Ben-david_1972_science And The University System.pdf

SCIENCE AND T H E UNIVERSITY SYSTEM

by JOSEPHBEN-DAVID,The Hebrew University, Jerusalem Introduction The purpose of this paper is to disentangle the various aspects of the function and organization of scientific research in the systems of higher education of Britain, France, Germany and the U.S. by tracing their development from the beginning of the 19th century to the present day. Until the 1930s, these four major systems of higher education served as models for the rest of the world. By that time the Soviet system of higher education and research started to develop its unique features but its importance was still limited. 1 This was also the case with Japan, which began to develop into an independent scientific center only during the 1960s. Therefore, these two countries will not be treated systematically in this paper. Complex institutional arrangements, such as the place of research in an educational setting, develop over time and space in an unpredictable fashion. Arrangements based on ideas and intentions, formed under given conditions, are altered as a result of experience, changes in the conditions, and the emergence of new ideas and intentions. The language in which the original ideas had been formulated might nevertheless be retained. This is usually the case, since changes in institutional arrangements occur piecemeal, at different times and in different places. Those who make these changes have practical and specific interests, and they rarely have the time and motivation to think about the broader and more long-range implications. In fact, it m a y be in their interest to divert attention from these implications. With time, the discrepancy between the professed aims and the reality becomes disturbing, since it results in misunderstandings, and reduces the effectiveness of language as a convenient map or guide for action. It is one of the tasks of the sociologist to compare the language in which institutional arrangements are formulated with their actual functioning, and thus help to overcome these difficulties. The present paper is intended as a contribution to this end.

Historical development Until the end of the 18th century, universities were engaged in the education of the professional, administrative, and in some cases, the political 61ites. University teachers were usually learned men, and quite a few of them engaged in what would today be called scholarly research in

SCIENCE

AND

THE

UNIVERSITY

SYSTEM

45

such fields as law, philosophy, theology, classical languages, literature, and science. Natural sciences did not form an important part of the curricula of the universities, except, to some extent, in the medical faculty. Since few branches of science were relevant to medical practice in those days, only on occasion did professors of the medical faculty engage in scientific research, and even those who did, did not consider this as part of their formal duties, or "role"; nor did they, or anyone else, consider the universities as institutions of research. The only institutions which supported science in tile 18th century (there were no institutions of organized research) were the academies. 2 Tile combination, or as it was called, the " u n i t y of teaching and research" in a single role - that of the university professor - and in a single institution - the university - emerged only at the beginning of the 19th century. In the University of Berlin, founded in 1809, and soon thereafter in the other German language universities, the unity of these two functions became a doctrine. " U n i t y " implied that tile two functions were organically connected so that separating them would be contrary to the "immanent nature of research and teaching. 8 From the middle of the 19th century this idea has been the most important theme in university reforms, and in the establishment of new systems of higher education the world over. However, as the contents, methods and functions of both teaching and research changed, the practices associated with the general idea of tile unity of teaching and research have altered too. Looking back, it is possible to distinguish four different aspects of these changes. These aspects are: (1) the personnel aspect; (2) the contents aspect; (3) the method aspect; and (4) the organizational aspect. (1) The personnel aspect, i.e. have academic teachers to be qualified and productive researchers ? One of the most important decisions taken at the establishment of the new type of German university was that contribution to research was to be the principal qualification for an academic appointment. This led to a steep rise in the status of university professors. From then on, in Germany, the criterion of their appointment was to be the same as that of the members of official academies. Until then the status of the professors ill the faculties of philosophy was about the same as the status of teachers in tile upper grades of the better academic high schools today. Only professors of law, medicine, and theology enjoyed higher status due to the prestige of these professions. Afterwards, university professors in Germany became an 61ite, irrespective of what they taught. 4 This upgrading of status could not have worked without a corresponding upgrading of the faculty of philosophy (the equivalent of the American faculty of arts and sciences). Until the early 19th century reforms, philo-

46

JOSEPH BEN-DAVID

sophy was a preparatory faculty of non-specialized studies (like the American college of liberal arts). The higher faculties were those of law, medicine and theology (which were kinds of graduate schools). After the reforms, all faculties became formally equal. In effect, however, the university became dominated b y the philosophy faculty, which had the largest number of professors and, as a rule, the most outstanding researchers.5 This was important for the German intellectuals, since, owing to the social and economic backwardness and the political absolutism of the German speaking countries - relative to Britain and France - the opportunities for the intellectuals for social betterment were limited. They needed official positions, and the salaries that went with them in order to maintain an upper middle class w a y of life; they needed even more the formal recognition of their position b y the government, since only a high position in the hierarchy of offices could ensure a high social status. 6 Such considerations did not apply to Britain, where intellectuals usually came from wealthy families, where there were numerous and varied opportunities for advancement for those who were not so well-off and where formal office had little to do with social status. 7 In France, the situation was more complex. Official position was probably more important than in Britain as a source of income as well as of prestige. However, there were many positions open to intellectuals in general, and to successful researchers in particular, in the educational administration and in a relatively large number of scientific and higher educational institutions outside the universities - such as the Mus6e d'Histoire Naturelle, the Coll~ge de France, etc. Some were connected with teaching duties, but these were usually negligible. Thus researchers had no particular interest in monopolizing university chairs, s In the United States, until the second half of the 19th century, an intellectual class existed only on the East Coast. They were mostly people with independent means and a social position similar to that of the corresponding class in Britain. College presidents and some professors were an important part of this class. Elsewhere in the United States, pioneering conditions existed until the second half of the 19th century. The representatives of culture were clergymen, college presidents, and some professional people. The colleges here played an important role in the creation of a cultural atmosphere. There was a great gap between the status of the college president who was often a leading figure in the community, and that of the college teacher who was not considered to be a professional. Compared to the presidents and the professional class, college teachers felt deprived of their proper status. 9 There existed, therefore, a potential here

