SCIENCE AND T H E UNIVERSITY SYSTEM

by JOSEPHBEN-DAVID,The Hebrew University, Jerusalem

Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to disentangle the various aspects of the
function and organization of scientific research in the systems of higher
education of Britain, France, Germany and the U.S. by tracing their
development from the beginning of the 19th century to the present day.
Until the 1930s, these four major systems of higher education served as
models for the rest of the world. By that time the Soviet system of higher
education and research started to develop its unique features but its
importance was still limited. 1 This was also the case with Japan, which
began to develop into an independent scientific center only during the
1960s. Therefore, these two countries will not be treated systematically in
this paper.
Complex institutional arrangements, such as the place of research in an
educational setting, develop over time and space in an unpredictable
fashion. Arrangements based on ideas and intentions, formed under given
conditions, are altered as a result of experience, changes in the conditions,
and the emergence of new ideas and intentions. The language in which the
original ideas had been formulated might nevertheless be retained. This is
usually the case, since changes in institutional arrangements occur piece-
meal, at different times and in different places. Those who make these
changes have practical and specific interests, and they rarely have the time
and motivation to think about the broader and more long-range impli-
cations. In fact, it m a y be in their interest to divert attention from these
implications.
With time, the discrepancy between the professed aims and the reality
becomes disturbing, since it results in misunderstandings, and reduces the
effectiveness of language as a convenient map or guide for action. It is
one of the tasks of the sociologist to compare the language in which
institutional arrangements are formulated with their actual functioning,
and thus help to overcome these difficulties. The present paper is intended
as a contribution to this end.

Historical development
Until the end of the 18th century, universities were engaged in the
education of the professional, administrative, and in some cases, the
political 61ites. University teachers were usually learned men, and quite a
few of them engaged in what would today be called scholarly research in
 SCIENCE AND THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM 45
such fields as law, philosophy, theology, classical languages, literature,
and science. Natural sciences did not form an important part of the curri-
cula of the universities, except, to some extent, in the medical faculty.
Since few branches of science were relevant to medical practice in those
days, only on occasion did professors of the medical faculty engage in
scientific research, and even those who did, did not consider this as part of
their formal duties, or "role"; nor did they, or anyone else, consider the
universities as institutions of research. The only institutions which
supported science in tile 18th century (there were no institutions of organ-
ized research) were the academies. 2
Tile combination, or as it was called, the " u n i t y of teaching and re-
search" in a single role - that of the university professor - and in a single
institution - the university - emerged only at the beginning of the 19th
century. In the University of Berlin, founded in 1809, and soon thereafter
in the other German language universities, the unity of these two functions
became a doctrine. " U n i t y " implied that tile two functions were organical-
ly connected so that separating them would be contrary to the "immanent
nature of research and teaching. 8 From the middle of the 19th century
this idea has been the most important theme in university reforms, and
in the establishment of new systems of higher education the world over.
However, as the contents, methods and functions of both teaching and
research changed, the practices associated with the general idea of tile
unity of teaching and research have altered too. Looking back, it is
possible to distinguish four different aspects of these changes.
These aspects are: (1) the personnel aspect; (2) the contents aspect;
(3) the method aspect; and (4) the organizational aspect.
(1) The personnel aspect, i.e. have academic teachers to be qualified and
productive researchers ? One of the most important decisions taken at the
establishment of the new type of German university was that contribution
to research was to be the principal qualification for an academic appoint-
ment. This led to a steep rise in the status of university professors. From
then on, in Germany, the criterion of their appointment was to be the same
as that of the members of official academies. Until then the status of the
professors ill the faculties of philosophy was about the same as the status
of teachers in tile upper grades of the better academic high schools today.
Only professors of law, medicine, and theology enjoyed higher status due
to the prestige of these professions. Afterwards, university professors in
Germany became an 61ite, irrespective of what they taught. 4
This upgrading of status could not have worked without a corresponding
upgrading of the faculty of philosophy (the equivalent of the American
faculty of arts and sciences). Until the early 19th century reforms, philo-
46 JOSEPH BEN-DAVID

