When are universities leaders or followers?

In assessing the current and future role of universities in the nation-states in which they are chartered and largely funded, it is useful to ask: When are universities societal leaders, and when are they followers – reinforcing the existing political order?

As discussed in my new book, Neo-Nationalism and Universities: Populists, autocrats and the future of higher education, it is apparent that national political history and contemporary context are the dominant factor for shaping the leadership or follower role of universities – what I call a political determinist interpretation.

We often think of contemporary universities, and their students and faculty, as catalysts for societal progress – the free speech and civil rights movements, Vietnam War protests, the anti-apartheid movement, Tiananmen Square and, more recently, the pro-democracy demonstrations in Hong Kong. Universities can be, and have been, the locus for not only educating enlightened future leaders, but also for opposing oppression and dictators.

But universities have also proved over their history to be tools for serving the privileged and reinforcing the social class divisions of a society.

The global movement toward mass higher education held the promise of universities as agents of socio-economic mobility and societal re-birth. There are places where universities pushed the boundaries of knowledge and generated societal disruption. But they have also been factories for errant theories that reinforce the worst of nationalist tendencies.

Universities are both unique environments for educating and mentoring free thinkers, entrepreneurs and citizens with, for example, a devotion to social change or for creating conformists – or all of the above.

How might we assess whether universities are followers or leaders in their societies?

Eight variables

In my new book, and based on case studies written by or with fellow chapter contributors, I propose a number of variables when considering this question for higher education institutions in a particular country, and the role of a particular university.

The first relates to the institution as a vehicle for socio-economic mobility, which is vital in countries with moderate to very high levels of income inequality – in other words, nearly all nations. This mobility is meant to be inclusive, providing access for a broad range of ethnic and racial groups and genders, within a nation or region.

The second variable is the role of universities in regional and national, and global, research related to social problems like poverty, health and pollution. This includes basic research related to, for example, disease and water quality or social science-based studies on school districts and urban planning with the expectation of generating practical solutions.

The third and fourth variables are a university’s impact in technological innovation and economic development, along with educating a talented labour force and educated citizenry that includes entrepreneurs and those devoted to government and non-profit employment. We can add to this educating students to be global citizens, in part due to an understanding that it is increasingly important for employability and also because the process of globalisation ties all of us to common ideas and problems, such as global warming.

The public service role of universities is a fifth variable, including the engagement of students and faculty with and in support of largely public institutions and services, such as local schools, hospitals and local and national governments. University-run hospitals provide perhaps the best example of the intersection of teaching, research and public service. This public service role can also include university-run art museums, performance facilities, libraries and other forms of facilities and engagement with local communities.

A sixth variable relates to the preservation and study of the art, history and culture of its nation or region. This has been one of the central roles of universities, including faculty-led research and writing, but also the collection and organisation of archives and, related to public service, university- or community-operated historical museums. The overt effort of past and current authoritarian leaders and governments to control the historical narrative poses challenges for this vital role of universities.

A seventh variable relates to a university’s global engagement. This can include research collaborations with foreign universities and their faculty and students, but more importantly it relates to the exchange of academic talent.

The number of international students who are enrolled as regular students at the undergraduate and graduate level – as opposed to being enrolled in short-term programmes that are often segregated from the main campus curriculum – is one marker of international engagement. Another is the number of foreign nationals on the faculty or in other capacities, like research.

To some degree, the presence of foreign nationals strengthens the global perspective of the home campus and can, depending on national policies, add significant diversity of talent to local, regional and national labour pools.

Global collaborative research can, in fact, function as global communities that transcend national political identities. The COVID-19 virus is a great example of universities generating the foundational science and a collaborative global science community that generated therapies and vaccines and their distribution.

Finally, the eighth variable is the vital role of universities, and their students and faculty, as informed and constructive critics of society. Critical analysis of the social and political problems of society is, arguably, one of the most important roles of a university and its academic community.

