Thinking outside the box : De-structuring continuing and higher education

Anja Heikkinen, Jenni Pätäri & Gabriele Molzberger (eds), Disciplinary Struggles in Education Tampere University Press 2019, 135–153 http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-359-002-1 Thinking outside the box De-structuring continuing and higher education1 Markus Weil & Balthasar Eugster Abstract While universities are strongly embedded in a history of disciplinary structures, both institutionally (faculties, institutes or schools) and scientifically (“septem artes liberales”, study programmes), Continuing Education and Training (CET) within higher education (HE) can break up this disciplinary view and open new perspectives between the academic and the professional world. In this article, we explore the structural, disciplinary and historical boundaries of HE and CET and how both can come to systematic, constructive relations. Subsequently, we adopt a more pedagogical perspective and focus on CET that is provided within the institutional structures of HE. Keywords: higher education, continuing education, education system, pedagogy 1 This chapter draws on some ideas developed in the German article: Eugster/Weil (2015): “Grenzfall Weiterbildung: Forschungsorientierung in der Entstrukturierung.” In Peter Tremp (ed.), Forschungsorientierung und Berufsbezug im Studium. Hochschulen als Orte der Wissensgenerierung und der Vorstrukturierung von Berufstätigkeit. Bertelsmann Bielefeld, p. 63–82. The article is re-framed and revised regarding disciplinary struggles in the history of education. Markus Weil & Balthasar Eugster 136 Introduction Higher education (HE) is based on a history of disciplinary structures, both institutionally (e.g. with faculties, institutes or schools) and scientifically (e.g. ‘septem artes liberales’, study programmes) (de Ridder-Symoens, 2002, p. 85). In the context of Switzerland HE refers to formal learning, which leads to a qualification and to study programmes embedded in a disciplinary structure (see CRUS et al., 2011). In contrast, continuing education and training (CET) refers to non-formal and informal learning outside the formal education system but is nevertheless partly regulated, legally framed and systematically linked. The rationales of CET can break up the disciplinary view on HE and open new perspectives on the relation to the academic and the professional worlds. CET irritates HE – institutionally by drawing on the professional world besides formal academic structures as well as scientifically by challenging generated knowledge and theories with professional practices. Under the institutional umbrella of HE, some non-formal CET programmes and courses are provided without being part of the formal study programmes. The topic of this article deals with a conceptual layout for the role of CET offered within HE in Switzerland. For the analysis we draw on concept and policy papers that are framing education. Referring to the Swiss context – with a focus on the German speaking part – cannot be more than an example highlighting a general problem in the institutional and systematic relations of CET and HE. We use the term ‘outside the box’ in the sense of deconstructing a system approach towards HE to show the conceptual inconsistency within HE. ‘Outside the box’ means that the CET offered by universities belongs to the environment of the formal HE system and thereby forms its own self-referential system. The HE system and the system of CET in HE are connected in that they are each other’s environment, but they persist as autonomous systems – both conceptually and in policy documents. We aim at an analytical and conceptual view by exploring the status and position of CET in HE in Switzerland and looking at possible consequences. Switzerland has found a way of adopting structures for CET from HE – still in a very vague sense regarding the contribution of CET to HE. In the following sections, we start with the contextualisation of CET and HE in the Swiss education system. The progression rationale from a bachelor’s (BA) to Thinking outside the box 137 a master’s (MA) to a PhD degree has somehow been a role model for CET. Within HE we will focus on the field of universities, where some non-formal programmes and courses are provided as CET outside the initial study programmes and degrees. In other words, within the broad field of further education we will concentrate on the CET programmes offered by universities (including applied universities). We will address the overlapping areas of CET and HE by looking at the research orientation of universities. As the core part, we draw on three propositions: (1) CET at universities is per se thinking