INDUSTRY AND HIGHER EDUCATION: A QUESTION OF VALUES

Mary Tasker & David Packham,

University of Bath.

I Introduction

In this paper we are defining industry broadly as embracing the activities and value base of Western industrial capitalism. The term 'university' is also used in its wider meaning of higher education as a whole in this country. The aim of this paper is to disentangle the underlying values of both industry and higher education, and to consider the nature and extent of the value-conflict which exists between them.

In the last decade the relationship between the two has become unequal and, in the world of higher education, destabilising. Universities have become pragmatic places, driven by the need to raise money in ever increasing amounts, and to this end they are forging intimite links with industry. These links range from small-scale local enterprises to huge contracts with multi-national corporations. Despite these mutually profitable commercial ventures, profound differences between the two worlds of business and academe remain. We argue that these differences which are about ends and means, values and aspirations, should be acknowledged and made explicit. This paper explores the value positions that underpin industry and higher education and draws attention to the value shifts that are taking place in both. We contend that academic and business values are incommensurable, and that in any relationship between the two recognition of fundamental differences is essential.

II The Nature of Values

A growing emphasis on the question of values, both in academic life and amongst the wider public, has tended to blur distinctions that may exist between words like 'values', 'morals' and 'ethics'. They all carry connotations of 'good' and 'ought' and are concerned with human ends , not just means. In the past 'ethics' has been seen as a second order activity which systematises morals - the actual ways in which we conduct our lives - into a coherent body of knowledge or theoretical framework. Values have a more personal meaning which is derived from what is of value and gives purpose to individuals or groups. A value position may contain within it contradictions which may or may not be resolvable. Current discourse often uses the three terms ambiguously: thus 'value position' becomes interchangeable with 'ethical frameworks' or 'moral systems'.

If we use these terms loosely and ambiguously it is perhaps because of the need of humanity for some kind of overarching set of moral standards - what Schumacher called 'A Guide for the Perplexed' [Schumacher 1977]. These have sometimes been provided by authority or tradition. It was a tenet of the Enlightenment that reason, freed from external constraints, would lead to 'a universal civilisation undergirded by a shared, rational morality' [Gray 1991; v. also MacIntyre 1988, p.6; MacIntyre 1990, p.225]. On a practical level this has never been achieved, and, as MacIntyre points out 'questions of truth in morality....have become matter for private allegiances' [MacIntyre 1990, p. 217, cf. MacIntyre 1988, p.3], an allusion to the moral relativism which he believes to be a mark of the postmodernist condition.

In these circumstances, contradictions between, and indeed within, value positions are common. What MacIntyre says of justice may surely be applied to value positions in general: the conflicts between the better articulated value positions are not conflicts between the rational and irrational, but between the rationalities of different traditions. The different traditions may have incompatible premises. It is only by examining the bases of the different traditions that a better understanding of the differences and any hope of agreement can be obtained. Otherwise arguments come to be used as weapons, not as expressions of rationality [MacIntyre 1988, p.5]

Isaiah Berlin argues that there are indeed ultimate values, but that these often come into conflict with one another. These value-conflicts cannot be resolved by recourse to higher reason because the values at stake are 'incommensurables' [Gray 1991]. In a liberal society, such conflicting values and the choices that have to be made among them should be clearly brought out, and not hidden by ambiguity of language or ignored under the influence of financial pressure or governmental dictat. Thus, in any dialogue between industry and higher education, we contend that the educational values of academic freedom, academic rigour and the disinterested pursuit of knowledge should be made explicit. If these values contradict those of industry then the ensuing value conflict needs to be grappled with in the light of a mutual understanding of the different value systems.

III Industry and Values

(i) Can industry be value-free?

It might at first sight appear that industry is either per se amoral - having no values at all, or value free. It may be true that when industrial workers punch a keyboard or operate a lathe they are not taking a value position, but nevertheless there are fundamental objections to the idea that the conduct of industry is amoral. Decisions involving moral choices have to be made, whether they are recognised as such or not. The results of these decisions will everywhere be apparent. They will determine, among other things, the nature of the product, management structures, personnel policies, relationships with customers and attitudes to the environment. A corporation cannot both give and deny equal opportunities to its employees, insist on and be indifferent to integrity in its dealings with customers, be unscrupulous and scrupulous in its environmental policies.

