A Reflection on the Higher Education Funding Conference at Maynooth University

When a good friend, who is a PhD student at TCD researching higher education in Ireland, sent me a message on Whatsapp on 30th September, I just landed at Geneva Airport, on my way to visiting a friend. In the short message, he said that the conference he was attending – the Higher Education Funding Conference at Maynooth University – was pretty good and would be of interest to me. I replied immediately, saying that ‘unfortunately’ I was on a short holiday to Switzerland, but I would like to find out more about what has been presented during the conference after returning.

So I did.

The one-day conference had a total of six presentations given by five academics, with Prof. Bruce Chapman from the Australian National University giving two presentations, one in the morning and the other in the afternoon. All the slides have been put up on the conference website. My friend was right: the conference was pretty good.

In general, the conference was able to provide extensive empirical evidence of higher education funding in a number of countries.

The presentation given by Rory O’Donnell, Director of the National Economic and Social Council of Ireland (NESC), qualitatively outlined the approach adopted by the Expert Group on the Future Funding for Higher Education, which was established by the Minister for Education in 2014 in response to serious concerns about the adequacy of current funding model. After explaining the key components of each of the three phases undertaken by the Expert Group, O’Donnell concluded with a set of guiding principles under discussion about exploring a new approach to funding. As indicated by Peter Cassells – the chair of the Expert Group – when speaking at the Royal Irish Academy on 23rd September that the group will not report until the end of this year, it remains unclear what exactly the approach will look like.

The rest five presentations were more focused on empirical analysis of different countries: two on Ireland, one on England, one on the U.S., and one on Australia.

Delma Byrne, presenting the case of Ireland, paid much attention to access to higher education and argued that two key policy instruments which seek to facilitate access are compromised. Bruce Chapman, in his afternoon presentation, illustrated an ‘Irish Hypothetical Loan Scheme’. In particular, he used data from the EU Survey of Income and Living Conditions for the calculation of earning profiles and repayment burdens (RB). Although the results were preliminary, they seemed to suggest that ‘an Irish mortgage-loan system will have very low RBs for low income graduates’ but RBs may go upwards to more than 60% for many graduates. (Note: RB in period t is loan repayment in period t as a share of income in period t).

The rest three presentations focused on international evidence on the topic.

Claire Crawford, a Research Fellow of the Institute for Fiscal Studies and Assistant Professor of Economics at the University of Warwick, explained the case of England, with a special focus on the impacts of the higher education funding reform in England in 2012. The reform, of which the core is the change of tuition fees per annum from £3,375 to a maximum of £9,000, includes changes to the level of maintenance grants and maintenance loans, as well as the mechanism of loan repayment. For universities, as Crawford argued, it would mean more funding, while for students the reform means high debt at graduation. As a result of the introduction of the new loan repayment mechanism, there will be lower annual repayments for graduates, but repayments will be made for a longer period of time. Finally, while ‘these reforms increased upfront spending on HE’, they ‘reduced government borrowing and BIS’s departmental spending’. Reflecting on these issues, Crawford reminded the audience that the potential downsides for another government to consider implementing a similar system include: the system is complicated; extent of government subsidy uncertain; there is no incentive for universities to charge less than the fee cap; and may potentially damage (part-time) participation.

Titled ‘Making College Both Affordable & Accessible: Lessons from the U.S.’, the presentation by Sara Goldrick-Rab examined the performance of a number of types of financial aid to students in the U.S. In particular, the key questions to be answered include: Does aid induce people to choose college? Does aid increase full participation in college life? Does aid improve completion rates? Does aid level inequality? and Can aid be sustained? All these questions are important to bear in mind when determining whether any system would be effective.

In his morning presentation, Bruce Chapman firstly outlined some conceptual issues such as the need for government intervention in university financing, and secondly introduced the history and experience of the Australian income contingent loans (ICL) system. In the end of his presentation, he showed a slide of the international experience of ICL, which is adapted and presented below.

Figure 1: The international experience of ICL


Source: Chapman (2015).

While there have been many debates about the possible approaches to reforming the current funding model, the decision will nevertheless be made by the government in the end and any changes made to the system would probably have different influences on different stakeholders (e.g. universities, students, graduates, and government). The conference is useful in providing international evidence on the consequences of alternative higher education funding schemes, even so as it’s held a few months before the release of the final report by the Expert Group.


The Connected University: Ireland’s Higher Education Institutions and their Knowledge Exchange Activities

In this blog, I provide a summary of the working paper we have done on measuring the intensity and diversity of academic engagement with stakeholders in knowledge exchange activities in Ireland. The full paper is available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2671771

In this article, we focus on the wide perspective of knowledge exchange, and we analyse the outreach activities involved by academics based at HEIs in Ireland. We draw on the innovation studies and knowledge networks literature to explain the intensity and diversity of knowledge exchange activities.

Our main claim is that, academics in Ireland are much more actively involved in ‘conventional’ activities than in newly emerged ‘third mission’ activities, and Irish HEIs might have gone too far recently in attempting to meet the needs of industry.