SCIENCE AND T H E U N I V E R S I T Y SYSTEM

47

to follow the German pattern of upgrading the college teacher through promoting him from the status of "teacher" to that of "researcher". B u t in general there was little interest in research in the U.S. Besides in the Eastern states, intellectuals had no need to improve their status. In the Mid-West and elsewhere, where some of them might have been interested in i such an improvement, the German pattern was too aristocratic and elitist. As a result of these status differences, the German role type of professorresearcher had, in the beginning, little appeal in Britain, France, and the United States. Some university teachers were outstanding researchers in all those countries. B u t teaching at a university was not considered as the most suitable occupation for a researcher, nor was it required of all university teachers that they be researchers. The German pattern began to be imitated only in tile second half of the 19th century when new types of research practices, and new ways of training researchers emerged in Germany. Through their impetus, Germany surged ahead in science, so that scientists elsewhere felt that they had to adopt the German methods in order to prevent the decline of science in their countries. (2) The Contents Aspect. Here the German conception of the unity of teaching and research was radical: the academic teacher was free to lecture on whatever subject he wanted, and the employer - that is, the State, or the clients - namely the students, could not interfere with the contents of his teaching in any manner. Teaching was supposed to be as free and as spontaneous as research, lo In actual fact, both the state and the student had considerable influence on what was taught. The approval of the establishment of new chairs, and the final selection of the teachers were made b y the governments. Furthermore, they determined the contents of the state examinations qualifying for professional practice. At the same time, students were free to choose their courses and to transfer credits freely from one university to another, and the teachers, in addition to their salaries (or, in the case of the Privatdozent, instead of salary), were paid a course attendance fee b y each student registering for a course. Since the majority of the students (including those on the philosophy faculty - who prepared for high school teaching) intended to become professionals, and therefore, had to take state examinations, it was predictable that contents which were deemed necessary b y the authorities would be taught quite willingly b y most professors. Simultaneously, however, many specialized subjects were taught in fields which did not prepare the students for any professional career (except that of the academic teacher-researcher). Only the contents of these courses - attended b y a negligible fraction of the s t u d e n t s - were

48

JOSEPH BEN-DAVID

determined exclusively by the research interests of those who taught them. It was this aspect of the unity of teaching and research which had the least effect outside Germany. The idea that the individual professor should be allowed complete freedom in the determination of the contents and the nature of his courses was not accepted in any of the other countries surveyed here. The university authorities in Britain, France, and the United States eventually agreed to delegate the function of determining the curriculum to collegial bodies elected by the teachers, but everywhere there was some official control of what was taught (though not of how it was taught). Complete individual freedom of the teachers, controlled only by the choices of the students preparing for examinations, was not considered as a sufficient safeguard of the adequacy of teaching. (3) The Method A spest. Those who conceived of the new university in early 19th century Prussia did not envisage research laboratories, nor probably even seminars. Research for them was a private act of creation of which only the results would be shared with others. Their conception of the methodological unity of teaching and research was not of a scholar doing research with the aid of, together with, or supervising the work of someone else, but of the teacher-researcher whose lectures were based on original thought and first-hand inquiry.ll The best results of this approach were the brilliant lecture courses of some of the outstanding professors. The texts based on these courses have been much admired as monuments of scholarship, but the method itself has never been universally approved either as a particularly successful way of instruction, or as the best way of presenting the fruits of research. For the majority of foreign observers, the most impressive aspects of the unity of teaching and research were the seminar and laboratory methods of teaching. These required the student to try his hand at research, and provided an opportunity for the teacher to share with the students not only the results, but also the methods and techniques of his enquiry. These methods of instruction developed by stages, and not as a result of a preconceived design. The seminars were originally established for the purpose of providing intensive, pedagogically oriented training to those intending to become school teachers (hence also the name "seminar"). Laboratory instruction, which emerged first in chemistry, aimed similarly to provide technical know-how, especially for future chemists. Practical professional training, rather than scientific research, was the original intention in both cases.12 The development of these modest beginnings into research workshops was the result of "accidental" innovation by outstanding teacher-researchers (such as Liebig in chemistry), and the rapid spread of this innovation in the university system.

