Purpose 1:  To advance knowledge through research and discovery

​

            The creation of new knowledge through research and discovery is a central purpose of higher education.  First, it will be important to delineate that this section will specifically address research universities within the larger seascape of higher education.  Research universities occupy a significant presence within the seascape of higher education.  Individual states have public research universities and larger states, like California, have a tiered system of these research universities.  As if that were not enough, private research universities are speckled across the waters to complement and simultaneously compete with public research universities.  In short, research universities are omnipresent. 

           

            Research and discovery is a central purpose of the university because it is usually established as part of its mission.  This institutional mission serves as a raison d’etre for the institution.  It is why, at least partially, it was created and why it persists.  In short, it is inherent and intrinsic because it is a part of its institutional creation and its founders deemed it so.  The ship is inherently created to sail. 

 

            Research scholars systematically investigate all dimensions of the world in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions.  This is the act of research and it is central to a university.  These research scholars are clustered into academic disciplines, schools and colleges.  The research university houses the herculean intellectual undertaking of research and discovery.  The ability for scholars to think, ask and successfully answer questions is a deeply precious activity and it historically deserved its own unique place in society.  Essential to research, even thought alone is considered elemental to a research university (Barnett, 2021).  The research scholar, in all disciplines, can find a home in a research university. 

           

            If research is to be housed in the research university, then the research university must also foster the acceptance of failure.  Research scholars endure the arduous journey of exploration and discovery; however, not all explorations or experiments result in new discoveries.  Some simply fail.  And thus, failure is an inherent part of the lifecycle of research.  Scholars freely search, fail and re-search.  It is even inherent in its name – the act of re-searching, or searching again.  But failure is not an end within the framework of scholarship for failure itself results in new understanding.  Perhaps scholarship, then, is inclusive of failing forwards.  Or, failing successfully.  Scholars of all disciplines create new ideas, explore new theories, test experiments and push the boundaries of understanding.  This persistence, resilience and commitment to free discovery finds a home within the modern day research university.  Few other organizations in a modern society would tolerate or be able to foster successful failure. 

           

            The engagement of research and process of discovery does not belong solely in the university.  But, while research may exist in other organizations, it cannot thrive anywhere else as it does at a university.  Academic freedom and tenure are unique key tenets to why research is able to thrive at universities over other types of organizations.  It makes universities precious, I believe.  While universities as entities have academic freedom around topics such as curricula, it is the professoriate, which retains individual academic freedoms and rights associated (Simon, 2008).  Academic freedom and tenure foster research by the faculty; however, the purist and idealistic image of research is not always the reality. 

​

Obstacles to advancing knowledge through research and discovery

​

            Western research universities exist in a capitalist, neoliberal context.  As such, a financial reality exists for all research universities.  Corporate and capitalistic underpinnings threaten research, its integrity and can even drive what is deemed relevant and important.  Research, exploration and discovery are inherently messy and require significant investment.  Further, financial incentives not only have potential to compromise research results, but also determine which large scale research questions are asked/answered entirely.  Similarly, expanding tenured faculty roles coupled with preserving academic freedom can be difficult and immensely expensive.  Some institutions, as such, may not be able to preserve tenure without trade-offs.  As universities are interpellated into being accountable businesses more than educational institutions centered on research, academic freedom and tenure are threatened.  University leaders must actively preserve academic freedom and tenure to preserve the integrity of research.  The act of research is not only central to the university but it is critical to advancements for society as a whole.

 

Purpose 2:  To be a marketplace of ideas and rigorous dialogue

​

            The second purpose of higher education is to be a marketplace of ideas and rigorous dialogue.  Students board the ships of higher education from a variety of backgrounds and lived experiences.  Similarly, they hold personal beliefs.  It is widely understood that institutions of higher education should foster learning of new academic material; however, the university experience is more than a transactional information exchange.  For students, it is an ontological transformation.  The state of being of students evolves between when they enter the organization and when they leave since students are in a state of “perpetual becoming” (Barnett, 2021, p.111).

 

            The ontological transformation of students occurs because of the ideas they consider, the viewpoints they entertain, the people/literature they encounter, and the ontological disturbances they experience (Barnett, 2021, p. 118).  A student might attend courses back-to-back which approach similar topics from diverse perspectives.  How might the student resolve this cognitive dissonance?  Students are left to wrestle and make meaning of the ideas and discoveries of others.  The heterogeneous marketplace of scholarly ideas fosters intellectual consideration in students.  Like hundreds of passengers aboard the ship, this ideological bazaar promotes intellectual exposure rather than indoctrination.  Higher education teaches students how to think not what to think.

