AUR 52 02 by NTEU

vol. 52, no. 2, 2010 Published by NTEU

ISSN 0818–8068

AUR

Australian Universities’Review

AUR Editor Dr Ian R Dobson

AUR Editorial Board Dr Carolyn Allport, NTEU National President Dr Timo Aarrevaara, University of Helsinki Professor Walter Bloom, Murdoch University Dr Anita Devos, Monash University Dr Jamie Doughney, Victoria University Dr Leo Goedegebuure, University of Melbourne Professor Ralph Hall, University of New South Wales Professor Dr Simon Marginson, University of Melbourne Mr Grahame McCulloch, NTEU General Secretary Dr Alex Millmow, University of Ballarat Dr Neil Mudford, UNSW@ADFA Professor Paul Rodan, CQUniversity Dr Leesa Wheelahan, Griffith University

Production Design & layout: Paul Clifton Editorial support: Anastasia Kotaidis

Editorial Policy

Book Reviews

The Australian Universities’ Review (AUR, formerly Vestes) is published by the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) to encourage debate and discussion about issues in higher education and its contribution to Australian public life, with an emphasis on those matters of concern to NTEU members.

Books for review should be sent to the Editor. Our policy is to review books dealing either with tertiary education or with matters pertinent to issues in tertiary education. Book reviews should be between 200 and 1200 words; review essays may be longer.

Editorial decisions are made by the Editor, assisted by the AUR Editorial Board. The views expressed in articles in this publication, unless otherwise stated, are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Editor, the Editorial Board or the publisher. Although some contributions are solicited by the Editor or the Editorial Board, AUR is anxious to receive contributions independently from staff and students in the higher education sector and other readers. AUR publishes both articles and other contributions, including short commentary and satire. Articles will be assessed by independent referees before publication. Priority is given to contributions which are substantial, lively, original and have a broad appeal. Responses to previously published contributions are encouraged. AUR is listed on the DEEWR (formerly DEST) register of refereed journals.

Contributions Please adhere to the style notes outlined on this page. Contributors should send digital manuscripts in Word format, preferably by email to editor@aur.org.au. Contributions on CD or PC disk will also be accepted.

Contributions should normally be between 1,000 and 5,000 words, although longer articles will be considered. All articles should be accompanied by an abstract that would not usually be longer than 150 words.

Contact Details

The author’s full contact details should be provided, including email address, telephone and fax.

Australian Universities’ Review, c/- NTEU National Office, PO Box 1323, South Melbourne VIC Australia 3205

Contributions are sent to a minimum of two referees, in accordance with DEEWR requirements for blind peer review.

Satire Do you have something satirical to say about the Australian higher education sector? Send it in!

Replies and letters AUR welcomes letters of response to articles published in the journal. Longer responses to articles are also encouraged. Responses should be a maximum of 1,000 words, and should be received within a month after the publication of the journal so that they can be properly considered by the Editor and the Editorial Board for the following issue.

Subscriptions AUR is free to NTEU members on an opt-in basis. Full details at www.aur.org.au/subscription.html. Annual subscription rates (inclusive of GST where applicable): Australia and NZ $60 AUD Overseas airmail $80 AUD Overseas payments should be made by credit card or bank draft in Australian currency.

Advertising AUR is published twice a year, in February and September. The current hard copy circulation is approximately 8,000 per issue. Rates are available on application to the Editor (email editor@ aur.org.au). The current hard copy circulation is approximately 8,000 per issue.

Archive This issue and previous issues of AUR (currently back to the 1970s) can be viewed online at www.aur.org.au.

Phone: +613 9254 1910 Fax: +613 9254 1915 Email: editor@aur.org.au

Website www.aur.org.au

Style Style should follow the Australian Government Publishing Service Style Manual, Sixth Edition, 2002.

Sub-headings should be typed in lower case, ranged left, with relative importance indicated by A, B etc.

References in the text should be given in the author-date style:

Single quotation marks only should be used, except for quotes within quotes. All quotes of more than 50 words should be indented and placed in a separate paragraph.

McCallum (1990) argues... or as various authors argue (McCallum 1990; Kenway 1989). Page references should be thus: (McCallum 1990, p. 41). Page references should be used for direct quotations. The reference list should be placed in alphabetical order at the end of the paper, utilising the author-date system. For a reference to a book: In accordance with NTEU policy to reduce our impact on the natural environment, this journal is printed on a 30% recycled stock, manufactured by a PEFC Certified mill, which is ECF Certified Chlorine Free. AUR is also available online as an e-book and PDF. Visit www.aur.org.au for details. NTEU members may opt for ‘soft delivery’ (email notification rather than printed copy) for all NTEU magazines. To access your membership details, login to the members’ area at www.nteu.org.au.

McCallum, D 1990, The social production of merit, Falmer, London. For a reference to a chapter in a collection: McCollow, J & Knight, J 2005, ‘Higher Education in Australia: An Historical Overview’, in Bella, M, McCollow, J & Knight, J (eds), Higher Education in Transition, University of Queensland, Brisbane. For a journal reference: Zappala, J & Lombard, M 1991, ‘The decline of Australian educational salaries’, Australian Bulletin of Labour, 17(1), pp. 76–95.

Dates thus: 30 June 1990. ‘ise’ should be used rather than ‘ize’, e.g. organise not organize. ‘per cent’ should be used rather than ‘%’ in the text. Abbreviations should be avoided, but if their use is necessary, they should be explained at their first use. Neither male nor female pronouns should be used to refer to groups containing persons of both sexes. Figures should be provided in EPS, PDF or Excel format, numbered consecutively in the order in which they appear (or are cited). Figures should be drawn precisely and boldly. Photographs and illustrations may be submitted for possible inclusion. Style sheet available at www.aur.org.au/submissions.html

vol. 52, no. 2, 2010 Published by NTEU

ISSN 0818–8068

Australian Universities’ Review 3

Letter from the editor

Ian R Dobson

ARTICLES 5

Gregory J Boyle, David L Neumann, John J Furedy, H Rae Westbury & Magnus Reiestad

Clothing the emperor: Addressing the issue of English language proficiency in Australian universities

The wording of university academic job advertisements can reflect a commitment to equity as opposed to academic merit in hiring decisions, but administrators need to be sensitive to this balance.

Katie Dunworth

There are fundamental issues about the nature, measurement and development of student English language proficiency that need to be addressed if universities are to build on those principles for good practice to make systemic and sustainable progress. 11

With a US$800 million budget shortfall, the University of California has chosen to maintain its preeminent position among US public universities. This article examines the conditions for this choice and the impending outcomes.

Is a threat posed to academic independence in corporate universities by the United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney? Cracking the code: Assessing institutional compliance with the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research

OPINION 64

Suzanne E Morris

Rates of student disciplinary action in Australian universities

A response to Margaret Lindorff’s Call for Papers about Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) processes (AUR vol. 52, no. 1). 66

Bruce Lindsay

This paper provides baseline, quantitative data on disciplinary action against students in the universities: rates that are not insignificant given the effort and resources dedicated to dealing with misconduct and the numbers of students affected. 33

An exercise in applied ethics on the topic of determining workloads in academia. 72

Perspectives on instituting change management in large organisations Alan Lawler & James Sillitoe

Australian universities are currently undergoing significant and deep-seated change to their funding models, introducing unanticipated difficulties and causing significant levels of personal uncertainty for staff. Such difficulties might be mitigated by more effective, efficient and transparent change management strategies.

Reach for the Stars Arthur O’Neill

An analysis of Australian university newspaper advertisements and the self-promoting marketing devices employed in the marketing of their products.

Teresa Carvalho & Maria de Lurdes Machado

Workload determination - an essay in applied ethics Peter Davson-Galle

Gender and shifts in higher education managerial regimes: examples from Portugal As higher education institutions substitute the traditional collegial model with a managerial one, how do these different models reflect traditional notions of femininity and masculinity and what potential impact will they have on women in academia.

Researcher engagement and research integrity in Australia Andrew Crowden

A review of the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research institutional authorship policies and their compliance. 27

Short-changed: The plight of US universities in the age of economic instability, or around the bend: The University of California in the present age John S Levin

Hegemony, big money and academic independence Tim Anderson

The balance between merit and equity in academic hiring decisions: Judgemental content analysis applied to the phraseology of Australian tenure-stream advertisements

Watch out! Here comes the TEQSA juggernaut Joseph Gora

Is it possible to be assessed to death? REVIEWS 79

Power and Influence: the view from the tower Making Waves: Medicine, Public Health, Universities and Beyond by David Penington Review by Paul Rodan

REVIEWS continued 81

To complete or not to complete. That is the question! How to Recruit and Retain Higher Education Students. A Handbook of Good Practice, by Anthony Cook & Brian S Rushton (eds). What do you want to be when you grow up? The Consumer Experience of Higher Education: The Rise of Capsule Education, by Deirdre McArdle-Clinton. Review by Maree Conway

’

The moving finger writes

Barton, Marilyn Martin-Jones, Zoe Fowler, Buddug Hughes, Greg Mannion, Kate Miller, Candice Satchwell & June Smith. Review by Patricia Kerslake

Review by Margaret Heagney

Improving Learning in College: Rethinking literacies across the curriculum by Roz Ivanic,ˇ Richard Edwards, David

Some universities are more equal than others! Structuring Mass Higher Education: The Role of Elite Institutions by David Palfreyman & Ted Tapper (eds). Review by Deanna de Zilwa

It’s a long way to the top…. Higher Education and International Capacity Building – twenty-five years of higher education links, by David Stephens (ed.). Review by Timo Aarrevaara

The gulf between us Globalisation and Higher Education in the Arab Gulf States, by Gari Donn & Yahya Al Manthri. Review by Stephen Wilkins

At last count….. Teaching by Numbers – Deconstructing the Discourse of Standards and Accountability in Education, by Peter M Taubman. Review by Georgina Tsolidis

And thereby hangs a tale ... Narrative Research on Learning: comparative and international perspectives, by Sheila Trahar (ed.). Review by Patricia Kerslake

2 ,

vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

’

Letter from the editor Ian R Dobson

Another busy year of editing draws towards its end, and Australian Universities’ Review (AUR) completes its 52nd volume. We live in interesting times. Australians have trepiditiously elected their 43rd parliament, and one wonders what this will mean for universities. More of the same? Down-hill spiral? Onwards and upwards? You decide! Moving right along, what is published in the pages of a journal is a function of the material submitted, and AUR is lucky that it continues to receive papers that cover a broad range of topics’ This issue is no exception. Perhaps this is in fitting with the current political climate. In a nutshell, papers published cover English language proficiency, academic freedom and independence, student discipline, hiring policies, and change (apparently the only constant in higher education). On the international front, we have papers from Portugal and the USA on gender and management, and university funding, respectively. And don’t forget the opinion pieces and book reviews. Katie Dunworth’s paper opens with the cited observation that university students’ English ‘is often disgracefully shoddy in the fundamentals of language….’ Few would argue with that statement, but it was uttered in 1941! Perhaps some things don’t change. The University of Sydney’s Tim Anderson makes some pointed observations about the United States Studies Centre, of which, he says, we know little because of the ‘commercial in confidence’ card played by the University of Sydney and the American Australian Association. Suzanne Morris undertook research to find out which Australian universities comply with the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research so vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

far as statements about authorship are concerned. As with all things, some universities’ compliance is rather better than others. Is your university one of the ones exceeding minimum requirements? Student misconduct is a burgeoning ‘industry’, but not so research on the topic. Bruce Lindsay seeks to rectify that! He concludes that rates of disciplinary action against students are not insignificant, considering the limited effort and resources applied to issues relating to misconduct. Not unexpectedly, plagiarism is a major form of student transgression. Change is inevitable, it seems. According to any dictionary, the word ‘reform’, so loved by governments of both persuasions, includes the suggestion that things will improve. One can only guess at the ‘reforms’ to be foisted on universities during the life of the new parliament. Clearly ‘reforms’ do make things different, but has there ever been any attempt to analyse or measure these improvements? Do governments ever demand the same levels of ‘accountability’ of themselves that they demand of others? We know the answer to that one! However, Alan Lawler and James Sillitoe suggest that institutions could at least mitigate some of the uncertainty staff feel when change is afoot, by adopting ‘more effective, efficient and transparent management strategies’. They tell us how it could be done better. Greg Boyle and his colleagues analysed job advertisements in The Australian newspaper for tenured academics during three periods, in order to compare the impact of equity and/or merit in hiring decisions, with some comparisons with Canada.They believe that human resources departments need to be aware of the issues behind the wording of job advertisements, and call for more research on the subject. Letter from the editor, Ian R Dobson

Two papers come from abroad. The first is about gender and management in Portugal, comparing old and new institutions, and universities and polytechnics. Interviews with women and men were analysed in order to establish the extent of gender-based management stereotyping. The authors finish up ‘by analysing perceptions about leadership styles for women and men, and the potential implications for women’s participation in top management in higher education institutions’. The other overseas paper is about the plight of universities in the USA following the Great Recession, with particular reference to the University of California (Riverside). AUR seeks opinion pieces, and this issue features several. The first of these is in support of Margaret Lindorff’s paper on ethics in AUR 52(1). Most would consider it appropriate for an extensive ethical review of biomedical or psychological research involving children, animals or anyone at ‘risk’. It is an open and shut case. However, what about ‘research’ involving people not at risk? Do we need processes to be streamlined further for those whose research involves, say, asking vice-chancellors about government higher education policy? Perhaps it is best to err on the conservative side! The second piece also has an ‘ethics’ flavour. It is about determining academic workloads, something that will be of vital interest to AUR readers.

4 Letter from the editor, Ian R Dobson

’

Taking his lead from Joseph Gora’s paper on mottos in AUR 52(1), Arthur O’Neill examines the ways in which Australia’s universities present themselves to their world (via their advertisements). He is not impressed! ‘Universities’, he says, ‘could…do without their zany promulgations’. All I can say is ‘Go Boldly and Dream Large!’ (Not necessarily in that order). Finally, we have left the last word to Joseph Gora, who again shares his opinions with us. This time the target is what he describes as the TEQSA juggernaut. ‘I can hear the screams from here’, he says. The editorial board decided that AUR should have a larger book review section, and it certainly has. No fewer than nine reviews feature in this issue, most of them positive. That should please (most of) the publishers! On behalf of the editorial board and publication team, I wish you the best for the rest of this year. Please consider the Australian Universities’ Review as a place for your scholarly writings. You can reach a vast audience with AUR: it is available for free on the internet (http://www.aur.org.au), and we print around 8,000 copies.

vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

’

Clothing the emperor Addressing the issue of English language proficiency in Australian universities Katie Dunworth Curtin University of Technology, Western Australia

The English language proficiency levels of students in Australian higher education who have English as an additional language (EAL) has become an increasingly prominent issue, particularly as it relates to international students. In 2009 this resulted in the publication of a set of good practice principles for the sector. This paper argues that there are fundamental issues about the nature, measurement and development of student English language proficiency that need to be addressed if universities are to build on those principles for good practice to make systemic and sustainable progress in this area.

Introduction When it is argued that the English produced by university students ‘is often disgracefully shoddy in the fundamentals of language, abusing everything from spelling to grammar, syntax and proper usage’, the style in which the observation is expressed may betray its antiquity (it was authored by Theodore Morrison in 1941), but the gist of its content has hardly wavered across the generations. Surveys and interviews with university academics continue to find that respondents believe students lack the English language skills to communicate at an appropriate level for tertiary study. (More recent examples include Bretag 2007; Sawir 2005; Jamieson et al. 2000; Coley 1999; McDowell and Merrrylees 1998). What has changed since the 1940s is the nature of the population against whom such criticism is levelled. While overall concerns about English language use in an academic context do continue to be expressed, there is now a considerable body of literature in Australia that relates specifically to the English language proficiency levels of students who have English as an additional language (EAL), most of whom are international students. For example, in an article with the provol. 52, no. 2, 2010

vocative title The emperor’s new clothes: ‘Yes, there is a link between English competence and academic standards’, Bretag (2007, p. 15), explains that ‘all 14 respondents [in interviews with academic staff] stated that international EAL students generally have inadequate English communication skills for study at the tertiary level in Australia’. Concerns about student English language proficiency are not restricted to university staff. A recent review of the Education Services for Overseas Students (ESOS) Act reported that students themselves ‘raised concerns about English language standards being too low and the lack of opportunities to improve their English language skills’ (Baird 2010, p. 10); and an investigation into the employment outcomes of international students found that English language proficiency ‘represents a key issue for both graduate job access, and for subsequent mobility within work’ (Arkoudis et al. 2009, p.12).The conclusion reached by many as a consequence of these widespread concerns is that English language entry scores may be too low (Baird 2010; Bretag 2007). Prompted by the publication of a high-profile report on the English language levels of overseas students graduating from Australian universities (Birrell 2006), Clothing the emperor, Katie Dunworth

the Australian Government took action, and in 2007 the International Education Association of Australia (IEAA) convened a national symposium, attended by representatives from all Australian universities. This led to a set of recommendations for action (IEAA, 2007), and in 2009 the Good Practice Principles for English language proficiency for International Students in Australian universities were developed, a set of ten guidelines for universities that emerged from a project convened by the Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA) and approved by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR). The Good Practice Principles, published on the Department’s website (DEEWR, 2009), are now in the process of being developed into a set of draft standards for higher education. Their introduction has, at a generic level, encouraged the debate within universities to progress from an argument that focuses primarily on using gatekeeping devices to restrict access to higher education courses to a more nuanced view that also incorporates the responsibility of universities to address their students’ language development needs over the course of their studies. Even with the Good Practice Principles, however, there remain some fundamental questions to be addressed: about the nature of tertiary level language proficiency, the measurement of language proficiency and the ways in which language proficiency should be developed. Without clear positions on these issues, universities will find it difficult to introduce substantial changes that are systemic, positive and sustainable. Drawing on data obtained from a range of research studies and the experience gained by the author in managing a twoyear institution-wide project at one university to promote student English language proficiency, this paper examines the problems that these three fundamental questions pose, and proposes ways in which it may be possible to move forward.

The nature of English language proficiency The first issue is that ‘English language proficiency’ does not necessarily have a shared meaning at a crossinstitutional, intra-institutional or even intra-disciplinary level, either in terms of the construct itself or of the level of the construct that is appropriate for any year of tertiary study, pace the ubiquity of institutional references to particular IELTS scores. For example, Dunworth (2001) found that in 45 interviews with aca-

6 Clothing the emperor, Katie Dunworth

’

demic staff in a single institution, interviewees varied widely on their interpretations, leading to ‘a series of unit-level microcosms in which a sufficient level of language proficiency is determined… using criteria of which the evaluated are largely unapprised’ (Dunworth 2001, p. 148). Positive outcomes are difficult to achieve when the desired standards are neither openly articulated nor communally implied. It is incumbent on universities, particularly in view of the fact that they have actively sought out enrolments from international EAL students, to adopt and disseminate information about the nature of language proficiency and the levels that they believe are appropriate for their courses, so that both academic staff and students are able to move towards a common and consistent understanding of the construct and the standards that are required at graduation as well as at entry. Defining English language proficiency in terms of the bands, grades or scores that students obtain on entry, or with reference to the broad general descriptors compiled by the instrument developers, is clearly inadequate if there is no institutional process to link the measures that universities accept to the lived experience of the tertiary classroom and if there is no rigorous examination of the instruments that are accepted. The first step towards a solution, therefore, is that the construct of language proficiency, and what constitutes an appropriate level in any given academic context, needs to be clearly defined, understood and communicated among all those affected by it.This may well differ between institutions, disciplines or cohorts, of course, not only because within the outwardly homogenous environment of academia the forms of language used vary considerably across discipline areas and discourse types, but also because graduate language needs may differ. At the same time, if universities were to set entry or exit requirements for EAL students at a level at which they were genuinely able to operate in all academic and professional discourse environments at a level commensurate with their Australian counterparts who have English as a first language, then far fewer international or migrant EAL students would ever obtain an Australian degree. We need to recognise that most EAL students ‘will never draw level with native speakers in their control of English’ (Ballard & Clanchy 1997:29) in its standard form. In consideration of an appropriate description and level of English language proficiency, cognisance needs to be taken of the role of English in the world today. vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

’

With the ubiquity of English as a medium of intertheir studies and cope with the initial demands of their national communication, benchmarks against the ‘educourse. cated native speaker’ are giving way to constructs such If this argument is accepted, then it follows that a as English as an international language (EIL) that may level of English language proficiency that has been set ultimately be ‘easier for speakers of other languages to for beginning students is unlikely to be an appropriate learn and use’ (Yano 2001, p. 130), or English as a lingua indicator of students’ capacity to participate effectively franca (ELF) which acknowledges the importance of in subsequent years of study. Unfortunately, this posithe language as a communication tool between nontion is not consistent with the numerous processes in native speakers (Mauranen, Hynninen & Ranta 2010). place whereby students are awarded exemption from It may be time to review the forms of English language completion in Australia of components of their degree, deemed as acceptable within the walls of Australia’s for example through a system of recognition of prior tertiary institutions, particularly within those which learning (RPL). This system is itself fraught with its claim in their mission statements to have engaged in a own complexities (e.g. Fox 2005; Cantwell & Scevak process of ‘internationalisation’ and which accept onto 2004); but the concern for this paper is that it means their campuses students from around the world, many students may commence their studies at an Australian of whom do not subsequently become permanent university part-way through their degree course, while residents in Australia. This, their levels of English lanit is acknowledged, would guage proficiency, if they ...there remain some fundamental be a difficult undertaking. are measured at all, are not questions to be addressed: about ‘Uncoupling any language required to be correspondthe nature of tertiary level language from its native speakers ingly more developed proficiency, the measurement of language is... a challenging idea that than those undertaking proficiency and the ways in which language will require a considerable the course in full. This also effort of adjustment of attiapplies to some transnaproficiency should be developed. tudes and long-established tional students when they concepts of just what a lantransfer to Australia to comguage is’ (Seidlhofer, Breiteneder & Pitzl 2006, p. 24). plete their degree, as their prior tertiary learning enviIt is also important to take into consideration that ronments may include a lack of exposure to English language proficiency, like academic literacy, is not a outside the classroom or, sometimes, even within it binary state. Rather, it is best viewed as a contextu(Victoria University 2005). In short, with the complex ally-specific continuum, along which language users range of enrolment practices that now exist in Australmove at varying rates. The student body in Australian ia’s universities, it is not sufficient to set a single standuniversities is becoming increasingly heterogeneous. ard for entry level proficiency. If we are to be confident Widening participation policies, internationalisation, that students have the language resources to particitechnological developments, a broadening of academic pate effectively in their studies, then we need to proentry requirements, a rise in occupations requiring tervide indicators of the required levels of proficiency at tiary qualifications and changes in the demographics key points along the road towards degree completion. of Australia’s population (see, for example, Australian Education International [AEI] 2009; Access Economics Measuring English language proficiency 2008; Birrell et al. 2008; Scott 2008) have resulted in enrolments of students with diverse educational, linThe second issue is how entry-level English language guistic and cultural backgrounds. We can no longer proficiency is to be measured. Universities now accept expect any student, regardless of background, to arrive numerous means by which entry requirements can be at university replete with the requisite ‘graduate’ level met (Leask, Ciccarelli & Benzie 2003), with some uniof English language proficiency. Many students experiversities recording over fifty different, incommensuraence difficulty with academic literacy practices (Lea & ble, measures (Curtin University of Technology 2009; Street 2006); EAL students simply face a wider range of Coley 1999). If institutions define a sufficient level of challenges. English language entry levels should thereproficiency in terms of a particular score on one of fore be viewed as just that: the point on the continuum those measures, and then use those same scores withat which it is believed that students can commence out further investigation to claim that students who vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

Clothing the emperor, Katie Dunworth

’

attain them are sufficiently competent in English, then lent’ to IELTS, implying not only that this latter test is they have surrendered their autonomy and control of a synonym for proficiency, but also that equivalence is the construct to the organisations that produce the not only possible but has been established). However, approved instruments. Acceptance at face value of the benefits of flexibility are lost if the instruments any given score goes against the advice, it should be themselves have not been validated by an institution added, of the publishers of the two most prominent as suitable for entry to its programs, or subjected to international English tests used in Australia, IELTS and any disinterested and publicly available analytical TOEFL. The IELTS guide for stakeholders (n.d.) states, process. Universities have a responsibility when evalufor example, that ‘the level of English needed for a canating applicants’ entry levels of language proficiency didate to perform effectively in study, work or training to ensure that students are not being exploited; this varies from one situation to another. That is why each requires an understanding of what the various measindividual organisation can set its own minimum IELTS ures actually mean in practice. score for applicants, depending on specific requireTo sum up, we need to bring to the debate a more ments’ (p. 8). TOEFL documentation states that ‘using sophisticated understanding of how we measure test scores appropriately to make decisions with posientry-level language proficiency and students’ capactive consequences is the joint responsibility of the test ity for language development. It is therefore important user and the test publisher’ (ETS 2008, p. 10). Both that universities should be able to present academithese test publishers make cally defensible criteria for available a range of materiaccepting any given meas...we need to bring to the debate a more als to assist end-users with ure of English language sophisticated understanding of how we their decision-making on proficiency, and that they measure entry-level language proficiency entry scores or bands. should be able to demonand students’ capacity for language Yet it is not clear at a strate how the efficacy of development. generic level how any procthose measures that they ess or instrument gains a accept are monitored. place on a university’s list of approved measures. There are indications from the Developing student English language literature that scores are sometimes simply set by referproficiency ence to the policies of other institutions (Feast 2002; Boldt & Courtney 1997), a process which, without The third issue is how student English language prointervention, can lead to a kind of passive downward ficiency is to be developed and progress assessed. It drift. Coley (1999, p. 13) concludes that ‘the various is by no means clear that there is consensus among grades, levels and scores in relation to these tests and academic staff or university hierarchies as to whose other entry measures are the results of decisions of responsibility the development of high levels of lanan administrative nature which are based on available guage proficiency should be. Australian universities university places and not on students’ language ability provide lists of the generic graduate attributes that for university study’. It has certainly been extensively they expect their students to develop within their documented (most recently by Baird 2010, p. 10) that courses of study, almost all of which include some varino university in Australia follows the guidelines pubation on ‘high level communication skills’ (which, it lished by IELTS on appropriate entry scores for a range may be argued, of necessity incorporate a degree of of discipline areas. language proficiency). In any consideration of gatekeeping measures of However, the process of integrating the graduate English language proficiency, we should always bear in attributes into the academic curriculum has been far mind ‘that what is being measured is that most flexible, from unproblematic. Issues have ranged from staff multidimensional, fugitive, and complex of human abilresentment towards a superimposed agenda (Sumison ities, the ability to use language’ (Spolsky 1995, p. 39). It & Goodfellow 2004) and the lack of conceptual clarity would appear from this that it is in the interests of flexof the attributes (Moore & Hough 2005) to complicatibility that the higher education sector has not been ing environmental factors such as casualisation of the reduced to relying on a single test (although there is a academic workforce and the growth in student numtendency to classify the range of measures as ‘equivabers (Green, Hammer & Star 2009). It cannot therefore

8 Clothing the emperor, Katie Dunworth

vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

be assumed that academic staff are willing, able and prepared to take responsibility for the development and assessment of post-entry student English language proficiency, in spite of the fact that language and content are inextricably linked. Generic English language development workshops, seminars and individual consultations provided by university learning centres provide a valuable service for some students, although there is agreement in the literature that attendance rates, when activities are voluntary, tend to be low (e.g. Arkoudis & Starfield 2007; Hirsh 2007). Research in this area tends to be more supportive of the provision of language, communication skills and academic literacy development from within discipline areas, particularly when it is managed collegially by both discipline-based staff and academic language and learning colleagues (e.g. Andrade 2006; Crosling & Wilson 2005; Barrie & Jones 1999; Skillen et al. 1998; Johns 1997; Bonanno & Jones 1996). There are various models of such initiatives that appear to have been successful. Beasley and Pearson (1999), for example, describe a program where additional, optional, study time was provided within an ‘organisation and management development’ unit for students who had been identified by an early diagnostic writing assignment as requiring assistance. The program was successful in that it attracted high numbers of attendees, and there was a reduction in the failure rates on the unit. Key elements of the program included the attendance of the discipline-based coordinator at the extra sessions, the experiential nature of the language workshops (tasks being related to the unit of study), and the ‘progressive redesigning of the management course curriculum, in terms of the nature and timing of the various assessment tasks’ (Beasley & Pearson 1999 p. 310). A summary of case studies of this and similar programs with positive outcomes in terms of student grades and/or student feedback is described in Arkoudis and Starfield (2007, pp. 19-23), most of which include a framework of early diagnosis, a development strategy that involves either adaptation of a discipline-based unit or an appended program that is strongly connected with the disciplinary content, extensive staff collaboration, and, in some cases, the awarding of credit and the training of discipline-based staff in working more effectively with EAL students. Ultimately, the precise nature of the most suitable language development approaches and activities will need to vary according to the circumstances and beliefs of an individual institution or area, as the vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

’

Good Practice Principles (DEEWR 2009) imply. What is important is that language development should be fully integrated into teaching and learning curricula, and resourced accordingly. So long as English language development is seen as an adjunct to tertiary education rather than an essential component of the educative process, it is unlikely that students will be offered optimally effective ways of improving their language proficiency, and the status quo will remain.

Conclusion Increased student mobility in a globalised world, along with other factors, has transformed higher education in many ways; tertiary English language use has become a highly prominent subject as a result.The quotation at the beginning of this paper suggests an endless loop of dissatisfaction within the academy with students’ language use. Morrison’s concerns may seem quaint at a distance of more than half a century because his arguments rest on unexamined assumptions about the ‘proper usage’ of language. If we wish to avoid falling into the same trap, universities need to articulate communal and defensible understandings of the nature of language proficiency and the levels that are appropriate for tertiary study, ensure that they have the procedures in place to assess those levels over the duration of courses of study and provide the resources to integrate the facilitation of students’ language growth into the tertiary education process. Then we will have laid the foundations for a workable system; one in which the weak will not be left to sink or swim, but also one in which the hardworking and talented will have the opportunity to reach their full potential. Katie Dunworth is an Associate Professor in the School of Education at Curtin University of Technology, Western Australia.

References Access Economics 2008, Future Demand for Higher Education - Report for Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, Accessed 2 March 2010 at <www.deewr.gov.au/HigherEducation/Review/Documents/AccessEconomics.pdf>. Andrade, M 2006, ‘International students in English-speaking universities: Adjustment factors’, Journal of Research in International Education, 5 (2) pp. 131-154. Arkoudis, S & Starfield, S 2007, In-course English language development and support, Canberra, Australian Education International.

