Globalisation and education equity: The impact of neoliberalism on universities’ mission

Abstract

In his writing in the mid-nineteenth century – The Idea of a University, John Henry Newman argues that the university provides a platform for human advancement through teaching and research. Over a century later, our public university now hedged on several social, political, ecological and economic factors that bully its traditional mission daily. More recently, neoliberalism – a key feature of globalisation, knowledge economy, environmental crises and other economic logic – continues to significantly shift universities’ missions in another direction by creating winners and losers. Drawing on a range of theoretical perspectives, such as the glonacal agency heuristic, global economic and social forces, and empirical data, this paper examines the implications of these changes for equity in education, highlighting how global and national market-oriented policies, practices and outcomes continue to add to the stratification of higher education. Although the benefits of this global phenomenon are enormous, we maintain that the disbenefits are dire and could contribute to the narrowing of universities’ traditional missions, increased academic managerialism, the death of academic collegiality, and uneven development and unhealthy competition among universities locally and globally if not carefully considered. We admit that competition will continue to transform universities because the pressures of globalisation, as seen in recent times, increasingly influence higher education systems. However, since universities still operate mainly in their national context, we believe national educational policies can focus on reducing competition with other universities and promoting equity. To cement this way of thinking in universities both nationally and globally, we must understand the critical role of leadership as well as get it right.

Keywords

Neoliberalism higher education globalisation inequality glocalisation public good leadership

Introduction

Higher education has opened up to the whole world and become more engaged at the global level (van der Wende, 2017). The benefits of globalisation cannot be overemphasised. Knowledge production is shifting to the international level, and the proportion of publications involving international collaboration has increased tremendously (Marginson, 2022). However, globalisation can bring about inequality, which generates winners and losers. Thus, while some associate the term with progress, others link it with deprivation (Marinoni and De Wit, 2019; Rizvi, 2017). The imbalances are reflected in the global mobility of researchers and students across countries and regions, particularly in favour of OECD countries. They may result in rich universities and faculties continuing to get richer while the poor ones get poorer (Sarpong, 2022a). Hence, many reports exist on anti-globalisation (Michalopoulos, 2022; Rhoades, 2017). For instance, some scholars are against universities fuelled by global rankings and the increasingly global flow of students, researchers and funding, as these marketisation tools could cause universities to focus more on the economic mission of revenue generation at the expense of their core mission of teaching and research. Van der Wende (2017) argues for re-balancing globalisation, which would require universities to broaden their missions for internalisation. Universities should not only focus on the profitable side but also address related problems such as social exclusion and inequality in the sector.

We, the authors, chose to study abroad simply because our home countries, considered developing, lacked the financial resources and infrastructure we needed for our studies. Author 1 (Joshua Sarpong), for instance, had a scholarship from the Norwegian Government that catered for his Master’s programme in Norway. His colleagues who also got that scholarship were all first- and second-class (upper-division) students. Following this example, do we blame the developed countries for causing the brain drain? We think the answer is No, as many of the students and staff from developing countries willingly want to leave the shores of their countries to seek greener pastures (whatever that means) in developed countries (Fakunle, 2021; McKenzie, 2011). Most of these scholarships aim for students to gain knowledge and return to their home countries to help them to develop. However, for many reasons, some of these students refuse to return to their countries after their studies (Fakunle, 2021). An example is the high unemployment rate and other socio-cultural challenges in their countries, making it hard for returned students to get job opportunities (Orjinmo, 2021), among other things. Those lucky to land a job complain about meagre income compared to what they earned through their part-time jobs overseas (factoring in the cost of living in both countries).

To make matters worse, the leaders of those countries mostly send their children to study abroad (Alagbe, 2022), which raises another question: Why would leaders bother to invest in local education? Therefore, we emphasise that the role of leadership in overcoming the inequalities created by globalisation cannot be overemphasised. If these leaders’ children study within their countries, they will see the urgency to improve their education system. While countries of both authors are far from embracing and promoting the importance of localisation, some world leaders seem to be denouncing global citizenship. According to Theresa May (cited in BBC, 2016, para. 1) – a former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, ‘If you believe you are a citizen of the world, you’re a citizen of nowhere’.

Similarly, a former president of the United States argued that ‘there is no global anthem. No global currency. No certificate of global citizenship’ (Donald Trump cited in Barrow, 2017, p. 163). That is partly so because globalisation should not relegate localisation to the background. Even so, the world is becoming a global village; states are increasingly becoming inward-looking. As Myklebust (2022, 2021) puts it in his recent report about Norway, there is increasing academic nationalism, protectionism or isolationism. Some politicians have expressed concerns that international researchers do not know Norwegian society and cannot contribute significantly to it. The opposite is the case in the authors’ countries, as they believe foreigners and citizens who spend many years abroad understand and can contribute to the country better materially and intellectually. The Norwegian academic community posits that many developed countries, such as the United States, United Kingdom and Canada, are where they are today because of immigrants’ brains. To quote Professor Abbas Strømmen-Bakhtiar of Nord University Business School, ‘I find the whole discussion smells of nationalism and populism that, unfortunately, has been spreading across Norway and Europe for quite some time’ (Myklebust, 2021, para. 17). The academic community is a world on its own and knows no boundaries.

In thinking critically about the mission of globalisation and its effect on education, unsettling questions arise: Will the concern of education inequality and exclusion resulting from globalisation disappear or have we yet to experience more divided global education systems? Do universities in developing countries or newly established universities in developed countries have the resources to focus on STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) subjects? Are they compelled to focus on less capital-intensive and more teaching fields like the Humanities and Social Sciences? What is the implication of the Humboldtian model of combining teaching and research and building bridges between the Sciences and Arts disciplines? To help answer these questions, we use an example from New Zealand – a developed country, where we discuss how the PBRF (performance-based research funding) promotes high-quality research but also deepens the inequality between well-established and developing universities (Sarpong, 2021; Amarante et al., 2021). We will also explore how inequality is manifested globally between universities in developing countries, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, and universities in developed countries – mainly New Zealand. Thus, this paper contributes to the ongoing discussion of the role of globalisation in shaping higher education policy and practices locally and globally, and thereby, call for the need for practitioners, policymakers and broader stakeholders to rethink the mission of universities by developing alternative visions of education that prioritise the public good over private gains.

