lse groups report

LSE GROUPS RESEARCH CONFERENCE PAPER 2014 – GROUP 11

1

‘Americanisation’ at the LSE: Perceptions and Realities

Has LSE undergone a process of ‘Americanisation’? How do perceptions and experiences of this process affect our sense of place and identity?

Michael Tavares

Lee Yong En

Chi Li

Avision Ho

Rebecca Wong

Huang Nan Shen

Acknowledgements

We thank Dr Gordon and Dr Downing, along with their team of supervisors, for providing us with the opportunity to carry out this research via the LSE GROUPS programme. Additionally, we thank LSE Careers and the Annual Fund staff for their invaluable assistance in the data collection process. We are also indebted to LSE students and academic staff for their time in completing our surveys. Finally, this research paper was made possible through the support and comments of our research supervisor Dr Samonas, to whom we wish to express our greatest appreciation.

Abstract

One’s identity is rooted in their sense of place. The transitions experienced by individuals in Higher Education institutions (HEIs), particularly in a global university like the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) result in an increased malleability of our sense of identity and place. Individuals become vulnerable to potential cultural influences such as Americanisation on a subconscious level. This paper will examine the identity of LSE and correspondingly if the identity of members of its community in terms of Americanisation has changed. In recent years, the LSE has adopted features that are characteristic of high ranking US universities. This paper hypothesizes that these changes may be seen as a form of Americanisation. It focuses on analysing the structural features of LSE’s practices and policies for example, LSE’s global projection, changing academic career structure, revised alumni resources policies and postgraduate study destinations. Analysis of these features reveals that the subjectivity of Americanisation restricts individuals’ ability to perceive such changes as a form of Americanisation, but rather


2

a natural development in school policy. With this finding in mind, normative analysis is performed to judge whether this trend towards Americanisation is desirable.

Keywords: identity, place, Americanisation, LSE, Higher Education

Introduction

Identity is a matter of perception stemming from a sense of place and belonging (Clarke, 2008). Questions of identity are concerned with how communities of people view themselves in relation to others. Founded in 1895 by social democrats, the LSE identified itself as the launchpad for social change in British society. However, with institutional changes such as an increasing focus on its international projection and changing institutional structures, it appears that the School is modelling itself after its key competitors - leading U.S. universities. This paper seeks to establish if such changes can be construed as a form of Americanisation. In geopolitical terms, the notion of ‘Americanisation’ is becoming increasingly ambiguous. A nuanced account of Americanisation is required. The existing literature fails to locate the purported processes of ‘Americanisation’ in British higher education. The recent changes made to the academic career structure, along with the global branding of the school makes the LSE a compelling case study. By adopting a multi-dimensional concept of ‘Americanisation’, this paper seeks to evaluate the relationship between perceptions of ‘Americanisation’ and the ‘conscious import of certain elements of US education policies and practices’ (Smith, Baston, Bocock and Scott, 2002). With its particular focus on LSE, this paper acts as a springboard for further research into the perceived and actual ‘Americanisation’ of British higher education and how this affects the questions faced by individuals on their sense of place and identity.

Motivation for research

One such ‘element’ (Smith, Baston, Bocock and Scott, 2002) that is strongly reminiscent of US education policies is the dominance of postgraduates in the student population. This salient quantifiable feature that is also found in LSE was a key motivation in this research. Figure 1 shows the five-year (2007-2011) average of the undergraduate-graduate quotient as calculated by the number of the former divided by that of the latter. Most top US private universities have undergraduate-graduate quotients that are lower than unity, while all the top British universities bar LSE (0.745) have quotients greater than unity. Unlike other indicators (eg; love student to faculty ratio; high expenditure per student) often employed in university ranking statistics, there does not seem to be a consensus on the optimal ‘undergraduate-postgraduate quotient’. Therefore, the difference in the quotient of LSE and of other top British universities cannot be attributed to LSE being subject to general UK education policy. This unique position of the LSE forms the driving force for this research.


