Session Information
23 SES 09 A, Research Politics and Higher Education Reform (Part 1)
Paper Session
Contribution
The adage that the university should serve the economy was settled with the industrial revolution, when it became clear that success in the capitalist system required the triad of science, technology, innovation – and the production and dissemination of knowledge to fuel it (Robinson, 2010). The Humboldtian model of the 1800s might have proclaimed the loftier aspiration of nurturing ‘Bildung’ – a competent humanist character - but it too extolled the importance of research and its efficacy in relation to epistemic, economic, social and political progress. At no period in the university’s history has it existed in splendid isolation.
Despite this observation, the contemporary discourse of the ‘knowledge economy’ has accelerated up the agendas of European policy-makers, and prompted an abundance of commentary amongst Higher Education stakeholders. The discernable novelty of contemporary discourse is that knowledge is significantly emboldened as the essence of national economic success. The inevitable and positive transition to a knowledge economy has been accepted by all advanced economies, from local to global government (Warhurst, 2008: 71; OECD, 2001; World Bank, 2002; EC, 2004).
Perhaps the most important feature of contemporary knowledge economy discourse is its definition of knowledge. Scientific knowledge is the axiomatic component of the knowledge economy. The knowledge economy is essentially a science economy, and holds within its heart a conviction in rational scientific progress, embedded within a linear model of neo-liberal economic growth. It requires techno-scientific innovation and highly-skilled workers to produce knowledge fit for commodification.
The impetus placed upon national governments is to facilitate the knowledge infrastructure sufficient for this outcome. The university remains the unrivalled producer of new knowledge and knowledge-workers (Nowotny et al, 2002: 93). Subsequently, it is subject to intensified political interest. Scientific research is financially favoured (Neumann, 2002), and students of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) are recast in terms of their economic potential. In the UK, STEM PhDs have found themselves at the focus of government policy. Viewed as excelling in technical ability – yet unable to translate this to commercial benefit – STEM PhDs now undertake transferable skills training as part of their doctorate in order to ease the forecast transition into industrial R&D (Roberts, 2002: 10).
The policy vision of a knowledge economy echoes the work of Daniel Bell (1974); Manual Castells (1996) and Nico Stehr (1994), who all placed technical knowledge at the heart of future economic success. However, it subjugates the contributions of Peter Drucker (1967); and Michael Gibbons et al (1994) who, amongst others, proposed the importance of tacit and multi-disciplinary perspectives for commercially successful knowledge.
Through a critical literature review, this paper will explore the different models of these theorists. Using a microcosm study of the UK, it will become clear that the technical model has prevailed at the policy level - a finding echoed across the advanced economies of Europe. Furthermore, the review of policy literature observes the absent voice of those at the core of Higher Education strategies designed to fuel the knowledge economy – future techno-scientific knowledge workers.
Method
Expected Outcomes
References
Bell, D. (1974). The coming of post-industrial society: a venture in social forecasting. London, Heinemann Educational. Castells, M. (2004). The rise of the network society. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Drucker, P. (1967). The Effective Executive. London: Heinemann. European Communities (EC), 2004. Facing the challenge. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Gibbons M. Nowotny, H. Schwartzman S. Scott, P. Trow, M. (1994) The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: SAGE. Marginson, S. (2007). Prospects of Higher Education. Rotterdam: Sense. Neumann, R. 2002. Diversity, doctoral education and policy. Higher Education Research and Development 21, no. 2: 167–78. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., and Gibbons, M. (2002). Re-thinking science: knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press. OECD. (2001). Devolution and globalisation. Paris: OECD. Roberts, R. (2002). SET for success: The supply of people with science, technology, engineering and mathematics skills. London: HM Treasury, 2002. Robinson, K. (2010). Changing Paradigms. Accessed: http://www.thersa.org/events/vision/archive/sir-ken-robinson (22/12/2010) Slaughter, S and Leslie, L. (1997) Academic Capitalism. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press. Stehr, N. (1994). Knowledge Societies. London: SAGE. Warhurst, C. (2008). 'The Knowledge Economy, skills and government labour market intervention'. Policy Studies. 29 (1), 71-86. World Bank. (2002). Building knowledge economies: opportunities and challenges for EU accession countries. World Bank.
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.