It might still be argued that industry is value free and can be genuinely neutral and impartial in the conduct of its affairs and that the corporation, qua corporation, need take no value position, but merely respect the values of others. We would contend that this is not possible either. In discussing a somewhat similar 'purely rational' impartial concept of justice, MacIntyre [1988, p. 3] points out that 'its requirement of disinterestedness in fact covertly presupposes one particular partisan type of account of justice'. Essentially the same can be said of a 'value free' position on morality: its apparent neutrality presupposes that the issues concerned are of little consequence. No corporation can or could adopt a 'value free' attitude to any matter which had a serious bearing on its business, for instance theft of its property by its employees. Moreover, as we have argued in our discussion on amorality, decisions have to be made which inevitably imply taking a value position. To urge, as Milton Friedman has [Friedman 1962], that the limits of social responsibility of an industrial corporation are 'to make as much money for their stockholders as possible' is no less to take a moral position than BP's chairman, Robert Horton's acceptance of the obligation 'to meet the aspirations of....the communities which (the company) serves' [Mycroft 1991]: it is just that their moral values are different.

Thus industry cannot be amoral, nor can it operate in a value free way. The Council for Industry and Higher Education acknowledges this when in its recent paper 'The Humanities and the Working World' [CIHE 199Oa] it states that 'Industry and commerce play a rôle in forming and expressing the moral values of the time'.

(ii) Industry and contemporary values.

We would accept this CIHE statement and argue that industry and commerce play a major rôle in shaping the value systems of individuals and of society in general. This influence is the more pervasive because it is largely unacknowledged. In the West the concept 'industry' was for many years unproblematic, with the consequence that its values were widely accepted. Few people questioned the apparent need of Western industry to produce more goods, to exploit more raw materials or to penetrate more markets.

These capitalist values are in no sense immutable or inevitable. In the consumerist culture of the West, the accumulation of worldly goods is seen as essential to existence - as a 'good' in itself. In an historical sense, however, consumerism is a social artifact: a largely 2Oth century phenomenon. It represents the coming to fruition of the particular values which underpinned the Industrial Revolution of the late 18th and early 19th century and which are at the core of the capitalist system: the pursuit of profit and the maximisation of economic growth. During other periods of human existence and in other cultures today, these values did not and do not prevail. For example, the 14th century Pyrenean community of Montaillou was committed to a quite different kind of growth - spiritual growth - and the pursuit of private profit was deplored [Le Roy Ladurie 1978]. Today, while the overriding rôle of industry is still to maximise growth and profits, there is increasingly an awareness of environmental and societal issues, representing shifts in consciousness which might indicate changing values.

(iii) New values in industry?

The key words of the '80s - enterprise and entrepreneurialism - have become tarnished in the eyes of many by the intensity and scale of business malpractice and environmental abuse with which they were associated. In 1985 Ivan Boetsky advised students at the University of California that 'Greed is healthy....You can be greedy and still feel good about it'. Boetsky ended up in prison [Kinsman 1991]. Such values are becoming less acceptable in the 199O's. For example, Peter Morgan, Director General of the Institute of Directors, has stated that 'industry needed to show that the conduct of business is basically a moral matter' and that it has to come to terms with issues of social responsibility [Morgan 1990a]. The environment is another area where industry in the '90s is eager to manifest its social conscience. Peter Meyer-Dohm, Director of Central Training at Volkswagen, sees the need for greater 'environmental awareness' as one of five major challenges facing industry in the 1990s [Meyer-Dohm 1990] and the CBI's new quarterly newsletter and new Environmental Business Forum are further examples. New literature in business and management contributes to the 'ethical awareness' trend. While much of this literature is to do with business ethics per se, for example 'Ethics at Work' in the Harvard Business Review series, at another level there is a growing consciousness of a need for a more fundamental value shift. Such books as 'The Creative Manager' (1989) by Roger Evans and Peter Russell and 'Integrative Management: Creating Unity from Diversity'(1991) by Pauline Green, reflect what might be called 'New Age' business values. They use terms, seen by many as jargonistic, like 'the holistic work place', and advocate human management methods such as 'revisioning', 'self-exploration' and 'self-discovery'.