Based on survey data collected from both universities and institutes of technology (IoTs), we investigate the current state of knowledge exchange that takes place between academics from all disciplines with partners in both the private and public sectors.

Modes of interactions

Figures 1a and 1b show how intensively respondents were engaged in a total of 24 types of activities within the past three years. In particular, Figure 1a illustrates the activities which were reported by at least 30 per cent of respondents, while Figure 1b displays the activities indicated by less than 30 per cent of respondents.

The two figures combined tend to suggest that staff in the Irish higher education sector were actively engaged in a wide range of external interaction activities with their partners. More importantly, knowledge transfer activities were much less frequently engaged by Irish academics, who were instead heavily involved in activities such as attending conferences, informal advice, participating in networks, giving invited lectures and joint research and publications. On the lower end of the spectrum were external secondment, community based sports, and standard setting forums, which were reported by less than 10 per cent of respondents.

Figure 1a: Academic external interaction activity (% of respondents)1a

Figure 1b: Academic external interaction activity (% of respondents)1b

Types of partners

Figure 2 illustrates how academics in Ireland’s higher education institutions interacted with various types of partners. When all respondents are considered, 57 per cent of academics stated that they engaged with private sector firms, while less than 52 per cent of the responding individuals reported interactions with public sector organisations.

There are some variances between academics in the six disciplines engaging with different types of organisations. While staff in engineering, mathematics and computer sciences, natural science, and management and business were intensively engaged with private sector companies, staff in arts, humanities and social science were most closely involved with public sector organisations. Arts, humanities and social science were the disciplines where staff were much more likely to engage with the public sector than with the private sector. An interesting note to make is that staff in human medical were engaged with partners from the two sectors at, more or less, the same level. In the pharmaceutical sector, although industry supplies the bulk of the funds devoted to research and development, the public sector supports most of the basic research which in general requires a large amount of investment and faces a high risk of failure.

Figure 2: Activities with private sector companies and public sector organisations (% of respondents)2

Constraints on knowledge exchange

Figures 3a, 3b and 3c compare the constraints identified by the respondents when engaging in their knowledge exchange activities.

Constraints in Figure 3a were indicated by more than 25 per cent of respondents, while Figures 3b and 3c include constraints identified by more than 10 per cent and less than 10 per cent of respondents respectively.

The most important constraints cited by academics include a lack of time to fulfil all university roles (62 per cent), insufficient resources devoted by the institution (34 per cent), bureaucracy and inflexibility in the institution (33 per cent) and insufficient rewards from interaction (28 per cent).

By contrast, cultural differences between universities and firms were the least frequently cited constraint by academics, which, in line with the UK evidence, seems to contradict the conventional wisdom that cultural barriers limit interactions between academics and firms (Lambert 2003).

Figure 3a: Constraints on interactions with external organisations (% of respondents)3a

Figure 3b: Constraints on interactions with external organisations (% of respondents)3b

Figure 3c: Constraints on interactions with external organisations (% of respondents)3c

Mission of higher education

The survey asks the respondents how they perceived the role of higher education in the economy. In particular, academics were required to indicate to what extent they agreed with each of the six statements about relationships between businesses and the society (Figure 4).

A 1-to-5 rating scale was used to measure the differences, with 5 referring to ‘agree strongly’ and 1 referring to ‘disagree strongly’. The most important factor is that academic freedom is of fundamental important to the future wellbeing of society (4.4). To a large extent, academics stated that higher education has a key role to play in increasing the competitiveness of business, which might positively influence the interactions between academics and firms (3.9). Nevertheless, academics were also more likely to consider that, over the past few years, universities have gone too far in attempting to meet the needs of industry (3.2). In general, academics tended to disagree that academia should focus on basic research and should not be concerned with its actual or potential application (2.4).

Figure 4: Extent to which agree with statements about relationships with external organisations (mean score)4

Concluding remarks

In this paper, we have examined the current state of university knowledge networks in Ireland, with the aim to understand the intensity and diversity of interactions between academics and business and the community.

Staff working at Ireland’s HEIs showed differences in how intensively they engaged in various types of networks, and IP-related activities were the least frequent type of interaction.

Our respondents were more closely engaged with the private sector firms than with the public sector organisations, showing that university-industry engagement in Ireland is in a relatively good position. Nevertheless, university and IoT staff were much more closely engaged with national and regional government bodies and much less intensively engaged with international organisations, many of which are important sources for competitive based research funding. In the architecture of world science, a major change has been the expansion of the global networks, and thus getting closely integrated into them becomes an important factor of maintaining research excellence.

In general, university staff were positive about the role higher education should play in supporting business development and regional growth, but they were, at the same time, concerned about the detriment of their core teaching and research roles as a result of ‘too much’ focus being put on meeting the needs of industry.

Our findings could also be of relevance to policies in higher education, innovation and knowledge-based economy. As argued, the policy focus, which has mainly been on capacity building of HEIs and on collaborations between HEIs, has recently shifted towards engagement between the higher education sector and the wider society. What this paper has found could be used as a first step to build a more comprehensive understanding of knowledge exchange activities between Ireland’s HEIs and their external partners.