There must be some way out of here . . . as Bob Dylan once said

1
There must be some way out of here . . . as Bob
Dylan once said

• Or, how can we work the winds of competition in
  our favour, to pull ourselves into a better
  place?
• A paper about the Yin and Yang of university
  positioning strategies in the Nelson system
• Simon Marginson
• TEM, Perth, 28 September 2005

2
The winds of change globalisation
competition

• Global research rankings
• Tougher global competition in global degree
  markets
• Full fee undergraduate market as main source of
  new s
• RQF/ national research rankings
• Private sector in teaching market
• Stratification of the system ... a lock-in?

3
The Yin and Yang of positioning strategies

• Pierre Bourdieu in the field of higher
  education, universities are
• POSITIONED within their environment (global,
  national)
• the YIN
• Engaged in POSITION-TAKING strategies
• the YANG

4
The Yin and Yang 2

• The two interact. Position-taking is affected by
  the universitys prior position, and the
  positions that are available to it.
• Though just sometimes a university can create a
  new kind of position for itself

5
The Yin and Yang 3

• At any given time, some universities have more
  scope for position-taking than others. For
  example some have
• more autonomy.
• more financial resources.
• better location
• more freedom from path-dependence/ tradition
• better business capability
• academic capacity.
• Academic capacity is always key in higher
  education. It might becoming more key.

6
The Yin and Yang 4

• Position-taking is much more than a marketing
  strategy (though it needs that too). It is
• mission,
• resource commitments,
• people appointed,
• networking,
• outputs.

7
The Yin and Yang 5

• The Nelson reforms will partly determine which
  Australia universities have this greater scope
  for self-determination. Which are more
  position-taking than others. Which are mostly
  just positioned.
• But all institutions, even the humblest college,
  have scope for position-taking.
• And the obligation. Its a competition. Those
  that lie down and do nothing get walked on.
  Higher education can be a mean old scene.

8
Global competition, global convergence

• The first unified world market. Blame the
  Internet (covergent identities) for this.
• Tier 1 The superleague. CQU is not there yet.
  Nor are ANU and Melbourne. Harvard is.
• Tier 2 The market in degrees. Australia is in
  this one. National reputation is more determining
  than institution at this level.
• Converging ideologies of policy and management

9
Converging policy and management

• two dominant models, US Ivy League and US
  for-profits (whither the public??)
• subsidised loans as the main form of public
  funding of teaching, maybe income contingent and
  maybe not
• public research funding, targeted
• business model of organisation (but only part
  implemented in top academic universities
  otherwise they are weakened)
• Many national and cultural idiosyncrasies will
  survive

10
Global research rankings

• Shanghai Jiao Tong University has changed the
  world. This is increasingly how universities and
  nations are being judged. Australia has two
  universities in Jiao Tong top 100 (ANU 56 and
  Melbourne 82) and U Syd and U Qld are also in the
  top 150
• The G8 are all in the top 300 and Macquarie,
  Newcastle, Tasmania, La Trobe, Flinders, Murdoch
  in the top 500

11
Top 500 research universities 2005 data compiled
by Shanghai Jiao Tong University Institute of
Higher Education
Others include Austria 6, New Zealand, Denmark,
Finland, (each 5), Norway, Brazil, South Africa
(each 4), India, Ireland, Poland (each 3),
Singapore, Russia, Hungary, Turkey, Greece (each
2), Argentina, Mexico, Czech Republic, Chile,
Portugal (each 1).
12
Top 100 research universities 2005 data compiled
by Shanghai Jiao Tong University Institute of
Higher Education
Others Israel, Finland, Denmark, Austria,
Norway, Russia, Italy each 1.
13
The Super-League 2005 according to SJTU
14
National research performance compared to
economic capacity 1
15
National research performancecompared to
economic capacity 2
16
Proportion of international students in research
degreesOECD data for 2003
17
Global research rankings what it means

• Like it or not research quality is how
  universities are judged throughout the world.
• Crass marketing we are world-class will no
  longer do the trick. Bad news for some!
• Australia seen as not as good as USA, UK, Canada.
  Feeds into global market in degrees. Could
  position us on 3rd tier, even bargain basement
  hustlers. We have a problem
• Highlights super-league. Every nation wants a top
  university.
• Feeds into Nelson stratification of Australian
  system

18
Tougher competition in global market for degrees

• 2.1 million cross-border students in 2003 (48 up
  on 1998) but slowing of growth
• Some contrary signals. Muslim entry to US right
  down. Problem of supply of graduate students in
  US. India, China still growing.
• UK patchy. Australia patchy.
• Rise of Asian providers
• Research rankings are shaping perceptions
  (evidence in Europe, China)

19
Exporters of tertiary education 2002 OECD data
20
Top 10 importers of Australian higher
education2004 DEST data
21
Largest Australian providers
22
Enrolment shifts 2003-2004Australia 2004 DEST
data
23
What does it mean?

