Reconstructing the University: Worldwide Shifts in Academia in the 20th Century

by David John Frank, Jay Gabler

Current conversations on the state of academia contain a broad sense of crisis over changes in the body of university knowledge—the decline of literature, the unbridling of ethnic studies, the growth of various applied programs, and so on. Much of the concern revolves around a perceived deterioration of the academic core in which, the thinking goes, the university's teaching and research priorities are increasingly compromised by external financial and political interests. With data on faculty and course composition over the twentieth century for a global sample of universities, this book provides an examination unprecedented in scope and scale of changes in academia. The authors document the changing emphases accorded the branches of learning, the applied and basic divisions, and the disciplinary fields. They find deep transformations, as anticipated, but offer a new explanation for these shifts. Changes in academic focus are less the work of outside interest groups, but instead are cultural maps to the altering features of globally institutionalized understandings of reality.

248 pages, Paperback

First published July 24, 2006

Reviews

[Ismail N. · Rating 2 out of 5]

Deeply flawed methodology. We can see instances of experimenter bias, poorly constructed samples, and haphazardly operationalized variables

[Jeff · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book has some very serious, very fundamental problems. Let me first say, in full disclosure, that I am a professor in a Humanities department (English), so I note my bias. They, however, do not. Frank and Gabler are sociologists and do not make note of the potential experimental bias of their research. Granted, their data is collected well, but the interpretation of such is whimsical, reductive, and highly problematic.

They base their ideas on the argument that the university exists to understand and teach universal truths: a hegemonic, Western, and widely opposed construct. It's been a long while since Plato's great Truth was valuable to anyone outside of the Anglo heteronormative traditions. Still, Frank and Gabler seem to think the Humanities sustain these hierarchies rather than topple them. I point to political literary theories (Feminism, Critical Race, Post-Colonialism, Queer, etc.) to suggest how the Humanities have in fact evolved to consider parity and multiculturalism when other fields (ahem, sciences) had no cause to do so.

Their interpretation of the Humanities is reductive and misinformed. They suggest the only application of Humanities is in law, and somehow clump education, journalism, communication, and advertising under the social sciences. Hmm. They completely ignore capitalism and personal interest in the modern University, as well as the critical thinking, creativity, analysis, metaphysical considerations, problem solving, abstraction, open-mindedness, and communication skills that are vulnerable with a decline of the Humanities.

Perhaps Universities do train folks for jobs, advance technology, and attempt to "map reality"; but they also develop the human--which is for what the Humanities exist. The Humanities are no longer dependent on the canon, the divine, or vertical hierarchies.

Finally, they are so horrifically redundant in their writing; they could use a good English major to help them edit. Too bad they won't exist much longer.