Perspectives on Higher Education: Eight Disciplinary and Comparative Views

PERSPECTIVES ON HIGHER EDUCATION

PERSPECTIVES

ON

HIGHER EDUCATION

EIGHT DISCIPLINARY AND COMPARATIVE VIEWS

EDITED BY

BURTON R. CLARK

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS Berkeley, Los Angeles, London

University of California Press

Berkeley and Los Angeles, California

University of California Press, Ltd.

London, England

Copyright © 1984 by The Regents of the University of Califórnia

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Main entry under title:

Perspectives on higher education.

Papers presented at the 1982 summer seminar at the University of California, Ix)s Angeles.

Includes index.

1. Education, Higher—History—Congresses. 2. Universities and

colleges—Administration—Congresses. 3. Higher education and state—

Congresses. 4. Educational innovations—Congresses. 5. Social change—

Congresses.

I. Clark, Burton R.

LA174.P47 1984 378 83-24342

ISBN 0-520-05151-3

Printed in the United States of America 123456789

CONTENTS

CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

CONTRIBUTORS

INTRODUCTION

1. THE HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

THE BIRTH OF A UNIQUE INSTITUTION

DECLINE AND RECOVERY: ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND

THE GERMAN TRANSFORMATION AND ITS BEMUSED ADMIRERS

THE AXIAL INSTITUTION OF MODERN SOCIETY

THE HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ON HIGHER EDUCATION

2. THE POLITICAL VIEW

FOCI AND BOUNDARIES OF THE POLITICAL VIEW

ISSUES AND PERSPECTIVES AT THREE LEVELS

CONCLUSION

3. THE ECONOMIC APPROACH*

THE RISE AND FALL OF HUMAN CAPITAL THEORY

THE FINANCE OF HIGHER EDUCATION

FINANCE, POLICY, AND CHANGE

4. THE ORGANIZATIONAL CONCEPTION

THE MASTER MATRIX

BUREAUCRACY AND ITS ALTERNATIVES

CHANGE: THE MOVING MATRIX

THE NECESSITY OF AN ORGANIZATIONAL APPROACH

5. THE ANALYSIS OF STATUS*

DIMENSIONS OF INSTITUTIONAL STATUS

TRENDS IN GOVERNMENT-UNIVERSITY RELATIONS:

ELITE HIGHER EDUCATION AND THE MATTHEW EFFECT

ATTITUDES TOWARD THE STRATIFICATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

CONCLUSION

6. THE CULTURAL VIEW*

THE NOTION OF CULTURE

A DISCIPLINE-BASED APPROACH TO ACADEMIC CULTURES

INTRINSIC AND EXTRINSIC DETERMINANTS OF CULTURE

THE NATURE OF KNOWLEDGE AND ITS IMPACT ON ACADEMIC CULTURES

THE SCOPE AND LIMITS OF A CULTURAL APPROACH

7. THE FOCUS ON SCIENTIFIC ACTIVITY*

SCIENCE AND HIGHER EDUCATION: PAST AND PRESENT

SCIENCE IN LATIN AMERICA

CONCLUSIONS

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

8. THE POLICY PERSPECTIVE

THE FIELD OF POLICY ANALYSIS

COMPARATIVE CASE STUDIES

THREE DIMENSIONS OF CHANGE

9. CONCLUSIONS

POLITICS AND MARKETS

STRUCTURES AND CULTURES

SCIENCE AND HIGHER EDUCATION

IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION

PARTICIPANTS

INDEX

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The primary debts accumulated in the preparation of this volume nest in three circles. The Editor is particularly indebted to the seven colleagues in Brazil, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States who joined me in preparing the basic papers and, after critical review, revising them for publication. The eight authors collectively are indebted to the entire group of twenty-five scholars, drawn from seven countries, who examined the prepared essays during a four-day seminar held at the University of California, Los Angeles, in July, 1982, particularly to the two colleagues who, in each case, prepared critiques that stimulated discussion. The participants are listed at the end of this volume. In turn, all who were involved are indebted to the Exxon Education Foundation for the funds that made the meeting and the volume possible.

