Advanced education as a space for inquiries

All nations need a space in their education system for free and devoted pursuit of knowledge. Such a space functions as the main source for knowledge production, intellectual development, cultural advancement, and social transformation of a nation.

To understand this kind of vital and dignified educational space, the book “Places of Inquiry: Research and Advanced Education in Modern Universities” by Burton R. Clark, can be an important source for reference. In this classic masterpiece (of the field of sociology of higher education and comparative and international higher education), the author comprehensively and deeply examined and compared among different models of advanced education¹ institutions and research organizations. The efforts and resources put in conducting such a large comparative research project and crafting this book were neither trivial nor short-term, which makes this book a highly dependable and well cited academic source for researchers studying areas related to higher education.

The author organized this book into two parts. Part I discusses national differences in the model of advanced education institutions and research organizations among five major economies (i.e., Germany, the Great Britain, France, the United States, and Japan). Part II focuses on the connection among research, teaching, and study/learning functions in each model, with an elaborate discussion on both the factors that separate the three functions and those that unite them.

Let me note that this book is not an easy read for non-academic readers. The author wrote this lengthy book for his academic peers, and so the writing is very academic in style. General readers are expected to understand basic technical terms used in the field of higher education (e.g., advanced education, mass higher education, elite higher education, research-teaching nexus, academic freedom) in order to fully comprehend this academically specialized text.

That’s it for the introduction! Henceforth, I will pin down key messages from the two main sections of the book and discuss essential requirements to think about or weigh up an institution/organization of advanced education and research, based on Clark’s insights.

The five countries in the study have developed some distinctive features in their institutional/organizational model of advanced education and research. The author labelled the German model of advanced education and research as the “Institute University”, the Great Britain model as the “Collegiate University”, the French model as the “Academy University”, the United States model as the “Graduate Department University”, and the Japanese model as the “Applied University”.

• The German Institute University is influenced by the well-known philosophy of university (of Wilhelm von Humboldt) which emphasizes the importance of the relationship between research and teaching. The Institute University has established such organizational tools as “laboratory”, “seminar”, and “Institute” to realize the research-teaching connection. The “laboratory” focuses more on the “teaching” part of this research-teaching relationship at the advanced level of education; in other words, the laboratory functions as a space for transferring disciplinary knowledge (mostly, the frontier research knowledge) through an instructional approach similar to apprenticeship, with the academic master (or now called academic supervisor) transmitting the existing body of disciplinary knowledge to the academic apprentices (or nowadays called senior and junior graduate students) who endeavor to master the body of knowledge of their specialized research area independently. The “seminar”, on the other hand, tends to focus more on the “researching” part of the research-teaching connection. The seminar is operated in the form of inquiries, dialogues, and reflections co-engaged by the supervisor and the students, both of whom use their actual research works as the objects for discussion. In this sense, in a research seminar, the supervisor and the students co-create new knowledge as well as methods to create new knowledge in their specialized research areas. The institutional base that allows the laboratory and the seminar to cooperate is called the “Institute” (which is perhaps the root term of modern so-called Research Institute). The “Institute”, in the German traditional context, is generally based within a university, but it is a public establishment which is legally and financially independent of the university. Its director possesses immense power both in the Institute itself and in the university.

• The Great Britain’s Collegiate University is rooted in the “English idea of a university”. Unlike the German higher education system, that of the Great Britain does not give a serious focus on the advanced level of higher education, but more on the pre-advanced (undergraduate) level of higher education. In other words, university education is a space dominated by the undergraduate teaching and learning components. Thus, the institutional/organizational model of the British advanced education and research is characterized by a very elite form of post-graduate studies, with a very small body of students, a residential way of life on the campus, and the practice of tutorship through which the tutor and students form a very close relationship in their collective pursuit of advanced learning. To talk more specifically about the research substance in the British higher education is even more complicated because it involves so much diversities among institutions and changes within the same system across times. For example, the traditional University of Oxford and Cambridge which were first established as teaching institutions have through times changed and upgraded their status of frontier academic research in order to catch up with advanced education institutions in other countries. Likewise, most British universities (of the English roots) were more teaching oriented, whereas those (with the Scottish roots) seemingly had a stronger research orientation (although both of them were under the same system of the Great Britain). Compared to the traditional German model of advanced education and research, we can assume that the research origin of the traditional British advanced education was not as strong.