3

Figure 1 Frequencies appear on the y-axis while the x-axis shows the ‘Undergraduate-graduate quotient’. The full list of universities can be found in appendix A1

Literature Review

Defining ‘identity’ and ‘place’

Identity is defined within a social context, and is often perceived to arise from a sense of place. It is typically formed through social processes when one’s consciousness interacts with surrounding social structures (Merrill, 1999). Current literature reveals that identity has largely been classified into three broad categories - social, personal and egotistical (Goffman, 1968). This research paper engages with how the underlying values of social structures impinge upon the construction of our personal and egotistical identities, in particular where an individual’s subjective sense of self is shaped by various experiences (Manning, 1992). In a higher education institution (HEI), the intensity with which an individual is subject to different experiences forces the constant interaction between cultural, cognitive and normative features, which affects an individual’s perception of self and his/her surrounding environment (Scott, 2001).

However, policy makers have not wholly appreciated that institutional changes in HEIs affect the construction and maintenance of identity (Merrill, 1999). This paper examines to what extent Americanisation has influenced British universities, by looking specifically at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), and consequently how this influence has affected the sense of identity developed by individual members of the LSE community. Due to the specific nature of such a research topic, there is a lack of comprehensive and empirical research in the present literature.


4

Defining Americanisation in the context of Higher Education

The notion of Americanisation was first raised by William T. Stead in 1902, when he argued that European nations would be forced to adopt ‘solutions’ that had developed in the United States as the ‘modernisation laboratory’ (Kieser, 2004). A review of current literature reveals that the definition of Americanisation has since evolved. ‘Americanisation’, in a broad sense, is now said to encapsulate several processes of acculturating products, values, customs, images, symbols, procedures, and most significantly, institutions (Erker, 2000, Nolan, 1994, Zeitlin, 2000). However, the intangible nature of Americanisation and its abstruse quantification have given rise to great ambiguity in the application and operationalisation of the term in academic research. Americanisation can thus be said to be viewed in gradients (McEldowney, Gaffikin and Perry, 2009). In a stricter sense, the extent of its manifestation is partly determined by the perception of agents who are subject to its effects.

There is general acknowledgment that policies are the product of a ‘complex interplay of context, ideologies, ministers and bureaucracies’ (Kogan and Hanney, 2000). Yet there is an obscure relationship between educational policy and American cultural hegemony (Smith, Baston, Bocock and Scott, 2002). This may also be accounted by its ill-defined nature where it is often used interchangeably with ‘multi-culturalism’, ‘globalisation’ and has become a ‘rough synonym for standardisation’ (Abravanel, 2008).

Despite slight dissent, it is generally regarded that, from a sociological perspective, HEIs fit into a range of public institutions (Kogan and Hanney, 2000). By receiving funding from the Higher Education Funding Council for England, institutions such as these HEIs are subject to ‘issues of structures and resources that are vested in the hands of government’ (Kogan and Hanney, 2000). This often inhibits the scope of activity HEIs as ‘political models’ (Baldridge, 1971) can engage in. Thus, a move towards a structure commonly adopted by American universities in the form of privatisation, would allow for greater autonomy in determining their own portfolio of values based on their own ‘criteria of excellence’ (Becher and Kogan, 1992).

Bringing Americanisation into the context of Higher Education into research – The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE)

Due to the specific nature of this research area, the definition of Americanisation as the ‘conscious import of certain elements of American education policies and practices’ (Smith, Baston, Bocock and Scott, 2002) has been adopted for this study. With this understanding in mind, it is observed that many universities across Europe are converging towards the structure of American HEIs. The Robbins Report, published in 1963 by the Committee on Higher Education, observes that the British system of higher education has shifted to place greater emphasis on economic and consumerist values. On one level, such convergence may be national, as the UK is subject to the Bologna Declaration, hence is more vulnerable to the continuing Americanisation across Europe. Kieser (2004) demonstrates this in his research on Americanisation in German higher education. It was asserted that under the influence of alternative sub-textual models, unintended departures from traditional


5

academic structures occur (Westney, 1987). This may also be motivated by uneasiness towards suffering a ‘competitive disadvantage’ (Tiratsoo, 2004).