sophy was a preparatory faculty of non-specialized studies (like the

American college of liberal arts). The higher faculties were those of law,
medicine and theology (which were kinds of graduate schools). After the
reforms, all faculties became formally equal. In effect, however, the uni-
versity became dominated b y the philosophy faculty, which had the
largest number of professors and, as a rule, the most outstanding research-
ers.5
This was important for the German intellectuals, since, owing to the
social and economic backwardness and the political absolutism of the
German speaking countries - relative to Britain and France - the oppor-
tunities for the intellectuals for social betterment were limited. They
needed official positions, and the salaries that went with them in order to
maintain an upper middle class w a y of life; they needed even more the
formal recognition of their position b y the government, since only a high
position in the hierarchy of offices could ensure a high social status. 6 Such
considerations did not apply to Britain, where intellectuals usually came
from wealthy families, where there were numerous and varied opportuni-
ties for advancement for those who were not so well-off and where formal
office had little to do with social status. 7
In France, the situation was more complex. Official position was prob-
ably more important than in Britain as a source of income as well as of
prestige. However, there were many positions open to intellectuals in
general, and to successful researchers in particular, in the educational
administration and in a relatively large number of scientific and higher
educational institutions outside the universities - such as the Mus6e
d'Histoire Naturelle, the Coll~ge de France, etc. Some were connected with
teaching duties, but these were usually negligible. Thus researchers had
no particular interest in monopolizing university chairs, s
In the United States, until the second half of the 19th century, an
intellectual class existed only on the East Coast. They were mostly people
with independent means and a social position similar to that of the corres-
ponding class in Britain. College presidents and some professors were an
important part of this class. Elsewhere in the United States, pioneering
conditions existed until the second half of the 19th century. The represen-
tatives of culture were clergymen, college presidents, and some profession-
al people. The colleges here played an important role in the creation of a
cultural atmosphere. There was a great gap between the status of the
college president who was often a leading figure in the community, and
that of the college teacher who was not considered to be a professional.
Compared to the presidents and the professional class, college teachers felt
deprived of their proper status. 9 There existed, therefore, a potential here
 SCIENCE AND T H E U N I V E R S I T Y SYSTEM 47
to follow the German pattern of upgrading the college teacher through
promoting him from the status of "teacher" to that of "researcher". B u t
in general there was little interest in research in the U.S. Besides in the
Eastern states, intellectuals had no need to improve their status. In the
Mid-West and elsewhere, where some of them might have been interested
in i such an improvement, the German pattern was too aristocratic
and elitist.
As a result of these status differences, the German role type of professor-
researcher had, in the beginning, little appeal in Britain, France, and the
United States. Some university teachers were outstanding researchers in
all those countries. B u t teaching at a university was not considered as
the most suitable occupation for a researcher, nor was it required of all
university teachers that they be researchers. The German pattern began
to be imitated only in tile second half of the 19th century when new types
of research practices, and new ways of training researchers emerged in
Germany. Through their impetus, Germany surged ahead in science, so
that scientists elsewhere felt that they had to adopt the German methods
in order to prevent the decline of science in their countries.
(2) The Contents Aspect. Here the German conception of the unity of
teaching and research was radical: the academic teacher was free to
lecture on whatever subject he wanted, and the employer - that is, the
State, or the clients - namely the students, could not interfere with the
contents of his teaching in any manner. Teaching was supposed to be as
free and as spontaneous as research, lo
In actual fact, both the state and the student had considerable influence
on what was taught. The approval of the establishment of new chairs, and
the final selection of the teachers were made b y the governments. Further-
more, they determined the contents of the state examinations qualifying
for professional practice. At the same time, students were free to choose
their courses and to transfer credits freely from one university to another,
and the teachers, in addition to their salaries (or, in the case of the Privat-
dozent, instead of salary), were paid a course attendance fee b y each
student registering for a course. Since the majority of the students (in-
cluding those on the philosophy faculty - who prepared for high school
teaching) intended to become professionals, and therefore, had to take
state examinations, it was predictable that contents which were deemed
necessary b y the authorities would be taught quite willingly b y most
professors. Simultaneously, however, many specialized subjects were
taught in fields which did not prepare the students for any professional
career (except that of the academic teacher-researcher). Only the contents
of these courses - attended b y a negligible fraction of the s t u d e n t s - were
48 JOSEPH BEN-DAVID

determined exclusively by the research interests of those who taught them.