Academia and societal responsibilities

Though universities need to serve their societies, universities becoming all things to all people may be detrimental to their core mission. With the emergence of the knowledge economy, society sees universities as key actors in national innovation systems (Holten-Anderson, 2015; Gornitzka, 2008; Metcalfe, 2010). It suggests that the contribution of academic research to a country is essential, as the new knowledge produced can help enhance countries’ competitive advantage. Thus, many universities have accepted that they have an economic contribution to society, educate the next generation of citizens and add to the global store of knowledge (Rubens et al., 2017; Belgrave, 2013). Enacting this role requires links between academic research and external stakeholders, especially in industry. However, such engagement may result in universities becoming beholden to industry, consequently eroding their autonomy. Reichert (2019) and others (Belgrave, 2013; and Giroux, 2002) argue that academic freedom allows universities to generate the knowledge and skills essential for the future wealth and culture of a civilised society. They do this by pursuing knowledge wherever it leads rather than solely responding to the short-term commercial needs of the industry. However, other scholars (such as Kerr, 2001; Martin, 2012; Sarpong, 2021) argue that, in an era of decreasing public funding, industrial collaboration can strengthen universities’ autonomy by enriching them with the resources required to enhance their core mission.

More than ever, universities need to build bridges with government and industry, but on the universities’ terms. For instance, in the case of some New Zealand Universities and private organisations, including oil and gas corporations forming research partnerships, critics argue that such collaboration could get in the way of the independence and integrity of academic research while also contributing to the prioritisation of commercial gains over the common good (Mann, 2018). On the one hand, is the case of a socially oriented partnership between the University of Auckland’s Centre for Social Data Analytics and several community groups collaborating on research projects to address the issues of inequality and child poverty while establishing institutional programmes that would continue to support community-based research (University of Auckland, n.d). As highlighted in the examples above, universities fulfil their mission by applying knowledge to local and global challenges. But when they become market-driven, as some national leaders encourage, it tends to produce inequality and unhealthy competition in the higher education system.

Globalisation and neoliberalism in academia

Globalisation may mean many things to many people. The term has many dimensions, such as economic, social, political and cultural (Rikowski, 2002; Adelekan, 2020; Yamada, 2021; Zajda, 2022). These dimensions focus mainly on the process of convergence and integration on the world stage (Held et al., 2000). For instance, the use of social media such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram make it easy for people worldwide to connect and interact. In this paper, we look at globalisation from a capitalist perspective (arguably the core of globalisation), and how it impacts the higher education sector.

Globalisation is associated with neoliberalism, which signals that the university is moving in the market direction. In today’s higher education marketplace, some scholars argue that the university is losing its identity as a social institution and becoming more like an industry (Gumport, 2000) or knowledge corporation. As a social institution, the university focuses on generating and transferring new knowledge that benefits society (public good). As an industry, on the contrary, the university becomes a business-like entity that produces a wide range of goods and services in a competitive marketplace. Three interrelated mechanisms advance this process: ‘academic consumerism’, ‘academic managerialism’, and ‘academic stratification’ (Adelekan, 2020; Gumport, 2000). Academic consumerism considers funders as consumers with special interests. Academic managerialism focuses on the increasing number of non-academic professionals in universities at the expense of academics. Academics become ‘managed professionals’, while administrators become ‘managerial professionals’ (Shore and Wright, 2017; Rhoades, 1998). Academic stratification is about treating certain disciplines and academics better than others simply because they have ‘market value’. That is often referred to as neoliberal agendas, with features which deviate from the traditional view of universities as a public good to one that locks universities operations into the dungeon of capitalism with all its manipulation techniques on living and non-living things.

According to Olssen and Peters (2005), the primary presuppositions of neoliberalism include the following:

• The self-interested individual: Individuals are practically self-interested citizens. Education is perceived as a private good than a public good.

• Free market economics: The best method to share resources and opportunities is by the market because it is systematic.

• A commitment to laissez-faire: The free market is an automated order and thus controls itself better than the government or other external forces. In this case, government becomes an observer that only interferes in times of hardship.

Neoliberalism focuses on making public institutions, including universities, more proactive and economically efficient (Dougherty and Natow, 2019). For example, as in the case of PBRF (performance-based research funding) in New Zealand, research quality and quantity are fostered by making institutions compete for funding. The belief is that human well-being is best ensured by stimulating private enterprise, individual responsibility and competitive markets to stimulate the actions of entrepreneurs (Harvey, 2007; Olssen and Peters, 2005). As a result, many universities are adding an economic mission to their core mission of teaching and research – academic project, what Kerr (2001) terms the multiversity and Rubens et al. (2017) describe as a third mission.

As explained above, no matter the terminology (academic capitalism, neoliberalism, entrepreneurial university, to name a few) used to describe this market-like approach in academia, the truth is that it continues to lead to many changes and challenges for students and faculty (Adelekan, 2014). While there are certainly benefits to this ongoing trend, such as increased funding and new research and innovation development, there are equally worries about the impact on the quality of education and the increasing focus on financial sustainability over academic excellence. Nonetheless, all higher education systems are affected by this trend. Some are more affected, while others predominantly operate locally. In saying that, institutions need to find a balance between these competing priorities to ensure that they can meet the needs of all stakeholders while staying true to their traditional mission.

Global-local nexus in higher education

Scholars argue that higher education institutions predominantly operate in their national settings (Gornitzka, 1999; Bentley et al., 2015) and less attention is usually given to the global dimension. However, there is a growing importance of the global phenomena that connect national higher education systems (Marginson, 2006, 2008; Rizvi, 2017). Marginson and Rhoades (2002) offer the term the glonacal agency heuristic to denote the importance of the ‘global’ dimension, emphasise the continuous relevance of the ‘national’ dimension, and the essence of the ‘local’ dimension. The term connects global, national and local higher education and how they continue to influence each other (Marginson and Rhoades, 2002). For instance, the new public management (NPM) approach that began a new national systems revolution, as seen in the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, is increasingly adopted in many higher education systems today. NPM aims to introduce private sector aims and practices into the public sector. The assumption is that corporate practices enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of public organisations (Kalimullah et al., 2012). In support of this model, Marginson and Van der Wende (2007) claim that such a reform would make institutions more efficient and prepare them for global challenges.

A feature of the new public management approach is for universities to diversify funding sources through international tuition fees. As a result, many European universities increasingly offer Master’s courses in English to compete with English-Speaking countries for international students (Marginson and Van der Wende, 2007; Shattock, 2018). Similarly, the commercialisation of university research began in the United States (US) with the signing of the Bayh-Dole Act into law in 1980, which gave universities rights to intellectual property (IP) generated from public funding (Ezell, 2019; Loewenberg, 2009). From the 1990s, many OECD countries that received significant public research funding also became aware of the value of IP and followed the US example (OECD, 2003). Global rankings of universities have also tremendously impacted many research universities worldwide to, for instance, engage in research collaborations (Sarpong, 2021). Although the level of collaboration is increasingly becoming global, the actual level varies between nations (Marginson, 2010), as developed countries may engage more actively than developing countries. In addition, many universities in developing countries are not research-intensive (Sarpong, 2016), implying that they may be left out of research collaborations. Therefore, the increasing global phenomenon of research collaboration may lead to inequality in the higher education system. ‘Indeed, both within national academic systems and globally, inequalities are greater than ever’ (Altbach, 2008, p. 4).

More than ever, there are increasing research collaborations between academics in different countries (Marginson, 2022; Marginson and van der Wende, 2007). According to Marginson (2020, para 14), ‘In 1970, internationally co-authored papers constituted only 1.9% of articles indexed in Web of Science. By 2018, 22.5% of all papers in Scopus had more than one national affiliation’. He continued that in disciplines where equipment is cost-shared or the subject matter is inherently global, international research collaboration is very critical – such as in the case of climate change and COVID-19. Today, undoubtedly, research has the potential to go beyond national borders, and ‘Research-intensive universities that downplay global connectivity [would] pay the price in diminished effectiveness’ (Marginson and Van der Wende, 2007, p. 5).

Generally, top-ranked universities are more likely to attract top international students and academics than low-ranked universities. While not all universities may be regarded as international, they are all subject to the same process of globalisation (Zajda, 2020; Scott, 1998). Many universities in developing countries are not international universities because they lack the capacity to attract international resources, including students, funding and academics. However, the increasing global mobility of academics and students might lead to a brain drain, where the top-ranked students and academics in developing countries might move to top-ranked universities in developed countries. By implication, universities in developed countries may have more global influence and are less affected by universities in developing countries (Marginson and van der Wende, 2007).

Effects of globalisation on higher education in developing countries

Globalisation needs to shift focus from predominantly Western countries to include emerging countries (de Wit and Jones, 2018). With the increased economic and social inequalities in developing countries, this paper raises a critical question about how developing countries could catch up with developed countries. Should developing countries follow neoliberal systems like the United States, United Kingdom and New Zealand? Can they handle the implications of capitalism? International organisations such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank seek to push developing countries towards the path of neoliberalism through their structural adjustment programmes. For instance, the governments of some sub-Saharan African countries have been required to apply foreign aid to purposes and projects determined by the lenders that may not be aligned with the countries’ needs. For example, in 2008, IMF advised Ghana to consider a freeze on public sector appointments to contain the wage bill and reduce public sector expenditures such as the appointment of university staff. Ghana’s Government complied with that (Sarpong et al., 2020). In 2015, Ghana applied for an Extended Credit Facility of USD 918m from the IMF. That was granted with certain conditions, one of which was ‘[s]tructural reforms to strengthen public finances and fiscal discipline by improving budget transparency, cleaning up and controlling the payroll, right-sizing the civil service, and improving revenue collection’ (IMF, 2015). The World Bank and IMF justify such borrowing and loan conditions as necessary stimuli for economic development. However, such conditions negatively affect economic growth and widen the inequality gap between developed and developing nations (Abouharb and Cingranelli, 2006; Sarpong et al., 2020). They sometimes require governments to cut spending on education, healthcare and the environment (Cavanagh and Mander, 2003). Nevertheless, continuous mismanagement of the economy causes many developing countries to run to IMF. In 2022, Ghana approached the IMF again for assistance to restore health to its weakening finances (Acheampong, 2022; Gbadamosi, 2022; IMF, 2022; Inveen and Savage, 2022). Thus, such systems are controlled from elsewhere to benefit others other than the people they are intended for.

The external control is also reflected in the education system where the curriculum of the locals, usually of universities in developing countries, is not local enough. Mogobe Ramose – a South African philosopher, spoke our mind in his interview with Professor Catherine A Odora Hoppers for the ‘The Imprint of Education’ project (cited in Paterson and Luescher, 2022). Like other institutions on the African continent, the universities are ‘so dominated by frameworks for understanding that were established in the Global North that they cannot be considered authentically ‘African’ in terms of what they teach and the kinds of knowledge they produce’. In his argument, Ramose advocates for an African curriculum to cater to Africans’ needs. He continues, ‘The point here is not that epistemologies should not feed one another. The point is one of justice: epistemologies must speak with one another on an equal level, not on the basis of “superior and inferior.”’ Similarly, university leaders should refrain from pursuing the STEM fields at the expense of the Humanities/Social Sciences or focus more on research and neglect teaching simply because of their market value. The North may encourage these neoliberal ideas, but the South should not copy them blindly due to differences in economies and value systems. Ramose argues, ‘Such an approach to the education system must be critiqued at the epistemological level. It must be critiqued because it is not true that, from this time on, every child, whether in Africa or in Europe, should be born with a screwdriver or a hammer in their hands – although this is the imagery that best describes the probable outcome of the present educational trajectory’. As Sarpong (2022b), Adelekan (2020), and Lewis and Shore (2017) argue, focusing on the right balance between the STEM fields and the Arts/Humanities, as well as between teaching and research, is essential because the applied disciplines alone cannot solve the challenges society faces today and vice versa.

