Jarosław Charchuła ISSN 2617-5266 (Online) https://doi.org/10.28925/2518-7635.2021.64 “OLD” IDEAS IN NEW SOCIAL CONTEXT. UNIVERSITY AND CHALLENGES OF THE GLOBAL MARKET OF EDUCATIONAL “SERVICES” Jarosław Charchuła ORCID iD 0000-0002-8470-7374 Doctor of Humanities in the field of sociology, Deputy Director of the Educational Sciences Institute Jesuit University Ignatianum in Krakow, st. Kopernika 26, 31-501 Kraków, Republic of Poland jaroslaw.charchula@ignatianum.edu.pl ABSTRACT The level of education is an increasingly important factor that determines both social-economic changes and the systems of norms and values. On the one hand, globalization processes offer the richness and variety of the goods of culture, and the access to “broad” knowledge. On the other hand, they reinforce the tendency for unification and standardization of many areas in an individual’s life. In order to properly refer to modern changes a university is subject to, we should trace historical changes that affected this institution and analyse modern expectations that are shaped by the global market of services. This article focuses on the analysis of the process of science globalization. Such approach to science is characterized by the analysis of features that define science as a social institution. In this context, the most important challenges and difficulties related to the specific features of the global exchange market have been presented. Key words: university; globalization; internationalization; educational services. © Jarosław Charchuła, 2021 INTRODUCTION Globalization processes are often defined as processes in which forms of economic and political organisation, consumption patterns, customs and traditions, as well as artistic styles and systems of values, are getting more and more similar to one another in the global scale (Sztompka, 2002, p. 256). However, globalization processes are not only meant to unify the world. Individuals living in different social and cultural contexts will probably 45 The Modern Higher Education Review № 6, 2021 ISSN 2518–7635 (Print) never create a totally uniform society, so globalization is to be considered as a complicated system of social structure elements that are connected with one another and increasing in number (Hałas, 2015, p.84). The world of social references has contracted for everyone, although it is not equally available to everyone: some people feel divided, while others feel united by globalization. In the postmodern world, these are both economic and social processes which take different forms of internationalization. What we deal with is a set of trends and processes in the macro scale, as a result of which regional and national communities are included in one global society (Iwińska, 2015, p. 34). On the one hand, globalization changes offer the richness and variety of the goods of culture, and the access to “broad” knowledge; on the other hand, they reinforce the tendency for unification and standardization of many areas in an individual’s life. PROBLEM STATEMENT At the beginning of the 21st century, a particular meaning of a university results from treating it as an important stimulator of economic changes and cultural activation of human resources in information societies based on knowledge management (Melosik, Szkudlarek, 2010, p. 17). Innovativelycreated transcultural information is what becomes the most expensive and desired on the globalized exchange market. The level of education is an increasingly important factor that determines both social-economic changes and the systems of norms and values (Ziman, 2000, p. 235). Due to the extension of educational needs and activities of academic education institutions, higher education became a mass phenomenon, i. e. in OECD countries the rate of people with a university diploma is almost 50%. On the other hand, educational “un-massing” occurs, which is expressed in the decentralization of education systems (Dejna, Nalaskowski, 2013, p.79). Moreover, the fact that at the end of 1990s higher education services were classified as service trade (which is confirmed by the General Agreement on Trade in Services), provided completely new developmental opportunities for the activities carried out by universities. It was a time when they became a part of the global exchange market (Tittenbrun, 2014, p.169). It also meant questioning the interpretation of higher education based on the concept of the common good, commercialization of education with the possibility to “buy” and “sell” it, and treating students as customers (Melosik, 2009, p. 61). BACKGROUND What is more, according to the estimates of the United Nations, by the year 2050 the population of Asia will constitute more than a half of the world population, and Europe’s share in the world population will decrease three times within a hundred years (1950–2050). Contrary to Europe, Africa’s 46 Jarosław Charchuła ISSN 2617-5266 (Online) share in the world population will increase thrice within this period. Thus, demographic trends, supported by the mechanisms of globalization, will result in the fact that Asia, and perhaps even Africa in some areas, will become a very serious competitor for Europe and the (Knight, 2014, p. 134). According to the forecasts of the World Bank, in the years 2005-2035 the number of professionally active people in