Main Menu |
|
Or you may download the questionnaire here and post it to me at.
University of Greenwich
30 Park Row
London SE10 9LS |
. |
|
 |
|
|
.Survey Web Site produced and designed by the GILT office | | Values, purposes, principles and integrity:
academic and professional standards in higher education
This survey was part of a small project to provide information for a consultation on the theme of ‘Higher Education and Human Good’. The conference was inspired by the work of Professor Roy Niblett, a distinguished figure in the development of higher education and a strong advocate of the view that education should embody humanity and vision. Professor Niblett died shortly after the consultation. The report of the consultation, which can be downloaded by clicking on the box on the left, includes his contribution to its thinking. My thanks go to Jennifer Bone, who convened the consultation, to participants for their contributions and to the Principal and staff at Sarum College, which sponsored the meeting.
There were two main concerns that led to the initiative, both of which still have contemporary relevance.
The first was whether the significant expansion of higher education, coupled with reductions in unit costs, and with learning outcomes defined, and quality assurance processes determined, by those with little or no current involvement in teaching, had led to a loss of the essential human side of the higher education experience. There is a concern that the development of the individual, and their mature sense of self, has been somewhat submerged in provision that aims at efficient presentation of material to groups, often large, if face to face, or via ‘packages’ detached from face to face contact.
The second concern was whether the pressures from performance indicators, financial imperatives, assessment exercises [such as RAE/REF and TQA] and so on, have led to compromises over academic standards, or to behaviour that may push the boundaries of acceptability within the values that have been the essence of education. The columns of the Times Higher feature such incidents quite frequently, but that may be the bias of the news agenda where bad news attracts more coverage than good. We were seeking to identify how far such reports represent wider perceptions and patterns of behaviour, or how far the values espoused by Roy Niblett still had currency.
The project led not only to the final report, which can be downloaded on the left, but to a presentation to the 2006 OECD conference on values and to two articles, in Higher Education Management and Policy, 19[3], 2007, and in Higher Education Review 40[2], 2008. The second of those tried to refute one criticism of the survey: that it tapped only into ‘grumpy old men’, by commenting on the breakdown of responses by sex and length of service. There were very few significant differences across subsamples. The second criticism was that, paradoxically, the survey re-enforced the ‘gloom and doom’ agenda. That was far from our intention.
The survey remains open; we welcome further contributions from those on all points of the spectrum of opinion. Updates of the summary of responses will be posted from time to time if significant numbers of supplementary returns are received. If you wish to add your voice, please complete as much as you can, or are willing to do. The first part is about the aims and objectives and the underpinning values of higher education in the UK. The second lists some statements where you are asked to indicate the extent of your agreement or disagreement. The third asks for any examples or incidents of which you know where there has been pressure to accommodate to requirements that run counter to your preferred set of values or contradict expectations of ethical behaviour, OR, which we welcome equally, where what you consider positive values have been promoted and protected.
If you have questions or comments, I am happy to be contacted via email at I.McNay@gre.ac.uk
Many thanks
Ian McNay
Professor Emeritus, Higher Education and Management
.
. |