This paper first attempts to explore the degree to which LSE, in the broad sense of Americanisation is subject to such implicit models and influences. The development of the indicators used to determine the shift towards American values and practices is elaborated upon in the ‘Methodology’ section below. This study goes on to analyse the perception members of the LSE community have towards Americanisation while investigating the extent to which they are subject to progressive Americanisation in the stricter sense. This ultimately helps establish the impact HEIs have on shaping our sense of place, identity and ultimately, our sense of self.

Methodology

Measuring Americanisation

Literature suggests that Americanisation arises in the movement towards ‘internationalisation’ across HEIs. In these terms, higher education seeks to embody a greater homogenisation of values, behavior and perspectives (Gayol, 1996). This is due to a shift towards what Kelly (2000) labels as a greater interest in ‘educating for profit’. Hans de Wit (1995) acknowledges the difficulty in quantifying such a phenomenon, as it is neither linear nor static but is a complex and cyclical process. In a publication by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), van der Wende (1996) sets out a conceptual framework that may be applied to case studies. This framework facilitates the incorporation of internationalised curricula in higher education. This paper adopts the two main aspects of this framework in determining if Americanisation at LSE has taken place: characteristics and implementation. ‘Characteristics’ is split into ‘formal’ and ‘operational’. ‘Implementation’ is further split into ‘process’ and ‘influential factors’. ‘Formal characteristics’ look at the principled foundations of the institution while ‘operational characteristics’ address the structural foundations of HEIs. This involves looking at teaching structures, types and groupings of students, and resources and costs. ‘Process of implementation’ explores factors such as institutionalisation while ‘influential factors’ consider the international environment and competing institutions. With this framework in mind, our paper pays special attention to indicators such as LSE’s global projection, the new Academic Career Structure, revised alumni resources policies and postgraduate study destinations. Data based on these indicators are collected and analysed qualitatively through surveys and interviews conducted throughout the LSE community. This qualitative data is then contrasted against the quantitative data collected in what can be described as ‘replication and pattern matching logic’ (Yin, 1984).

Qualitative Methodology: Perceptions of Americanisation - The Survey

Questionnaires were designed to assess the awareness of the LSE community towards recent institutional changes in order to gauge if they would perceive such changes as a form of Americanisation. We sought to measure the potential impact of


6

this process on students. The response options offered in the student survey were predominantly ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Whilst blunt, we received explicit responses, which was necessary given the indefinite nature of Americanisation (Maclean and Genn, 1979). Other questions used the 5-point Likert scale (i.e. 1 being strongly disagree and 5 being strongly agree) to measure the extent to which participants agreed or disagreed with aspects of Americanisation. There were also some closed and open questions to guide participants’ responses while according greater flexibility. A similar survey was also distributed to academics. This second survey was geared towards evaluating other aspects of Americanisation (e.g. the influence of American research trends). Given their experiences with administrative processes and greater knowledge of LSE’s academic structure, academics provided crucial insights, which went beyond those provided by the student survey. This extended to providing normative comments on these changes in the context of the US model.

Strengths and Limitations of the Survey

As the majority of questions were closed and the bulk of our responses were collected online we could quickly and easily encode the responses onto the statistical programme, SPSS. Doing so meant that we could dedicate more time towards drawing inferences from the data.

Given the nature of the topic investigated, there was an immediate concern of defining ‘Americanisation’ for survey respondents; for instance, the open-ended structure and direct claim of ‘Americanisation’ in Q.17. Respondents may have quickly discerned our hypothesis (that Americanisation is taking place). This implicit understanding may have furthered acquiescence bias (Smith, 2004) and social desirability bias (Chung and Monroe, 2003) due to the negative connotations attached to ‘Americanisation’. Objectivity in diction remained a problem when designing the survey. However, such a question allowed for greater diversity of opinion whilst directly tackling the issue of whether students perceived and experienced processes of Americanisation at LSE. Due to practical limitations, stratified sampling was conducted. This resulted in an over-representation of undergraduate students, inhibiting our ability to draw cross year conclusions. Convenience sampling was employed instead. Through using online forms and social media, the time taken to collect data was minimised. Judgement sampling was also used as we intentionally selected individuals who had experienced the US education system so as to obtain informed responses. Selection bias was particularly prevalent in the student survey as most respondents came from our own social circles. These non-probability sampling methods resulted in our sample being a weak representation of the population, leading to problems of generalisation.