SCIENCE AND THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM

49

This innovation and its diffusion transformed the modern German university in a manner not envisaged by its founders. The successful seminars and laboratories produced relatively large numbers of trained researchers, who had all the advantages of the "professional" over those who became researchers in the old-fashioned, semi-amateur ways. This new breed of researcher mastered the techniques of research, and knew how to produce concrete results efficiently, while those who did not have such training had to grope their way on their own towards some kind of scientific competence. As a result these "professional" researchers had a better chance of appointment to university chairs than the others. Of course, in the beginning there were few chairs, especially in the experimental sciences. The founders of the new German university did not think highly of experimental science - which they considered as a kind of technology. They emphasized philosophy, the humanities and mathematics. But here too an unintended transformation of the system occurred. "Professional" experimental science produced the most impressive research results among the academic fields and therefore gained prestige, relative to other fields, in the decentralized and competitive German system, in spite of the anti-experimental ideology pervading it. New specializations were given academic recognition through the establishment of new chairs in chemistry, philosophy, and later, in experimental physics and even experimental psychology. 13 This most influential development in the combination of teaching and research was in actual fact inconsistent with the original idea of the unity of teaching and research. That idea conceived of all teaching as based on research, irrespective of the purpose of the studies. Research here was identical with original and systematic thought, and it was intended that all university students should be taught by original and systematic thinkers. Professionalism of any kind was discouraged and belittled. It was thought that training in any techniques, including those of research, could and should be acquired privately and informally. 14 Professionalism in research was, therefore, a fact but not an admitted principle. These formal philosophical considerations were of little importance for the foreign observers of the system. Compared to anything else they knew, the German universities were ideal places for training in advanced research. Mature researchers in Britain, France, and elsewhere envied the productivity of their German colleagues - the result of working together with groups of students in weU-appointed laboratories. They realized that there was a more stimulating environment for research in Germany than elsewhere. 15

50

JOSEPH BEN-DAVID

By the 1890s, aspiring researchers from the entire Western world went to Germany in order to obtain advanced training. Some German professors - like Liebig in chemistry, Ludwig in physiology, and Wundt in experimental psychology - raised virtually entire generations of researchers in Europe and America. 16 The concern of all the foreign observers was not education but scientific research, and a German university was, for them, the most suitable place to do it. They advocated the professionalization of research, and admired and imitated the method of laboratory and seminar instruction as forms of research training and organization. Thus the professionalization of research, an unintended development in Germany, was the very aim of the imitators of tile German arrangements. British and French scientists, intent on transplanting the arrangements of the German universities to their respective countries, were interested in catching up with German science. Being concerned with research alone and not with education, they were much more willing to face the organizational implications of the emergence of professional science than their German counterparts. (4) The Organizational A s25ect.The professionalization and formalization of training for research presented a serious dilemma for those who adhered to the unity of teaching and research as a general principle of all instruction at university level. If participation in research was to be a preparation for professional research work, then those who did not intend to become researchers would not need to participate in research. Such a differentiation would have given rise to two kinds of teaching at the universities: one where there was unity of teaching and research, and another where there was little or no unity. This would have implied tile abandonment of " u n i t y " as a general principle. This step was not taken in Germany. Instead, laboratory and seminar work was required from everyone, justified by the plausible argument that one could not expect to learn about science without a taste of its very substance, namely research. Since, however, there is a great difference between research which is undertaken for getting the taste of it, and that which is done in earnest for the purpose of making a discovery, there occurred, as a matter of fact, a division between the two types of research at the universities. The former came to be performed more and more perfunctorily, while the latter moved out of the formal curriculum of the university into tile so-called "institutes". These were research organizations attached to a chair (usually for tile lifetime of the professor) but financed from a separately allocated grant (that is, not from the regular university budget). In these institutes, serious research took place, organized as the professor thought fit, and here researchers were trained. 17