Clothing the emperor, Katie Dunworth

Arkoudis, S, Hawthorne, L, Baik, C, O’Loughlin, K, Leach, D & Bexley, E 2009, The impact of English language proficiency and workplace readiness on the employment outcomes of tertiary international students, Centre for the Study of Higher Education, University of Melbourne. Australian Education International 2009, ‘Study in Australia 2010’ July update, Accessed 15 January 2010 at <http://aei.gov.au/AEI/PublicationsAndResearch/ResearchPapers/Default.htm>. Baird, B 2010, Stronger, simpler, smarter ESOS: Supporting international students. Review of the Educational Services for Overseas Students (ESOS) Act, 2000, ACT, Commonwealth of Australia. Ballard, B & Clanchy, J 1997, Teaching international students. A brief guide for lecturers and supervisors, ACT, IDP Education Australia. Barrie, S & Jones, J 1999, ‘Integration of academic writing skills in curriculum: Making them stick: A model for generic attributes curriculum development’, in Rust, G (ed.), Proceedings of the 6th International Improving Student learning Symposium, pp. 268-278. Brighton, UK. Beasley, C & Pearson, C 1999, ‘Facilitating the learning of transitional students: Strategies for success for all learners’, Higher Education Research & Development 18 (3), pp. 303-321. Birrell, B 2006, ‘Implications of low English standards among overseas students at Australian universities’, People and Place, 14 (4), pp. 53-64. Birrell, B, Healy, E, Edwards, D & Dobson, I 2008, Higher education in Australia: Demand and supply issues – a report for the Review of Australian Higher Education, Centre for Population and Urban Research, Monash University. Boldt, RF & Courtney, RG 1997, Survey of standards for foreign student applications. Princeton, NJ, ETS. Bonanno, H, & Jones, J 1996, ‘Integrating lifelong learning skills into first year collaborative approaches to curriculum design’, In Proceedings for the Improving University Teaching Conference pp. 297-308, UK, Nottingham Trent University. Bretag, T 2007, ‘The Emperor’s new clothes: Yes, there is a link between English language competence and academic standards’, People and Place, 15 (1), pp. 13-21. Cantwell, R & Scavek, J 2004, ‘Engaging university learning: The experiences of students entering university via recognition of prior industrial experience’, Higher Education Research & Development, 23 (2), pp. 131-145. Coley, M 1999, ‘The English language entry requirements of Australian universities for students of non-English speaking background’, Higher Education Research and Development 18 (1), pp. 7-17. Crosling, G, & Wilson, A 2005, ‘Creating a rich environment: Cooperation between academic support and disciplinary teaching staff’, Paper presented at The Language and Academic Skills in Higher Education Conference 2005. Accessed 14 February 2008 at <http://www.aall.org.au/sites/default/files/las2005/ Crosling_Wilson.pdf>. Curtin University of Technology 2009, Qualifications accepted as satisfying Curtin’s English requirement for undergraduate study. Accessed 4 May 2009 at <http://studentcentral.curtin.edu.au/areas/documents/English_Quals040509. pdf>. Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) 2009, Good practice principles for English language proficiency for international students in Australian universities, Accessed 10 September 2009 at <www.deewr.gov.au/HigherEducation/Publications/Documents/ Final_ReportGood_Practice_Principles.pdf>. Dunworth, K 2001, Tertiary entry level English language proficiency: A case study, Unpublished doctoral thesis, Curtin University of Technology. ETS (Educational Testing Service) 2008, Validity evidence supporting the interpretation and use of TOEFL iBT scores, Accessed 20 February 2010 at <http:// www.ets.org/Media/Tests/TOEFL/pdf/TOEFL_iBT_Validity.pdf>.

10 Clothing the emperor, Katie Dunworth

’

Feast, V 2002, ‘The impact of IELTS scores on performance at university’, International Education Journal 3 (4), pp. 70-85. Fox, TA 2005, ‘Adult learning and recognition of prior learning: The “white elephant” in Australian universities’, Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 45 (3), pp. 352-370. Green, W, Hammer, S & Star, C 2009, ‘Facing up to the challenge: Why is it so hard to develop graduate attributes?’, Higher Education Research & Development, 28 (1) pp. 17-29. Hirsh, D 2007, ‘English language, academic support and academic outcomes: A discussion paper’, University of Sydney Papers in TESOL, 2 (2), pp. 193-211. IEAA (International Education Association of Australia) 2007, Outcomes from a national symposium: English language competence of international students, ACT, Commonwealth of Australia. IELTS guide for stakeholders n.d., Accessed 24 March 2010 at <http://www.ielts. org/institutions.aspx>. Jamieson, J, Jones, S, Kirsch, I, Mosenthal, P, & Taylor, C 2000, TOEFL 2000 framework: A working paper, Princeton, NJ, Educational Testing Service. Johns, A 1997, Text, role, and context: Developing academic literacies, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Mauranen, A, Hynninen, N, & Ranta, E 2010, ‘English as an academic lingua franca: The ELFA project’, English for Specific Purposes 29, pp. 183-190. Lea, M & Street, B 2006, ‘The ‘academic literacies’ model: Theories and applications’, Theory into Practice 45 (4), pp. 368-377. Leask, B, Ciccarelli, A, & Benzie, H 2003, ‘Pathways to tertiary learning: A framework for evaluating English language programs for undergraduate entry’, EA Journal 21 (1), pp. 17-30. McDowell, C & Merrylees, B 1998, ‘Survey of receiving institutions’ use and attitude to IELTS’, In S Wood (ed), EA Journal, Occasional Paper 1998 (Vol.1) pp. 116-139. Sydney, ELICOS Association Ltd. Moore, T & Hough, B 2005, ‘The perils of skills: Towards a model of integrating graduate attributes into the disciplines’, In Proceedings of the Language and Academic Skills Conference, 2005. Accessed 2 August 2008 at http://www.aall. org.au/conferences/2005/las/papers. Morrison, T 1941, ‘A philosophy for required freshman English’, College English, 2 (8), pp. 785-797. Sawir, E 2005, ‘Language difficulties of international students in Australia: The effects of prior learning experience’, International Education Journal 6 (5), pp. 567-580. Scott, G 2008, Review of Australian Higher Education Request for Research and Analysis: University Student Engagement and satisfaction with learning and teaching. University of Western Sydney. Seidlhofer, B, Breiteneder, A, & Pitzl, M-L 2006, ‘English as a lingua franca in Europe: Challenges for applied linguistics’, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 26, pp. 3-34. Skillen, J, Merten, M, Trivett, N & Percy, A 1998, ‘The IDEALL approach to Learning Development: A model for fostering improved literacy and learning outcomes for students’, In Proceedings of the 1998 AARE Conference, Melbourne, Swinburne University. Accessed 12 March 2010 at http://www.aare.edu.au/98pap/ ski98343.htm. Spolsky, B 1995, Measured words, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Sumison, J & Goodfellow, J 2004, ‘Identifying generic skills through curriculum mapping: A critical evaluation’, Higher Education Research and Development 23 (3), pp. 329-346. Victoria University 2005, Improving language and learning support for offshore students. AVCC Project Report, Author. Yano, Y 2001, ‘World Englishes in 2000 and beyond’, World Englishes 20 (2), pp. 119-131. vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

’

Hegemony, big money and academic independence Tim Anderson University of Sydney, Australia

This article considers whether a threat is posed to academic independence in corporate universities by the United States Studies Centre (USSC) at the University of Sydney. The USSC rapidly worked its way into Australia’s oldest university, building a unique governance structure in which a private business lobby vets senior academics and controls the Centre’s finances. Despite a secret management agreement, the aims, control mechanisms and some of the outcomes of this project are fairly plain. The Centre has undermined academic independence, dressed up the business lobby’s agenda as ‘normal’ academic activity, and has raised broader questions about the capacity of the corporate university to manage conflicts of interest.

Academic independence is uncertain in the age of the corporate university. A central ethical problem is that, as with neoliberalism in general, the corporate institution sees no real conflict of interest between private interest and public purpose. These conflicts, unseen or disregarded, can work their way into institutional structures and become thoroughly ‘normalised’. Such is the case with the United States Studies Centre (USSC), established at the University of Sydney in 2007. Created with the specific purpose of countering Australian fear and criticism of the United States of America following the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, Australia’s oldest university rapidly compromised its normal governance structures. It allowed a private business lobby group, the American Australian Association (AAA), to exercise unique control over the Centre’s finances and academic appointments. University managers have kept secret the detail of the AAA’s management powers under ‘commercial in confidence’ claims. The effect of this has been to contribute to a mostly servile and uncritical discussion of the world’s vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

declining superpower, at a time of war and economic crisis. This constitutes a powerful blow against academic independence, when corporate persuaders are highly active. In the US itself, there have been moves to ‘protect students from liberal political bias in the classroom’ and to restrict academic research that might threaten the vision of a ‘New American Century’ (Allen, Deeb & Winegar 2005). University of Sydney managers argue that the Centre’s association with reputable academics, and backing for the Centre from the University’s Senate and its executive managers, maintains sufficient safeguards to protect academic independence and guard against possible conflicts of interest (Spence 2009). This ignores deeper structural problems. Various types of sponsorship have become embedded in the Australian university system in recent decades, though less strongly in the social sciences. In context of the social sciences in times of war, writers have noted earlier threats to, but the vital role of, academic independence (Williams 2006: 15-17). The neoliberal context and the

Hegemony, big money and academic independence, Tim Anderson

peculiar corporate nature of Australian ‘enterprise universities’ has been addressed (Marginson & Considine 2000), and it has been observed that neoliberalism embedded in such institutions ‘channels and limits academic freedoms’ (Marginson 2006). Research income is already far more highly valued in Australian government support schemes than actual published research, making income an end in itself, while the elevation of sponsorships and consultancies tend to ‘favour predetermined outcomes’ in the constitution of knowledge (Thornton 2008: 5-6). The changes brought by the US Studies Centre are in many ways continuations of these broader forces; yet through its secret, devolved management provisions and direct subordination to a corporate lobby the Centre represents a naked threat to academic independence, displaying the brute force of hegemony and big money. This article considers the threat posed to academic independence by the USSC, through the lens of a simple but important ethical problem – that of controlling conflicts of interest and preserving academic independence in the corporate university. It charts the creation of an openly partisan body at the University of Sydney, explores the serious departure from university governance structures in accommodating the Centre and notes some of the outcomes of the project.

Creating a partisan body The founding aim of the centre was no secret. Rupert Murdoch - despite his decades-long domination of the Australian media and his use of that power to promote a corporate, pro-US agenda - was alarmed at ‘anti-American’ prejudice in Australia.A 2005 Lowy Institute opinion poll had found, in the context of the bloody Iraq war, that as many Australians (57 per cent) feared ‘US foreign policies’ as feared ‘Islamic extremism’ (Cook 2005: 13). Murdoch is reported to have told colleagues in the New York based American Australian Association (AAA), a private business lobby drawing together corporate executives and former politicians) ‘this is ridiculous, what are you blokes going to do about it?’. Within a matter of months the AAA had ‘sold the idea for a [US Studies] centre to the Howard Government’ (Lane 2007). A$25 million of public money was committed to the project, with the AAA as trustee. In a press release from New York the AAA welcomed the Howard Government’s move, saying the centre would ‘deepen the appreciation and understanding of the United States’ culture, political climate and govern-

’

ment’. Chairman of the Australian affiliate of the AAA, Mr Malcolm Binks, said the US Studies Centre would be ‘a major extension’ of the AAA’s existing ‘privatelyfunded education program’ in Australia. ‘We have the strong support of Association patron Rupert Murdoch and our Advisory Council and we believe that the Centre will become a major contributor to the deepening relationship between our two countries’ (AAA 2006a). Additional but unspecified private donations would supplement the Australian government grant. Former politicians from both the Labor and Liberal parties endorsed the Centre. It is testament to the AAA’s influence over the state that it both initiated and assumed control of a mostly public-funded project. Politicians of all stripes were well aware that Murdoch’s media and investment network allowed him to make and break political leaders. Further, the Howard Government had already tackled the question of ‘antiAmericanism’ in wartime Australia, through directing an inquiry into the supposed ‘bias and anti-American coverage’ of the Iraq war, in certain of the ABC’s radio programs (ICRP 2003). Defending the image of the US was a willing collaboration. By November 2006 the University of Sydney had emerged from the pack victorious, successfully linking itself to the promised A$25 million, and perhaps more after private donations. There had been tenders from other leading Australian universities, including Melbourne and ANU, and Sydney’s Vice-Chancellor Gavin Brown announced: ‘This is a centre for all of Australia … there’s never been a more important time for Australians to develop a better understanding of the United States, its people, its government and its society’. The Centre would focus research on the core themes of ‘power and democracy, ‘wealth creation and rights protection’ and ‘American thinking’. These themes had been decided on ‘after consultation with academic and business advisers in the United States and Australia’. Some ‘highlights’ planned for 2007 included: opinion polls on ‘what Australians think about the United States’, a ‘national summit’ on US studies and a ‘classic American film’ festival (University of Sydney 2006). The 2007 film festival did not eventuate; perhaps someone discovered that US film and television already saturated Australia; later in 2009 the Centre did provide some sponsorship for the Sydney Film Festival. Rupert Murdoch’s role was celebrated at an AAA dinner in Sydney, held to launch the USSC. He was explicit about the ideological task facing the Centre:

12 Hegemony, big money and academic independence, Tim Anderson

vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

‘Australians must resist and reject the facile, reflexive, unthinking anti-Americanism that has gripped much of Europe … Australian sentiment is thankfully nowhere near Europe’s level of hostility – but it could get there; and it mustn’t.’ A key supporter of the Iraq invasion, Murdoch predicted that the Centre would ‘raise awareness, dispel myths, groom new leaders’ (Fife-Yeomans 2006). To make the point absolutely clear, retired Liberal MP and AAA member Michael Baume warned that his group would pull the funding ‘if the Centre succumbed to the anti-American prejudice endemic in Australian universities’ (Lane 2007). Local resistance to the Centre was weak, particularly from academics. Some students at the University of Sydney briefly protested. The postgraduate union saw opposition to the Centre as part of the anti-war movement, as well as a defence of ‘academic freedom from corporate influence’ (SUPRA 2007). The AAA was alive to the anti-war link, as its Western Australian branch responded to criticism from the academics union: ‘The anti-war group, the NTEU (National Tertiary Education Union) has slammed the American Australian Association of NSW claiming that it has placed undue pressure on the Sydney University in accepting AAA funding [sic] for its US Studies Centre … The union states that AAA “seriously challenges the ability of university staff to exercise academic freedom” … The union is conducting anti-war, anti-US, and anti-Howard rallies in every capital city of Australia. The Diplomatic Security Service is monitoring the group’s activities very closely’ (AAAWA 2007). Criticism of the Centre, as of the Iraq war, was apparently seen as a matter of state security.

Governance to order It is hardly surprising that the big powers demand support for their image enhancement. What is remarkable is how such operations get ‘normalised’ within academic institutions. After the University of Sydney won the Government-funded but AAA-managed tender a board, an academic advisory committee and a panel of academics was assembled. The USSC Board Chair was the AAA Chairman, Malcolm Binks, while most of the rest were retired corporate executives or politicians. Other than the newly appointed CEO of the Centre, there was only one other academic on the board, the University Provost. The Academic Advisory Committee was more diverse, but clearly had little power.The AAA was vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

’

firmly in control. Academic Robert Manne noted that the AAA had been placed in ‘the driver’s seat’, by securing a majority on the Centre’s Board. ‘The Board not the University would make the key appointments. The Board not the University would control the funds … There was not the slightest pretence that the Centre enjoyed academic freedom, as over the past century or longer that idea has been understood (Manne 2007). He also noted the lack of academic criticism. The Centre set up shop in 2007 with a visitor and small grants program, developing a Master of US Studies degree, which began in 2008. Undergraduate subjects were planned for 2010. The Centre is led by Geoffrey Garrett, an Australia-born academic with some experience in Europe and the US. He has a respectable list of publications on globalisation and institutional politics, and confidently describes himself as ‘among the most influential political scientists of his generation’ (Garrett 2009). His publications have included qualified support for IMF privatisation policies (Brune, Garrett &Kogut 2004), and a longer reflection on “how the costs and benefits of globalization have been apportioned around the world” (Garrett 2004a and 2004b). Academics at the University of Sydney were invited to associate themselves with the Centre and teach units of study. Given that there were no immediate benefits to this, it is curious why so many did. Perhaps they hoped their association would look good in promotion applications? Maybe academics, being a fairly conformist lot, just want to please their institution? It was certainly true that the Centre, with its big money and high profile sponsors, was seen as important by university managers. Alarmed by the implications for critical study of the United States, I wrote to the Vice-Chancellor, asking him ‘what specific conflict of interest principles apply to the University’s accepting money’ for projects such as the USSC, and what specific process was followed when setting up the Centre, so as ‘to avoid conflicts of interest and to protect academic independence?’. Dr Spence replied that, while initial discussions took place under his predecessor Gavin Brown, when he arrived he had been ‘very impressed with the quality of the academic and outreach activities of the Centre and the impact they are having on scholarly and public discussions in relation to the US’. Provisions relevant to my questions, were contained in ‘a formal Agreement between the University and the American Australian Association’.These included:

Hegemony, big money and academic independence, Tim Anderson

‘First, all academic staff employed to work in the USSC are employed by the University and seconded to the Centre. The terms and conditions of their employment are the same as all University academic staff … Second, all academic staff employed by the USSC have and will continue to be selected through the University’s normal provisions for the appointment of academic staff … Third … an Academic Committee has been established ‘to ensure objectivity, quality and independence of scholarly activities’’ (Spence 2009). With the academic advisory committee and scrutiny ‘at a very high level’, the proposal for the Centre had received ‘strong support by the Senate and Senior Executive Group of the University’. In relation to what conflict of interest and academic independence principles applied, the Vice-Chancellor simply added that such matters were ‘outlined in a variety of documents’ which could be found on the University’s website (Spence 2009). The University’s Strategic Plan for 2007-2010 does contain a section called ‘Our Vision and Values’, but all three of its ‘aspirations’ concern competitive rankings, while its ‘values’ include a range of adjectival nouns but not ‘academic independence’.The ‘Core Purpose’ of the University did indeed mention ‘academic freedom’, but mixed this seamlessly with ‘human aspirations and a practical business sense’. The only ‘conflict of interest’ provisions appear in two formal statements which set out ‘the university’s expectations of its staff and affiliates’, that is, in relation to individual behaviour (University of Sydney 2010a, 2010b). Expectations of the corporate university in relation to conflict of interest appear to have been left uncodified and thus a matter for determination by managers and governing bodies. However one principle concerning individual staff conduct in relation to ‘gifts and benefits’ is worth noting: ‘gifts may be accepted only if the recipient is satisfied that they cannot be compromised, or be seen to be compromised, by doing so’ (University of Sydney 2010a: s.8). While the term ‘academic independence’ is mentioned in discussion from time to time, it does not appear to be enshrined in any formal statement of principle. I asked for a copy of the formal Agreement between the University and the AAA, but was told this was not possible as ‘the University Host Agreement between USyd and AAA is commercial-in-confidence and not publicly available. It is not for release’ (Gerrie 2009). A further enquiry confirmed the secrecy of this agreement: ‘The commercial-in-confidence agreement between the University and the American Australian Association

’

determines how funds are provided to the Centre.Your questions relate to how those funds are expended and that has been clearly answered’ (Nutbeam 2009). Fortunately, the management concerns of the AAA can be read from its tender document, which is publicly available. Prepared before the University of Sydney had won the bid, the document sets out a number of clear principles on proposed management and the role of the AAA (2006b). The business lobby makes it clear that, not only will it select a University to host the Centre, it will also control the annual release of funds to the Centre ‘in accordance with an initial 5-year agreement between the University and AAA Australia’. The AAA will ‘oversee the endowment that is being put together to provide permanent funding for the Centre’ and will carry out an evaluation of the Centre’s activities in 2012 (AAA 2006b: 2). On ‘governance’, the Centre will have a ‘separate governing body’ with ‘absolute transparency’ and a ‘high quality governing board’. The appointment of the CEO and ‘senior staff … will only be made after close consultation between the host university and AAA Australia’. The tender document repeats the claim - negated by subsequent privacy provisions invoked by the university - that ‘there will be a clearly transparent relationship between the Host University and the USSC’ (AAA 2006b: 5-6). Privacy provisions mask what private money, if any, is involved.The main public commitment is the federal government’s $25 million, most of which is apparently to be invested so that its income stream can be used for recurrent funding. The host university wears most of the capital costs as it is expected to ‘acquire, renovate or extend buildings to house the Centre’. Nevertheless, the website and the domain name of the Centre ‘will be held by AAA Australia and licensed to the Host University’ and the University is to be required to submit ‘annual and other’ reports, ‘as well as audited financial statements’ to AAA Australia (AAA 2006b: 6, 8, 10). It is fair to suppose that most, if not all, of these key concerns made their way from the tender document into the management agreement. The Centre has hardly been subsumed into the normal governance structures of the University of Sydney. From the privacy provisions we can conclude that the AAA’s claim to be constructing a governance structure of ‘absolute transparency’ has turned out to be false. From the tender document we can reasonably conclude that the secret management document will have replicated the demand for all senior appointments to the Centre to be made only after ‘close consultation’

14 Hegemony, big money and academic independence, Tim Anderson

vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

between the university and AAA Australia. Of course, the Chair of the AAA is also Chair of the Centre and academics of any sort are a minority on the Board. So the Vice-Chancellor’s claim that the Centre’s academic staff are being ‘selected through the University’s normal provisions for the appointment of academic staff’ might also be questioned. In addition to vetting all senior appointments, the private lobby group has demanded detailed and annual accountability of the University, on top of the five year review, and clearly holds the purse strings as well as the intellectual property associated with the Centre. The University provides a cloak of intellectual legitimacy for the project; but the private lobby group holds the reins and has positioned itself to move the Centre elsewhere, if dissatisfied.

Critical understandings? In practice, such management controls might never be used. In the first place, vetted senior managers know what is expected and others second-guess it. Secondly, a degree of ‘normal’ pluralism can quickly mask a partisan body. Money also buys acceptance. Doling out grants to academics for a range of research projects (on such topics as comparative social policy, Civil War America, US markets, American English, US education policy) is a sure way to placate the academic masses. The United States is a huge and complex country with many remarkable social and cultural features. It deserves study, but not uncritical study. The US is also a dominant power that has denied its imperial status, and has often engaged in appalling brutality and repression, repeatedly violating international law (see e.g. Blum 2000). This is a country, like previous empires, that regards itself above laws that apply to others. Yet revisions of the official self-image - that of a benevolent hegemony which promotes ‘freedom’ and universal rights – are often met with fear and hostility. Certainly the corporate media does not give space to such critical views. On a daily basis they promote important elements of the dominant ideology: the need for military intervention, privatisations and corporate privilege. As a result of this powerful normative process, critical views of the US can even strike young Australian students as ‘biased’, simply because they are critical. And despite the popular rejection of each new war, pro-US views are well entrenched. For example Wikipedia, an online encyclopaedia which reports a ‘consensus’ of corporate media sources, does not include any of the 20th century activities of the USA under its entry vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

’

on ‘imperialism’, nor anything on the Marxist views of imperialism as an exercise in economic domination. In other words, there is a great deal of acculturation and self-censorship in English speaking cultures, even before we come to new institutions dedicated to backing hegemonic ideology. For all these reasons, the raw nerves of our ‘single super-power’ are likely to be soothed by the activities of the US Studies Centre. But what of critical understandings, in the Australian academy? The Centre threatens these, not so much by its support for the ‘safer’ areas of research (though these tend to privilege US-centric views of the world), but by excluding important critical voices and privileging the ‘embedded academics’: that group of intellectuals which have become fairly seamlessly integrated into the US state and corporate power structures. To get a sense of the Centre’s actual ‘pro-American’ bias, let’s start with its visiting scholars. Of the 46 listed visitors for 2007-2009, I could only find one who was a notable critic of US foreign policy. Journalist James Fallows, though not a radical, has published extensively against the Bush Administration’s war in Iraq. By contrast, one third of that group (16 of 46) have worked substantially for the US or Australian governments (USSC 2010b). On top of that, several are members of conservative US think tanks and three more have been prominent in the US corporate media. Francis Fukuyama, for example – famous for proclaiming the ‘end of history’ when the Soviet Union collapsed, and then for joining those who asserted that ‘the world had changed’ after the events of 11 September, 2001 – was a prominent member of the neoconservative ‘Project for a New American Century’. This group wrote to President Clinton in 1998 and to President Bush in 2001, urging them to invade Iraq and remove President Saddam Hussein from power (History Commons 2010). Fukuyama later split from the pro-Bush group, but remains a committed advocate for world-wide US ascendency. He chairs the executive committee of The American Interest journal, which continues to press ‘New American Century’ arguments (e.g. Kurth 2009). Other visitors to the Centre (USSC 2010b), like Fukuyama, bring with them the assumptions of the US elite. Clifford May has been a leader in two conservative think tanks, the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, and the Committee on the Present Danger. Peter Gourevich, a Harvard academic, is a member of the conservative Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), which

Hegemony, big money and academic independence, Tim Anderson

publishes Foreign Affairs. Jonathan Pollack is a former member of the CFR. Barry Jackson, was an adviser to President GW Bush. Jeffrey Sachs was a former World Bank ‘shock therapy’ economist, and prominent advocate of the ‘Washington Consensus’. Jim Johnson was a democrat party strategist, while Robert Lawrence, now a Harvard economist, was an economic adviser to President Clinton. Peter Scher is a former US trade diplomat and more recently an executive with JP Morgan. Anne-Marie Slaughter is Princeton academic now on leave to work for the Obama Administration, while Harriet Mayor Fulbright has worked extensively in the US Government. From the US corporate media we have Australian-born Robert Thomson, the Murdochappointed Managing Editor of the Wall Street Journal, Mike Chinoy from CNN and Michael Parks who was an editor for the Los Angeles Times. From the point of view of the AAA, such connections probably qualify such people as academic visitors. From the point of view of critical understandings of US foreign policy, it is another story. The group brings a surge of predictable homogeneity when it comes to views of US power and, in particular foreign relations. Where are the prominent critics, whether from within or without the US? It may not be surprising to find that the Centre’s teaching program does not seem to include studies on US imperialism, or contemporary neo-colonialism. Instead we have a postgraduate course on US ‘exceptionalism’ and a planned undergraduate course on ‘Obama’s America’.The question of US ‘exceptionalism’ – the idea that the US has a unique and exemplary ‘mission’ in the world - takes on new meaning in context of the wars of the 21st century.Academics have criticised ‘American exceptionalism’ as a ‘potentially grave obstacle to understanding international security’ (Patman 2006: 964) and have warned of the consequences of entrenched double standards, or ‘the displacement of the rule of law by the law of the exception’ (Crocker 2007). However the teacher of the Centre’s course is inclined to take the heat out of that debate, trying to ‘normalise’ the concept by saying that the US ‘may be an exceptional nation’, but then other nations can be too (Phillips 2008). In any event, such courses seem likely to align themselves with the North American theories of ‘hegemonic stability’ (e.g. Kindleberger 1973) - the idea of a benign role for a ‘single superpower’ - than theories of ‘imperialism and uneven development’ (Amin 1976) or ‘imperialism and dependency’ (Frank 1967), which

’

look more critically at international economic relations. The Centre also seems likely to reinforce the idea that Australia will remain a dependency of the US. Geoffrey Garrett’s course on ‘Obama’s America’, for example, suggests that ‘the dramatic political and economic changes taking place before our eyes in America … will shape lives in Australia and around the world for years to come’. Alarmingly, he also predicts an ‘expanding struggle against violent Islamic extremism’; as though the existing US-initiated wars in several Muslim countries were not enough (USSC 2010c). Retired Australian politicians do not miss out. Former Labor leader Kim Beazley was a board member of the Centre, before his appointment as Ambassador to the US. Former Prime Ministers Bob Hawke and John Howard – united at least in their past enthusiasm for US military adventures – have been appointed to a ‘Council of Advisers’, along with former Bush Administration member, Richard Armitage (USSC 2010d). Former Howard Government Minister Robert Hill was scheduled to teach a summer school course on ‘Climate Change after Copenhagen – Australia, the US and the World’. As Defence Minister, Robert Hill authorised Australian participation in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. We seem unlikely to get critical perspectives on US foreign policy from any of these people.

Concluding remarks The USA certainly deserves study, but study without pre-determined agendas. We live in a propaganda age where the ‘deck’ is stacked against critical understandings of the big powers, and of those with big money. The influence of the US these days is enhanced by the corporate media, by armies of sub-contractors,‘embedded journalists’, paid consultants, think-tanks and statefunded NGOs. All these help normalise hegemonic views on important issues such as war, terrorism, markets, privatisations and the role of the US. Now we have a partisan body, committed to attacking the supposed ‘anti-Americanism’ in Australian society. It has worked its way, without much resistance, into the oldest university in our country. That university, in turn, developed new forms of governance to ‘normalise’ this partisan project. It is not clear whether the United States Studies Centre will make much difference to Australian public debate on the US. However the exercise has undermined academic independence at the University of Sydney, has dressed up a private business lobby’s agenda as ‘normal’ academic activity,

16 Hegemony, big money and academic independence, Tim Anderson

vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

and has raised broader questions about the capacity of the corporate university to manage conflicts of interest. Our academy deserves better. Tim Anderson is an academic in the Department of Political Economy at the University of Sydney, Australia.