7

Some survey questions overlooked non-academic factors. Indeed, the survey fails to elucidate whether students and academics are attracted by the cost of LSE tuition fees (relative to that of top US universities) or the geographical benefits of LSE. Finally, there were several respondents who did not know what Americanisation was. Given the absence of consensus, subjective interpretations of Americanisation remained a consistent undercurrent throughout. However, this consistent subjectivity of Americanisation provided great insight into trends, which will be further elaborated in Findings and Analysis. Quantitative Methodology: The Realities of Americanisation - Proxy Variables

To evaluate whether the Americanisation of the LSE is desirable, we sought to establish the effect of Americanisation on the destination of undergraduate students at the LSE.

As Americanisation is an intangible concept by construction, it is hard to obtain a robust measure of Americanisation. To overcome this hurdle, proxy variables were employed:

● The aggressiveness of fundraising activities (as measured by the percentage fundraising activities takes up in the total income of the school).

● The proportion of fund contributed by American Alumni (as measured by the relative size of the Centennial Fund).

The validity of the first proxy comes from the rationale that most top US private universities maintain strong relationships with alumni and the alumni in return gives back generously. As a result, the portion of income generated by fundraising activities is considerable compared to most British top universities. The logic behind the second proxy is a direct result of the Centennial Fund being a US exclusive fund, that is to say, donors of US origin wishing to donate to the Annual Fund will have to donate directly to the Centennial Fund. This gives us a measure of American influence in the LSE.

There exist two competing hypotheses for the effects of Americanisation of the LSE:

● Hypothesis 1: We can view the Americanisation of the LSE as a 'treatment' to the students, which will make them more compatible to the US higher education system, thereby increasing their chances in getting into postgraduate programmes in the US.

● Hypothesis 2: It might be the case that the LSE, in undergoing the process of Americanisation, has become so similar to its counterparts in the US that students are indifferent between completing postgraduate studies in the US and staying at LSE to do so.

To evaluate the two competing hypotheses, we obtain the ratios that are related to graduate destinations:


8

● The retention rate of LSE graduates in choosing to continue their postgraduate studies at LSE

● The outgoing US rate for LSE graduates pursuing further study in the US.

To uncover the causal relationship between Americanisation and Graduate destinations, we need to run the ideal regression (Equation 1). The dependent variable 𝑦! measures graduate destinations. A dynamic model is used as the graduate destinations are likely to be correlated overtime. 𝑧! measures the Americanisation while 𝐴! includes controls. 𝑢! is the error term. Due to the time horizon of our research, it was not possible to collect enough data to run the regression displayed in equation (1). Furthermore, the lack of measurable control variables makes it unfeasible to make any causal inferences. Instead, we analyse the data collected and test whether there are any trends present using the Mann-Kendall test (Mann, 1945) and the traditional t-test.

Findings and Analysis

The Perception of Americanisation

One of our most significant findings regards the ambivalence amongst both LSE staff and students. In most cases, respondents replied with the option ‘Neutral’. These findings suggest that either students or staff are indifferent to processes of Americanisation, or alternatively, that a process of conscious Americanisation is not taking place. For instance, regarding whether LSE should have a British director or not (Figure 2), most of the respondents appear neutral.

Figure 2


9

Figure 4 Figure 5

The ambivalence amongst students is evident amongst academic staff (Figure 3). Over 40% of the sampled academic staff were ‘Neutral’ when it came to considering whether Americanisation is taking place at LSE. However, the large number of responses which stated ‘Neutral’ may be more a result of the difficulty of defining ‘Americanisation’. The difficulties we experienced with defining ‘Americanisation’ are noted above, under the ‘Methodology’ section of this report.