SCIENCE AND THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM

51

This development shows that with the emergence of professional science, the original conception of the unity of teaching and research became untenable. There was now a level of research which could not be integrated with teaching. Probably for reasons of status and power, German professors preferred to maintain the fiction that all "real" teaching took place at the university, that all "real" research took place within the minds of individuals, and that the bureaucratically organized institutes were merely organizational aids to the private research of the professor. This fiction justified the absolutism of the professor in his research institute, and the function of the university as a guild of the professional estate engaged only in the protection of the rights and privileges of its members, and in safeguarding the standards of the university. This was deemed preferable to turning the university into an organization for professorial work. This resistance to organizational change was not a satisfactory solution and caused a great deal of dissatisfaction among junior scientists. It was probably one of the causes of the eventual loss of German scientific superiority. is Other countries approached the organizational problems of professional science ill a more instrumental way. They tried to tackle separately three aspects of the problem: how to train professional researchers; to what extent and how to re-inforce research orientation in university instruction in general; and how to organize and support professional research. In each of the other three countries dealt with here, new measures were introduced for training researchers. The arrangements of the German university institutes served as the model everywhere, but nowhere was it followed slavishly. In Britain there emerged university departments which officially combined the functions of teaching with those of a research institute. These innovations were, however, restricted to a few departments of experimental science and to students preparing for honours degrees. 19 In France the t~cole Pratique des Hautes ]~tudes was established in 1868, as a kind of graduate school. The plan was to pool the research talent and resources available in the Paris area and use them for organizing seminars and laboratories where advanced students would be trained for research. 20 In Britain, as well as in France, such research oriented studies constituted a small fraction of the total activity of higher educationalinstitutions. The bulk of the latter were conceived essentially as teaching institutions designed for the instructional needs of the professional and political 61ites. The idea that research-oriented teaching might be suitable for this category of students was not generally accepted. Neither of these two countries was prepared to diverge significantly from their established traditions in higher

52

JOSEPH BEN-DAVID

education. Universities have been considered as principally teaching institutions in both of them. However, there has been a growing emphasis on the scientific qualifications of those to be appointed to university chairs, particularly in the natural and exact sciences. The most important developments, however, took place in the U.S. The U.S. graduate school, which emerged in the 1870s, was an attempt to build a complete, formal program of specialized training for professional research, culminating in the Ph.D. Furthermore, graduate professional schools of medicine, agriculture, engineering, business, etc. combined professional training with applied research. Perhaps owing to the absence of any local traditions in research, the American graduate schools followed German precedents more closely than either the British or the French. But the American university as a whole did not follow the overall German pattern. The American graduate school took the German research institute only as a starting point. Rather than being the private domain of a professor who was tied to the university only through his chair, the graduate department became an integral and public part of the university, and all its scientific personnel held regular university appointments. It provided formal rather than informM training, and it conferred regular degrees. 21 The conditions for the development of this type of school in the U.S. were optimal. The professionalization of research and of academic teaching (which was, at the graduate level, training for research) was an important status interest of American college teachers, who, as we have seen, had been traditionally regarded as sub-professionals. In Germany, it will be recalled, professionalization would have meant a loss of status for university professors; and in Britain and France they had the status of higher professionals from the outset. Furthermore, the U.S. system was even more decentralized and competitive than the German one. Since research is inherently a productive and innovative process, the chances were that a competitive system would more fully exploit its potential than a centralized or hierarchic system. University presidents and chairmen of departments often acted like entrepreneurs investing in research talents and facilities, in hopes of getting a return in the form of publications, fame, donations, and desirable students. As a result, the trend towards the development of professional scientific research, and increasingly research-based training for some of the practical professions which had been initiated at the German universities, continued to develop in the U.S. more than elsewhere. The sociological phenomenon

SCIENCE AND T H E U N I V E R S I T Y SYSTEM

53

which arose in Germany, of "schools" of students working with a great teacher developed in the U.S. into more differentiated types of team work. There were "schools" as in Germany, but also pairs or groups of peers, working together for a more or less prolonged period of time, usually with students who were not personally subordinate to any single teacher. Thus interdisciplinary teams and institutes of research emerged in the professional schools. This was the fruit of entrepreneurship, which resulted in its turn in the expansion of the use of research and researchers. Since these institutes were situated at universities, they trained students who had some practical know-how in research, which could be used more or less directly by industrial firms, in agriculture, or in business administration. It has to be emphasized, however, that all this development towards a much closer integration of research and teaching was, with few exceptions confined to the graduate schools, which constituted a small fraction of the total operation of the universities. The bulk of the students were undergraduates, and their studies had usually little research content. Thus, until the late 1930s, nowhere outside Germany was the unity of teaching and research accepted as a principle governing all higher education. Only in Germany, and the countries following the German pattern, was there in principle a complete integration of teaching and research. In fact, as has been shown, there existed a division there too, on somewhat similar lines as in the United States - since serious research was located in the institutes, whereas the research content in undergraduate studies was as a rule extremely shallow. Only with respect to academic appointments and promotions was there a complete unity of teaching and research in these countries, since appointments and promotions were based overwhelmingly on success in research.

The post-war years Since the Second World War, and especially since the mid-fifties, the place of science at the universities has greatly changed. The war-time mobilization of scientists in the U.S., Britain, and Canada opened up new vistas for the application of science for technological purposes. The experience of collaboration among groups of scientists, and of organizational leadership and know-how among American academic scientists who were willing to co-operate with outsiders from the military and industry, were among the most important conditions of this success. To the reputation created by the war-time achievements of American science was added, in the years following the war, the recognition that the American universities, or more precisely, the'~graduate schools of the

