Editorial: After Oxburgh?Author(s): Linda McDowellSource: Area, Vol. 19, No. 4 (Dec., 1987), pp. 295-296Published by: The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers)Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20002503 .

Accessed: 10/06/2014 05:13

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) is collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to Area.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.96.104 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 05:13:54 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Area (1987) 19.4, 295

Editorial-After Oxburgh?

A time lag of several months between writing and publication means that the issues and events commented on in this editorial almost inevitably will have changed by the time it is read. In the field of higher and further education this seems particularly true at the

moment, when discussion documents, official inquiries, White Papers, new Bills and Acts of Parliament seem to succeed each other with indecent haste. The re-election of the Conservative Government for a third term in June 1987 means that some form of restructuring of the higher education system in the near future is now likely. Indeed the

main outlines of many of these changes are clear a University Funding Committee with an increased number of representatives from the business community, abolition of local authority responsibility for polytechnics, the introduction of some form of con tract system for both teaching and research, changes in the system of tenure and, most

wide-reaching of all, the probable introduction of a three tier hierarchical structure for higher education which may or may not blur the current binary divide and which seems to imply a new regional organization for higher education provision.

These proposals, developed by the Oxburgh Committee on the basis of a review of teaching and research in the earth sciences, were endorsed by the Advisory Board for the Research Councils in June. Indeed, their proposals were more radical than

Oxburgh's. It was suggested that reviews of other disciplines might be pre-empted by designating entire institutions as one of the three categories suggested by Oxburgh: approximately fifteen first tier institutions, fully funded for teaching and for research at the cutting edge; about the same number of second level institutions teaching across the range and engaging in less-costly research, and a third tier of institutions which would concentrate in the main on teaching.

These proposals deserve careful consideration. Debates about centres of excellence, about the minimum number of postgraduate students to facilitate productive inter change between them, about concentration or dispersal of resources are not new in British higher education. There may too be advantages in a system that would enable students to transfer more easily than at present between institutions. If the proposals for a three tier system were accompanied by a positive commitment to open access to higher education for currently disadvantaged minorities then it might have been more possible to have given them a cautious welcome. As it is, the disadvantages of these changes seem most apparent. The UGC has already expressed reservations about the rigidity of the categorization and the problems that institutions will face in altering their designation. In the Observations section of this issue of Area, Peter Knight opens a debate about the validity of assuming a separation between teaching and research in the tertiary sector. A host of other possible and unpalatable implications must readily spring to the minds of all of us working in British universities and polytechnics. Morale is dangerously low and it is difficult to be optimistic about the changes that will be imposed during the next five years.

Linda McDowell Open University

This content downloaded from 188.72.96.104 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 05:13:54 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

296 Notes and notices

Notes for guidance of contributors Authors are asked to take note of Area's requirements which are printed inside the front cover. Three copies of all papers should be submitted. Papers (including references) must be typed in double spacing and with wide margins. All measurements used should be in the same metric system. Spelling should follow modern British usage.

Notes and references

Authors must use the Harvard system for giving references, as follows: Authors' names (no initials) and dates are given in the body of the text-for example (Martin et al. 1979; Johnston 1981a, 198 1b)-and the references are listed alphabetically at the end of the paper under the heading References in the following form: Johnston R J (1981a) 'Political geography' in Wrigley N and Bennett R J (eds) Quantitative

geography: a British view (Routledge & Kegan Paul, London), 374-81 Johnston RJ (198 1b) ' The management and autonomy of the local state: the role of the judiciary

in the United States ' Environment and Planning A 13, 1305-16 Martin R L, Thrift N and Bennett J R (eds) (1979) Towards the dynamic analysis of spatial systems

(Pion, London) Authors may if necessary, also use numbered notes-for example' 23 -but such notes should be kept to a minimum. They should be placed at the end of the text (under the heading Notes) but before the references, as follows: Notes

1 Information obtained during an interview with the Calais Chamber of Commerce, 29 May 1984

2 During May 1984, there were approximately 11 francs to the pound

3 Information obtained during an interview with the Dover Harbour Board, 23 May, 1984

References and notes should be typed in double spacing at the end of the paper. In contrast to earlier Area style, note that journal titles should be written in full, not in abbreviated form, that the publisher as well as the place of publication should be given for books, and that authors' names should be written without commas and full stops. Capital letters in titles of papers and books should be restricted to initial words and proper names. Papers not conforming with this style will be returned by the Editor.

Illustrations and tables

Duplicate photocopies of all illustrations should be the same size as the author would wish them to appear in Area. On acceptance for publication the author will be asked to submit original illustrations to the Editor. Captions to illustrations should be typed on a separate sheet. The approximate location desired for illustrations and tables should be indicated in the text. We ask that particular care and attention should be given to the layout of tables. These should use a

minimum of vertical and horizontal lines, and have wide margins on all sides. Further notes on submitting papers for Area are available from the Editor.

Area submission dates 1988 Area's aim is to be as topical as possible. These are the dates for last receipt of copy and publication dates for the journal for 1988. We endeavour to include Observations, Comments, Conference reports and notices in the next available issue. Articles, too, will be included as soon as possible but as we always have a number in hand there is inevitably some delay. Most articles will be published within nine months of receipt.

Last date for receipt of copy Publication No. 1 2 November 1987 March 1988 No. 2 4 February 1988 June 1988 No. 3 10 May 1988 September 1988 No. 4 6 July 1988 December 1988

This content downloaded from 188.72.96.104 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 05:13:54 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions