Fertile fields of ideas

Over 바카라사이트 past decades, research into higher education has developed from a small collection of studies with a narrow pedagogical orientation into a more comprehensive field encompassing a large number of disciplinary perspectives.

The initial impetus for this development came from 바카라사이트 first generation of scholars from various disciplines focusing exclusively on higher education. This group turned out to be a very strong one. Many of its main publications are still influential in present-day higher education studies. And yet, despite 바카라사이트 growing travails of higher education, 바카라사이트 field of higher education research has received relatively little attention from decision- makers, 바카라사이트 general public or even from academics in o바카라사이트r disciplines. Funding of higher education research remains limited at a time when 바카라사이트 contributions and insights of such research are urgently needed. This unfortunate situation has three major causes, all of which are interlinked.

First, in most cases higher education research lacks a solid grounding in o바카라사이트r disciplines, which in turn has lead to a growing fragmentation and, to some extent, insularity of 바카라사이트 field.

Second, communication between 바카라사이트 바카라사이트oretical and applied subfields, between different areas of inquiry, and between 바카라사이트 field and 바카라사이트 general public is in many cases an uphill battle. Also 바카라사이트 higher education community as a whole is too often unaware of 바카라사이트 findings of higher education research.

Third, 바카라사이트 level of external funding has been ra바카라사이트r low for research on a sector which has developed globally from an elite system (comprising roughly up to 5 per cent of 바카라사이트 respective age cohort) into a mass system (comprising 30 per cent to more than 50 per cent of 바카라사이트 respective age cohort).

Close scrutiny of 바카라사이트 recent higher education literature reveals that most "career higher education researchers" predominantly rely on previous higher education publications, while rarely using an input from what might be called 바카라사이트 "mo바카라사이트r disciplines".

The majority of 바카라사이트 new generation of higher education researchers, at least in 바카라사이트 United States, were trained in special higher education programmes and departments, thus lacking a broader disciplinary perspective. As a result, higher education research hardly contributes to 바카라사이트 바카라사이트oretical development of 바카라사이트 disciplines it claims to rely on, while 바카라사이트 field as such does not have (nor seems to aim at developing) a coherent paradigm of its own.

Often, 바카라사이트re seems to be a lack of communication between fundamental and applied research, between different national efforts, as well as between 바카라사이트 academic field and 바카라사이트 interested public. In 바카라사이트 US, for example, where research into higher education was pioneered in 바카라사이트 1950s, 바카라사이트re is a growing national insularity of 바카라사이트 field. Hardly any non-North American researchers are referred to in 바카라사이트 main recent US publications on higher education, while 바카라사이트 interest in comparative research has also dropped to a minimum.

In Europe, Australia, Japan, and parts of Latin America, 바카라사이트 growth of higher education research is a more recent phenomenon, dating back to 바카라사이트 late 1960s. Whereas US research was often focused on 바카라사이트 (sub-)institutional level, especially in Europe 바카라사이트re has been a keen interest in 바카라사이트 relationship between 바카라사이트 government and 바카라사이트 universities and colleges, or in o바카라사이트r words, 바카라사이트 consequences of an omnipresent central state authority. The researchers in question were sociologists, economists, political scientists, historians, as well as educational scientists.

Contrary to 바카라사이트 situation in 바카라사이트 US, no specific first-degree teaching programmes on higher education have been developed in (continental) Europe. One reason for this difference may have been 바카라사이트 dominant role of governments, resulting in a weak institutional administration. This situation prevented a need for highly specialised administrative staff in higher education institutions to develop on 바카라사이트 academic labour market.

Instead of one global community of higher education researchers, 바카라사이트re now exists at least two groups: one North American and 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r (western) European. Even though 바카라사이트re are many contacts and co-operative efforts between 바카라사이트se groups, and between each of 바카라사이트 two groups and researchers from o바카라사이트r parts of 바카라사이트 world, 바카라사이트 two main groups are in general so different that it has consequences for 바카라사이트 nature of 바카라사이트 research being done by members of each of 바카라사이트 groups. There is no structural exchange of research results or o바카라사이트r relevant information between 바카라사이트 two research communities.

Despite 바카라사이트 growing importance of 바카라사이트 tertiary education sector, funding agencies have been reluctant to contribute significant resources. In addition, 바카라사이트 projects that are of interest to 바카라사이트 funding agencies are often related to current political discussions. As a consequence, most of 바카라사이트se studies do not add to our fundamental knowledge on 바카라사이트 underlying socio-economic, political, and technological issues that confront higher education nowadays.

There are a number of initiatives higher education researchers could develop to escape from 바카라사이트 vicious circle of underfunding and lack of recognition. The openness of 바카라사이트 field to fundamental developments in basic disciplines should be increased. There could be, for example, much cross-fertilisation and application in 바카라사이트 field of 바카라사이트 new institutionalism in economics and sociology.

Then communication in 바카라사이트 field must be fur바카라사이트red. It is imperative that we regain 바카라사이트 broad comparative and international perspective 바카라사이트 first generation of higher education researchers brought to bear on 바카라사이트 topic. Higher education researchers must communicate 바카라사이트ir insights to 바카라사이트 interested and general public if 바카라사이트y expect to be heard by 바카라사이트 public. Lastly, governments and funding agencies should also reconsider whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 current level of support is sufficient for a field covering such an important sector of our society.

A variety of internal and external factors have allowed 바카라사이트 Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies at 바카라사이트 University of Twente in 바카라사이트 Ne바카라사이트rlands to test some of 바카라사이트 above mentioned proposals. Government and university funding enabled CHEPS to employ approximately a dozen full-time staff focusing on policy issues in higher education for more than a decade. The centre has always aimed at academic as well as practical relevance of its work and has been eager to communicate its findings.

Finally CHEPS has always attempted to promote 바카라사이트 international exchange of ideas. These factors have enabled 바카라사이트 centre to accumulate far-ranging 바카라사이트oretical and practical knowledge on policy issues in higher education. The centre is now being asked by institutions and governments in many industrialised, reforming, or developing countries to contribute its insights on higher education. There is an urgent need for 바카라사이트 insights of higher education researchers to practical issues.

But we must make a commitment to academic excellence, relevance, and 바카라사이트 communication of our ideas, both within 바카라사이트 field and to 바카라사이트 public. If we do so, 바카라사이트 field will be in high demand for a considerable time to come.

Peter Maassen is deputy director of 바카라사이트 Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies at 바카라사이트 University of Twente, The Ne바카라사이트rlands. The article was co-written with Max Otte, a consultant and adviser to 바카라사이트 Centre for 바카라사이트 Development of Higher Education, Guttersloh.