Traditionally and historically speaking, the inception of higher education in univer- sities dates back to the medieval times of Western Europe (Delanty, 1998b; Williams, 2016). In these times, universities were attached to monasteries before they broke free and became allies of secular rulers as nation-states emerged (Delanty, 1998b;
Williams, 2016). These secular universities were strongly inspired by the idea of the Enlightenment, triggered by the scientific revolution and reformation in Western Europe. From here, the idea of universities continued to form the debates of scholars who were inspired by the work of Immanuel Kant, Max Weber, Wilhelm Von Humboldt, and Thorstern Veblen, to name a few. Although there had been various ideas about universities, the Enlightenment’s core idea about universities viewed universities as a site of knowledge production, and the pursuit of knowledge as an end. Knowledge is defined by truth, morality, humanity, and reason (Delanty, 1998b).
Therefore, knowledge has an emancipatory role that forms the public good mission
102 N. Gaus and M. Tang of universities. Such an idea has formed the basis for the roles, identities, and func- tions of universities with a democratic discourse as their underlying philosophy. The charter of higher education in terms of its relationship with society, embodied in its public good mission, is conceptualized in this philosophy (Giroux, 2010, 2006;
Kezar, 2004). In this philosophy as well, higher education poses its status as a social institution, serving society through education that fosters the advancement and devel- opment of moral, ethical, and religious values. With these goals, higher education takes up the responsibility of producing graduates who have political and social awareness and the capacity to discern issues in their environment. This premise posits that higher education cannot be separated from morals and politics (Giroux, 2010; Kezar, 2004). Therefore, framed within this moral and political relationship, the academic function of higher education is constructed. Giroux (2010) asserted that in a democratic public sphere, like higher education, academics function as engaged public intellectuals, while students function as critical citizens.
These functions are imbued with the higher education public good charter, as Kezar (2004) called it. Public good is the heart of higher education symbolizes its social and political mission and poses as the core element in understanding higher education. Kezar (2004) provided a clear explanation regarding the philosophy of understanding the public good as embedded in the traditional roles and functions of higher education. She brought in three major philosophies: communitarianism, neoliberalism, and the utilitarian approach. These are underlying assumptions that are necessary for understanding the embedded public good roles and functions of higher education as a social institution. Below is the basic understanding of those philosophies in relation to the public good:
1. Communitarianism considers public good holding social and public charters in the traditional model of higher education.
2. The Neoliberal philosophy of public good views of an individual and economic charter, resulting in the industrial model of higher education.
3. The utilitarian model embraces the contested meaning or dichotomy of public good held by higher education by blending both traditional and industrial models of higher education (Kezar, 2004, p. 433).
These different philosophies help explain why social critics have polarized on the issues of the nature and changing nature of higher education. According to Kezar (2004), this would completely depend on the stance or the choice of which philosophy is used to make sense of the roles and functions of higher education, particularly its relationship with society.
In parallel with this, the communitarian perspective, imbued with the Enlight- enment neo-humanist premises, sees and interprets the meaning of public good or collective good within the realm of society and community on which the traditional model of higher education is based. In this perspective, knowledge is defined as the public good of higher education where knowledge itself has emancipatory roles and functions. The manifestation of such roles and functions is conceptualized in the relationship between the state and the community, and society as a whole. Here, the emphasis is given to the right of the community over the individual, where the role of
6 Changing Knowledge Production in Indonesian Higher Education: Is It … 103 the state is required to protect and support the community to meet the needs of indi- viduals (Apple, 2006; Jessop, 1999; Kezar, 2004). From this caveat, higher education is interpreted in relation to its democratic values and norms as a social institution. As a social institution, higher education is expected to promote and foster the develop- ment of knowledge through research, which has the function of improving the lives of society by educating and inculcating democratic values and morals in younger generations. In so doing, younger generations may develop the capacity to become social agents and guardians of knowledge over the abuse of power (Giroux, 2010).
This can be achieved if younger generations or students are encouraged to be aware of their own power and potential to be future leaders and to be in the front line of preserving, advancing, and disseminating knowledge for the good of society. It is, therefore, that freedom is one of the prerequisites to allowing the implementation of these goals. In doing so, it is expected that students and academic communities will become the guardians of knowledge production and dissemination to contribute to the benefit of society or the public good.
More specifically, knowledge production in higher education in this perspective is construed as the search for a scholarship as an end. Knowledge production is aligned with the long-standing mission of social development, social justice, and democratic engagement, rather than a short-term market demand (Gumport, 2000, as cited in Kezar, 2004). The consequence of giving a prominent emphasis on market values and demands is that they strip off or abstract moral, religious, and ethical values from higher education practices (Giroux, 2006, 2010). When these values become the guiding principles in higher education, the risk of viewing academics and students through the lens of the economy is unavoidable. Consequently, the meaning of public good in higher education may be juxtaposed with economic values to serve private good, leading to the emergence of bare pedagogy.
Market and economic values are espoused by the neoliberal philosophy with its economic rationality that perpetuates the lexicon of business, such as individualism, competition, effectiveness, and efficiency. Michel Foucault called this neoliberal governmentality in which individual and private rights and interests take precedence over those of the community. Within economic principles, the best way to meet indi- viduals’ and private needs is through maximizing the individual’s capacity, in the absence of the role of the state. Consequently, taking this perspective, the meaning of public good in higher education would be juxtaposed with the economic view rather than with the political view. As a result, education, particularly higher education, is generally seen as an industry, where students are seen as customers instead of as citizens. It is not surprising then to see the pervasive development of vocational- ized curriculum (see also Subkhan, this volume), commercialized research, and the privatized-closed nature of knowledge production. With these shifts came the bare pedagogy that is corporate or economic-oriented practices.
In line with these issues, many scholars and social critics have been concerned about these shifts and expressed concerns over the risks of such practices going wild and uncontrolled in their development and application in higher education institutions. This is particularly salient in developing countries, in which the long- standing social missions of higher education are redefined as private advancement
104 N. Gaus and M. Tang and economic attainment (Kezar, 2004). Therefore, indeed, it is not surprising to see that governments pursue neoliberal strategies in their economic, social, political, and moral order (Jessop, 1999).
Despite many social critics having expressed concerns over this practice, many others tend to be in the middle line by proposing a reflexive perspective in discerning such a practice. This perspective is subsumed under a utilitarian perspective which blends the values of communitarianism and neoliberalism in higher education.
Barnett (2000) and Gibbons (1996) are examples of such scholars who pointed out the importance of higher education being relevant and adaptive to the rapidly changing environment for higher education to remain viable. The consequence of such a supposition may lead to a trade-off between the meaning of public good higher education espouses.