In the organizing of the topics and the experts for this collective effort, I w as joined particularly by Maurice Kogan and Ladislav Cerych. Patricia Carlson helped organize the UCLA Seminar and typed the final copy of the integrated manuscript. Adele Halitsky Clark provided the general editing that aided considerably our w ish to shape a volume that would deserve to reach a large audience; Grace Stimson did the careful final editing. It is a pleasure to thank all the above for their contribution.

Burton R. Clark

Santa Monica, California December 1982

CONTRIBUTORS

Tony Becher is professor of education at the University of Sussex, England. He served for some years on the editorial staff of Cambridge University Press, while teaching at Cambridge, and later served as director of the Nuffield Higher Education Group which studied innovations in undergraduate teaching. His principal publications include: (with Jack Embling and Maurice Kogan) Syrteww ofHigher Education: United Kingdom, 1978; (with S. MacLure) The Politics of Curriculum Change, 1978, and Accountability in Education, 1979; and (with Maurice Kogan) Process and Structure in Higher Education, 1980.

Ladislav Cerych is director of the Institute of Education and Social Policy of the European Cultural Foundation, Paris. Born in Czechoslovakia, now a French citizen, he served for some years as head of the Higher Education Programme in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). His publications include: (with OECD staff) Development of Higher Education, 1950—1967, 2 volumes, 1970-1971; (with Ignace Hecquet and Christiane V erniers) Recent Student Flows in Higher Education, \976\ and (with Paul Sabatier) Implementation of Higher Education Reforms, forthcoming.

Burton R. Clark is Allan M. Cartter professor of higher education and sociology, and chairman of the Comparative Higher Education Research Group, University of California, Los.Angeles. He taught previously at Stanford University, Harvard University, University of California, Berkeley, and Yale University in departments of sociology and schools of education, serving as chairman of the Sociology’ Department at Yale from 1969 to 1972, and as chairman of the Yale Higher Education Research Group from 1974 to 1980. His publications include: The Open Door College, I960; The Distinctive College, 1970; Academic Power in Italy, 1977; and The Higher Education System, 1983.

Maurice Kogan is now professor of government and social administration and head of the Department of Government, Brunel University, England. After graduating from Christ’s College, Cambridge, he served for fifteen years in various posts in the Department of Education in the British government. His numerous publications include: The Politics of Education, 1971; Educational Policy-Making, 1975; (with Tony Becher and Jack Emb- ling) Systems of Higher Education: United Kingdom. 1978; and (with Tony Becher) Process and Structure in Higher Education. 1980.

Harold Perkin is professor of social history and director of the Centre for Social History, University of Lancaster, England. A graduate of Jesus College, Cambridge, he has taught at the University of Manchester, served as president of the British Association of University Teachers (A.U.T.) in 1970—71, and has also served as editor of Studies in Social History for Routledge and Kegan Paul since 1957. His publications include: The Origins of Modern English Society. 1780—1880. 1969; Key Profession: The History of the A.U.T.. 1969; and New Universities in the United Kingdom. 1970.

Simon Schwartzman is professor in the Instituto Universitario de Pesquisas do Rio de Janeiro and researcher in the Centro de Resquisa e Documentação em História Contemporánea do Brasil da Fundação Getulio V argas. Brazilian by birth, he did undergraduate work in Brazil and pursued graduate studies in sociology and political science in Chile and the United States. His publications include: (editor) Métodos Avanzados en Ciencias Sociales. 197 7; Formação da Comunidade Cientifica no Brasil. 1979; and Bases do Autoritarismo Brasileiro. 1982.

Martin Trow is professor of sociology in the Graduate Sch(X)l of Public Policv and director of the Center for Studies in Higher Education at the University of California, Berkeley. He taught at Columbia University and Bennington College before joining the Berkeley faculty in 1957. Between 1969 and 1972, and again from 1974 to 1976, he directed major surveys of American higher education for the Carnegie Commission and the Carnegie Council on Policv Studies in Higher Education. His major publications include: (with S. M. Lipset and James Coleman) Union Democracy. 1956; (with A. H. Halsey) The British Academics. 1971; and (editor) Teachers and Students. 1975.

Gareth Williams is professor of educational planning and director of the Institute for Research and Development in Post-Compulsory Education, University of Lancaster, England. Before joining the Lancaster faculty, he served for six years as principal administrator in the Directorate for Scientific Affairs, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and five years as associate director of the Higher Education Research Unit at the London Sch(M)l of Economics. His publications include: (with T. A. V. Blackstone and D. Metcalfe) The Academic Labour Market in Britain. 1974; Towards Lifelong Learning. 1978; (with Zabalza and Turnbull) The Economics of Teacher Supply. 1979.

INTRODUCTION

We know much more about higher education than we did a quarter of a century ago. But what we need to know has grown geometrically, racing ahead of pursuing knowledge. This disturbing gap has numerous sources. Throughout the many organized sectors of modern society, tasks proliferate and responsibilities become more ambiguous. Observers and analysts speak with some alarm of increasing complexity and uncertainty. Within higher education itself, the driving imperatives of research and scholarship rapidly create new fields of knowledge as well as arcane specialties within the old, fragmenting the foundations of universities and colleges in the leading institutions of the international centers of learning and then spreading downward to other universities and colleges within their own countries and outward to other nations. On these grounds alone there is each year more to be comprehended if we are to grasp what academics do. Complexity and uncertainty have been increased even more by the greatly expanded scale of modern higher education, changes in size and scope which are indicated by increased numbers of students and faculty, reflected in the piling of administrative echelon upon administrative echelon, and witnessed by a growing sense that those at the top and the bottom, on the inside and the outside, are out of touch with one another. At the same time the ambition to comprehend and control has grown. Citizens, officials, and many participants have been subject to a rising tide of expectations that we should be able to order educational affairs and control educational change. Analysts believe they ought to find answers and think they will manage to do so if they redouble their efforts and devise the right theories. Simplicities should be found among the ambiguities that confuse us. Meanwhile, the gap grows larger.

What is to be done? There is no w ay to slow’ the grow ing complexity, for the empirical w orld is not w ithin anyone’s control. The payoffs of invention, specialization, and competition, w ithin science and higher education in each country and especially among countries, alone ensure that the future w ill not be simpler. From the side of analysis, researchers are not likely to amass the resources and personnel that w ill greatly accelerate their progress and broaden their reach and thereby close the gap. As elsewhere, relative scarcity is their lot. What is left is the opportunity to attend selectively and to moderate expectations. We have never really needed to know everything about the functioning of higher education, and those who seek complete accounts of modern systems are asking for the imposs ible and pushing attention in the wrong direction. The strategic decision is to be selective, more conscious of distinguishing between the significant and the trivial. If analysts cannot do it all, what most needs to be done and what can be done well? Can researchers sensibly adjust the objectives of analysis and critical thought to the limited resources that sustain those activities? Answers to such questions must always be partial and temporary rather than definitive and permanent. But to hold such queries before us is to concentrate attention in ways that help turn laundry lists of research topics into agendas that have a point.