On the other hand, indicators regarding the incorporation of General Course students in Figure 4, and the global branding of the school, Figure 5, tell a different story. Given the make-up of the General Students cohort (they are largely derive from U.S. institutions of higher education), one can assume that the LSE, and particularly home students, more than accommodates incoming U.S. students. Similarly, the global projection of LSE is captured by the majority of student respondents ‘strongly disagree’ or ‘disagree’ with the proposition that the ‘LSE should remain true to its British roots’.

Figure 3


10

Figure 6

This latter finding is also highlighted in data, which confirmed our assumption that LSE is now dependent on multiple identities, Figure 6. An additive model, whereby British, international, American are mutually compatible becomes apparent. Indeed, Martha Nussbaums’ additive model, whereby concentric circles replace a singular mode of identity and place (Nussbaum, 1996).

On the other hand, both academics and students largely agree that LSE continues to compete and model itself with high ranking British universities. Indeed, under 20% of sampled academics claim that the top 10 US universities (according to the Times Higher Education Guide) are not LSE’s utmost rivals, Figure 7. Similarly, a significant proportion of students ‘strongly disagree’ or ‘disagree’ that ‘LSE models itself on the top 10 universities’, Figure 8. Ultimately, both students and academics continue to regard the LSE’s research and graduates as integral to British society. In these terms, the LSE remains habituated in British academia.

Figure 7 Figure 8


11

The Effects of Americanisation

Both the Mann-Kendall test and the t-test fail to reject at traditional significance levels the null hypothesis that there is no trend present in the ratio of Centennial Fund to Annual Fund.(𝐻!:𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑏[𝑦! > 𝑦!] = 0.5 ,where 𝑖 > 𝑗 for the M-K test whilst 𝐻!:𝛽 = 0 for the t-test where 𝛽 is the coefficient for the time variable.) Structural breaks might contribute the sudden drop in the ratios as they coincide with the financial crisis that hit the US economy of 2007-2008.

Similarly, both the Mann-Kendall test and the t-test fail to reject at traditional significance levels the null hypothesis that there is no trend present in the retention rates and the outgoing US rates. However, this might be due to the lack of data points.

As a consequence, we are unable to establish a causal relationship between the rates and Americanisation.


12

Conclusion

As a consequence of the lack of data, we were unable to draw any solid inferences on the extent of Americanisation tangibly perceived by the members of the LSE community. To a large extent, the indefinite nature of Americanisation, even when evaluated on the stricter sense limited the scope of methodology. With respect to qualitative data collection, survey respondents and interviewees generally acknowledge the existence of structural processes but fail to place these subtle changes in a grander scheme of Americanisation. This apparent ambivalence on issues of Americanisation may be derived from an inability to pinpoint specific and isolated features of this phenomenon. Alternatively, perhaps survey respondents are indifferent to processes of Americanisation. Indeed, both academics and students can be said to prioritise personal advancement, irrespective of the perceived or actual Americanisation of the School. For quantitative data collection, there was a lack of conclusive data for LSE’s retention rates and the outgoing US rates. More data, some of which may be sensitive information, is needed to conduct further research. Only then can solid analysis be made on whether a causal relationship exists between retention rates and outgoing US rates and whether the weak positive trend seen for the Centennial/Annual Fund will be stronger or weaker over a greater time period. Despite a lack of conscious perception of processes of Americanisation by the LSE community, this does not necessarily translate that such processes are inactive or non-existent. For future research, the distinction between perceptions and realities needs to be maintained. In this case, research into the actual or perceived Americanisation of LSE can also be examined in the wider context of British higher education.