Perhaps a more potent force for change is the transition from the Fordist industrial model, typified by large-scale assembly line production, to high technology, small scale workshop production, known as 'post-Fordism'. The narrow skills of the worker in the Fordist factory, fragmented by Taylorist theories of scientific management [Taylor 1914] into mechanical tasks, are replaced in the post Fordist system by the broad based skills needed in flexible manufacturing systems. Traditional Fordist values of hierarchy, power and control give way to post Fordist 'new values' of autonomy, responsibility and collaboration. Since the 1980s the seedbed for post Fordist industrial developments has been the Emilia-Romagna area of North Italy home to 'hundreds of thousands of small-scale firms...calling forth skill, responsinbility and artistry from democratically organised workforces' [Krimerman 1988]

In Britain the transition to post Fordism is hesitant and hardly figures in popular discussions about the future of British industry. Some academic economists predict that a Fordist mass manufacturing model of work organisation might continue in conjunction with post Fordist technology [Jones 1988]. Whatever the extent of the shift to new work systems and new values, the fundamental question needs to be asked: are such values any more than ethical pretensions on the part of industry, more to do with image than with reality? Jonathan Porritt, until recently Director of the Friends of the Earth, has argued strongly that this is the case. At the Dartington Hall Conference, Easter 199O, convened to 'test the hypothesis that business has a vital rôle to play at the leading edge of benign global change' he maintained that business has so far had little impact on the four variables that threaten the environment: 'increasing numbers of people making increasing demands on a finite resource base with a limited capacity to absorb our pollution' [Porritt 1990]. As long as industry remains committed to the tenets of capitalism it is not possible for it to do more than pay lip service to the 'new values'. For Porritt, and others on the 'ethical' and 'green' side of industry, a genuine value shift requires the abandonment of the principle of ever increasing production and consumption and the adoption of the opposing principle of limits to growth, a principle which may entail zero growth or sustainable development [Daly 1987, Pearce et al. 1990]. Otherwise, as the German 'green' and political theorist, Rudolf Bahro, says 'the greenest of business person is doing little more than cleaning the teeth of the dragon' [quoted in Porritt ibid.].

These are strong words and suggest that 'new values' in industry are as yet embryonic. But debate about the future of capitalism is growing under the pressure of environmental and social problems. At the heart of the debate lie incommensurable values: on the one hand, economic growth as the means to the end of acting responsibly to stakeholders, and on the other, limits to growth as the means to the end of achieving ecological and human rights in the world. In a civilised society such a profound disagreement which has significance for the 'good' of individuals and of the world as a whole should be the subject of open and disciplined enquiry. It is our contention that one of the main purposes of institutions of higher education is ideally to provide the forum for such enquiry: in MacIntyre's words, to 'provide a place of systematic encounter for rival standpoints concerned with moral and theological justification' [MacIntyre 1990]

IV Higher Education and Values

In the 1990's higher education will be transformed by the ending of the binary divide and by the expansion of student places. The traditional values of an elite university system, in particular the disinteresteed pursuit of knowledge within a collegial community, might seem to have little relevance to a mass system of higher education. AH Halsey's recent survey, however, indicates that most academics remain committed to these values, while at the same time supporting the idea of an expanded unitary system [Halsey 1992]. Thus, in the shift to a mass system it should be possible, and we would argue essential, to put at the forefront the traditional purposes of higher education, namely the widening of the critical condition and the creation of an educated public [Gutmann 1987]. These goals are most likely to be achieved by a liberal education adapted to the needs of a larger and more varied student population. A liberal education , in the sense of one that frees the mind, is, ideally, as integral to a scientific and technological education as it is to an education in the arts and the humanities. It aims to educate students who can 'think autonomously , critically and dialogically' [McMurtry 1991] within an insititution of higher learning that is committed to upholding standards of freedom and democracy, and to acting as a source of independent criticism within its areas of comnpetence. A liberal university is one that is free to live out the traditional values of intellectual integrity and freedom of expression in teaching and research.