outside the box in several aspects; (2) Research orientation is a claim of CET at universities; (3) The professional world and research orientation are a chance for destructuring institutional and disciplinary boundaries. These propositions have the function of a pre-hypothesis in order to outline questions that are relevant for the research but even more for policy and structuring educational systems. Educational systems have been formed as societal conventions that have institutionalised (see also Diogo, Carvalho & Amaral, 2015, p. 114f.). Finally, we look at curricular, content-related and didactic consequences as well as opportunities and threats related to the integration of CET into the HE system. Contextualisation of CET and HE in Switzerland CET and HE carry different functions, histories and institutional setups, which influence their relation to disciplines (see Wittpoth, 1997; Kuper & Kaufmann, 2009). From a system view CET at universities may be challenged from both sides: on one hand by the paradigms of HE – such as research orientation and relatedness to disciplines2 – and on the other hand by the fact that CET in particular relates to the labour market and the professional world. For HE in Switzerland we can distinguish different types of institutions: 2 The roles of researchers are in an ongoing change, classified by Teichler (2000, 19f) referring also to disciplinary strctures as (1) disciplinary-department based, (2) continuous disciplinebased, (3) institutional higher education research, (4) applied higher education based, (5) Markus Weil & Balthasar Eugster 138 – Universities, universities of teacher education (Pädagogische Hochschule) and universities of applied sciences (Fachhochschule) on the tertiary A (general) level. – Professional education and training (PET) colleges as well as preparation for federal and advanced PET diploma examinations on the tertiary B (vocational) level (see also OECD, 2003, p. 43; CRUS et al., 2011; Swissuni, 2014). Only the tertiary A level (universities) is considered as HE (Hochschulen), while tertiary B (PET) is known as higher vocational education (höhere Berufsbildung). The strong role of tertiary B in Switzerland relates to the strong emphasis on vocational education on the previous levels of the Swiss education system. In the following consideration we will look only at the tertiary A level, when necessary distinguishing the three different types of universities in Switzerland. In Figure 1 CET is located alongside the formal education system. Classified as non-formal and informal education, it has different relations and institutional consultative and (6) reflective practitioner. Teichler also states that the increasing impact of demand-based research might be a risk for research in higher education. Figure 1. Tertiary level and CET within the Swiss education system (see Schweizerische Eidgenossenschaft & EDK, 2016) Thinking outside the box 139 positions than formal structures but has strong relations especially to the tertiary B level of the educational system. Traditionally in tertiary B work experience and informal learning could even be a precondition for some of the qualifications. This position is also formulated for statistical and monitoring data (BfS 2010) and in legislative considerations (Schweizerische Eidgenossenschaft, 2002; 2014). As stated above, we relate to the specific Swiss setting, where HE institutions are providers of CET programmes of advanced studies (Certificate/Diploma/ Master of Advanced Studies [CAS/DAS/MAS] as well as courses [see also CRUS et al., 2011]). – CAS requires a minimum of 10 ECTS-Credits; – DAS requires a minimum of 30 ECTS-Credits; – MAS (also MBA, EMBA, MPH, LLM)3 requires a minimum of 60 ECTS-Credits. CAS/DAS/MAS are not part of the initial study programmes (BA, MA, PhD) and therefore not of the HE system, neither are they compatible CET degrees in other countries or outside universities. CAS/DAS/MAS programmes were launched in Switzerland with the structural reforms, namely the Bologna Process, which has been introducing BA and MA degrees in the Swiss HE system. Using the structural dimension of BA–MA–PhD, the CET programmes also suggest a proceeding composition, although both degree systems are separated. An MAS degree (CET) is not a sufficient entry qualification for a PhD, and a BA degree (HE) does usually not count for a CAS (CET) and vice versa. Admission for CAS/DAS/MAS is based on a final degree from an HE institution plus work experience, thus there are exceptions in practice. Generally we can speak about two different systems with similar rationales for their formal/non-formal degree structures (Fischer, 2012). The special position