Journal of Computing in Higher Education

, Volume 24, Issue 2, pp 96–103 | Cite as

The corrosive influence of competition, growth, and accountability on institutions of higher education



Three agendas are at work in higher education that threaten the fundamental purposes and values of universities: competition, growth, and accountability. Instructional design and technology contributes to all three agendas through our emphasis on efficiency in teaching and learning, but could make a stronger contribution to the ideals of the university by attending to quality of teaching and learning and ways to merge research and teaching.


Competition Growth Accountability 


  1. Alon, S. (2009). The evolution of class inequality in higher education: Competition, exclusion, and adaptation. American Sociological Review, 74(5), 731–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atwell, R. H. (1986). Competition and the commonweal. Retrieved from ERIC database (ED277299).Google Scholar
  3. Bok, D. (1986). Higher learning. Educational Resources Information Center #ED278312.Google Scholar
  4. Buckley, M. R., Novicevic, M. M., Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Harvey, M. (2004). Course management and students’ expectations: Theory-based considerations. International Journal of Educational Management, 18(2), 138–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Davis, J., & Ferreira, J. (2006). Higher education inc.: The personal and professional dilemmas of environmental educators undertaking research with/for private corporations. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 22(1), 39–47.Google Scholar
  6. Greenough, W. T., McConnaughay, P. J., & Kesan, J. P. (2006). Defining values for research and technology: The university’s changing role. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  7. Lippmann, S., Bulanda, R. E., & Wagenaar, T. C. (2009). Student entitlement: Issues and strategies for confronting entitlement in the classroom and beyond. College Teaching, 57(4), 197–204.Google Scholar
  8. Marginson, S. (2004). Competition and markets in higher education: a “glonacal” analysis. Policy Futures in Education, 2(2), 175–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. McPherson, P., & Shulenburger, D. (2006). Toward a voluntary system of accountability program (VSA) for public universities and colleges. National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. Retrieved from ERIC database (ED519715).Google Scholar
  10. Pratt, B. (2012). Academic freedom and targeted research. Vox, 3.Google Scholar
  11. Shah, M., Nair, S., & Wilson, M. (2011). Quality assurance in Australian higher education: Historical and future development. Asia Pacific Education Review, 12(3), 475–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Springer, A. R. (2012). Suppressing the ideals of “the university”: A troubling realization for a new academic. Vox.Google Scholar
  13. Woodhouse, H. (2009). Selling out: Academic freedom and the corporate market. Montreal, PQ: McGill-Queens University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Curriculum StudiesUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatoonCanada

Personalised recommendations