​

            Within institutions of higher education, students are not only consuming information, but they are also producing information and engaging in rigorous dialogue.  In both the liberal arts and pre-professional frameworks of modern day undergraduate education, students are debating and academically jousting.  In a classroom or a coffee shop, ideas might be developed or refined by a peer, or professor.  Or by themselves.  This experience of academic exposure and engagement is meant to be enlightening, invigorating and result in students making meaning of the world in which they live.  Grappling and wrangling with ideas through rigorous written and oral discourse is a purpose of higher education.  And when the ships come into port, the students have arrived to a new and greater place of understanding simply by being on the ship.

​

Obstacles to being a marketplace of ideas and rigorous dialogue

​

            Similar to purpose one, the erosion of academic freedom is an obstacle to the marketplace of ideas.  Why?  Academic freedom ensures ideological heterogeneity within the marketplace and thus increases the likelihood of ontological disturbances for its student visitors.  The greater the variety of ideas, the more intellectual grappling that is likely to be experienced.  Academic freedom, at very least, is necessary to preserve unpopular ideas.  An erosion of academic freedom is problematic and risks fostering intellectual partisanship.  Simon (2008) argues “partisanship is a real threat to critical inquiry and to academic freedom” (p. 577).  The preservation of academic freedom ensures the marketplace of ideas exists in perpetuity in its truest form. 

​

            Next, a widening social and wealth stratification within the United States is an obstacle to the marketplace of ideas.  Why?  Not all secondary schools have equal access to teachers, resources and instructional infrastructure.  Accordingly, the higher education system is at risk of blindly inheriting the social stratification in which it exists.  Without intentional efforts to overcome the gaps within the apparatus of middle and secondary education, specific communities are marginalized and excluded from participating in the marketplace as a result of their socioeconomic status.  Thus, they may never be able to obtain a college degree, a doctorate, tenure or academic freedom.  Ideas and experiences from all level of American society are worthy of exploration and marketplace participation.  Yet, there must be intentional mechanisms in place to counteract the effects of social stratification on access to schools at all levels.  Without significant investment into scholarship support and program promoting access to higher education, the marketplace of ideas is diluted and thus sub-optimized. 

​

            In a tech-laden modern society, true interpersonal dialogue is at risk of being diluted.    Higher education, specifically traditional residential universities, push against dilution by convening heterogeneous communities in spaces which foster productive, rigorous dialogue and intellectual engagement of ideas.  As previously mentioned, universities are ideas and theoretically, thus, they could exist in absence of space.  But, perhaps the presence of space on campuses is all the more precious in the tech-laden society.  The burden to show up – in person – is high.  It requires great investment on the part of the participant.  Universities act as intellectual watering holes where heterogeneous ideas are explored an in a way, this pushes back against the transactionalization of higher education. 

 

Purpose 3: to provide social and economic mobility in a capitalist society

​

            A third purpose of higher education is to provide social and economic mobility in a capitalist society.  Just as the ships themselves have a destination, so do its passengers.  Higher education offers an experience broadly valued in society.  Each earned credential signals to the broader society the participant has emerging expertise in a specific domain area as well as non-cognitive skills which are necessary to obtain a university degree.  The related acquired skillset provides a foundational standard by which organizations, businesses, and companies (ie marketplace) can leverage in a capitalist society as they work to achieve their own missions.  MacFarlane (2019) understands this as the commodification of skills and operationalization of values.   Similarly, the individual student can leverage their skillset and knowledge to gain participation in a capitalist society, which rewards desired skillsets with financial compensation.  In a capitalist society, higher education must remain economically viable for all parties and when it is, higher education can provide social and economic mobility.  The opportunity for people and society to flourish broadly rests on the interplay between individuals and higher education as a public good.

​

            The relationship between the seascape of higher education, business/industry and the individual in society is ideally symbiotic.  When there is an equality of condition and higher education exists as a pure public good, the coexistence is mutually beneficial.  Higher education participation fosters the acquisition of skills and the capitalist marketplace fosters the use of those skills at the benefit of the participant.  Perhaps iterative, the delicate dance between individuals, higher education and business/industry allows participants to seek economic and social mobility.  The acquisition of skills and experiences in higher education can help individuals obtain careers in the marketplace.  In exchange for personal financial capital, higher education provides a credentialed and relevant skillset, which advances business/industry and the individual in society mutually.    When the individual is unable to provide a relevant skillset to business/industry, they may return to the seascape of higher education to obtain a new skillset, one that is desirable by business/industry.  This relationship is illustrated below, as I understand them.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

 

           

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Social mobility for the individual is possible when their skills remain relevant to business/industry and higher education is a public good.  Critically, while the seascape of higher education does not have a monopoly on skill acquisition, the university credential remains highly desirable especially when credentials and degrees are signals to business/industry. The individual in society, in theory, can gain social and economic mobility by successfully navigating both business/industry as well as the seascape of higher education.  That said, obstacles exist and the reality can be different from the ideal. 