References AAA 2006a, ‘American Australian Association welcomes the Australian Government funding of AU$25 million for a joint initiative to establish a United States Studies Center in Australia’, American Australian Association, May 16. AAA 2006b, ‘Request for Proposal from Australian Universities to Host United States Studies Centre’, American Australian Association, Sydney, 3 August, online at: <http://hqaaa.org/calendar/pdf/AAA_RFP_Part1.pdf>. AAAWA 2007, ‘NTEU takes on AAA’, Australian American Association of Western Australia Newsletter, Aug-Oct, No. 13, online at: <www.aaawa.com.au/attachments/File/Newsletters/AAAWA_Newsletter_2007_October.pdf>. Allen, L, Deeb, L & Winegar, J 2005, ‘Academics and the Government in the New American Century: an interview with Rashid Khalidi’, Radical History Review, Issue 93, (Fall 2005), 240-259. Amin, S, 1976, Imperialism and Unequal Development, Monthly Review Press, New York. Blum, W, 2000, Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower, Common Courage Press, Monroe ME. Brune, N, Garrett, G & Kogut, B 2004, ‘The International Monetary Fund and the Global Spread of Privatization’, IMF Staff Paper, Vol 51 No. 2, online at: <www. imf.org/External/Pubs/FT/staffp/2004/02/brune.htm>. Cook, I 2005, ‘Australians Speak 2005: Public Opinion and Foreign Policy’, Lowy Institute for International Policy, Sydney, online at: www.lowyinstitute.org/ Publication.asp?pid=236 Crocker, T 2007, ‘Still Waiting for the Barbarians: what is new about postSeptember 11 Exceptionalism?’, Law and Literature, Vol 19 No 2, Summer, 303-326 Frank, AG 1967, Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America, Monthly Review Press, New York. Fyfe-Yeomans, Janet 2006, ‘Rupert Murdoch Speaks Out’, Herald Sun, November 15, online at: <www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/rupert-murdoch-speaksout/story-e6frf7l6-1111112521996>. Garrett, G 2004a, ‘The Three Worlds of Globalization’, UCLA paper, February, Online at: <www.international.ucla.edu/cms/files/garrett_3_worlds_globalization.pdf>. Garrett, G 2004b, ‘Globalization’s Missing Middle’, Foreign Affairs, November/ December, online at: <www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/60271/geoffrey-garrett/ globalizations-missing-middle>. Garrett, G 2009, ‘Profile: Professor Geoffrey Garrett’, United States Studies Centre, accessed 28 March, online at: <http://ussc.edu.au/people/geoffrey-garrett>. Gerrie, T 2009, email to this writer from the Office of the Vice-Chancellor & Principal, 31 March. Hamilton, C & Maddison, S 2006, Silencing Dissent, Allen and Unwin, Sydney Hanson, F 2009, Australia and the World: Public Opinion and Foreign Policy, Lowy Institute, Sydney, online at: <www.lowyinstitute.org/Publication. asp?pid=1148>. History Commons 2010, Profile: Francis Fukuyama, accessed 6 January, online at: <www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=francis_fukuyama> [Note: the PNAC website has disappeared, its documents are now only available from vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

’

secondary sources]. ICRP 2003, ‘Review of 68 complaints made by the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Richard Alston, carried out at the request of the Managing Director of the ABC’, Independent Complaints Review Panel, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 10 October, online at: <www.abc. net.au/corp/pubs/documents/ICRP.pdf>. Kindleberger, C 1973, The World in Depression, 1929-39, University of California Press, Berkeley. Kurth, J 2009, ‘Pillars of the Next American Century’, The American Interest, Vol V, No. 2, November/December, pp.4-13 [the next two articles of the same issue follow the same theme]. Lane, B 2007, ‘Beazley signs on to US Studies Centre’, The Australian, High Education Section, August 23, online at: <www.theaustralian. com.au/higher-education/beazley-signs-on-to-us-studies-centre/storye6frgcjx-1111114252931>. Manne, R 2007, ‘Threats to University Independence: The Case of the Humanities’, Australian University Review, Journal for the Public University, v.4 , online at: <www.publicuni.org/journal/volume/4/JPU4_Manne.pdf>. Marginson, S and Considine M 2000, The enterprise university: power, governance, and reinvention in Australia, Cambridge University Press, Melbourne. Marginson, S 2006, ‘Hayekian neo-liberalism and academic freedom’, Keynote address to Philosophy of Education Society of Australia, Women’s College, University of Sydney, 23 November. Nutbeam, D 2009, personal email communication to this writer, 3 April [Don Nutbeam was Acting Vice-Chancellor]. Patman, R 2006, ‘Globalisation, the New US Exceptionalism and the War on Terror’, Third World Quarterly, Vol 27 No 6, 963-986. Phillips, D 2008, ‘Is America an Exceptional Nation?’, ABC The Drum Unleashed, 26 November, online at: <www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2427919.htm>. Spence, M 2009, email communication with this writer, 27 March [Dr Spence became University of Sydney Vice-Chancellor soon after the USSC was established]. SUPRA 2007, ‘Minutes of the Meeting of the Council of the Sydney University Postgraduate Representative Association’, 2 April, online at: <www.usyd.edu.au/ supra/Rep/documents/CouncilMinutes2.4.07.pdf>. Thornton, M 2008, ‘The retreat from the critical: social science research in the corporatised university’, Australian Universities’ Review, Vol 50, No 1, pp.5-10 University of Sydney 2006, ‘Sydney to Host US Studies Centre’, 14 November, online at: <www.usyd.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=1448>. University of Sydney 2010a, ‘Code of Conduct’, policy document, accessed 3 January, online at: <www.usyd.edu.au/hr/policydev/code_of_conduct.pdf>. University of Sydney 2010b, ‘Conflicts of Interest’, policy document, accessed 3 January, online at: <www.usyd.edu.au/hr/policydev/conflicts_of_interest.pdf>. USSC 2010a, ‘United States Studies Centre: Partners, Supporters and Collaborators’, accessed 3 January, online at: <http://ussc.edu.au/about/partners-supporters-collaborators>. USSC 2010b, Visitors, accessed 6 January, online at: <http://ussc.edu.au/usscpeople/visitors>. USSC 2010c, ‘Undergraduate’, leaflet on new USSC units of study, United States Study Centre. USSC 2010d, ‘Former PMs Bob Hawke and John Howard to join Richard Armitage, academic and business leaders on Council of Advisers’, United States Study Centre, accessed 7 January: <http://ussc.edu.au/news-room/view/FormerPMs-Bob-Hawke-and-John-Howard-to-Join-Richard-Armitage-Academic-andBusiness-Leaders-on-Advisory-Council>. Williams, G. 2006, ‘Strategies to protect academic freedom’, Australian Universities’ Review, Vol. 48, No. 2, pp.15-17.

Hegemony, big money and academic independence, Tim Anderson

’

Cracking the Code Assessing institutional compliance with the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research Suzanne E Morris University of Queensland

This paper provides a review of institutional authorship policies as required by the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (the ‘Code’) (National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), the Australian Research Council (ARC) & Universities Australia (UA) 2007), and assesses them for Code compliance. Institutional authorship policies were specifically chosen for this study as research publications are increasingly underpinning institutional income derived from the Australian Government, with publications likely to become even more important under the Excellence in Research for Australia initiative. Of the 39 Australian institutions reviewed, three universities, namely Charles Darwin University, University of Tasmania and University of Technology Sydney, did not have an institutional authorship policy, while another four universities, namely Curtin University of Technology, Flinders University, La Trobe University and University of Adelaide, had policies that were not compliant with the Code. Most universities, particularly the Group of Eight institutions, need to improve their authorship policies and management practices to avoid continual breach of Section 5.1 (‘have criteria for authorship’) of the Code and risk losing ARC and NHMRC research funding.

Introduction Researchers typically find it challenging to determine authorship and author order on their publications. Authorship disputes among research collaborators, including Research Higher Degree (RHD) students and their supervisor/s, can permanently damage relationships. Early career researchers, including RHD students, are often poor negotiators as they have had little to no experience publishing or discussing authorship with colleagues. Furthermore, institutions and senior academics, who typically mentor these junior researchers, often miss a valuable opportunity to teach their early career researchers the best way to approach publishing and authorship discussions with collaborators (Morris 2008a).The outcome for many researchers and postgraduates who encounter issues in authorship assignment may be an unwillingness to collaborate or publish in the future, or even withdrawal from their postgraduate degrees (Morris 2008a).

18 Cracking the Code, Suzanne E Morris

Aside from the perceived power differential amongst collaborators, including student/supervisor interactions, the two main authorship issues cited in the literature are who can claim author status and the order those authors appear on the by-line (Jones 1999). Despite institutional policies, procedures and guidelines for determining authorship in a rational and accountable manner, authorship issues still exist. One reason for this may be that most researchers and students are unaware that these criteria and methods for author allocation actually exist (Morris 2008a; Street et al. 2010). Moreover, it appears that institutions have not actively promoted such policies, or are yet to develop their authorship policy that would guide their researchers through the often difficult discussions regarding authorship. For those institutions that do have a policy, if inadequate guidelines and training on policy implementation are not made available to researchers, then the policy could easily be negated in practice. vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

On 26 February 2008, the Hon. Senator Kim Carr, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, announced a new research quality and evaluation system (ARC 2009b). The Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) initiative will assess research quality within Australia’s higher education institutions using a combination of indicators and expert review by committees comprising internationally-recognised experts. A trial of ERA is currently underway in the Physical, Chemical and Earth Sciences and Humanities and Creative Arts disciplines. The outcomes of these trials will inform the full ERA process in 2010 (ARC 2009c). Many commentators are predicting that the ERA will bring about a ‘change in publishing behaviour by Australian academics’ (e.g. Lamp 2009, p. 830), and this change could be concomitant with a rise in the number of authorship issues (Morris 2008a). This paper will provide a review of current Australian university authorship policies and assess them for compliance with the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (the ‘Code’) (NHMRC, ARC & UA 2007). Clear authorship policies and guidelines provide the first step in preparing universities for the potential rise in authorship issues that may be brought about by the ERA.

The Code The minimum requirements for the responsible conduct of research, including authorship, have been well established in Australia. The Code was released in 2007 in an effort to promote research integrity, and provides a guide for researchers, Australian universities, and public sector research institutions on responsible research practices (NHMRC, ARC & UA 2007). The Code was developed jointly by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), the Australian Research Council (ARC) and Universities Australia (UA), and has broad relevance across all research disciplines. Furthermore, institutional compliance with the Code is a prerequisite for receipt of NHMRC and ARC funding. There are two parts to the Code: Part A advocates and describes best practice for both institutions and researchers, e.g. guidance on how to publish and disseminate research findings, and Part B provides a valuable framework for handling breaches of the Code and research misconduct (NHMRC, ARC & UA 2007). vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

’

Who should be an author? There are many varied views about what it means to be an author. An author can be defined as ‘the writer of a book, article or other text; one who writes or constructs an electronic document, such as a website; or the originator or creator of a theory or plan’ (Farlex 2010). The Code and other policies and guidelines have developed their own definition of authorship. Some of these definitions are explored below. The Code and authorship Part A of the Code clearly defines the minimum criteria for authorship: ‘To be named as an author, a researcher must have made a substantial scholarly contribution to the work and be able to take responsibility for at least that part of the work they contributed. Attribution of authorship depends to some extent on the discipline, but in all cases, authorship must be based on substantial contributions in a combination of: • conception and design of the project • analysis and interpretation of research data • drafting significant parts of the work or critically revising it so as to contribute to the interpretation. The right to authorship is not tied to position or profession and does not depend on whether the contribution was paid for or voluntary. It is not enough to have provided materials or routine technical support, or to have made the measurements on which the publication is based. Substantial intellectual involvement is required’ (NHMRC, ARC & UA 2007, Section 5). The Code’s minimum criteria for authorship are based on the internationally accepted Vancouver Protocol (ICMJE 2006). The Code’s criteria clearly describe that being an author is more than merely being responsible for writing the actual publication. Researchers who are entitled to be authors must have ‘made a substantial scholarly contribution to the work’ (NHMRC, ARC & UA 2007, Section 5). Other authorship polices and guidelines Many international associations and societies also have ethical codes of research that outline authorship criteria. The most widely known of these is the Vancouver Protocol (ICMJE 2006). The Vancouver Protocol was first developed for use in the medical profession but Cracking the Code, Suzanne E Morris

now has widespread acceptance across a range of disciplines. The Vancouver Protocol also forms the basis of international institutional authorship policies such as Harvard University (2010) and the University of Oxford (2010). Other international associations, including the American Psychological Association (1992) and the Computing Research and Education Association of Australasia (1999) also have widely-developed authorship guidelines. Determining authorship in practice Despite the existence of authorship criteria such as the Vancouver Protocol, which clearly describe who qualifies as an author, the practice of determining authorship in publications from collaborative research projects is varied. These varied practices could be explained by the fact that few researchers are aware of the existence of policies and methods for determining authorship.This is highlighted in a recent study by Street et al. (2010), where participants were ‘often not aware of guidelines except as they related to specific journals’ (p. 1463), with one participant commenting that their knowledge of authorship was from ‘general pub discussion’ (p. 1463). To highlight the methods used to establish authorship in collaborative projects, researchers and RHD students attending an authorship management workshop were asked the question ‘How have you determined authorship on your previous publications?’ The following list provides a general description of their responses (Morris 2008b): • My supervisor/boss told me who the authors were. • My supervisor/boss was an author because he/she was my supervisor/boss. • We did a deal. • We tossed a coin. • Who conceptualised the research question. • Who conducted the writing. • Who did the work. • Who obtained the funding. • Who provided intellectual input. • Who reviewed the literature. During the course of the authorship management workshop, several RHD students commented that they included their Professor as a co-author on their publications to ‘enhance the credibility of [their] work’ (Morris 2008b). These varied authorship practices can partly be explained by discipline and cultural differences. For example, single authorship in the arts, humanities and

20 Cracking the Code, Suzanne E Morris

’

some areas of social science is the norm, with supervisors of RHD students rarely included as an author, and in the sciences and engineering, multiple authorship including inclusion of supervisors and guest authors is more common practice (Street et al. 2010; Wuchty et al. 2007).

Institutions and the Code In addition to defining the minimum criteria for authorship, the Code also outlines institutional requirements for ensuring authorship is managed appropriately by researchers and students. One such requirement is the responsibility of institutions to have an authorship policy: ‘Institutions must have a policy on the criteria for authorship consistent with this Code, seeking to minimise disputes about authorship and helping to resolve them if they arise’ (NHMRC, ARC & UA 2007, Section 5.1). Institutional compliance To assess how well institutions have complied with the Code’s requirement for an authorship policy, a review of all 39 Australian university policies was conducted. The policies, procedures and associated supporting documents were accessed from the universities’ websites and reviewed for: • existence of an authorship policy (either as a separate authorship policy or embedded in a general policy covering research code of conduct); and • usefulness of the policy for helping researchers manage the two major authorship issues, namely who should be an author and the order of authors (Jones 1999). After review, each university’s authorship policy was rated according to the following scale: 1. Institutional authorship policy found. Policy included: authorship criteria as defined by the Code and a statement on determining author order. 2. Institutional authorship policy found. Policy included: authorship criteria as defined by the Code. 3. No institutional authorship policy found but the institution provided a direct website link to the Code, had guidelines on determining authorship in student/supervisor interactions, or acknowledged that they had guidelines currently under development. 4. No institutional authorship policy found after extensive website searching. vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

’

Each university was then placed in a group according to the rating of its authorship policy. The Group of Eight (Go8) or research-intensive universities were also highlighted in these groups because collectively research funding to these universities accounted for almost 64 per cent of the total ARC and NHMRC funding allocated in 2008 (ARC 2009a; NHMRC 2009).

to be acknowledged, and how authorship disputes are to be resolved (JCU 2009). Of the institutions listed in Group 1, the authorship policies of CSU and UOW were exceptional as they went above and beyond that required by the Code. Their respective authorship policies contained authorship criteria as defined by the Code, an explicit statement and guidelines on determining author order, and Group 1 additional information to assist researchers implement Of the 39 Australian universities, the authorship policy the actual policy and minimise authorship disputes. of 12 institutions was given a rating of 1 (Table 1). An example of the additional information provided in These were: these two policies was the UOW Authorship Acknowl• Australian National University (ANU) (Go8) edgement Form (UOW 2008) and the provision of • Central Queensland University (CQU) author order determinations derived from scholarly • Charles Sturt University (CSU) articles (CSU 2009).To complete the UOW Authorship • Edith Cowan University (ECU) Acknowledgement Form, co-authors are required to • James Cook University (JCU) provide details of their intellectual contribution, and • RMIT University (RMIT); are asked to sign the following statement regarding the • University of Ballarat (Ballarat) publication: ‘I agree to the listed individuals as being • University of Melbourne (Melbourne) (Go8) appropriate authors and the order of authorship in • University of New South Wales (UNSW) (Go8) the above publication. I also confirm that I have made • University of Newcastle (Newcastle) the above substantial intellectual contributions’ (UOW • University of Notre Dame (Notre Dame) 2008). While this form is completed after publica• University of Wollongong (UOW). tion submission, the process of acknowledging what An overview of the JCU authorship policy is proeach co-author has contributed to the publication is a vided herein as an example of a typical Group 1 worthwhile exercise. policy. Section 5.1 of the Although difficult to find JCU policy lists criteria for on the CSU website, the ... the authorship policies of CSU and UOW authorship as described in CSU policy provides ‘three were exceptional as they went above and the Code, including those models [that] may be used beyond that required by the Code... [with] contributors who, in and as a catalyst to promote an explicit statement and guidelines on of themselves, do not war[emphasis in original] disdetermining author order, and additional rant authorship, e.g. being cussion about determining information to assist researchers head of department or the order of authors or the implement the actual policy and minimise holding some other posirecognition of a researcher tion of authority (JCU in the author list or as an authorship disputes 2009). The JCU policy also acknowledgment’ (CSU comments that ‘Collabo2009). In addition to arrivrating researchers should agree on authorship and ing at author order in a rational and accountable manner, authorship order for a publication at an early stage co-authors who follow such models as a guide for deterin the research project and should review their decimining author order also gain a full appreciation for the sions periodically’ (JCU 2009). While no clear instruccontributions of others (Beveridge & Morris 2007). tions are provided to assist researchers and students Group 2 to determine author order, JCU, through its policy, recognises the importance of collaborators agreeing on authorship and author order, and on periodic review of authorship and author order to ensure they are satisfactorily determined. Sections 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 of the JCU policy describes how authorship is to be accepted by co-authors, how other contributions are vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

Of the 39 Australian universities, the authorship policy of 17 institutions was given a 2 rating (Table 1). Policies from these universities were thus rated because their policy only contained details on determining authorship as described by the Code: • Australian Catholic University (ACU) Cracking the Code, Suzanne E Morris

• Griffith University (Griffith) • Macquarie University (Macquarie) • Murdoch University (Murdoch) • Queensland University of Technology (QUT) • Southern Cross University (SCU) • Swinburne University of Technology (Swinburne) • University of Queensland (UQ) (Go8) • University of Canberra (Canberra) • University of New England (UNE) • University of South Australia (UniSA) • University of the Sunshine Coast (USC) • University of Southern Queensland (USQ) • University of Sydney (Sydney) (Go8) • University of Western Australia (UWA) (Go8) • University of Western Sydney (UWS) • Victoria University of Technology (Victoria).

’

During the policy review process, it was revealed that Schools and Faculties of several institutions also had authorship policies in place. One such policy that was found was the USQ Faculty of Business’ Code of Good Practice in Research Degree Supervision (USQ 2004). Of particular interest in this policy were the statements that, in the case of publications arising from a student’s research, ‘the supervisor has a right to co-authorship; [but] the supervisor need not take up the right to co-authorship’ (USQ 2004, Appendix B). This Faculty policy sends a mixed message to USQ researchers: for example, the USQ institutional policy is endorsing the Code’s authorship criteria that authorship is based on substantial intellectual contribution to ‘conception and design; analysis and interpretation of data; and drafting significant parts of the work or

Table 1. Authorship policies obtained from the 39 Australian universities. University

Authorship policy title

Rating

Authorship policy URL

Accessed

ACU

ACU National Code of Conduct for Research

http://www.acu.edu.au/about_acu/research/for_ researchers/code_of_conduct_for_research/

2/10/09

Adelaide

Responsible Conduct of Research Policy

http://www.adelaide.edu.au/policies/96/

6/10/09

ANU

Responsible Practice of Research

http://policies.anu.edu.au/policies/responsible_practice_ of_research/policy

15/9/09

Ballarat

Code of Good Practice for the Conduct of Research

http://policy.ballarat.edu.au/research/code_of_good_ practice_for_the_conduct_of_research/ch01.php

2/10/09

n/a

http://www.bond.edu.au/student-resources/studentadministration/policies-procedures-guidelines-and-forms/ index.htm?myListType=1

2/10/09

Bond

Canberra

Guidelines for Responsible Practice in Research and Dealing with Problems of Research Misconduct

https://guard.canberra.edu.au/policy/policy.php?pol_ id=3136

2/10/09

CQU

Assignment of Authorship Policy

http://policy.cqu.edu.au/Policy/policy.jsp?policyid=518

2/10/09

CDU

2/10/09

CSU

Authorship of Research Publications

http://www.csu.edu.au/research/policy/authorship.htm #authorship

2/10/09

Curtin

Information Regarding Authorship and Joint Authorship for Higher Degree by Research Students and their Supervisors

http://research.curtin.edu.au/forms/policies.cfm #authorship

7/10/09

n/a

http://theguide.deakin.edu.au/TheDeakinGuide.nsf/Web+V 2/10/09 isitors?OpenFrameSet&Frame=WebContent&Src=WI2.1?O penPage&Choice=0&Access=Visitor

Deakin

ECU

Authorship, Peer Review and Publication of Research Policy

http://www.ecu.edu.au/GPPS/policies_db/tmp/ac073.pdf

2/10/09

Flinders

Policy on Research Practice

http://www.flinders.edu.au/ppmanual/research/resprac. htm

2/10/09

22 Cracking the Code, Suzanne E Morris

vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

University

Authorship policy title

Rating

Authorship policy URL

Griffith

Griffith University Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research

http://www62.gu.edu.au/policylibrary.nsf/xmainsearch/e78 2/10/09 52d226231d2b44a25750c0062f457?opendocument

JCU

Statement and Guidelines on Research Practice

http://www.jcu.edu.au/policy/research/practices/ JCUDEV_009786.html

2/10/09

La Trobe

Publication of Research Findings Policy

http://www.latrobe.edu.au/policy/documents/publicationof-research-findings-policy-2009-07-14.pdf

2/10/09

Macquarie

Code of Conduct for Responsible Research Practice

http://www.research.mq.edu.au/researchers/funding/ documents/Codes_Res_Conduct_12_05.pdf

2/10/09

Melbourne

Code of Conduct for Research

http://www.unimelb.edu.au/ExecServ/Statutes/r171r8.html

15/9/09

n/a

http://www.monash.edu.au/research/statements/ opmanual/res2914.html

2/10/09

Monash

Accessed

Murdoch

Code of Conduct for Research

http://www.research.murdoch.edu.au/management/ policies/codeconres.html

2/10/09

Newcastle

Authorship of Research Policy

http://www.newcastle.edu.au/policy/000856.html

2/10/09

Notre Dame

Code of Conduct for Research

http://www.nd.edu.au/downloads/research/20071123/ POLICY%20Code%20of%20Conduct%20for%20 Research%2007%20OCT.pdf

2/10/09

QUT

QUT Code of Conduct for Research

http://www.mopp.qut.edu.au/D/D_02_06.jsp

2/10/09

RMIT

Responsible Conduct of Research Policy

http://www.rmit.edu.au/browse;ID=oav5mr677mm7z

2/10/09

SCU

Policy on Quality in Research Practice

http://www.scu.edu.au/research/ethics/download. php?doc_id=355&amp;site_id=31

2/10/09

Swinburne

Conduct of Research

http://policies.swinburne.edu.au/ppdonline/default.aspx?m 2/10/09 ode=glossary&word=Research

15/9/09

Tasmania UNE

Code of Conduct for Research

http://www.une.edu.au/policies/pdf/ codeofconductresearch.pdf

2/10/09

UNSW

Procedure for Authorship and for Resolving Disputes between Authors

http://www.policy.unsw.edu.au/procedure/authorship.htm

2/10/09

Procedures for the Conduct of Research

http://www.uq.edu.au/hupp/index.html?page=25156

15/9/09

UniSA

Authorship Policy

http://www.unisa.edu.au/policies/policies/resrch/res12. asp

2/10/09

USQ

Teaching, Research and Scholarship

http://www.usq.edu.au/policy/calendar/part7

2/10/09

Sydney

Code of Conduct for Responsible Research Practice and Guidelines for Dealing with Allegations of Research Misconduct

http://www.usyd.edu.au/ro/documents/research_ forms/00000af.pdf

23/9/09

UTS

23/9/09

USC

Code of Conduct for Research

http://www.usc.edu.au/University/AbouttheUniversity/ Governance/Policies/Research/Code.htm

23/9/09

UWA

Guidelines on Research Ethics and Research Conduct

http://www.research.uwa.edu.au/policies3/guidelines_on_ research_ethics_and_research_conduct#3

15/9/09

UWS

Research Code of Practice

http://policies.uws.edu.au/view.current.php?id=00166#p2

23/9/09

Wollongong

UOW Authorship Policy

http://www.uow.edu.au/about/policy/UOW058654.html

23/9/09

Victoria

Code of Conduct for Research

http://research.vu.edu.au/ordsite/ethics/Code_of_ Conduct.pdf

23/9/09

vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

Cracking the Code, Suzanne E Morris

’

critically revising it so as to contribute to the interpretation’ (USQ 2008). However, the Faculty of Business policy claims that supervisors have a right to co-author their students’ publications irrespective of their actual contribution to the publication. Modification of the USQ Faculty of Business policy to reflect the Code and USQ guidelines for authorship determination would be required to ensure a single and unambiguous message is being sent to USQ researchers regarding who has a ‘right’ to authorship.

tions do not have authorship policies as required by Section 5.1 of the Code (NHMRC, ARC & UA 2007). This number may increase pending review of the currently unknown institutional policies (Bond, Deakin and Monash Universities). Taken literally, institutional non-compliance with even the smallest part of the Code should mean complete withdrawal of NHMRC and ARC funding from those institutions because compliance with the Code is a prerequisite for receipt of NHMRC and ARC funding (NHMRC, ARC & UA 2007). If the NHMRC and ARC funding was withdrawn from the seven currently non-compliant universities, namely Group 3 Adelaide, Curtin, Flinders, La Trobe (rated 3), and CDU, Of the 39 Australian universities, four institutions were Tasmania, UTS (rated 4), then the total research fundgiven a rating of 3 for their authorship policy (Table ing to be withdrawn from those institutions would 1). University of Adelaide (Adelaide) was the only Go8 be $107,630,712 in 2008 (ARC 2009a; NHMRC 2009), university represented in with just under half of this Group 3. The other univeramount withdrawn from More than two years have passed since sities given a rank of 3 were Adelaide alone. Although the release of the revised Code, so it is Curtin University of Techoutside the scope of the now timely for all institutions to review nology (Curtin), Flinders present study, it would be and revise, if required, their authorship University (Flinders) and interesting to see whether policies to ensure full compliance with the La Trobe University (La other publicly funded instiCode. Trobe). These four institututions receiving NHMRC tions did not appear to and ARC funding, such as have an authorship policy, the Medical Research Instibut provided a direct website link to the Code from tutes and CSIRO, indeed have authorship policies as their Code of Conduct policy, where researchers required by the Code. were to locate guidelines on determining authorship It is currently unclear why so many institutions (Adelaide), had guidelines on determining authorare not complying with the Code’s requirement for ship in student/supervisor collaborations (Curtin), or an authorship policy, which is found in Part A of the acknowledged that their authorship guidelines were Code. The Hon. Senator Kim Carr, Minister for Innovacurrently under development (Flinders and La Trobe). tion, Industry, Science and Research, has indicated that some institutions are concerned with the adequacy of Group 4 the Code for resolving specific disputes (Lane 2008), Despite extensive searching, no stand-alone authorship namely Part B of the Code, but this should not mean that policy or overarching Code of Conduct policy could institutions should ignore Part A altogether. In Septembe found on the Charles Darwin University (CDU), Uniber 2008 the Go8 released a draft consultation paper on versity of Tasmania (Tasmania) and University of Techthe Code to assist its member institutions to implement nology Sydney (UTS) websites. Therefore, these three Part B of the Code (Go8 2008). In this paper, the Go8 institutions were given a rating of 4 (Table 1). welcomed the revised Code, ‘particularly in relation to It is currently unknown whether Bond, Deakin and the improvements and broader scope of the matters Monash Universities have an authorship policy as their covered by Part A of the Code’ (Go8 2008, p. 1). Given institutional policies were not available for perusal on that the Go8 seemingly endorsed Part A of the Code, their respective public websites. and that research funding to these universities was $714,783,885, or almost 64 per cent of the total ARC Discussion and NHMRC funding allocated to Australian research institutions in 2008 (ARC 2009a; NHMRC 2009), it is The review of institutional policies conducted in this surprising that the Go8 have not led the way in major paper revealed that seven out of 39 Australian institupolicy reform at least related to Part A of the Code.

24 Cracking the Code, Suzanne E Morris

vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

A review of the Go8 institutions’ authorship policies revealed that ANU, Melbourne and UNSW authorship policies were rated 1, Sydney, UQ and UWA policies were rated 2, Adelaide was rated 3, and any Monash policy was not available to be reviewed. Moreover, the two best-rated policies were from smaller, less-research intensive universities, namely CSU and UOW. More than two years have passed since the release of the revised Code, so it is now timely for all institutions to review and revise, if required, their authorship policies to ensure full compliance with the Code. It is vital that Australian institutions do this before implementation of the ERA to avoid greater authorship tension amongst collaborators. Revision of institutional authorship policies and subsequent compliance is particularly important for student/supervisor collaborations as in the ERA Submission Guidelines 2009 released by the ARC (2009c), publications by RHD students are not eligible for inclusion in the scheme unless the RHD students are also an employee of the institution (on a full-time, fractional full-time or casual basis) (ARC 2009c, p. 21). Moreover, research conducted by RHD students can account for up to 70 per cent of university research (Siddle 1997). The ERA may lead to an increase in collaborative conflicts as academic supervisors could insist they be first or a named author on the student’s publications where previously they were not a co-author or only a minor author on these publications. Institutions should take time now to prepare for the potential rise in authorship issues from the ERA and adequately manage authorship of their research publications by developing good policy (e.g. UOW 2008), practical guidelines (e.g. CSU 2009) and appropriate training (e.g. Morris 2008b, 2009; Wilkinson et al. 2010). In combination, policy, guidelines and training have the power to significantly reduce tension in collaborative research projects and encourage ethical authorship practices amongst researchers at all stages of their careers.

Afterword Following a pre-publication web search on 20 July 2010, the following update can be offered: • Monash University now has a publicly available authorship policy (http://policy.monash.edu.au/ policy-bank/academic/research/research-outputsand-authorship-policy.html). • Deakin University also has a publicly available vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

’

authorship procedure (http://theguide.deakin.edu. au/TheDeakinGuide.nsf/Web+Visitors?OpenFram eSet&Frame=WebContent&Src=WI2.1?OpenPage& Choice=0&Access=Visitor). • Bond University, however, still does not appear to have a publicly-available authorship policy. The search conducted on 20 July 2010 also revealed that some of the websites examined in 2009 have now been updated or have changed URLs.