In pursuing selectively the complex realities of higher education, there is considerable gain at the present time in turning to the most relevant disciplines and the perspectives that they cultivate and bring to bear. The various analytical specialties are selective ways of knowing, tunnels of vision that make analysts simultaneously more knowledgeable and more ignorant. An illuminating perspective is like a spotlight in the theatre, concentrating attention as it highlights certain actions at the front of the stage while relegating other features to background and periphery. No one approach can reveal all; broad accounts are necessarily multidisciplinary, with all the lights turned up and the eye wandering back and forth across the broad stage. But the disciplinary view is compellingly necessary, since it is in the power of approaches and ideas developed by specialists that we find the cutting edge. And so it is in the study of higher education. If we did not have at hand different analytical visions for that study, the ways of looking provided by history and political science and economics and organizational theory and so on, we would have to invent them.

As research on higher education accelerated during the past two decades, we have indeed seen the disciplinarians go to work. Sociologists have developed a major body of work on questions of access and equality; economists have turned to theories of human capital and the economic behavior of universities. Policy analysts have isolated key areas of decision making and pursued the implementation as well as the formation of policy. Historians have helped us understand the flow of events and how the past conditions the present. As they have done so, the attending specialties naturally mind their own knitting: the rewards of the separate disciplines ensure that scholarly actions will push along different tracks. The specialists have various vocabularies and have difficulty understanding one another’s language: Who can fathom an econometrician when he or she is under full steam? The disciplinarians occupy separate cultural houses, publishing in different journals, attending different meetings, and belonging to different networks of colleagues. And because they say w idely different things, each with a certain amount of conviction, they confuse one another as well as the practitioner and the layman.

Thus it becomes useful to pursue the disciplinary experts as they pursue higher education, asking them to explain what their spotlights reveal and introducing them again to one another. Occasional collective efforts can be highly instructive. They may strengthen the sense that those who fragment knowledge have some responsibility for integrating it. They may help clear the minds of specialists in any one area by having colleagues from other areas insist on seeing more of a forest among the trees. They can provide some simultaneous translation, turning the jargon of the specialist back into a shared language. They can add sophistication to any one group of specialists by making them more aware of what bordering experts have found out and are capable of explicating. They can even reduce the arrogance of specialists, raising the value of modesty in scholarly work, as the limitations of one’s vision and the value of others’ are simultaneously revealed. With special exertion, collective efforts can bring some small amount of conceptual and analytical order to the chaos of loosely coupled inquiry, not to control research tightly but to suggest which directions of effort are most promising. And, properly reported, a coming together of diverse specialists can help generalists grasp the distinctive contributions of the specialties and meld those contributions into larger understandings.

Such are the hopes and purposes of the contributors to this volume. The central chapters are designed to clarify eight perspectives: the historical, the political, the economic, the organizational, the sociological interest in status, the cultural, the scientific, and the poi icy-centered. The specialists were asked to state what a national system of higher education looks like as seen through the lenses of their fields. To what aspects of systems of higher education does the perspective draw attention? What does one thereby imagine or see which others are not likely to conceive or emphasize? What does it mean to think of higher education as a political system, an economic system, or a scientific system, the latter drawing upon the conceptions of historians and sociologists of science who have created a lively, cumulative literature during the past two decades? How does the perspective under review relate to the approaches that guide analysis in other fields? Can the perspectives of the nonhistorians come to grips with long-run developments in higher education, or must they remain basically ahistorical? Are there discernible overlaps or gaps?

The papers that follow were planned from the outset to allow eight scholars to speak divergently, each in a distinctive mode. Yet we also sought some sense of convergence in common topics, bordering explanations, and approaches that give aid and comfort to others. During four days of intense discussion at a 1982 summer seminar at the University of California, Los Angeles, the eight papers were critically assessed by twenty-five specialists, all selected for disciplinary competence and comparative experience that would ensure informed judgment from within and without the field in question. The papers were then revised and edited for publication in this volume.

