What metrics of excellence will society use in determining the quality
of research universities in the 21st century? Will they be the same as
those used to define the great universities of the 20th century? That is the question
I addressed in a piece I wrote as input for our 2004 strategic planning
process. It is called Change and the Research University.
As the title implies, this piece looks at a number of changes that have
occurred in American research universities, primarily during the past 60 years.
My scaffold for the discussion is the idea of modernity, which underlies much
of the rhetoric about excellence in the academy today. Many of the ideas I present were greatly
influenced by Stephen Toulmin’s wonderful book Cosmopolis , which
elegantly argues the central role of Descarte’s philosophy in defining today’s
research university. To this I add
Vannevar Bush’s Science the Endless Frontier, which seems to me to be an almost
perfect “modernization” of the Cartesian approach to knowledge. Bush’s definitions of “basic” and “applied”
research have served – and limited – us into the present. In addition, Bush introduced powerful public
policy arguments for government support of university research: such research
was needed to increase scientific capital, not to create some specific piece of
knowledge with immediate use.
I describe a number of events over the past half century that show the
weakening of Vannevar Bush’s
basic/applied dichotomy, and a
corresponding weakening of the Cartesian view of academic quality. I also describe the waning of Vannevar Bush’s
concept of policy-driven support of research, as market-oriented forces move to
the fore (see also Welcome to the Market State, Feb. 20, 2006). These two changes have major
implications concerning how universities see themselves, and how society sees
them. The piece concludes with a number
of questions about the future directions
of higher education that are suggested by these changes.
Comments