 

Obstacles to social and economic mobility in a capitalist society

​

            Naturally, there are obstacles to social and economic mobility.  Not all of these obstacles will be explored but two central obstacles will be discussed.  These obstacles are (1) inability for the individual to access either the seascape of higher education or business/industry and (2) an imbalance in the exchanges between all three participants.  The main assumption in this section is that higher SES members of society (ie the wealthy) are not seeking upward economic mobility.

​

            Access.  The inability for an individual to initially access either the seascape of higher education or business/industry will impede social and economic mobility in a capitalist society.  Those unable to board the ships at all never reach a destination.  A variety of barriers to access exist including individual locality, previous academic performance, limited access to capital, personal circumstance, market competition for work/education, systemic barriers and others.  Individually, these can act as barriers but also the compounding of these barriers may also prevent access to either the seascape of higher education and business/industry.  Access to either higher education or business/industry can provide access to the other.  For example, access to higher education can provide a skillset which fosters entry into the workforce while access to business/industry can provide capital which can facilitate to higher education.  Access to neither is problematic.  It is also equally problematic if the interactions only facilitates social reproduction (Bordieu, 1986).

​

            Imbalance.  Another obstacle to social and economic mobility is an imbalance that may exist between the three participants.  An imbalance, for example, might be if an individual exchanges too much capital for a skillset that will be less valued/valuable by business/industry.  This might include the individual spending excessive funds for a low value degree or a student taking out loans to finance undervalued credentials in the marketplace.  This limits the social/economic mobility of the individual.  Perhaps exploitative.  While this might bring other benefits such as personal fulfillment or networking opportunities, it remains risky especially for low income or low resourced individuals.  Imbalances may exist in any relationship and market forces may possibly correct for those over time.  An example might be if an excellent MBA program has low costs.  While great for the individuals, the inability for the MBA program to gain revenue might ultimately hurt its ability to hire top faculty to teach relevant skills.  Or, a business which pays low wages might lose their best employees to other businesses in the marketplace thus causing the business to re-evaluate its compensation structure.  Individuals may be able to leverage these imbalances for personal gain by attending a great low cost MBA program or seeking new career opportunities in the marketplace. 

 

            Ultimately, at the individual level, the imbalances which appear to be problematic include when the individual exchanges too much capital for a skillset which is less desirable in the marketplace, when the skillset taught in higher education is not desirable, or when the individual is poorly compensated for their skills in business/industry.  In these situations, the relationship is no longer symbiotic but parasitic.  It is problematic for the individual. 

​

            I should recognize this section is strictly based in an economic and market-oriented lens.  It also recognizes careerism, consumer materialism and that higher education can be commodified (Fredricks-Lowman, 2021).  It also, however, expects students to engage responsibility with higher education in capitalist society.  It gives me very little pleasure to speak of higher education in such a drastically capitalist lens.  But, to avoid the discussion of this dynamic would be to deny context to these institutions of higher education in a capitalist Western society.  I engage this approach because economic mobility requires the individual to understand the nature and dynamics in the marketplace specific to business/industry and higher education.  In an open marketplace, the burden falls to the individual to assess their needs and the value of their investment.  This is growing increasingly difficult given the variety of institutions, the complexity of the seascape and the growing for-profit sector higher education.  It requires the individual to be a thoughtful, critical and perhaps skeptical consumer of higher education opportunities while understanding the skills (or at least credentials) needed for organizational access and success.  Higher education ultimately can provide social and economic mobility.  But, there is no guarantee, especially as higher education seeks capital, even nefariously, at its own expense while simultaneously eroding the trust of the public. 

 

Purpose 4:  to reinforce and espouse democratic values into a democratic society

​

             The fourth and final purpose of higher education is to reinforce and espouse democratic values into a democratic society.  Specific to Western democratic societies like the United States and Canada, higher education aims to influence and foster democratically engaged citizens.  Universities play a powerful role in democratic society.  They are the crossroads of research, knowledge and teaching.  They also retain their own unique cultures.  Accordingly, universities have the ability to inculcate its values for learning in its membership (MacFarlane, 2019).  Barnett (2021) describes this as value anchoring.  I would argue these central values should align to democratic ideals, which include freedom of association, speech and ideas; respect for the individual; participation in accessible electoral processes; collective decision-making and equality of treatment under the laws.  Institutions of higher education are, at their best, lighthouses for democracy.  They should aim to embody and foster these ideals for they are the training grounds of engaged democratic citizenry.  In actuality, higher education is likely the leader of instilling and reinforcing these democratic ideals.  Students should understand and have valued lived experiences associated with democratic values during their higher education membership.