Chapters 1 through 8 are not primarily theoretical formulations or methodological exercises or reviews of the literature. Rather, each author has been asked to highlight the better aspects of the craft of his field, in the broad sense of approach and perspective, and then to go on at greater length to indicate the yield in illuminating materials already in hand. What is the best scholarship offered by that particular approach to the understanding of higher education? In addition, the contributors had the liberty of playing to their own particular analytical interests and strengths. The study of higher education is a relatively new as well as a diffuse area of inquiry, with individual voyagers having an important role in exploring different paths of explanation. The subject is a soft one, a field in which individual style and interpretation will continue to have an important role. Hence the voices in the chapters are those of eight individuals as well as of eight disciplinary perspectives.

Selected as well for their cross-national experience, the authors were asked to draw together materials from two or more countries, engaging in comparative analysis as fully as possible. In exploring the workings of several national systems, an established perspective can best show its value in accounts of what is thereby uncovered. If a relatively new perspective has little research upon which to draw, then it helps to know the promise of what will be highlighted when more work is done. For either old or new approaches, to such macrolevel phenomena as educational systems, cross- cultural comparison becomes the one broad method in the search for common features and recurrent patterns, with a concurrent isolating of the unique. The study of higher education needs access to the fullest possible range of information on commonalities and diversities. Hence, the crossnational dimension is useful in all the perspectives that we apply. At the same time, the working knowledge of leading experts is only gradually extended to continents around the world. The chapters that follow primarily reflect expertise on systems in advanced industrial democracies, with modest attention to developing societies and only occasional comment on higher education in Communist nations.

Taken together, these eight statements are also an effort to raise the standards of discussion in comparative higher education. Some progress has been made during the past two decades, as earlier noted, in exploring systematically the complex realities of different systems of higher education. But such analysis, relatively new, lacks firm footing in universities. It is greatly outweighed by the vast amount of comment made by participants who are otherwise preoccupied. Learned professors, studious and rigorous in their own fields, often discuss higher education without much preparation , much as busy medical doctors offer opinions on hospital organization and the state of their profession. Able administrators meet to engage in shoptalk on the latest problems, tackling issues on an ad hoc basis, first clinging to one post and then another as they lurch down the road of understanding. It is often deemed sufficient to have a philosopherstatesman restate the ideals of higher education, with all those assembled warmed by affect rather than informed by analysis. There is typically less there than meets the eye..Amateurism has its points, but it becomes injurious when it stalls understanding and almost willfully contributes to the gap betu een u hat we know and what we need to know. In short, even at this early stage, there are perspectives to be grasped and materials to be mastered. And there is still the need to separate as much as possible the descriptive and analytical from the normative, the is from the ought to be, particularly in a realm where romantic images abound and analysts have vested interests.

We may state confidently that from the contemplation of contemporary higher education the materials that last and have the highest value will be those that come from the work of scholars and observers who turn the same cold, steady eye on this sector of activity as they would use in the study of politics or the economy, the social-class system or the cultures of others. Imagination and craft are as necessary here as elsewhere. And, at their best, disciplinary’ perspectives are large acts of imagination r(x>ted in collective crafts. Any effort to clarify and assemble relevant perspectives should help steady the base from which we advance.

A word is necessary about the murky term system, an idea we can hardly do without in any of the social sciences even when bothered by its multiple uses, shifting meanings, and extended ambiguities. We may properly refer to systems in higher education at quite different levels of size and complexity: for example, the social system of the classroom, the university as a system, all postsecondary enterprises in a country viewed as a national system of higher education. The latter is the common usage in this volume, with the smaller entities then becoming subsystems. We may also properly vary the actors and actions that we include at any level, arbitrarily fashioning boundaries that define an inside and an outside. The different perspectives make different cuts. An economic perspective sees economic activities; other activities are outside the economic system. It sees people as economic actors, engaged in the distribution of resources or the exchange of goods and services; when the same persons engage in other activities they are outside the system.