• The French Academy University is a unique model, seemingly different from other major models of advanced education in Europe. While the research sector and the higher education (including advanced education) sector are generally fused into one system in many countries, France separates the research organizations from the higher education institutions. The higher education and advanced education institutions come in the form of Grandes Ecoles (prestigious specialized advanced schools; not research-oriented), Universities (less prestigious and also not research oriented), and institutes of technology (IUTs). The separate research organizations, on the other hand, consist of the leading National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS) and other public research organizations or laboratories. While the CNRS is specifically and specially designed for conducting frontier scientific research, funded by the state; the Grandes Ecoles, the Universities, and the IUTs are created more for teaching and study though they enjoy different status (with the Grandes Ecoles having the highest status of higher education). In the French system, therefore, it is hard to talk about an obvious connection among research, teaching, and study/learning in one place of advanced education. Despite subsequent reforms of the French higher education system, research works at French universities have remained relatively small and can only survive in some major universities that have a good network with the research sector (particularly, the CNRS). (It should be noted that the French system of higher education (and advanced education) institutions and research organizations is highly centralized and state-oriented.)

• The United States’ Graduate Department University is a rather modern, mixed, and expanded model of higher education (including advanced education and research), partially influenced by the existing German, British, and French traditional models but extending those previous models and designed to better fit the mass form of higher education². The US higher (and advanced) education system is relatively larger and far more diverse than that of other countries, in terms of institutions, programs, student bodies, and other aspects. The system is highly market-driven, requiring institutions to take serious entrepreneurial initiatives to stay competitive in the market. In this massive higher education system of the US, the component of advanced education and research is centered at the so-called Graduate School or Graduate Department, particularly at major research universities. This graduate school model of the US combines laboratories, seminars, course works, and other educational requirements all together. Sometimes, the graduate schools even provide professional training and general education to students who need such programs. In this sense, the advanced teaching, learning, and research happen in one space all together, just similar the German model. However, the difference is that the traditional German model was not designed for the mass or the universal type of advanced education; so certain aspects of the German advanced education (e.g., the inquiry-based teaching and learning approach used by the academic master and the students) can face serious challenges when applied in a mass higher (and advanced) education setting.

• The Japanese Applied University has another distinctive essence from that of other countries discussed above in that its higher (and advanced) education institutions and research organizations generally have a very close relationship with the industry sector. This relationship injects into the Japanese ecosystem of higher (and advanced) education and research a deeply-rooted pragmatic and utilitarian spirit. In other words, the industry sector plays very important (if not dominant) roles in the development, organization, and implementation of the higher education (and advanced education) and research in Japan. Funds from the industry for advanced research, for instance, are very high. In fact, the industry does not just fund but implement research and development activities and sometimes conduct research training on their own. In the academic higher (and advanced) education sector, research is centered around the natural and physical sciences and technological fields, but not in the humanities and social sciences. In this sense, knowledge capitals and skills of Japanese graduates (of advanced education degrees) can still be useful for the industrial sector and the national economic development. With this applied essence and that close relationship with industry, the Japanese advanced education always prefers to attach research to (technological) development and avail a pathway for industrial staff to obtain doctoral degree and many other opportunities. Compared to the Western counterparts, the academic orientation of the Japanese higher (and advanced) education and research is not as strong.

Built on the discussion of each model above, the second key message from this book is that teaching, research, and study/learning should not be treated as separate functions at the institution/organization of advanced education and research. These three functions in fact need to complement each other in order to make an institution/organization of advanced education and research an authentic place of inquiry and higher/advanced learning. And only such authentic places can advance higher knowledge and sustain that virtuous mission. Although Clark himself is fully aware of why some countries separate the three functions (i.e., due to the move to mass higher education, the increased demand for professional expertise, the gap between frontier and codified knowledge, the increased government control, and/or the interest of industry), he seems to have a deep conviction that the nexus among teaching, research, and study/learning is an intrinsic mechanism of a high-performing institution/organization of advanced education and research, with the spirit of inquiries as the underlying central endeavor that integrates all the three functions together (See the Figure 1 below). The author noted: “Approaching the twenty-first century, the intellectual movement favors even more than in the past the universities that best integrate research activity and research training with teaching and study” (Clark, 1995, 15). To realize this teaching-research-study compatibility, the so-called “binary group”, which appropriately combines and balances between the research component and the teaching component of the advanced education programs, can be a practical strategy, as employed in the US Graduate School model. Other strategies need to be formulated in line with the realities of the national education system and conditions.