developed countries will drop by about 20 million, while the number of professionally active people in developing countries will increase by almost a billion. At the same time, because of the fact that — especially in Europe — the societies are getting older, there will be a high increase in the number of old people: from 36 per 100 working people to 52 per 100 workers. Also, soon Asia is likely to become the world’s economic and educational centre. Changes of the social structure within the global scale cause a dynamic increase in the significance of knowledge, as well as changes of expectations of a university and its social functions USA (De Wit, 2002, p. 123). SOCIAL CONTEXT OF SHAPING THE FUNCTIONS OF A UNIVERSITY In order to adequately interpret modern changes of expectations of a university, we have to trace historical stages of its development connected with the development of its social functions. In ancient Greece, wandering teachers prepared their students for active participation in public life and political careers. Students interested in meeting the representatives of science were also wandering at that time. The name university is derived from the Latin univérsitas scientarium, i. e. the universe of sciences. The first European universities were created in a spontaneous manner, without the participation of lay and Church authorities. At first, universities were communities of students and teachers. In the middle of the 13th century, pope Innocent IV changed those communities into associations and placed them within formal frames. The medieval world was supported by three pillars of authority: studium (scientific work, knowledge — searching for truth about the world), sacerdotium (religious power) and imperium (the authority of the state). The relations between a university, lay power and religious power were based on the exchange and imbalance of its participants’ strength. Medieval universities were small and independent of the state. They constituted corporations of masters and students. They were managed by a rector selected from the corporation members. Those universities offered studies in at least one of the main disciplines: theology, law or medicine, as well as in the faculty of seven liberal arts (grammar, rhetoric, dialectic, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy and theory of music). As universities developed, their activity became formalized, which was reflected in the development of various disciplines of knowledge. Due to the kind of their activity, the universities which survived until the end of the 18th century were called Universities of Teaching. Medieval universities included students’ 47 The Modern Higher Education Review № 6, 2021 ISSN 2518–7635 (Print) universities (professors were employed by students) a symbol of which was the University of Bologna; professors’ university in which academic teachers dominated — such as the University of Paris; and university colleges which first provided students with accommodation and then developed into dynamically growing universities. Those universities often played the role of a state within a state. No scientific research (as we understand it now) was carried out at medieval universities because it was believed that the Bible and other writings accepted by the Catholic Church contain all knowledge, and the task of universities was to explore those texts. At that time, scientific work focused on intellectual debates and discussions, as well as speculations and proclaiming opinions. The times of the Reformation were also difficult for universities, because the principle cuiusregio, eiusest religio (the one who reigns, has religion) influenced their modification. The debate on maintaining balance between education and scientific work started at that time, and in the 17th and 18th centuries, when the meaning of the research increased, such balance was disturbed. New state institutions were created, the role of which was to carry out the research that was socially useful (Mucha, 2009, p.20). At that time, people noticed that the rigid structures of universities result in the fact that the market of knowledge is being filled with other players. At the beginning of the 19th century, we could distinguish three basic types among the universities that were being created. First, the Humboldt University, which was financed and controlled by the state, and which maintained academic liberties but had poor connections with social needs. This is a University of Research and the centre of science development. At that time, Latin was withdrawn as a common language in which European universities taught, which decreased the mobility of students and teachers. Second, the French university, which had no autonomy and the objectives of which were established on the national level. The basic function was to serve the country through educating the elites. Academic teachers also had the status of civil servants. Third, the Anglo-Saxon university — the state stopped interfering with the university’s activity, which was a return to the medieval model within this scope. All universities, including private ones, had the status of public organizations. In the times of industrial revolution, when the need for educated employees increased, apart from traditional universities, civic universities were created, as well as boards of trustees the task of which was directing universities without interfering with the academic area of a university’s activity. The role of the state was limited to assigning funds and establishing the general principles of scientific policy (Szołtysek, 2013, p. 171). In 1963, Clark Kerr wrote that, at the moment, classical approach to a university does not make any sense. Instead, he suggested the term multiversity, which means the collection of the community of students, scholars representing, inter alia, humanities, social science, exact sciences and natural sciences, as well as other employees of a university (Newman, 2015, p. 58). 