It was this aspect of the unity of teaching and research which had the
least effect outside Germany. The idea that the individual professor should
be allowed complete freedom in the determination of the contents and the
nature of his courses was not accepted in any of the other countries
surveyed here. The university authorities in Britain, France, and the
United States eventually agreed to delegate the function of determining
the curriculum to collegial bodies elected by the teachers, but every-
where there was some official control of what was taught (though not of
how it was taught). Complete individual freedom of the teachers, controlled
only by the choices of the students preparing for examinations, was not
considered as a sufficient safeguard of the adequacy of teaching.
(3) The Method A spest. Those who conceived of the new university in
early 19th century Prussia did not envisage research laboratories, nor
probably even seminars. Research for them was a private act of creation
of which only the results would be shared with others. Their conception
of the methodological unity of teaching and research was not of a scholar
doing research with the aid of, together with, or supervising the work of
someone else, but of the teacher-researcher whose lectures were based on
original thought and first-hand inquiry.ll The best results of this approach
were the brilliant lecture courses of some of the outstanding professors.
The texts based on these courses have been much admired as monuments
of scholarship, but the method itself has never been universally approved
either as a particularly successful way of instruction, or as the best way of
presenting the fruits of research.
For the majority of foreign observers, the most impressive aspects of the
unity of teaching and research were the seminar and laboratory methods
of teaching. These required the student to try his hand at research, and
provided an opportunity for the teacher to share with the students not
only the results, but also the methods and techniques of his enquiry. These
methods of instruction developed by stages, and not as a result of a pre-
conceived design. The seminars were originally established for the purpose
of providing intensive, pedagogically oriented training to those intending
to become school teachers (hence also the name "seminar").
Laboratory instruction, which emerged first in chemistry, aimed
similarly to provide technical know-how, especially for future chemists.
Practical professional training, rather than scientific research, was the
original intention in both cases.12 The development of these modest
beginnings into research workshops was the result of "accidental" inno-
vation by outstanding teacher-researchers (such as Liebig in chemistry),
and the rapid spread of this innovation in the university system.
 SCIENCE AND THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM 49
This innovation and its diffusion transformed the modern German uni-
versity in a manner not envisaged by its founders. The successful seminars
and laboratories produced relatively large numbers of trained researchers,
who had all the advantages of the "professional" over those who became
researchers in the old-fashioned, semi-amateur ways. This new breed of
researcher mastered the techniques of research, and knew how to produce
concrete results efficiently, while those who did not have such training
had to grope their way on their own towards some kind of scientific
competence.
As a result these "professional" researchers had a better chance of
appointment to university chairs than the others. Of course, in the begin-
ning there were few chairs, especially in the experimental sciences. The
founders of the new German university did not think highly of experiment-
al science - which they considered as a kind of technology. They empha-
sized philosophy, the humanities and mathematics.
But here too an unintended transformation of the system occurred.
"Professional" experimental science produced the most impressive research
results among the academic fields and therefore gained prestige, relative
to other fields, in the decentralized and competitive German system, in
spite of the anti-experimental ideology pervading it. New specializations
were given academic recognition through the establishment of new chairs
in chemistry, philosophy, and later, in experimental physics and even
experimental psychology. 13
This most influential development in the combination of teaching and
research was in actual fact inconsistent with the original idea of the unity
of teaching and research. That idea conceived of all teaching as based on
research, irrespective of the purpose of the studies. Research here was
identical with original and systematic thought, and it was intended that
all university students should be taught by original and systematic think-
ers. Professionalism of any kind was discouraged and belittled. It was
thought that training in any techniques, including those of research, could
and should be acquired privately and informally. 14 Professionalism in
research was, therefore, a fact but not an admitted principle.
These formal philosophical considerations were of little importance for
the foreign observers of the system. Compared to anything else they knew,
the German universities were ideal places for training in advanced re-
search. Mature researchers in Britain, France, and elsewhere envied the
productivity of their German colleagues - the result of working together
with groups of students in weU-appointed laboratories. They realized that
there was a more stimulating environment for research in Germany than
elsewhere. 15
50 JOSEPH BEN-DAVID

By the 1890s, aspiring researchers from the entire Western world

went to Germany in order to obtain advanced training. Some German
professors - like Liebig in chemistry, Ludwig in physiology, and Wundt in
experimental psychology - raised virtually entire generations of research-
ers in Europe and America. 16
The concern of all the foreign observers was not education but scien-
tific research, and a German university was, for them, the most suitable
place to do it. They advocated the professionalization of research, and
admired and imitated the method of laboratory and seminar instruction as
forms of research training and organization. Thus the professionalization
of research, an unintended development in Germany, was the very aim of
the imitators of tile German arrangements. British and French scientists,
intent on transplanting the arrangements of the German universities to
their respective countries, were interested in catching up with German
science. Being concerned with research alone and not with education, they
were much more willing to face the organizational implications of the
emergence of professional science than their German counterparts.
(4) The Organizational A s25ect.The professionalization and formalization
of training for research presented a serious dilemma for those who adhered
to the unity of teaching and research as a general principle of all instruc-
tion at university level. If participation in research was to be a preparation
for professional research work, then those who did not intend to become
researchers would not need to participate in research. Such a differentia-
tion would have given rise to two kinds of teaching at the universities: one
where there was unity of teaching and research, and another where there
was little or no unity. This would have implied tile abandonment of
" u n i t y " as a general principle. This step was not taken in Germany.
Instead, laboratory and seminar work was required from everyone, justi-
fied by the plausible argument that one could not expect to learn about
science without a taste of its very substance, namely research.
Since, however, there is a great difference between research which is
undertaken for getting the taste of it, and that which is done in earnest for
the purpose of making a discovery, there occurred, as a matter of fact, a
division between the two types of research at the universities. The former
came to be performed more and more perfunctorily, while the latter
moved out of the formal curriculum of the university into tile so-called
"institutes". These were research organizations attached to a chair (usual-
ly for tile lifetime of the professor) but financed from a separately allocated
grant (that is, not from the regular university budget). In these institutes,
serious research took place, organized as the professor thought fit, and
here researchers were trained. 17
 SCIENCE AND THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM 51
This development shows that with the emergence of professional science,
the original conception of the unity of teaching and research became
untenable. There was now a level of research which could not be integrated
with teaching. Probably for reasons of status and power, German pro-
fessors preferred to maintain the fiction that all "real" teaching took place
at the university, that all "real" research took place within the minds of
individuals, and that the bureaucratically organized institutes were mere-
ly organizational aids to the private research of the professor. This fiction
justified the absolutism of the professor in his research institute, and the
function of the university as a guild of the professional estate engaged only
in the protection of the rights and privileges of its members, and in safe-
guarding the standards of the university. This was deemed preferable to
turning the university into an organization for professorial work. This
resistance to organizational change was not a satisfactory solution and
caused a great deal of dissatisfaction among junior scientists. It was pro-
bably one of the causes of the eventual loss of German scientific superior-
ity. is
Other countries approached the organizational problems of professional
science ill a more instrumental way. They tried to tackle separately three
aspects of the problem: how to train professional researchers; to what
extent and how to re-inforce research orientation in university instruction
in general; and how to organize and support professional research.
In each of the other three countries dealt with here, new measures were
introduced for training researchers. The arrangements of the German
university institutes served as the model everywhere, but nowhere was it
followed slavishly.
In Britain there emerged university departments which officially com-
bined the functions of teaching with those of a research institute. These
innovations were, however, restricted to a few departments of experiment-
al science and to students preparing for honours degrees. 19 In France the
t~cole Pratique des Hautes ]~tudes was established in 1868, as a kind of
graduate school. The plan was to pool the research talent and resources
available in the Paris area and use them for organizing seminars and
laboratories where advanced students would be trained for research. 20
In Britain, as well as in France, such research oriented studies constituted
a small fraction of the total activity of higher educationalinstitutions. The
bulk of the latter were conceived essentially as teaching institutions
designed for the instructional needs of the professional and political 61ites.
The idea that research-oriented teaching might be suitable for this category
of students was not generally accepted. Neither of these two countries was
prepared to diverge significantly from their established traditions in higher
52 JOSEPH BEN-DAVID

education. Universities have been considered as principally teaching in-

stitutions in both of them.
However, there has been a growing emphasis on the scientific qualifi-
cations of those to be appointed to university chairs, particularly in the
natural and exact sciences.
The most important developments, however, took place in the U.S.
The U.S. graduate school, which emerged in the 1870s, was an attempt to
build a complete, formal program of specialized training for professional
research, culminating in the Ph.D. Furthermore, graduate professional
schools of medicine, agriculture, engineering, business, etc. combined
professional training with applied research. Perhaps owing to the absence
of any local traditions in research, the American graduate schools followed
German precedents more closely than either the British or the French.
But the American university as a whole did not follow the overall
German pattern. The American graduate school took the German research
institute only as a starting point. Rather than being the private domain
of a professor who was tied to the university only through his chair, the
graduate department became an integral and public part of the university,
and all its scientific personnel held regular university appointments. It
provided formal rather than informM training, and it conferred regular
degrees. 21
The conditions for the development of this type of school in the U.S.
were optimal. The professionalization of research and of academic teaching
(which was, at the graduate level, training for research) was an important
status interest of American college teachers, who, as we have seen, had
been traditionally regarded as sub-professionals. In Germany, it will be
recalled, professionalization would have meant a loss of status for uni-
versity professors; and in Britain and France they had the status of higher
professionals from the outset.
Furthermore, the U.S. system was even more decentralized and com-
petitive than the German one. Since research is inherently a productive
and innovative process, the chances were that a competitive system
would more fully exploit its potential than a centralized or hierarchic
system. University presidents and chairmen of departments often acted
like entrepreneurs investing in research talents and facilities, in hopes of
getting a return in the form of publications, fame, donations, and desirable
students.
As a result, the trend towards the development of professional scientific
research, and increasingly research-based training for some of the practical
professions which had been initiated at the German universities, continued
to develop in the U.S. more than elsewhere. The sociological phenomenon
 SCIENCE AND T H E U N I V E R S I T Y SYSTEM 53
which arose in Germany, of "schools" of students working with a great
teacher developed in the U.S. into more differentiated types of team work.
There were "schools" as in Germany, but also pairs or groups of peers,
working together for a more or less prolonged period of time, usually with
students who were not personally subordinate to any single teacher. Thus
interdisciplinary teams and institutes of research emerged in the profession-
al schools.
This was the fruit of entrepreneurship, which resulted in its turn in the
expansion of the use of research and researchers. Since these institutes
were situated at universities, they trained students who had some practical
know-how in research, which could be used more or less directly by
industrial firms, in agriculture, or in business administration.
It has to be emphasized, however, that all this development towards a
much closer integration of research and teaching was, with few exceptions
confined to the graduate schools, which constituted a small fraction of the
total operation of the universities. The bulk of the students were under-
graduates, and their studies had usually little research content.
Thus, until the late 1930s, nowhere outside Germany was the unity of
teaching and research accepted as a principle governing all higher edu-
cation. Only in Germany, and the countries following the German pattern,
was there in principle a complete integration of teaching and research.
In fact, as has been shown, there existed a division there too, on somewhat
similar lines as in the United States - since serious research was located
in the institutes, whereas the research content in undergraduate studies
was as a rule extremely shallow. Only with respect to academic appoint-
ments and promotions was there a complete unity of teaching and research
in these countries, since appointments and promotions were based over-
whelmingly on success in research.

The post-war years

Since the Second World War, and especially since the mid-fifties, the
place of science at the universities has greatly changed. The war-time
mobilization of scientists in the U.S., Britain, and Canada opened up new
vistas for the application of science for technological purposes. The ex-
perience of collaboration among groups of scientists, and of organizational
leadership and know-how among American academic scientists who were
willing to co-operate with outsiders from the military and industry, were
among the most important conditions of this success.
To the reputation created by the war-time achievements of American
science was added, in the years following the war, the recognition that the
American universities, or more precisely, the'~graduate schools of the
54 JOSEPH BEN-DAVID

twenty-or-so best American universities, were by far the best places in

the world for both doing and for being trained in research. Mature
researchers and research students from all parts of the world now flocked
to the United States as immigrants, visiting scholars, or advanced students,
just as they used to go to Germany prior to 1933. 22
The success of the graduate schools was not confined to the world-wide
scientific community. Science rose in prestige dramatically in the general
society as well. From the mid-fifties up until 1967, there had been a seem-
ingly insatiable demand for scientists in general, and research scientists in
particular in the American economy, and the prestige of scientific occu-
pations rose between 1947 and 1963 from modest levels to very near the
top of the occupational prestige scale. 23
These developments led to a growing emphasis on research orientation
at all the levels of higher education in the U.S., in practically all types of
schools. A Ph.D. degree and publications became increasingly required
from the teachers at colleges of quite modest academic quality, and more
and more students came to regard the first degree as a preparation for
graduate school, rather than as a terminal degree, s4
With some delay, these developments affected all the university
systems of the world. Just as in the middle of the 19th century, scientists
and scientific policy makers everywhere in the world realized that the
German universities had initiated a new phase, so their successors a
hundred years later were conscious that a new stage in the organization of
research had been reached in the United States. There followed a spate of
university reforms, or at least proposals for reform, all over the world.
Their principal objective was to strengthen graduate training at the uni-
versities, and to foster organized team and interdisciplinary research at
the universities. Some recommendations aimed to restructure the under-
graduate curriculum so that it should serve as a general preparation for
either a well-informed choice of graduate specialization, or for equally
well-informed consumership of intellectual products and research
services. 25 The production and consumption of original scientific and
scholarly creations, rather than education for social and political leader-
ship, or preparation for professional practice, became the central theme
of higher education.
These developments have probably greatly improved the quality of
higher education everywhere; nonetheless, this improvement in quality
was not well balanced. Some of the traditional (and still relevant)
functions of higher education - e.g. leadership and professional training -
were neglected, while scientific research and creativity were emphasized
to an unrealistic extent. The governments were mainly interested in
 SCIENCE AND T H E U N I V E R S I T Y SYSTEM 55
supporting research, which they regarded as a potential source of techno-
logical and military innovation. Even in a country like the United States,
where m a n y of the leading universities were private institutions dependent
for their income mainly on students' fees, endowments, donations, and
other kinds of community support, tile support of the central government
- given mainly for research - increased to such an extent that the leading
universities became dependent for 20-50 per cent of their budgets on
central governmental support. ~6 Hence the other functions of the uni-
versity could not compete with research. No doubt the idea of the unity
of teaching and research helped to rationalize and justify this monopoli-
zation of all the university activities by research : there was always a way
to prove that all research somehow benefited teaching.
Of course, there is much truth in this, since research ,which leads to new
discovery, provides new content and new inspiration for teaching. How-
ever, in practice, the question never is whether, in principle, teaching
benefits from research, but how much a given course of teaching benefits
from a given project of research. Thus the general arguments about the
unity of teaching and research were irrelevant to the situation which arose
in the early 1960s. The emphasis on research and creativity in higher edu-
cation grew concomitantly to the percentage of the relevant age group
attending higher educational institutions - attendance having more than
doubled between 1950 and 1965 in the ma iority of industrially advanced
countries.~ In other words, the emphasis on research and creativity grew
in direct proportion to the entrance into the universities of less and less
talented and less and less intellectually motivated students and teachers.~8
Furthermore, as the number of students rose to levels exceeding 10 per
cent of the age group, their prospects of engaging in high-level professional
and managerial work were bound to diminish even in industrially advanced
countries. A reconsideration of the one-sided emphasis on research at all
university level instruction seems, therefore, inevitable.

Conclusion
The original conception of the unity of teaching and research envisioned a
small and highly selected group of teachers lecturing to a student audience
on topics related to the research of these teachers. It was assumed that
teaching by original researchers, even if it did not provide full coverage of
a field, would be more inspiring for able and advanced students than more
systematic teaching by merely competent instructors.
By the middle of the 19th century the idea of the unity of teaching and
research became associated with laboratory and seminar work. Originally,
it appears, participation in these activities was voluntary, and thus
56 JOSEPH BEN-DAVID

limited to students genuinely interested in research. Later, laboratory and

seminar work became compulsory for all students and came to be regarded
as the ideal way of combining research with teaching. For the run-of-the-
mill student, this innovation had little appeal. In fact there was a great
difference between the routine laboratory exercises of the ordinary under-
graduate, and the advanced work done in the institutes by the few
students who had a scientific bent. Eventually, in the American graduate
schools which emerged during the last three decades of the 19th century
this distinction became formalized. Training in research techniques and
carrying out research became the main content of graduate instruction,
while in other parts of the curriculum a modest amount of research done
by the student might or might not be used as a didactic device.
By the end of the 19th century, all advanced national systems of
higher education trained at least some of their students as researchers.
On the other hand, there was no university system where all teaching was
based on research, and where all students were supposed to engage in
more than token research. But university systems differed in the extent
to which they emphasized the one or the other type of instruction, and in
the method employed by them for determining the role of research. These
two differences were probably interrelated. In the United States, as in
Germany, the trend has been to further the growth of research in the
universities as much as possible. In neither case was this policy deliberately
followed; rather, it was the result of the competitive, entrepreneurial
nature of both systems. Research being a dynamic and expanding re-
source, competitive systems pressed its uses to the very limits that the
system could bear.
At the other extreme was and still is France, which is now ioined by the
U.S.S.R. In these two countries higher education serves a variety of
teaching functions, and research is integrated with teaching only in the
rather small part of the system specifically designed to train researchers.
In both oi these countries higher education as well as research have been
centrally planned and financed activities, and their share is decided by
deliberation, not by market forces.
In between these two extremes is Britain, and probably Japan, where
universities have much freedom to determine the extent to which they
want to emphasize research at different levels and in different kinds of
instruction. But these university systems are much less competitive and
much more traditionally hierarchic than either the German or the Ameri-
can systems. Hence, custom and conservatism have set much narrower
limits to the expansiveness of research entrepreneurs at these university
systems, than in the German or in the American ones.
 SCIENCE AND THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM 57
In a very general way, the idea of the unity of teaching and research
has furthered the development of the emphasis on research in the compe-
titive university systems. They treat science as an inexhaustible resource,
an endless frontier 9 Therefore, more and more fields of research were
considered relevant for more and more fields of study. It could be en-
visaged, therefore, that at some future time all teaching would be inte-
grated with and/or based on ongoing research.
As has been shown, however, there has been a fundamental difference in
all systems between the integration of teaching and research in the training
of future researchers and advanced professionals on the one hand, and the
degree of integration customary in other frameworks or courses. The
general principle of the unity of teaching and research has not helped to
understand the nature of these differences. In fact it served as a means to
obscure them, and to distract attention from the real problem which is the
determining of the relationship between research and teaching. Owing to
the very nature of research as a constantly changing activity, the determi-
nants cannot be established in advance for a definite period of time. The
question then is, what mechanisms should be employed for the determi-
nation and review of the relationship between these two functions ? As we
have seen, the periodic re-definition of this relationship has been ac-
complished, until recently, by competition between universities where
such competition has existed9 Other countries have usually followed the
lead of these entrepreneurial systems and the competitive mechanisms
have helped to extend the integration of research and teaching. It is true
that at times this was done at the expense of the educational functions of
the university 9 However, such imbalance has been !caused !not by the com-
petitive: mechanism itself, but rather through one-sided support of research
by various governments which has hindered competition. Therefore, it
seems that a competitive system of some sort would continue to be the
best means of determining the relationship between teaching and research.
Since no one can forsee what the progress of science and its applications
will be, only the hindsight provided by a competitive system can ac-
complish the task of ongoing revision of the relationship. However, some
means of protecting the competitive system against being warted by special
academic and other interest ~groups is needed.

