University in transition : research mission - interdisciplinarity - governance

288 Pages·1998·0.858 MB·English

by  Müller-Böling, Detlef

University in Transition
University in Transition
Research Mission – Interdisciplinarity – Governance
Detlef Müller-Böling
Evelies Mayer
Anne J. MacLachlan
Jutta Fedrowitz
(eds.)
in cooperation with:
Center for Studies in Higher Education
Center for German and European Studies,
International and Area Studies
at the
University of California Berkeley

Bertelsmann Foundation Publishers
Gütersloh 1998
Die Deutsche Bibliothek – CIP-Einheitsaufnahme
University in transition : research mission – interdisciplinarity –
governance ; [a publication of the CHE Centrum für
Hochschulentwicklung] / Detlef Müller-Böling ... (eds.). In
cooperation with: Center for Studies in Higher Education ... –
Gütersloh : Bertelsmann Foundation Publ., 1998
ISBN 3-89204-366-3
A publication of the
CHE Center for Higher Education Development

ª 1998 Bertelsmann Foundation Publishers, Gütersloh
Responsible: Dr. Jutta Fedrowitz
Copy editor: Brigitte Neuparth
Production editor: Kerstin Stoll
Cover design: Christiane Rasche-Hellmann
Typesetting: digitron GmbH, Bielefeld
Print: Druckerei Runge GmbH, Cloppenburg
ISBN 3-89204-366-3
Contents
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Anne J. MacLachlan, Jutta Fedrowitz
Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Detlef Müller-Böling, Evelies Mayer,
Anne J. MacLachlan, Jutta Fedrowitz
Research Universities – Access, Opportunity,
and Research Mission
Present Challenges of the Research University . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Richard Atkinson
Research Funding and Its Effect on the Research Agenda . . . . . . 41
Chang-Lin Tien
The American Research University:
Time for Some Course Corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Kenneth Keller
The Ongoing Evolution of the American Research University . . . . 65
Cornelius Pings
5
Development, Problems, and Reform Issues of the
German System of Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Rainer Künzel
Strategies of Formation and Implementation
of Research Missions
Structures of the German Research System . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Dagmar Schipanski
Strategies of Formation and Implementation
of Research Missions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Werner Meißner
Sustaining the Research Mission of the University of California . . 133
C. Judson King
Launching a National Research Endeavor in the United States . . . 143
Patricia J. Gumport
Interdisciplinarity: A New Academic Culture –
Conditions for Its Success
Interdisciplinarity, and Its Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
Jutta Fedrowitz
Interdisciplinarity: The Endless Frontier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
Evelies Mayer
Clio and German Studies: Reflections on a
Tenuous Relationship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
Konrad Jarausch
Intervention on Interdisciplinary Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
James Rolleston
6
Evolution of Berkeley’s Interdisciplinary Program
in Microelectronics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
David Hodges
External and Internal Governance of Universities
The Management of the Modern University . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
Steven Muller
University Governance as Conflictual Management . . . . . . . . . 231
Detlef Müller-Böling
Between Desire for the Status Quo and the Pressure to Conform:
The German Universities and Their Search for Quality Standards . . 247
Klaus Anderbrügge
Innovations in Research Despite Budget Cuts . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
Jürgen Heß
Governance in the University of California:
The Transformation of Politics into Administration . . . . . . . . . 265
Martin Trow
Different Ways of Decision Making in Higher Education and
Higher Education Policy in Germany and the United States . . . . . 287
Hans Weiler
ConclusionandPerspectivesfortheFutureoftheResearchUniversity
The American University Always in Transition:
From a Glorious Past to a Dreadful Future, 1900–2000 . . . . . . 297