Impacts of globalisation on universities in New Zealand

The inequality created by globalisation and neoliberalism is not only felt between countries; it is increasing within national systems. This section focuses on how performance funding widens the gap between a developed and developing research-intensive university in New Zealand. Author 1 (Sarpong, 2021) used the University of Auckland (UoA) and Auckland University of Technology (AUT) as case studies, so most paragraphs and sentences are adapted from the work. The study explored, among other things, how the Universities compete for resources to enhance their research activities and the implications on their autonomy. A key source of New Zealand Government’s research support to the Universities is through the performance-based research funding (PBRF) (though research is also substantially cross-subsidised from teaching and the research funding of rich faculties and units). The PBRF assesses the research performance of academics and then funds tertiary education institutions based on their performance on research quality (this component is used to allocate 55% of the funding), research degree completions (this component is used to allocate 25% of the funding) and external research income (this component is used to allocate 20% of the funding). Those who cannot compete for other external grants can still rely, though small, on the PBRF. Such competitive funding models and the need for universities to diversify their funding sources reflect pressure by governments globally for universities to pursue market and market-like activities (Compagnucci and Spigarelli, 2020; Brown, 2011; Salmi, 2007; Slaughter and Rhoades, 2004). The PBRF funding can be argued to encourage neoliberal/entrepreneurial universities, which suggests research as a form of revenue generation. To get much PBRF funding, Sarpong (2021) found that both AUT and UoA put strategic measures in place to outperform their competitors.

In the realm of Quality scores, the key ratio is staff rating in terms of A, B, C, C (NE), R and R (NE), where, according to the 2018 PBRF round, being a PBRF A is assigned a quality weighting of 5, B is 3, C is 1, C (NE) is 2, while R and R (NE) are weighted 0. The funding formula for the Quality Evaluation considers the following: Quality weighting category assigned to the Evidence Portfolios, the full-time equivalent (FTE) status of the participating institutions’ staff, and the funding weighting of the subject area (TEC, 2022). While most STEM subjects get a high weighting of 2 and 2.5, most social sciences and humanities programmes are weighted 1. The higher the weighting, the more the PBRF. Hence, the Universities’ goals are how best they can do more STEM subjects and less of the social sciences/humanities (Sarpong, 2022b), maximise A and B academics, minimise C academics and perhaps get rid of the R academics when pressured to do so (we must indicate that early career researchers get special ratings – [C (NE) and R (NE)]). According to the glonacal agency heuristic, competition may cause universities to pursue certain academic subjects and hire ‘top-ranked’ academics from other institutions, both locally and internationally, to boost their chances of securing, among other things, more PBRF points.

The competition may create academic stratification, where some academics are likely to lose their jobs when university leaders are forced by funding pressures to make difficult decisions. For instance, in 2018, the University of Auckland had to restructure academic staff in both the Faculty of Arts and Faculty of Education and Social Work due to the declined student numbers in those faculties, which directly impacted the university’s finances (UoA, 2018; Adelekan, 2020). Recently, AUT announced that it would lay off about 170 full-time academics to ensure its financial stability (Ham, 2022; Tertiary Education Union, 2022). The Vice-Chancellor cited low student enrolment and increasing cost of living as reasons for the cut. The redundancy was expected to lower the University’s cost by $21 million or more (Killick, 2022). It would affect academics who are deemed to be least performing in their research role. In these circumstances, the university is least likely to lay off the ‘A’ academics who help them to win more than their fair share of the research income (Curtis, 2017; Guarino, 2007). However, we argue that the universities may need a balanced team because the ‘C’ academics’ achievements may stem from other capabilities that are not scored from PBRF points. Universities must give equal value to excellence in teaching and research, and much higher differentiation of function between different academics. Some will excel at teaching and some at research (Elton, 1986). Thus, placing too much emphasis on research could affect teaching activities.

That said, the PBRF funding metrics could enhance the research performance of New Zealand universities. According to the study, some academics find no fault in the funding metrics, as they believe the funding is to make them accountable to taxpayers. The main goal is to incentivise change and promote development. Change and development in the sense that the scores can cause academics to up their game. As Dougherty and Natow (2019) argued, the PBRF can significantly increase research productivity at most universities and improve the reputation of the top-ranked universities. Thus, the PBRF funding metric not only boosts the research performance of New Zealand universities but also makes them global universities.

The PBRF funding metrics can help boost New Zealand universities’ global rankings. The funding can foster quality research and support the collaboration between universities, industry, government and other global institutions. These are metrics used by most ranking institutions, such as the Times Higher Education (THE) and QS World University Rankings. Studies have shown that ranking systems affect students’ decision-making in selecting a higher education (Hazelkorn, 2014; Thakur, 2007; Roberts and Thompson, 2007). Also, rankings could impact staff’s decision-making process in choosing a higher education institution as an employer (Soysal et al., 2022; Grayling, 2004; Marginson and Rhoades, 2002). A glonacal agency heuristic would propose that the PBRF – which uses similar metrics as the ranking institutions, such as industry income, research citations, and research volume and reputation – could boost New Zealand universities’ position in global rankings of universities. To quote Universities New Zealand (2019, p. 2):

The focus on overall quality has directly and significantly contributed to supporting the reputation and international rankings of New Zealand universities internationally. In turn, this has (a) helped recruit world-class teachers and researchers, (b) created opportunities for research collaborations with the best researchers and universities internationally, while (c) attracting excellent international students to this country.