Third, even when we focus on one level and work from a single perspective, it is often useful in analysis to switch from one usage of system to another. Thus, in using an organizational approach to a national system we may begin by depending on the conventional definition in which we point to the aggregate of universities and colleges, along with such formal means of coordination as the ministry of education. All other entities and groups are then outside the system and become part of its environment. But it is soon worthwhile to extend the boundaries, properly to portray actors and actions as parts of the system when they are seriously engaged in educational activities: trustees when acting as trustees, the committees of the legislature when attending to higher education. To do otherwise is to place outside the system some of its most important participants and institutions. When outside interest groups occupy designated positions on various boards of influence and control, as in Sweden, they clearly have moved inside the system. Thus, even within one analysis, loose and varied usage of system may be useful. In fact, when boundaries are so problematic and so subject to analytical variation it makes sense not to worry a great deal whether particular persons and agencies sit on one side or the other of an arbitrary line, but instead focus on how well-located groups, nominally inside or outside the system, involve themselves and use educational activities for their own purposes.

In introducing the chapters that follow, it is helpful to stress in summary form the distinctive point of view presented by each one and to note one or two central findings. It is also useful to point to a few linkages that connect one discussion to another. The concluding chapter pursues four major topics upon which these eight perspectives converge: political economy, institution and culture, science and higher education, and implications for administrative policy. These broad themes lead toward integration of separate subjects. They may also help to integrate the interests of scholars and practitioners, serving as bridges between the specific topics of scholars and the specific concerns of those who, come next Monday morning, will be practicing in a system of higher education.

The historical perspective.—Historians ensure that we pursue the dimension of time, that we see successive stages in the form of one leading to another. To work historically is also to provide comparisons that may aid current understanding: the conception of the university today is illuminated by conceptions of it in the past; decline and recovery in earlier centuries will perhaps help us understand the problems of decline today and the possibilities of recovery tomorrow. Key questions become: In what ways, if any, is higher education always the same? When changes occur, are they unilinear, moving on to new states of being, or do they often double back upon old forms, reinventing the wheel? Historical accounts help us get to the basics, both in properties of the system and their causes and effects. History becomes a concern with change and stability, particularly that which is unacknowledged and unforeseen. In this regard historians allow themselves to be particular, often concentrating on the flow of events in a particular place at a particular time, where many factors, studied separately by others, converge. They provide relatively full accounts, less guided by selective theory, while others deliberately accentuate one or another facet.

Thus, Harold Perkin provides an overview of four critical phases in the evolution of higher education. In the first phase, a unique institution—the Western university—was born. Out of those early centuries came the guildlike values and structures that became the key to longevity and adaptability. In the second period, there was a long decline in higher education in England and Scotland between the mid-seventeenth and the mid-nineteenth centuries, u ¡th recovery initiated in new alternatives to the old universities: scientific academies, mechanics’ institutes, and a set of new universities, somewhat differently constituted from the old, which originated with the University of London and the University of Durham. In the third phase, we w itness the German transformation during the nineteenth century in w hich the key device became the single-discipline professor w ho emphasized highly specialized research and taught from that basis. Upon this footing, German scholarship raced ahead and the system became for a long time the accepted international model. Finally, in the fourth and current phase, higher education becomes a corporate bureaucracy to a significant degree, more fully a part of the state or very close to it, and, in general, the axial institution of modern society.

The historical review’ shows that higher education is capable of both enormous change and deadening inertia. Particularly impressive is the stubbornness of certain underlying forms, notably faculty members’ w ays of organizing themselves which are guildlike in nature. Also prominent is the underlying tension between freedom and control w hich has characterized this sector of society from its beginning. In the past, that tension pitted academics primarily against church officials and political rulers. Now, bureaucratic control becomes the more serious threat to the freedoms that academics claim they must have to function effectively. State power over this sector becomes newly and deeply institutionalized in the bureaucratic form.

