07 Higher Education Reading Group
Barnett, R. (2024). Crisis, what crisis? Real impairments and absences in the ecosystems of higher education. Higher Education Quarterly, 78(4), e12498.
Reading Group Discussion Summary on Barnett (2024): "Crisis, What Crisis?"
1. The Nature of the Crisis in Higher Education
The group acknowledged that higher education is in crisis but questioned what kind of crisis Barnett identifies. His analysis remains broad, treating crisis as a systemic issue rather than a clearly defined problem. Some found this perspective useful, while others felt it was too abstract and risked disempowering those within academia. Without a precise definition, the concept of "crisis" risks becoming meaningless. Barnett’s framing was likened to a "clusterfk"** rather than a clearly diagnosable problem. His argument suggests that everything is entangled, yet offers little in terms of practical direction.
2. Critical Realism and the Limits of Barnett’s Framework
Barnett adopts a critical realist perspective, asserting that crises have ontological depth beyond human perception. However, some in the group questioned whether this framework actually leads to practical insights. While his ecological model highlights interconnected crises, it does not necessarily help address them. A key concern was his broad use of the ecosystem metaphor across eight distinct areas—knowledge, learning, individuals, society, culture, economy, polity, and nature. Some felt this was an arbitrary classification, making sweeping generalizations rather than offering a structured analysis. Others noted that the term "ecosystem" is increasingly monopolized by various disciplines, which could dilute its usefulness.
3. The Role of Instrumentalization in Higher Education’s Decline
A central issue discussed was the instrumentalization of knowledge—the reduction of education to economic utility. Barnett sees this as a major impairment, arguing that universities have become tools for economic agendas rather than spaces for intellectual development. The group debated whether this instrumentalization is the root of the crisis or merely a symptom of larger systemic issues. The increasing bureaucratization and marketization of universities—driven by performance metrics, administrative expansion, and managerial control—was identified as a more immediate problem than epistemic distortions alone. One example cited was a former Westminster VC’s statement that the "core" of the university is its administrators, with academics treated as expendable labor. The dominance of zero-hour contracts and performance-driven funding models reflects this shift, eroding traditional academic autonomy.
4. Competing Knowledge Systems and the Loss of Purpose
The discussion also focused on competing visions of knowledge. Barnett critiques the marginalization of non-instrumental disciplines and the dominance of economic pragmatism. The group linked this to historical debates about the value of "useless knowledge" and how universities have lost sight of their broader intellectual and civic missions. A key concern was the erosion of university values and identity under political and economic pressures. While universities have always had competing aims, Barnett suggests that today’s crisis stems from a fundamental loss of self-conception—what is a university for? Additionally, knowledge systems themselves are in competition. Participants noted that different models of the university—such as the Anglo-Saxon, Greco-Roman, and Berlin models—have historically prioritized different values. Some questioned whether European universities have resisted marketization better than their UK, US, and Australian counterparts.
6. The Future of Universities and the Role of Academics
The discussion ended with reflections on agency and resistance. Some felt Barnett’s depiction of crisis left little room for action, as universities are presented as deeply entangled in failing ecosystems. However, others invoked chaos theory and the "butterfly effect", suggesting that even small changes could have meaningful impacts. A football analogy captured the perceived power imbalance: academics are like the 11 players on the field, while vice-chancellors and administrators sit on the bench or boardroom, detached from the actual game. This highlighted how the least influential members—academics—are expected to address institutional challenges without real decision-making power. Another critique focused on university governance, where Councils and Boards dominated by business leaders often treat institutions as commercial enterprises, prioritizing financial sustainability over intellectual quality. Participants noted that universities cannot be run like businesses, as reputation and academic integrity are more important than financial metrics alone.