• Sorting out period, its tougher
• Can no longer assume continuous growth path. Not
  the cash cow it was, bad for some!
• Can Australia carry both low entry volume
  producers and quality producers of international
  education? Will the markets differentiate?
  (Probably NOT)
• Some danger of losing our supremacy in our
  natural market of SE Asia (Malaysia, Singapore,
  Indonesia)
• Danger of us being forcibly positioned downwards
  with few position-taking options. e.g. look at
  the quality of students entering from South Asia
• Consider strategies for lifting quality

24
Strategies for lifting quality (not quantity)

• Get culturally closer to Asia, country by country
  (all are different)
• Lift English entry standard and POLICE STANDARD
• Control partner organizations and agents
• Provide better English language preparation and
  later better support during the award program
• Increase proportion of internationals that are
  HDR. Fundamental position-taking move
• Get serious about culturally sensitive curricula
  (including on-line and bilingual curricula. Why
  dont we do this?)
• Provide better student security
• Downsize not upside intake. Reduce financial
  dependence. Cold turkey is best!

25
Logics of Dawkins ( Howard) system 1987 to 2004

• Single comprehensive research university template
• Business functions and acumen the primary driver
  of competitive advantage, not academic capacity
• Strong revenue drivers and quantity incentives,
  though slower HECS funding for domestic access
  after 1996. Tendencies to merge, expand and to
  enter every market. Conglomerate mentality. All
  things to all people
• General staff and non-academic services and
  facilities grew more rapidly than academic
  capacity
• Continued hierarchy, uneven research capacity and
  performance. Eight Go8 universities gained 64 of
  IGS allocations and 74 of all competitive grants
  (2004), 67 of new ARC Discovery Grants (2005)

26
How the Nelson settings reshape the system

• Full fee market generated surpluses the main
  source of new money, not government
• RQF will make research quantity/quality THE
  stratifying element, sorting us all thats how
  the whole world will see it (bad for some)
• Volume building just a bargain basement strategy
  now because the funding rates public and private
  will be too low but still it is hard to downsize
• Business acumen will deliver less than it did,
  and academic capacity will become more important
  than it was

27
Competition from private sector

• The freest options for position-taking.
• Watch it go! Blame it on FEE-HELP
• Has become hard to argue against opening up
  market to private and foreign providers
• Related issue is should Australian students be
  able to take FEE-HELP support offshore?
• Public/private sector is from here to eternity
  (though government seems to be losing momentum on
  the issue at present?)
• Teaching-only has very different implications for
  status in public sector, as compared to private
  sector

28
Lifting the status of teaching? . . . yeah, right!

• There are still concerns about the perceived
  status of teaching within universities. It is
  hoped that more diversity in the types of higher
  education institutions permitted in the protocols
  might be one way of doing more to encourage a
  greater focus on teaching
• -- Brendan Nelson, Building University Diversity,
  2005, p. 15
• BUT why would the growth of teaching-only private
  institutions lift the status of teaching in the
  public sector, and in a status market where
  research quality is the main driver?

29
Who is positioned and who is position-taking?

• Sandstones can create full fee surplus and can
  further build research performance. Thats
  crucial to their national competitive position
  and (especially) global position
• Logically they shrink, become more selective and
  more HDR-orientated
• But constraints on them. (1) market caps (2)
  difficult to shift size downwards (3) lack of
  funding to build local and global HDR

30
Who is positioned and who is position-taking?
2

• Others have less position-taking options except
  via quasi commercial high volume teaching. Some
  will bite the bullet and go hard for that
  mission, ditching research
• Shrinking group of institutions caught in the
  middle between these two classic market forms
• Note there are ALWAYS more position-taking
  options than past practice suggests radical
  downsizing, niche research, liberal arts college
  for undergraduate (?), public/private and
  local/global partnerships

31
Two bottom lines

• There is only room for a small number of
  successful research-intensive missions in the
  Nelson system
• The old Dawkins all things to all people missions
  are running out of gas fast. Mixed missions dont
  work so well in the Nelson system

32
The times suggest

• Its necessary to specialise in either research
  intensive university, using academic resources
• OR high volume teaching, using more the business
  resources built up in the last few years
• Why? Resources are scarce, research requires a
  big commitment, can only fund more research from
  surpluses from private income,
• and mixed brands dont work, especially globally
• (This means breaking the habits of a lifetime! Is
  anyone listening? )

33
research path is not easy! is there room at the
top? number of new ARC Discovery Grants 2005
34
Penalties of mixing brands

• You get where you niche yourself you get where
  you pay for You can take these student markets
  as naïve, but theyre very smart, so if you are
  going for big undergraduate numbers and accepting
  people with limited secondary graduation
  credentials, you cant turnaround to a government
  or another university and say You know were
  really a top end bio-technology operation The
  market knows which of the universities actually
  has serious research capacity in what areas. The
  best PhD students will go there. The best
  scientists will migrate there. So you cant grab
  bottom market share and then turn around and
  expect to have credibility as a research
  university its pretty pretty tough to send out
  mixed corporate messages about your branding.
• -- Allan Luke, National Institute of Education,
• Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, 4
  Corners, ABC 27June 2005

35
Some mission options
36
Some open questions . . .

• Can the RQF be modified to produce more
  research-intensive players? (yes but needs s)
• Is the multiple-site, mixed mission institution
  still possible, using semi-coupled structures, to
  combine the mixed brands in flexible fashion,
  with variations for different audiences?
• (we dont set global norms here in Australia,
  missions are singular. Probably not!)
• Can an Australian university enter the
  super-league or at least the worlds top 30?
  (hmm)
• Whats the best way to configure teaching and
  research activities? Is the teaching/research
  nexus still optimal?