Final Assignment SPV 795: Special topics in higher education

Question 1

This divergence can be explained by both the environment in which ASU operated and how
ASU envisioned, implemented and measured their online programs. Explain the divergence
for ASU’s online program using Marginson’s synthesis and the concepts of academic drift
(Neave, 1979) as the guiding framework

A 1) The lack of consensus regarding the definition of "public" distinctly exists within the
higher education area. Samuelson in his paper “Public/private in higher education: A synthesis of
economic and political approaches Studies in Higher Education” delineates non-market goods (deemed
public) that cannot be produced for profit, distinguishing them from market-based activities
(considered private). In political theory, the term "public" is frequently interpreted in the
context of state ownership and/or control. Dewey, (M., Hoxby, C. M., Mas-Colell, A. and A. Sapir The
Governance and Performance of Research Universities: Evidence from Europe and the US, Cambridge MA:
National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper2009) suggests
that social transactions attain a
"public" status when they yield relational consequences for individuals beyond those directly
involved, thereby becoming subjects of state concern.

Statements concerning the public benefits of higher education are often critiqued for their
normative and assumption-laden nature, lacking intellectual rigor. The terminology of
public/private is applied variably to factors such as the location of activity as is in the case of
Arizona State University (state sector versus external), the source of funding (government
versus household or private organization), and the nature of the activity. Moreover, the
distinction between public and private is contingent upon the prevailing political culture,
resulting in divergent cost allocations in national systems that may otherwise exhibit
similarities, reflecting disparate presumptions about the responsibilities of governments,
families, and students.

The ambiguity surrounding the public/private distinction in higher education and other
spheres can be attributed to several factors: the multifaceted interpretations of
public/private terminology, variations in political culture, diverse understandings of
public/private within social science, and the sustained and influential challenge to notions of
the public good or interest within Anglo-American social science over the past half-century.

In "Public/private in higher education: a synthesis of economic and political approaches" by

Marginson, it is theorized that the public-private distinction, as intended or mandated by
governments, may deviate from actual practices in universities. Arizona State University (ASU)
offers a range of online degree programs, including undergraduate and graduate degrees in
fields such as business, education, engineering, and healthcare. The university's online
programs have been recognized for their quality and innovation, and have been ranked

pg. 1
Final Assignment SPV 795: Special topics in higher education

among the best in US. The divergence for ASU’s online program using Marginson’s synthesis
and the concepts of academic drift of Neave, 1979 is rooted in multiple reasons:

1. The public/private distinction undergoes variation globally due to differences in

political culture, resulting in dissimilar cost distributions in ostensibly comparable
national systems. This reflects distinct assumptions regarding the obligations of
governments, families, and students.
2. Public/private terminology encompasses various aspects, including the location of
activity (within the state sector or external), the funding source (governmental or from
households/private organizations), and the nature of the activity. While we here are
primarily delineating public/private in terms of the social nature of educational
endeavors, it acknowledges that understandings of "public" encompass those aligned
with the state sector or government. Notably, funding is considered secondary to both
nature and location.
3. The public role attributed to higher education is predominantly framed in terms of its
contribution to profitability, industry innovation, and economic growth. This framing,
however, is primarily influenced by government rather than industry, despite
government's pivotal role in shaping perceptions of economic utility in higher
education. Neo-liberal governments demonstrate limited inclination towards
delineating, overseeing, measuring (where feasible), and regulating collectively
consumed educational outcomes, such as social literacy. Consequently, these
outcomes are often undervalued, underfunded, and inadequately produced,
perpetuating their marginalization.
4. The public dimension is narrowly defined within the confines of a market economy,
prioritizing individual benefits. Consequently, higher education institutions are
primarily viewed as serving a pivotal public role in contributing to profitability,
industry innovation, and economic growth. It is noteworthy, however, that
government exerts greater influence than industry in shaping notions of economic
utility within higher education.

The public-private distinction in higher education, as envisioned or mandated by

governments, may diverge from actual practices within universities due to disparities in
political culture, varying interpretations of public/private within social science, and the neo-
liberal truncation of state policy agendas. Marginson's paper provides insight into the
divergence between the intended or mandated public-private distinction set forth by
governments and the actual practices observed within universities. This discrepancy arises
from variations in political culture and differing interpretations of public/private within social
science. In the context of Arizona State University offering online programs, government
objectives to broaden access and enhance private learning may not align with the objectives
of ASU, which may view online programs as avenues for revenue generation, industry

pg. 2
Final Assignment SPV 795: Special topics in higher education

partnerships, and enhanced reputation. This divergence underscores the complexity and
multifaceted nature of the public-private distinction in higher education, highlighting the
importance of considering context and involved stakeholders. Furthermore, the academic
drift, as expounded by Neave in 1979, denotes the inclination of universities to shift away
from their traditional academic mission towards more commercially-driven and practical
pursuits, exemplified by the entrepreneurial university model. Marginson's 2018 framework,
integrating economic and political definitions of public and private goods, offers a valuable
tool for comprehending the diverse political economies inherent in higher education, aiding
in analysing and understanding distinct educational and research paradigms. Ultimately, the
probability of success for online programs offered by private universities in the US relies on
their adeptness in balancing revenue generation with imperatives of quality, accessibility, and
innovation.