In all, the PBRF funding system may lead to productive changes and innovative actions on an institutional level. However, we argue that the negative impacts of the PBRF may outweigh the positives if not balanced. The funding system, a by-product of neoliberalism, could cause increased academic managerialism, uneven development and unhealthy competition, which we will expand upon in the following sections.

Increased academic managerialism

The PBRF funding system influences New Zealand universities’ internal structures and practices toward academic managerialism. Universities are recognised as a place for teaching and research (Boulton, 2009). However, Sarpong (2021) found that AUT and UoA are adopting managerial practices like those of corporations – increased bureaucracy and casualisation of the academic job. That emphasises Hazledine’s (2021) argument about increasing managerialism at the UoA. These managers are supposedly capable of helping the universities win more of any competitive funds like the PBRF. However, most participants in the study found this managerialism a challenge because they believe it erodes universities’ academic freedom. The managed university and the PBRF initiative undermine forms of professional control. We agree with Curtis and Matthewman (2005, p. 13) that, unfortunately, the ‘extent to which academics are willing and able to resist managerialist erosion of their professional control over research and other conditions of work seems more problematic’. Thus, the participants in the study employed strategic approaches to thrive. For instance, while academics workload increases due to increasing student numbers and administrative workload, some academics had to adapt by spending their weekends and holidays researching. This trend can only continue to steer the academic profession in a more stressful and less enjoyable direction if normalised.

Uneven development

PBRF funding may deepen inequality of institutional performance by denying ‘poor performers’ the resources they need to improve. According to Curtis and Matthewman (2005) and confirmed by Sarpong (2021), the PBRF funding metrics make it difficult for some universities to meet the performance demands if they lack the financial and human resources to respond effectively. In terms of the universities and disciplines, the newly established ones are more likely to have lower grades than the well-established ones. For example, in the 2003 round, all the seven well-established universities were ranked higher than the newly established AUT (Curtis and Matthewman, 2005). The outcome of the 2018 PBRF scores still rated AUT lower than the other seven universities (Gerritsen, 2019). While the University of Auckland had 22% of its academics scoring ‘A’, AUT only had 7%. In addition, while the total academic (FTE) staff in AUT in 2019 was 1189 (AUT, 2019), the UoA was about a double of AUT’s, at 2402 (UoA, 2019). The high weighting and staff (FTE) translate into more PBRF.

In terms of discipline, the 2018 results showed that the most significant increase in funded quality categories was in biomedical (65%) and nursing (40%), and the subject areas with the most ‘A’ researchers were engineering and technology (103), psychology (70) and biomedical department (64) (Gerritsen, 2019). This may disadvantage disciplines like the social sciences and the humanities. The inequality could lead to stratification of the academic profession in New Zealand, as the glonacal agency heuristic would emphasise. Thus, the PBRF could make the rich universities and faculties richer and the poor ones poorer. In this instance, the unevenness of the PBRF funding allocation could lead to more concentration of resources in UoA and makes it hard for AUT with fewer resources to compete.

Unhealthy competition

The competitive nature of the PBRF funding could yield low-quality research outcomes. By nature, people wish to be among the best. Similarly, academics may want to be recognised as ‘As’ and not ‘Cs’. Sarpong (2021) found that one way to achieve PBRF success is to become strategic. The strategic actions could lead to ‘gaming’ in the system, and those who know the game’s rules are more likely to win. Similarly, Dougherty and Natow (2019, p. 22) argue that performance funding is most often associated with universities and their academics trying to ‘improve their publication statistics by slicing up their publications into more articles, many of which are little different from each other, and pursuing less difficult research questions’. The funding could cause researchers to pursue specific research topics and give up on the ones that might prove less useful in the PBRF assessment. For instance, as a metric of the PBRF, universities are required to secure external research funding, including industry funding. That could push academics to focus on industry research, which is mostly applied in nature. Thus, this gaming is unhealthy and could kill academics’ curiosity-driven research. We think it is all the more critical to consider Wright and Shore’s view seriously:

When a measurement becomes a target, institutional environments are restructured so that they focus their resources and activities primarily on what ‘counts’ to funders and governors rather than on their wider professional ethics and societal goals (2017, p. 5).

Universities are supposed to conduct research that widens society’s understanding of the world and all that is in it. Focusing more on practical research impacts may distort universities’ true existence. Given such weaknesses associated with the PBRF, the Tertiary Education Union (TEU) of New Zealand called for the abolishment of this funding system because it infringes upon academic freedom. Research autonomy allows academics to conduct research without external or internal interference. However, being restricted from publishing in local journals (not highly recognised for PBRF), for instance, could be a way of limiting academics’ research autonomy (TEU, 2019). That said, a glonacal agency justifies that performance funding is increasingly becoming a global phenomenon. Examples are the Research Excellence Framework (REF) in the United Kingdom and Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) in Australian higher education institutions. Since these research quality assessment systems are generally competitive, the study revealed that both AUT and UoA invest time and money to prepare the PBRF portfolio to get a high score, translating into more funding.

If the main funder of universities’ research decides that their funding will be based on performance, then universities may be forced to seek other funding sources. In addition, there is an increasing demand for government funding from all sectors of the economy, and while the ends are unlimited, the resources to satisfy them are limited. Thus, universities’ support could go down on the government’s list of priorities. To avoid uncertainties, universities have increasingly included the economic mission by seeking additional sources of income to remain financially sustainable.