54

JOSEPH BEN-DAVID

twenty-or-so best American universities, were by far the best places in the world for both doing and for being trained in research. Mature researchers and research students from all parts of the world now flocked to the United States as immigrants, visiting scholars, or advanced students, just as they used to go to Germany prior to 1933. 22 The success of the graduate schools was not confined to the world-wide scientific community. Science rose in prestige dramatically in the general society as well. From the mid-fifties up until 1967, there had been a seemingly insatiable demand for scientists in general, and research scientists in particular in the American economy, and the prestige of scientific occupations rose between 1947 and 1963 from modest levels to very near the top of the occupational prestige scale. 23 These developments led to a growing emphasis on research orientation at all the levels of higher education in the U.S., in practically all types of schools. A Ph.D. degree and publications became increasingly required from the teachers at colleges of quite modest academic quality, and more and more students came to regard the first degree as a preparation for graduate school, rather than as a terminal degree, s4 With some delay, these developments affected all the university systems of the world. Just as in the middle of the 19th century, scientists and scientific policy makers everywhere in the world realized that the German universities had initiated a new phase, so their successors a hundred years later were conscious that a new stage in the organization of research had been reached in the United States. There followed a spate of university reforms, or at least proposals for reform, all over the world. Their principal objective was to strengthen graduate training at the universities, and to foster organized team and interdisciplinary research at the universities. Some recommendations aimed to restructure the undergraduate curriculum so that it should serve as a general preparation for either a well-informed choice of graduate specialization, or for equally well-informed consumership of intellectual products and research services. 25 The production and consumption of original scientific and scholarly creations, rather than education for social and political leadership, or preparation for professional practice, became the central theme of higher education. These developments have probably greatly improved the quality of higher education everywhere; nonetheless, this improvement in quality was not well balanced. Some of the traditional (and still relevant) functions of higher education - e.g. leadership and professional training were neglected, while scientific research and creativity were emphasized to an unrealistic extent. The governments were mainly interested in

SCIENCE AND T H E U N I V E R S I T Y SYSTEM

55

supporting research, which they regarded as a potential source of technological and military innovation. Even in a country like the United States, where m a n y of the leading universities were private institutions dependent for their income mainly on students' fees, endowments, donations, and other kinds of community support, tile support of the central government - given mainly for research - increased to such an extent that the leading universities became dependent for 20-50 per cent of their budgets on central governmental support. ~6 Hence the other functions of the university could not compete with research. No doubt the idea of the unity of teaching and research helped to rationalize and justify this monopolization of all the university activities by research : there was always a way to prove that all research somehow benefited teaching. Of course, there is much truth in this, since research ,which leads to new discovery, provides new content and new inspiration for teaching. However, in practice, the question never is whether, in principle, teaching benefits from research, but how much a given course of teaching benefits from a given project of research. Thus the general arguments about the unity of teaching and research were irrelevant to the situation which arose in the early 1960s. The emphasis on research and creativity in higher education grew concomitantly to the percentage of the relevant age group attending higher educational institutions - attendance having more than doubled between 1950 and 1965 in the ma iority of industrially advanced countries.~ In other words, the emphasis on research and creativity grew in direct proportion to the entrance into the universities of less and less talented and less and less intellectually motivated students and teachers.~8 Furthermore, as the number of students rose to levels exceeding 10 per cent of the age group, their prospects of engaging in high-level professional and managerial work were bound to diminish even in industrially advanced countries. A reconsideration of the one-sided emphasis on research at all university level instruction seems, therefore, inevitable. Conclusion

The original conception of the unity of teaching and research envisioned a small and highly selected group of teachers lecturing to a student audience on topics related to the research of these teachers. It was assumed that teaching by original researchers, even if it did not provide full coverage of a field, would be more inspiring for able and advanced students than more systematic teaching by merely competent instructors. By the middle of the 19th century the idea of the unity of teaching and research became associated with laboratory and seminar work. Originally, it appears, participation in these activities was voluntary, and thus

56

JOSEPH

BEN-DAVID

limited to students genuinely interested in research. Later, laboratory and seminar work became compulsory for all students and came to be regarded as the ideal way of combining research with teaching. For the run-of-themill student, this innovation had little appeal. In fact there was a great difference between the routine laboratory exercises of the ordinary undergraduate, and the advanced work done in the institutes by the few students who had a scientific bent. Eventually, in the American graduate schools which emerged during the last three decades of the 19th century this distinction became formalized. Training in research techniques and carrying out research became the main content of graduate instruction, while in other parts of the curriculum a modest amount of research done by the student might or might not be used as a didactic device. By the end of the 19th century, all advanced national systems of higher education trained at least some of their students as researchers. On the other hand, there was no university system where all teaching was based on research, and where all students were supposed to engage in more than token research. But university systems differed in the extent to which they emphasized the one or the other type of instruction, and in the method employed by them for determining the role of research. These two differences were probably interrelated. In the United States, as in Germany, the trend has been to further the growth of research in the universities as much as possible. In neither case was this policy deliberately followed; rather, it was the result of the competitive, entrepreneurial nature of both systems. Research being a dynamic and expanding resource, competitive systems pressed its uses to the very limits that the system could bear. At the other extreme was and still is France, which is now ioined by the U.S.S.R. In these two countries higher education serves a variety of teaching functions, and research is integrated with teaching only in the rather small part of the system specifically designed to train researchers. In both oi these countries higher education as well as research have been centrally planned and financed activities, and their share is decided by deliberation, not by market forces. In between these two extremes is Britain, and probably Japan, where universities have much freedom to determine the extent to which they want to emphasize research at different levels and in different kinds of instruction. But these university systems are much less competitive and much more traditionally hierarchic than either the German or the American systems. Hence, custom and conservatism have set much narrower limits to the expansiveness of research entrepreneurs at these university systems, than in the German or in the American ones.