of these CET programmes, which are realised within universities but at the same time are not part of the HE system, allows a strong relation to research orientation (HE context) and professional orientation (CET context). So, CET within universities in some respects offers a chance to think outside the box, such as by actively relating scholarship and the professional world 3 Master of Business Administration (MBA), Executive Master of Business Administration (EMBA), Master of Public Health (MPH), Legum Magister (LL.M.) Markus Weil & Balthasar Eugster 140 to HE as well as by deconstructing the institutional and disciplinary boundaries of universities. In this setting, the ‘disciplinary struggles’ of both CET and HE derive from different routes, which we can approach from a historising perspective. In terms of disciplinary reference points, in particular curricular, content-based and didactic consequences seem to be important for giving further education at universities a specific profile. Research orientation in HE In the Swiss context HE differentiates into four functions: teaching, research, further education and service – all of these in relation to the university itself (endoperspective) and to the professional field and labour market (exo-perspective) (see also Schweizerische Eidgenossenschaft, 2011). Regarding teaching and learning in HE, research has a special significance. Research makes the difference between universities and other educational institutions because universities are institutions of knowledge transfer and of the criticism and the revised construction of knowledge (Eugster & Tremp, 2018). The correct use of scientific research methods might be a necessary but not sufficient condition for the reflective function of research (see BAK, 1979, p. 14f.). In this sense research is more than an additive to teaching; it is the fundament of teaching and learning in HE (see Stichweh, 1994). In contrast, CET is relatively free in terms of design and function, especially non-formal and informal learning do not follow a specified standard other than classification by learning activities (see also Molzberger, 2007), documentation of processes or recognised competences and very often a strong relation to the professional field or practices. When CET is realised within HE institutions, both the research function and the relation to the professional field are potentially distinctive to other forms of CET. We focus on the question of how CET within the context of HE can be constituted. We are using the characteristics of HE institutions to define ‘the box’ (system immanent, endo-perspective) and the following three propositions show what this institutional setting might mean for CET when realised within this particular institutional context. Thinking outside the box 141 The propositions are informed by a triple-founded theoretical background. Firstly, there are findings of system theory that accentuate the importance of differentiating systems and their environments by identifying different functions (see e.g. Luhmann, 1995). Secondly, we refer to the history of universities as cultural institutions (see e.g. Stichweh, 1994; Baecker, 2010). In this perspective the relation between research and teaching respectively between research and research-founded vocational fields remains a challenge for theoretical reflection. Thirdly, the coexistence of HE BA, MA and PhD-programmes on one hand and CET within HE on the other leads to the question of whether we need specific didactics for CET that differ from the general didactics (see e.g. Weil, 2018): (1) CET at universities is per se thinking outside the box in several aspects. This first proposition relates to the positioning of CET in the education system in Switzerland. So, further education carries aspects that are outside the institutional approach of universities, but they also open up the institutional setting because of their relation to different functions and processes outside universities. (2) Research orientation is a claim of CET at universities. The second proposition addresses a normative level: it is to be discussed how research-oriented CET offered by universities should be realised. Research orientation allows claims by CET, such as regarding self-reflection of one’s own action or the integration of science into offers of further education. (3) The professional world and research orientation are a chance for de-structuring institutional and disciplinary boundaries. The third proposition aims at designing CET by addressing the heterogeneity of participant groups, of expectations about relevance for practice, etc. The relations and transitions of science, the generation of knowledge and