The political view.—The historian’s emphasis on state pow er in the contemporary period is picked up and extended in the analysis by Maurice Kogan of the more political aspects of modern higher education. He distinguishes between micro- and macropolitics, with the former referring primarily to the internal politics of the university, shading upward into the internal politics of the higher education system at large, whereas macropolitics refers primarily to state-level politics, shading downward into the relations of the state officials w ith universities and colleges. As we move from one level to another we often need different political theories and approaches. Political matters change qualitatively as we move up the scale of size from dyadic relations to those of a world system, and hence different concepts must be employed. When we tackle the university and its internal operations we must understand collegial forms of authority as well as portray departments and faculties as contending interest groups. When w e turn directly to the bearing of state-level politics on higher education, w e need to go armed with ideas about emerging corporatist relations in which major external interest groups—the organized arms of big labor and big business, for example—become systematically involved in the control of higher education, as well as to utilize the capacity of political scientists to analyze political parties, legislatures, executives, and public bureaus. Politics stretches from the top to the bottom, from the most externally relevant actions to the most internally insistent behaviors.

Kogan gives empirical flesh to these conceptions by examining recent events in Britain, first at the lower and then at the higher level. The British university remains decidedly less managerial than the American, less influenced by the government than the Swedish. Institutional autonomy has been high; collegial controls have been strong. But the efforts of central government to contract the system may cause a change in the internal political alignments. The collegial mode is placed under heavy strain; more management seems inevitable. At the state level in Britain, much decision making by elite groups has been secret, hence largely contraacademic in style, and has entailed some co-optation of academic oligarchs by the political-bureaucratic system. Recent efforts by the state to contract the system, sharply and quickly, have deepened this latter engrained tendency.

Kogan in his chapter suggests the many rich veins of action which can be mined by political analysis. The higher education system is an intensely political complex. Yet, political science has been the least attentive of the social sciences to date and has only recently begun to focus upon what is clearly an attractive agenda for research. Alternative and competing forms of authority abound. External and internal interest groups transact and trade off in various ways. Group freedom is both enhanced and diminished under a variety of state controls and types of regimes. Pluralism, federalism, statism, authoritarianism, corporatism—issues of legitimate control in general—may be explored to great advantage in a realm that is at the cutting edge of expertise and influence based upon it. The references cited by Kogan are a good start in building a literature, especially from the detailed work of young scholars. The coming decade should see a larger contribution by political analysis to our understanding of higher education.

The economic approach.—Economists have been more concerned than political scientists in the study of higher education and have come armed with more theory and method. The concept of human capital has been a major contribution by economists to general thought about education. As Gareth Williams points out, the idea is an old one, to be found in the classic writings of Adam Smith; and, stated anew in the early 1960s, it has dominated the economics of higher education for two decades. The idea that education is a productive investment in human resources will undoubtedly continue to be part of informed conventional wisdom. But as economists and then sociologists have probed the evidence of the returns to individuals and society from different levels and types of education, analysis has become exceedingly complicated, with competing explanations and interpretations that range from the optimistic to the pessimistic. A debate rages over whether higher education mainly screens individuals, selecting those with characteristics that will prove useful in later employment, or whether it affects people directly by investing them with useful knowledge and skills.

What else can economists do for us? Specifically, they can turn from individual behavior to institutional behavior, in the approach laid out by Gareth Williams, to the modes and mechanisms of finance which affect the operation of universities and colleges, departments and institutes. The old saying that he who pays the piper calls the tune needs a discriminating revision, because it is the way payment is made which determines how the tune is played. Governments may have quite different ways of allocating funds, ways that influence the behavior of institutions and professors. One government may leave the money on the stump, working by lump-sum allocation from one level to the next, thereby promoting institutional and departmental autonomy and discretion. A second may have a finely tuned system of segmental allocation, with moneys fixed within a large number of specific categories—from civil sen ice rank for professors’ salaries to budgets for typewriters—thereby increasing central systemwide controls. Also, as Williams notes, most of the intermediate decisions that affect the day-to-day life of academics are taken under a variety of administrative arrangements.