SCIENCE AND THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM

57

In a very general way, the idea of the unity of teaching and research has furthered the development of the emphasis on research in the competitive university systems. They treat science as an inexhaustible resource, an endless frontier 9 Therefore, more and more fields of research were considered relevant for more and more fields of study. It could be envisaged, therefore, that at some future time all teaching would be integrated with and/or based on ongoing research. As has been shown, however, there has been a fundamental difference in all systems between the integration of teaching and research in the training of future researchers and advanced professionals on the one hand, and the degree of integration customary in other frameworks or courses. The general principle of the unity of teaching and research has not helped to understand the nature of these differences. In fact it served as a means to obscure them, and to distract attention from the real problem which is the determining of the relationship between research and teaching. Owing to the very nature of research as a constantly changing activity, the determinants cannot be established in advance for a definite period of time. The question then is, what mechanisms should be employed for the determination and review of the relationship between these two functions ? As we have seen, the periodic re-definition of this relationship has been accomplished, until recently, by competition between universities where such competition has existed9 Other countries have usually followed the lead of these entrepreneurial systems and the competitive mechanisms have helped to extend the integration of research and teaching. It is true that at times this was done at the expense of the educational functions of the university 9 However, such imbalance has been !caused !not by the competitive: mechanism itself, but rather through one-sided support of research by various governments which has hindered competition. Therefore, it seems that a competitive system of some sort would continue to be the best means of determining the relationship between teaching and research. Since no one can forsee what the progress of science and its applications will be, only the hindsight provided by a competitive system can accomplish the task of ongoing revision of the relationship. However, some means of protecting the competitive system against being warted by special academic and other interest ~groups is needed.

NOTES 1 j . D. BERNAL, The Social Functions o[ Science. L o n d o n : George Routledge, 1939, p. 194 (for a comparison of the Anglo-American, F r e n c h etc. 'circles'). 2 On t h e s t a t e of t h e universities in t h e e i g h t e e n t h century, see A d a m SMITH, The Wealth o[ Nations, B o o k V, Chapter 1, Article 2; see Mso Ren6 K6NIG, Vom