48 Jarosław Charchuła ISSN 2617-5266 (Online) In general, we may say that the evolution of universities at the turn of the 19th and 20th century was characterized by two important processes: institutionalization and professionalization. They also had a significant influence on the way science was being shaped. In this context, institutionalization means, first of all, the fact that the society acknowledged science as an important social function, and the existence of norms regulating the actions of people dealing with scientific activity. Moreover, this determined the adaptation of social norms to the norms science is subject to (Szadkowski, 2015, p. 278). Professionalization, however, means the processes leading to the creation of a profession of a person who deals with scientific activity. The development of unprofessional research became an anachronism, and the demand for new scientific knowledge resulted in the fact that science started to develop outside universities (Slaughter, 2009, p. 158). UNITY OF OPPOSITES We may say that, across centuries, the idea of a university was shaped within the frames of several system opposites. Their clarity and significance has changed throughout centuries. The first opposite was religious — lay. At first, scientific centres which took the form of a university were mainly created in connection with religious centres and broadly understood theology. The first of such centres were the University of Qaraouiyine in Fez, Morocco, which started to be built in 859, and the Al-Azhar madrasa in Cairo which was created almost a century later. Both of those schools, as well as other similar schools in the Arab world, had a theological “profile” and educated Muslim missionaries. In the Christian world, however, the first European university was created in Bologna at the end of the 11th century. The University of Bologna was lay, and it mainly taught law, medicine and theology. However, the role and associations of the University of Paris, one of the most appreciated academic centres in the Middle Ages, were quite different. The Church played a very important role in creating and managing that university for a long time. The curriculum of studies was similar to that of Italian universities, but more emphasis was put on theology. In the Middle Ages and in the Renaissance period religion was easily reconciled with science, but in the Enlightenment they became opposites. “The Age of Reason” broke with the theological vision of the world and belief into an authority. Instead, it focused on the vision of the world which was worked out in the course of empirical analysis of the reality (McLuhan, 2011, p. 86). The Enlightenment influenced shifting the university’s “centre of gravity” from the profile of an institution that is to provide people with knowledge towards an institution that is to carry out the research based on scientific methods. Another opposition is universalism — nationalism. What is analysed here is the typical Humboldt model which assumed strong emphasis on scientific research combined with freeing the university’s structures from external influences. From the point of view of the indicated dichotomy, 49 The Modern Higher Education Review № 6, 2021 ISSN 2518–7635 (Print) the role of the university for the state will be the most important. According to the concept of the Humboldt brothers, apart from strictly scientific functions, a university should play functions connected with promoting and supporting the national culture. The Napoleon’s solution went even further: the university’s actions were, in a way, inscribed in the national structure, acting for its good. Commercialization of educational services resulted in the fact that universities started to act like companies on the global market of services, applying marketing strategies in order to gain profit. Not only did technological development facilitate the extension of research possibilities, but it also made it possible to open new paths of providing educational services to more and more diverse group of recipients. A consequence of such phenomenon is diversification of such service providers, and thus, diversification of the market offer depending on the students’ financial abilities (Kozyr-Kowalski, 2005, p. 139). Modern universities are facing the new challenge of participation in building a society based on knowledge (Kokocińska, 2015, p. 45 ). University graduates are not only expected to know foreign languages, but they should also be experienced in the intercultural social environment (Mikiewicz, 2014, p. 35). Higher education wants to create good conditions for the development of science that will be a part of the