Clark Kerr
Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307
7
Summary
Anne J. MacLachlan, Jutta Fedrowitz
The major theme of this book is how the many kinds of changes and
reforms which the research university needs to make to respond to
conditionstodaycouldbemade.Whileoverallgovernmentsupportisa
major concern in both Germany and the United States, the issues go
beyondmoneytothebasicorganizationofresearchuniversities:main-
taining the integrity of basic university research while collaborating
more with industry, recovering and sustaining the curriculum when
research predominates, addressing the unruly development of instruc-
tional technology, coping institutionally with interdisciplinarity, man-
aging such institutions cost-effectively and efficiently given the sub-
stantial barriers within and without. Above all, every author refers in
one way or another to the overwhelming need to secure and preserve
universityautonomy.ForGermanuniversities,autonomyisstillagoal,
with many legal and political barriers preventing realization. For
Americanuniversities,politicalintrusions,callsforgreaterscrutinyand
accountability threaten autonomy.
Research Universities – Access,
Opportunity and Research Mission
Thefiveauthorsinthefirstsectionofthebookexaminebytheconnec-
tion between research and teaching at both American research univer-
sities and German universities. The first two, Richard Atkinson,
Chang-Lin Tien, and Cornelius Pings focus predominantly on the
9
From: Detlef Müller-Böling, Evelies Mayer, Anne J. MacLachlan, Jutta Fedrowitz (eds.),
University in Transition. Research Mission – Interdisciplinarity – Governance
implications of research funding for the discovery of new knowledge,
discussthe perceiveddecline in federalfunding,and the consequences
of working with private funding sources. The first two discuss the
innovative response to this situation in California, while Pings discus-
ses the relationship to graduate programs. Kenneth Keller moves the
discussion into how the emphasis on research is having detrimental
consequences for undergraduate education at the research university
and how this might be corrected. The only German presenter in this
section, Rainer Künzel, provides a comprehensive discussion of the
issuesoftheGermanhighereducationsector.Notwithstandingthevery
differentlegalandfinancialconstraintsonGermanhighereducationin
comparison to the American, the centrality of research raises the same
issues about (under)funding and seeking relationships in the private
sector; as well as the union of research and teaching that does not
necessarily serve university students effectively at the moment. All of
the authors are keenly aware of the “transition,” but advocate careful
planning and a clear sense of where one is going.
Richard Atkinson, President of the University of California system,
discusses the role of the research university in the U.S. economy em-
ploying the example of the leading role of research universities in
generating and sustaining economic growth. Using “new growth theo-
ry”whicharguesthathalfofU.S.economicgrowthsinceWorldWarII
is the result of investment in research and development (R&D), he
discusses the critical role the discovery of knowledge plays in driving
the American economy.In California in particular, new job creation is
the result of the various high technology industries which owe their
existence directly to the research universities in the state. The Univer-
sity of California is making it a priority to encourageand facilitate the
kindofknowledgetransfersbetweentheUniversityandindustrywhich
sustain economic growth while providing support for academic re-
searchers and their graduate students. The vehicle is the Industry-Uni-
versityCooperativeResearchProgram,whichisalsoamechanismpar-
tially addressing the anticipated cutbacks in federal research support.
Chang-LinTien,ChancelloroftheUniversityofCaliforniaBerkeley
until July 1997, discusses how research funding has had an impact on
the research agenda. Beginning with a history of how federal funding
for non-defense research and development has declined in the U.S.
10
since World War II, and notably between 1992 and 1995, he depicts a
somber future. California, which receives nearly a quarter of federal
funding for R&D would appear especially vulnerable, particularly
when industry is also reducing research support. However, at U.C.
Berkeley imaginative measures are being adopted to counteract the
impending shrinkage of state support.
Collaborationwithindustrytoreplacesomepublicfundingisoneof
these measures, which despite serious potential drawbacks, should
actually enhance higher education as a vehicle of economic growth.
LikeAtkinson,Tiendiscusses“newgrowththeory”whichisshapinga
newparadigminuniversity-industryrelations,spearheadedbybiotech-
nology. At U.C. Berkeley various consortia have been developed to
optimizetheserelationswiththeresultthatmorethan20percentofits
currentresearchbudgetcomesfromprivatefunds.Goodasthisis,Tien
makes a plea for university presidents and chancellors to develop an
overall strategy for research direction and funding support. Only by
carefully managing your research portfolio-planning where you want
to go and how to get there – will success be achieved.
Kenneth Keller, former President of the University of Minnesota,
looksbeyondthepresentsituationoftheAmericanuniversitywhichis
often described in terms of a series of issues involving money, to
examinethemuchmoredifficultandsubtlepressureshighereducation
is under to answer the question, “So why the need for change?” In his
view serious planning has been neglected as budgeting has been al-
lowed to set priorities. To contextualize planning approaches, Keller
presents a short overview of the history of U.S. higher education in
order to demonstrate, among other things, the development of contra-
dictory expectations about the function of higher education. Apprecia-
tionoftoday’sdifficultiesandconcernsasasuccessstoryofU.S.higher
education is simply misleading.
Success itself has generated some of these concerns. Since in the
U.S. higher education consumes almost 3 percent of gross domestic
product (GDP), it has awakened calls for accountability and much
greater public scrutiny. This in turn generates tensions because of the
broadrangeofthesecallsandtheneedforautonomyfortheuniversity
– a basic conflict. For Keller the issues are serious and substantive to
the extent he feels that it is time for some course corrections.
11
There are four areas of concern; undergraduate education, the re-
search/teaching model, the constraints of discipline based organiza-

tional structures, and achieving inter-institutional coordination. All of
these areas embody current and historical conflicts, but they are all
aggravated in the setting of the research university – usually to the
detriment of the undergraduate. They need to be addressed not only to
restorecredibilitytohighereducation,buttosetanew,plannedcourse
to generate long needed corrections. After the magnificent history of
U.S. higher education, planning to meet the changed demands of our
times is quite possible – indeed, it has already begun.
CorneliusPings,PresidentoftheAmericanAssociationofUniversi-
ties,focusesontheinterrelationshipofdoctoraleducationandresearch
at the 100 or so leading U.S. universities and how both are relatively
recent phenomena – indeed, in their current form, products of the
post-WorldWarIIera.Withinthese50yearssince1947anidealsetof
relationships seems to have evolved. But, he sees symptoms of unease
relatedtofinancingofresearch,thecostsoftuitionanddigitalinforma-
tion technology. This unease is heightened by often mindless calls for
change by politicians and the media without any notion of what to
change to.
Within this context graduate education has produced a number of
nationaldiscussionswhichPingscallsthemythsof“humanbondage,”
“too many is not enough,” and the “Broad-Based Specialist.” Having
disposed of these, he argues that the reality is that there are too many
Ph.D. programs. Another dimension of change in the U.S. which
affects both graduate education and university research is concerned
with changes in industry – the great reduction in private labs, the ever
shrinkingtimeoftheproductcycleoftechnologytomarketplace,andthe
expectation that university research might fill the void. Like Atkinson
and Tien, Pings, while welcoming new industry-university relation-
ships, argues for great caution so that intellectual freedom is sustained
and faculty do not become “patent whores.”
Overall the American research university is still an institution of
stability and continuity. Such changes as need to be made to meet the
exigencies of the present need to be made thoughtfully to preserve
unfettered inquiry and relevant teaching – and not in responseto unin-
formed political goading.
12