DOCUMENT RESUME ED 056 669 HE 002 669 AUTHOR Perkin, H. J. TITLE New Universities in the United Kingdum. Case Studies on Innovation in Higher Education. INSTITUTTON Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris (France). Centre for Educational Research and Innovation. PUB DATE 69 NOTE 236p. EDRS PRICE MF-$0.65 HC-$9.87 DESCRIPTORS *Case Studies; *Educational Innovation; *Educational Research; Evaluation; Experimental Colleges; *Higher 24ucation; *Innovation ABSTRACT Since 1961, 24 universities and 1 university college have been founded in Britain and Northern Ireland to be added to the already existing 22 universities and 4 university colleges. The key word in the creation of these institutions has been innovation. This report is a case study of the struture of the new universities. It takes into consideration:(1) what is new in the new universities; 2) the British system of higher education;(3) why the new universities were created;(4) the pressure of numbers;(5) equality of education; (6) new maps of learning;(7) specialization in the new universities; (8) the government of the new universities;(9) the recruitment and status of the academic staff;(10) teaching and research;(11) teaching methods and assessment;(12) the role and status of 13tudents;(13) the new universities and the outside world; and (14) planning and finance. (HS) CASE STUDIES ON INNOVATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION new universities in the UNITED KINGDOM by H. J. PERKIN Professor of Social History UNIVERSITY OF LANCASTER U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION & WELFARE OFFICE OF EDUCATION THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRO- DUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIG- INATING IT, POINTS OF VIEW OR OPIN- IONS STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDU- CATION POSITION OR POLICY. ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC4CO-OPERATION AND N. DEVELOPMENT .* The Organisation for Economic Co-operatz'on andDevelopment was set up under a Convention signed in Paris ol; 14th December 1960 by the Member cotmtries of the Organisatic:1 for EuropeanEconomic Co-operation and by Canada and the Unitec. SL:tes.This Convention provides that the OECD shall promote policie,: designed: to achieve the highest sustainable eco,:9mic growth and employ- ment and a rising standard of livSng in Member countries, while maintaining financial stability, and :11us to contribute to the world economy; to contribute to sound economic expansion in Memberas well as non-member countries in the pro7s of economic develop- ment; to contribute to the expansion of wo ade on a multilateral, non-discriminatorybasisinaccor. cewithinternational obligations. The legal personality possessed by the Organisation forEuropean Economic Co-operation continues in the OECD whichcame into being on 30th September 1961. The members of OECD are Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Greece, Irer.ad, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norwayortugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdo,,.and the United States. FOREWORD Whereasinthenineteen-fifties and the early sixties,the notion of " educational investment" attracted the greatest attention, it is now increas- ingly recognised that educational systems in general, and higher education in particular, cannot adequately respond to the needs of the economy and societyunlessthey are subjected to more or less profound adaptations implying equally important innovations. Thus, in many ways, ' innovation' becomes the key concept in the development of education of the present and coming decades. Innovation is not of course required or advocated for its own sake, but should be understood as a means for fulfilling functions or resolving prob- lems of an urgent nature and which have so far been neglected. The term 'innovation'asitisused here, and as distinct fromchange ', implies therefore purposeful orientation. The subject covers a very wide range of topics. Innocations in practi- callyalleducatic,nal domains canbe considered: curriculum, teaching methods, internal structures, administration, equipment, etc. Obviously, no singlestudy cancover more than a fraction of this vast area and an appropriatedelimitation of the fieldof inquiryisindispensable. It was therefore decided that a set of case-studies on innovations as introduced by a representative sample of major overall reforms of higher education and in someof the newly createduniversities represented the most suitable approach to a study of this problem. It does not follow that a new university is necessarily an innovating university, or that an overall reform need be, in all circumstances, of a. radically innovating nature. Furthermore, many important innovations of curricula or of teaching methods for example can be and are being introduced in existing universities and without calling for the promulgation of an overall reform. The fact remains, howevt.r, that in most cases these are the two basic tools used to implement innovation in the system as a whole or in some of its parts. Itisinthis context that the OECD Committee for Scientific and clinical Personnel decided to include in its current programme a number 4060f case-studies concerning problems of innovation in higher education in ember countries. The present volume on new universities in the United Kingdom is the irstofthis series of case-studies to be published by the Organisation. 3 5 Annex COMMON OUTLINE FOR THE PREPARATION OF CASE-STUDIES The following general guidelines were given to the authors: 1. The case-studies should not be developr-1 in terms ofmere descrip- tions (of a pa:ticular reform or institution) ,J1 historical accounts; they should be analytical and endeavour topresent a critical examination, the responsihility for which shall liwith the recpective author(s). 2. The case-studies should represent a combination ofan institution- and problem-oriented approach centred around the phenomenonof inno- vation.Itis not the new institutions or reforms per se which should be reviewed and analysed and the case-studies should notengage in a theore- tical discussion on problems of higher education, but emphasisshould be put on the question of how the selected institutions or reforms innovate with regard to the particular problems of the comMon outline. 3. Each of the case-studies should deal with onlya limited number of institutions or reforms, although in somecases a wider area may have to be covered,i.e.the inclusion of innovations talc; ro- . institutions, old or new. Such an extension woulu particular if the selected new institutions or reforms do not providea sufficiently representative and significant picture of the innovatingprocess as a whole. 4.Particular attention should be paid to innovations which havebeen inoperationsufficientlylong to provide the necessary elements for an adequate evaluation of their effectiveness. This evaluation shoulddeal both with the intended and the unpredicted effects of the innovation.Where the time-factor does not allow for such evaluation, the analysis shouldconcen- trate on the declared or implicit intention, of the innovators and alsoon any public discussion:, they may have generated. 5. An analysis should be made of the rationale behindall of the innovations and consideration given to such questionsas to who were the initiators and what groups or factors provided support foror resistance to the innovations. 6. The common outline should be consideredas a flexible framework; authors remain free to decide where, in view of thecase considered and of its specific national or local context, the emphasis should lie, whichpoints should be developed in depth and which should be discussedonly briefly or omittedaltogether. Many, if not all, of the points of thecommon outline are closely interconnected, possiblyeven overlapping. Given the 6 4 nature of the subject, these interconnections are inevitable and their analysis will throw light on the innovating process as a whole. The following common outline was suggested to all authors of case- studies on innovation in higher education, as undertaken within thepro- gramme of OECD's Committeefor Scientific and Technical Personnel (CST?).Thisoutline was drawn up at a meeting of the Secretariat of OECD and the authors of the first five case-studies in May 1967. A. INTRODUCTION Specific objectives, scope of study, methods and data used, limitations. B. GENERAL CONTEXT i)short overall description of institutions or reforms selected for study; ii)their place inthe global context of the society and of the education system of the country concerned (in,:luding considerations on the status of the new institutions in relation to older establishments, e.g. problems of upward mobility" of institutions of higher education.) iii)factors and circumstances which led to their creation or promulgation; initiators, protaganists and supporting groups; resistance and opposition. C.PROBLEM-ORIENTED ANALYSIS a. Coping witn Increased Numbers There can be not doubt that this is the r1st )ortant die development of alnw' H' education systems.itthe homework of the case-stu_.o.., qtions o L.,.following type should be examined: To what extent and in what sense was the promulgation of reform X the creation of Institution(s) Y directly motivated by the need to cope with the past or projected quantitative expansion of enrolments? (Was the pressure of numbers a primary or a secondary motive?) What statistical evidence can support the answer to this question and how has implementation of the reforms or the l'uilding-up