The Future of the European University: Liberal Democracy or Authoritarian Capitalism?

Abstract

This paper examines the prevalent notion that that the production of knowledge, academic research and teaching can and ought to be audited and assessed in the same manner as the production of other goods and services. The emphasis on similarities between industry and the academy leads to a neglect of fundamental differences in their aims and, as a consequence, a tendency to evaluate scientific research in terms of patents and product development and colleges and universities in terms of the labour market. The article examines the idea of the free academy, on the one hand, and compares and contrasts it to the idea of free enterprise, on the other. It is argued that the view of the university as a supplier of specific solutions for pre-determined, non-scientific needs (a workforce with skills currently in demand, innovations for commercial partners, justifications for political decisions, etc) undermines the public legitimacy of university science and weakens the fabric of scientific training and practice. The article proposes that the university's main purpose must be to provide a recognized neutral, autonomous agency of rigorous, disinterested investigation and scientific education, which constitutes a necessary condition for an enlightened liberal democracy: an informed, capable and critical citizenry.

Post-Soviet universities as development in practice: local experience and global lessons

“…The work of scholars and new funding opportunities reflected paradigmatic approaches of modernisation and functionalism, which had the effect of essentialising 'the third world', assumed a model of linear progress, and presumed that the nation-state served as the appropriate vehicle by which 'development' would be accomplished (Finnemore 1998, Schuurman 2002. Such presumptions fit neatly with traditional understandings of knowledge as the energy powering individual development and social development, and the place of the university in protecting liberal society (Rider 2009). …”

On the object of archaeology

“…While the most striking and disconcerting implications of this process are manifest among the natural sciences (Evans and Packham 2003; Monbiot 2003; Rider 2009; Sterckx 2011), the social sciences and humanities suffer the same basic ills. In fact, it is these fields that lose the most once truth becomes a matter of opinion; and as scholarly claims can no longer be grounded on classic standards of validity, recourse to other standards – corporate, managerial, social, public – becomes inevitable.…”

“…Importantly, it should not be perceived as a realizable goal, but as an ideal: An ideal is something which guides behavior by not being fully realizable in practice. In point of fact, to replace classical academic ideals with measurable outcomes and results (such as examination frequency or number of citations) is to lower our ambitions in the name of ‘excellence’ (Rider 2009, 86).…”

Archaeology is process

“…While the most striking and disconcerting implications of this process are manifest among the natural sciences (Evans and Packham 2003;Monbiot 2003;Rider 2009;Sterckx 2011), the social sciences and humanities suffer the same basic ills. In fact, it is these fields that lose the most once truth becomes a matter of opinion; and as scholarly claims can no longer be grounded on classic standards of validity, recourse to other standardscorporate, managerial, social, public -becomes inevitable.…”