Policymaking and the politics of change in higher education: The new 1960s universities in the UK, then and now

Throughananalysisofthefoundationoftheso-called‘newuniversities’intheUK,thisarticleoffersaninterpretationofthechangeprocessinhighereducation.Theargumentisthat althoughchangeisdrivenbyeconomicandsocialforces,itisthepoliticalinterpretationofthese forcesthatsteersthechangeprocessand,therefore,determinestheshapeofnewinstitutionalstructuresandhowtheyaresupposedtoperformtheirtasks.Thearticlecontraststheoriginalsteeringofthechangeprocessbystateandquasi-stateinstitutionswiththemorerecentemergenceofstate-regulatedmarketpressureastheforceforchangeinhighereducation.

The opposition of the established universities to a rapid expansion of student numbers (albeit with the hard evidence at the time suggesting only a short-term 'crisis') was both pragmaticandvalue-laden.Thepragmaticoppositionwasgeneratedbypracticalproblemsarising fromtheaccommodationandteachingofalargerbodyofstudents.Wouldtheresourcesbe forthcomingtosecureasmoothtransitiontoenlargeduniversities?Evenifthepublicresources wereforthcoming,howpracticalwoulditbefortheuniversities,especiallythoselocatedinthe largeconurbations,toexpandrapidly?
IthasneverbeenaningrainedelementoftheEnglishideaoftheuniversitythat'smallis beautiful'buttherewas,nonetheless,antipathytorapidexpansion.Steadygrowthwouldenable the new to be integrated within the framework of the established institution, whereas rapid expansion could well destabilize the university by challenging how it currently functioned. It waspossiblethatexpandednumberswouldrequirenotonlyadditionalresourcingbutalsothat theycouldrequiredifferentmodesofdeliveringhighereducation.Alarge,suddenincreasein numbers,therefore,couldbeaharbingerofunwelcomechangeinhowtheuniversitieswereto organizeanddeliverknowledge.
As the 1960s approached, and the demand for higher education increased, so certain choiceshadtobemade.Itisnotinconceivablethatthepressureoftheincreasingdemandcould havebeenresisted(especiallyasdemographictrendshadimpliedthatitwouldbeonlyshortterm).This would have meant intensified competition for scarce places, put greater pressure onapplicantstobeevenbetterqualified,andalmostcertainlywouldhaveensuredacontinuing narrowsocialbasisintherecruitmentofundergraduates.Alternatively,pressurecouldhavebeen applied to encourage the established universities to expand in order to avoid the slow and expensiveoption (Carswell,1985:61)thatwasselected.

Translating the pressures into viable universities
InFebruary1957,theUGCwasauthorizedbytheConservativeGovernmenttoproceedwith theSussexventure'providedthatthecapitalrequiredcouldbefittedintothegeneralcapital programme' (UGC,1962:93).Ineffect,publicrevenuewastobemadeavailabletofundanew university but the form it would take was essentially in the hands of the UGC. In the postwar period, supported by the CVCP and strong government backing, the UGC had assumed the major responsibility for, if not planning, then at least steering the development of higher educationinBritain (Shattock,2012:9-19 The UGC, through the creation ofAcademic Planning Boards, laid down the parameters withinwhichthesuccessfulapplicantswouldhavetoworkandstronglyinfluencedtheprocess they were to follow as they moved towards the fulfilment of their proposals. Firstly, given that expansion was to come through the establishment of new universities rather than the expansionofexistinginstitutions,itwastobeexpectedthatthenewprovidersshouldofferat leastsomevariationintheorganizationanddeliveryofknowledge.Secondly,theyneededto committhemselvestoswiftexpansionbyplanningforaminimumof3,000studentseach.This wasrelativelylargeforaBritishuniversityatthetime,and,indeed,ithadbeentherelativelylow student numbers in existing British universities that had led some to believe that expansion couldbeachievedthroughtheestablishedinstitutions.Thirdly,therehadtobeaclearexpression ofstronglocalsupport:theofferingofasiteofatleast200acres;apositivecommitmentfrom allthelocalauthoritiesintheneighbourhood,includingawillingnesstoprovidesomefinancial input;andanexpressionofapprovalbybothlocalnotablesandeducationalinterests,suchasthe headteachersoflocalschoolswithlargesixthforms.
Critically,otherthansanctioningtheUGC'sactionsbyprovidingtherequisitepublicfunding, thegovernmentofthedaywasvirtuallyexcludedfromtheprocess.Infact,itexcludeditself. Moreover, there is no record of much input from parliament, parliamentary committees, or the political parties.This was'an insider's job' that involved public funding with virtually no openpublicdebate.Itwasamodeofgovernancethatevidentlysuitedthedominantinterests withinhighereducation,especiallytheCVCP.Theprocessworkedveryefficiently,resultingin the smooth emergence of seven universities, and it could be argued that they have made an effectivecontributiontoEnglishhighereducation (Watson,2014).Theprocesswasembeddedin proceduressanctionedbythepoliticalsystembutitwasessentiallya'closed'modelofdecisionmaking.

Conclusion
There is an English system of higher education that, like all systems, is rarely static. Rather, it moves forward in stages and the process of analysing change in higher education has to be contextualized by the boundaries that mark the significant shifts in the composition of those organized parties that constitute the most important policy participants.There are no predeterminedresponsestothepressuresforchangeandtheoutcomesareoftendecidedby thepoliticalinterpretationofthosepressures.Inthecaseofthenew1960suniversities,itwas perceivedthattheUGCwasbestplacedtodeterminewhatwereconsideredastheeffective responses,anditactedinamannerthatwasessentiallypoliticalinnatureinordertoensurethat itsdesiredoutcomeprevailed.
Thefoundationofthe1960snewuniversitieswasbutamanifestationofastagedominated inthepost-1945yearsbytheUGCinaneraofeconomicgrowthandbroadpoliticalsupport foreducationalexpansion,andtheUGCactedasanationalplanningbodyforhighereducation. Therecenthistoryofthenewuniversitiesillustratestheemergenceofaparticularpolicymaking context,onethatrequiresinstitutionstorespondtopolicyinitiativesconstructedatthecentre by governments that are more enamoured of requiring universities to function in a stateregulatedmarket.

Notes on the contributors
Ourania Filippakou is a Senior Lecturer in Education at the University of Hull. Her main interest is in the theoretical condition of higher education -the theory, the epistemology, and the methodology of highereducation-withparticularreferencetocomparativehistoricalanalysis,aperspectivethatseeksto combinethemethodsofhistorywiththetheoriesandconceptsofsocialscience.Sheisacouncilmember oftheSocietyforResearchintoHigherEducation(SRHE),andvisitingfellowattheOxfordCentrefor HigherEducationPolicyStudies(OxCHEPS),NewCollege,UniversityofOxford.
TedTapperhasspentnearlyallhisacademiccareerattheUniversityofSussex .Hisresearch has developed in two broad fields: the politics of secondary schooling, with a focus on the increasing authorityofthecentralstate;andthepoliticsofhighereducation,encompassingareasonablylargebody of work on the governance of higher education and the politics of policymaking. More recently, he has examinedtheroleofideasintheprocessofchangeinhighereducation.