A dialogue with Professor David CARDWELL of Cambridge

This is about students making an informed decision on an education choice that is suitable for them. Unfortunately, differences in education systems are unavoidable, so there are applicants and high school graduates whose attributes and skills may not be compatible with the universities at which they want to study. Many students realise far too late the track they should have taken in education and training, as well as the actions needed to achieve their academic and life goals. As an example, most students taking the General Certificate of Education Advanced Level (GCE A Level) in the British education system study three subjects, while the National College Entrance Examination (NCEE, also known as Gaokao) in inland China tests students on more subjects (i.e., six subjects under the 3+3 model). Students in different education systems therefore develop different breadths and depths of knowledge, as well as types and levels of skills. It can be challenging for students with local education qualifications obtained in their home countries to succeed in applying to prestigious universities in other countries because of a skills and knowledge mismatch. It is not only about being admitted by the best college, but by one that is the most appropriate for the student.

In 21st-century education, development of the 4C skills (communication, collaboration, critical thinking and creativity) is emphasised, so that students can participate in today’s global community. How does this impact teaching and learning in higher education?

There is an awful lot here. COVID-19 has changed the world, but examination systems generally do not change in universities. The pandemic has taught us that some things in education, like the environment for teaching, learning and examinations, can vary. As educators, we have had to trust the students more. As a result of the pandemic, students may now find it easier to be examined remotely if the system is secure. There are also potential benefits for teaching and learning. For example, students attending a recorded on-line lecture and can revisit its content at any time. Of course, the danger is that number of students attending the lecture decreases considerably because it is online, which negates the benefit of learning as a social experience. In my opinion, students cannot learn in complete isolation—the whole point of learning is about understanding that other people matter, as do their opinions. Also, if you look at practical subjects like engineering, physics or biology, how can students learn these subjects remotely? Students need to conduct tests on materials, perform physical experiments or dissect specimens. So, information technology will change teaching and learning. But we have to be very careful that both teachers and students do not become lazy. Also, the social interaction part of learning is still a key skill—and we must not forget that.

Responding to the interdisciplinary trends in higher education

In terms of research and development, we can see more and more universities embarking on interdisciplinarity. What
does this imply for universities and institutions which are still adhering to the single disciplinary approach?

That is a very good question. I think the dividing lines classifying academic subjects by their nature are very broad. As an example, the differential equations we use in physics are also needed in engineering. Linguistics and music are about perception and what we hear. The overlap is great, and our academic subjects are inevitably interdisciplinary. Of course, universities have to sub-divide subjects for the sake of practical management, but a lot of the sub-divisions are arbitrary. So, “interdisciplinarity” is about making it easy for departments in higher education institutions to collaborate and cooperate effectively, making university environment less parochial and trying to blur the boundaries between subjects and departments. These borders are artificial, and we should cross them.

One thing about interdisciplinary research and collaboration is that they can be very effective but also counterproductive. In terms of research funding, the world seems to be moving more towards funding bigger projects that enable and promote interdisciplinarity and collaboration between institutions. There is a perception, whether this is true or not, that a funding bid may be more likely to be supported if it involves universities from certain countries that are considered to be disadvantaged. Therefore, we have to be very mindful of the possible effects. Such politically-motivated collaborations may reduce standards, or, at least limit the contribution, and therefore impact, of individual universities in big collaborative projects. So, it is either collaboration or competition, and a little bit of overlap between the two.

I think COVID-19 and other unprecedented challenges the world is facing such as the energy crisis, global warming, an ageing population and reduced mobility during the pandemic, etc., have really taught us that things can change and that, actually, we can all work together to change for the better. It will be young people who solve these and future problems. Young people are our future, so we need to make it as easy as possible for them to do well and address these problems head-on. Higher education has a fundamental role to play in this, and we have to step-up collectively and start working together to make it happen.

We need more collaboration, partnerships and cross-departmental/institutional initiatives. How does this affect the various aspects of university management when it comes to resource governance and engagement?

This is a difficult and challenging topic. Resources for global universities are generally not increasing, and yet the pressures on global universities and the responsibilities they have to take-on are. We are living in a world with a cost-of-living and energy crisis with valuable resources being directed simply to enable people to survive. What implications does this have for resource budgets? Well, I think it is inevitable they are going to decrease. So, universities are being, and will continue to be, asked to do more with less. We have to be very innovative in how we address these issues. We need to develop an ecosystem that enables innovation.

Innovation can foster more cross-sector projects and forge closer partnerships between the university and industry to tackle major planetary issues. What are some challenges faced by higher education in this regard?

There are issues related to the academia–industry divide as well. In academia, there is the “technology push”: universities will invest resources in pioneering research and inventions, which are clear academic drivers (academics like solving difficult problems). In industry, there is the “market pull”: capitalists see opportunities to make money if they have certain devices, expertise and technologies, many of which are developed or provided by academics. Also, academia tends to be “people-based” since individuals are employed for their creativity, while industry tends to be “project-based” since companies have to make money and gravitate naturally to where the projects are. Here, we can see a divide between the two sectors. We need to develop effective ways of making sure that universities and industry collaborate. This can be seconding industry representatives into academia so that they can explore opportunities to place academics in industry, or by letting academics work in industry for a period of time to understand the real pressures there.

An East–West divide also seems to emerge, albeit generally, in higher education research. In the East, research development takes a “top-down” approach, so policies and agendas influence the kinds of research to be conducted and funded. In the West, research development is more likely to take a “bottom-up” approach, so new ideas and projects that emerge can be managed and integrated into the full research system. What implications does this divide have for researchers?

With the “top-down” approach, academics are more likely to achieve technologically relevant and driven research because they are told what they have to work on—but they are limited in their ability to do new things. This approach is more relevant to government or industrial research. With the “bottom-up” approach, universities employ an individual for their research expertise and intellect, and then see what happens. This often leads to new inventions and developments from fundamental scientific studies. This approach provides greater potential and capacity to do new things, but the number of innovations will be lower because the process is generally less directed.

The nature of academia is driven by freedom of expression and the autonomy to get on with whatever one wants to, subject, of course, to available resource and legal limits. However, the line between “top-down” and “bottomup” in research is blurred. For example, Germany employs a dual system in which research institutes are separate from universities. This is an interesting model. But there is also an argument that teaching and research go hand in hand—good teaching inspires good research, and vice versa.

Gearing up higher education for the future

Recent years have been particularly challenging to higher education due to the pandemic and the increasing expectations placed on university teaching and research. What is your advice for universities, so that they can better prepare for the future of higher education?

We need to learn to collaborate more effectively and to share data better. It is difficult to collaborate if institutions are guarded about academic data and if information flows only one way. We have to acknowledge that most of the work in universities is pre-competitive—we are not going to undermine a multimilliondollar industry because two academics discuss a particular problem. Yet, with collaboration, we can reach a better solution by drawing on the wisdom of intelligent minds. We should somehow learn to shed our insecurities. We should be thinking differently about intellectual property and using it to bring people together, rather than to divide them. This is what the world is desperate for right now, and universities have a considerable role to play.