Of Minds, Markets and Machines: How Universities Might Transcend the Ideology of Commodification.

David Rooney

Greg Hearn

On a recent business trip a man asked me what I did for a living. I replied that I wrote and taught college courses.

“Oh?” he said. “Where do you teach?” A peculiarly honest answer came out of my mouth before I could think: “Nowhere,” I said.

For want of a clearer explanation of my career situation, I told the man who inquired that I teach in cyberspace. “I’m a virtual professor.”

The man’s face remained as blank as a clear summer sky. I couldn’t tell whether he was silent out of respect or keen confusion. I imagined both to be the case, so I settled in to explain what I have to explain frequently these days: the decline of the American college campus and the rise of the American educational mind – as I see it.[1]

The future of universities can be posited from an analysis of the three most obvious ingredients which appear destined to be in that future – minds, markets and machines. The characteristics of each of these suggest certain principles that will be implicated in any model of university functionality (but of course, whilst the characteristics of each may be, in theory, quintessential, the understanding of these characteristics is, in fact, clearly ideological). Our analysis attempts to deal with both essentialist characteristics as well as ideological understandings. In doing so, we treat the issues in the order of our title, that is, minds, markets and machines. We deconstruct the ideology behind the current widespread attempts to commodify the outputs of universities and argue for alternative futures based on a more accurate analysis of the essential characteristics of universities.

We argue that markets and technology have privileged a certain ideological view of higher education which is rooted in neo-classical economics and assumptions more suited to the industrial era. A Postindustrial economy requires a new view of economics which places great emphasis on the intellectual capital input into creating value. This necessarily requires challenging the orthodoxy of crude market-forces models in favour of more sophisticated and relevant models of organisation for production, and in particular for the production of knowledge.

MINDS

If in a Postindustrial society, the intellect has emerged as an increasingly important economic factor, the need to know what is going on in the minds of students and lecturers must also increase. But what do we know about minds and what does this imply for our argument? What conditions lead to the most fruitful deployment of minds? There are three relevant and well substantiated premises we can draw from the discipline of psychology.

1. There is substantial variation in the processes by which minds do their work. Note the variation is not just in the information contained in minds but in the way in which they process information. Moreover, the creation of new knowledge is often a product of juxtapositions of different minds.

2. A mind's productive capability is highly dependent on the nature of the reinforcement it receives from its environment. The evidence suggests that minds function in different ways, depending on whether they are engaged instrumentally (that is, in activities that are means to ends) or intrinsically (that is, in activities that are ends in themselves). Intrinsic engagement is an essential component of knowledge creation.

3. Minds do not exist in isolation from other minds and to at least some extent they are communicatively constructed. Therefore, the notion of individuals, or the compartmentalisation of knowledge in individuals, is problematic. That is, knowledge and knowledge creation is inherently a social process.

Recent analyses of "knowledge" emphasise its diverse, and socially constructed nature from economic and organisational perspectives.[2] As a result, scholars have been able to examine the conditions which best enable knowledge production and in doing so have been able to determine that the economic characteristics of knowledge are different to the economic characteristics of manufactured goods. Unfortunately, the economic models which have informed the more recent transformation of higher education in countries like Australia have been based on the assumption that the old economics of industrial production (manufacturing) apply to the university.

Because of a predominant emphasis on economic orthodoxy in contemporary policy discussions, the university is destined to be poorly understood and mismanaged. This situation arises because of the blindness of orthodox (industrial) economics to knowledge in general and, in particular, to tacit knowledge – wisdom, judgement, beliefs and the ability to meaningfully process information. The difficulty of dealing with tacit knowledge in arguments based on market-forces models is that they require things to be commodified by being embedded in physical objects (computers, books, blueprints etc.) to make them easily reproducible, storable and transmittable, thus making them more readily marketable. However, an ideology of commodification is simply inappropriate in an environment where knowledge, and in particular tacit knowledge, are the hard currencies.

