Third-level reform should not be at the expense of arts and humanities, writes Marian Fitzgibbon
Some facts about third level education in Ireland. First, the Institutes of Technology (IoT) have half of the national student intake and half of these students opt for business and humanities courses. Second, IoT students are by and large the victims of social and generational inequalities: many of the students even today are the first or only member of their family to access third-level education. Third, the intake of almost all the Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in Ireland is predominantly local.
Since their establishment, the IoTs have been charged with addressing the social, cultural and economic development of their regions. They have been enabled to do this by an imaginative legislative framework that has made of them what Minister for Education Mary Hanafin recently called "a true success story" of Irish education. Somehow, this wider vision has transmuted of late into a much more instrumental and narrowly vocational role that sees the institutes fulfilling an exclusively economic function.
This is at the same time as Ireland tries to move up the value chain into the knowledge society. What does this mean? That the business of forming the upper echelon that will lead and benefit most from the knowledge society is that of the universities, while the IoTs will produce a technical underclass? Hardly a depiction of social cohesion.
Yet such is the likely effect of curtailing humanities programmes in the IoTs since 2002, an embargo that effectively clips the wings of the institutes. On the face of it, the Department of Education's wish to curb the proliferation of parallel or duplicate programmes in all the HEIs might seem reasonable in the light of such legitimate considerations as effective resource management, the need to build critical mass etc.
But go back to the facts: students are voting with their feet. Despite the notable investment in science and technology in recent years, there is a continuing demand for humanities courses, especially among the lifelong learners who are increasingly the focus of so much education policy. And while full-time, third-level education is free, social and economic considerations dictate that, by and large, student choice is focused on what is available in the local HEI.
Why are we as a race so uncomfortable with humanities - notably more so than our French, German and other European neighbours? Why are even the most convinced shy of proclaiming the essential cultural component of development? Why do we consistently underestimate the psycho-social dimensions of all human activity, including the economic? Why do we consider the cultural domain as separate and somehow dispensable? An important part of the answer is the historical neglect of the arts and culture in Irish education, a neglect that has left virtually all of us stunted and unsure in this arena.
And what are the consequences of this malaise for the IoTs? We are unable to respond appropriately to student demand and offer the types of programmes that are most attractive to our potential catchments. We are disabled in our local and regional development brief especially in those (most) parts of the country without an industrial infrastructure where a cultural response plays to our strengths and makes greatest economic sense. We are ill-equipped to meet the international potential for job creation of the cultural industries.
Humanities programmes extend from art and design to social studies, from applied languages to multimedia. They straddle different disciplines such as science and psychology, recreation and health, music and technology, a convergence that corresponds to what happens in the real world and can promote the interdisciplinarity that is at the core of innovation. They provide pathways into other fields of inquiry by engaging the passions and interests of students, validating both the intellectual and affective dimensions of learning and making for motivated, happy individuals whose ideas are given scope to develop and expand.
Ideas are at the core of innovation and entrepreneurship. They are not confined to university students. Nor do they flourish like weeds. They must be nurtured, developed and sustained by a vital and innovative humanities programme.
The case for the humanities reaches into many aspects of the operation of the IoTs, all of which were touched on by the Minister for Education in her recent speech: equality, regional and spatial development, social and cultural growth in tandem with economic growth. Her statement that "the success of our economy is worthwhile only if it translates into a deeper growth in social cohesion and quality of life for all" is enough to gladden the hearts of all humanities advocates in the sector, particularly in its support for equality of provision.
Of all the arguments for the humanities in the IoTs, the most compelling is that of equality. Given the facts already outlined, it follows that if the Minister is interested in equality of provision, she must either provide for a grant and support system that enables students to move to centres where the humanities can be accessed, or she must provide local access.
To address the concerns of the Department of Education in relation to effective resource utilisation and, specifically, the duplication of education programmes, it could incentivise the development of centres of excellence in the humanities and, in so doing, promote diversity and innovation. Indeed this might well be a side-effect of the regional brief of the institutes, were they resourced to respond properly to the distinctive needs of their regions. Some colleges already show signs of this: Dundalk IoT has been able to avail of cross-Border funding to develop a humanities teaching and research programme around the development of borderland studies. Such incentivisation is not beyond the bounds of possibility: the recent OECD report for Finland recommended additional core funding to develop the regional role of the Finnish polytechnics.
The Minister is right: third-level education "must re-commit to excellence" at this juncture. The department has shown a discerning approach to the recommendations of the OECD report, picking up on its better principles and setting aside its more retrogressive dimensions. It has listened well so far. It now remains for it to keep faith with the original vision of the IoTs, which has served the country so well, and to enable and resource their enterprise of responding to the needs of their students and their regions using every string in their bow.
Dr Marian Fitzgibbon is head of the school of humanities at Athlone Institute of Technology