The way in which Williams pursues the financing of higher education is highly institutional. He refers to the historical origins of present-day practices. He enters the world of modern political economy to compare the workings and effects of bureaucratic structures with those of markets. He notes the role of interest groups and politics. His approach is a model of how economic perspectives can be broadened to interact effectively with noneconomic approaches. At the same time, a powerful argument is presented on the centrality and specificity of financing mechanisms, phenomena that economists are well equipped to study. Since these mechanisms are also relatively manipulable, analysis of the way they operate and the effects they produce moves scholarly analysis close to the interests of those who shape educational policies.

The organizational conception.—Organizational analysis has exploded during the past quarter century, becoming a congeries of approaches with quite different emphases. Organizational analysts function in psychology, sociology, economics, and political science, as well as in business and public administration. Their interests range from the most basic to the most applied, and from the societal level to the psychology of leadership. They have begun to show interest in historical explanations, working into history as they seek to determine how earlier forms of organization give rise to and condition later ones. During the 1970s theorizing about organizations began to take institutions of higher education into account. Analysts studying universities and colleges developed new concepts, or revised and applied old ones, which were appropriate to this domain: loosely coupled systems, organized anarchies, collegial authority, the political or interest- group model. The 1970s also saw’ organizational analysis applied to entire national systems of higher education, including direct cross-national comparison.

Chapter 4 stresses the latter interest, specifying three broad categories for cross-national comparison: how work is divided among and within institutions; how’ diverse beliefs are generated and maintained; and how authority is distributed. Following these broad properties, one can observe ever expanding complexity in one national system after another. Central to a complex internal composition is an intersecting of disciplines with enterprises which affiliates academics with two quite different forms of organization and places them under dual authority. Much authoritativeness is then located at the departmental or operational level, w here academics represent their fields of study as well as work for a particular institution.

From this peculiar internal configuration, around u hich national systems vary, come many of the peculiar features of national coordination. Here a w idened organizational imagination stretches into the concepts of political economy, allow ing us to juxtapose market forms of linkage against bureaucratic, political, and oligarchical forms. The underlying matrix of disciplines and institutions also conditions reform and change. The system as a w hole is peculiarly difficult to change wholesale and by top-down command. It is likely to exhibit much grass-roots innovation, w ith changes occurring incrementally and often in w ays difficult to discern from outside the system and even from within it.

An organizational awareness sensitizes observers to the many ways in which organization shapes outcomes, including the fate of contending bodies of ideas. It makes a difference w hether a national system of higher education has only one major sector, or tw o, or half a dozen; whether the boundaries between institutions, and between sectors, are airtight or permit students to transfer and faculty members to move from one to another; w hether there are graduate schools or not; w hether the operating level is constituted by chairs or departments or residential colleges. Such anatomical features affect commitment to teaching, competence in research, student access, faculty morale, program emphases, and soon. They are likely to affect the very viability of the many bundles of know ledge, the subjects, upon and around which the system is constituted. A particular task for the near future is research on the departmental or operational level, where the structures and cultures of the disciplines and the professions converge with the institutions and larger sectors thereof. The later chapters on academic culture and scientific activity provide two ways of probing this nexus of academic affairs.

The sociological analysis of status,—Sociologists have long focused on the stratification of society and attendant problems of mobility and inequality. In so doing they have done research mainly on the status of individuals, building a large literature on status attainment, particularly in the United States and Great Britain. They have then examined educational structures chiefly for correlates of changes in the social position of individuals. This focus has caused them to pay little attention to phenomena of institutional status, the relative social standing and academic ranking of the larger units making up a system. In his chapter on higher education as a status system, Martin A. Trow turns squarely toward this latter much needed form of macroanalysis, to the phenomena that comparative students of higher education study under the concept of institutional hierarchy.

All systems of higher education have some institutional hierarchy, in which prestige plays a key role in the allocation of resources and the attraction of faculty and students. But the hierarchies vary considerably in degree and form, as