Additionally, the mechanistic models of orthodox economics which assumes predictable economic trajectories also betray a fetish for certainty. Yet, uncertainty is a key characteristic of knowledge creation and knowledge itself. The risk attached to knowledge creation is largely because knowledge production and transfer is a human activity and thus a non-linear process. The risk attached to existing knowledge is that although it may at one moment be a justified belief, at a later moment it may be found to be unjustified. Furthermore, the meaning of any knowledge artefact has to be interpreted and each interpreter will have different characteristics which can lead to different interpretations. This being the case, economic models which rely on certainty, perfect information, perfect knowledge and so on are intrinsically inappropriate. Furthermore, unless it were possible to remove people from knowledge activities risk could never be eliminated. Of course, people cannot be removed from these activities because without human agency knowledge could not exist – in fact, knowledge only exists in relation to our ability to interpret or understand its meanings, and to our ability to hold beliefs based on these meanings. In the university there must be students and there must be teachers engaged in activities of uncertain outcomes.

Industrial economics is also based on assumptions about the exchange of goods from one person to another: that is, the process by which possession (or ownership) of goods changes. However, the exchange of knowledge does not require the "vendor" to give up any knowledge. The result is that our inventory of knowledge will not be depleted by giving it away or selling it. Therefore, the stocks of knowledge in the university are not exhausted by the transfer of knowledge to students, regardless of the number of students. This underlines the importance of facilitating exchanges (or conversations), by, for example, making access to the university as wide as possible and removing blockages (knowledge monopolies and oligopolies through, for example, patents) of access to university knowledge. However, although the inventory will not deplete it may depreciate (become obsolete) if new knowledge is not continually added to it.

Fortunately, the exchange of knowledge creates new knowledge. Exchanges between the university, students and the community are, therefore, essential to the existence of the university. Because the exchange is focused on the student teacher dialogue some of the cost of creating new knowledge is born by the student without additional monetary expense to the student. These conversations are a cost effective way for governments to generate knowledge and that means these conversations are of paramount economic and social importance. Furthermore, because the social value of knowledge increases through dissemination the increase in value is also won without additional monetary cost to society. We see here a very good investment for the university, the student and the community because each is earning increasing returns to the use of knowledge. That is, each new "bit" of knowledge costs less to create than the last one. This provides incentives, and implies considerable mutual advantages, for the joint sharing of knowledge between students, the community and the university. In this case, we can say that the cost of producing knowledge is, therefore, independent of the scale on which it is used – an invaluable phenomenon which is lost on orthodox economics. Once again, the need for openness is highlighted, but so too, it gives the scale or level of saturation of learning and knowledge creation importance. As well, scope for growth in student numbers needs to be increased by facilitating life-long-learning and by the university extending further into the community by breaking its fortress-like institutional restrictions. These are continuous processes, in which the value of knowledge is amplified indefinitely and synergistically by adding new knowledge to existing knowledge, and by diffusing knowledge.

We can infer from this section that the analysis of the mind and the economic dimensions of knowledge should lead us to privilege certain kinds of behaviour such as:

· Openness about and enthusiasm for the timely disclosure of knowledge

· Co-operative modes of knowledge production and diffusion

· Learning relationships and knowledge investment based on trust

· Diversity of minds

· Democratic values in relation to creating and diffusing knowledge

We have indicated here that there is a mismatch between the economic characteristics of knowledge and the economics of industrial production, but how badly do the behavioural characteristics encouraged by orthodox economics actively discourage the effective operation of the knowledge enterprise?

MARKETS

If we strip away the neo-liberal assumptions of neo-classical economics we expose a machinery of power that is hostile to a knowledge economy generally and to the sensible operation of the higher education system. Neo-classical economics tends to focus on achieving things such as:

· Individual competitiveness

· Reducing uncertainty

· Efficiency

· Command/control – top down – models of authority

· Adversarial economic relationships

If we quickly examine the behavioural consequences of these characteristics it will be evident that an alternative and more relevant economic model of higher education is necessary.

