Has anything changed?

Provost proposes a rethink of “diversity” in higher education

There is value in revisiting diversity across the Australian higher education sector, says our new provost.

Professor Kerri-Lee Krause believes now is the time to do this, with the introduction of new standards being implemented by the national regulator, shifts in government policy influencing the design of curriculum (micro-credentials, anyone?), and the impact of COVID-19 on financing and delivery.

Despite support in official statements, diversity is “more often than not . . . named as an inherent value, taken for granted, with relatively little discussion,” writes Kerri-Lee in a working paper on which she based our first colloquium of the year. Drawing on published literature, she essentially defines diversity as the number of providers in the sector and the extent to which they are spread across institutional types. Having different institutional categories, though, does not guarantee diversity. She also notes a decrease in diversity across the sector, with reward structures in policy and funding even mitigating against it, and a need to test the assumed benefits of market reform—evidence abounds of providers imitating each other.

More recent writing refers to the broader tertiary rather than higher education sector. Why? Kerri-Lee suggests a range of reasons, including the international expansion of for-profit higher education providers, the two-way flow of students between vocational and higher education to improve employability, and a progressive erosion of reliance on the traditional three-year bachelor degree as the go-to post-school qualification.

Could the “substantial disruption, change and priority resetting” over the past year take us a step closer to the “holy grail” of diversity? she asks. While it will be tempting to revert to pre-COVID business models, “[we need] to remind ourselves that what got us here is unlikely to get us there.” Differentiation and diversification, she adds, may even “provide for greater legitimacy and likelihood of sustainability.”

Kerri-Lee concludes with three propositions.

One: diversity in the higher education sector will become more important as “the learners and the communities they represent” become more diverse. “This demands fit-for-purpose higher education . . . within and beyond universities.”

Two: an ecosystem-type approach will be key to diversification as students seek to move seamlessly through institutions in different categories. This “requires a boundary-spanning mindset on the part of leaders, policy-makers and the broader community if we are to traverse traditional silos.”

Three: the language we use and the evidence we provide to support the merits of diversity will help change attitudes about the purpose and value of higher education, the complementary value of vocational education in a tertiary education setting, and the perceived status of different provider types. This “massive undertaking” is necessary “if we are serious about translating the theory of higher education sector diversity into action.”

The application for Avondale became clear: bring good, especially to the hood. In other words, commit to doing what we’ve always done well: transforming students through Christian higher education. And re-commit to being a good local citizen, in offering pathways to higher education for all in our community.

The Centre for the Advancement of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning at Avondale presented the colloquium. Its director is Dean (Learning and Teaching) Associate Professor Carolyn Rickett. “Kerri-Lee provided an inspiring distillation of our purpose of serving the greater good and invited us to reflect on the opportunities for students seeking a scholarly community committed to transformation and civic leadership.”