The Higher Education Authority (HEA), since the appointment of chairman, John Hennessy, is largely seen as a kind of attack dog that has been set loose on Irish higher education, in order to force "efficiencies" and an industry focus upon institutes of technology (IoTs) and universities, and generally, in the words of the great and fictitious prime minister, Francis Urquhart, to put a bit of stick about. (A quick look the headlines here will give you the idea.) In this respect, his Magnum Opus, Towards a Future Higher Education Landscape, won't have come as a shock. This document is the implementation plan of the National Strategy for Higher Education to 2030, or the Hunt report. The first thing we can say about it is that there have already been complaints from both the IoT and university sectors, so perhaps it is at least fair. The higher education elite have been calling for rationalisation of the IoT sector for years, whilst treasuring the unimpeachable sovereignty of the universities. But it may well be that all institutes will feel the winds of change.

The report is concerned with, to cite its section headings, "Diversity of mission," "Collaboration & consolidation" and "Elimination of unnecessary duplication". It also give technological university upgrade criteria and process and introduces the idea of regional clusters, which is to be the primary mode through which all institutes will collaborate and reduce duplication in programme delivery. One of the interesting things about this report is its emphasis on the higher education landscape or "system", which of course stands in stark contrast to the technological university debate, which has mainly focussed on particular institutes. In my previous post, Politics and Discourse on Technological Universities, I spoke (in similar but not identical terms) about the implications of a discourse concerned with the "system" and with "service provision" versus a discourse that is concerned with "institutional quality" and, as we will see, autonomy.

In reality, any state must consider both a) the quality of its higher education institutes and b) how institutes collectively, as a system, serve the needs of civil society. Until now, the universities have led a charmed life, considering themselves fully autonomous and sovereign. The IoTs on the other hand, have been afforded no such illusions, and their individual and collective fates have been the subject of sporadic speculation in the press. In so far as there is a "system", it is a dual system with a top tier collection of 'haves', the universities, and a bottom tier collection of have-nots, the IoTs. The IoTs were said, supposedly, to be "the same but different," but in reality, they are a mixed bag of almost dead and thriving institutes. The lack of any real acknowledgement of a system, catering to regions and other intellectual and commercial constituencies, channelled the technological university debate along the lines of qualification, with no regard for the needs of the country as a whole. Thus, one got the sense that any and all institutes could be upgraded. This report would seem to provide a valuable corrective, therefore, to the national debate and future planning.

It was with interest that I read, Ferdinand Von Prondzynski's latest blog, Reconfiguring the Irish system of higher education, in which I saw the system v institute debate crop up again in another form. What possible justification could there be for favouring an institution perspective over a systemic perspective, I thought? The answer is institutional autonomy. Von Prondzynski is hitting at the same dichotomy when he says,

"What all of this represents is a significant reconfiguration of the Irish system of higher education, from one characterised by autonomous but (increasingly) collaborating institutions, to one based on a national, centrally coordinated plan." and "What we are being asked to contemplate here is that institutional autonomy is wasteful, and that a ‘national system’ that distributes educational and research activity amongst institutions characterised by their specialisms will be better."

Without wishing to argue against institutional autonomy per se, we have to look at the pros and the cons to the new proposals (nascent though they are). While not appreciated by autonomous universities, it is certainly appreciated by the tax payer and by those interested in regional equality. When the argument is turned away from "the institute" and toward "the system", not only is the extensive duplication of services and institutes revealed but also the gaping hole in higher education provision in the south east. The report not only gives the criteria for upgrade to technological university, but also guidelines for the creation of regional clusters. Indicative regional clusters are given:

"a. East/North East - UCD, DIT, TCD, DCU, St. Pat’s Drumcondra, Mater Dei, IT Blanchardstown, IT Tallaght, IT Dundalk, NUI Maynooth, Dun Laoghaire Institute of Art & Design, National College of Art and Design
b. South East – Waterford IT, Carlow IT
c. South/Mid West - UCC, CIT, UL, IT Tralee, MIC, LIT (incl. Tipp Institute),
d. Border/Midlands/West – NUIG, GMIT, IT Sligo, St. Angela’s, Athlone IT, Letterkenny IT"

Notwithstanding the fact that the suggested South East cluster would have the smallest population on the list (since other regions have been combined) it underlines that fact that a) the south east is a relatively large region, with its larger population centres quite remote from alternative higher education providers, and that b) the region is woefully provided for. No university and only two IoTs. The South/Mid West, with twice the population, has 3 IoTs, Tipperary Institute and a long established university to boot. The East/North East, despite having maybe 1.8-2m people, or 4 times the population of the South East, boasts 6 IoTs and a whopping 5 universities (incl. St. Pat's). With 4 universities in close proximity (not incl. St. Pat's), and 3 in a city of 1.1m people, it is high time that the spectre of rationalisation was raised with regard to those institutions, in addition to the far sparser higher education landscape of the south east.

There is another benefit to looking at the higher education landscape systemically, from the report,
"In order to create and sustain a diverse yet coherent system, it will be essential that all institutions have a clear perspective on their particular mission and role within the overall system. In particular, it will be essential that institutions ensure that their programmes continue to be reflective of, and appropriate to, their mission."

In the discourse of "institutional quality," where issues such as autonomy are sacred, any institute can and should aspire to "greatness," where greatness has come to be synonymous with becoming a university (or if the institute is already a university, climbing league tables). Our media, particularly the Irish Times, have played their part in reinforcing the notion that universities are a quantum leap beyond the IoTs, which has served to make urban centres with an IoT rather than a university less attractive to industry, and has naturally added stimulus to attempts to change the status of the institute. The hope is that now we can look at systemic imperatives. Lets call a spade a spade. Cork does not need a second university of any description for its 500k people. Limerick and Galway certainly do not. Dublin absolutely does not, but in the case of DIT, the horse may already have bolted, and it might just be a greater crime not to upgrade it. Put thus, the number of applications for TU status can be whittled down very easily by simply citing the needs of the system as opposed to the institute(s), and let demographics be the driver of change, not institute ambition. This raises the prospect, finally, that institutes may actually be in a position to respect their mission distinctions, and to focus on what they should be doing and not on seeking upgrades.

Given my obvious interest in seeing WIT advanced and upgraded, this may seem hypocritical. But all arguments must be weighed according to some variation of the Kantian categorical imperative: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law." I'm quite confident that any appeals to a universally fair and equal higher education system would rule on the side of creating a university in the south east (or at least closing those universities in less populated regions!). The HEA has presented a document that, amongst a great many other things, considers the higher education landscape as a system. Although this can be seen as potentially infringing on the autonomy of institutions (certainly will in the case of merging IoTs), it should also deliver value for money, highlight regional inequalities, and provide a basis for ending "mission drift" once and for all. It is indeed worrying that the HEA is set on infringing on the autonomy of universities. It would be far better if, having set the rules, and after a short period of consolidation, the HEA would firmly remove itself from the affairs of all institutes. However, on the whole, this plan or strategy, if implemented, could do a great deal of good.