Acknowledgements I gratefully acknowledge the support of the CRC for Sugar Industry Innovation through Biotechnology for their assistance in making this work possible. Thanks also to Rachel Budden for assistance locating institutional policies, and to Celeste Bennett, Christa Critchley, Sue McKell, Benjamin Morris, and Lygia Romanach for useful comments on the manuscript. Suzanne Morris is the Education Officer for the Cooperative Research Centre for Sugar Industry Innovation through Biotechnology at the University of Queensland, Australia

References American Psychological Association 1992, ‘Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct’, American Psychologist, 47: 1597-1611. Australian Research Council 2009a, National Competitive Grants Program (NCGP) Dataset Snapshot: Funding Allocated for Discovery Projects 2008; Linkage Projects 2008 (2 rounds); Linkage Infrastructure, Equipment and Facilities 2008; Discovery Indigenous Researchers Development 2008; Linkage International 2008; and Federation Fellowships 2008, <http://www.arc. gov.au/general/searchable_data.htm> Accessed 14 October 2009. Australian Research Council 2009b, The Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) Initiative, <http://www.arc.gov.au/era/default.htm> Accessed 14 October 2009. Australian Research Council 2009c, Physical, Chemical and Earth Sciences (PCE) and Humanities and Creative Arts (HCA) Clusters ERA Submission Guidelines 2009, Australian Government, Canberra. Beveridge, CA, & Morris, SE 2007, ‘Order of merit’, Nature, 448: 508. Charles Sturt University 2009, Authorship of Research Publications. <http:// www.csu.edu.au/ research/policy/authorship.htm#authorship> Accessed 15 October 2009. Computing Research and Education Association of Australasia 1999, Guidelines on Research Practice in Computer Science, <http://www.core.edu.au> Accessed 08 October 2009. Farlex 2010, author, <http://www.thefreedictionary.com/author> Accessed 17 April 2010. Group of Eight 2008, Go8 Guiding Principles for Implementing Part B of the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research, <http://www. go8.edu.au/storage/go8statements/2008/go8_on_ research_code150908.pdf> Accessed 14 October 2009. Cracking the Code, Suzanne E Morris

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) 2006, Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and editing for biomedical publication, updated February 2006, <http://www. icmje.org/> Accessed 09 October 2007. James Cook University 2009, Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research, <http://www.jcu.edu.au/policy/research/practices/JCUDEV_009786.html> Accessed 02 October 2009. Jones, KD 1999, ‘Ethics in publication’, Counseling and Values, 43: 99-105. Harvard University 2010, ‘Authorship guidelines’. Policies on Research Integrity and the Responsible Conduct of Research, <http://www.hms.harvard.edu/ integrity/authorship.html> Accessed 17 April 2010. Lamp JW 2009, ‘Journal ranking and the dreams of academics’, Online Information Review, 33: 827-830. Lane, B 2008, ‘Minister eyes watchdog’, The Australian, <http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/ story/0,25197,23655896-12149,00.html> Accessed 05 June 2008. Morris, SE 2009, ‘Authorship experiences of Research Higher Degree students’. Proceedings of Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia Conference, 6-9 July. Morris, SE 2008a, ‘Authorship dilemmas for Research Higher Degree Students’. Refereed proceedings of the 2008 Quality in Postgraduate Research Conference, 17-18 April, p 43-53. Morris, SE 2008b, ‘Negotiating for authorship’, The University of Queensland Graduate Student Week Workshop, <http://www.uq.edu.au/grad-school/downloads/GSW/Morris%20Sept%202008_handouts.pdf> Accessed 08 October 2009.

’

NHMRC/AVCC Statement and Guidelines on Research Practice: Australian code for the responsible conduct of research, Australian Government, Canberra. Siddle, D 1997, Submission to the Committee conducting the review of Higher Education Financing and Policy, Deans and Directors of Graduate Education, 23 April, <http://www.dest.gov.au/archive/highered/hereview/submissions/ submissions/D/DeansDirGradEd.htm> Accessed 17 April 2010. Street, JM, Rogers, WA, Israel, M, & Braunack-Mayer AJ 2010, ‘Credit where credit is due? Regulation, research integrity and the attribution of authorship in the health sciences’. Social Science & Medicine 70: 1458-1465. University of Oxford 2010, ‘Authorship’. Publication and authorship, <http:// www.admin.ox.ac.uk/rso/integrity/publication.shtml#authorship> Accessed 17 April 2010. University of Southern Queensland 2004, ‘Faculty of Business Guidelines on Authorship of Publications’, Faculty of Business Code of Good Practice: Research Degree Supervision, <http://www.usq.edu.au/business/~/media/USQ/ Business/Research/CodeofGoodPracticepdf.ashx> Accessed 02 October 2009. University of Southern Queensland 2008, 7.1 Policy on Research and Scholarship, <http://www.usq.edu.au/policy/calendar/part7> Accessed 02 October 2009 University of Wollongong 2008, UOW Authorship Policy <http://www.uow.edu. au/about/policy/UOW058654.html> Accessed 20 September 2009. Wilkinson, K, Wirthensohn M, & Picard, M 2010, ‘Towards ethical authorship practices: Discussion tools facilitating negotiation and discussion’. Proceedings of the 2010 Quality in Postgraduate Research Conference, 13-15 April. Wuchty, S, Jones, BF, & Uzzi, B 2007, ‘The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge’. Science, 316: 1036 -1039.

National Health and Medical Research Council 2009, NHMRC Research Funding Dataset 2000–2009: 2008 Actual Expenditure, <http://www.nhmrc.gov. au/grants/dataset/rmis/index.htm> Accessed 14 October 2009. National Health and Medical Research Council, the Australian Research Council & Universities Australia (NHMRC, ARC & UA) 2007, Revision of the Joint

26 Cracking the Code, Suzanne E Morris

vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

’

Rates of student disciplinary action in Australian universities Bruce Lindsay ANU College of Law, Canberra, Australia

Although a growing body of research has been conducted on student misconduct in universities, quantitative data on disciplinary action undertaken by institutions against student transgressions are largely absent from the literature. This paper provides baseline quantitative data on disciplinary action against students in the universities. It is concluded that those rates are not insignificant given the effort and resources dedicated to dealing with misconduct and the numbers of students affected. The paper includes limited discussion of reforms to rules and/or practices implied by, or arising from, these figures.

Introduction This papers reports on rates of disciplinary action occurring in Australian universities. Hitherto the few quantitative studies conducted into university discipline have focused on disciplinary rules and legal standards applying to them (see Berger and Berger 1999; Branch 1971; Duke Law Journal Project 1970; Golden 1982). It appears that there have been no previous quantitative studies of disciplinary action in Australian universities, although other legal studies of university discipline in Australia have been undertaken (Forbes 1970-71; Dutile 1996). Codes of academic conduct applicable to university students include prohibitions on plagiarism, cheating in examinations, falsification of data, and ‘collusion’ (or unauthorised collaboration among students). Actions such as falsification of academic records, grades or ‘special consideration’ documents may fall on the margins of this form of misconduct. Accumulating evidence on rates of academic misconduct among students (Marsden et al. 2005; Bennett 2005; Franklyn-Stokes vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

and Newstead 1995; De Lambert et al. 2006; Norton et al. 2001) has reinforced a picture of high rates of misconduct or ‘dishonest’ behaviours, although such figures need to be approached with some caution (Lindsay 2008b, p 147). Further, this apparent rise of academic misconduct ought also to be viewed in the historical context of the changing character of disciplinary problems (Lindsay 2008a). Estimates of misconduct derived from survey studies are distinguishable from rates of disciplinary action administered by institutions in response to misbehaviour.

Method A brief survey instrument was developed and sent to Australian public universities seeking statistical information on incidents and rates of disciplinary action against students.The information sought included data on academic and ‘general’ (non-academic) misconduct, whether proceedings were conducted at a ‘local’ (i.e. faculty or school) level or ‘centrally,’ and numbers of appeals and incidents of summary action. In respect

Rates of student disciplinary action in Australian universities, Bruce Lindsay

of academic misconduct cases, information was also sought on whether cases concerned plagiarism, misconduct in examinations, or ‘other’ misconduct. The survey was distributed to 27 universities. Seven institutions ultimately provided data, from four States or Territories. Although a limited response rate, the data supplied are sufficient to provide a useful sample of misconduct data. A range of institutions was represented in the sample, including metropolitan and regional, and larger, established (e.g. ‘sandstone’) universities and newer ones (e.g. post-war or post-UNS). The data collected concerned discipline proceedings in the 2006 academic year. Results from the survey are summarised in Tables 1 and 2. Each respondent university is identified by letter, from University A to G. Broad types of misconduct – academic or general – are distinguished, and rates of disciplinary proceedings at individual institutions as well as across all respondents’ institutions are provided. Rates of proceedings are determined as a proportion of student enrolments (ie as a proportion of individual students), and also as a proportion of Equivalent Full-Time Student Units (EFTSU), the standard sectoral measure for ‘student load,’ or student enrolment having regard to fractional (or part-time) enrolments. EFTSU is intended to provide a more accurate measure of student demand in the system. A greater disparity between enrolments and EFTSU measures indicates a higher rate of part-time enrolments.

Results and discussion In 2006, 1606 students in the seven respondent institutions were the subject of disciplinary action, equating to slightly under 1 per cent of all student enrolments at those institutions.This figure refers to students dealt with by hearing at first instance, or (a much smaller number) dealt with by summary action. There may be minor overlap or double-counting between students subject to summary action and those heard before disciplinary authorities, given that summary action may represent a ‘holding position’ in ‘emergency cases’ prior to a student proceeding to a hearing of some description. It is not known what proportion of summary cases proceeded to hearing and what proportion were resolved by other means (e.g. student withdrawal, suspension of disciplinary action). Data provided by University D included patent double counting errors and misinterpretation of the scope of data sought on appeals. For these reasons,

’

data on general misconduct, summary action and appeals from that institution have been discounted for the sake of reliability. By comparison with de Lambert et al.’s (2006) New Zealand study – which quantified rates of formal disciplinary action at New Zealand tertiary institutions at just 0.2 per cent of enrolled students – the situation inferred from the present dataset is that the rate of incidents of formal disciplinary action in Australian universities is several times higher than across the Tasman. If the proportion of students subject to initial disciplinary action were extrapolated to all student enrolments in publicly-funded higher education institutions in 2006, it may be estimated that well nearly 10,000 (9645) students Australia-wide were the subject of disciplinary action in that academic year. Clearly, this is not an insignificant number of students being investigated and/or sanctioned for misconduct. Additionally it represents a substantial administrative effort on the part of higher education authorities. In particular, it is a substantial administrative effort on the part of University faculties and schools. As can be gleaned from the data, the far greater proportion of disciplinary action occurred in respect of (alleged) academic misconduct, and the overwhelming effort in handling misconduct issues occurred at a ‘local’ – faculty or school – level. If we leave aside accounting for summary action, nearly nine out of ten allegations of misconduct are handled at the faculty/school level (88.29 per cent) This amount of proceedings does not account for appeal proceedings that, while relatively small in proportion to all proceedings, are generally conducted at a ‘central,’ university-wide level rather than at a faculty/school level. If disciplinary action conducted at the ‘central’ level and appeals are taken together, 218 hearings out of a total of 1640 hearings (ie central and local hearings, whether at first instance or on appeal, excluding summary action) were carried out at that level. That is, 13.29 per cent of all hearings were carried out ‘centrally,’ and conversely more than four-fifths of all hearings (86.7 per cent) were carried out by faculties/schools. While this dataset indicates overall numbers and proportions of disciplinary action, as well as the preponderant site of the administration of university discipline, it also provides a general indication of the nature of misconduct being handled by institutions. As Table 1 identifies, academic misconduct is far more likely to be at issue in disciplinary proceedings, a figure consistent with the literature on student misconduct. Again

28 Rates of student disciplinary action in Australian universities, Bruce Lindsay

vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

139

425

157

174

112

190

1385

All

218

238

165

182

186

471

0.67

0.42

0.44

1.30

2.52

0.38

0.94

0.58

0.64

1.85

3.32

0.50

2.23

0.73

0.43

0.46

1.34

2.70

0.40

1.22

1.03

0.6

0.67

1.90

3.55

0.52

2.63

161

174

181

150

1.17

Total miscon- Total misconduct/onshore duct/EFTSU enrolments (%) (%)

214

Academic misconduct/ EFTSU (%)

Total miscon- Academic duct misconduct/ onshore enrolments (%)

441

Total general misconduct

144

General misconduct (central)

General misconduct (local)

205

Total academic misconduct

Academic misconduct (central)

188

Academic misconduct (local)

University

Table 1: Numbers and rates of discipline proceedings, selected Australian universities, 2006

A N

114

393

118

123

1157

All

28 197

67 170

1524

218

161

2.12

2.94

7.27

2.55

53.66

174

181

441

51.68

Appeals/ original proceedings (%)

56.36

144

Appeals Total appeals (general misconduct)

â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

67.58

16.39

Total general misconduct

80.70

205

Summary action

76.00

Appeals (academic misconduct)

Total academic misconduct

90.19

Other

1.38

193

Exam misconduct

0.98

Plagiarism/ all misconduct (%)

1.09

Plagiarism

0.77

University

1606

Table 2: Grounds for disciplinary action and rates of appeal, selected Australian universities, 2006

Rates of student disciplinary action in Australian universities, Bruce Lindsay

1524

139

I I

’

discounting for summary action and appeals, more appeals from general misconduct cases is negligible. than nine out of ten (94.89 per cent) discipline proThe availability of internal appeals or review is comceedings concern academic misconduct. monplace in Australian universities, and it is not unuTable 2 breaks the incidents of academic discipline sual for review procedures to require a re-hearing of down still further. In distinguishing cases of plagiarism the original case on the merits (Lindsay 2008). and examination misconduct from ‘other’ possible The seeming low rate of appeal may be considered forms of misconduct (e.g. ‘collusion’, fraudulent appliin relation to several factors. In the first place, rates cation for ‘special consideration’), it can be seen that of use of internal review mechanisms in other adminplagiarism is the largest single source of disciplinary istrative contexts suggest that these forms of appeal action. Nearly three-quarters (72.04 per cent) of all are not heavily used. In the context of housing decicases at first instance involve allegations and/or findsions in the UK, Cowan and Halliday (2003, p 31) have ings of plagiarism. An overwhelming majority (75.92 remarked that ‘the level of reviewing activity seems per cent) of cases of academic misconduct involve much less than it might be.’ Their study investigated questions of plagiarism. internal review applications received by housing The rate of plagiarism as a proportion of discipliauthorities, and found that 71 per cent of those authornary action, however, varies considerably across instiities have received fewer than five requests in the tutions, from around 50 per preceding six months (11 cent of cases to over 90 per cent had received no ... the impact of public or institutional per cent of cases. Reasons requests), and only 16 per concern over the issue of plagiarism at for this disparity may be cent had received more a particular point in time may increase complex and/or cyclical. than 16 requests. Given the likelihood and/or propensity for For instance, regard may the high volume of unsucplagiarism to be the subject of internal be had to the construction cessful applications to investigation or ‘policing.’ of the meaning of plagiahousing authorities, they rism under the disciplinary hypothesised (Cowan and rules, such as whether it Halliday 2003, p 31), ‘the incorporates the question of intent (tending to dimingeneral take-up rate of rights to internal review seems ish the propensity of plagiarism cases by narrowing very low.’ They propose various reasons why review the scope of concept) or whether issues of poor acarates are low, including poor communication of appeal demic practice and citation are dealt without outside rights, doubts about the integrity of the review process of the disciplinary framework. on the part of applicants, and the length and complexPlagiarism remains a problematic concept in the ity of the bureaucratic process (Cowan and Halliday, academy, and this is a factor that ought to be taken into Ch 8). consideration in interpretation of these figures (see It may be, however, that the rate of appeals against e.g. Goldblatt 2009). Additionally, the impact of public university disciplinary decisions is not, in fact, low. or institutional concern over the issue of plagiarism at When compared to rates of administrative appeals to a particular point in time may increase the likelihood external bodies, either by merits review or on judiand/or propensity for plagiarism to be the subject of cial review, the university appeal rate is relatively internal investigation or ‘policing.’ These factors may high. For instance, Wikely and Young (1996, p. 409) be present at some institutions and not at others (or to have noted that tribunal appeals in UK social secua lesser degree). No disaggregated data were requested rity cases are ‘fewer than 1 per cent of decisions by on general misconduct cases. Therefore it is not posadjudication officers.’ Cowan and Halliday (2003) sible to determine precise reasons for the particular found a further significant drop-off in applications for composition of disciplinary issues at that university. recourse, by way of judicial review, in housing cases: Appeal statistics are reported in Table 2, and these 75 per cent of housing authorities surveyed had no figures are in addition to first instance proceedings. experience of disputes reaching the courts, although Few students (2.12 per cent) appeal from a finding of housing and immigration disputes represent the two misconduct. Just under 2 per cent (1.9 per cent) of stulargest sources of judicial review application in the dents found to have breached academic conduct rules UK (Sunkin et al. 1996). Appeals from student mistakes the matter on appeal internally. The volume of conduct decisions at Australian universities who pro-

30 Rates of student disciplinary action in Australian universities, Bruce Lindsay

vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

vided data in this study range from around 2 per cent to over 7 per cent. A further factor in the university context may be the construction of appeal rights. In some institutions, recourse is limited to prescribed grounds of appeal. These may be relatively narrow (Lindsay 2008b). Finally, it may be that, where there is a basis for a disputed finding and/or sanction, disciplinary decision-makers at first instance are capable of, and experienced in, making the reasons for the adverse decision explicable to the student. That is to say, following Galligan (1997, p 433), that the original decision-maker demonstrates to the student that the decision is reasonable, even worthy and/or educational, and that his/her ‘case has been dealt with properly according to authoritative standards.’

Conclusions This research provides baseline quantitative data on disciplinary action against students in the universities. The burden of disciplinary action on both students and institutions appears to be significant in the sector. The further breakdown of data is useful for identifying and indeed confirming forms of misconduct leading to disciplinary action. Prevailing trends in misconduct would appear to be academic transgression, in particular plagiarism. One other important finding, tending to support anecdotal evidence, is that the overwhelming administrative effort in handling disciplinary action is focused at the faculty or school level. Further to this point, there is also a real need to consider concerns over inconsistency and unevenness in decision-making within institutions (see Lindsay 2009, p 334). The study is not without its limitations, most notably the number of respondent institutions, although the present sample does represent just under one-fifth of all public universities. Other important policy or practical matters are not discussed here, for the sake of space, including the precise nature of plagiarism or the concept deployed by institutions, or whether or not minor infractions of academic rules are dealt with by disciplinary action or by other means (compare Goldblatt 2009).The substantial disparity between students’ self-reported rates of ‘dishonesty’ and formal disciplinary action is not considered here. It is perhaps a topic for further research. Given the effort required to administer disciplinary schema, a balance needs to be struck between expediency, on the one hand, and justice on the other hand. vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

’

Further to this point, universities are compelled, to varying degrees, to afford legal rights and protections to students facing disciplinary action.That is to say, forms of administrative justice are applicable, and the standards of justice (in terms of procedural protections) will vary according to differing classes of cases. The concurrent pressures of case volumes and correct procedural standards suggest that strategies contending with administration of disciplinary systems may include: • Greater emphasis on preliminary investigation into claims of misconduct, especially plagiarism, prior to any reference to a hearing. • Streamlining and ‘professionalisation’ of internal tribunals, including expenditure of greater effort in recruitment, training, continuity and succession of decision-makers on such bodies. • Greater direction of resources and support for administration of the system to faculties and schools where first instance decisions are made. • Establishment of feedback, review and reform mechanisms in order to identify systemic issues raised in disciplinary cases (and with a view, ultimately, to reducing rates of misconduct and/or disciplinary action). • Clarification and/or reform of the concept of plagiarism operating in disciplinary cases On a wider level, the findings of this research continue to raise important, if not disturbing questions, for the university sector. The data tend to confirm a vast disparity between purported misconduct and disciplinary actions. It may be that such figures undermine notions of the efficacy of disciplinary controls. That is probably a simplistic analysis, however, ignoring the wide range of intentional and non-intentional circumstances in which students fall foul of the rules, as well as what may be contained in the rules. Further, these results tend to confirm that formal disciplinary action, of itself, will likely be incapable of dealing with any ‘crisis’ in academic conduct. The need for effective disciplinary machinery can only be one part of responding to issues of academic conduct and ethics. A strategy of deploying formal disciplinary machinery against alleged transgressors needs to be aligned with – and probably subordinate to – a wider (re)consideration of ethical practice in the academy. Bruce Lindsay recently completed his PhD at the ANU College of Law on university decision-making in relation to students.

Rates of student disciplinary action in Australian universities, Bruce Lindsay

References

’

Bennett, R 2005 ‘Factors Associated With Student Plagiarism in a Post-1992 University’, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education Vol. 30, No. 2.

Goldblatt, V 2009 ‘The Perils Of Plagiarism: Processes For Managing Academic Misconduct In Education: A Risk Business?’ Proceedings of the 18th annual conference of the Australian and New Zealand Education Law Association, Melbourne, 30 Sept-2 Oct.

Berger, C & Berger, V 1999 ‘Academic Discipline: A Guide to Fair Process for the University Student’, Columbia Law Review Vol. 99.

Golden, E 1982 ‘Procedural Due Process for Students at Public Colleges and Universities’, Journal of Law and Education Vol. 11.

Branch, J 1971, ‘Student Discipline Cases at State Universities in New Mexico – Procedural Due Process’, New Mexico Law Review Vol. 1.

Lindsay, B 2008a ‘Breaking University Rules: Discipline and Indiscipline Past and Present’, Australian Universities’ Review Vol. 50, No. 1.

Cowan, D & Halliday, S 2003 The Appeal Of Internal Review: Law, Administrative Justice And The (Non-) Emergence Of Disputes Hart Publishing, Portland.

Lindsay, B 2008b ‘University Hearings: Student Discipline Rules and Fair Procedures’, Australian Journal of Administrative Law Vol. 15.

de Lambert, K, Ellen, N, Taylor, L 2006 ‘Chalkface Challenges: A Study Of Academic Dishonesty Amongst Students In New Zealand Tertiary Institutions’ Assessment And Evaluation In Higher Education Vol. 31, No. 5.

Marsden, H, Carroll, M & Neill, J 2005 ‘Who Cheats at University? A Self-Report Study of Dishonest Academic Behaviours in a Sample of Australian University Students’, Australian Journal of Psychology Vol. 57, No. 1.

Duke Law Journal Project 1970 ‘Procedural Due Process and Campus Disorder: A Comparison of Law and Practice’ Duke Law Journal.

Norton, L, Tilley, A, Newstead, S & Frankly-Stokes, A 2001 ‘The Pressures of Assessment in Undergraduate Courses and their Effect on Student Behaviours’, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education Vol. 26, No. 3.

Dutile, F 1996 ‘Law, Governance and Academic and Disciplinary Decisions In Australian Universities: An American Perspective’ Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law Vol. 13. Franklyn-Stokes, A & Newstead, S 1995 ‘Undergraduate Cheating: Who Does What and Why?’, Studies in Higher Education Vol. 20, No. 2. Forbes, JR 1970-1971 ‘University Discipline: A New Province for Natural Justice?’ 7 University Of Queensland Law Journal Vol. 7. Galligan, D 1997 Due Process And Fair Procedures: A Study of Administrative Procedures, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Standler, R. 2000 ‘Plagiarism in Colleges In The USA’, www.rbs2.com/plag.htm Sunkin, M, Bridges, L & Mazeros, G 1996 ‘Changing Patterns in the Use of Judicial Review’ in Galligan (ed) A Reader On Administrative Law, Oxford University Press, New York. Wikely, N & Young, R 1996 ‘The Administration of Benefits in Britain’ in Denis Galligan (ed) A Reader On Administrative Law, Oxford University Press, New York.

32 Rates of student disciplinary action in Australian universities, Bruce Lindsay

vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

’

Gender and shifts in higher education managerial regimes Teresa Carvalho & Maria de Lurdes Machado Centre for Research in Higher Education Policies, Portugal

While Portugal is one of the European countries with a high representation of women in higher education, there is both horizontal and vertical segregation. The way universities and especially managerial positions are culturally embedded by masculinity is one of the obstacles women have traditionally faced. Recently, higher education institutions have been subjected to external pressures to create a new institutional and organisational environment aimed at substituting the traditional collegial model with a managerial one. In this paper, the authors discuss the way these different models reflect traditional notions of femininity and masculinity and the potential impact they have on women in academia. Based on qualitative methodology, they provide an analysis of whether senior academic managers still reproduce the traditional stereotypes of managerial styles of women and men, and the potential impact of this on women in the clash between managerial and collegial models. The authors conclude by analysing perceptions about leadership styles for women and men, and the potential implications for women’s participation in top management in HE institutions.

Introduction Gender, being socially constructed, contributes to the development of a specific social order (Anthias, 2001; Archer & Lloyd, 2002; Butler, 1999; Francis, 2001; Witz, 1992). Social constructions that attribute a closer relationship between masculinity and power have been identified as one of the main obstacles women face in getting into top organisational positions.While the presence of gender in organisations was not recognised historically, studies since the 1970s have acknowledged the importance of these cultural mechanisms (Hearn & Parkin, 1987; Collinson, 1992; Kerfoot & Knights, 1993; Connell, 1993; Collinson & Hearn, 1996; Marshall, 1984). Assuming that gender is a social construction implies that notions of masculinity and femininity are not static but instead dynamic, changing every day as a result of ‘doing gender’ (West & Zimmerman, 1991). vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

This gender (re)construction justifies the increasing institutionalisation of the notion that equality has been achieved, leading to the emergence of a ‘feminised’ future (Leathwood & Read, 2009; Francis, 2002; Francis & Skelton, 2005). In higher education and science, a relationship between masculinity and power has also been identified (Acker, 1994; Hearn, 1999; Hearn, 2002; Morley, 1994; Prichard, 1996), emerging as an explanation for the under-representation of women in senior positions (Bagilhole, 2007; Bagilhole & Goode, 2001; Deem, 1999; Husu, 2001). However, recently the intrusion of managerialism and New Public Management (NPM) has raised important questions about the potential ‘impact’ of the organisational changes it promotes for women in academia. The political agenda for higher education reform all over the industrialised world includes a retreat from

Gender and shifts in higher education managerial regimes, Teresa Carvalho & Maria de Lurdes Machado

state regulation, budget cuts, demands for accountability and control, and changes in academic work, which is expected to become useful, effective and to translate into a real contribution to the competitiveness of the state/nation in a knowledge society (Olssen & Peters, 2005).This general context is transforming universities from academic communities to managed organisations (Harley, Muller-Camen & Collin, 2003), and has been translated into an increasing presence of the market in higher education systems. As ‘academic communities’, the most important legitimising claim for universities was the ‘social good’ argument. In this ‘traditional’ logic one of the main raisons d’être of the universities’ existence was their ability to improve people’s capacities to engage fully as citizens and, in this way, to contribute to the sustainability of a country’s democracy. Now, being redefined as ‘managed organisations’ the main legitimising argument is based on universities’ capacity to demonstrate responsiveness and relevance to market forces and therefore to contribute to national competitiveness and economic development (Sagaria & Agans, 2006; Santiago & Carvalho, 2004). The negative impacts of these general reforms over academic professionals have been well documented in a number of empirical studies (Exworthy & Halford, 1999; Kirkpatrick, Ackroyd, & Walker; 2005). Several authors have stated that market and NPM are leading to a decline in work conditions, making academic work more individual, flexible and precarious, and also creating a more stressful environment in academia (Altbach, 2001; Barry, Berg & Chandler, 2005; Musselin, 2008; Santiago & Carvalho, 2008). Other studies have introduced gender perspectives into the examination of the new academic working conditions (Harley, 2002; Harley & Lee, 1997; Kerfoot, 1999; Goode, 2000; Davies & Holloway, 1995; DeGroot, 1997; Deem, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2003; White, 2003). However, the conclusions of these studies are ambiguous. Through electing the economic enterprise as an ‘ideal-type’ to reshape institutions, NPM placed a strong emphasis on efficiency and effectiveness principles, which meet the traditional masculine management style. Thus, this emphasis can represent a threat to gender equality (Davies & Thomas, 2002; Saunderson, 2002; Doherty & Manfredi, 2006). Conversely, as is argued in other studies (Goode & Bagilhole, 1998) that NPM can provide a pathway for more opportunities for women at the universities management level (Deem, 2003). Since the collegial univer-

’

sity, with its bureaucratic structures, imposed so many obstacles to women’s progression in academia, some female academics welcomed the recent changes in higher education that have undermined traditional forms of governance and management (Yeatman, 1995; Prichard, 1996; DeGroot, 1997; Goode & Bagilhole, 1998). The shift from ‘collegiality’ to managerialism and corporate governance is interpreted as a disruption from the established organisational order, providing women with a hope of seeing changes in their positions.

