It has been argued that higher education in Europe, and globally, is undergoing a crisis period where its traditional self-understanding is under threat (Olsen, 2007). The primary context for this is the reframing of university systems against the ‘discursive imaginary’ (Robertson & Keeling, 2008) of the neoliberal ‘knowledge economy’. In this setting, knowledge is a commodity, redirecting the research agenda towards disciplines and themes most closely connected with short-term profit (Dale, 2005). Also, the neoliberal promotion of university degrees as personal financial — rather than social or public — investments (Molesworth et al, 2009) justifies the imposition of tuition fees; this is partly in response to the burden that massification places on state coffers. These fees, though, may be in danger of establishing students as customers, which could significantly alter the relationship they have with the university and the academic staff, as higher education becomes a service provider expected to focus on satisfying its customer base and the employability of its graduates (White, 2006). This may be at the expense of the values drawn from the Enlightenment, of fidelity to non-utilitarian knowledge for broader societal benefit (Olsen, 2007). The predominantly but not entirely negative reaction to these changes from academics, well-versed in the philosophy of The University, is well represented in the literature; there is a tension between serving a social, democratic good through shared knowledge and equal access, and the need for resources to drive individual universities towards ‘excellence‘ and favourable positioning on competitive international rankings. There is little empirical evidence, though, of student perspectives on these issues. Some studies (e.g. White, 2006) have shown evidence of increasing student disengagement and a changing relationship between student and academia. This study seeks to apply itself to this dearth, asking how students understand the university, its character, and how they as students relate to it.

The theoretical approach adopted is that of March and Olsen’s (2006) neo-institutional model, which describes institutions as long-term, stable (but internally dynamic) collections of rules, activities and identities. Theorising higher education in this way is useful because it provides a framework for understanding both ‘university’ as a system with specific goals, hierarchies and values, as well as offering a way to identify and analyse its positions and tensions.

The overarching research question addressed is ‘How do contemporary German and English Undergraduate Students’ Understand ‘The University’ as an Institution?’. Drawing on March and Olsen’s model, subsidiary research questions explore students’ conceptualisation of The University’s purposes, values, and the role of the student, seeking to understand what the sources of their understandings are.

The objectives of the research are to begin to establish whether higher education is instilling its values in students — or promoting its perspectives in the utilitarian ‘versus’ social knowledge argument. If it is not, it is questioned whether the long-term stability of the institution and its ability to self-determine might be rendered more vulnerable. Furthermore, I hope to investigate whether factors such as country, academic discipline and exposure to higher education may mediate students’ conceptualisations.

Bohman, J. (2003). Critical Theory as Practical Knowledge: Participants, Observers, and Critics. In S. P. Turner & P. A. Roth (Eds.), The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of the Social Sciences (pp. 91-109). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Dale, R. (2005). Globalisation, knowledge economy and comparative education. Comparative Education, 41(2), 117-149. Lunt, I. (2008). Psychologist qualifications in Europe: Common standard for quality and mobility. Australian Psychologist, 43(4), 222-230. March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (2006). Elaborating the “New Institutionalism.” In R. A. W. Rhodes, S. S. Binder, & B. A. Rockman (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions (pp. 3-20). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Masschelein, J. (2004). How to Conceive of Critical Educational Theory Today? Journal of Philosophy of Education, 38(3), 351-367. Molesworth, M., Nixon, E., & Scullion, R. (2009). Having, being and higher education: the marketisation of the university and the transformation of the student into consumer. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(3), 277-287. Olsen, J. P. (2007). The Institutional Dynamics of the European University. In P. Maassen & J. P. Olsen (Eds.), University Dynamics and European Integration (pp. 25-54). Dordrecht: Springer. Parker, A., & Tritter, J. (2006). Focus group method and methodology: current practice and recent debate. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 29(1), 23-37. Robertson, S. L., & Keeling, R. (2008). Stirring the lions: strategy and tactics in global higher education. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 6(3), 221-240. Stake, R. (2005). Qualitative case studies. The Sage handbook of qualitative research. White, N. R. (2006). “The customer is always right?”: Student discourse about higher education in Australia. Higher Education, 54(4), 593-604.