NOTES
1 j . D. BERNAL, The Social Functions o[ Science. L o n d o n : George Routledge,
1939, p. 194 (for a comparison of the Anglo-American, F r e n c h etc. 'circles').
2 On t h e s t a t e of t h e universities in t h e e i g h t e e n t h century, see A d a m SMITH,
The Wealth o[ Nations, B o o k V, Chapter 1, Article 2; see Mso Ren6 K6NIG, Vom
58 JOSEPH BEN-DAVID
Wesen der deutschen Universitiit. Berlin: Die Runde, 1935, pp. 17-27; see also,
Nicolas HANS, New Trends in Education in the Eighteenth Century. London: Rout-
ledge & Kegan Paul, 195 I, pp. 41-54.
3 F. SCHNABEL,Deutsche Geschichte im neunzehnten Jahrhundert. Vol. 2 Freiburg
im Breisgau: Herder, 1965, pp. 201-8.
4 H. BRtlNSCHWlG,La crise de l'Etat prussien d~l a / i n du X V I I I si~cIe et la gen~se
de la mentaIitd romantique. Paris : Presses Universitaires de France, 1947, pp. 161-86.
5 j . BEN-DAVID and A. ZLOCZOWER, "Universities and Academic Systems in
Modern Societies", European Journal o/Sociology, 3, 1962, pp. 52-4.
6 H . BRUNSCI-IWIG,loc. cir.
7 N. G. ANNAN, " T h e Intellectual Aristocracy", in J. PLUMB, Studies in Social
History. London: Longmans Green, 1955, pp. 241=87.
s j . BEN-DAVID, The Scientist's Role in Society: A Comparative Study. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1971, pp. 96-7.
9 Richard t-IOFSTADTER and Walter METZGER, The Development of Academic
Freedom in the United States. New York: Columbia University Press, 1955, pp. 124,
229-32.
10 Friedrich PAULSEN, The German University: Its Character and Historical
Development. New York: Macmillan, 1895, pp. 85-6.
11 F. SCHNABEL,loc. cir.
12 F. PAULSEN,Geschiehte des gelehrten Unterrichts. Leipzig: Veit, 1885, pp. 586-
89.
13 V. SCHNABEL,op. cir., pp. 219-20; and also Vol. 5, pp. 203-76; also R. Steven
TURNER, "The Growth of Professional Research in Prussia, 1818-1848", Princeton
N.J. : Princeton University, unpublished manuscript, 1971, p. 21-5.
14 A. FLEXNER, loc. cir., also TtIRNER, op. cir., p. 54--7.
15 R. B. PERRY, The Thought and Character o/ William James. Vol. 1. Boston:
Little, Brown, 1935, pp. 249-83; S. REZNICK, "The European Education of an
American Chemist and its Influence in Nineteenth Century America: Eben Norton
Horsford", Technology and Culture, July, 1970, pp. 366-88. I). FLEMING, William H.
Welch and the Rise o/ Modern Medicine. Boston: Little, Brown, 1954, pp. 32-54,
100-105.
16 j . BEN-DAVID and R. COLLINS, "Social Factors in the Origin of a New Science
The Case of Psychology", American Sociological Review, 4, 31, 1966, No. 4, pp. 451-
65.
1~ A. FLEXNER, Universities: American, English, German. London: Oxford Uni-
versity Press, 1968, pp. 42-5, 287, 314-15.
18 j. BEN-DAVID, op. cir., pp. 133--38.
10 D. S. L. CARDWELL, The Organization o/Science in England. London: Heine-
mann, 1957, p. 95.
20 j. BEN-DAVID, op. cir., p. 103.
21 Ibid, pp. 139-147.
22 Tile large inflow to the United States of scientists and engineers began in the
late 1950s, and reached a peak in 1967. See B. THOMAS, "Modern Migration', in
Walter ADAMS (ed.), The Brain Drain. New York: Macmillan, 1968, p. 44. I n 1958,
4032 engineers and 1108 scientists immigrated to the United States; in 1959, 3950
engineers and 1094 scientists; in 1960, 3354 engineers and 924 scientists; in 1963,
4014 engineers and 1397 scientists; in 1964, 3725 engineers and 1503 scientists; in
1966, 4920 engineers and 1570 scientists; and ill 1967, 8822 engineers and 1795
scientists. See, OECD Committee for Scientific and Technical Personnel, The Inter-
national Movement o/Scientists and Engineers, Part 1. Paris : OECD, 1970. p. 101.
~a Robert W. HODGE; Paul M. SIEGEL; Peter H. Rossi, "Occupational Prestige
in the United States, 1925-63", in R. BENDIX and S. M. LIPSET, Class, Status and
Power. 2nd ed. New York: Free Press, 1966, p. 324.
24 James A. DAvis, Undergraduate Career Decision. Chicago: Aldine, 1965, p. 201.
According to this report only 24 per cent of a representative sample of American
college students in 1961 did not have intentions to go to graduate school.
25 For Great Britain, see H. J. PERKIN, New Universities in the United Kingdom.
I n n o v a t i o n ill Higher Education. Paris: OECD, 1969, pp. 58-60, 115-38, 163-70;
for France, see C. GRINGNON and J. C. PASSERON, French Experience Be/ore z968.
Innovation in Higher Education. Paris: OECD, 1970, pp. 50-1, 99, 104-5, 131-33;
 SCIENCE AND THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM 59
for Germany, see E. B6NING and K. ROELOFFS,Three German Universities. Innova-
tion in Higher Education. Paris: OECD, 1970, pp. 34, 60-3, 68-9, 143.
26 Clark KERR, The Uses of the University. Cambridge, Mass. : H a r v a r d University
Press, 1964, p. 55.
27 The Development o] Higher Education, 1950-1967. Paris: OECD, The Edu-
cation Committee, 1970, p. 67.
2s Martin TRow, "The Expansion and Transformation of Higher Education".
Unpublished manuscript, September, 1970.