Women in Portuguese higher education While Portugal has one of the oldest Higher education systems in Europe, a binary system was created and new universities emerged during the 1970s. With the opening up of the private system in the 1980s, the consequent increase in the number of universities led to the massification of Portuguese higher education, to a large extent resulting from the increase in the participation of women as undergraduates (Amâncio & Ávila, 1995). There was a parallel increase in the participation of women in academic careers. By 2007, women represented 41.3 per cent of the professoriate. While Portugal has one of the highest percentages of women in academia of any Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) country (OECD, 2006), this does not translate into full equality. Women’s participation in the labour market has been historically high. In 2006 the employment rate was 62 per cent for women (superior to the average of the European Union’s EU25 of 57.3 per cent) and 73.9 per cent for men (MTSS, 2009). These numbers result from a historical tendency for women to be integrated in the formal economy. At first, they were mainly employed in agriculture as wageworkers and also in subsistence farming. With political, economic and social transformations, they began to be employed increasingly in the service sector. The cultural and economic context of Portugal’s dictatorship regime (1933–1974) had an important role in integrating women into the labour market. At a time when most developed countries were facing social movements for women’s rights and improved democracy, Portugal was facing war with its colonies (Angola, Guinea-Bissau and Mozambique). This war, along with the cultural backwardness and economic under-development of the country, resulted in a peak of migration to urban areas and in particular to other

34 Gender and shifts in higher education managerial regimes, Teresa Carvalho & Maria de Lurdes Machado

vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

’

European countries. The lack of men for these reahumanities and arts and are least present in the ‘scisons transformed women into the main labour force ences and engineering. that supported the economy (Nogueira, Constâncio & In recent years, the Portuguese higher education Amâncio, 1995). system has been gradually changing, under the influAt the same time, political initiatives taken to mainence of neo-liberal ideologies and NPM devices. tain traditional gender roles resulted in the increased Research has been highlighting the presence of NPM feminisation of some service professions, especially rhetoric since the 1990s with political and institutional nursing (Carvalho, 2009; Escobar, 2004) and teaching narratives increasingly emphasising notions of effi(Araújo, 1990; 1991). In this particular case, the number ciency, efficacy, quality and accountability. At the same of women employed as teachers meant Portugal was time, the system has been shifting from direct control the country with the most pronounced feminisation to self-regulation (Neave & van Vught, 1994) with the of teaching in Europe in 1993 (Nogueira et al., 1995). intrusion of market and quasi-market mechanisms in This high participation of women in the teaching the system. However, in Portugal, at least until the end profession has persisted, though this is not consistent of the 1990s, the movement towards self-regulation across the different levels of education.According to the has never been based on a purely market-driven logic, World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Report and the issues of organisational efficiency and effec(2009) the female proportiveness were never cention in primary, secondary tral (Amaral, Magalhães & By 2007, women represented 41.3 per cent and tertiary education was Santiago, 2003) when comof the professoriate. While Portugal has 82 per cent, 69 per cent and pared, for instance, with the one of the highest percentages of women in 43 per cent, respectively. Anglo-Saxon world (Reed, academia of any Organisation for Economic Inside higher education, 2002; Meek, 2003). In this Cooperation and Development (OECD) there are also important difcontext, researchers refer country, this does not translate into full ferences that must be highthe presence of hybridisalighted. First, it is important tion process that articuequality. to note that women are lates institutional control predominant to a greater and market coordination extent in polytechnics than in universities. There are (Amaral et al., 2003). several explanations for this difference.The first is that More recently, a new legal framework has been polytechnics have been institutionalised more recently passed by the parliament (Portugal: Law 62/2007 than universities and polytechnics were therefore able of 10 September) that brings with it a more evident to integrate more academic women in accordance intrusion of market and NPM in Portuguese higher with women’s increasing participation as students. education. Based on some of the main conclusions of Another reason is that polytechnics offer many underan OECD report on the evaluation of the Portuguese graduate programs in areas that are traditionally more higher education sector (OECD, 2007) it can be inter‘feminine’, such as social sciences, education or, more preted as a ‘new tool’ to legitimate the substitution of recently nursing. Polytechnics also have a greater focus the collegial model by a managerial one, namely by on teaching than research, and tend to offer more imposing the existence of general boards in which unstable and insecure employment (Carvalho & Sanexternal stakeholders are strongly represented. tiago, 2008). At the same time, it is important to note that polytechnics are socially less prestigious than Methodology universities, confirming other studies that reveal that women have more difficulties in older, more prestigThis paper is part of a cross cultural project being ious and research intensive universities (Leathwood & undertaken by the Women in Higher Education ManRead, 2009; White, 2004; Bagilhole & White, 2008). agement Network (WHEM) in Australia, Ireland, New Furthermore, as in other systems (Machado-Taylor, Zealand, Portugal, South Africa, Sweden,Turkey and the Özkanli, White & Baghole, 2007; Leathwood & Read, United Kingdom. The aim of this research project is 2009; Morley, 2005) it is also possible to find persistto analyse gendered organisational cultures and their ent horizontal and vertical segregation. Women are impact on the representation of women in university mainly concentrated in so-called soft areas such as senior management. vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

Gender and shifts in higher education managerial regimes, Teresa Carvalho & Maria de Lurdes Machado

Senior management was defined as those who were currently at rector (vice-chancellor/president) or vicerector level. Twenty-two interviews were conducted (nine men and 13 women) with participants from public universities only. In these universities, in the fashion common in many European countries, the academic community (including professors, administrative staff and students) elects rectors, and vice-rectors are subsequently appointed by the rector. The interviews were based on an interview schedule adopted by the nine countries involved. In this paper the focus is on changes in universities and, more specifically, on the limits and possibilities of NPM and managerialism to improve women’s presence in Portuguese top academic positions. The content analysis is largely based on questions such as:‘How do you define senior management in university?’,‘What have been your observations regarding the working styles of female managers?’,‘Did you experience any difficulties in becoming a senior manager?’ Interviews varied in length from 30 minutes to 120 minutes. All the interviews were undertaken by the researchers, following earlier contact made by a former rector and president of the National Council of Portuguese Rectors.With one exception, all interviews were tape recorded.

Findings A) Universities as neutrals and meritocratic Data drawn from the interviews with both women and men in senior management positions allow us to describe and conceptualise their perceptions about universities, the way they should be organised and underlying meanings of gender meanings. In general, the first evidence drawn from these actors’ narratives presented a perspective view of the University as a ‘neutral organisational field’ founded according to universal merit and equity principles.Actually, almost all interviewees took the ungenderedness of their organisations as given. Only two interviewees (both women) believed that gender was an issue in academia. One of them believed that gender discrimination was observable only in business enterprises. I think there are no differences between men and women. I cannot identify differences nor any kind of discrimination. But maybe it is because I don’t have much experience in management. I think you can only find that in more complex organisations, like in private enterprises (Interview No. 16).

’

This analysis reveals that actors with senior management responsibilities in Portuguese universities interpret their organisations as being neutral, demonstrating an absence of gender consciousness. In this sense, as Hearn (2002) stated in an other context, ‘these absences obscure, through degendering, the political process of contestation of identities and culture’ (Hearn, 2002:43). The notion that universities are gender neutral and based only on meritocratic principles is, in fact, a way of occulting gender power relations (Oakley, 2001; Bagilhole & Goode, 2001). Proclaiming a neutral and meritocratic organisation does not recognise the fact that organisational culture has been historically patterned through masculine beliefs, perceptions and judgements.These patterns include accepted social and cultural differences between men and women on the way organisations are structured, power is distributed and the work is segmented and performed. Indeed, several studies suggest that universities are organised according to male standards and norms that, inevitably, interfere in judgement systems (Hearn, 2001; Currie, Thiele & Harris, 2002; Deem, 1998). This means that notions such as merit or career paths are, in fact, based on male life styles and priorities (Brooks, 2001; Currie, Thiele & Harris, 2002; Hearn, 2001; Oakley, 2001; Davies & Thomas, 2002). NPM, stressing competition, performance and meritocracy cultures, may reinforce the existence of ungenderedness notions in academia (Thomas & Davies, 2002). In this sense, introducing NPM devices in universities can be an important obstacle to making gender power relations more visible in the organisational context, and by ignoring or obscuring its existence, makes them seem more ‘natural’ and unquestionable. This could have more impact on systems such as the Portuguese one, in which there is a total unawareness of gender dynamics in academia, with the dominant assumption that gender is not an issue. The assumed neutral principles of meritocracy sustain the dominant attitude against any institutional policies that attempt to eliminate gender barriers. The individualist and competitive nature of managerial principles reinforce this. Portuguese senior managers reject affirmative action based on the idea that women are able to get there by themselves, and on the perseverance of meritocratic principles. Achieving a senior management position is interpreted as being the finish line in academic competition. Introducing other mech-

36 Gender and shifts in higher education managerial regimes, Teresa Carvalho & Maria de Lurdes Machado

vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

anisms could mean that selection would not be based on meritocratic principles: Ascending to the top is like the evolution of species – only the best can get there, and this [affirmative action] could interfere with this principle (Interview No.14). In conclusion, one can say that NPM can be seen as a threat to women’s progression in academia. The social ‘hard’ vision of needing academic merit to reach the top and to get into senior management positions contrasts with the ‘soft’ version of perceptions about women and managerial work. B) Different managerial styles When asked about the way women and men develop their work in senior management, those interviewed acknowledged the existence of different styles that can be identified with the dominant notions of femininity and masculinity. Women, as opposed to men, were recognised as being more pragmatic, organised and persevering but, more importantly, as developing managerial styles based on team-work, negotiation, dialogue and humanism. These general characteristics are usually referred to as conforming to a transformational leadership style (Davies & Thomas, 2002; Doherty & Manfredi, 2006). It seems to me that the way women manage and participate in management is different. I feel that they are more persistent and I think this is fundamental to being able to work in team (Interview No. 22). In a general way, women are more pragmatic. They give more attention to personal and human aspects and they are more attentive than men to day-to-day reality (Interview No.17). (…) I think one needs to have the capacity to listen, and to work with others. Of course, it is also necessary to take the right decision at the right time but the right decisions take time. If we take a decision that has consequences for the others and they do not feel committed, the risk is that no one will accomplish the decision taken. We need time and work to consolidate, to discuss, to talk, to make people talk with each other and to gather consensus (Interview No.18). The clear identification of different managerial styles in women and men is relevant to this analysis. Emphasising gender differences in senior management recognises the need to have more women in senior management teams as a way to complement different competencies and skills. In fact, female presence is vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

’

almost inexorable in this context: Women are more pragmatic and give more attention to detail. Men have a macro vision and, as such, they complement each other. That is why I like to work in mixed teams (Interview No.2). Nevertheless, advocating the need to reinforce the traditional gender differences might also be interpreted as a strategy women develop to maintain their identity when in senior positions.Actually, one woman stated clearly this argument: Men do not give us value because they think we are similar to them. It is in our difference that we can find our value. In this sense, we should be women and not attempt to be men. In this way, we can impose things by other than force, masculinity and leadership. No. We should affirm ourselves by our femininity (Interview No.1). Some studies have highlighted the fact that if women adapt to dominant masculine cultures in organisational contexts, it is not without personal costs (Thomas & Davies, 2002; Sheppard, 1996). This adaptation is often made at the cost of redefining their self. By reinforcing gender differences in managerial styles, Portuguese women may be consciously or unconsciously defining a strategy to avoid these personal costs. In this sense, these discourses reveal that gender is neither a static nor homogeneous reality, instead, gender notions and gender relations are continually (re)defined in the organisational context both by men and women (Butler, 1990; Anthias, 2001; Archer et al., 2001; Francis, 2001). In maintaining the need to be different, women are actively ‘doing gender’ (West & Zimmerman, 1991) and reinforcing the traditional stereotypes about masculinity and femininity. However, the reinforcement of gender differences can also translate into a threat to women in academia. NPM, being based mainly on hard management notions (Trowler, 2001) reinforces the masculine organisational culture (Davies & Thomas, 2002). Studies since the 1970s (Bem, 1974; Deaux & Kite, 1993; Eagly, Wood & Dickman, 2000) address the way gender stereotypes keep women far from management positions, since management is associated with the dominant masculinity. In this sense, in reinforcing differences, women are also exposing their distance from this dominant culture and putting themselves in less favourable positions for being identified as ‘leaders’. It is relevant, in this context, to try to analyse how NPM has been able to permeate top management in Portuguese public universities.

Gender and shifts in higher education managerial regimes, Teresa Carvalho & Maria de Lurdes Machado

C) A new culture in place? Changing higher education institutions from collegial communities to managerial enterprises (Harley, Muller-Camen & Collin, 2003) means these institutions are no longer conceived as traditional professional bureaucracies or even as organised anarchies (Cohen, March & Olsen, 1972), mainly structured by bottomup academic dynamics (Clark, 1983). Universities are now (re)conceptualised as unique entities (Carvalho & Santiago, 2010), or reengineered as complete organisations (Enders, de Boer & Leisyte, 2008), which must act as a kind of collective entity being able to make the best rational choices in a new market, or market-like, environment. Steaming from the managerialistic principles that managers should have the ‘right to manage’ in order to make organisations more efficient and accountable (Hood, 1991), the traditional collegial ways of decision making are being replaced by individual ones, resulting in more power concentration in the organisations’ top. Those interviewed recognised these tendencies to (re)configure Portuguese higher education institutions and also senior management roles. The majority interpreted changes as attempts to replace collegial communities with managerial enterprises and demonstrated actively against it. As an example, the discourse of one (male) rector noted: I am totally against managerialism in universities and I am totally against the notion of students as clients. ….Universities are spaces for academic reflection because they are related to knowledge creation and diffusion (…)Other countries have already had experiences that reveal to us how managerialism in universities can strongly affect some areas of knowledge that are not marketable, and for me the universities should be fostering all types of knowledge (Interview No.14). In line with this substitution, there are also attempts to induce changes in rectors’ traditional roles. Interviewees’ discourses allow us to classify this transformation as the substitution of the ‘politician’ by the ‘manager’ with rectors proclaiming the dominance/ persistence of the first. Rectors see themselves as having, mainly, a symbolic power in their organisations. They interpret their role from the visionary’s perspective. They have an idea or a project for the university and try to accomplish it through micro organisational and political negotiations, which require them to gather consensus to implement it in practice.

’

I think the real power a rector has is only symbolic. I think a rector has a strong symbolic power and has a strong power to be the voice of several elements from the academic community (Interview No.18). Rectors exercise the power of influence that is almost virtual. (…) S/he has to act with intelligence and political influence in the institutional environment. In this way, rectors have been able to accomplish the institution’s objectives, within the organisational structure, with all the bodies and all the people and different voices, based on the political route s/he has previously defined and for which she was elected. S/he has to engage in dialogue with all the people, from all perspectives. This is why I say that his power is almost virtual (Interview No.21). In defining their roles in this way, rectors move themselves away from the ‘manager’ role and seem to reject the neo-liberal notion of an autonomous rational actor governed by competitive individualism (Grummell, Lynch & Devine, 2009). (…) I do not think I am a manager. I think it is a serious mistake that we make in Portugal because for me rectors are not managers. Rectors govern universities which is a completely different thing (Interview No.14). Based on these responses, one can surmise that NPM has not been able to change the institutionalised notions of rectors’ roles, so that Portuguese universities still are more closely linked to notions of the collegial community than they are with managerial organisations (Harley et al., 2003).The continuous emphasis on the ‘political roles’ and in dialogue and gathering consensus as the dominant managerial style can be seen as important in keeping the ‘female managerial styles’ as proper and necessary. Even more than with rectors’ roles, there was a general and homogeneous consensus between interviewees concerning their power legitimacy. Both women and men acknowledge the importance of being a prestigious academic, meaning that they have a solid research career, before ascending to the top positions. I think that training is not enough. A rector should be someone that has demonstrated high quality as a researcher. If the rector is not a good researcher s/he has no moral authority to impose things such as demands for high research productivity which is fundamental (Interview No.15). To defend this argument interviewees used ‘managerial language’ following what Trowler (2001) referred

38 Gender and shifts in higher education managerial regimes, Teresa Carvalho & Maria de Lurdes Machado

vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

’

to as bilingualism –meaning the simultaneous use of professional and managerial language. Some illustration can be seen in the following responses:

increasing workload is not only due to ‘formal processes’ resulting from an increase in bureaucratic control, but also ‘informal’ ones, resulting from supporting roles women have been developing to their colleagues I think institutions should be managed by someone and to students in the new uncertain and insecure who really understands reality. I think there is an academic culture that should be maintained and I environment (Barry et al., 2005), translating into more think there is something that is very important – stressful situations for them. In addition, the way accountability – that can only come from the shop research and knowledge production are socially confloor – the faculties (Interview No.16). ceived and evaluated (Harley et al., 2003) contribute to women’s work being undervalued and becoming Things are changing but just as someone who wants to compete at the Olympic Games has to meet the more difficult to get tenured positions, a pre condition standard,so too should rectors. There are a number to reaching the top. of characteristics that a rector should have when As a final note, it is important to note that market they propose themselves to the vocation of rector. competitiveness was present in some Portuguese These include their scientific and intellectual qualsenior managers’ responses and, in this context, gender ity as someone who is prestigious in their academic and scientific career and someone who has good assumed an important role in institutional competimanagement qualities and negotiation skills too tiveness. Equal opportunity is recognised as being an because to manage implies the capacity to negotiinstitutionalised value in Portuguese universities and in ate (Interview No.15). society, and this is used consciously by senior managers to obtain ‘competitive advantage’. Gender is used in Insisting on academic prestige or merit is, once both internal and external competitiveness strategies. again, obscuring the gender differences.As others have In the first, senior managers noticing the increasemphasised in the past, defining background as a presing number of women in academic staff, invite tigious researcher and having held a professorship as women onto their teams a pre-condition to ascend as a way to win more votes to the top means that many Insisting on academic prestige or merit from women. Appointing women in academia are is, once again, obscuring the gender women to senior positions kept away from it (Machdifferences. As others have emphasised does not mean that senior ado-Taylor et al., 2007). in the past, defining background as a managers are aware of The glass ceiling pheprestigious researcher and having held a gender differences or that nomenon is known worldprofessorship as a pre-condition to ascend they are willing to define wide and the difficulties policies to promote gender of women gaining profesto the top means that many women in equality. It is more likely sorships are based on a academia are kept away from it that women are being used myriad of institutional baras tokens. riers that the merit principle obscures. They include the dominant masculine As you know, when someone competes in an elecnotions of knowledge production (Bagilhole & Goode, tion, they want to win. It is evident and I cannot hide that the gender effects are also considered 2001; Doherty & Manfredi, 2006), the exclusion from when I organise my team. I do not invite anyone privileged networks and from ‘access to resources, only because they are a woman or a man, I invite influence, career opportunities and academic authorthem because of their qualities. But your question is ity’ (Morley, 1999, p.4) and from recruitment and important. I must confess that when I was organising selection committees dominated by men (Winchster, my team I also thought about having a woman in my Lorenzo, Browing & Chesterman, 2006; van der Brink, team because I would like to win the elections also with the votes from women… (Interview No.15). Brown & Weslander, 2006). These known obstacles are reinforced by managerialism and NPM. Several studies have revealed distinct ways managerialism and NPM weaken women’s position in academia. Deem (1998) highlights the way it increases administrative workload mainly developed by women, keeping them away from research. This vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

In the second, gender is used as a marketing strategy to help to define and consolidate an institutional image of a university that is innovative and modern. In the type of decision women take I think there are no differences. However, in what concerns the university public image I think it is important. It

Gender and shifts in higher education managerial regimes, Teresa Carvalho & Maria de Lurdes Machado

gives a different image of our university, of innovation, of being ahead of their time, and it gives those outside, the notion that also in this area the university is Number One (Interview No. 4). Traditionally gender equality was a value universities would promote to endorse a more equitable society; in a market driven system, gender equality is now conceived as a competitive advantage universities use to obtain a better market position. Gender equality is confined to instrumental and not social purposes as it was dominant in the welfare state.

Conclusions This paper is based on the conviction that gender is a socially constructed concept that is defined and (re) defined in everyday life both by women and by men. Universities are not different from other organisations, meaning that they are also permeated by the dominant social notions of femininity and masculinity. In recent decades, changes in higher education systems have followed the path of NPM and managerialism all over the developed countries. The concern in this paper was less with the conventional implications of NPM for organisational and individual performance and more on the way it can reproduce the traditional stereotypes concerning women’s and men’s managerial styles and the potential impact of this over women in the present confrontation of the managerial and collegial models. There are myriad non-convergent directions in the way NPM exerts an influence over gender organisation. First, it is important to remember that the dominant notion about the university is one that keeps reflecting the idea of the ‘ivory tower’. Both men and women have an image of their organisations as being ungendered. In this context, one can expect gender to be kept off agendas in Portuguese higher education. This is even more reinforced by the consensus rejecting actions that look for gender equality in more proactive ways. NPM can reinforce this neutrality turning increasingly invisible gender discrimination in higher education institutions. Even if senior managers did not consider gender to be an issue in their organisations, they identified different managerial styles, with women more identified with transformational leadership styles and men with transactional. The women interviewed identified these different styles, but they were also defended as a way to make women more visible and ‘needed’ in top

’

positions. In assuming this position, women are ‘doing gender’ and reinforcing the traditional gender stereotypes. However, in the new context, the managerial styles more identified with women also seem to be less valuable. NPM has not been able to change the institutionalised notions of rectors’ roles in maintaining the Portuguese universities as being linked more with collegial communities than with managerial organisations. However, all insist on the need for academic prestige or merit before ascending to positions at the top, which once again, obscures gender differences in academia. In conclusion, one can say that NPM represents simultaneously a threat and an opportunity for women in higher education management. The result will depend mainly from internal micro political dynamics. Teresa Carvalho and Maria de Lurdes Machado are researchers at the Centre For Research In Higher Education Policies (CIPES), Portugal.

References Acker, S 1994, Gendered Education: Sociological Reflections on Women, Teaching and Feminism. Buckingham; Philadelphia: Open University Press. Altbach, P 2001, ‘Academic freedom: International realities and challenges’. Higher Education 41, 205–219. Amâncio, L & Ávila, P 1995. ‘O género na ciência’. in Jesuino, J. (ed), A Comunidade científica Portuguesa nos finais do Séc. XIX., Celta Editora, Oeiras, pp. 47-71. Amaral, A, Magalhães, A & Santiago, R 2003, ‘The rise of academic managerialism in Portugal’, in Amaral, A, Meek, L & Larsen, IM (eds.), The Higher Education Managerial Revolution? Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 101-123. Anthias, F 2001, ‘The material and the symbolic in theorizing social stratification: issues of gender, ethnicity and class’, British Journal of Sociology, 52(3), pp. 367-390. Araújo, H 1990. ‘As mulheres professoras e o ensino estatal’. Revista Crítica de Ciências Sociais, 29, 81-103. Araújo, H 1991. ‘As professoras primárias na viragem do século: Uma contribuição para a história da sua emergência no estado’. Organizações & Trabalho, 5(6), 127-146. Archer, J & Lloyd, B 2002, Sex and Gender, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Bagilhole, B 2007, ‘Challenging Women in the Male Academy: Thinking about draining the swamp’, in Cotterill, P, Jackson, S & Wetherby, G (eds) Challenges and Negotiations for Women in Higher Education, Kluwer. Bagilhole, B & Goode, J 2001, ‘The Contradiction of the Myth of Individual Merit, and the Reality of a Patriarchal Support System in Academic Careers’, The European Journal of Women’s Studies 8(2):161-180 Bagilhole, B & White, K (2008). ‘Towards a gendered skills analysis of senior management positions in UK and Australian Universities’, Tertiary Education and Management, 14(1), pp. 1-12. Barry, J, Berg, E & Chandler, J 2005, ‘The neglected middle: Gender, managerial-

40 Gender and shifts in higher education managerial regimes, Teresa Carvalho & Maria de Lurdes Machado

vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

ism and change in academe in Sweden and England’, in Gender, Work and Organisation 4th International Interdisciplinary Conference, Keele University. Bem, B, 1974, ‘The measurement of psychological androgyny’, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, pp.155-62. Brooks, A, 2001, ‘Restructuring bodies of knowledge’, in Brooks, A & Mackinnon, A (eds), Gender and the Restructured University Changing Management and Culture in Higher Education, Buckingham, SRHE and Open University Press, pp. 15-44. Butler, J, 1999, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, London, Routledge. Carvalho, T & Santiago, R, 2008. ‘Gender differences on research: Perceptions and use of academic Time’, Tertiary Education and Management, 14(4): 317-330 Carvalho, T & Santiago, R 2010, ‘Still Academics After All’, Higher Education Policy, Forthcoming. Carvalho, T 2009. Nova gestão pública e reformas da saúde. O profissionalismo numa encruzilhada. Edições Sílabo, Lisboa. Clark, B 1983. The higher education system: Academic organization in crossnational perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press. Cohen, M, March, J & Olsen, J 1972, ‘A Garbage can model of organisational choice’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1-25. Collinson, D 1992, Managing the shopfloor: subjectivity, masculinity, and workplace culture, Berlin, Walter de Gruyter. Collinson, D & Hearn, J (ed.), 1996, Men as Managers, Managers as Men: Critical Perspectives on Men, Masculinities and Managements, Sage, London. Connell, R 1993. ‘The big picture: Masculinities in recent world history’, Theory and Society. 22(5), pp. 597-623. Currie, J Thiele, B & Harris, P 2002, Gendered universities in globalized economies: power, careers, and sacrifices, Lexington Books. Davies, A & Thomas, R 2002, ‘Managerialism and Accountability in Higher Education: the Gendered Nature of Restructuring and the Costs to Academic Service’, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 13(2), pp. 179-193.

’

mental social psychology of gender, Eribaunm, Mahwah, pp. 123-174. Enders, J, de Boer, H & Leisyte, L 2008, ‘On striking the right notes: shifts in governance and the organisational transformation of universities’, in Amaral, A, Bleiklie, I & Musselin, C (eds) From Governance to Identity, a Festschrift for Mary Henkel. London: Springer, pp. 113-130. Escobar, L 2004. O sexo das profissões. Género e identidade socioprofissional em enfermagem. Porto: Edições Afrontamento. Exworthy, M & Halford, S 1999, ‘Professionals and managers in a changing public sector: Conflict, compromise and collaboration’, in Exworthy, M & Halford, S (eds) Professionals and the new managerialism in the public sector. Open University Press, Philadelphia. Francis, B 2001, ‘Relativism, realism and feminism: an analysis of some theoretical tensions in research on gender identity’, Journal of Gender Studies, 11, pp. 39-53. Francis, B 2002, ‘Is the future really female? The impact and implications of gender for 14-16 year olds’ career choices’, Journal of Education and Work, 15, pp. 75-87. Francis, B & Skelton, C 2005, Reassessing Gender and Achievement: Questioning Contemporary Key Debates, London and New York, Routledge. Goode, J 2000, ‘Is the position of women in higher education changing?’, in Tight, M (ed.), Academic Work and Life: What it is to be an Academic, and How this is Changing (International Perspectives on Higher Education Research, Volume 1), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp.243-284 Goode, J & Bagilhole, B 1998, ‘Gendering the management of change in Higher Education: A case study’, Gender, Work & Organization, 5(3), pp. 148-164. Grummell, B, Lynch, K & Devine, D 2009, ‘Appointing Senior Managers in Education: Homosociability, Local Logics and Authenticity in the Selection Process’, Educational Management, Administration and Leadership 37(3): 329-349 Harley, S & Lee, F 1997, ‘Research Selectivity, Managerialism, and the Academic Labor Process: The Future of Nonmainstream Economics in U.K. Universities’, Human Relations, 50(11), 1427-1460. Harley, S 2002, ‘The Impact of research selectivity on academic work and Identity on UK Universities’, Studies in Higher Education, 27(2), pp. 187-205.

Davies, C & Holloway, P 1995, ‘Troubling transformations: Gender regimes and organizational culture in the academy’, in Morley, L & Walsh, V (eds) Feminist Academics. Creative Agents for Change, Taylor & Francis, London, pp. 7-21.

Harley, S, Muller-Camen, M & Collin, A 2003, ‘From academic communities to managed organisations: The implications for academic careers in UK and German universities’, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64(2), pp. 329-345.

Deaux, K & Kite, M 1993, ‘Gender stereotypes’ in Denmark, F & Paludi, M (eds.) Handbook on the psychology of women. Greenwood, Westport, CT. Press, pp. 107-139.

Hearn, J 1999, ‘Men, managers and management: the case of Higher Education’, in Whitehead, S & Moodley, R (eds), Transforming Managers: Gendering Change in the Public Sector, UCL Press, London.

Deem, R 1998, ‘New Managerialism’ and Higher Education: the management of performances and cultures in universities in the United Kingdom’, International Studies in Sociology of Education, 8(1), pp. 47-70.

Hearn, J 2001, ‘Academia, Management and Men: Making the Connections, Exploring the Implications’ in Brooks, A & Mackinnon, A (eds) Gender and the Restructured University. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University.

Deem, R 1999, Power and resistance in academia: The case of women academic managers, in Whitehead, S & Moodley, R (eds). Transforming managers, Gendering Change in the Public Sector, Routledge, London, pp. 66-83. Deem, R 2001, ‘Globalisation, New managerialismo, academic capitalism and entrepreneurialism in universities: Is the local dimension still important?’, Comparative Education, 37(1), pp. 7-20. Deem, R 2003, ‘Gender, organizational cultures and the practices of manageracademics in UK universities’, Gender, Work and Organization, 10(2), pp. 239-259.

Hearn, J 2002, ‘Alternative conceptualizations and theoretical perspectives on identities and organisational culture’ in Iiris Aaltio-Marjosola, I, Aaltio, I & Mills, A (eds), Gender, identity and the culture of organizations, Routledge, London. Hearn, J & Parkin, W 1987, ‘Sex’ at ‘work’: The power and paradox of organisation sexuality. Brighton: Wheatsheaf; New York: St. Martin’s. Hood, C 1991, ‘A public management for all seasons?’ Public Administration, 69(Spring), pp. 3-19.

DeGroot, J 1997, ‘After the Ivory Tower: Gender, commodification and the ‘Academic’’, Feminist Review, 55, pp. 130-142.

Husu, L 2001, Sexism, Support and Survival in Academia: Academic Women and Hidden Discrimination in Finland. University of Helsinki, Helsinki.

Doherty, L & Manfredi, S 2006, ‘Women’s progression to senior positions in English universities’, Employee Relations, 28(6), pp. 553-572.

Kerfoot, D 1999, ‘The organisation of intimacy: managerialism, masculinity and the masculine subject’ in Whithead, S & Moodley, R (eds) Transforming Management: Gendering Change in the Public Sector, UCL Press, London, pp. 230-46.

Eagly, A, Wood, W & Dickman, A 2000, ‘Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal’, in Eckers, T & Trautner, H (eds.) The developvol. 52, no. 2, 2010

Gender and shifts in higher education managerial regimes, Teresa Carvalho & Maria de Lurdes Machado

Kerfoot, D & Knights, D 2007. ‘Management, masculinity and manipulation: From paternalism to corporate strategy in financial services in Britain’, Journal of Management Studies. 30(4), 659-677. Kirkpatrick, I, Ackroyd, S & Walker, R 2005, The new managerialism and public service professions. Palgrave-MacMillan, London. Leathwood, C & Read, B 2009, Gender and the Changing face of higher education. A feminized future? The Society for Research into Higher Education, London. Machado-Taylor, M, Özkanlı, Ö, White, K & Bagilhole, B 2007, ‘Breaking the Barriers to women achieving seniority in Universities’, paper presented to EAIR Forum, Innsbruck. Marshall, J 1984, Women managers travellers in a male world, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester. Meek, L 2003, ‘Governance and management of Australian higher education: enemies within and without’, in Amaral, A, Meek, L & Larsen, I (eds.) The higher education managerial revolution? Dordrecht: Kluwer. Morley, L 1994, ‘Glass Ceiling or Iron Cage: Women in UK Academia’, Gender, Work and Organization, 1(4): 194-204 Morley, L 1999, Organising Feminisms: The micropolitics of the academy, Macmillan, London. Morley, L 2005, Gender equity in Commonwealth higher education, Women’s Studies International Forum, 28(2-3), pp. 209-221. MTSS 2009, Statistics indicators of women and men in labour market. Retrieved from <http://www.mtss.gov.pt>. Musselin, C 2008, ‘Towards a sociology of academic work’ in Amaral, A, Musselin, C & Bleikie, I (eds.), From governance to identity. A festschrift for Mary Henkel, Springer, 47-56. Neave, G & van Vught, F 1994. Changing relationship between government and higher education in Western Europe. Pergamon Press, Oxford. Nogueira, C, Constança, P & Amâncio, L 1995. ‘Women in management in Portugal. A demographic overview’. Gender, Management and Science. pp. 207-218. Oakley, A 2001, ‘Foreword’ in Brooks, A and Mackinnon, A (eds) Gender and the Restructured University, Buckingham: Society for Research in Higher Education and Open University Press OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) 2006, Women in Scientific Careers: Understanding the Potential. OECD, Paris. OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) 2007, Education at a glance 2007. OECD. Paris. Olssen, M & Peters, M 2005, ‘Neoliberalism, higher education and the knowledge economy: from the free market to knowledge capitalism’. Journal of Education Policy, 20(3), 313-345.