The changes of the 1990s coincide with what many have referred to as a 'crisis' in higher education [Scott 1984; Reeves 1988; Halsey 1992]. This is largely a crisis of confidence resulting partly from external factors - government interventions into institutions' internal affairs and the financial restrictions of the last decade [Allington 1991, Swinnerton-Dyer 1991]- and, perhaps even more significantly, from a loss of a sense of intellectual purpose. Theories of cultural relativism and the cultural incoherence of post-modernism have swept away the Arnoldian certainties of the 19th century [Scott 1984, Barnett 1990, p.10]. In 1932 A.N. Whitehead used terms like 'excitement', 'imagination' and the 'transformation of knowledge' when describing the function of the university. Today, with some honorable exceptions, there is little excitement or zest in the world of higher education, and the traditional purposes of the university are submerged in the language of technology and managerialism. The language used, for example, the CVCP's document 'The State of the Universities', 1991 is saturated in the metaphors of managerialism - 'customers', 'accountability', 'value added', 'quality control'.

The crisis has stimulated a number of writers to strive to adapt the traditional values of a liberal university education to present needs. Amy Gutmann [1987] develops the argument that universities need the 'academic freedom of scholars' and the 'freedom of the academy' (institutional freedom), so that they can 'serve democracy as sanctuaries of nonrepression', giving protection against the 'threat of democratic tyranny' - the oppression of minority views by the majority. These freedoms place serious obligations on universities, but will enable them to serve society well by educating officeholders in a realm where intellectual integrity and the moral principles of nonrepression and nondiscrimination flourish, not just by acting as a gatekeeper for office.

Anthony O'Hear, Marjorie Reeves and Ronald Barnett would seem to be concerned with the primacy of intellectual values in higher education. O'Hear argues for the 'cultivation .... of a sort of wisdom, as opposed to skills, techniques or money-earning capacities'. Reeves makes a moving plea for a holistic approach to knowledge in order to counteract the fragmenting effect of over-specialisation and the 'prepackaging of knowledge'. Barnett believes that students should be encouraged to develop an understanding of the epistemological foundations of the disciplines they study as part of the process of 'freeing the mind' and 'bringing about a new level of self-empowerment' [O'Hear 1988; Reeves 1988; Barnett 1990].

Other writers in the field, however, view the university in very different ways. R. Stankiewicz [1986: v.Tasker & Packham 1990] sees the 'ideal type' of university as one 'designed to function as an integrating factor in the larger R & D system' with the prime aim of 'technology generation and transfer'. The importance of different areas of knowledge is decided by their potential for commmercial exploitation, for example electronics, computer science and biotechnology. Indeed Douglas Hague [1991] considers that universities will be only one among many 'knowledge businesses', taking the form of a 'holding company with all kinds of subsidiaries'.

It is likely that the outward forms and structures of the university will change radically in the coming decade. Closer links with industry and increased government intervention will play their part in changing the face of higher education. We would however agree with Haslsey's conclusion that 'the essential idea of a university will remain' [Halsey 1992].

V University/industry collaboration

During the past decade universities, beset by financial problems, responded to the Government's plea to raise more income from industry and commerce. Links between industry and higher education have multiplied remarkably. In an editorial in THES entitled 'The Industry Connection' we read 'There are now almost too many examples of successful collaboration between industry and higher education' [THES 28.6.91]. In a survey sponsored by the Council for Industry and Higher Education the 'flow of support' from industrial companies to higher education is reported to be rapidly increasing [CIHE 1991]. The percentage of university recurrent income from research contracts with business has more than doubled between 1982/83 and 1988/1989 amounting to £91 million or 2.9% of the total in the latter year. Gareth Williams and Cari Loder, who contributed to the survey, believe that 'the total monetary value of the contributions of industry and commerce to 'Higher Education PLC' in 199O/1991 is likely to be of the order of £3OO million', around 6 to 7% of universities' annual income. This figure includes contract research, various forms of teaching, donations and student sponsorship [THES 28.6.91].

What does industry expect for all this investment? According to the CIHE, it welcomes the opportunity 'to join in the debate about the future shape of the the U.K.'s education structures' [CIHE 1991]. Peter Morgan, director general of the Institute of Directors, has already entered this debate with some force. He has argued for changes in the funding of higher education in order to 'break the grip of the academic establishment' saying that it is time to break the 'academic mould' which he sees as the single most important reason for the under performance of the U.K. economy [Morgan 1990b]. In more moderate language, which may mean much the same, the CIHE urges that collaboration should enable industry to influence 'curricular thinking and institutional thinking'.