Conclusion

Though more spending may produce more high-quality teaching and research, increasing competition for resources does not (Sandström & Van den Besselaar, 2018), and it could lead to universities and academics gaming the educational system. Such gaming would not be in keeping with universities’ role as critic and conscience of society, which requires academics to show integrity in their teaching and research to sustain society’s trust. The alternative to pursuing a marketised educational system or competition is to develop a strategic solution – shifting from a model of competing universities and academics to a collaborative and collegial higher education system that focuses on serving the public good. The idea that neoliberalism – a globalisation tool, can afford to pick winners and losers is a misstep. What it does is incentivise universities to pursue education as a private good. Unless world leaders address the competitive culture and uneven development of tertiary education institutions that result from globalisation, the less well-off ones will fail, and all of them together will be forced to compromise their core mission.

Market forces should not control the destiny of universities. Therefore, we call for a new way of defining interconnectivity and interdependence in education. A creative way of thinking that goes beyond globalisation’s economic possibilities with moral and intercultural concerns (Rizvi, 2017). The world needs to shift attention from selfish interest, which has bred inequalities, uneven development and distrust, towards achieving the right balance for the common good. Recently, African and European political leaders approved a new strategic partnership research agreement for the coming period (Maassen, 2022). The partnership forms a significant step forward in reducing the inequality gap between African-European universities and encouraging knowledge sharing and research collaboration. The move urges Europe to significantly reduce the brain drain from Africa by investing in scientific career opportunities on the continent (Maassen, 2022). We want to encourage leaders of developing countries to equally prioritise and invest more in education, which could potentially reduce the over-reliance on external funding sources that come with many unhealthy and uneven conditions that do not align with the mission of universities and countries.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Joshua Sarpong

Dr Joshua Sarpong is a Doctoral Admissions Specialist at the University of Auckland, New Zealand. Having studied and worked in the higher education sector on three different continents, Joshua is well-versed in the global-local relationship in higher education. His research interests include university-industry collaboration, higher education policy, governance and university autonomy.

Dr Temitope Adelekan is a highly experienced and accomplished Student Voice Manager working within the University sector. Temitope holds a PhD in Education and has a wealth of knowledge and experience in the field of student engagement and representation. His research areas include higher education, sociology of knowledge, education policy and the history of education.

References

Abouharb

Cingranelli

(2006) The human rights effects of world bank structural adjustment, 1981–2000. International Studies Quarterly 50(2): 233–262.

Acheampong

(2022) Ghana’s Return to the IMF within Three Years Underscores its Deeper Economic Problems. https://theconversation.com/ghanas-return-to-the-imf-within-three-years-underscores-its-deeper-economic-problems-187041

Adelekan

(2020) Knowledge and Creative Tension in the New Zealand University. New Zealand: The University of Auckland.

Adelekan

(2014) A Study of the Expectation vs Experience of International Students at UK Universities (Master’s Thesis). UK: University of Chester.

Alagbe

(2022) Call to Ban Politicians from Sending Children to Study Abroad. London: University World News. https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20220817203419779

Altbach

(2008) Globalization and forces for change in higher education. International Higher Education 50: 2–4.

Amarante

Burger

Chelwa

, et al. (2021) Underrepresentation of developing country researchers in development research. Applied Economics Letters 29: 1–6.

Auckland University of Technology (2019) Annual Report 2019 Te Pūrongo Ā-Tau. https://www.aut.ac.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/368220/AUT-Annual-Report-2019.pdf

Barrow

(2017) No global citizenship? Re-envisioning global citizenship education in times of growing nationalism. The High School Journal 100(3): 163–165. https://www.jstor.org/stable/90024209

10.

BBC (2016) ‘Mrs May, We Are All Citizens of the World,’ Says Philosopher. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37788717

11.

Belgrave

(2013) Universities’ Challenge to Maintain Autonomy and Academic Freedom. https://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/about-massey/news/article.cfm?mnarticle_uuid=D7145701-BC14-AE52-A0A6-8F67A2CE2243

12.

Bentley

Gulbrandsen

Kyvik

(2015) The relationship between basic and applied research in universities. Higher Education 70(4): 689–709.

13.

Boulton

(2009) Global: What Are Universities for? London: University World News. https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20090326200944986

14.

Brown

(2011) The march of the market. In: Molesworth

Scullion

Nixon

(eds) The Marketisation of Higher Education and the Student as Consumer. Abingdon: Routledge, 11–24.

15.

Cavanagh

Mander

(2003) World bank, IMF turned poor third world nations into loan addicts. https://www.tru.ca/library/pdf/cavanaghmander.pdf

16.

Compagnucci

Spigarelli

(2020) The third mission of the university: a systematic literature review on potentials and constraints. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 161(C). Doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120284, Elsevier.

17.

Curtis

(2017) The rise and rise of the performance-based research fund? Death of the Public University? Uncertain futures for Higher Education in the Knowledge Economy. New York, NY: Berghahn Books, 1–27.

18.

Curtis

Matthewman

(2005) The managed university: the PBRF, its impacts and staff attitudes. New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 30(2): 1–17.

19.

de Wit

Jones

(2018) Inclusive internationalization: improving access and equity. International Higher Education 94: 16–18. DOI: 10.6017/ihe.2018.0.10561.

20.

Dougherty

Natow

(2019) Analysing neoliberalism in theory and practice: The case of performance-based funding for higher education. Centre for Global Higher Education. London: UCL Institute of Education, 1–53. Working paper 44.

21.

Elton

(1986) Research and teaching: symbiosis or conflict. Higher Education 15(3): 299–304.

22.

Ezell

(2019) The Bayh-Dole Act’s Vital Importance to the U.S. Life-Sciences Innovation System. https://itif.org/publications/2019/03/04/bayh-dole-acts-vital-importance-us-life-sciences-innovation-system

23.

Fakunle

(2021) Developing a framework for international students’ rationales for studying abroad, beyond economic factors. Policy Futures in Education 19(6): 671–690. DOI: 10.1177/1478210320965066.

24.

Gbadamosi

(2022) Ghana Goes to the IMF. https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/07/06/ghana-imf-economy-inflation-protests-akufo-addo/

25.