’

Reed, M 2002, ‘New managerialism, professional power and organisational governance in UK universities: A review and assessment’, in Amaral, A, Jones, G & Karseth, B (eds), Governing higher education: National perspectives on institutional governance, Kluwer University Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 163-185 Sagaria, M & Agans, L 2006, Gender Equality in US Higher Education: International Framing and Institutional Realities. Research Institute for Higher Education. Japan: Hiroshima University. Santiago, R & Carvalho, T 2004, ‘Effects of Managerialism on the perceptions of Higher Education in Portugal’, Higher Education Policy, 17(4): 427-444. Santiago, R & Carvalho, T 2008, ‘Academics in a new work environment: The impact of New Public Management on work conditions’. Higher Education Quarterly, 62(3), pp.204-223. Saunderson, W 2002, ‘Women, academia and identity: Constructions of equal opportunities in the ‘New Managerialism’ – A case of lipstick on the gorilla?’ Higher Education Quarterly, 56(4), pp. 376-406. Sheppard, D1996, ‘Organisations, power and sexuality: The image and selfimage of women managers’, in Hearn, J, Sheppard, D, Tancred-Sheriffe, P & Burrel, G (eds), The sexuality of organisations, Sage, London, pp. 139-157. Thomas R & Davies A 2002, ‘Gender and New Public Management: Reconstituting Academic Subjectivities’, Gender, Work and Organization, 9(4), pp.372397. Trowler, P 2001, ‘Captured by the discourse? The socially constitutive power of new higher education discourse in the UK’, Organization, 8(2), pp. 183-201. van der Brink, M, Browns, M & Waslander, S 2006, ‘Does excellence have a gender? A national research study on recruitment and selection procedures for professoriat appointments in The Netherlands’, Employee Relations 28(6), pp. 523-539. West, C & Zimmerman, D 1991, ‘Doing gender’, in Lorber, J & Farrell, S (eds), The Social Construction of Gender, Newbury Park, Sage. White, K 2003, ‘Women and Leadership in Higher Education in Australia’, Tertiary Education and Management, 9(1), pp. 45-60. White, K 2004, ‘The Leaking Pipeline: Women Postgraduate and Early Career Researchers in Australia’, Tertiary Education and Management, 10(4), pp. 227-241. Winchester, H, Lorenzo, S, Browning & Chesterman, C (2006). ‘Academic women’s promotions in Australian universities’, Employee Relations 28(6), 505-522. Witz, A 1992, Professions and patriarchy, Routledge, London. Yeatman, A 1995, ‘The gendered management of equity-oriented change in higher education’, in Smyth, J (ed.) Academic Work, Buckingham: Open University Press, pp. 194-205.

Portugal. Law, 62/07 of 10 Setember 2007. Prichard, C 1996, ‘Managing universities: is it men’s work?’, in Collinson, D, & Hearn, J (eds), Men as managers, managers as men: Critical perspectives on men, masculinities and managements, Sage, London, pp. 227-238.

42 Gender and shifts in higher education managerial regimes, Teresa Carvalho & Maria de Lurdes Machado

vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

’

Perspectives on instituting change management in large organisations Alan Lawler & James Sillitoe Institute for Professional and Organisational Learning, University of Ballarat, Victoria

Australian universities are currently undergoing significant and deep-seated change to their funding models through their relationship to Federal government social development and research agendas. Consequently, changes are being instituted at all levels of university activity. Such changes are often accompanied by considerable disruption to traditional and accepted practices. This has had the effect of introducing unanticipated institutional difficulties and is causing some significant levels of personal uncertainty for staff. We suggest that such difficulties might be mitigated by more effective, efficient and transparent change management strategies.

Introduction Contemporary organisations must not only function efficiently and effectively at a given point in time they are also required to constantly negotiate their way in an environment that is constantly changing, often in ways that have been largely unforeseen. This dual problem of continuing to provide a service or perform necessary tasks in a competitive environment while at the same time engaging in activities requiring management of changes to traditional ways of working or reporting, often at deep structural levels, is a significant problem that has not adequately been addressed at many organisational levels. Without suitable strategies and procedures, there is risk of diminution of production or function, considerable economic loss and employee disruption, which can have long-term effects on an organisation’s employee relations. vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

This problem has been realised for some time: the concept of change management has a long lineage and has been responsible for an extensive body of literature. The intention of this paper is to provide a brief summary of the most recognised and useful attempts to provide a theoretical basis for those working within the change management area and to comment on the applicability of those theories to the current Australian university context. In addition, there are some comments on the related concept of ‘a learning organisation’, since it is proposed here that organisational learning is a key element of successful change management.

The notion of change management The concept of change management involves various attempts to examine systematically ways of minimising disruption to the conduct of existing institutions while

Perspectives on instituting change management in large organisations, Alan Lawler & James Sillitoe

introducing deep-seated alterations to traditional ways of working. In the context of this debate, the notion of ‘change’ implies an intended material difference of circumstance so that the system undergoing change is to become distinctly different from its previous state rather than having undergone a simple alteration that has substantially preserved its former identity. It is this notion of significant change that is at the heart of change management practice and it is the nature of this ‘distinctly different state’, which causes intractable problems for change managers. What follows is a brief survey of several change management theories that have made useful contributions to the development of the current state of the change management debate. It is hoped that this description might provide a suitable platform for launching more efficient and effective approaches to changes in higher education in the future. Lewin’s model of change Kurt Lewin’s (1947) model of change has been ‘profoundly influential’ (Analoui, 2007) in informing the development of debate in this area. This model of change is seen as consisting of three distinct steps or phases: 1. Unfreezing the current work processes or organisational culture. 2. Instituting change by moving to a new system. 3. Freezing of attitudes and practices at the new system level. One of the significant contributions of Lewin’s model is the recognition that previous work processes and organisational culture needs to be ‘unfrozen’ or loosened up before a new change or work process can be introduced. Clearly, this is a most challenging moment for staff that may have spent a considerable amount of intellectual and emotional energy in the development and promotion of a particular system. This gives substance to Lewin’s view that if new processes or expectations are introduced without due recognition of and a transition from previous work processes and expectations, the proposed changes would not be incorporated (Analoui, 2007). Implicit in the second phase is the notion that the new system must be seen as superior or more appropriate in some way to the existing circumstance or the resulting resistance will prevent worthwhile change from occurring. The other significant contribution that comes from Lewin’s approach is that once introduced, the new change needs to be reinforced and ‘frozen’ into the

’

work system to prevent slippage back to previous practices or replacement by a subsequent change. It is interesting to contemplate that while this model appears to make sense, at least intuitively, it invites serious debate about why many, if not most, change initiatives which follow such a path apparently do not succeed. Morrison and Milliken (2000) provide a fascinating discussion of the various forces and management beliefs that serve to block successful change management and create a culture of ‘organisational silence’, which they define as the widespread withholding by employees of important information about potential problems or issues that affect the organisation. The authors cite a report of 845 line managers from diverse organisations where only 29 per cent of first-level supervisors thought that their organisation encouraged employees to express opinions openly (Morrison & Milliken, 2000, p. 706). Two of the most common reasons for not providing feedback were concerns about negative repercussions on the employee and a belief that speaking up would not make a difference. The authors suggest three main consequences of organisational silence: that employees develop feelings of not being valued, a perception of lack of control over their work circumstances and cognitive dissonance between their beliefs about how they should communicate in the workplace and how they did communicate in the workplace.The cognitive dissonance issue is an interesting one because it contrasts the employees’ preference to be open with communication in the workplace with their perception of being punished for doing so. Consequently, the quoted survey found that instead of providing upwards feedback about important issues employees were guarded with information and tended to whisper behind closed doors out of management’s earshot. We will discuss the causes and implications of these barriers to effective change management as we outline the following change models. ‘Emergent’ change models A second approach to change management is a group of theories classified as ‘emergent’ change management (Analoui, 2007). The term ‘emergent’ is used to denote that the theories in this group are deeply intertwined with the factors affecting the organisation during the change process. It is suggested that the success of the change process will be determined by how quickly and effectively the organisation responds to the demands of changes in the internal and external organisational

44 Perspectives on instituting change management in large organisations, Alan Lawler & James Sillitoe

vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

’

environments. Mintzberg’s (2003) theory of ‘emergent for coherence arise from the implications of the other strategy’ fits into this group of theories by suggesting four aspects: that coherence is ‘the ability to hold the that leadership and strategy making must be immersed organisation together while simultaneously reshaping in, and congruent with, environmental factors. It is it’ (p. 266).They argue that consistency of purpose and from this group of theories that environmental scanconsonance of practice as the environment continues ning has become prevalent. Pettigrew and Whipp to change are the most likely way to gain competitive (1991) suggest five steps or phases for an ‘emergent’ advantage. approach to change management: It is interesting to compare this theoretical approach 1. Environmental assessment. with the various authors’ practical examples. Leopold 2. Leading change. and Harris (2009) refer to the 2007 CIPD (Chartered 3. Linking strategic and operational change. Institute for Personnel and Development) survey 4. Strategic human resource management. of 635 learning and development managers across a 5. Coherence in the management of change. range of industries which reported that one-third of The first step of ‘environmental assessment’ is one respondents to the survey did not participate in the that will be familiar to those who have engaged in change planning process until after all the major deciPEST (Political, Economic, Sociological and Technologsions had been taken. Morrison and Milliken’s (2000) ical) and SWOT (Strengths, tenth proposition regardWeaknesses, Opportuniing the management beliefs ...part of the appeal of emergent models ties and Threats) analyses. which create organisational is the explicit acknowledgement that Indeed, part of the appeal silence is the condition in change does not occur in a vacuum and of emergent models is the which top management that the political and pragmatic context of explicit acknowledgement has what could be called the system or process under change has a that change does not occur a patriarchal, ‘management critical influence on change management in a vacuum and that the knows best’ attitude where planning. political and pragmatic dissent is considered to be context of the system or undesirable and managers process under change has are more likely to reject or a critical influence on change management planning. react negatively to input from subordinates and less Pettigrew & Whipp’s (1991) contention that increlikely to informally solicit feedback. How the organimental, intentional change leadership may be more sational scanning required for successful ‘emergent’ effective than the dramatic change led by charismatic change management is to occur when staff feedback leaders as extolled in the business and popular press is missing is clearly problematic. will be a relief for many, particularly in the individually The next approach illustrates how later developautonomous yet collegial world of universities. That ments of change theory become increasingly complex the strategic priorities of change are implemented in and tend to broaden the range of concepts which the everyday world of operational management is relare involved. Such a development is inevitable since evant for the byzantine nature of most universities in change management involves not only the alteration Australia. Change management in a large, bureaucratic of a system but it is sensitive to the environmental organisation like a university with its multiplicity of context and ways in which human participants react committees and fiefdom-like faculties and schools will emotionally and pragmatically to their circumstances. be implemented by academic and general staff managTransactional and Transformational Change ers, not just by the executive group. Pettigrew & Whipp (1991) continue their evidencebased review of emergent change in large organisations with the discussion of the fragile capacity of an organisation’s human resources and the overall importance of the most complex of their five components of change management for competitive advantage: maintaining coherence in the management of change. As these authors suggest, the requirements vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

Transactional change, transformational change and leadership are concepts that have received much attention in the change management literature, (Kouzes & Posner, 1987; Kochan & Dyer, 1993; Hargrove, 2003) and they are closely related to notions of organisational learning. At the simplest level, ‘transactional change’ could be said to be related to, and a consequence of, single-loop learning (Argyris, 1999).

Perspectives on instituting change management in large organisations, Alan Lawler & James Sillitoe

In such a case, incremental changes to a system are implemented through the deployment of new policies and practices. An organisational example of transactional change in a higher education setting could be the implementation of a new word-processing or information management software package or a new policy regarding staff recruitment and selection. In contrast, ‘transformational change’ begins at the more complex double- and triple-loop level of learning (Argyris, 1999) whereby more fundamental re-shaping of patterns and behaviours (double-loop learning) or entire paradigms of operation and strategy (tripleloop learning) create widespread, systemic change in the organisation and could be said to ‘transform’ the organisation. It can be argued that the Dawkins reforms of the late 1980s were an example of transformational change (Harman 1989) and the current reforms recasting the vocational education sector in Victoria (Victorian Government, 2008) and the introduction of a single accrediting body for tertiary education in the form of TEQSA (Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency) are perhaps no less transformational. Universities need to consider the extent to which they wish to engage with either or both transactional and transformational change. As noted previously, a true learning organisation would engage in not only single- and double-loop learning, but operate at a level of triple-loop learning which would at times involve transformational change due to the alteration of perspectives and thinking patterns involved with tripleloop learning. Whereas this approach has much to recommend it, involving as it does a clear theoretical basis of organisational learning, it is clearly quite complex and would be difficult to introduce into a workplace that is already under stress to meet deadlines and output schedules. Senge’s ‘system learning’ concept Senge’s (1990) major contribution to the discourse about organisational learning was the popularisation of the ‘systems learning’ concept in which change occurs in a dynamic environment - everything related to the system also keeps changing along with the specific, intentional change that is being implemented. Emphasising the resultant complex and reflexive nature of institutional change, Senge makes it clear that any change in one part of the organisation will affect other parts of the organisation and that thinking in terms of isolated change processes or programs is

’

naïve and doomed to failure. Senge’s model of change management has been refined and updated by Kotter (1996), and it is this modification that is our preferred route for change management initiatives. The Kotter (1996) Model of Change In the first part of this discussion we have described several useful models of change management and indicated what we think to be the strengths and weaknesses of each approach. Others (for example, Leopold & Harris, 2009, pp. 405-407) appear to concur with these observations, which gives us further confidence in recommending the adoption of Kotter’s eight-phase model of change management (Kotter, 1996) as an appropriate model to guide change in a higher education setting. As will be seen, the model is more comprehensive and elaborate than preceding approaches, but we hold that this is a significant advantage given the historically complex situations that higher education settings represent. Indeed, central to our concern is that we believe that change must be carefully instituted into higher education systems where individual students and staff careers are at stake, the likelihood of organisational silence is high and the future of national research and training priorities are directly involved. Kotter recommends that eight stages need to be addressed, instituted and completed for a successful change process to occur. These are: 1. Establish a sense of urgency (around the particular change initiative). 2. Create a guiding coalition (among key stakeholders and staff). 3. Establish a shared vision and strategy (with all stakeholders). 4. Communicate the change vision (to all stakeholders). 5. Empower employees for broad-based action (to implement the change initiative). 6. Generate short-term wins. 7. Consolidate gains and produce more change (in the desired direction). 8. Anchor the new approaches in the culture. The Kotter model has had wide use in organisational change and development programs and represents a systematic approach that includes various levels of the organisation from executive management to line employees. In contrast to some models, it incorporates a dynamic aspect, particularly in relation to the sev-

46 Perspectives on instituting change management in large organisations, Alan Lawler & James Sillitoe

vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

enth step, which suggests that the change manager ‘consolidate gains and introduce more change’. This step is a critical difference to earlier models in that it suggests that in ‘real organisational life’ there is not a significant hiatus in the pace of change to allow for Lewin’s third phase of ‘re-freezing’ the implemented change (Robbins, Millet & Waters-Marsh, 2007). In addition, models of change such as the ADKAR (Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability and Reinforcement) model favoured by project management (Hiatt, 2006) are often more tailored to specific project implementations such as in Information Technology environments. Because of this tighter focus on project details they may not be as useful for guiding organisation-wide change management and the organisational learning that this paper is proposing.

Synergy between organisational learning and change management Leopold and Harris (2009, p. 406) argue eloquently that organisational learning and change management are inextricably linked.They cite the position taken by Bratton and Gould (2007) who suggest that ‘learning is the only strategy to cope with change’ and provide more data from the 2006 CIPD survey of 635 learning and development managers which found that 93 per cent of respondents stated that a consideration of the learning and development implications of change is critical to its success. Notwithstanding the overwhelming agreement about the importance of the link between learning and successful change the degree to which employees are generally involved in decisionmaking concerning organisational change has already been noted. Kotter (1990) suggested some time ago that management is about coping with complexity and leadership about coping with change. Given the rate of significant, on-going change in Australian universities, it would seem that an organisational learning approach dovetailed with a change management program might enable on-going change management to be handled in a way which would allow both the management and staff of the organisation to provide upwards and downward feedback, learn from the process and become increasingly effective in future change initiatives. However, to facilitate the development of a learning organisation requires that executive managers, academic leaders and general staff resolve the conditions which create and encourage organisational vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

’

silence. For this to occur would require genuinely open feedback mechanisms, a systematic approach to the change process and appropriate support and training. Given the plethora of failed and partly-successful change initiatives it is the authors’ contention that overcoming the conditions which create organisational silence is at least as important as the change methodology selected. Morrison and Milliken (2000) argue that organisational silence is more the norm than the exception in organisational life.The following discussion serves to clarify the three main effects of organisational silence: 1. Employees develop feelings of not being valued. Research on procedural justice has consistently shown that employees evaluate decision processes more favourably when those procedures allow for employee input, even when this input does not have much actual impact on decision outcomes. Morrison and Milliken (2000) quote further examples which suggest that change procedures that allow for the emergence of an employee voice are viewed more positively because they signal that employees are valued members of the organisation. Employees generally feel unvalued when they perceive that they and others cannot openly express their viewpoints, which leads to a loss of trust in the organisation. 2. Employees develop a perceived lack of control. Related research shows that individuals have a strong need for control over their immediate work environment and over decisions that affect them. In a culture of organisational silence, Morrison and Milliken relate the consequent lack of perceived employee ‘voice’ with a sense of lack of control over work decisions and change and suggest that stress, withdrawal and a form of learned helplessness are the outcomes. 3. Employees experience cognitive dissonance. Morrison and Milliken define ‘cognitive dissonance’ in their discussion of organisational silence as ‘a discrepancy between one’s beliefs and one’s behaviour’ (p. 721).The discussion suggests that staff want the opportunity to express their opinions but due to the lack of consultation - which creates a sense of being unvalued - and the fear of repercussion means that they do not speak up. The authors suggest that dissonance arises because ‘there will be a stark contrast between what one expresses behind closed doors and what one expresses in public’ (p. 721).

Perspectives on instituting change management in large organisations, Alan Lawler & James Sillitoe

Concluding thoughts We suggest that in the light of the foregoing discussion the key factors for successful change management and for the embedding of an organisational learning culture within a large institution can be summarised in a few relatively simple notions. A large organisation needs to acknowledge that it: • Learns from its mistakes • Has consultation about decision making before decisions are made • Institutes consultation about change before it is implemented • Is committed to and supports ongoing training and development Given that these notions underpin most collegiate endeavours, there is a range of suitable options for embedding organisational learning and change management into a university setting. However, given the general declining funding base for training and development programs it would seem prudent that a unified platform of organisational learning and change management across an institution needs to be pursued. Such a platform might be developed around a core of embedded staff trained in change management methodology and a ‘flagship’ approach introduced where one area might provide a model for change management, thereby reducing elements of initial resistance to change. Alan Lawler and James Sillitoe are academics in the School of Business, University of Ballarat, Australia.

’

References Argyris, C 1999, On Organisational Learning. Blackwell Business, USA. Bratton, J & Gould, J 2007, Human Resource Management. Theory and Practice, 4th Ed, Houndsmill; Palgrave McMillan Publishers. Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD), 2006, Learning and Development Annual Survey and Report. Hargrove, R 2003, Masterful Coaching, Revised Edition; Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer, USA. Harman, G 1989, ‘The Dawkins Reconstruction of Australian Higher Education’, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA, March 27-31. Hiatt, JM 2006, ADKAR: A model for change in business, government and our community, Prosci Research, Colorado, U.S.A. Kochan, TA & Dyer, L 1993, ‘Managing Transformational Change: The Role of Human Resource Professional’, The International Journal of Human Resources, Vol 4, No 3, September. Kotter, J 1990, A Force for Change: how leadership differs from management. Fress Press, USA. Kotter, J 1996, Leading Change, Harvard Business School Press, U.S.A. Kouzes, JM & Posner, B Z 1987, The Leadership Challenge, Jossey-Bass, USA. Leopold, J & Harris, L 2009, The Strategic Managing of Human Resources, 2nd Edition, Pearson Education, UK. Lewin, K 1947, ‘Frontiers in Group Dynamics’. Human Relations, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp 5-41. Mintzberg, H 2003, The Strategy Process: Concepts, Contexts, Cases. Pearson Education, USA. Morrison, E & Milliken, F 2000, ‘Organisational Silence: A Barrier to Change and Development in a Pluralistic World’. Academy of Management Review, Oct, 2000; Vol 25, Issue 4; pp 706-725. Pettigrew, A & Whipp, R 1991, Managing Change for Competitive Success. Blackwell Publishers, UK. Robbins, S, Millet, B & Waters-Marsh, T 2007, Organisational Behaviour, 5th Edition, Pearson Education, Australia. Senge, P 1990, The Fifth Discipline, The Art and Practice of the Learning Organisation, Random House, Australia. Victorian Government 2008, Securing Jobs for your future – Skills Reform. <http://www.skills.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/15969/SecuringJobsforYourFuture-SkillsforVictoria.pdf> Accessed 7 June 2010.

48 Perspectives on instituting change management in large organisations, Alan Lawler & James Sillitoe

vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

’

Balance between merit and equity in academic hiring decisions Judgemental content analysis applied to the phraseology of Australian tenure-stream advertisements in comparison with Canadian advertisements Gregory J Boyle

John J Furedy

Bond University, Queensland

University of Toronto, Canada

David L Neumann, H Rae Westbury & Magnus Reiestad Griffith University, Queensland

The wording of university academic job advertisements can reflect a commitment to equity (affirmative action) as opposed to academic merit in hiring decisions. The method of judgemental content analysis was applied by having three judges rate 810 Australian tenurestream advertisements on seven-point magnitude scales of equity and merit. The influence of time (Years: 1970-1973; 1984-1987; 20002003), institution (major research universities, the self-designated Group of Eight (Go8); colleges of advanced education and institutes of technology; regional and distance education institutions), as well as academic discipline (physical sciences and technology; social sciences; humanities) on ratings were also examined. Inter-rater reliabilities were high (≥ 0.92), and the ‘equivalence hypothesis’ (that merit and equity are the same) was not supported. Merit and equity criteria increased over time and were influenced by institution type and academic discipline, although in different ways. While some effects could be viewed as being due to rational policy decisions, other significant effects suggested influences that are more difficult to explain. University administrators need to be sensitive to the balance between merit and equity when formulating hiring policies.

Introduction In the early 1970s, the introduction of public advertisements for all academic positions in North American and Australian universities brought about a substantial change in the hiring process. In principle, the reform increased the possibility that academic merit (i.e. what the candidate knew rather than who the candidate vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

knew) would provide the basis of selection for academic positions. In the early 1980s, in addition to the goal of merit in appointments, a goal variously described as ‘diversity’,‘affirmative action’, or ‘equity’ was adopted to a greater or lesser extent by universities. Affirmative action policies applied to tenure-stream academic appointments involve a certain degree of preference for individuals who are members of particular sub-

Balance between merit and equity in academic hiring decisions, Gregory J Boyle et al.

groups (e.g. based on gender or ethnic background). These policies were intended to produce ‘equity’ in outcomes of the proportions of competition winners from within the specified subgroups, rather than just in opportunities to apply for such competitions. Any preferential treatment given to certain applicants based on their subgroup membership can be interpreted as being incompatible with a merit-based system (Kranz 1974).The conflict between group-preference and merit policies is especially problematic when merit itself involves complex, expert judgements, as is the case for academic tenure-stream positions.The degree of commitment to employment equity policy in tenure-stream hiring can vary considerably along the equity-merit continuum. In some universities, for example, ‘equity officers’ exert direct pressure on departmental chairs regarding both the wording of job advertisements and decisions on appointments. Institutional commitment to affirmative action is partly influenced by conscious decisions made by university administrations. However, there may be less conscious, latent influences that play a role in determining the point of ‘balance’ universities settle on regarding the somewhat conflicting principles of equity and merit. It is possible to study systematically the differential adaptations of universities (and even within university sectors, such as the physical sciences and technology versus the humanities). This approach involves a content analysis of the phraseology of tenure-stream advertisements to assess differences in the relative degree of emphasis placed on merit and equity respectively, as factors in hiring within different institutions of higher learning. Furedy et al. (2001) assessed the relative emphasis of merit and equity in 519 advertisements for tenurestream positions at Canadian universities.They reported that the inclusion of merit criteria increased across the disciplines in order of the humanities, social sciences, and physical sciences (which they labelled as “hard sciences”), respectively. Merit requirements also increased over time and according to the university ‘mission’ of undergraduate, comprehensive, and medical/doctoral, respectively. However, several interactions also emerged to suggest that merit criteria in advertisements were influenced differently according to the combination of discipline, university mission, and university location. As with the merit findings, the inclusion of equity criteria in the advertisements was influenced by university mission in that it increased across the undergraduate, comprehensive, and medical/doctoral institutions, respectively, these being categories used to classify uni-

’

versities in Canada. Also similarly, interactions emerged between the various factors of time, location, mission, and discipline. However, the number of interactions seemed to be far more extensive for equity than they were for merit. On the basis of these findings, the authors suggested that many latent influences exert their influence on merit and particularly equity information in university tenure-stream advertisements. As shown in the study by Furedy et al. (2001), the relationship between merit and equity can be examined by considering the patterns of outcomes of the merit and equity measures. On the one hand, the various variables such as time and discipline may influence merit and equity in the same way and produce a similar pattern of results for each (the ‘equivalent hypothesis’). On the other hand, a different pattern of results would indicate that the external variables do not influence merit and equity in the same way. In their analysis of Canadian tenure-stream advertisements, Furedy et al. (2001) reported that the pattern of results did differ between merit and equity, and quite dramatically at times. The investigators concluded that merit and equity can be influenced by conscious and unconscious (latent) pressures in different ways. Further, these influences can ultimately influence the hiring decisions for academic positions (see also discussion by Furedy & Furedy 2003). The extent to which the findings of Furedy et al. (2001) apply to tenure-stream advertisements at Australian universities is not known. The present study thus aimed to examine patterns in the inclusion of merit and equity criteria in Australian university advertisements across different time periods, disciplines, and types of institutions.The examination of the results for merit and equity in isolation will indicate the extent to which the inclusion of this information is influenced by these factors. Moreover, merit and equity criteria may be directly compared.The equivalence hypothesis implies that, aside from errors of measurement, merit and equity measures should be strongly correlated. Moreover, the equivalence hypothesis would lead to the prediction that merit and equity will be influenced in the same way by the variables of Time, Discipline, and Institution and their interactions.

The method of judgemental content analysis of tenure-stream advertisements Selection and categorisation A total of 810 tenure-stream advertisements were sourced from archives of the Wednesday and Saturday

50 Balance between merit and equity in academic hiring decisions, Gregory J Boyle et al.

vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

editions of The Australian newspaper. Only advertisements that were made during one of three time periods were sourced. The first time period was 1970 to 1973, when the use of open advertisements for all tenurestream positions was instituted.The second time period of 1984 to 1987 is a pre-amalgamation period because it spans the time just before the so-called Dawkins reforms. After this time period, colleges of advanced education and institutes of technology were either amalgamated with universities (e.g. Melbourne College of Advanced Education became part of the University of Melbourne) or were elevated to full university status (e.g. Queensland Institute of Technology became the Queensland University of Technology). The third time period was 2000 to 2003 and it can be considered to be a post-amalgamation period in Australia. The three time periods thus span the levels of open advertisements, pre-amalgamation, and post-amalgamation. The tenure-stream advertisements within each time period were also classified according to discipline and the academic status of the institution. The disciplines were classified as physical sciences and technology, the social sciences, or the humanities, respectively, in terms of their quantitative scientific demands.The institutional type was classified as Group of Eight (Go8) universities, combined Institutes of Technology and Colleges of Advanced Education (CAET), or Regional and Distance Education tertiary institutions (RDE), respectively. However, there were some slight exceptions with the institution categorisation scheme. For example, Monash (Go8) has both a regional campus, formally a stand-alone CAE, and distance education. The institution categorisation was essentially one of academic status or institutional prestige. Ratings of equity and merit The 810 tenure-stream advertisements were rated by three independent judges according to the respective levels of merit and equity criteria they contained. The relative emphases on merit and equity in tenurestream advertisements cannot be assessed by means of completely objective methods such as counting the frequency of certain words.The content analysis that has to be applied (see Furedy et al. 2001 for details) must be more subjective or ‘judgemental’, and essentially involves the psychophysical method of magnitude estimation by informed observers. The content analysis involved a degree of subjectivity and reliance on rater judgement. The methods of content analysis utilised by Ilic (1999) were improved upon by (a) having three rather vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

’

than one judge, (b) undertaking extensive discussions of rating methods to ensure adequate reliability with the ratings, (c) using a quasi-random order of ratings with respect to the categories of time, discipline, and institution to avoid sequence effects, and (d) removing university and department names from the job advertisements so that they would not bias the ratings made. Ratings were made based on the identification of ‘markers’ associated with equity and merit. Merit markers included: requests for published reprints and preprints; demonstrated research ability; graduate level teaching experience; strong academic background, and evidence of ability to develop a viable, externallyfunded research program. Markers associated with high equity wording included: candidates from specified subgroups being given ‘preference’ or ‘especially’ being encouraged to apply. The judges rated the wording of the advertisements using separate seven-point scales to score the degree to which the advertisements emphasised merit and equity. Higher ratings indicate a higher endorsement of merit or equity in the advertisement. Training was used to enhance reliability of the ratings. For the training, a further 90 tenure-stream advertisements were sourced from archives of the Wednesday and Saturday editions of The Australian newspaper, ensuring that the date of the advertisement did not overlap with those examined in this study. The three raters independently made ratings of equity and merit for each advertisement. Next, the ratings made by each rater were compared. When discrepancies of two or more points on the seven-point scale occurred, the possible reasons for the differences were discussed. As a result, the individual raters were able to be more comparable in their interpretation of relative strength of equity and merit markers on the measurement scale. Evaluation of the reliability of the ratings The reliability between the raters was assessed by examining the observed inter-rater reliability coefficients.The mean inter-rater reliability estimates of 0.96 and 0.93 for merit and equity ratings, respectively, indicated a high reliability in the ratings made. A further check was conducted by calculating the correlation in ratings between each pair of raters.The individual correlations for merit ratings between raters were 0.89 (A with B), 0.92 (A with C) and 0.89 (B with C). Likewise, for equity ratings, correlations were 0.92 (A with B), 0.86 (A with C) and 0.82 (B with C). Although the method of judgemental content analysis is not strictly objective, the use of trained raters thus yielded high

Balance between merit and equity in academic hiring decisions, Gregory J Boyle et al.