Wider Benefits of Higher Education

Source: Brennan et al, 2013

pg. 3
Final Assignment SPV 795: Special topics in higher education

Question 2.1
• Given your understanding of the ASU case, explain other distinct goals and tensions
that ASU was encountering thatDr. Sonja perhaps did not cover.

A 2.1) While the entrepreneurial university model provides a framework for success, its
application to the scaling and management of online programs at ASU necessitates a nuanced
approach. Tensions may arise in navigating the complexities associated with growth, funding
diversification, and maintaining the entrepreneurial ethos. Addressing these tensions
requires strategic decision-making, adaptability, and a keen awareness of the unique
challenges posed by the higher education landscape. The below listed are some issues that
Prof Sonja may not have comprehended yet which can go a long way in determining the long-
term success of the ASU online programs.

1. Diversified Funding Base: ASU's pursuit of a diversified funding base, while enhancing self-
reliance, may encounter tensions related to the unpredictability of revenue streams from
other government sources and private organizations. Dependence on external funding could
introduce financial uncertainties, impacting the sustainability of online programs.
2. Administrative Backbone: While ASU's administrative backbone facilitates influence
distribution and steering capacity, tensions may emerge in maintaining effective
communication and coordination across the extended organizational structure. Ensuring
coherence and alignment of objectives from central bodies to baseline departments becomes
challenging with increased scale.
3. Extended Developmental Periphery: The extended developmental periphery,
encompassing new ventures and interest groups, may introduce tensions related to balancing
innovation and stability. Rapid expansion may lead to disparate initiatives that could dilute
focus and strain resource allocation, affecting the overall developmental strategy.
4. Stimulated Academic Heartland: ASU's emphasis on a stimulated academic heartland,
represented by strong departments, might encounter tensions in sustaining the dynamism
and attractiveness of these departments amidst rapid growth. Maintaining the
entrepreneurial spirit within each department while scaling up is a delicate balancing act.
5. Embracing Entrepreneurial Culture: The embracing entrepreneurial culture at ASU may
face tensions in preserving distinct identities and forward-looking orientations amid
organizational growth. Maintaining a cohesive culture across an expanding institution poses
challenges in fostering a shared entrepreneurial ethos.
6. Sustaining Dynamics: The commitment to sustaining dynamics and balancing revenue
generation with quality, access, and innovation may introduce tensions in resource allocation
and program prioritization. Decisions on scaling particular programs may impact the overall
equilibrium sought by an entrepreneurial university.

pg. 4
Final Assignment SPV 795: Special topics in higher education

Source: Published in 2014 IEEE International Conference on Management of Innovation and Technology 2014

Q2.2 Use the EU model to critique Dr. Klinsky’s thesis by arguing that the three elements
can actually be made reinforcing - i.e., an increase in revenue can enhance quality, and
enhancing quality will get more students, and more students will increase revenue.

A 2.2) This academic critique seeks to elucidate the thesis posited by numerous researchers,
as informed by Burton R. Clark's Entrepreneurial University Model articulated in his 2004
critique. The central argument under consideration asserts that the triadic elements of
revenue, quality, and access within the university framework are not only interrelated but can
be mutually reinforcing. Specifically, the contention posits that an augmentation in revenue
has the potential to catalyze an enhancement in educational quality, subsequently attracting
a greater number of students, thereby creating a cyclical pattern wherein increased student
enrollment further augments institutional revenue. This scholarly investigation delves into
the theoretical foundations and empirical evidence supporting this thesis, drawing upon
established principles in higher education management and organizational theory.

The Entrepreneurial University Model, as expounded by Clark, serves as the theoretical

framework underpinning the examination of the symbiotic relationship between revenue,
quality, and access within the higher education milieu. This inquiry addresses the proposition
that a strategic increase in financial resources can be strategically leveraged to elevate the
quality of education, thereby fostering a more competitive academic environment that
attracts a burgeoning student population. The ensuing sections delineate the theoretical
underpinnings, methodological approaches, and empirical findings contributing to the
discourse on the reinforcement of these pivotal university elements.

pg. 5
Final Assignment SPV 795: Special topics in higher education

• Theoretical Foundations:

Within the theoretical construct of the Entrepreneurial University Model, revenue is

positioned as a dynamic catalyst capable of influencing both the quality of educational
offerings and the accessibility of these offerings to a wider demographic. This theoretical lens
posits that judicious investment of augmented financial resources can manifest in tangible
improvements, including faculty development, state-of-the-art infrastructure, and advanced
educational technologies. Moreover, the model posits that the resultant elevation in
educational quality fosters a positive feedback loop, augmenting the institution's reputation
and attractiveness to prospective students.

Observed investigations into the nexus between revenue, quality, and access within the
academic domain provide substantial support for the thesis at hand. Case studies of
universities strategically deploying increased revenues to fortify academic quality showcase
tangible outcomes such as heightened faculty retention, improved research infrastructure,
and enhanced learning environments. Additionally, instances of institutions experiencing a
positive correlation between elevated academic quality and heightened student demand
underscore the viability of this cyclical relationship.

The validation of the hypothesis that revenue, quality, and access can be mutually reinforcing
holds profound implications for the strategic management of higher education institutions.
The prospect of strategically channeling financial resources to bolster academic quality,
attract a more diverse student body, and subsequently augment institutional revenue has
ramifications for institutional sustainability and competitiveness. Future research avenues
may explore the nuanced mechanisms through which this reinforcement occurs, as well as
potential contextual variations that may impact the generalizability of these findings.

Therefore the framework of the Entrepreneurial University Model supports the thesis that
revenue, quality, and access are intricately linked and can be mutually reinforcing within the
higher education landscape. This discourse contributes to the ongoing dialogue on strategic
university management, offering insights that may inform institutional leaders, policymakers,
and scholars alike.

pg. 6
Final Assignment SPV 795: Special topics in higher education

Q2.3: What do you think are the limitations of the EU model to explain transformations to
online programs

A 2.3: The entrepreneurial university model has become increasingly popular in recent years,
with universities seeking to generate revenue and enhance their reputation through the
development of new programs and partnerships. However, this model has some limitations
when it comes to the transformation of online programs. Here are some of the main
limitations of the entrepreneurial university model in this context:
• Quality control: Online programs require a high level of quality control to ensure that
students receive a rigorous and valuable education. However, the entrepreneurial
university model may prioritize revenue generation over quality control, leading to
the development of programs that are not adequately designed or supported.
• Lack of resources: Developing and delivering online programs requires significant
resources, including technology, faculty support, and administrative staff. Private
universities may not have the resources to invest in these areas, leading to subpar
online programs.
• Limited access: Online programs are often seen as a way to increase access to higher
education, particularly for marginalized communities. However, the entrepreneurial
university model may prioritize revenue generation over access, leading to online
programs that are not affordable or accessible to all students.
• Lack of innovation: Online programs require ongoing innovation and adaptation to
keep up with changing technologies and student needs. However, the entrepreneurial
university model may prioritize revenue generation over innovation, leading to
stagnant or outdated online programs.
• Competition: The online education market is becoming increasingly competitive, with
many universities offering similar programs. Private universities may struggle to
compete with larger, more established online education providers, leading to a lack of
enrollment and revenue.

Overall, the entrepreneurial university model has some limitations when it comes to the
transformation of online programs. Private universities must balance the need for revenue
generation with the need for quality, access, and innovation in their online programs.

pg. 7
Final Assignment SPV 795: Special topics in higher education

Q 2.4 If you were to advice IIT Delhi for developing an online program portfolio, analyse
how these tensions might pan out,and what additional ones might be relevant for IIT Delhi

A 2.4) In light of the prevalent Entrepreneurial University (EU) Model, as articulated by Burton
R. Clark, and considering the usual issues and tensions that occur, there may be many
additional ones for a CFTI like IIT Delhi. In my view on basis the literature that has been
reviewed for this assignment, the below seem most prominent.

Balancing Revenue Generation and Quality Control:

1. Emphasize a Robust Quality Assurance Framework:

• Institutionalize a comprehensive quality assurance framework to uphold
academic rigor, ensuring that online programs meet the requisite standards of
excellence.
2. Align Revenue Objectives with Quality Standards:
• Integrate revenue generation objectives with stringent quality control
measures, thereby positioning IIT Delhi as an institution committed to
maintaining the highest standards of educational delivery.