Conceptually, academic freedom relates to the right of faculty to voice sometimes controversial research findings or views that broadly relate to their academic field or discipline. But it also includes the right of faculty and students to voice, for instance, criticism of government policies or behaviours as citizens.

National or regional service

There are conundrums in assessing a university’s leader versus follower role: for example, university research has an association with national security that offers conflicting uses by national governments.

On the one hand, universities are positively engaged in efforts to improve cybersecurity for the purpose of protecting the economic life of nations and the personal security of their citizens; on the other hand, academic science is currently bolstering the spying and surveillance capabilities of national governments that are Orwellian – China’s widespread use of facial recognition technology to monitor the behaviour of its citizens being a case in point.

My view is that universities can be evaluated according to their leadership or follower role. But it requires some sort of weighting to help understand a university’s full impact on the society that it serves. Only a few universities in the world may claim that they are truly and exclusively global enterprises, with no national or regional constituency. Hence, national and regional service and impact is the paradigm for understanding the leadership or follower title.

Educating a talented labour force and contributing to technological innovation and economic development in a nation or region are all base activities that, in some form, all universities are engaged in, no matter the political context. Similarly, the preservation and study of art, history and culture have a basic role for every university – although autocratic governments often seek to control and subvert the narrative of a nation’s history to support their own, often golden age myth narrative.

More aspirational is the objective of socio-economic mobility – a more complex role that depends on the demographics and politics of a nation-state. And among the highest leadership roles is the concept of universities as social change agents, including research related to social problems, public service and, in my view, most importantly, critical analysis of society.

What is most important?

Hence, I offer in the book a tiering of the eight variables (one being important but base or lower-order forms of societal leadership and four being the highest order), understanding that this model is simply a conceptual sketch and not meant to fully gauge the extent of university activities designed to assist in the assessment of the leadership role of universities in their particular nation or region.

Note that I do not use or refer to global rankings of universities or the infatuation of many ministries with its close relative, the world-class university model. The most influential global rankings focus on research production and related markers of prestige, like Nobel prizes.

Doing well in rankings, and in particular citation analysis that favours the sciences and journals published in English, or in the number of patents generated (which can be an imperfect marker of economic impact), can be important and desirable as a narrow indicator of prestige and influence.

But the ranking and word-class university infatuation arguably generates a larger detrimental influence on the leadership role of institutions – devaluing teaching and student learning and driving academic work toward research production goals focused on subjects attractive to journals but not necessarily toward regional social problems.

In a conference on the theme of this book, Christine Musselin at Sciences Po worried that the singular concern of many universities with various global rankings was driving them to neglect one of their most important roles in society: developing educated citizens who, in turn, might be a foil for extreme forms of nationalism, whether right wing or left wing.

I again return to my earlier hypothesis: The past and current national political environment is perhaps the most powerful influence on the mission, role and effectiveness of universities and the higher education system to which they belong. The national political environment, arguably, has a determining influence on whether universities are leaders or followers – or something in between.

Nation-states with a history of authoritarian rule have sustained higher education systems that reinforce the social structure and political position of the government. In this environment, universities do not have significant autonomy or develop an academic culture that is openly critical of political leaders. Few have any significant statement or policy related to academic freedom; academic freedom is defined exclusively by the state.

Many universities, and hence academics, are also focused on the sciences and engineering and may feel that discussion of significant social and even many scientific problems (such as chronic pollution) that reflect poorly on the existing political regime are not simply dangerous, but unnecessary and probably ineffectual.

Universities and academics functioning in societies with a stronger liberal tradition (for instance, free elections, recognised civil rights and relatively low levels of corruption) have a stronger likelihood of being engaged in critical analysis of society and instilling these values in their teaching, research and public service activities. Universities also provide a public space for social and political movements that can be progressive or regressive, and sometimes extremely disruptive of the institution itself.

Examples include the student riots in Paris in the 1960s or the civil rights movement and protests on United States campuses or the recent example of right-wing speakers at places like Berkeley that generate violence from extreme left-wing groups.