Does Clark’s argument on the teaching-research-study nexus make much sense for institutions/organizations of higher (and advanced) education and research in countries besides the five discussed in his book? Perhaps not. In many developing countries, the research function (whether it is developed in the higher and advanced education sector or outside of it) is generally ignored, disorganized, and left as a peripheral mission. Likewise, in those countries’ higher (and advanced) education, the notion of inquiry-centric teaching-research-learning nexus is generally not appreciated or implementable, and the teaching function (which is far from inquiry-based or research-based) is too dominant (for whatever economic or historical reasons) to the point that universities (or even their most advanced education institutions) are sometimes referred to as “estates for teaching” and faculty members as “teaching machines”.

Such conditions in the long run can weaken the whole higher (and advanced) education system in those countries. In the eyes of critical education observers, most countries without a space for authentic advanced education and research have faced such substantial challenges as slow progress of intellectual development of the nation, weak functionality of the nation’s high culture, and a very limited contribution of research to social growth. In the 21st century, marked by globalization, knowledge explosion, and digitalization, countries without a strong base for higher (and advanced) education and research will continue to depend on other nations’ brains, knowledge, and technologies. Even if they possess a great wealth of cultural heritage, they cannot make their culture radiate and use it to contribute to the global and humanistic advancement, simply because there are no organized groups of devoted minds to be entrusted with such a big mission. Their best minds will be sooner or later drained into other nations’ intellectual and strategic missions. This is something scholars call the “brain drain” phenomenon.

With all these said, I think higher education policy makers and institutional leaders (especially, those dealing with advanced or graduate education) of a nation are in an important position to rethink their advanced education space, model, and talents. They need to seriously reconsider how far their advanced education institutions/organizations can cultivate the spirit of inquiries and push the frontier of science and knowledge as well as how the teaching, research, and study/learning functions are seamlessly integrated within the mechanism of education. Some simple questions they may ask themselves are: What are the substantial differences between holding a doctoral degree and holding a lower level degree? or Should the idea and approach of teaching and learning at the secondary level of education be the same as the idea and approach of teaching and learning at the doctoral level of education? These simple questions can be eye-opening if we contemplate them for an adequate period of time. Although, for many practical reasons, policy makers and institutional leaders may not see the advanced education and research as a national or institutional priority, they still need to be honest to themselves that, as the bottom line, an authentic place of advanced education and research, if there is one, has to:

1. clearly differentiate itself from the lower-level general education (primary and secondary education) and the pre-advanced (undergraduate) level of post-secondary education, and
2. specialize in performing the function of knowledge creation, preservation, transmission, integration, and advancement, which is only possible through a sincere appreciation of inquiries and research.

A space like this should be designed only for genuine scholars, dedicated scientists, hard-core researchers, and persistent knowledge seekers. It should not be designed for those ones who disregard humanistic virtues, intellectual inquiries, and experimental learning or those ones who seek other things besides knowledge and truth.

---

---

1. Higher Education can be divided into two levels (Pre-Advanced Education and Advanced Education) or three levels (Introductory Level, Intermediate Level, and Advanced Level). In most systems of Higher Education, the Pre-Advanced Education level can be understood as Undergraduate Programs or the Introductory and Intermediate cycles of Higher Education, which generally lead to a bachelor degree or lower. The Advanced Education level, on the other hand, is of higher level and can be associated generally with Graduate Programs (or called Post-Graduate Programs in the UK), which lead to a master’s and doctoral degree.
2. Martin Trow, a prominent researcher of higher education, classified higher education participation into three types: elite, mass and universal. The elite higher education type is identified with a gross enrollment rate of less than 15% of the related age group of a country’s population. The mass higher education type is identified with a gross enrollment rate between 16% and 50% of the age group. And the universal higher education type is when the gross enrollment rate is above 50%.