’

Figure 1. Mean ratings for merit and equity when the advertisements were grouped into either Time (Year), Discipline, and Institution. Error bars indicate the standard error of the mean.

inter-rater reliability estimates for both merit and equity.

Results Merit

Equity

Relationship between merit and equity

52 Balance between merit and equity in academic hiring decisions, Gregory J Boyle et al.

RDE

CAET

Go8

Humanities

Social Science

Physical Sciences

2000-2003

1984-1987

1970-1973

Mean Rating

Before statistical analyses, the merit and 4 equity ratings were each averaged across all three raters due to the established con3 sistency among them. The relationship between merit and equity ratings was 2 initially examined by looking at the correlation between the two measures. For 1 the entire set of ratings, there was a mod0 erate, though statistically significant positive association between merit and equity (r = .35, p < .001).The association reflected that higher merit ratings were associated with higher equity ratings. Year D i sci pli ne Instituti on type To compare merit and equity directly, Figure 1. Mean ratings for merit and equity when the advertisements were grouped into either Time (Year), Disciplin the statistical approach called a factorial and Institution. Go8 = Group in Figure 1 for which it can be seen that the pattern of RDE = of 8, CAET = Colleges of Advanced Education and Institutes of Technology, Regional and Distance Education tertiary institutions. The error bars indicate the standard error of the mean. analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used. This approach results across the levels of each variable show some included merit and equity ratings as correlated-samsimilarities, but also differences for merit and equity. ples Measures factor in the analysis (cf. Hair et al. An example of one difference is that merit ratings 2006). The ANOVA also included the between-samples declined in order of Go8, CAET, and RDE institutions. variables of Time (1970-1973, 1984-1987, 2000-2003), In contrast, equity ratings declined in order of Go8, Discipline (physical sciences, social sciences, humaniRDE, and CAET institutions. ties), and Institution (Go8, CAET and RDE).The ANOVA The interactions involving the Measures factor show can examine the effect that each variable has on its that, contrary to the equivalence hypothesis, merit and own (called the main effects) as well the combination equity were influenced differently by the various variof variables (called the interactions) in terms of their ables of Time, Discipline, and Institution.The exact way association with merit and equity ratings. Main effects in which they differed can be determined by comparand interactions emerge if the test statistic associated ing the pattern of results in how these variables influwith them has a probability p < .05. ence merit and equity in isolation. The subsequent The resulting ANOVA employed a 2 × 3 × 3 × 3 statistical analyses were conducted with this aim. Sepa(Measures × Time × Discipline × Institution) design. rate ANOVAs were run on merit ratings and equity ratThe equivalence hypothesis leads to the prediction ings and each employed a 3 × 3 × 3 (Time × Discipline that the Time, Discipline, and Institution factors will × Institution) between-samples ANOVA design. influence merit and equity in the same way.Thus, there Merit should be no interaction between the Measures factor and these other factors. However, the analysis yielded The merit ratings averaged across each of the levels a statistically significant Measures × Time × Discipline for the variables of Time, Discipline, and Institution are × Institution interaction, F(8,1566) = 3.37, p = .001. shown in Figure 1. The statistical analyses showed a A significant Measures × Time × Institution interacmain effect for Time, F(2 783) = 187.01, p < .001, indition was also found, F(4,1566) = 3.56, p =.007. Finally, cating that ratings varied across the three time periods. the Measures factor interacted significantly with Time, To work out exactly which time periods differed staF(2,1566) = 33.13, p < .001, Discipline, F(2,1566) = tistically, the t-test was used with a Bonferroni adjust6.22, p < .002, and Institution, F(2,1566) = 4.57, p = ment applied to correct for possible statistical error .011.These latter two-way interactions are represented associated with multiple comparisons. These analyses vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

’

Figure 2. Mean merit ratings grouped by discipline for each institution type as a function of the year of the advertisement. Error bars represent the standard error of the mean.

Mean Merit Rating

significant, F(2,783) = 5.62, p < .01. It was due to a statistically significant higher merit rating for the Go8 universities than for the RDE universities, t(538) = 2.51, p = .012. Physical Sciences 7 Go8 Although each of the variables of time, disci6 CAET pline, and institution exerted an influence on RDE 5 merit ratings on their own, they also interacted 4 in their effects.This was shown by a Time × Institution interaction, F(4,783) = 3.14, p < .05, and a 3 three-way Time × Discipline × Institution interac2 tion, F(8,783) = 4.17, p < .001.The interpretation 1 of three-way interactions can be complex. It is 1970-1973 1984-1987 2000-2003 eased by comparing the effects of two variables Year when the third is kept constant. For the present Social Sciences purposes, it makes sense to compare the differ7 Go8 ent levels of institution at each year for each indi6 CAET vidual discipline. Figure 2 shows the merit ratings RDE 5 grouped by discipline. As can be seen, the social 4 sciences and humanities disciplines showed a 3 different pattern to the physical sciences. 2 Further statistical analyses were conducted 1 to examine the three-way interaction. Separate 1970-1973 1984-1987 2000-2003 3 × 3 (Time × Institution) ANOVAs were run for Year each discipline.As expected, a Time × Institution interaction emerged for the physical sciences Humanities discipline, F(4,261) = 8.43, p < .001, and not for 7 Go8 the other disciplines, all Fs < 1.51, p > .05. For 6 CAET the physical sciences, merit ratings increased for RDE 5 all institutions from 1970-1973 to 1984-1987, 4 all ts > 2.89, p < .005. From 1984-1987 to 20003 2003, merit ratings increased for the Go8 univer2 sities, t(58) = 5.25, p < .001, but not for the CAET 1 and RDE institutions, both ts < 1.31, p > .05. To 1970-1973 1984-1987 2000-2003 summarise this pattern of results, merit ratings Year increased across each time period for all instiFigure indicated 2. Mean meritthat ratings discipline significantly for each institution type as a function of the year oftutions the in the social sciences and humanities allgrouped yearsbydiffered from each advertisement. Go8 = Group of 8, CAET = Colleges of advanced education, RDE = Regional and Distance and for the Go8 institutions in the physical sciences. other, all ts > 4.17, p < .001. Thus, merit information Education tertiary institutions. Error bars represent the standard error of the mean. However, there was no increase in merit ratings from increased from the open advertisement years (1970the pre-amalgamation years (1984-1987) to the post1973), to the pre-amalgamation years (1984-1987), and amalgamation years (2000-2003) for the CAET and again to the post-amalgamation years (2000-2003). The disciplines also differed in merit ratings, as RDE institutions in the physical sciences discipline. shown by a main effect for Discipline, F(2,783) = Equity 10.02, p < .001. Figure 1 indicates that merit information in advertisements declined across the disciplines in order of the physical sciences, social sciences, and humanities. However, only the difference between the ratings for the physical sciences and humanities was statistically significant, t(538) = 3.59, p < .001. The final main effect for merit ratings concerned the academic status of the institution.The main effect was vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

The equity ratings for each individual variable of Time, Discipline, and Institution are shown in the lower portion of Figure 1. As can be seen, the values for the equity ratings are lower than for the merit ratings and they showed some similarities, but also some differences in the patterns across each of the variables. The analyses showed a main effect of Time, F(2,783) =

Balance between merit and equity in academic hiring decisions, Gregory J Boyle et al.

â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

Mean Equity Rating

Figure 3. Mean equity ratings grouped by discipline for each 209.03, p < .001. Similar to the merit ratings, institution type as a function of the year of the advertisement. there was a significant increase in equity ratError bars represent the standard error of the mean. ings from 1970-1973 to 1984-1987, t(538) = statistical significance for the Go8 or CAET institutions, both ts > 2.17, p > .03. 18.49, p < .001, and again from 1984-1987 to Physical Sciences 3.0 2000-2003, t(538) = 5.82, p < .001. Unlike the Go8 merit ratings, there was no significant main 2.5 CAET effect of Discipline for equity ratings. A main RDE 2.0 effect of Institution was found, F(2,783) = 1.5 13.30, p < .001, and it indicated that equity 1.0 ratings differed among the three groups of 0.5 institutions. Equity ratings were lower for the 0.0 CAET institution than the Go8 and RDE insti1970-1973 1984-1987 2000-2003 tutions, both ts > 3.07, p < .002. Equity ratings Year for the Go8 and RDE institutions did not differ, t(538) = .91, p > .05. Social Sciences 3.0 An examination of the interactions among Go8 2.5 CAET the variables revealed that only the Time Ă&#x2014; InstiRDE tution interaction was statistically significant, 2.0 F(4,783) = 12.64, p < .001. To facilitate com1.5 parisons with the merit ratings, Figure 3 shows 1.0 the ratings for time and institution grouped by 0.5 discipline type. However, further analyses on 0.0 the interaction were averaged across the disci1970-1973 1984-1987 2000-2003 plines because, unlike the merit ratings, there Year was no significant three-way interaction.As can be seen in Figure 3, all institutions increased in Humanities 3.0 equity ratings from 1970-1973 to 1984-1987, all Go8 ts > 9.12, p < .001. From 1984-1987 to 20002.5 CAET RDE 2003 the increase was significant for RDE, 2.0 t (178) = 6.90, p < .001, but did not reach statis1.5 tical significance for the Go8 or CAET institu1.0 tions, both ts > 2.17, p > .03.

Discussion

0.5 0.0

1970-1973

Summary and interpretation of findings

1984-1987

2000-2003

Year

larity between merit and equity in some of the findTaken together, the results show that the nature of ings, such as the increase in ratings across the three Figure 3.for Mean equity ratings by discipline for each type as a function of the year of the merit and equity information in advertisements time grouped periods for both, alsoinstitution supports this conclusion. advertisement. Go8 = Group of 8, CAET = Colleges of Advanced Education and Institutes of Technology, RDE tenure-stream academic positions differed across time, However, the equivalence hypothesis that merit and = Regional and Distance Education tertiary institutions. Error bars represent the standard error of the mean. institution, and discipline. The present study yielded equity are the same did not receive complete support a significant, albeit moderate correlation between because there were several differences in the patterns merit and equity ratings to indicate that higher merit of results between the merit and equity ratings. For criteria in advertisements were associated with more this reason, the effects of time, institution, and disciequity information. In contrast, a previous Canadian pline were examined separately for merit and equity. study yielded a non-significant correlation (Furedy et As to the merit and equity results examined indial. 2001). The present findings highlight a difference vidually, some results would appear to reflect predictbetween Australian and North American advertiseable adapations by the universities. Examples of such ments suggesting that in Australia the conflict between results include an increase of merit requirements over implementing merit and equity principles has not time (e.g. as the proportion of candidates having postbeen as marked as in the Canadian context. The simidoctoral experience has increased), discipline (e.g. with

54 Balance between merit and equity in academic hiring decisions, Gregory J Boyle et al.

vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

the physical sciences requiring more extensive academic and research qualifications than the humanities in say post-doctoral experience), and institution (e.g. in more prestigious institutions requiring higher academic merit). In the case of equity, the effect of time (increased equity emphasis over time) can be readily justified. It would appear to reflect that academic human resource administrators were becoming more aware of the importance of proactively emphasising equity in the merit/equity balance, rather than just being content to eliminate non-merit-based sources of bias, such as prejudice against female academic applicants. Interaction effects involving the three variables of time, institution, and discipline with merit and equity were observed.An example was the significant interaction between time and institution. For equity, the CAET and Go8 institutions fell behind the RDE institutions in their equity emphasis in the later years. This suggests that equity policies in academic appointments have been further developed in regional institutions, whereas they have not substantially increased for the Go8 or CAET institutions. It would be interesting to determine whether this has had any differential impact in actual hiring decisions at the different types of institutions in the later years. An interaction between time and institution was also observed for merit. However, it may be unlikely that this interaction reflects the same influences to that of equity. For merit, the interaction between time and institution was limited to the physical sciences discipline and was contrary to the pattern found with equity. In the last time period, the CAET and RDE institutions fell substantially behind the Go8 institutions for merit criteria. Indeed, the merit ratings appeared to decline somewhat for the CAET institutions in this time period. The present research had some limitations that could be addressed in future research. The three categories of physical sciences, humanities, and social sciences captured many of the disciplines at university, but could be expanded in future research to include other disciplines, such as the creative and performing arts. The present study also used three raters and obtained a high degree of consistency among them in the ratings made. However, future research could include more raters to provide an even better check on the reliability and appropriateness of the ratings for equity and merit. Finally, future research could apply the methods used here to examine more recent advertisements so that, when combined with the present findings, the examination of the balance between vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

’

merit and equity in tenure-stream advertisements can be extended over a longer time frame.

Conclusion It appears that in adapting to the conflicting requirements of ‘balancing’ merit and equity considerations, Australian universities have so far been able to adopt more rationally justifiable policies than those that appear to be operational in Canadian universities. Nevertheless, in terms of the practical implications of the present findings, university human resource administrators responsible for hiring policies in relation to academic staff need to consider potentially discriminative influences such as affirmative action that influence the wording of tenure-stream advertisements, over and above those influences that do not discriminate in favour of candidates from particular subgroups. Further research into university hiring policies would seem warranted, especially in regard to its impact on student performance and academic outcomes. Gregory Boyle is Professor of Psychology at Bond University, Queensland, Australia. John Furedy is Emeritus Professor of Psychology at University of Toronto, Canada. David Neumann is Senior Lecturer in Psychology at Griffith University, Queensland, Australia. Rae Westbury and Magnus Reiestad are doctoral students at Griffith University, Queensland, Australia.

Acknowledgement This study was funded by a Canadian Donner Foundation research grant.

References Furedy, JJ, Fidler, S, Morgenstern, Y & Tryhor, W 2001, ‘Judgmental content analysis of Canadian tenure-stream advertisements to assess latent influences on institutional commitment to affirmative action’, Technical Report #1 for the Donner Canadian Foundation. Available from: <http://www.psych.utoronto. ca/~furedy/Papers/me/JUDGM6.doc>. Furedy, JJ & Furedy, CP 2003, ‘Tenure-stream advertisements before and after the 1995 ‘Common Sense Revolution’ in Ontario’, Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship Newsletter, 33, pp. 4-9. Hair, JF, Black, WC, Babin, BJ, Anderson, RE & Tatham, RL 2006, Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.), Upper Saddle River, NJ, Pearson/Prentice-Hall. Ilic, K 1999, ‘Merit and equity in Canadian tenure-stream position advertisements: Effects of time, location, mission, and discipline hardness’, Unpublished undergraduate thesis, Department of Psychology, University of Toronto. Kranz, H 1974, ‘Are merit and equity compatible?’, Public Administration Review, 34, pp. 434-440.

Balance between merit and equity in academic hiring decisions, Gregory J Boyle et al.

’

Short-changed The plight of U.S. universities in the age of economic instability, or around the bend: The University of California in the present age John S Levin University of California, Riverside, US

Public universities in the US are now confronted with conflicts in their missions of access and quality, in the form of legitimacy, as they face severe funding reductions as a result of states’ responses to the Great Recession. With an US$800 million budget shortfall, the University of California has chosen to maintain its preeminent position among public universities in the US. This article examines the conditions for this choice and the impending outcomes.

Introduction: Hanging on, or stasis in a dynamic environment What has been referred to as The Great Recession (Rampell, 2009) in the US might be seen as an opportunity for university leaders and all their staff to consider different ways of thinking about their practices and their institutions’ purposes. Yet, in the main what has emerged are schemes and proposals to preserve and indeed enhance past practices and structures. Universities and colleges have worked to ‘hang on’: to maintain what they have and if necessary then to reduce expenditures by increments, across the board, and using expendable labour as a means of preservation of structures and practices. Nowhere is this more evident than in California where the University of California could be undergoing massive restructuring and resultant organisational change but instead is calmly conducting ‘business as usual’ through a rational process of decision-making and actions. This condition is consistent with trends nationally following the Great Recession (the term given to the 2008 economic collapse of several financial sectors in the US): considerable economic declines for US universi-

56 Short-changed, John S Levin

ties and colleges, and an absence of major structural change. Responses by institutions suggest increasing gaps between wealthy and not wealthy students, in the quality of education and, according to higher education scholar Roger Geiger, long term jeopardy for research at distinguished universities, as public support for greater expenditures is unlikely (Geiger, 2010). This lack of institutional structural change is presently the case for the University of California, with potential for further social stratification with students funnelled into specific institutional types—community colleges, state comprehensive universities, and research universities—based largely upon their socio-economic status. The immediate future—the coming decade—appears equally bleak for not only the University of California but for all of Californian public higher education (Douglass, 2010a, 2010b). Within this context and in an effort to consider major structural change, the Regents of the University of California (UC) established a commission (The University of California Commission on the Future) in 2009 to give a public and high profile face to a rational approach to address present problems and chart a course for a more prosperous future. vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

‘Chair Russell S. Gould is charged with developing a new vision for the University within the context of the University’s mission, while reaffirming UC’s commitment to access, affordability and the highest levels of quality in instruction, research, public service and healthcare. UC must continue to play a vital role in sustaining California’s economy and cultural life, operating strategically and as efficiently as possible within available resources in the midst of the State’s dire financial crisis and into the future’ (The University of California Commission on the Future, 2010). Coming both before and after this commission have been individual campus initiatives and actions—there are 10 of these full-fledged research universities—to stem the tide of lost resources as a consequence of the state of California’s structural budget shortfall of over US$20 billion.The main task for 2009/10 for the entire University of California was to reduce expenditures by US$800 million dollars and then determine a way or ways to either drop this amount from the budget in perpetuity, or at least until new revenue streams rose above US$800 million. The magnitude of the problems is significant. Most universities do not have budgets of US$800 million and numerous countries in the world do not have annual budgets totalling US$20 billion, the present deficit for the state of California. In addition to the University of California’s reflections, 2010 marks the 50th anniversary of the state of California’s higher education master plan – A master plan for higher education in California, 1960-1975. Not only has the continuing use of the plan extended its original time frame by 35 years but also the master plan has become symbolic for both those who want to extend its principles, or some of them, well into the 21st century (University Committee on Planning and Budget, 2010) and those who think that the master plan is at least an outdated if not a retrograde concept (Douglass, 2010a). For proponents, the idea of access to further education means affordable education and quality education that will help transform California’s economy and propel its citizens into prosperity. The change in the pattern of inexpensive higher education, and for years no cost higher education for students, is repugnant to these proponents. For opponents, the stratified system of higher education has simply increased disparities between haves and have-nots, largely played out as an opportunity gap for people of colour. While the University of California, seemingly undergoing financial stress, continues to maintain rather impressive outcomes—Nobel awards for vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

’

academic staff, nationally competitive research grant acquistion, and publication productivity placing at least two of the campuses in the very top tier internationally, as well as graduation rates for students as high as any public universities in the nation—the two other sectors, California State Universities and California Community Colleges, are not doing well by some measures, particularly with moving students to completion of programs (Institute for Higher Education Leadership and Policy, 2010; Shulock & Moore, 2007). In other words, the elite institution has prospereed and the less elite and the low status ones have faltered.

California and its university A more coherent and explanatory perspective of the University of California is developed by placing these concerns within the context of not only the social culture of California itself and what is referred to as the California idea (Douglass, 2000). In the California idea, progress, innovation, and personal fulfilment for all citizens are strong ideological components if not enacted practices of Californians (Rice, Bullough, & Orsi, 1988; Schrag, 1998) but also within the context of what can only be termed neoliberalism (Duggan, 2003). Yet, a demand-driven approach to postsecondary education, including access as a value framed as equity (Wilson, Newell, & Fuller, 2010), and a gold rush mentality for boom and bust cycles, with prosperity believed to be just around the corner, are uneasy company for elite organisations. The University of California seeks both legitimacy and financial resources as the two pillars of its survival as an elite organisation. Its dependency upon resources is structured by its drive for elite status (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978; Slaughter & Leslie, 1997). Thus, it cannot rely upon the wrong sources for resources and its status is dependent upon its institutional context as a public university (Colyvas & Powell, 2006; DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; DiMaggio & Powell, 1991).While survival, growth, and elaboration of structure are organisational imperatives (Mintzberg, 1983, 1994), symbolic action (Morgan, 2006) is viewed as necessary for the University of California to maintain its identity as an specific kind of organisation. Its leaders and indeed its academics resort to the rhetoric that characterises the institution as prestigious: ‘The University has evolved into the best public institution in the world over its 140 year history as a result of great leadership and supportive poliShort-changed, John S Levin

cies, and particularly due to the commitment of the public and state leaders to the Master Plan for Higher Education’ (UC Academic Council, 2010). On the one hand, the University of California is legitimated by its international status; on the other hand, its reputation has become a shaper of its actions as the institution cannot maintain its legitimacy without adhering to global expectations. Hence, globalisation of higher education is in play for the institution as globalisation is a major resource process for economic prosperity and international prestige (Held, McGrew, Goldblatt, & Perraton, 1999; J. Levin, 2001; Marginson & Considine, 2000; Waters, 1995). Consequently, forces from several domains affect the University. These include the economic, cultural, political, and technological, as well as the state and national governments, in its quest for pre-eminence. All of this can be placed within a state and national context of considerable articulations about the University of California, both from within the University itself, focused upon swaying the public and policy makers both within the state and nationally, and from outside observers.These range from local presses highlighting the severe budget problems for state universities and the resultant cutting of classes that reduces access, with student marches and protests in the mix (Solomon, 2009) to the on-going pronouncements, and letters from UC president, Mark Yudof, as well as nationally syndicated interviews (Rosenhall, 2010; Yudoff, 2009).The national spotlight that focuses upon the University of California is not only a sign of its prominence but also a reminder of the vulnerability of public institutions and often their lack of ability to adapt, reform, or even choose a different identity. As a result of these pressures, the University of California has little choice but to remain as it is: maintain its institutional identity, enact as few changes as possible, or only those that have minor symbolic value, and stay the course, looking for the next gold claim around the bend. Moreover, the imperative for the maintenance and even an increase in elite status has repercussions, many of which are not consistent with the public good charge of state funded institutions. For one, increased elite status will close or curtail access for specific populations. The consequences of elitism are in part a function of population demographics. As populations in general grow, existing higher education institutions must rationalise their product. The example of the California master plan is instructive. In 1960, the charge was for the University of California

58 Short-changed, John S Levin

’

to admit the top 12 per cent of academically able high school graduates and with participation rates in the 1960s lower than in the 1990s or 2000s, the University could accommodate this population (Douglass, 2000). But, by 2009, and even earlier on several campuses, neither space nor resources were sufficient to accommodate this group and thus admissions had to be further rationed with entry granted only to a smaller proportion of academically accomplished students. The further repercussions in the case of California are that rejected students at a UC are pushed, theoretically, into California State Universities (CSU) or California Community Colleges (CCC). However, by 2009 both of these institutions were without sufficient space and resources to accommodate the demand. Thus, for the period of 2009-2011 the CSU with 23 campuses and approximately 450,000 students is expected to turn down 40,000 students and the CCC will say ‘no’ to between 150,000-250,000 potential students, according to the President of the California League for Community Colleges. While the University of California became more selective and more able and wealthy students found a place there, less able and poorer students entered or were denied entry by the CSU. Those denied entry found a line at a community college where they would in many cases be admitted at the expense of other students who were either too indecisive about applying for entrance or who were too poor to pay fees in advance of the start of classes. At community colleges, typically, those who are either already students or those who are willing to apply and pay early are first in line for courses. As a result of this bumping phenomenon, populations customarily enrolled in community colleges in California in 2008 and before were faced with closed doors in 2009 and after. Not only will this lead to further stratification by economic status (and correspondingly by race and ethnicity) of the public higher education sector in California but also the very poor and less able are denied postsecondary education. Rather than expanding access to top tier institutions, California has expanded opportunities for Californians to engage in greater risk-taking: barred from admission to UC because of less than a superior grade point average (less than 3.7/4.0); shut out of CSU because of space and resource scarcity; limited in course choices at a community college to perhaps none at all; or avoiding college altogether. The well-publicised and oft quoted policy report that suggests that California requires a staggering increase of over a million college vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

’

degrees in the coming two decades (Johnson & Sengupta, 2009; Reed, 2008) can only be viewed now as a ‘pipe-dream’. The probable outcomes for the next two decades in California are a decline in baccalaureate attainment rates.

With the Great Recession and its effects upon higher education, particularly the diminution of state funding for colleges and universities, the role of the State as an interventionary state (Goedegebuure, Kaiser, Maassen, & De Weert, 1993) in the manner of France or Australia seemed a possibility in the affairs of universities and The broader national picture colleges, but only briefly. Furthermore, the failure of hyper-capitalism, particularly evident in the US sugCalifornia, however, is not so unlike the political gested that neoliberalism was no longer the dominant economy and political culture of the rest of the US. In political economy of choice. To date, however, the the face of the Great Recession’s aftermath, US educaState in the US has not shed its neoliberal inclinations, tion policy directs institutions to greater productivity, attempting to prop up neoliberal values that privilege particularly with respect to student outcomes, measprivate goods, individual achievement, and economic ured by degree or credential-of-some-type of attainbenefits (Apple, 2001; Clarke, 2005; Puiggros, 1999). ment. Both the Lumina Foundation for Education and For example, President Obama’s American Graduathe Gates Foundation, with grant-making assets in the tion Initiative, a targeted effort to enhance the workbillions and the inclination to use their assets to stimforce development function in service of national and ulate progress in education on a national scale, are global economic competitiveness, did not even surat the forefront of this press, along with accrediting vive through the political process for a congressional agencies. vote, and was a casualty The drive for credential of the health care backPresident Obama’s American Graduation attainment follows Presilash against government Initiative, a targeted effort to enhance dent Obama’s call for a 60 intervention in the lives the workforce development function in per cent increase in creof Americans. When state service of national and global economic dential attainment by 2025 intervention is apparent in competitiveness, did not even survive for the US. Although the the US such as No Child through the political process for a federal funding to support Left Behind legislation, it this initiative was removed comes with performance congressional vote... from the approved health measures and without care bill, there were and funding for the mandate. In continue to be calls from policy makers, private fundthat the US has the least advanced social safety net of ing agencies, and institutional leaders, as well as the OECD countries for its population, state intervention federal Department of Education, for the achievement in the US can have a punishing outcome (Lipset, 1996). of Obama’s goal. At the same time as this emphasis on No doubt, this is why neoliberalism in the US is unprecedented levels of growth in credentialing, state viewed as pernicious (Giroux, 2004). Its perpetuation funding for colleges and universities has either not through institutions of higher education is strenuously kept pace with demand or more commonly decreased challenged as some do within the University of Califrom previous years. fornia whether they take a financial perspective on In the case of universities, this has meant relying the responsibility of the state for educational declines upon students to pay more in order to participate. (Glantz & Hays, 2009) or the behaviours of the UniThe trend of asking citizens (as well as international versity itself (Samuels, 2010).These behaviours include students) to pay more for public education is further University efforts to maintain elite status through the muddying the waters on the private and public goods deification of big science and actions that threaten if debate (Labaree, 1997). Tuition fees have risen over 30 not the humanities enterprise then at least humanities per cent since 2008. Even a former 1960s radical and academics (Watson, 2010). later US politician has weighed in on the issue, contrasting the closing of the door to higher education in On campus at the University of California the present to the opening of the doors in the 1960s and opining the loss of democratic change in America In 2008-09, University of California campuses were (Hayden, 2010). engaged in not so much the preservation of elite vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

Short-changed, John S Levin

status, as the resolution of a budget shortfall that compelled campus leaders and governance committees, as well as system-wide executives, to find ordinary financial solutions to permit the continuation of day-to-day operations beginning July 1, 2009 (University Committee on Planning and Budget, 2010). One of these campuses, Riverside, during the period of 2008/09 to 2009/2010 illustrates the tensions between the organisational imperative for survival and the continuing pursuit of legitimacy; in this case, both survival and legitimacy have deeply institutionalised characteristics and patterns. As a relatively recent entrant (in 1954) to the University of California sphere, University of California, Riverside (UCR) does not command the international prestige of Berkeley or University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), although it follows the same UC directives, institutional regulations, and norms, including standards for promotion, tenure, and merit for academics. UCR is a smaller institution than most of the 10 campuses and its undergraduate population is considerably more ethnically diverse than any other campus, with the exception of the newest UC, Merced, a campus with approximately 3,500 students. It has a proportionally smaller graduate student population than is typical for a UC, but its addition of an engineering program in the past few decades and its approval for a medical school, recently initiated, will propel professional school enrolments and likely lead to increases in graduate student numbers. Similar to all other UC campuses, UCR was subject to the Great Recession, which led in the 2008/09 academic year to all campuses confronting the UC budget shortfall of US$800,000,000 for the following years. For UCR, the budget shortfall, first announced at approximately US$21,000,000 grew progressively from January 2009 to the end of May 2009 when it approached and then slightly exceeded US$50,000,000. The total budget for the year 2008/09 was US$294,136,339 (Office of the Provost, 2009). By May, the provost’s budget advisory committee proposed only US$17,000,000 in cuts, although they had been working for several months on the goal of US$20,000,000, close to the US$21 million shortfall. In the first case the cut of US$21,000,000 was a 7 per cent figure of the overall budget; in the second case, the cut (US$50,000, 000) would have to be close to 17 per cent of the University’s operating expenditures (J. S. Levin, 2009). These budget reductions were both common across all University of California campuses and singular for

60 Short-changed, John S Levin

’

individual campuses. The centralised-decentralised system that is the University of California leads to system-wide policies, regulations, and actions on the onehand and individual campus actions reflecting campus quasi-autonomy. The budget shortfall was a systemwide condition but individual campuses varied in their financial situations. System-wide, a salary cut was implemented for all academics and administrators and most staff (some unions rejected this approach and legally the University could not demand salary reductions). This salary cut took the form of ‘furloughs’— days off without pay, with the days off determined by the salary level of employees. Such action, however, did not actually translate into days off as employees continued to show up for work, whether in their homes or at institutional sites. On the UCR campus, a target of reductions was set for each major unit and heads of units—vice-presidents, deans, directors, and the like—had to rationalise their actions. The first action was to secure enough of unit fiscal resources to see the University through the 2009-2010 budget year; the second action was to delete a percentage of their total fiscal resources permanently to see the University into subsequent years (J. S. Levin, 2009). The imperative for these actions was largely to preserve the academic missions of the University, and thus support services and administrative functions were most affected, although non-academic activities such as athletics, fundraising, technological services were retained almost in total. Furthermore, no academic programs were jettisoned (J. S. Levin, 2009), and in 2010 enrolment increased substantially (7 per cent), the result of the University admitting well over 1000 additional freshmen, or first year, students (Campos, 2010). Almost coincident to this budget reduction exercise, a campus-wide strategic planning process was initiated. This effort led, in March 2010, to the first draft of the strategic plan—UCR 2020—which was not tied directly to the budget reduction process (University of California Riverside, 2010b). A third and final draft was completed in June 2010. Among the primary stated intentions of UCR 2020 were simultaneously the preservation of student access to the University and an increase in national stature, signalled by membership into the American Association of Universities (AAU), a prestigious organisation for universities. By access, UCR meant maintaining or increasing standards for entry but ensuring ‘affordability,’ as suggested by UCR 2020. vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

