The higher education sector through a representative body, such as the AVCC, could lead its own process of promotion and encouragement of course rationalisation, specialisation and collaboration.

A number of possible options are raised in relation to the issues in this section. While not an exhaustive list, these questions have been included for consideration and discussion:

• How is it best to achieve the strategic rationalisation of course provision in the Australian higher education sector?

• If desirable, what model would be most appropriate to achieve promote and facilitate rationalisation of course provision?

• To what extent, and by what means, should Australian students be supported if they need to move away from home to study?

• Will greater diversity be achieved through greater specialisation?

• Should the analysis and organisation of course provision be on a State/Territory basis, with an overarching consideration of national needs?

• Should courses with low student demand but determined to be essential for the nation be rationalised but maintained in some institutions?

• What incentive mechanisms can be provided to encourage collaborative course development and reduce field duplication?

• Collaboration is essential between institutions and a range of other stakeholders, including other educational institutions, industry and business, professional associations, government funded research agencies, and communities.

• A policy framework for regional engagement that incorporates all higher education institutions, wherever they may be located within Australia, is supported by submissions.

• There is strong support for a policy framework for regional engagement that does not define some institutions as regional to the exclusion of others, but makes incentives and support for regional engagement potentially available to all institutions, in accordance with their mission and purpose.

• Whilst acknowledging that all universities have responsibilities and expectations for partnerships in their regional communities, campuses that are located in rural or non-capital city areas or ‘regional Australia’ have distinctive relationships with their communities, particular calls on their services and may be likely to suffer disadvantages that are not shared by all capital city campuses.

• Integral to the building of partnerships between higher education institutions and their communities in regional Australia, is the development of a mutual understanding of expectations, roles and preferred outcomes.

• Some submissions argue that the provision of higher education in regional Australia was more costly than provision in capital cities. The current funding model makes no allowance for differences in costs for course provision, maintenance of infrastructure, staffing or the limited economies of scale that can be achieved in smaller campuses.

• There are currently few incentives in terms of funding or support for the creation and sustenance of partnerships between higher education institutions and their regions.

• One option could be for funding to facilitate regional engagement to be incorporated as a separate criterion for receipt of all operating grants. Alternatively, a number of submissions argue that any funding for regional partnerships or development should be specific, rather than part of the present operating grants. For example, a regional incentives programme could fund specific regional partnerships and initiatives.

• Support for regional engagement and community development is not a matter for the Commonwealth alone. A number of submissions argued that funding responsibility should embrace State and Territory governments. However, there is no intention to shift responsibility for higher education from the Commonwealth to the States.

• Tax incentives to encourage industry and business to form partnerships with higher education institutions in regional areas were proposed by a number of submissions.

• A number of submissions identified the importance of community service in the role of the higher education institution.

• The understanding of community service in Australian universities has tended to be limited to the contributions of staff. There is, however, a broader context for community service involving students.

• Universities have become more actively engaged with industry over the past decade and funding from these sources has grown sharply.

• All universities can cite examples of successful partnerships with industry and business.

• There are many examples of productive partnerships between universities and industry and business, but there is scope for considerable improvement in the nature, number and effectiveness of these relationships

• An area of yet untapped potential for higher education partnerships in Australia is the small and medium enterprise (SME).

• It has been argued in submissions that there is a need for closer collaboration between institutions

A wide range of possible options are raised in relation to the issues in this section. Some of the key questions include:

• Should any policy framework for facilitating engagement with the regions include both metropolitan and non-metropolitan institutions?

• What government incentives and support would be most appropriate to facilitate regional engagement?

• Should universities and/or campuses in regional Australia receive additional support and, if so, by what mechanisms?

• What should be the respective responsibilities of Commonwealth and State/Territory governments in supporting diversity in engagement with regional and local communities?

• How can higher education institutions further enhance their involvement in community service?

• How can higher education institutions better align their policies and practices in relation to commercialisation, with industry and business needs and expectations?

• How can government best encourage more effective partnerships between business, industry, professional associations and universities?

• Should the Commonwealth develop and support a programme that facilitates partnerships between small and medium enterprises and higher education institutions?

• Internationally, a significant trend in public sector management has been to minimise the role of government in order to maximise competition and contestability in markets. Given that there is a strong legislative and historical foundation for institutional autonomy in Australia, what role should government play in facilitating greater diversity in the Australian higher education market?

• The possibilities range from centralised planning and regulation of institutional missions to a deregulation of the higher education market to allow institutions to identify and secure their own position in the market.

• Some submissions argued that the overall funding framework is the key to greater diversity and specialisation in the sector.

• In proposing a repositioning of Australian higher education there may be some place for a degree of planning and coordination, as opposed to regulation.

A number of possible options are raised in relation to the issues in this section. While not an exhaustive list, questions include:

• How can the Commonwealth best facilitate diversity and specialisation in the Australian higher education sector?

• What role should the States and Territories have in facilitating diversity and specialisation in the Australian higher education sector?

• To what extent, and for what period, should the Commonwealth intervene in a competitive market to meet objectives of specialisation and diversity?

Copyright  |  Disclaimer  |  Privacy Statement