​

             Higher education should be engaged communities that act as microcosms of a greater democratic society.  These communities should empower members to develop democratic habits of being which will benefit both the individual and society broadly.  Gutmann (2015) notes universities are “engines of both individual empowerment and social progress” (p.22) recognizing the duality of purpose.  These democratic habits of being should last long beyond the limited membership of individuals in higher education.  These democratic habits of being should be lived and may result in career choices, and civic engagement.  At very least, democratic habits of being should influence personal values, perspective, beliefs, morals, and ethics. 

​

Obstacles to reinforcement of democratic values into a democratic society

​

            The transactionalization and over-integration of technology threatens how institutions of higher education reinforce democratic values.  In the capitalist credential rat race, students and institutions are incentived to chase credentials, cut costs and save time.  The focus of the university environment has changed from value-infusing, experientially valuable and developmental to deeply cost-centric.  Accordingly, the democratic values espoused in higher education are placed on the back burner in favor of something more valuable in the marketplace.  The affordable credential becomes a transaction and as institutions give way to academic capitalism their ability to inculcate democratic habits of being erodes.  Student governments disappear as it appears as an extra and discussion groups are pushed aside as they’re viewed as inefficient and burdensome.  Technology can be an accelerator of these behaviors given it’s efficiencies. 

​

            Democratic habits of being are difficult for institutions of higher education to infuse.  They take time, oversight, thought, and reflection coupled with student agency.  They also require oversight, collaboration and investment.  Colleges and universities are advised to look back to their mission and reflect upon the role they want to have in a democratic society and examine if what they’re doing lives up to their expectations.  The placeless, transactional credential mill acts in deep contrast to the thriving intellectual community of scholars.  The wind and waves of capitalism will thrust institutions away from their missions and university leaders must proactively correct course to prioritize the values of a democratic society within their organizations. 

​

Conclusion

​

            This piece explores what I understand to be the four purposes of the higher education seascape.  I identify these purposes as (1) to advance knowledge through research and discovery; (2) to be a marketplace of ideas and rigorous dialogue; (3) to provide social and economic mobility in a capitalist society and (4) to reinforce and espouse democratic values into a democratic society.  Each of these purposes are critical for institutions of higher education to fulfill as they sail towards the future.  Capitalist and business-exclusive approaches to institutions of higher education threaten their purpose and institutional ontology.  As discussed, these threats include the erosions of academic freedom and faculty tenure, the homogenization of ideas in higher education, limits to access, seascape imbalances, and the transactionalization of higher education hollowing out democratic values. 

​

            Critically, these threats are not a tsunami crashing on the shores of higher education.  They are much more subtle and cunning.  This is what makes them real, substantial and perilous.  At present, these threats may even be attractive to those in positions of leadership.  University leaders, like astute ship captains, must intentionally navigate the waters with purpose and avoid the tempting sirens of capitalism luring them to their demise.  Leaders of higher education must keep these threats top of mind, navigate around them and center these four purposes to ensure the ships of higher education sail onwards, with clarity of purpose. 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

• Barnett, R. (2021). The philosophy of higher education: A critical introduction. Routledge: London.

• Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (pp. 241-258).  Greenwood.

• Fredricks‐Lowman, I., & Smith‐Isabell, N. (2020). Academic capitalism and the conflicting ideologies of higher education as a public good and commodity. New Directions for Higher Education, 2020(192), 21-27.  https://doi.org/10.1002/he.20388

• Gutmann, A. (2015).  What makes a university education worthwhile?  In H. Brighouse and M. McPherson (Eds.)  The aims of higher education:  Problems of morality and justice (pp. 7-25).  University of Chicago Press.

• MacFarlane, B. (2019). Reclaiming democratic values in the future university. In Philosophy and Theory in Higher Education,Volume 1,Number 3, 2019, pp.97-113. https://doi.org/10.3726/ptihe.2019.03.06

• Simon, R. L. (2008).  Academic Freedom.  In Curren, R. (Ed.). A Companion to the Philosophy of Education. (pp. 569-582), John Wiley & Sons.

​

​