The implications of a higher education system strongly influenced by industry are considerable. Sponsorship of chairs and other staff posts could easily mean that occupants had divided loyalties. Sponsored teaching and research could be directed to avoid issues which were of legitimate intellectual and public concern, but which might have an adverse effect on company profits [cf. Turner 1988]. Large scale investment by a single industry in a science or engineering department could lead to both the industrialists and the academics regarding the university facilities as an extension of the industrial research facility, with a consequent requirement for instant response to market demands, reducing the efficiency, or indeed the existence, of long term research. In collaborative ventures the crucial question is whether the safeguards which protect the legitimate values and interests of both sides are maintained. On the academic side these include, as we argued above, 'intellectual integrity and freedom of expression in teaching and research'

Collaborative Courses in Higher Education

In recent years a number of collaborative courses have been established at both graduate and undergraduate level. The Council for Industry and Higher Education (CIHE) is enthusiastic about 'courses planned, directed, taught, assessed, equipped and paid for jointly by companies and [higher education]'. It has recently published a survey of 159 collaborative courses of which 56% were first degree courses [CIHE 1990b]. The CIHE noted that many academics were concerned, especially about first degrees which they felt were unlikely to 'achieve the balanced educational experience necessary for undergraduates'. Arguing, as we are, that universities must stand by their 'intellectual integrity and freedom of expression' we share their concern, especially when we read [ibid.] that a number of the joint course direction committees had a majority of industrial members, and that in a few cases 'more than 50% of the teaching [was given by] visiting lecturers from industry'. The industrial group 'made major inputs into the philosophy and structure of the programme' for a BA in retail marketing, although the academic staff were left to develop 'the detailed syllabus'. The sponsors of a BA course in police studies demanded a 'tailor-made programme and chose the topic areas'.

These examples, taken from a publication which its authors hope will encourage the establishment of more collaborative courses, shows how difficult it must be to for higher education to maintain the detachment necessary (in Gutmann's words) to 'educate officeholders' rather than merely to 'act as gatekeeper of office', when industry, or even a single company, has such a large influence over the 'planning, direction, teaching and assessment' of a degree course.

Sponsored research

Much of the traditional intra-mural research aimed at publication and higher degrees is now sponsored directly by industry and by national and local government departments. Such a development may represent a valuable diversification of sources of university income, but there is evidence from library catalogues that access to an increasing proportion of higher degree theses is restricted for an increasing number of years [Tasker and Packham 1989]. Research contracts associated with Government agencies which include terms giving the sponsor a veto over publication and ownership of the results are being increasingly used in the fields of education and of health, and represent a serious challenge to deeply held academic values [Caudrey 1987; Official Report of the House of Lords 1988; Elliott 1989; Fitz-Gibbon, Furlong and Murphy 1991].

Research Councils in the U.K. are government bodies charged with the responsibility for sustaining fundamental research in higher education. The Science and Engineering Research Council's (SERC) 'Co-operative Research Grant' scheme was established to encourage collaboration between industry and the university. Although the industrial contribution may be as small as 10 or 20% of that of the SERC [SERC 1991], such arrangements can give rise in practice to secrecy agreements requiring those involved in the research to keep secret all information and results related to, or arising from the project, and not to disclose them to any person other than officers of the company. This contrasts sharply with the traditional practice in the world of higher education of wide discussion of scientific results with students and colleagues both within an institution and within other institutions.

Some particularly worrying evidence from the UK and other countries which showed interference with the canons of free enquiry was published in 1987 by Clare Wenger in an edited volume entitled 'The research relationship'. Examples are given of sponsors blocking work in certain areas and suppressing the publication of unwelcome results either by direct instruction or by exerting improper pressure. The author of a contribution describing a project on gender discrimination felt the need to protect herself by use of a pseudonym and to disguise the identity of the research sponsor.

VI Incommensurable Values

We have argued thus far for the importance of an understanding of the values which underpin industry and higher education. Although we have tried to show that, within both, significant shifts are taking place in response to changes in society in the late twentieth century, the two worlds of business and academe remain profoundly different. The purpose of industry is to generate profit for private gain, usually in competition with other companies. The profit so generated may or may not benefit society; the concept of public good is not central to industry's concerns. The purpose of higher education is to generate knowledge through collaboration between scholars, not competition, and in such a way that society as a whole benefits.