professional fields seem to challenge institutional and disciplinary borders. In the following sections we will discuss these propositions conceptually in more detail. Markus Weil & Balthasar Eugster 142 Discussion of the propositions HE functions are an integrated part of society and, at the same time, deliver an external view on the processes within society (research perspective). Therefore, it remains a permanent challenge for HE to play an active role in shaping society by insisting on an independent position of reflection and judgement about the reality. CET in universities reflects this field of tension and has to bring together conflicting claims in order to demonstrate that universities produce and spread knowledge that is authoritative and fruitful for society at the same time. (1) CET at universities is per se thinking outside the box in several aspects. As stated above, HE belongs to the tertiary A level of the Swiss education system. Universities follow certain conditions that might also be relevant for thinking about positioning CET. Firstly, HE follows the logic of the scientific disciplines within specific fields of knowledge and methodological repertoires. The affiliation to a discipline and its scientific community is defined by a successful socialisation into the discipline, which is regulated by degrees and certifications. Secondly, HE is placed ‘higher’ than the other levels of education. For the Swiss context, but also internationally (see UIS, 2012), this leads to a hierarchy of qualification levels of professional fields as professions relating to secondary education (such as nursing, administration, carpentry) with additional options on the tertiary B level and professions relating to HE degrees (such as architecture, medicine, law). Thirdly, in Switzerland BA and MA degrees are exclusively provided by HE institutions. A PhD degree is solely reserved for universities and cannot be given by universities of applied sciences or universities of teacher education (see Figure 1). The tradition of ‘habilitation’4 as one of the tracks for becoming a professor is also absolutely linked to universities. We refer to this HE structure as ‘the box’, 4 Historically the habilitation in the modern meaning was established in the context of the modern German university development during the 19th century. It marks the special role of teaching by awarding a postdoctoral teaching qualification and by this the habilitation stresses the unity of research and teaching as the outstanding characteristic of the modern university Thinking outside the box 143 which is rather a closed system and a precondition for academic careers exclusively within HE. For CET at universities, it is not surprising that it follows the logic of academic levels. The rather strong hierarchy of degrees and institutions in Switzerland might be a reason for the ‘invention’ of the CAS–DAS–MAS-structure. CAS– DAS–MAS closely relate to the logic of BA–MA–PhD, while at the same time they mark a difference by using ‘advanced studies’. ‘Advanced’, with its polyvalent meanings, also refers to ‘more than higher education’, and this positions in the professional field and the relation to practice as resources for CET. In this sense, these CET degrees are outside the academic degree box. They are a bridge between the academic disciplinary order of knowledge and the practice of professional life. Two positions within the education system demonstrate why further education cannot be located definitely. Since the 1970s in the Swiss context, CET has been discussed as the ‘fourth pillar’ of the education system (quarternary education), relating to primary, secondary and tertiary education. The main reference document for this attempt to position further education is the Structural Plan for the German Education System, where further education is defined as a continuation or re-starting of organised learning after finishing a differently realised first phase of education (Deutscher Bildungsrat, 1972, p. 197). CET is positioned here as a continuation of initial degrees and as a part of the education system for the first time. Alternatively, also during the 1970s, CET was strongly related to the concepts of lifelong learning (see Kraus, 2001). By this, CET was positioned as accompanying the education system on all levels and degrees. This second approach is currently leading the rationales, e.g. by the Federal Department of Statistics, and puts CET in the position of offering non-formal or informal education only (see BFS, 2010; Weil, 2011, p. 46). Alongside, CET is assigned to the general idea of lifelong learning and does not often result in generally recognised degrees and certificates (Egger, 