Risk management of the English universities under Coalition Government: Some implications for other European countries

Author(s):

Keiko Yokoyama(presenting / submitting)

Conference:

ECER 2013

Network:

22. Research in Higher Education

Format:

Paper

Session Information

22 SES 12 C, Policy, Management and Governance in Higher Education

Paper Session

Time:

2013-09-13

09:00-10:30

Room:

STD-401

Chair:

Jaakko Kauko

Contribution

Socio-economic upheaval after the Lehman Shock and the consequent introduction of austerity measures have overshadowed the university sector in England. The universities have been urged to respond risk and uncertainty.

The study examines the change in the risk management of the university system over the last five years, paying attention to the state-university nexus. The proposal, therefore, suits Thematic Research Field 4 in Network 22.

Objective

The objective of the paper is to identify how global financial crisis has re-shaped state-university relationship in risk management in England in order to avoid future financial turbulence and manage risk in uncertain and insecure environments.

Significance

The study is significant because few literatures so far connect the conceptions of ‘risk’ and ‘uncertainty’ to university governance and management, although the conception of ‘risk’ and ‘uncertainty’ per se are not new in higher education studies and sociology [for general social theories of risk society, see Giddens (1990, 1999a, b) and Beck (1992)].

Research question

A main research question follows: how has global financial crisis re-shaped state-university relationship in risk management in England in order to avoid future financial turbulence and manage financial risk in uncertain and insecure environments?

Theoretical framework

The study explores Foucault’s idea of neo-liberal ‘governmentality’ (1988, 1991)—which has some implications for ‘risk management’— in the light of the current economic crisis. Foucault, a post-structuralist criticising liberalism, argued that the crisis of Keynesianism and the end of welfare-state intervention have brought about the state’s indirect techniques for steering individuals, placing the responsibility of social risks, such as illness, unemployment and poverty, on the individual (‘responsibilisation’). In the higher education context, it implies the transfer of responsibilities from the state to the universities in (risk) management as well as other areas, making the universities risk-managing, self-reliant, responsible, performance-focused and autonomous subjects.

The study accepts Foucault’s argument on the introduction of government indirect techniques (rather than taking a laissez-faire form) and responsibilisation under a neo-liberal regime. It hypotheses the continuity of the neoliberal governance style at the system level (i.e. policy instruments, governance culture, accountability and autonomy) in the post-2008 period.

Method

The study takes documentation for data collection. It scrutinises relevant documents relating to the above inquiry by identifying the continuity or shift of language on risk management. The primary reason for the choice of documentary analysis is that documentation is appropriate for a theoretically informed empirical study, allowing a systematic, yet flexible, analysis. The study critically assesses collected documents in light of the research inquiry. It compares selected documents in order to improve validity. It applies three stages of documentary analysis: (1) the background of documents and their arguments; (2) language, and change in language; and (3) state-institution relationship. Stage 3 is the examination of state power and the state-university relationship. This analysis focuses upon: • whose logic have become validated; • what the nature of those arguments are; • what the implications of the policies for power relationship between state and the universities are. The study is, in particular, concerned with two points: internal validity and ethical issues.

Expected Outcomes

The documentary analysis indicates that the risk management of English higher education in the post-credit crunch period is embedded in the continuity of agency co-ordination and government neo-liberal policy. Such the English version of risk management highlights what Foucault said, 'technology of governance', in which government utilises an agency, Higher Education Funding Council for England, to steer the institutions to act in accordance with state interest. Regarding 'technology of self', university autonomy, which 2011 White Paper emphasises, has both rhetorical and substantial dimensions. It is rhetorical because HEFCE can make sanction higher education institutions which fail in their financial and output performance. It is substantial because HEFCE has introduced a light-touch policy against institutions which show good performance, treating such institutions as autonomous, self-reliant, responsible and risk-managing subjects. Current Coalition Government’s austerity policy per se has neither brought about structural change in relation to the higher education governance nor reversed state-institution relationship. It has rather resulted in the change at the operational level such as job cuts and indirectly course closures (the short-term reaction). It appears that analysis on the change in internal management at the institutional level could merit further research, which is out of this study’s scope.

References

Blaxter, L., C. Hughes, and M. Tight. (1996) How to Research. Buckingham: Open University Press. Beck, U. (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. New Delhi: Sage. Browne, E. (2010) Securing a sustainable future for higher education [Browne report], 12 October. Clark, B. (1983) The Higher Education System. Berkeley: University of California Press. Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS). (2011) Higher Education: Students at the Heart of the System. London: Stationery Office. Foucault, M. (1991) ‘Governmentality’. In The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality, ed. G. Burchell, C. Gordon and P. Miller. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Foucault, M. (1988) ‘Technologies of the Self’. In A seminar with Michel Foucault, ed. L. Martin et al. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press. Giddens, A. (1999a) Risk and responsibility, Modern Law Review, 62(1): 1-10. Giddens, A. (1999b) Runaway World: How Globalization is Reshaping Our Lives. London: Profile. Gidden, A. (1990) The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press. Higher Education Founding Council for England (HEFCE). (2009). Accounts Direction for 2008, circular letter 16/2008. ———. Data on risk management. Available online at < http://www.hefce.ac.uk/whatwedo/reg/assurance/guidance/riskmanagement/#> Hood, C. (1991) A public management for all reasons?, Public Administration, 69: 3-19. Institute of Risk Management [IRM]. Several publication on institutional risk management. Available online at Rose, N. 1996. Governing ‘advanced’ liberal democracies. In Foucault and political reason, ed. A. Barry, T. Osborne, and N. Rose. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ———. 1999. Powers of freedom: Reframing political thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Treasury. Data on the risk management. Available online at Trow, M. (1996) Trust, markets and accountability in higher education: A comparative perspective. Higher Education Policy, 9(4): 309-24. Wolverton, B. (2011) ‘Jitters hit colleges as global stock markets reel’, The Chronicle, August 11.

Author Information

Keiko Yokoyama (presenting / submitting)

Stockholm University

SCORE

Stockholm

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.