society of knowledge, which is why education is getting more and more open to international markets of exchanging educational “services” (Castells, 2000, p. 75). Universities have evolved from medieval monopolist institutions performing mainly the functions of education, to the role of research centres being among many entities offering educational “services” on the global exchange market (Heilbron, 2013, p.692). CONCLUSIONS A modern university requires openness to the challenges of the future. Academic education oriented this way is a particular kind of long-term investment, as well as active co-creation of the dynamics of social processes. New challenges of the future result in the fact that a university should prepare its graduates not only for using the civilization achievements, but, first of all, for creative participation in the process of creating it. Academic education is not just socialization of a modern citizen; it mainly means shaping an individual who has to understand the dynamics of social processes taking place in the “global village” and, at the same time, be an active creator of those processes. REFERENCES Castells, M. (2000). The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford: Blackwell. 156–159 Dejna, D., Nalaskowski, F. (2013). Publiczni i niepubliczni. Przełom. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UMK. 178–179. 50 Jarosław Charchuła ISSN 2617-5266 (Online) De Wit, H. (2002). Internationalization of higher education in the United States and Europe. Greenwood: Greenwood Publishing Group. 167–169. Hałas, E. (2015). Przez pryzmat kultury. Dylematy badań nad współczesnością. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. 134–138. Heilbron, J. (2013). The social sciences as an emerging global field. “Current Sociology”, 62(5). 685–703. Iwińska, K. (2015). Być I działać w społeczeństwie. Dyskusje wokół teorii podmiotowego sprawstwa. Kraków: Nomos. 141–143. Knight, J. (2014). International Education Hubs: Student, Talent, Knowledge Models. Berlin: Springer Publishers. 152–154. Kokocińska, A. (2015). Społeczna wartość wyższego wykształcenia. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM. 136–139. Kozyr-Kowalski, S. (2005). Uniwersytet a rynek. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM. 122–127. McLuhan, M. (2011). The Gutenberg Galaxy. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 134–139. Mikiewicz, P. (2014). Kapitał społeczny i edukacja. Warszawa: PWN. 189–195. Melosik, Z. (2009). Uniwersytet i społeczeństwo. Dyskurs wolności, wiedzy i władzy. Kraków: Wydawnictwo IMPULS. 121–129. Melosik, Z., Szkudlarek, T. (2010). Kultura, tożsamość i edukacja. Migotanie znaczeń. Kraków: Impuls. 74–82. Newman, J. (2015). The Idea of a University. London: Aeterna Press. 76–79. Mucha, J. (2009). Uspołecznina racjonalność technologiczna. Naukowcy z AGH wobec cywilizacyjnych wyzwań i zagrożeń współczesności. 86–90. Slaughter, S. (2009). Academic Capitalism and the New Economy: Markets, State and Higher Education. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press. 65–69. Szadkowski, K. (2015). Uniwersytet jako dobro wspólne. Podstawy krytycznych badań nad szkolnictwem wyższym. Warszaw: PWN. 149–154. Szołtysek, A. E. (2013). Filozofia edukacji. Kształtowanie umysłu. Kraków: Impuls. 174–179. Sztompka, P. (2016). Kapitał społeczny. Teoria przestrzeni międzyludzkiej. Kraków: Znak. 132–139. Tittenbrun, J. (2014). Kolonizcja nauki i świata przez kapitał. Teoria światów równoległych w wydaniu socjologii wiedzy. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Zysk i S-ka. 167–169. Ziman, J. (2000). Real science: what it is and what it means? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 56–62. «СТАРІ ІДЕЇ» В НОВИХ СОЦІАЛЬНИХ КОНТЕКСТАХ. УНІВЕРСИТЕТ І ВИКЛИКИ СВІТОВОГО РИНКУ ОСВІТНІХ ПОСЛУГ Ярослав Хархула, доктор гуманітарних наук у галузі соціології, заступник директора Інституту освітніх наук, Єзуїтський університет Ігнатіанум 51 The Modern Higher Education Review № 6, 2021 ISSN 2518–7635 (Print) у Кракові, вул. Коперника 26, 31-501 м. Краків, Республіка Польща, jaroslaw. charchula@ignatianum.edu.pl Рівень освіти стає все більш важливим чинником, який визначає як соціально-економічні зміни, так і системи норм і цінностей. З одного боку, процеси глобалізації пропонують багатство та різноманітність культурних переваг, доступ до «широких» знань. З іншого боку, вони посилюють тенденцію до уніфікації та стандартизації багатьох сфер життя особистості. Для того, щоб правильно відноситись до сучасних змін, яким підлягає університет, слід простежити історичні зміни, які торкнулися цього закладу, та проаналізувати сучасні очікування, які формує світовий ринок послуг. Стаття присвячена аналізу процесу глобалізації науки. Такий підхід до науки характеризується аналізом ознак, що визначають науку як соціальний інститут. У цьому контексті представлено найважливіші виклики та труднощі, пов’язані з особливостями світового валютного ринку. Сучасний університет вимагає відкритості до викликів майбутнього. Нові виклики майбутнього призводять до того, що університет має готувати своїх випускників не лише до використання досягнень цивілізації, а, насамперед, до творчої участі в процесі його створення. Ключові слова: університет; глобалізація; інтернаціоналізація; освітні послуги. Received: 30.10.2021 Accepted: 23.12.2021 52