2012; Kraus, 2001). With this analysis, CET at universities is per se thinking outside the box because even when using a structural hierarchisation of degrees, it does not follow the functions of HE, nor is it necessarily linked to its structures. Of course, themes and staff can be similar in CET and HE, but regarding the participants, CET relates more to the experience in the professional field, and it cannot fulfil Markus Weil & Balthasar Eugster 150 debating such questions can the involved lecturers bring the professional field into an intercommunication with science that is prolific for both sides. The didactic of HE benefits from the developments in CHE as it opens a much more diverse range for teaching and learning settings. It can link to liberal, vocational and/or political further education and make use of concepts from informal and non-formal learning, e.g. the methods used for learning while working. This might give learning how to become an academic a new perspective by practicing research and using this as learning opportunities more systematically. Concluding reflections Overall, there is a potential in thinking outside the box for HE if CHE is not only used as a cash cow on the educational market. A clear positioning and quality claim for CHE could carefully draw together curricular, content-related and didactic aspects in order to critically reflect upon the content, methods and structure of HE. Nevertheless, opening the box could also bring with it the risk that the professional world also carries along unintended effects such as market orientation or utilitarianism. This might already be a reality of universities not only by the means of CHE. Academia could critically reflect on that relation and take this as a further research perspective. While the clear positioning of CET functions and the use of reference points different than those of HE, we could also question whether CHE is well positioned so close to HE or if it generally should be positioned independently outside the institutional umbrella of HE. In this regard, the three propositions allocate and substantiate the functions of CHE as preconditions for a critical and independent role for HE. All in all, CHE might be a challenge for disciplinary boundaries by the defined relations to the professional world. Naming and defining ‘the box’ of HE (endoperspective) can provide perspectives ‘outside the box’ (exo-perspective), but this dichotomy could also be challenged. Nevertheless, the disciplinary and historical boundaries of CET and HE can come to constructive relations when the primary approach is not merging all functions and blending the purposes and advantages of research and the professional world but rather using their advantages for shaping clearer perspectives and relations. Thinking outside the box 151 References Baecker, D. 2010. Forschung, Lehre und Verwaltung. In J.-Ch. Horst et al. (eds), Unbedingte Universitäten. Was passiert? Stellungnahmen zur Lage der Universität. Zürich: diaphanes, 311–322. BAK (Bundesassistentenkonferenz). 1970. Forschendes Lernen – Wissenschaftliches Prüfen. Ergebnisse der Arbeit des Ausschusses für Hochschuldidaktik (new print 2009). Bielefeld: UVW. BfS (Bundesamt für Statistik). 2010. Teilnahme an Weiterbildung in der Schweiz. Erste Ergebnisse des Moduls ”Weiterbildung” der Schweizerischen Arbeitskräfteerhebung. Neuchâtel: BfS. Biggs, J. 2003. Aligning teaching and assessing to course objectives. Conference paper University of Aveiro: Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: New Trends and Innovations, http://www.josemnazevedo.uac.pt/proreitoria/docs/biggs.pdf [2014, December 1]. CRUS (Rektorenkonferenz der Schweizer Universitäten)/KFH (Rektorenkonferenz der Fachhochschulen der Schweiz)/COHEP (Schweizerische Konferenz der Rektorinnen und Rektoren der Pädagogischen Hochschulen). 2011. Qualifikationsrahmen für den schweizerischen Hochschulbereich nqf.ch-HS, https://www.swissuniversities.ch/fileadmin/swissuniversities/Dokumente/ Lehre/NQR/nqf-ch-HS-d.pdf [2017, December 5]. Deutscher Bildungsrat 1972. Strukturplan für das Bildungswesen (4th ed). Stuttgart: Klett. De Ridder-Symoens, H. 2002. The intellectual heritage of ancient universities in Europe. In N. Sanz & S. Bergan (eds), The Heritage of European Universities. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing, 77–89. Diogo, S., Carvalho, T. & Amaral, A. 2015. Institutionalism and organizatinoal change. In J. Huisman, H. de Boer, D.D. Dill & M. Souto-Otero (eds), The Palgrave International Handbook of Higher Education Policy and Governance. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 114–131. Egger, R. 2012. Lebenslanges Lernen in der Universität. Wie funktioniert gute Hochschullehre und wie lernen Hochschullehrende ihren Beruf. Wiesbaden: Springer. Eugster, B. & Tremp, P. 2018. Lehre als Zugang zum Fach. Plädoyer für eine didaktische Wissenschaftssoziali. In M. Weil (ed.), Zukunftslabor Lehrentwicklung. Perspektiven auf Hochschuldidaktik und darüber hinaus. Münster: Waxmann, 75–94. Markus Weil & Balthasar Eugster 152 Eugster, B. & Weil, M. 2015. Grenzfall Weiterbildung: Forschungsorientierung in der Entstrukturierung. In P. Tremp (ed.), Forschungsorientierung und Berufsbezug im Studium. Hochschulen als Orte der Wissensgenerierung und der Vorstrukturierung von Berufstätigkeit. Bielefeld: Bertelsmann, 63–82. Fischer, A. 2012. Hochschulweiterbildung in einem heterogenen Feld. Bericht zu Handen der Geschäftsstelle des Schweizerischen Wissenschaftsund Innovationsrats. Bern: Schweizerischer Wissenschaftsund Innovationsrat. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. & Trow, M. 1994. The New Production of. Knowledge. The Dynamics of Science and Research. London: Sage. HFKG (Hochschulförderungsund -koordinationsgesetz). Bundesgesetz über die Förderung der Hochschulen und die Koordination im schweizerischen Hochschulbereich. 30. September 2011. https://www.admin.ch/opc/de/officialcompilation/2014/4103.pdf [2017, December 5]. Kraus, K. 2001. Lebenslanges Lernen. Karriere einer Leitidee. Bielefeld: Bertelsmann. Kuper, H. & Kaufmann, K. 2009. Systemtheoretische Analysen der Weiterbildung. In R. Tippelt & A. v. Hippel (eds), Handbuch Erwachsenenbildung/Weiterbildung (3rd ed.) Wiesbaden: Springer, 153–168. Lindenstein Walshok, M. 2012. Reinventing continuing higher education. Continuing Higher Education Review, Vol. 76, 38–53. Luhmann, N. 1995. Social Systems. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Molzberger, G. 2007. Rahmungen informellen Lernen. Zur Erschließung neuer Lernund Weiterbildungsperspektiven. Wiesbaden: Springer. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2003. Reviews of national Policies for Education: Tertiary Education in Switzerland. Paris: OECD Publishing. Reinalda, B. & Kulesza, E. 2006. The Bologna Process – Harmonizing Europe’s Higher Education (2nd ed.). Opladen: Barbara Budrich. Schiefner, M. 2011. Hochschuldidaktische Szenarien für die wissenschaftliche Weiterbildung. In M. Weil, M. Schiefner, B. Eugster & K. Futter (eds), Aktionsfelder der Hochschuldidaktik. Von der Weiterbildung zum Diskurs. Münster: Waxmann, 43–50. Schweizerische Edigenossenschaft. 2002. Bundesgesetz über die Berufsbildung (Berufsbildungsgesetz, BBG) vom 13. Dezember 2002 (Stand am 1. Januar 2019). Schweizerische Eidgenossenschaft. 2011. Bundesgesetz über die Förderung der Hochschulen und die Koordination im schweizerischen Hochschulbereich (Hochschulförderungsund -koordinationsgesetz, HFKG) vom 30. September 2011 (Stand am 1. Januar 2018). Schweizerische Edigenossenschaft. 2014. Bundesgesetz über die Weiterbildung (WeBiG) vom 20. Juni 2014. Thinking outside the box 153 Schweizerische Eidgenossenschaft & EDK (Schweizerische Konferenz der kantonalen Erziehungsdirektoren). 2016. The Swiss Education System, http://swisseducation. educa.ch/en [2017, December 5]. Stichweh, R. 1994. The unity of teaching and research. In S. Poggi & M. Bossi (eds), Romanticism in Science: Science in Europe 1790–1840. Boston: Kluwer, 189–202. Swissuni 2004. Webseite Universitäre Weiterbildung Schweiz. o.O, http://www.swissuni. ch/index_DE [2014, December 1]. Teichler, U. 2000. Higher education research and its institutional basis. In S. Schwarz & U. Teichler (eds), The Institutional Basis of Higher Education Research. Experiences and Perspectives. Wiesbaden: Springer, 13–24. Tremp, P. 2005. Verknüpfung von Lehre und Forschung: Eine universitäre Tradition als didaktische Herausforderung. Beiträge zur Lehrerbildung, 23 (3), 339–348. UIS (UNESCO Institute for Statistics) 2012. International Standard Classification of Education ISCED 2011. Montreal, Quebec, UIS. University of Zurich 2012. The University of Zurich Mission Statement. Zurich, http://www.uzh.ch/dam/jcr:ffffffff-e1a6-549b-0000-00002247c2e3/uzh_ leitbild_2012.pdf [2017, December 5]. Weil, M. 2011. Non-formales Lernen – zwischen den Stühlen der Weiterbildungsdefinitionen. Education permanente, (2), 46–47. Weil, M. 2018. Teaching in higher education: Is there a pedagogy of internationalization. In V. Korhonen & P. Alenius (eds), Internationalisation and Transnationalisation in Higher Education. Bern: Peter Lang, 177–194. Wittpoth, J. 1997. Grenzfall Weiterbildung. In D. Lenzen & N. Luhmann (eds), Bildung und Weiterbildung im Erziehungssystem. Lebenslauf und Humanontogenese als Medium und Form. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 71–93.