It is possible that these differences will become obscured in the changes that are taking place in both higher education and industry. We suggested earlier that developments in industry may bring about a shift from the Fordist paradigm of hierarchy, power and control - values implicit in the corporate model of management - to the post Fordist values of collaboration, autonomy and responsibility - values fundamental to the academic or collegial style of management. At the same time, however, it could be said that higher education is moving closer to corporate patterns of organisation involving senior management teams, strategic plans, line managers and accountable cost centres [Jarratt 1985], and as a result has taken on some managerial values. When the CIHE urges that collaboration should enable industry to influence 'curricular thinking and institutional thinking' and provide 'a means to encourage industry and its customers to "speak the same language"' [CIHE 1990b], it is reflecting this apparent drift towards convergence, and is assuming a commensurability of values between higher education and industry which we contend does not exist.

Several authors writing from different national perspectives have drawn attention to the profound difference that exists between higher education and the world of industry. Hervé Carrier [1988], former Rector of the Gregorian University in Rome, contrasts pragmatism, profit and competition with disinterested knowledge and disinterested research. He expresses the prime goal of a university as 'l'élévation intellectuelle et morale des êtres humains'. Although other institutions are capable of providing professional training or of conducting research (cf. Stankiewicz and Hague loc. cit.), it is only the university which approaches these activities on the moral level with the object of promoting open enquiry and of service to humanity . The moral dimension is essential in confronting many of the crucial issues which trouble society today. The issues that Carrier has in mind are primarily ethical and cultural in nature; they include protection of the environment, genetic engineering, tensions between different races and cultures in society, the consequences of the post-industrial economy on unemployment, especially among the young and issues of global peace and justice. Amy Gutmann, an American political philosopher, draws attention to the the contrast between the 'quantified values of the market' and the 'non-quantifiable values of intellectual excellence and integrity, and the supporting moral principles of non-repression and non-discrimination' [Gutmann 1987]. She argues that a university serves society well by 'appreciating, rather than abolishing, the discrepencies between intellectual standards and market practices, since such discrepencies often signal a moral failure of the market rather than an intellectual failure of the university' [ibid. emphasis added].

The stark contrast between the defining principles of education and the market-place has been the subject of recent debate in Canada, where John McMurtry of Guelph University has analysed the respective goals, motivations, methods and standards of excellence. He concludes that the 'differences between the two are incompatible and incommensurable' [McMurtry 1991].

In this paper we have analysed these value positions because we regard them as representing not so much the rational and irrational as, in MacIntyre's terms, the rationalities of different traditions, not so much the contrast between right and wrong, as the differences between incommensurable values. It follows from this, in McMurtry's words 'the economic determination of education must entail ex hypothesi the systematic negation of educational goals and standards' [McMurtry 1991]. We are members of a technological university and are far from being opposed to collaboration with industry. Indeed we have been involved in it for many years. However, unless the fundamental differences are recognised and respected, there will inevitably be destructive conflict where the interests and concerns of industry and academe meet.

REFERENCES

ALLINGTON, NFB 1991 'Survey into Business Attitudes to Universities', Industry & Higher Education 5(2), 120. This paper quotes OECD statistics showing that the average rate of real public educational expenditure per student in the UK fell by 3.1% p.a. in the period 1984-87.

BARNETT, R 1990. The Idea of Higher Education, Open University Press.

CARRIER, H. 1988. 'Les Universités et le Devenir de l'Europe', CRE Action no. 2, p.19.

CAUDREY, A 1987, 'Whose research?' New Society, 23rd Oct. p.12.

CIHE 1990a. 'Towards a partnership: the humanities and the working world', Council for Industry and Higher Education, London.

CIHE 1990b. 'Collaborative Courses in Higher Education', Council for Industry and Higher Education, London.

CIHE 1991. 'The Business Contribution to Higher Education', Council for Industry and Higher Education, London.

DALY. H 1987. 'The economic growth debate', J. Environ. Econ. & Management 14(4), 323.

ELLIOTT, J. 1989, 'Towards a code of practice for funded educational research', Research Intelligence, Feb. p. 14.

FITZ-GIBBON, C., FURLONG, J. and MURPHY, R. 1991, 'Educational research contracts a survey', Nottingham University School of Education, April 1991 (v. also THES 13.12.91, p. 5)].

FRIEDMAN, M 1962 'Capitalism and Freedom', University of Chicago Press, p. 133.

GRAY, J 1991. 'The unavoidable conflict', TLS 5th July.