58

JOSEPH BEN-DAVID

Wesen der deutschen Universitiit. Berlin: Die Runde, 1935, pp. 17-27; see also, Nicolas HANS, New Trends in Education in the Eighteenth Century. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 195 I, pp. 41-54. 3 F. SCHNABEL,Deutsche Geschichte im neunzehnten Jahrhundert. Vol. 2 Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1965, pp. 201-8. 4 H. BRtlNSCHWlG,La crise de l'Etat prussien d~l a / i n du X V I I I si~cIe et la gen~se de la mentaIitd romantique. Paris : Presses Universitaires de France, 1947, pp. 161-86. 5 j . BEN-DAVID and A. ZLOCZOWER, "Universities and Academic Systems in Modern Societies", European Journal o/Sociology, 3, 1962, pp. 52-4. 6 H . BRUNSCI-IWIG,loc. cir. 7 N. G. ANNAN, " T h e Intellectual Aristocracy", in J. PLUMB, Studies in Social History. London: Longmans Green, 1955, pp. 241=87. s j . BEN-DAVID, The Scientist's Role in Society: A Comparative Study. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1971, pp. 96-7. 9 Richard t-IOFSTADTER and Walter METZGER, The Development of Academic Freedom in the United States. New York: Columbia University Press, 1955, pp. 124, 229-32. 10 Friedrich PAULSEN, The German University: Its Character and Historical Development. New York: Macmillan, 1895, pp. 85-6. 11 F. SCHNABEL,loc. cir. 12 F. PAULSEN,Geschiehte des gelehrten Unterrichts. Leipzig: Veit, 1885, pp. 58689. 13 V. SCHNABEL,op. cir., pp. 219-20; and also Vol. 5, pp. 203-76; also R. Steven TURNER, "The Growth of Professional Research in Prussia, 1818-1848", Princeton N.J. : Princeton University, unpublished manuscript, 1971, p. 21-5. 14 A. FLEXNER, loc. cir., also TtIRNER, op. cir., p. 54--7. 15 R. B. PERRY, The Thought and Character o/ William James. Vol. 1. Boston: Little, Brown, 1935, pp. 249-83; S. REZNICK, "The European Education of an American Chemist and its Influence in Nineteenth Century America: Eben Norton Horsford", Technology and Culture, July, 1970, pp. 366-88. I). FLEMING, William H. Welch and the Rise o/ Modern Medicine. Boston: Little, Brown, 1954, pp. 32-54, 100-105. 16 j . BEN-DAVID and R. COLLINS, "Social Factors in the Origin of a New Science The Case of Psychology", American Sociological Review, 4, 31, 1966, No. 4, pp. 45165. 1~ A. FLEXNER, Universities: American, English, German. London: Oxford University Press, 1968, pp. 42-5, 287, 314-15. 18 j. BEN-DAVID, op. cir., pp. 133--38. 10 D. S. L. CARDWELL, The Organization o/Science in England. London: Heinemann, 1957, p. 95. 20 j. BEN-DAVID, op. cir., p. 103. 21 Ibid, pp. 139-147. 22 Tile large inflow to the United States of scientists and engineers began in the late 1950s, and reached a peak in 1967. See B. THOMAS, "Modern Migration', in Walter ADAMS (ed.), The Brain Drain. New York: Macmillan, 1968, p. 44. I n 1958, 4032 engineers and 1108 scientists immigrated to the United States; in 1959, 3950 engineers and 1094 scientists; in 1960, 3354 engineers and 924 scientists; in 1963, 4014 engineers and 1397 scientists; in 1964, 3725 engineers and 1503 scientists; in 1966, 4920 engineers and 1570 scientists; and ill 1967, 8822 engineers and 1795 scientists. See, OECD Committee for Scientific and Technical Personnel, The International Movement o/Scientists and Engineers, Part 1. Paris : OECD, 1970. p. 101. ~a Robert W. HODGE; Paul M. SIEGEL; Peter H. Rossi, "Occupational Prestige in the United States, 1925-63", in R. BENDIX and S. M. LIPSET, Class, Status and Power. 2nd ed. New York: Free Press, 1966, p. 324. 24 James A. DAvis, Undergraduate Career Decision. Chicago: Aldine, 1965, p. 201. According to this report only 24 per cent of a representative sample of American college students in 1961 did not have intentions to go to graduate school. 25 For Great Britain, see H. J. PERKIN, New Universities in the United Kingdom. I n n o v a t i o n ill Higher Education. Paris: OECD, 1969, pp. 58-60, 115-38, 163-70; for France, see C. GRINGNON and J. C. PASSERON, French Experience Be/ore z968. Innovation in Higher Education. Paris: OECD, 1970, pp. 50-1, 99, 104-5, 131-33;

SCIENCE

AND

THE

UNIVERSITY

SYSTEM

59

for Germany, see E. B6NING and K. ROELOFFS,Three German Universities. Innovation in Higher Education. Paris: OECD, 1970, pp. 34, 60-3, 68-9, 143. 26 Clark KERR, The Uses of the University. Cambridge, Mass. : H a r v a r d University Press, 1964, p. 55. 27 The Development o] Higher Education, 1950-1967. Paris: OECD, The Education Committee, 1970, p. 67. 2s Martin TRow, "The Expansion and Transformation of Higher Education". Unpublished manuscript, September, 1970.

W I S S E N S C H A F T I?r HOCI-tSCI-IULBEREICH yon JosEeu BEN-DAvID Ziel dieser Arbeit ist es, die verschiedenell Aspekte der Fullktioll und Orgallisation wissellschaftlicher Forschullg ill den Systemen der terti~irell Bildullg yon GroBbritallnien, Frankreich, Deutschlalld und den USA darzustellen, indem ihre Elltwicklung vom Begilln des neullzehnten Jahrhullderts bis zum heutigen Tag zuriickverfolgt wird. Mit der Griindullg der Berliner Ulliversit~Lt im Jahre 1809 wurde in Deutschland das Kollzept der "Eillheit von Lehre und Forschung" erstmalig verwirklicht, ulld somit w~lrde zum ersten Male Forschung in dell Universitgtsbereich einbezogen. I m Laufe der Zeit wurde irides die geforderte Lehre r o l l Forschung ill zunehmelldem MaBe oberfl~ichlicher durchgefiihrt, wiihrelld die Forschullg selbst sich mehr und mehr vom formalell Curriculum der Universit~it weg ill die Institute bewegte, die ullter der Kontrolle eines Professors standei1, der einen Lehrstuhl auf Lebellszeit inllehatte. Zugleich wurde Forsehung und die Ausbildung der Studellten zu Forscherll immer st~irker in systematischer F o r m und auf bestimmte Berufsbilder hin ausgerichtet vermittelt. So h a t t e sick Deutschland in tier zweiten H~ilfte des 19. Jahrhunderts zum weltweiten wissellschaftlichell Zentrum entwickelt, ulld die deutsche Vorgehellsweise wnrde weithin imitiert. Obwohl die Professionalisierullg der Forschung eille unbeabsichtigte Entwicklung in Deutschland darstellte, erwies sic sich doch als ein Hauptziel fiir diejenigen, die nach dem deutschen Modell elltsprechende Vorkehrungen in anderen LgllderI1 trafell. Der Artikel vergleicht Organisatiollsprobleme professiolleller Wissenschaft in GroBbritallnien, Frankreich und den USA und zeigt, wie das deutsche Modell in jedem dieser Liillder adaptiert wurde. Ill GroBbritannien und Frankreich war sein Einflul3 !licht so stark wie in den USA, da die Universitgten ill beidell enropgischen Lglldern lloch als Illstitutiollen aufgefaBt wurden, die zur Lehre professioneller und politischer Elitell dienten, ulld da zudem Ulliversitgtsprofessoren sowieso fiber ei!len professiollellell Status verffigten. Ill dell USA hingegen brachte die Professionalisiernllg yon Forschullg ulld akademischer Lehre eillen bedeuielldell Status-zuwachs fiir die im College Lehrenden. Die bedeutelldste Elltwicklung war daraufhii1 das amerikallische graduate school die ill den siebziger Jahren des 19. Jahrhullderts entstalld nlld das deutsche Modell der Forschungsillstitute mit groBem Erfolg weiterelltwickelte. I n den letzten Jahrzehnten sind eillige der traditiollellell (und lloch immer relevanten) Funktionen tier Tertigrbildung, wie z.B. professiollelles und FtihrullgsTraining, weniger stark beachtet worden, wghrend Forschung ulld Kreativitgt in einem AusmaBe betont wurden, dass in einer Zeit der "Universit~itsausbildung ftir

