Market Higher Education Research Articles

Creative Arts Personal Pedagogy vs Marketised Higher Education: A battle between values

AbstractThe ongoing marketisation of higher education in England can be understood both conceptually – in terms of its ideological commitment to competition and accountability; and practically – in terms of the way that it has altered higher education structurally in a variety of ways. Methods of standardisation and quantification offer validation and reward to institutions through criteria aligned with marketised principles, leading to institutions shaping their operations to suit these forms of justification. Historically, many arts subjects have operated conceptually and organisationally outside the traditional higher education paradigm, and pedagogic approaches and values that are attributable to this subject area could clash with marketised understandings of education, which are becoming more prevalent and influential.This article presents analysis of reflections from creative arts educational practitioners working within higher education institutions in England on explorations of an ontology of the creative arts, as well as experiences of the marketisation process. A series of values relating to the concept of ‘the personal’, inherent to the creative arts are discussed and an exploration of how these principles clash with the priorities of the marketised educational economy are articulated. The values and principles that are inherent to educators and practitioners working in the creative arts are competing with ‘marketised’ motives imposed on them by the institutions in which they work.

Gaining by giving? Peer research into service user and carer perceptions of inclusivity in Higher Education

Service users and carers (SUAC) have made significant contributions to professional training in social work courses in Higher Education (HE) over the past decade in the UK. Such participation has been championed by government, academics and SUAC groups from a range of theoretical and political perspectives. Most research into the effectiveness of SUAC involvement at HE has come from the perspectives of academics and very little SUAC-led research exists. This qualitative peer research was led by two members of the University of Worcester’s SUAC group. Findings were that SUAC perceived their involvement brought benefits to students, staff, the University and the local community. Significant personal benefits such as finding a new support network, increased self-development and greater confidence to manage their own care were identified in ways that suggested that the benefits that can flow from SUAC involvement at HE are perhaps more far-reaching than previously recognised. Barriers to inclusion were less than previously reported in the literature and the humanising effects of SUAC involvement are presented as a partial antidote to an increasingly marketised HE culture.

Perceptions Toward Marketing Higher Education:

The emphasis in marketing higher education has been on the promotion component of the marketing mix. The other three marketing mix components have been neglected for the most part. This paper deals with the product component. More specifically it presents the results of an exploratory study regarding academic deans' (a key participant in the product component) perceptions of marketing higher education.

MARKETING HIGHER EDUCATION: MYTHS AND PROBLEMS

The budgetary decentralization of higher education in the United Kingdom calls for individual institutions and units within them to take increasing responsibility for raising their own funds. The author, who argues that higher education institutions must derive an increasing proportion of their budgets from the marketing of their products goes on to explain how this can be done. To begin with, the nature of marketing and of market research must be well understood, and the legitimacy of the marketing process itself must be accepted by all the members of the university community. It is then necessary to do a marketing audit so as to establish what a given institution has to sell and what its outside environment wishes to buy. Flexibility on the part of the seller with regard to type, level, duration, and scheduling of courses is very important. It is also necessary to be able to persuade the potential buyer that he wants to have what the seller has to offer. At this point, however, the author cautions the reader as to the dangers of some seven market myths as applied to higher education and the dangers of oversell. He concludes that with prudence higher education can be marketed to the satisfaction of all concerned with results which avoid the “unhappy paradox” that the marketing of higher education is both essential and disastrous.