Addressing Resource Constraints:

1. Strategic Resource Allocation:

• Prioritize strategic allocation of resources towards technology infrastructure,
faculty training, and administrative support to fortify the infrastructure for
online program development.
2. Seek External Partnerships:
• Explore collaborative partnerships with industry stakeholders, research
institutions, or governmental bodies to ameliorate resource constraints and
augment the overall quality of the online program offerings.

Promoting Access and Affordability:

1. Implement Inclusive Pricing Strategies:

• Develop pricing models that reconcile revenue imperatives with the
overarching goal of making online programs accessible, employing strategies
such as tiered pricing and financial aid provisions.
2. Leverage Open Educational Resources:
• Strategically leverage open educational resources to curtail costs, thereby
enhancing the affordability of online programs and fostering broader
accessibility.

pg. 8
Final Assignment SPV 795: Special topics in higher education

Fostering Innovation:

1. Establish an Innovation Hub:

• Institute a dedicated hub or center for educational technology innovation
within IIT Delhi, fostering a culture of continuous creativity and adaptability in
the development of online programs.
2. Continuous Faculty Development:
• Prioritize ongoing faculty development programs to ensure educators are well-
versed in emerging technologies and pedagogical methodologies, thereby
facilitating sustained innovation in online course offerings.

Addressing Market Competition:

1. Identify Niche Specializations:

• Distinguish IIT Delhi's online program portfolio by identifying niche
specializations aligned with the institute's core competencies, enhancing
competitiveness in the market.
2. Strategic Marketing and Partnerships:
• Develop targeted marketing strategies and cultivate strategic partnerships to
augment the visibility of IIT Delhi's online programs, accentuating their unique
value proposition compared to competitors.

Additional Considerations for IIT Delhi:

1. Preserving Academic Integrity:

• Institute measures to uphold academic integrity in online programs,
incorporating robust assessment strategies and implementing mechanisms to
deter plagiarism.
2. International Collaboration:
• Explore avenues for international collaboration in online program
development, leveraging global networks to enhance program attractiveness
and reach.
3. Leveraging Research Strengths:
• Integrate IIT Delhi's formidable research strengths into online programs,
establishing a symbiotic relationship between academic research and program
content to augment program quality and appeal.

pg. 9
Final Assignment SPV 795: Special topics in higher education

Tensions and Mitigation:

1. Revenue vs. Access:

• Strive for equilibrium between revenue generation and access by
implementing nuanced pricing structures, financial aid programs, and
scholarship opportunities.
2. Innovation vs. Quality:
• Cultivate a culture of innovation without compromising quality, implementing
systematic approaches to curriculum development, faculty training, and
technological integration.
3. Market Competition vs. Academic Integrity:
• Mitigate competitive pressures by reinforcing IIT Delhi's unwavering
commitment to academic integrity, underscoring the institution's dedication
to delivering high-quality educational experiences.

In navigating the tensions inherent in the entrepreneurial university model, IIT Delhi can
leverage its academic prestige, research strengths, and commitment to excellence to develop
a strategically balanced and innovative online program portfolio. Continuous evaluation and
adaptability will be central to the success of this initiative.

pg. 10
Final Assignment SPV 795: Special topics in higher education

References

1. Brennan, J., King, R., & Lebeau, Y. (2013). Wider Benefits of Higher Education.
2. Marginson, S. (2018). Public/private in higher education: A synthesis of economic and
political approaches Studies in Higher Education, 43(2), 322-337.
3. Neave, G. (1979) ‘Academic drift: Some views from Europe’,Studies in Higher
Education 4(2):143–159
4. Aghion, P., Dewatripont, M., Hoxby, C. M., Mas-Colell, A. and A. Sapir (2009) The
Governance and Performance of Research Universities: Evidence from Europe and the
US, Cambridge MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper.
5. The Funding of Research in Higher Education: Mixed Models and Mixed Results Ben
Jongbloed & Benedetto Lepori
6. Clark, B. R. (2004). Delineating the character of the entrepreneurial university. Higher
education policy, 17(4), 355-370
7. Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of
transformation. Issues in higher education, 4, 1-12.
8. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: from National
Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations.
Research policy, 29(2), 109-123.
9. Marginson, S. (2013). The impossibility of capitalist markets in higher education.
Journal of Education Policy, 28(3), 353-370.
10. Shattock, M. (2005). Entrepreneurialism in universities and the knowledge economy.
Higher Education Management and Policy, 17(3), 121-142.
11. Teixeira, P. N. (2014). The entrepreneurial university: A myth or a possibility?. The
Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(3), 313-327.
12. Ylijoki, O. H., & Mäntylä, H. (2003). Entrepreneurialism in Finnish universities: A
government-led initiative in a decentralized system. Higher Education Policy, 16(1), 3-
22.

pg. 11