60

JOSEPH BEN-DAVID

die Massen" als ullrealistisch erscheint. Daher erscheint dem Autor ein Uberdenkeli der eillseitigeli Betonung yon Forschung im Bereich der Ulliversit~t als ulivermeidlich.

LA SCIENCE E T LE SYSTEME U N I V E R S I T A I R E par

JosEP~ BEN-DAVID

Ce rapport a pour but de clarifier les diff6rents aspects des fonction et organisation des recherches scientifiques darts les syst6mes d'enseignement sup6rieur de GrandeBretagne, France, Allemagne et des Etats-Unis, en tra~ant leur 6volution depuis le d6but du 19~ sigcle jusqu'5~ ce jour. L'Allemagne, avec la fondation de l'Uliiversit6 de Berlill ell 1809, a collgu la premi6re le concept de "l'unit6 de la recherche et de l'ellseignement" e t a ainsi introduit pour la premiere lois la recherche ~ l'universit6. Cependallt, l'ellseignemerit obligatoire de la recherche ell vint darts la suite ~ 6tre pratiqu6 de plus eli plus superficiellement, tandis que les recherches s'61oign6rent du programme d'6tude officiel de l'universit6 pour p6n6trer dans les illstituts qui se trouvaient sous le contr61e d ' u n professeur liomm6 5~une chaire ~ vie. Eli m~me temps, les recherches et la formatioll de chercheurs chez les 6tudialits devinrent plus syst6matiques et professiollnalis6es. C'est ainsi que vers la deuxi~me partie du 19~ si6cle, l'Allemagne devint le centre molidial des sciences, et le module allemalld en Villt ~ 6tre imit6 sur une grande 6chelle. Bien que la professiollnalisation de la recherche flit une 6volution involontaire en Allemagne, elle a constitu6, darts d'autres pays, le but principal des imitateurs des dispositiolls allemandes. L'auteur compare les probl~mes d'orgallisation des sciences ell rant que professions eli Grallde-Bretagne, France et Etats-Ullis et molltre comment le module allemand a 6t6 adapt6 darts chacull de ces pays. Eli Gralide-Bretagne et ell France, oil les universit6s con~ues comme institutions destin6es 5, ellseigller/~ des 61ires professionnelles et politiques, et oil les professeurs d'ulliversit6 avaient de route mani~re le statut social de professionnels, l'impact n ' a pas 6t6 aussi fort qu'aux Etats-Unis. Darts ce pays, la professiolllialisation de la recherche et de l'enseignemellt acad6mique a repr6sent~ u n int6r~t important quallt au prestige du professeur d'ulliversit6 am6ricain. L'6volution la plus importallte fur la graduate school am6ricaine qui fit son apparition darts les ann6es 1870, prenant comme module l'illstitut allemalld de recherche et l'am61iorant encore avec succgs. Au cours des derni~res d6celillies, certaines fonctions traditionnelles (et toujours appropri6es) de l'6ducation sup~rieure, comme la formation professiollnelle et celle de cadres sup6rieurs ollt 6t6 n6glig6es, tandis que les rectlerches scientifique et la cr6ativit6 ont pris de l'importante dalls une proportion Ile colivenant pas ~ ulie 6poque d'6ducation sup6rieure en masse. C'est pourquoi, un r&examen de l'accent unilat6ral mis sllr la recherche au niveau universitaire semble in6vitable.