W I S S E N S C H A F T I?r HOCI-tSCI-IULBEREICH

yon JosEeu BEN-DAvID

Ziel dieser Arbeit ist es, die verschiedenell Aspekte der Fullktioll und Orgallisation
wissellschaftlicher Forschullg ill den Systemen der terti~irell Bildullg yon GroB-
britallnien, Frankreich, Deutschlalld und den USA darzustellen, indem ihre Ellt-
wicklung vom Begilln des neullzehnten Jahrhullderts bis zum heutigen Tag zuriick-
verfolgt wird.
Mit der Griindullg der Berliner Ulliversit~Lt im Jahre 1809 wurde in Deutschland
das Kollzept der "Eillheit von Lehre und Forschung" erstmalig verwirklicht, ulld
somit w~lrde zum ersten Male Forschung in dell Universitgtsbereich einbezogen. I m
Laufe der Zeit wurde irides die geforderte Lehre r o l l Forschung ill zunehmelldem
MaBe oberfl~ichlicher durchgefiihrt, wiihrelld die Forschullg selbst sich mehr und
mehr vom formalell Curriculum der Universit~it weg ill die Institute bewegte, die
ullter der Kontrolle eines Professors standei1, der einen Lehrstuhl auf Lebellszeit
inllehatte. Zugleich wurde Forsehung und die Ausbildung der Studellten zu For-
scherll immer st~irker in systematischer F o r m und auf bestimmte Berufsbilder hin
ausgerichtet vermittelt. So h a t t e sick Deutschland in tier zweiten H~ilfte des 19.
Jahrhunderts zum weltweiten wissellschaftlichell Zentrum entwickelt, ulld die
deutsche Vorgehellsweise wnrde weithin imitiert. Obwohl die Professionalisierullg
der Forschung eille unbeabsichtigte Entwicklung in Deutschland darstellte, erwies
sic sich doch als ein Hauptziel fiir diejenigen, die nach dem deutschen Modell ellt-
sprechende Vorkehrungen in anderen LgllderI1 trafell.
Der Artikel vergleicht Organisatiollsprobleme professiolleller Wissenschaft in
GroBbritallnien, Frankreich und den USA und zeigt, wie das deutsche Modell in
jedem dieser Liillder adaptiert wurde. Ill GroBbritannien und Frankreich war sein
Einflul3 !licht so stark wie in den USA, da die Universitgten ill beidell enropgischen
Lglldern lloch als Illstitutiollen aufgefaBt wurden, die zur Lehre professioneller und
politischer Elitell dienten, ulld da zudem Ulliversitgtsprofessoren sowieso fiber ei!len
professiollellell Status verffigten. Ill dell USA hingegen brachte die Professionali-
siernllg yon Forschullg ulld akademischer Lehre eillen bedeuielldell Status-zuwachs
fiir die im College Lehrenden. Die bedeutelldste Elltwicklung war daraufhii1 das
amerikallische graduate school die ill den siebziger Jahren des 19. Jahrhullderts
entstalld nlld das deutsche Modell der Forschungsillstitute mit groBem Erfolg
weiterelltwickelte.
I n den letzten Jahrzehnten sind eillige der traditiollellell (und lloch immer
relevanten) Funktionen tier Tertigrbildung, wie z.B. professiollelles und Ftihrullgs-
Training, weniger stark beachtet worden, wghrend Forschung ulld Kreativitgt in
einem AusmaBe betont wurden, dass in einer Zeit der "Universit~itsausbildung ftir
60 JOSEPH BEN-DAVID

die Massen" als ullrealistisch erscheint. Daher erscheint dem Autor ein Uberdenkeli
der eillseitigeli Betonung yon Forschung im Bereich der Ulliversit~t als ulivermeid-
lich.

LA SCIENCE E T LE SYSTEME U N I V E R S I T A I R E

par JosEP~ BEN-DAVID

Ce rapport a pour but de clarifier les diff6rents aspects des fonction et organisation
des recherches scientifiques darts les syst6mes d'enseignement sup6rieur de Grande-
Bretagne, France, Allemagne et des Etats-Unis, en tra~ant leur 6volution depuis le
d6but du 19~ sigcle jusqu'5~ ce jour.
L'Allemagne, avec la fondation de l'Uliiversit6 de Berlill ell 1809, a collgu la
premi6re le concept de "l'unit6 de la recherche et de l'ellseignement" e t a ainsi
introduit pour la premiere lois la recherche ~ l'universit6. Cependallt, l'ellseigne-
merit obligatoire de la recherche ell vint darts la suite ~ 6tre pratiqu6 de plus eli plus
superficiellement, tandis que les recherches s'61oign6rent du programme d'6tude
officiel de l'universit6 pour p6n6trer dans les illstituts qui se trouvaient sous le
contr61e d ' u n professeur liomm6 5~une chaire ~ vie. Eli m~me temps, les recherches
et la formatioll de chercheurs chez les 6tudialits devinrent plus syst6matiques et
professiollnalis6es. C'est ainsi que vers la deuxi~me partie du 19~ si6cle, l'Allemagne
devint le centre molidial des sciences, et le module allemalld en Villt ~ 6tre imit6 sur
une grande 6chelle. Bien que la professiollnalisation de la recherche flit une 6volution
involontaire en Allemagne, elle a constitu6, darts d'autres pays, le but principal des
imitateurs des dispositiolls allemandes.
L'auteur compare les probl~mes d'orgallisation des sciences ell rant que professions
eli Grallde-Bretagne, France et Etats-Ullis et molltre comment le module allemand
a 6t6 adapt6 darts chacull de ces pays. Eli Gralide-Bretagne et ell France, oil les
universit6s con~ues comme institutions destin6es 5, ellseigller/~ des 61ires profession-
nelles et politiques, et oil les professeurs d'ulliversit6 avaient de route mani~re le
statut social de professionnels, l'impact n ' a pas 6t6 aussi fort qu'aux Etats-Unis.
Darts ce pays, la professiolllialisation de la recherche et de l'enseignemellt acad6mique
a repr6sent~ u n int6r~t important quallt au prestige du professeur d'ulliversit6
am6ricain. L'6volution la plus importallte fur la graduate school am6ricaine qui fit
son apparition darts les ann6es 1870, prenant comme module l'illstitut allemalld de
recherche et l'am61iorant encore avec succgs.
Au cours des derni~res d6celillies, certaines fonctions traditionnelles (et toujours
appropri6es) de l'6ducation sup~rieure, comme la formation professiollnelle et celle
de cadres sup6rieurs ollt 6t6 n6glig6es, tandis que les rectlerches scientifique et la
cr6ativit6 ont pris de l'importante dalls une proportion Ile colivenant pas ~ ulie
6poque d'6ducation sup6rieure en masse. C'est pourquoi, un r&examen de l'accent
unilat6ral mis sllr la recherche au niveau universitaire semble in6vitable.