Individualism and the economically rational (self-centred) person is a corner stone of orthodox economics. This starting point can bring little to the concerns we have about knowledge: within neo-classical economics there is little acknowledgment of the place of co-operative behaviour, trust and openness. Reducing uncertainty arises as a prime concern of orthodox economics. This is troubling because it does not account for the inherent unpredictability of people and human systems. It is more concerned with the structures than the actors to whom it denies the freedom of non-economic rationality (efficiency rather than effectiveness in value creation is emphasised). Doing something for its own sake is incompatible with a narrow cost/benefit focus on linear input => process =>output => bottom line models where there is a fixed, predictable proportionality between input and output. The fact that learning is often a circuitous process makes it difficult to deal with under such a scenario. Command/control – top down – authority imposed through a hierarchy, derived from the owners of the means of production cannot envisage partnerships of university, student and community in an open, democratic and trusting spirit which mediates the learning process. Thus, the sterile information flows of market models cannot work when rich, nuanced, mediating conversations between community, student and university are needed. As well, command/control models take no account of the fact that tacit knowledge cannot be owned by an institutional entity; tacit knowledge resides within people. Adversarial economic relationships, or perfect (utopian) competition through markets similarly deny non-economic rationality, co-operative behaviour, trust, openness etc.[3] At best, the ideology of commodification betrays a naive, adolescent understanding of control, power, and competition.

But what is the future of a university system subjected to this kind of economics? Survival of the “fittest” means the survival of the few who are selected for not engaging in knowledge friendly behaviour and for supporting the status quo. The continued rise of the multi-national university, the demise of the local and regional university, and the contraction of disciplines like philosophy and literature are symptoms of this neo-Darwinism. Furthermore, a scan of the World-Wide Web will quickly provide a clutch of MBAs and other fee-based degrees offered by US and British universities which involve little, if any, face-to-face contact between students and lecturers, and appear to expect very little from students’ in terms of research and analytical skills – all the answers are provided in study packs, folios, prepared books of required readings, and so on. This scenario is not simply one of deliberately reduced choice, it is also one that exposes the loss of capacity to change (lost diversity and dissent) and the loss of one of the management holy grails – quality.

Eroding diversity and quality in higher education leads to equity issues as well. However, the emerging oligopoly is also likely to promote rising higher education costs and thus a further reduction in accessibility. Access, quality and diversity all appear to be suffering because of the ways that markets operate when imposed on an environment which is unsuited to commodification. By foregoing mutual benefit and obligation for mutual antagonism and exploitation, and misunderstanding the role of co-operation we hinder the growth and worthwhile use of knowledge.

It is important to note that much of what neo-liberals espouse has come to be adopted by managers. This kind of management, or managerialism, is subservient to the same neo-liberal ideology. One example of the attempt to translate industrial rationalisation to education is the concept of Total Quality Management (TQM) which has been applied extensively over the last decade in Australian universities.[4] TQM is based on the language of commodification. It concerns itself with improving the quality of product as determined by customer satisfaction.[5] However, such an approach may be dangerous when applied to a core business of universities – learning. As we have argued, education depends on students’ willingness to participate with teachers, rather than dictate to them. Furthermore, it is difficult to determine exactly what the product (or service) is, what “quality” means in relation to it, who the real end consumers of education are, and which of their understandings of ‘satisfaction’ is most important. Most importantly for our argument, TQM is about eliminating “error” (variation), yet variation (diversity) should be an objective and a sign of success rather than failure in universities. As well, TQM focuses on measurables rather than qualities, seeks to reduce costs (negative feedback rather than positive feedback), and it is more customer led (market-forces). Such a concept splits research from development with the danger that it will discourage system-wide curiosity, risk taking and innovation. While it promotes innovation in the production process it tends to be less effective at creating new products. TQM when applied to knowledge production is flawed because it conceptualises a linear, process of learning, rather than a dynamic, and unpredictable process which involves learning, unlearning and relearning. The implications of these tendencies have considerable negative impact on the vision of university managers and make it difficult for them to appreciate a non-commodity view of higher education.

Another manifestation of neo-liberal ideology in management is the ever-expanding deployment of information technology in tertiary education. Here machines – often perceived as the embodiment of efficiency, certainty and rationality – represent the third force shaping the future of the university.

MACHINES

In the last decade technological innovations have emerged as a fundamental ingredient in the future of universities, not the least for their association with the implementation of market-forces strategies. However, the convergence of information technologies and telecommunications have important implications for universities because information and communication are central to the pursuit of knowledge. We seek to isolate the essential roles of IT in learning rather than in markets. These new technologies affect[6]:

· Speed, flexibility and cost of information and materials transfer between university and student.

· Expansion of Internet connectivity due to Network Computers (NCs) and WebTV, and the anticipated increase in access to on-line education.

· Client demand: Numbers of students who actively seek courses which they can complete via their Web browser, and for whom this is the most attractive mode of study (for example, adult full-time workers updating skills) are likely to increase.

Although there are significant problems with distributed learning at tertiary level, it is appealing to academics to be able to integrate their own information delivery and student interaction with libraries and access to up-to-the-minute sources of specific and relevant information. Foreign students in a business language course can have a hyperlink to banks or to Stock Exchanges built into their notes. Medical students can access detailed human anatomies unavailable at their own universities. Virtual learning spaces like the IBM Courseroom permit functions previously not possible or much more difficult, such as the ordered recording of all contributions to a discussion in text, audio and video form simultaneously.

Of course limitations to the high tech scenario can also be identified. Perhaps the primary inhibitor to rapid preparation by universities for global, open competition in electronic environments is their 1000 year old culture. Having during that time changed little the academics now in the best positions to lead change are in many instances also those most interested in heritage-preservation and avoiding change.[7] The lecture still holds pride of place in universities as a teaching strategy. Of course, the distance education model which has had a respected place in Australian education because of the tyranny of distance has also opened a chink in the traditional pedagogy of Australia. Even among academics who accept the need to package education as a product or service, the restriction or elimination of face-to-face and vocal teaching methods that accompanies digital distance classes is a monumental change.

It is tempting to see the technological and cultural drivers identified in this issue as unstoppable and coercive forces forging the universities of the future. Clearly, technological development brings with it the interests of those who invest in its development[8] (that is, the large and powerful companies who are targeting the global education sector for commodification). As well, it is often deployed according to ideological dictates, such as, in this case, the perceived wisdom of commodifying the tertiary sector completely. However, the main lesson from Australian universities is that these macro forces are not unstoppable. Students themselves appear not to be playing out the roles fantasised for them by the architects of the Australian visions. Once again, it is shown that the deployment of technology is often frustrated by users who (according to local social needs or their own cultural understanding) may redefine, subvert or resist its use altogether.[9]

Clearly then, technology evolves in the context of political, economic and cultural forces, any of which may predominate to shape a technology’s final appropriation.[10]Technological change can, therefore, be a window of opportunity for social change (though not a sole determinant). Technological change disrupts social patterns and perhaps the balance of power, and it is at this point that those who wish to reconstitute the social fabric have their greatest opportunity to do so. But the key question is, how?

The keys here are fourfold, namely, belief, choice, education and participation. Belief is pre-eminent because our beliefs about technology and the future will either motivate or discourage us from doing anything about either. For example, the dangers of both the technological determinist and traditionalist views of technologies reside in their single-dimensional approach to the problem. The technological determinist perspective ignores economic, cultural and political dimensions of new technologies, resulting in failed investments in unused products, as well as perpetuating social inequalities in access to and degradation of innovative and diverse knowledge. On the other hand, traditionalists run the risk of allowing their ideology to prevent the recognition of opportunity. Unless we have an understanding of the socially constructed nature of future technologies we will not take the steps involved in appropriating them to serve rather than coerce.

Choice is the next principle that must be observed. Choice manifests itself in many ways – including the options that are hard-wired into new technologies, the way access to these technologies is facilitated, and the choice of software options provided. It also includes the geographical location of the terminals themselves and even what we choose to call them. Without personal choices in relation to these technologies users feel controlled by them rather than vice versa. Budgets for new technologies must include an allocation for education about the technology – not just its use.