Gerritsen

(2019) Academics at Victoria and Auckland University Top Research Assessment. https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/388095/academics-at-victoria-and-auckland-university-top-research-assessment

26.

Giroux

(2002) Neoliberalism, corporate culture and the promise of higher education: the university as a democratic public sphere. Harvard Educational Review 72(4): 425–464.

27.

Gornitzka

(1999) Governmental policies and organisational change in higher education. Higher Education 38(1): 5–31.

28.

Gornitzka

(2008) The internationalisation of research and higher education: changing borders of knowledge. In: Gornitzka

Langfeldt

(eds) Borderless Knowledge. Dordrecht: Springer, 1–11.

29.

Grayling

(2004) Rank Outsiders. Education Guardian Weekly. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2004/dec/07/highereducation.researchassessmentexercise

30.

Guarino

(2007) Smart Is Not Enough! the South Pole Strategy and Other Powerful Talent Management Secrets. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.

31.

Gumport

(2000) Academic restructuring: organisational change and institutional imperatives. Higher Education 39(1): 67–91.

32.

Ham

(2022) Number of Redundancies Expected at AUT Increases to 250, 9% More than Forecast. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/300727009/number-of-redundancies-expected-at-aut-increases-to-250-9-more-than-forecast?cx_testId=8&cx_testVariant=cx_1&cx_artPos=2#cxrecs_s

33.

Harvey

(2007) A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

34.

Hazelkorn

(2014) The effects of rankings on student choices and institutional selection. In: Jongbloed

Vossensteyn

(eds) Access and Expansion Post-Massification: Opportunities and Barriers to Further Growth in Higher Education Participation. London: Routledge, 107–128.

35.

Hazledine

(2021) Managerialism Doesn’t Belong in Universities. https://www.auckland.ac.nz/en/news/2021/08/02/opinion-tim-hazledine-let-academics-run-courses.html

36.

Held

McGrew

Goldblatt

, et al. (2000) Global Transformations: Politics, Economics and Culture. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 14–28.

37.

Holten-Anderson

(2015) The Role of Universities in Modern Societies. http://www.cbs.dk/en/about-cbs/organisation/senior-management/news/the-role-of-universities-in-modern-societies

38.

International Monetary Fund (2015) IMF Survey: Ghana Gets $918 Million IMF Loan to Back Growth, Jobs Plan. https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2015/09/28/04/53/socar040315a

39.

International Monetary Fund (2022) IMF Staff Concludes Visit to Ghana. https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2022/07/13/pr22256-imf-staff-concludes-visit-to-ghana#:∼:text=At_the_conclusion_of_the,following_the_COVID%2D19_pandemic

40.

Inveen

Savage

(2022) Explainer: Why Ghana Has Returned to the IMF. London: Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/why-ghana-has-returned-imf-2022-07-07/

41.

Kalimullah

Alam

KMA

Nour

(2012) New public management: emergence and principles. BUP Journal 1(1): 1–22.

42.

Kerr

(2001) The Uses of the University. 5th edition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

43.

Killick

(2022) AUT Suspends Redundancies, but Sends Out List of Names of People it Wants Gone. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/300772448/aut-suspends-redundancies-but-sends-out-list-of-names-of-people-it-wants-gone

44.

Lewis

Shore

(2017) Managing the third mission: reform or reinvention of the public university? In: Wright

Shore

(eds) Death of the Public University? Uncertain Futures for Higher Education in the Knowledge Economy. Oxford: Berghahn Books, 47–68.

45.

Loewenberg

(2009) The Bayh-Dole act: a model for promoting research translation? Molecular Oncology 3(2): 91–93.

46.

Maassen

(2022) The Way Forward for African-European University Collaboration. London: University World News. https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20220330211531345

47.

Mann

(2018) The tensions between university research and commercial interests. Wellington, New Zealand: Newsroom. Available at: https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2018/09/17/236175/the-tensions-between-university-research-and-commercial-interests.

48.

Marginson

(2006) Dynamics of national and global competition in higher education. Higher Education 52(1): 1–39.

49.

Marginson

(2008) Global field and global imagining: Bourdieu and worldwide higher education. British Journal of Sociology of Education 29(3): 303–315.

50.

Marginson

(2010) Higher education in the global knowledge economy. Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences 2(5): 6962–6980.

51.

Marginson

(2020) Pluralisation of Research Power Is Diversifying Science. London: University World News. https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20201014061410849

52.

Marginson

(2022) Research on international and global higher education: six different perspectives. Oxford Review of Education 48(4): 421–438.

53.

Marginson

Rhoades

(2002) Beyond national states, markets and systems of higher education: a glonacal agency heuristic. Higher Education 43(3): 281–309.

54.

Marginson

van der Wende

(2007) Globalisation and higher education. OECD Education Working Papers. Paris: OECD Publishing, 8.

55.

Marinoni

De Wit

(2019) Is Internationalisation Creating Inequality in Higher Education. London: University World News.

56.

Martin

(2012) Are universities and university research under threat? Towards an evolutionary model of university speciation. Cambridge Journal of Economics 36(3): 543–565.

57.

McKenzie

(2011) The Impact of Studying Abroad - and of Being Made to Return Home Again. https://blogs.worldbank.org/impactevaluations/the-impact-of-studying-abroad-and-of-being-made-to-return-home-again

58.

Metcalfe

(2010) University and business relations: connecting the knowledge economy. Minerva 48(1): 5–33.

59.

Michalopoulos

(2022) Toward an equitable re-globalization. In: Aid, Trade and Development. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 359–391.

60.

Myklebust

(2021) Debate on International Academics Sparks National Row. London: University World News. https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20211014112205585

61.

Myklebust

(2022) Universities Say New Rules Will Hurt International Research. London: University World News. https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=2022071815404711

62.