Again, depending on the national context, there is great nuance to how universities actually operate. We might conjecture that many universities operate in the intermediate sector: exuding elements of being followers and leaders.

Further, universities that operate in repressive political environments may foster potent political protests demanding greater civil liberties, often led by students, with a variety of outcomes.

In South Africa, portions of the academic community fomented opposition to apartheid that, in turn, generated support from students and faculty throughout the world, contributing to a global divestment trend from businesses in South Africa and political pressure that contributed to a change in government and the legal end of apartheid. But in China, student-led demonstrations in April and May 1989 led to a military massacre and more repressive policies by the Chinese government.

External variables

There are at least two external variables for considering the leadership versus follower role of universities.

For one, budgets matter. Nation-states with robust and growing economies can invest and provide the means for universities to be more productive in teaching and research, in their public engagement and global reach. Economies in decline, or that are developing, often result in significant financial restraints on the services and innovations a university can engage in as societal followers or leaders.

And two, universities are part of larger national systems of higher education with differentiated missions within the sector.

Often, nation-states have historically designated one or more institutions, often in national and regional capitals, as favoured in prestige and funding. Often they are allowed to operate outside the ministerial norms for other universities. Most are older institutions, providers of education to a social and political elite. These institutions also have greater flexibility, even within more autocratic nations, to act as leaders.

Evolution and devolution

Are universities leaders or followers or intermediators in China? In Russia? How about in South Africa and Brazil and Chile? In the United Kingdom in the years leading to Brexit? Or in America during or after Donald Trump’s presidency? What is the relationship between the longevity of a university and its role as leader or follower; for example, are universities established for centuries more likely to be leaders or followers, and what have been the conditions for their longevity?

Any careful consideration of these questions requires reflection on the historical role of universities in nation building – political geography still matters. It is also important to stress that the various forms of nationalism we see today are not, of course, entirely new.

In Russia, but more so in China, a nationalist revival can be viewed as a historical continuum where all universities, and the economy more generally, remain under one-party governmental control and where autocratic leaders make the rules.

In yet another variation, in Hungary or Poland, recovery from Soviet domination was followed by post-Cold War freedoms but also economic uncertainties, followed by neo-nationalist movements.

Neo-nationalism, and its role in and impact on universities, is also in a process of evolution and devolution. Its power and strength are related to a set of global and national variables, including economic transitions, demographic shifts, new technologies and broader social factors, including political movements related to race and religion – witness the shift toward Islamic fundamentalism in nations such as Indonesia.

The book Neo-Nationalism and Universities is an attempt at a snapshot of today’s interaction of national politics and policy with universities that may help us assess the leader and follower role of universities and peer a bit into the future of these universities.

John Aubrey Douglass is a senior research fellow and research professor of public policy and higher education at the Center for Studies in Higher Education, Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley, United States. This article is the third in a series of excerpts from his new book Neo-Nationalism and Universities: Populists, autocrats and the future of higher education, published by Johns Hopkins University Press and as an open access book accessible via Project Muse. The previous two articles are “How to stop neo-nationalist leaders subduing universities” and “Under attack: universities and neo-nationalist movements”. A recent book launch event co-sponsored by University World News is now posted on YouTube.

There are two other forthcoming events in which chapter contributors discuss their findings: Tuesday 12 October, 9:30am to 10:30am PDT – Neo-Nationalism and Universities: Turkey, Hungary and the EU. Moderator: John Aubrey Douglass. Participants: Brendan O’Malley, Wilhelm Krull, Marijk van der Wende. Also on Wednesday 20 October, 11am to 12pm PDT – Neo-Nationalism and Universities: China, Hong Kong, Singapore and Russia. Moderator: John Aubrey Douglass. Participants: Karin Fischer, Bryan Penprase and Igor Chirikov. Details will be announced here.

This article was altered on 26 September to correct the time of the last-mentioned event on 20 October, which is 11am.