Education for the universities of the future should begin in high schools but also should be part of the curricular of universities themselves. Thus, universities should, for example, be engaged in self reflection about their needs for and use of technology. At issue here is the pedagogical case for having technology: how well does it relate to the educational values and strategies of the university, and to the very nature of knowledge itself? Similarly, students need to be challenged to stop learning and reflect on how they are learning. Continuous "data mining", for example, should not be seen as an end in itself. Students too must have space for sense-making and creatively apply their learning.

Finally, all this implies participation in the decisions which are made at all levels regarding new technologies. Participation takes many forms, including, of course, the traditional forums which are well recognised in the democratic process. However, it also must include local participation at the point where technologies enter the lives of people. Having the appropriate processes in place to allow people to reflect on the role and usage of these technologies in their lives is often neglected in their diffusion. Yet the evidence suggests they are critical to effective appropriation.

THREE SCENARIOS FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF THE FUTURE

Our analysis of minds, markets and machines suggests multiple scenarios for the future of universities. Multiple scenarios imply, of course, that many outcomes are in fact possible. Here we sketch three possible futures of the university, namely: (1) the do nothing scenario; (2) the commodified university; and (3) the on-line learning community. We then elaborate an argument for the third scenario as our preferred alternative.

The do nothing scenario

José Ortega y Gasset, the great Spanish philosopher, predicted before World War II the depredation of civilization that would be perpetrated by trained experts, narrowly focused technologists and specialised “new barbarians.” The world was soon to see, as he had warned, “how brutal, how stupid, and yet how aggressive is the man learned in one thing and fundamentally ignorant in all else."[11]

Many universities will embrace this scenario and choose to let the momentum of history and the uncertainty of the future determine their strategy. The do nothing scenario will see either only minimal investment in information and communication technologies or will seek to graft these technologies onto existing modes of operating. That is, the basic forms and structures of the university will not change and the desire will be to force-fit the technology into the existing university structure. Technology, therefore, is used to shore up existing structures rather than to bring about change and adaptation. Although in some niche areas this could be a successful strategy, such universities will need to emphasise traditional modes of education to be successful. More likely, they will face enormous pressure from resourcing problems in competing with other universities, who will either embark on a mass on-line selling, as in scenario 2, or an on-line community approach, as in scenario 3.

The commodified university

A middle-aged computer programmer was proud of his work. “Do you know all of those middle managers who were laid off during the early 1990’s through downsizing?”, he asks (and this is my paraphrase of his words from memory). “Well, I did that. Technology that I worked on made it possible for organisations to expand managers’ span of control and thus reduce the number of layers in the hierarchy.” Those middle managers were redundant, and he was proud to have put them on the street. His next target, he told me, is college professors.

He figures that a suitable cost for four years of college education is something on the order of $60…He was alluding to the economics of the software industry, and of information generally. Nathan Myhrvold says that with personal computers you get $100 million worth of software. Lest this phenomenon seem remarkable, we are already familiar with it at the movies, where we think nothing of, as in the case of “Titanic”, getting $200 million worth of movie for $7. A college education in a box, distributed to hundreds of millions of people worldwide, could cost billions to produce and still turn a profit, at the cost of putting the great majority of now-redundant professors on the street. [12]

Under this scenario the university uses the technology that is available to move more towards a commodified model of knowledge distribution. Inflexible packaged programs are developed to be delivered electronically. The technology is used to control and monitor delivery and there is a drive to capitalize on economies of scale in the preparing and delivering of material. Technology is used to routinize learning and economies of scale result in reducing the diversity and quality of knowledge-forms and content. Under this scenario, teaching staff will be laid off or casualised and technology will be used to replace preparation and delivery, and in some cases assessment of learning. Although it will be sold as being vocationally relevant the emphasis will be on codified knowledge which is easily packaged in an on-line environment. The creation of new knowledge will be stifled because of the risks and costs involved in doing new things – which may upset the customer. Research driven teaching, for example, will become problematic.

The on-line learning community

Can people learn without sitting in neat rows in a lecture room listening to the professor – aka the Sage on the Stage? Yes, absolutely…[I] find it hard to imagine teaching anywhere other than in the liberal freedom that is cyberspace.