OECD (2003) Executive summary. In: Turning Science into Business: Patenting and Licensing at Public Research Organisations. Paris: OECD Publishing.

63.

Olssen

Peters

(2005) Neoliberalism, higher education and the knowledge economy: from the free market to knowledge capitalism. Journal of Education Policy 20(3): 313–345.

64.

Orjinmo

(2021) Nigerian Students Amass Degrees to Stay in Europe. London: BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-58319976

65.

Paterson

Luescher

(2022) Africa Needs ‘pluriversities’ to Respect More Ways of Knowing. London: University World News. https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=2022022112360035

66.

Reichert

(2019) The Role of Universities in Regional Innovation Ecosystems. Brussels: European University Association.

67.

Rhoades

(1998) Managed Professionals: Unionized Faculty and Restructuring Academic Labour. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

68.

Rhoades

(2017) Backlash against “others”. International Higher Education (89): 2–3.

69.

Rikowski

(2002) Globalisation and education. In: A Paper Prepared for the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs, Inquiry into the Global Economy. 1–13.

70.

Rizvi

(2017) Globalization and the neoliberal imaginary of educational reform. In: Education Research and Foresight Series No. 20. Paris: UNESCO.

71.

Roberts

Thompson

(2007) Reputation management for universities: university league tables and the impact on student recruitment Working Paper Series 2. Leeds, Cambridge: The Knowledge Partnership.

72.

Rubens

Spigarelli

Cavicchi

, et al. (2017) Universities’ third mission and the entrepreneurial university and the challenges they bring to higher education institutions. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy.

73.

Salmi

(2007) Autonomy from the state vs responsiveness to markets. Higher Education Policy 20(3): 223–242.

74.

Sandström

Van den Besselaar

(2018) Funding, evaluation and the performance of national research systems. Journal of Infometrics 12(1): 365–384.

75.

Sarpong

(2016) Analysing Research Dynamics at the University of Ghana: A Case Study of the Department of Economics and the department of physics [Unpublished Masters thesis]. Oslo: University of Oslo.

76.

Sarpong

(2022a) A university that withstands financial uncertainties in complex times. Pacific-Asian Education Journal 33(1): 119–133.

77.

Sarpong

(2022b) Research and disciplinary differences versus funding allocation in New Zealand’s higher education system. Issues in Educational Research 32(1): 374–393.

78.

Sarpong

(2021) Research autonomy and “Marketisation” in Higher Education: A Case Study of Two New Zealand Universities. New Zealand: Doctoral thesis, University of Auckland. https://hdl.handle.net/2292/57954

79.

Sarpong

Sturm

Gunn

(2020) A university beyond aid: the challenge to the academic freedom and success of Ghanaian universities of over-reliance on donor funding. In: Sengupta

Blessinger

(eds) Teaching and Learning Practices for Academic Freedom: Innovations in Higher Education Teaching and Learning. Bingley: Emerald, 145–162.

80.

Scott

(1998) Massification, internationalization and globalization. In: Scott

(ed) The Globalisation of Higher Education. Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press, 108–129.

81.

Shattock

(2018) Entrepreneurial leadership in higher education. In: Encyclopedia of International Higher Education Systems and Institutions. Dordrecht: Springer, 1–4.

82.

Shore

Wright

(2017) Privatising the public university: key trends, counter-trends and alternatives. In: Shore

Wright

(eds) Death of the Public University? Uncertain Futures for Higher Education in the Knowledge Economy. New York, NY: Berghahn Books, 1–27.

83.

Slaughter

Rhoades

(2004) Academic Capitalism and the New Economy: Markets, State and Higher Education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

84.

Soysal

Baltaru

Cebolla-Boado

(2022) Meritocracy or reputation? The role of rankings in the sorting of international students across universities. Globalisation, Societies and Education 1–12.

85.

Tertiarty Education Comminssion (2022) Performance-Based Research Fund (PBRF) User Manual. https://www.tec.govt.nz/assets/Publications-and-others/PBRF-Publications/PBRF-User-Manual-updated-February-2022.pdf

86.

Tertiary Education Union (2019) Media release: It’s Time for PBRF to Go. https://teu.ac.nz/news/time-for-pbrf

87.

Tertiary Education Union (2022) More Job Cuts at AUT. https://teu.ac.nz/news/more-job-cuts-at-aut/

88.

Thakur

(2007) The impact of ranking systems on higher education and its stakeholders. Journal of Institutional Research 13(1): 83–96.

89.

Universities New Zealand (2019) 2019 PBRF Review: Universities New Zealand’s Submission. https://www.universitiesnz.ac.nz/sites/default/files/uni-nz/Universities_New_Zealand__2019_PBRF_review_submission_Final.pdf

90.

University of Auckland (2019) The Power of Philanthropy: Annual Report 2019. https://cdn.auckland.ac.nz/assets/auckland/about-us/the-university/official-publications/annual-report/annual-report-2019-web.pd

91.

University of Auckland (2018) University Review: Arts and Education and Social Work. https://www.auckland.ac.nz/en/news/2018/05/30/university-review-arts-edsw.html

92.

University of Auckland (n.d.) Community Research. https://www.auckland.ac.nz/en/about-us/community-engagement/community-research.html

93.

Van der Wende

(2017) Opening up: higher education systems in global perspective. ESRC/HEFCE Centre for Global Higher Education working paper series 22: 1–27.

94.

Yamada

(2021) Globalisation in Higher Education: Bridging Global and Local Education. Springer, Cham (Switzerland): Third International Handbook of Globalisation, Education and Policy Research, 269–284.

95.

Zajda

(2020) Globalisation, education and policy reforms. In: Fan

Popkewitz

(eds) Handbook of Education Policy Studies. Singapore: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-13-8347-2_13.

96.

Zajda

(2022) Discourses of globalisation and education reforms: overcoming discrimination. In: Discourses of Globalisation and Education Reforms: Overcoming Discrimination. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 105–118.