September 2003
This Association (MeCCSA) represents departments and scholars
in its fields in UK universities. Our fields extend across
both social science and humanities disciplines, and the Association’s
members engage in education and research embracing a diversity
of approaches, from the intensely vocational to the substantially
theoretical.
We welcome this opportunity to comment on the issues raised
by the Review, and in particular those that we feel are of
particular salience in our field. This reflects the following
notable characteristics of departments and graduates in cultural,
communications and media studies:
-
An unusually high proportion of gradates are in employment,
as shown by annual surveys by the Association of Graduate
Careers Advisory Services. Our graduates are exceptionally
employable and display a variety of skills, both specific
and generic, that are attractive to employers. At the
same time a relatively low proportion stay in Higher
Education to undertake higher degrees. -
The field is extremely popular among university applicants,
not least because it reflects areas of activity and employment
which are among the fastest growing in the economy, and
which, broadly conceived of as in the cultural and information
sectors, represent areas of significance to future growth
and national policy.
Against that background we hope the following notes may
be of interest to the Review Team.
-
It is important to recognise that a caricature of complete
distinction between ivory tower theory driven research
on the one hand, and wholly applied and vocational work
on the other is both damaging and inaccurate. In our
experience, and that of most employers, a flourishing
academic sector helps industry both by training of directly
relevant skills, but also by providing the advanced generic
education and knowledge base which graduates can take
into employment. Unduly focused training imparts skills
which may rapidly date in a work environment marked by
dynamism, rapid technological change, and flexibility.
This is a view shared by both graduates in Media Studies
and their employers, as recent HEFCE funded research
by the Media Employability Project demonstrates. Employers,
it found, ‘wanted graduates who have developed
a range of generic skills, both “higher order” academic
skills, such as the ability to research, and to be ultimately “trainable” but
also to bring transferable, work-related skills …to
the work place.’ (Report into Perceptions of the
Media Studies Curriculum and Employability May 2002 p.99).
Graduates ‘agreed on the need for a balance between
theory and practice’ (ibid. p.100). -
The academy provides a steady stream of both basic and
applied research that informs and complements commercial
and industrial work. Like research in so many areas the
most effective and constructive research may often be
recognised as such only gradually. The independence and
autonomy of such research are the best guarantors of
originality and inventiveness. -
The UK probably has a less advanced and extensive tradition
of industry/university collaboration in these fields
than in either the USA or Europe. A great deal of funding
from the media and communication industries finds its
way into sponsorship of studentships, research, and other
activities in many countries in ways that are rare (though
not absent) in this country. The growth of such collaboration
would be warmly welcomed from within Higher Education. -
Such collaboration works best where there is good understanding
on both sides of the need for independence, autonomy,
respect for intellectual copyright, and a focus on education
rather than training as the central teaching mission
of universities. For these reasons we would invite the
Team to consider with caution any proposals for ‘accreditation’ or ‘signposting’ of
university programmes or departments by industry or commercial
bodies. This would not serve the interest of ‘the
industry’; nor is it what employers want, as the
summary of employers’ responses in the Media Employability
project quoted above demonstrates. It would require
the establishment of an additional layer of quality assurance
bureaucracy added to the many that already exist; diminish
the range of qualifications and programmes on offer;
stultify curricula and course contents in fields that
desperately need flexibility and renewal; and risk artificially
separating the pragmatic and vocational from the contextual
and theoretical, when the combination of these has recurrently
been recognised (by for example the Quality Assurance
Agency for Higher Education) as essential for both good
education and for employable graduates. ‘Signposting’ of
the precise nature of particular courses already exists
in the form of the QAA requirement for programme specification
documents. -
We urge rejection of the establishment of sector centres
of excellence as a way of fostering industry/university
collaboration in our field. This would lead to the formation
of a narrow range of educationally restricted units,
geographically limited to a few locations, and with programmes
narrowly defined in relation to current industry practice
in very few areas. ‘The industry’ relevant
to our field is extremely diverse, and certainly not
represented in any one skills council or employer body.
We wish to maintain and extend the range of opportunity
available to our graduates. This will ensure the best
flow of skilled young people into the labour market,
and avoid the risk of excluding those living in parts
of the country not having a centre of excellence, or
whose skills and interests extend beyond those matching
those that happen to be endorsed by such Centres. -
There exists already a great deal of industry involvement
in the teaching of students in our fields. It is common
practice to involve professionals from within the media
and creative industries in teaching programmes on either
a sessional or casual basis, or more substantially. This
works extremely well, and is highly valued, as
the Media Employability Report indicates ibid. (p.103). It reflects
a more effective interchange than a more rigid structure
in which permanent ‘vocational’ centres were
established, separately from other work in the university
sector. This might have the added disadvantage of excluding
students at such centres from teaching by researchers
or teachers significantly involved in advanced and innovative
research in their fields. -
We have urged, through our responses to the ‘Roberts
view’ of research assessment, a proper and further
attention to the role of ‘practice work’ in
external assessment of university research. We are satisfied
that this is being properly addressed within the remit
of the RAE review. It is normal practice for the research
councils to require research applicants to nominate external ‘research
users’ as referees, and we welcome this involvement
of the user community.