In cyberspace, I listen, read, comment and reflect on what my students have to say – each of them in turn. What they know, they must communicate to me in words. They cannot sit passively in the back row twiddling their mental thumbs as the clock ticks away…Thinking and writing: Aren’t these the hallmarks of a classically educated mind? The virtual university: Oddly enough, it’s just what a classical philosopher like Plato would have practiced – had there been an Internet way back when.[13]

Under this scenario the university invests wisely in technology. The technology is used to connect and increase the diversity of knowledge through networks. The role of the teacher changes to incorporate mentoring activities, and learning itself becomes more self directed. Under this scenario intellectual curiosity and vocational aspirations are developed hand-in-hand. There is a heavier public investment in maintaining the diversity of knowledge by maintaining the diversity of intellectual foci of the university and by blurring the boundary between the university and the community. This also implies that the university loses some of it monopoly status on sanctioning knowledge, insofar as it begins to share the tasks of teaching and learning with a broader community effort. Whilst new technologies are embraced, a heavy emphasis on face-to-face communication is also retained. The form of face-to-face communication is creatively considered to include more emphasis on a variety of individual and group learning contexts. Under this scenario the technology is used to connect, transform and extend rather than to control.

Implicit in these three scenarios is a recognition of different types of knowledge, namely: know-how (learning based on applied knowledge), know-who (wisdom in knowledge networks), know-what (ability to access bodies of appropriate [mostly codified] knowledge) and know-why (abstract – critical and analytical – skills). In the commodified university model, the emphasis is on know-what knowledge because on-line delivery is biased towards the easy commodification of codified knowledge. However, with the on-line community model, because of the diversity of processes involved attention can be given to stimulating all four forms of knowledge development. In fact, this scenario implicitly recognises that substantive knowledge is the most rapidly changing form of knowledge and, therefore, the emphasis is on:

· Networks of learners to address know-who

· A variety of learning processes to address know-how

· Diversity of knowledge to address know-why thus enabling critical/analytical skills

· Improvement in information systems to distribute codified knowledge to know-what entities

Below is a table which summarises the three scenarios and how universities might engage each of the four types of knowledge.

KNOWLEDGE AND LEARNING TYPOLOGY

Scenario 1

Scenario 2

Scenario 3

Know-how

Depending on tradition, a limited emphasis on practical competencies, and not very future focused.

Unlikely, too labour intensive - cannot be done by machines.

Engendered through variety in pedagogy and learning-by-doing.

Know-why

Possibly strong critical & analytical - depending on the disciplinary base (traditional or vocational).

Unlikely.

Requires reflection.

Analysis and critique through traditional forms, mentor relationships and on-line discussion.

Know-what

Possibly strong descriptive knowledge. Based on focused library searching in relation to a particular problem.

Codified, pre-packaged knowledge.

Codified knowledge, transmission and searching for particular problems and curiosity led.

Know-who

Limited networks and skills developed in know-who. Academics as gatekeepers to knowledge networks.

Limited to proprietary networks. Technology as gatekeeper to knowledge networks.

Emphasis on dynamic networks of learners engenders strong “know-who” competence.

CONCLUSION

The future of the university can only be planned for if we are in possession of a realistic view of how a knowledge economy works and what kinds of behaviours we need to encourage. First, we need to understand the need for openness about, and disclosure of, knowledge; co-operative modes of knowledge production and diffusion; learning relationships based on trust; knowledge investment based on appropriate acceptance of risk; conversation; diversity; and democratic values in relation to the creation and diffusion of knowledge. Having come upon these understandings, we realise that utopian visions of easy market mechanisms piping commodified packets of information and knowledge through vast networks of computers do not equate with the complex inter-relationships and the many other social realities of the environment we inhabit. Indeed, the neo-liberal ideology is seen to be anti-knowledge and its tendency to encourage substituting technology for people mitigates against the essentials of a knowledge environment. These are the pipe-dreams of ideologues who have not bothered to look out the window and see a changing world.