GUTMANN, A. 1987. 'Democratic Education', Princeton University Press.

HALSEY, A.H. 1992. 'Decline of the Donnish Dominion', Clarendon Press, Oxford.

HAGUE, D. C. 1991. 'Beyond Universities: a New Republic of the Intellect', Hobart Paper, IEA, London.

JARRATT REPORT 1985. Efficiency studies in universities, Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, London.

JONES, B. 1988. 'Post-Fordist Production, a New Rôle for Labour?', Second International Colloquium on the Sociology of Work, 1988, Johns Hopkins University, Bologna.

KINSMAN, F 1991. The Times, 10th October.

KRIMERMAN, L. 1988. 'C. George Benello: architect of liberating work', Changing Work no. 7 (Winter 1988) cited in Ward, C. 'Welcome, Thinner City', Bedford Square Press, 1989.

LE ROY LADURIE, E. 1978. 'Montaillou', Scolar Press, London.

MACINTYRE, A 1988. 'Whose Justice? Which Rationality?', Duckworth, London.

MACINTYRE, A 1990. 'Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry: Encyclopædia, Genealogy, and Tradition', Duckworth, London.

McMURTRY, J 1991. 'Education and the Market Model', J. Philosophy of Education 25, 209.

MEYER-DOHM, P 1990. 'Graduates of higher education: what do employers expect in the 1990s?' in 'Industry and Higher Education', ed. PWG Wright, SRHE & Open University Press.

MORGAN, P 1990a. Address to the Institute of Directors Convention, 27th Feb., published Institute of Directors, 116, Pall Mall, London.

MORGAN, P 1990b. 'Breaking the academic mould', BTEC Council strategic seminar, 28th June, published Institute of Directors, 116, Pall Mall, London.

MYCROFT, I 1991, 'Changing Corporate Culture', Shield, the international magazine of the BP group, Spring 1991, p. 4.

OFFICIAL REPORT of the House of Lords, cols 942-960, 17th Oct.1988, debate on the Health and Medicines Bill.

O'HEAR, A. 1988. 'Academic Freedom and the University' in 'Academic Freedom and Responsibility', ed. M. Tight, SRHE & Open University Press, p. 6.

PACKHAM, DE and TASKER, ME 1990, The Independent, 26th July.

PEARCE, D, BARBIER, EB & MARKANDYA, A 1990. 'Sustainable Development: Economics and Environment in the Third World' Elgar, also 'Blueprint for a Green Economy' Earthscan Publns.

PORRITT, J 1990. 'Going green with envy', Resurgence no. 143, p. 15.

REEVES, M 1988. 'The Crisis in Higher Education', SRHE & Open University Press, Milton Keynes.

SCHUMACHER EF 1977. 'A Guide for the Perplexed', Jonathan Cape.

SCOTT, P 1984. 'Crisis in the University', Croom Helm.

S.E.R.C. 1991. The Science Board and Industry: Report of the Industrial Strategy Panel, S.E.R.C., Swindon.

STANKIEWICZ, R. 1986. 'Academics and Entrepreneurs', London, Six Countries Programme.

SWINNERTON-DYER, P. 1991. THES 5th April. The Chief Executive of the Government's University Funding Council said 'The risk with a funding methodology whose dominant concern is to drive down unit costs is that it produces a lowering of standards, a reduction of quality because its prime aim is "cheap, even if it's nasty"'.

TASKER, ME and PACKHAM, DE 1989 'Changing language, changing values- universities in the late twentieth century', paper presented to EUCLID at Exeter University. The percentage of higher degree theses 'restricted' as confidential at Bath in 1970-75 was ca. 3% in 1987-89 ca. 9%

TASKER, ME and PACKHAM, DE 1990, 'Freedon, funding and the future of the universities', Studies in Higher Education 15(2), 181.

TAYLOR, F.W. 1914. ' The Principles of Scientific Management', Harper, New York/ London.

TURNER, J.R.G. 1988. 'The Price of Freedom' in 'Academic Freedom and Responsibility', ed. M. Tight, SRHE & Open University Press, p. 104.

WENGER, C 1987. 'The Research Relationship', Allen & Unwin.

WHITEHEAD, AN 1932. 'The Aims of Education and Other Essays'. Reprinted Benn, London, 1970.

Click here to return to David Packham's home page

Revised 12.ix.96