13

Bibliography Abravanel, G. (2008). English by Example: FR Leavis and the Americanization of Modern England. Modernism/modernity, 15(4), 685-701. Baldridge, J. V. (1971). Power and conflict in the university: Research in the sociology of complex organizations. New York: Wiley. Becher, T., & Kogan, M. (1980). Process and structure in higher education. London: Heinemann. Clarke, S. (2008). Culture and identity. The SAGE Handbook of Cultural Analysis, 510-529 Erker, P. (2000). The long shadow of Americanization: The German rubber industry and the radial tyre revolution. In J. Zeitlin & G. Herrigel (Eds.), Americanization and its limits: Reworking United States technology and management in post-war Europe and Japan (pp. 298-315). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Goffman, E. (2009). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Simon and Schuster. James, E. (1978). Product mix and cost disaggregation: A reinterpretation of the economics of higher education. Journal of Human Resources, 157-186. Kieser, A. (2004). The Americanization of academic management education in Germany. Journal of Management Inquiry, 13(2), 90-97. Kogan, M., & Hanney, S. (2000). Reforming Higher Education. Higher Education Policy Series 50. Jessica Kingsley Publishers, Ltd., 325 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Mann, H (1945). ‘Nonparametric Tests Against Trend’. Vol.13,No. 3 ( Econometrica, Cambridge, MA, pp. 245-259. Manning, P. (1992). Erving Goffman and modern sociology. Stanford University Press. McEldowney, M., Gaffikin, F., & Perry, D. C. (2009). Discourses of the contemporary urban campus in Europe: intimations of Americanisation?. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 7(2), 131-149. Merrill, B. (1999). Gender, Change and Identity: Mature Women Students in Universities. Ashgate Publishing Company, Old Post Road, Brookfield, VT 05036.


14

Nussbaum, M. (1996). For love of country. Debating the limits of patriotism. Boston: Beacon Press.. Nolan, M. (1994). Visions of modernity: American business and the modernization of Germany. New York: Oxford University Press. Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Smith, D., Baston, L., Bocock, J., & Scott, P. (2002). Americanization and UK higher education: towards a history of transatlantic influence on policy and practice. Journal of Education Policy, 17(4), 443-461. Stead, W. T. (1902). The Americanization of the world, or, The trend of the twentieth century. " Review of Reviews". Tiratsoo, N. (2004). The “Americanization” of management education in Britain.Journal of Management Inquiry, 13(2), 118-126. Westney, D. E., & Westney, D. E. (1987). Imitation and innovation: The transfer of Western organizational patterns to Meiji Japan (p. 147203). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Zeitlin, J. (2000). Introduction. In J. Zeitlin & G. Herrigel (Eds.), Americanization and its limits: Reworking United States technology and management in post-war Europe and Japan (pp. 1-50). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.


15

Appendix I

5 - Year Average of Undergraduate - Postgraduate Quotients for Top US and UK Universities


16

For John Hopkins, data was not available for 2007. Also data is collected for the Homewood campus only. Data for 2012 shows that the trend of graduate students being more than undergraduates still exists. http://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/?q=johns+hopkins&s=all&id=162928#enrolmt Likewise for Duke, data was unavailable for 07,08 and 09. For Chicago, the official website shows that the number of undergraduate and graduate students is 5692 and 9502 respectively. This data is for the period 2013-2014 but extrapolating this we can conclude that the quotient will follow the general pattern established thus far. Extrapolation is justified here as the general trend for all the previous case was that the quotient will remain roughly the same with a variation less than one."


17


18


19

Appendix II

Surveys

Survey for students


20


21


22


23


24

Survey for Academics


25


26


27

Appendix III

Bar and Pie Chart Analysis Survey for Students


28


29


30


31


32


33


34


35


36


37

Survey for Academics


38


39


40


41

Appendix IV

M-K test for Retention Rates Number of obs = 3 Kendall's tau-a = 1.0000 Kendall's tau-b = 1.0000 Kendall's score = 3 SE of score = 1.915 Test of Ho: time and Retentionrate_01 are independent Prob > |z| = 0.2963 (continuity corrected)

M-K test for US Rates Number of obs = 3 Kendall's tau-a = -0.3333 Kendall's tau-b = -0.3333 Kendall's score = -1 SE of score = 1.915 Test of Ho: time and US_01 are independent Prob > |z| = 1.0000 (continuity corrected)

M-K test for Centennial Fund/Annual Fund ratio Number of obs = 5 Kendall's tau-a = 0.2000 Kendall's tau-b = 0.2000 Kendall's score = 2 SE of score = 4.082 Test of Ho: time and Cen are independent Prob > |z| = 0.8065 (continuity corrected)


42

lse groups report

Documents

identity of lse

process of americanisation

form of americanisation

terms of americanisation

lse careers

lse students

notion of americanisation

sense of identity