‘UC Riverside is committed to upholding its role as articulated in the California Master Plan for Higher Education, which created a system that combines exceptional quality with broad access for students…Helping qualified students to gain access to a UC education – particularly in the face of dramatically increasing fees – is a fundamental value of UC Riverside’ (University of California Riverside, 2010b, p. 17). But access is coupled with student attainment, and improvement of students’ graduation rates will enable the University to gain in prestige. Thus, access is not for everyone, but rather for high achieving students, and this coupling of access with probability of graduation permits the University to become more selective in admissions. ‘Access alone is insufficient; UC Riverside also focuses on providing high-quality academic programs and support services to ensure our students’ success. Through a commitment to access as well as student success, UCR will attract highly motivated and high-achieving students, both those who reflect the diversity of our state and those who offer an international perspective; improve retention and time to degree; and increase students’ satisfaction with their UCR experience. All of these are transformative and critical in the campus’ rise to pre-eminence’ (University of California Riverside, 2010b, p. 17). Such an approach addresses the heavy pressure on the University to meet aspirations of constituents. These included the regional community for a medical school; research-oriented academics for national recognition; administrators for both cost-savings and revenue generation while maintaining the diverse undergraduate population that characterises the University nationally and brings in grant funding; and, humanities and social science academics who want to preserve the quality of their programs in the face of financial losses. Furthermore, this approach ties UCR to the other UC campuses, especially the top tier ones. One characteristic of the more prestigious UC institutions—Berkeley and Los Angeles—is that their percentages of students of colour have dropped as the institutions have relied upon primarily academic background as admissions criteria (Tomas Rivera Policy Institute, 2004). What this drive for national prominence means, certainly in planning, is the privileging of particular behaviours of academics and administrators. These include for academics the emphasis upon publication and funded research, as clearly articulated by one subvol. 52, no. 2, 2010

’

committee of the Strategic Planning Committee (University of California Riverside, 2010a). Here the call for coupling research grant applications to merit review of academics is qualified with ‘in fields where grants are important’ and with rewarding successful grant procurement with reductions in teaching. Grant productivity on campus is low by AAU standards. We recommend setting expectations for grant seeking as part of merit reviews in fields where grants are important; regular discussions by Deans of the performance of departments and research units in chairs meetings and other venues; rewarding individuals who are obtaining grants with credit on merits and/or reduced teaching; finding seed funds for the preparation of multiinvestigator grants; and exploring ways to allocate indirect costs to provide incentives for higher levels of grant submission (University of California Riverside, 2010a. p. 1). Not more than a month after the dissemination of the first draft of UCR 2020, the Academic Senate of the Riverside campus released the results of a survey of tenure track academics during the NovemberDecember 2009 period (University of California Riverside. Survey Research Center, 2010). The results show that there are divisions among academics on the topic of emphasis on grant seeking, although the majority thinks the emphasis is either acceptable or not enough. More telling is the perception that academic morale has decreased over a one-year period, with the budget crisis viewed as playing a significant role in this trend. For administrators, the emphasis in UCR 2020 is upon tightening up admissions in favour of the more accomplished students, providing more resources to units that contribute to the aspirations of the campus for elite status, and providing leadership and management expected of an elite institution, including showing greater transparency in the budget process. In the face of these expectations of administrators, the academic survey results express little confidence in the administration, generally, with only a small minority of academics viewing both the campus budget process and long-range academic planning as transparent or clear. Furthermore, there is considerable variation among academics from specific units whether or not campus administrative leaders are judged to understand academics’ concerns. Likely, campus administrators’ behaviours are too much shaped by institutional practices and resource scarcity to realise these aspirations. Short-changed, John S Levin

The present moment It is precisely in the present, when the University of California, Riverside seeks both legitimacy and financial resources as the two pillars of its survival as an elite organisation and in the face of a significant budget crisis, that the theoretical underpinnings of organisational and institutional life become most apparent. UCR is set on a pattern of action commensurate with its institutional aspirations; conversely, its dependency upon resources to attain elevated status is limiting aspirations. Additionally and perhaps most importantly, in order to satisfy tenure track academics (the core operators of the University), the actions of the University in both addressing the budget problems and in advancing the University’s status must be carried out within the more traditional value-context articulated by academics. That is, collegiality, respect for others, transparency of processes, and administrative support for and understanding of academic work, among others. UCR has placed itself in two rather pervasive environments: the institutional environment of an elite research university; and the global economic environment of competition for higher education institutions. Competition for resources includes competition for status as that marker can bring finances in the form of donations, private contracts, government and foundation grants, and higher fees from students as well as higher performing students that beget higher status for the institution. Theories of symbolic action notwithstanding (Pfeffer, 1981), whether it is Yudof as president of the University of California or the chancellor of UCR,Timothy White, the University is trapped in the nexus between aspirational identity and its dependency upon state government resources. Part of its identity, however, is its public nature as well as its proclaimed identity as a special kind of public institution, one that has provided access to a highly ethnically diverse student body. There is no end in sight, certainly no forward progression toward greater institutional status or legitimacy as long as UCR is resource dependent upon the state, which is its destiny through historical legislative behaviours (Douglass, 2000). And in California, a politically divided state with a democratic legislative majority but a requirement for a two-thirds majority for budgetary legislation, there have been cutbacks on government spending on higher education. Polarisation in state politics in California, as in other states,

62 Short-changed, John S Levin

’

means fewer dollars for higher education (Dar, 2009). Far be it, however, for a public university to withdraw from the public sphere and reject state financing in order to enter the uncertain economic marketplace where risk-taking is certain and organisational survival is doubtful. Either UC Riverside must wait for times that are more prosperous—the gold rush around the corner—or modify its reputational aspirations for elite status and settle on a reputation for access to ethnically diverse students and remain an outsider to AAU. This would place UCR near the bottom of the hierarchy of University of California campuses, but ideology, which includes institutional aspirations, is more malleable than reality. There is no doubt that UCR shares some characteristics of other research universities in the US, and those faced now or in the future with budgetary crises may confront the problem of institutional legitimacy if they choose to abandon aspirational identities as elite institutions. While California’s University of California, with its 10 research universities, has been a model for not only the US but also internationally of a preeminent public university, the model is on shaky foundations as its perpetuation will mean the erosion of access, usurped by the maintenance of elite status. Unless the public is willing to fund the University at higher levels to maintain broad access for students, both the University and the public will be short-changed. The institution—the University of California—with its present trajectory will become the fulfilment of the neoliberal project where private outcomes trump public ones. John Levin is Professor and Dean of the Graduate School of Education at the University of California, Riverside, USA.

References Apple, M 2001, Comparing neo-liberal projects and inequality in education. Comparative Education, 37(4), 409-423. Campos, M 2010, Undergraduate Admission for Fall 2010. Riverside, CA: University of California, Riverside. Clarke, S 2005, The neoliberal theory of society. In Saad-Filho, A & Johnston, D(eds), Neoliberalism: A critical reader (pp. 50-59). Ann Arbor, MI: Pluto Press. Colyvas, J & Powell, W 2006, ‘Roads to institutionalization: The remaking of boundaries between public and private science’, Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 305-353. Dar, L 2009, The political dynamics of higher education spending.Unpublished manuscript, Riverside, CA. DiMaggio, P & Powell, W 1983, ‘The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields’, American Sociological Review, 48, 147-160. vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

DiMaggio, P & Powell, W 1991, Introduction. In Powell, W & DiMaggio, P (eds), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 1-40). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Douglass, JA 2000, The California Idea and American higher education: 1850 to the 1960 Master Plan. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Douglass, JA 2010a, From chaos to order and back? A revisionist reflection on the California Master Plan for Higher Education @50 and thoughts about its future.Unpublished manuscript, Berkeley, CA. Douglass, JA 2010b, ‘Higher education budgets and the global recession: Tracking varied national responses and their consequences’, Research & Occasional Paper Series: CSHE, 4(10). Duggan, L 2003, The twilight of equality? Neoliberalism, cultural politics, and the attack on democracy. Boston: Beacon Press. Geiger, R 2010, ‘Impact of the financial crisis on higher education in the United States’, International Higher Education, 59(Spring), 9-11. Giroux, H 2004, The terror of neoliberalism. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Press. Glantz, SA & Hays, E 2009, Financial options for restoring quality and access to public higher education in California.Unpublished manuscript, Berkeley, CA. Goedegebuure, L, Kaiser, F, Maassen, P & De Weert, E 1993, Higher education policy in international perspective: An overview. In Goedegebuure, L, Kaiser, F, Maassen, P, Meek, L, Van Vught, F & De Weert, E (eds.), Higher education policy (pp. 1-12). New York: Pergamon Press. Hayden, T 2010, ‘We can’t afford to be quiet about the rising cost of college’, The Chronicle Review, B4-B5. Held, D, McGrew, A, Goldblatt, D & Perraton, J 1999, Global transformations: Politics, economics and culture. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Institute for Higher Education Leadership and Policy 2010, Student flow analysis: CSU student progress toward graduation. Sacramento, CA: Institute for Higher Education Leadership and Policy. Johnson, H & Sengupta, R 2009, Closing the gap: Meeting California’s need for college graduates. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California Labaree, D 1997, ‘Public goods, private goods: The American struggle over educational goals’, American Educational Research Journal, 34(1), 39-81. Levin, J 2001, Globalizing the community college: Strategies for change in the twenty-first century. New York: Palgrave. Levin, JS 2009, Budget Advisory Committee Notes. University of California, Riverside. Lipset, S 1996, American exceptionalism: A double edged sword. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. Marginson, S & Considine, M 2000, The enterprise university: Power, governance and reinvention in Australia. New York: Cambridge University Press. Mintzberg, H 1983, Power in and around organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc. Mintzberg, H 1994, Rise and fall of strategic planning. New York: The Free Press. Morgan, G 2006, Images of organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Office of the Provost, UoC, Riverside 2009, Budget Adivsory Committee Process: Permanent budget Reduction Planning Scenarios.

’

Pfeffer, J & Salancik, G 1978, The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper and Row. Puiggros, A 1999, Neoliberalism and education in the Americas. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Rampell, C 2009, ‘Great Recession’: A Brief Etymology. Economix Reed, D 2008, California’s Future Workforce: Will There Be Enough College Graduates? San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California. Rice, R, Bullough, W & Orsi, R 1988, The elusive Eden: A new history of California. New York: Alfred Knopf. Rosenhall, L 2010, January 31, ‘Class cuts wreak havoc at California universities’, Sacramento Bee, p. 1A. Samuels, B 2010, ‘How American research universities spend their money’, April 19, 2010. Retrieved April 19, 2010, from <www.huffingtonpost.com>. Schrag, P 1998, Paradise lost: California’s experience, America’s future. New York: New York Press. Shulock, N & Moore, C 2007, Rules of the Game: How State Policy Creates Barriers to Degree Completion and Impedes Student Success in the California Community Colleges. Institute for Higher Education Leadership & Policy. Slaughter, S & Leslie, L 1997, Academic capitalism, politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Solomon, D 2009, September 27, ‘Questions for Mark Yudof: Big man on campus’, The Times Magazine, p. MM18. The University of California Commission on the Future 2010, From the working groups, Commission on the future: First round of recommendations: University of California, Office of the President. Tomas Rivera Policy Institute 2004, The Reality of Race-Neutral Admissions at the University of California: Turning the Tide or Turning Them Away. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles. UC Academic Council 2010, Memorandum to the UC Commission on the Future. Oakland, CA: Academic Senate, University of California. University Committee on Planning and Budget 2010, The Choices Report. Oakland, CA: System Wide Academic Senate, University of California. University of California Riverside 2010a, UCR 2020: Academic Excellence Subcommittee Report. Riverside, CA: University of California, Riverside. University of California Riverside 2010b, UCR 2020:The path to preeminence. A living document to guide our future. Riverside, CA: University of California, Riverside. University of California Riverside. Survey Research Center 2010, Faculty senate survey 2009 results. Riverside, CA: University of California, Riverside. Waters, M 1995, Globalization. New York: Routledge. Watson, RN 2010, March 26, ‘The Humanities really do produce a profit’, The Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. A36-A37. Wilson, S, Newell, M & Fuller, R 2010, Ready or not, here they come. Sacramento, CA: California Postsecondary Education Commission. Yudoff, M 2009, UC: An engine of opportunity for all Californians. Oakland, CA: University of California.

Pfeffer, J 1981, ‘Management as symbolic action: The creation and maintenance of organizational paradigms’, Research in Organizational Behavior, 3, 1-52.

vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

Short-changed, John S Levin

’

OPINION

Researcher engagement and research integrity in Australia Andrew Crowden University of Melbourne, Australia

In a response to the Call for Papers about Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) processes in Australian Universities’ Review vol. 51, no. 1, Margaret Lindorff argued that non-medical researchers should become more engaged with the ethical issues associated with research. Lindorff suggested that researchers should view Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs) and other institutional research review bodies as resources which add value to the research process. Lindorff’s suggestion, if broadly adopted, could potentially be a key part of the solution to one of the Australian research community’s biggest challenges – ensuring that all research is undertaken with integrity and ethical sensitivity. Engagement is the key. As part of my professional role, I have regular conversations with researchers who are unsure about the need for research ethics review for their projects. Similar comments occur often: ‘But I only want to access medical records of patients so that I can contact their relatives to ask about the hospital care that they received - where is the harm?’, ‘We access information all the time for clinical reasons – why do I need approval for a research project where I’m doing the same thing?’. University researchers, like their health service and hospital research colleagues, can also make comments that indicate a similar disconnection from processes of research ethics review: ‘But we use students as participants all the time –that should be

part of their role - what’s the problem’. Sometimes researchers get angry: ‘Why do I need children’s parental consent? – if I have to get consent I wont get enough subjects – anyway the HREC just don’t get it – I think that I’m more ethical than the ethics committee! The committee is stifling good research’. Poor researcher engagement with ethics review processes extends beyond health services and universities. Email surveys provide a good example to illustrate another dimension of the problem. Like many of us, I am often contacted to participate in research surveys. Many projects have been through ethics review as part of the research process. Others have not. Some of these are low risk and don’t really need a formal approval – though often such projects would benefit from an expedited ethics review. Some projects present as unapproved medium risk research. I have seen a few that are potentially high risk. When contacted to participate in a survey by email I often send a reply asking if the researcher/s have had the project approved. Not surprisingly, the conversation and comments from researchers are often similar to those reported above. Researchers often respond with something like: ‘HREC approval was not considered necessary’. If the research appears to have potential risk to participants I may press for a reason and cite the need for researchers at least to consider relevant guidelines such as the National Statement on Ethical

64 Researcher engagement and research integrity in Australia, Andrew Crowden

vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

Conduct in Human Research and/or the Values and Ethics Guidelines for Ethical Conduct in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Research. In response, researchers have suggested that:‘This research is classified under social research rather than research involving humans. As such it has not been approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee.’ or ‘Our institution does not have to follow the National Statement. Instead, our research projects are conducted in full accordance with the guidelines and codes of the Australian Market and Social Research Society (AMSRS).’ Sometimes I have discussions with the researchers and their supervisors about the positive aspects of opening dialogue and increasing engagement with research ethics review. One frustrated manager of research noted that: ‘Some of our researchers see themselves as market researchers. What they fail to recognise is that they are working in a government organisation, not a private market research company (from whence many of them have come), and hence now have access to an ethics committee and indeed should pass their research through an ethics committee.’ Such responses are typical and illustrate with clarity another dimension of the challenge. These comments and examples illustrate that some researchers are not engaged, or are becoming disengaged, with current processes of ethics review. Without real engagement with research ethics issues there can be no constructive dialogue between researchers and review bodies. Limited dialogue means that there is a real danger that researchers and reviewers divert to different pathways. The consequence is that review processes can potentially become unrealistic and too demanding. On the other hand researchers are tempted to manipulate or even bypass required review processes. Research integrity cannot be guaranteed. Recent initiatives by Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) to design effective governance and research ethics review processes for the enormous diversity of research that is undertaken in Australia indicates that ensuring research integrity is being taken seriously. There are several examples of important steps being taken in the right direction. These include the current Australian Code for the responsible Conduct of Research; the 2007 changes to the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human research, the development of harmonisation initiatives to identify better pathways for multisite ethical review processes; the awareness of the distinct ethical dimensions of research with Aboriginal and Torres vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

’

Strait Islanders; and the recent proposal to establish an Australian Research Integrity Committee. However, it must be recognised that the success of such initiatives will continue to rely on ensuring that researchers are appropriately engaged in these and other processes. Researcher engagement is, and has always been, the key to enhancing research integrity. Lindorff is right to suggest that HRECs should be used as a resource and researchers and review committees need to work together. Certainly senior researchers should take greater responsibility for the ethical development of their students. However, it is simply not possible to do these things without nationally identified and co-ordinated educational strategies. What would help matters now would be for our National Health and Medical Research Council’s Australian Health Ethics Committee (AHEC) to take a leadership role in ensuring that researcher engagement with contemporary research ethics review processes is made a priority. Then processes to coordinate and enhance researcher engagement across all research sectors properly could be initiated. As a first step it would be sensible, and really helpful to both researchers and reviewers, if AHEC reinstated, at reasonable cost, biennial health ethics conferences and accessible regular ongoing research ethics education and training activities. Leadership in research ethics education has been done well by AHEC in the past. Reinstating research ethics education as an AHEC priority will ensure that the tangible link between researchers, reviewers and the national research ethics strategies that is weakening will be strong again. Increased researcher engagement will then help ensure that other good AHEC initiatives are successful. National research ethics education leadership and targeted educational activities will ensure that the opportunity for ongoing researcher engagement in ethics review will not be lost. Enhanced research integrity in all Australia research will follow. Without educational leadership within a considered national framework, potentially serious problems will be hard to prevent. Andrew Crowden is an ethicist with the University of Melbourne’s Rural Health Academic Centre, Ballarat, Australia.

Researcher engagement and research integrity in Australia, Andrew Crowden

’

Workload determination An essay in applied ethics Peter Davson-Galle Faculty of Education, University of Tasmania

Introduction

Underlying Principles

The topic of academic workload allocation is perennial and seems to be becoming more salient in an era of performance management and resource problems (see, for instance, Lazarsfeld, Jensen and Morgan, 2009, in a recent article in this journal, and its references list). This essay is an exercise in applied ethics on the topic of determining workloads in academia. As such, it is an exercise in connecting positions on various moral problems to do with workload allocation to underlying moral principles. (For the mechanics of such reasoning, see Davson-Galle, 2009). Sometimes those connections rely upon matter-of-fact empirical claims as premises in the relevant arguments but in general, I have not cited references to the empirical research literature in support of these as the claims that I will advance in this connection are at the level of common knowledge. The structure of the essay is that I will first outline some moral principles which I take to underlie some discussions concerning workloads (and which I endorse) and then appeal to them in making some suggestions as to legitimate practice in allocating workloads. Editorial constraints dictate that my treatment of any particular issue is brief and the range of issues addressed is limited; but hopefully what I say will act as food for deliberative thought, even if not as thorough an analysis as I would like (and have carried out for other purposes).

There are two distinct groups of moral principles that bear upon workload allocation issues. The first group outlines features that should govern items in a workload formula. The second group outlines features that should govern procedures for the allocation of workloads. There is nothing particularly original about any of these and several of them crop up in the rhetoric of various universities (and units within them) concerning workloads. I don’t wish to embarrass particular universities by quoting from their workload documents and leave it to readers to make their own judgements of their own institution’s efforts, but my impression from reading a good number of them prior to crafting workload formulae in my own institution is that there is a tendency to vague ‘feel good’ rhetoric. Accordingly, I will spend a little bit of time unpacking each of them. I hope that they will be clear enough for the purposes at hand. I will not defend these principles but simply portray them and then appeal to them in defence of particular judgements. The first group I have called ‘substantive principles’. It is mainly these principles that I will be drawing upon in discussion of some sample issues.They are:

66 Workload determination, Peter Davson-Galle

Comprehensiveness The basic idea here is simply that all sorts of things count as legitimate academic activity and if they are deemed to be that, then they should be included as part of a workload. In short, there should be nothing vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

’

that is legitimate academic work that is viewed as simply a pro bono contribution by an academic. For instance, if reviewing academic monographs for journals is considered to be an important academic activity, then that should be included. Note that the fact that a review may not earn any research income for a university is beside the point of workload allocation.

can be hired, or whatever, but the problem might still arise. In short, some constraints upon total skewing freedom might have to be imposed. These principles are in tension. The second group I have called ‘procedural principles’.They are:

Equity (fairness and so forth)

Put simply, whatever workload formula is in operation should be one that has received majority support from academic staff. There might be some tension with the above point about feasibility but it is a familiar business in applied ethics for guiding principles to be in tension.

I don’t much like this buzzword but what I mean by it is that no academic should be directed to have a heavier workload than an equivalent academic and that equal time should be allocated for equivalent work - like should be treated alike. This is but a beginning brush-stroke and the notion of equivalence needs work here. Obviously, a full-time academic should not be considered equivalent to a part-time academic but, as will be explored briefly below, there are issues concerning rank. (For instance, should it be possible for a professor to be directed to have a heavier workload than a lecturer?). In addition, what is to be deemed equivalent work remains obscure.This will be revisited below. Skewing The equity point talks of weight of workload. The current principle simply proposes that various mixes of work can legitimately add up to the same weight. Prima facie, there should be no particular formula demanding that academics all have the same spread of work types or that an academic has the same spread of work types from year to year. This is in opposition to the ‘one size fits all’ 40/40/20 breakup of academic work into teaching/research/other-stuff that one sometimes sees in workload formulae. Some academics might be primarily teachers, others primarily researchers and yet others primarily administrators and any mix in between. Feasibility In tension with the above prima facie commitment to skewing is that, say, a faculty, has certain work that it is obliged to have carried out by someone or other. The most notable of these is that it will have enrolled a bunch of students who have to be taught. If the academics in the faculty are churning out research articles at such a rate that most of their workload is consumed by this activity, then there won’t be enough people left to teach students. It might well be that some research grants permit teaching buyout or that sessional tutors vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

Collegiality

Manageability Academic work is complex. For instance, no two journal articles will take the same amount of time to research and write. If one simply allocated a rigid, say, 200 hours for a research article in a scholarly peerreviewed journal, then this would be too much for some articles and too little for others. If like are to be treated alike and this complexity is to be captured in a formula, then the formula would be unmanageably complicated - it would have endless sub-clauses covering the wide range of scenarios. Then again, if one had no formulaic allocations whatsoever, and treated every workload scenario as one to be thought about from scratch, then things would be unmanageable in another way, requiring long workload management meetings to be held to explore such matters. Moreover, if there was any concern to treat like cases alike, more meetings would have to be held in which workload managers satisfied themselves that they were exercising their discretion in a way equivalent to other workload managers in similar scenarios. In short, whatever procedures for the allocation of workloads are arrived at, they should be manageable, able to be carried out without a mammoth workload allocation in their own right. Challengeability Whatever formula is derived, and whatever the procedures for applying it are, errors will occur or, more cautiously, individuals will think that they have occurred. Universities should have some mechanism by means of which an individual can challenge a workload allocation (which, given the manageability point above, will likely not have been an algorithmic exercise but will have involved the exercise of discretion). Workload determination, Peter Davson-Galle

Of course, university enterprise bargaining agreements will contain some sort of very formal university-level process of appeal against a putatively unjust workload allocation. However, what I have in mind here is that the process of challenge should be able to occur at a lower level in a slightly less formal / legalistic sort of way. For example, one might have a faculty appeals committee that considers such claims with a view to resolving them without invoking more formal appeal processes. Transparency A major operative principle above is that of equity. If justice is being done then like will be treated alike. However, it is not unknown for workload managers to allocate workloads unevenly. Having some sort of formula will help prevent this but, as noted, unless such a formula is to be unmanageably detailed, there will be some exercise of discretion. Of course, some sort of appeal process is mooted, but if justice were to be not just done but seen to be done, it would help prevent things getting to that stage. For this to occur would not only demand knowledge of the workload formula, but also knowledge of what has resulted from its application (and exercise of discretion). If it is considered that a full time annual workload for an academic is 1,800 hours (for example), then if some people have been allocated more hours and others fewer hours, this should be known. If ‘case-law’ builds up where patterns emerge in workload managers’ exercising of discretion, this should also be known.

Consideration of some vexatious workload issues Editorial demands for brevity have required that I consider only some issues and most of those that I have chosen involve research. Seniority As touched on above, there is an issue concerning the application of the principle of equity. If like are to be treated alike, then within which parameters should academics be alike in the application of this principle? One contentious parameter is that of seniority. Put simply: should senior academics do more work than more junior ones? I have seen university workload documents in which this was the case. One rationale for such a practice is that senior academics are paid more than junior ones;

68 Workload determination, Peter Davson-Galle

’

so, if one were to have something in mind like ‘equal pay for equal work’, they would have to do more work in order to warrant getting more pay. I suggest that this is not a good way of interpreting / applying the equity principle. Down this path lies overload. Of course, there will always be ambitious academics who overwork for their own personal career advancement.That is not the issue here.We are not discussing voluntary overload. Rather, we are discussing compulsory and directed overload. However, if they are not to warrant their wallet width by doing more work, then how would it be warranted? It is not really the brief of this essay to explore differential salary rates and their warrant as a topic in itself but something can be said by appealing to the above principles. Two items of academic work might take the same amount of time to carry out yet one might be a more sophisticated task that demands a higher level of expertise. For instance, driving a car to attend a meeting on another campus might take two hours and putting the final touches on a referee’s report on an article for a journal might also take two hours. These tasks take the same time, and thus by simply appealing to the principle of comprehensiveness, the same workload allocation. However, one is more complex than the other is and some tasks can be carried out by more academics than other tasks. For instance, if done conscientiously, writing a referee’s report on a journal article is something that might not be able to be done as well by a junior academic with a marginal research record as a more established researcher could do it. It seems to me that the principle of skewing applies nicely here. Although a senior academic may not work any harder than a junior academic, the type of work carried out ought to be of a more sophisticated sort across at least some of the areas of their activity. It would satisfy equity, on one interpretation, in that those of like seniority were treated alike in that they would all be expected to be operating at a certain level of sophistication in their work. Spread of types of work As touched upon earlier, should every academic be required to do some teaching, some research, some administration and provide some service to the community - that is, cover the full spread of types of academic activity? (At least carry out some teaching and some research, the core functions of universities). Obviously the principle of skewing comes to the fore here, and so does the principle of feasibility. The vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

former principle would suggest that it would be possible for an academic to focus entirely on one sort of academic activity.The latter principle would demand that whatever skewing goes on, the total academic work of, say, a faculty, especially its non-discretionary tasks, has to be carried out by that faculty’s academics. The point here is that one could satisfy feasibility by having ‘horses for courses’. If different exercises in skewing balance out each other out, such that the total academic workload of the faculty is done, it doesn’t much matter which individuals do what work. Of course, in the interests of transparency, such differences in work spread across an academic staff should be known. Moreover, if someone is aggrieved about the allocated spread (commonly: ‘I have to teach too much’), then the principle of challengeability applies. However, perhaps there should be further constraints upon skewing apart from the demands of feasibility. Although formal research-only (or research-intensive) appointments are familiar and formal teachingintensive appointments are again becoming so, the average academic is a so-called ‘teaching and research’ appointment. It might be held that if an academic has that type of appointment, then a legitimate restraint upon skewing is that both teaching and research have to be part of the workload. However, it is a commonplace for many individuals in such appointments to be research-inactive. Affected universities could move to remediate that by the application of various sanctions (blocked tenure confirmation, blocked promotion or, for that matter, sacking) on the grounds that it counts as a breach of contract if one is employed to teach and carry out research but fails to do the latter. Moreover, perhaps such universities should have appointed more carefully in the first place and perhaps more ‘teaching-intensive’ appointments should have been made. However, if so, one reading of the equity and skewing principles would demand that the normal avenues of tenure, promotion and so forth should be available to all staff, including those in de jure or de facto teachingintensive positions. Of course if a research-inactive academic occupies a nominally ‘teaching and research’ appointment, that person should not get any workload allowance for research activity. This is a straightforward application of the equity principle and to do otherwise would, in effect, grant workload time without the corresponding work being done.Although the point seems a blatantly vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

’

obvious one, some workload formulae routinely allocate ‘research activity’ time for every academic, regardless of whether any such activity actually occurs or not.This is to treat unlike cases alike. Shifts in workload profile There is nothing in the skewing principle that suggests that a particular skewed profile must be rigid over time. However, there are workload implications of any profile changes, the obvious one being continued compliance with the feasibility principle. It is especially so if, say, a deliberate teaching-intensive appointment has been made for a particular purpose yet such an individual wishes to now move away from that planned role. However, there are other issues involved as well. Most profile shifts aren’t particularly problematic except where a research-inactive academic wishes to become research-active. One problem is the transition phase: undertaking research takes time and it is not at all clear that an allowance of time should be granted to an academic based merely on a claim that s/he now wishes to undertake research. What if an academic’s attempt to carry out research fails due to her / his inability to do so? This could lead to unlike cases being treated alike, in that a person who actually succeeded in generating a research outcome (for example) would receive the same work allowance as someone who tried to but failed. In a sense, this also transgresses the principle of comprehensiveness, not because it is failing to rule in legitimate academic work (which I take to be the usual problem in workload formulae) but because it is ruling in as legitimate academic work something that is dubiously so construed. Is it legitimate for an academic to be supported in futile activity? It is most obviously not legitimate if, year in and year out, an academic keeps saying that s/he is going to be researching an article for journal publication, say, yet, year in and year out, nothing eventuates. Things are murkier, however, for an initial go at that activity. It is surely legitimate for someone to try to change their academic work profile. The best compromise between the principles in tension here (equity and comprehensiveness with a little bit of pressure on the side from feasibility and skewing) is something like this. One could grant such an academic a conditional workload allowance for such a profile change attempt. So, were the proposal to be carrying out a piece of research that would lead to a scholarly journal article, then one could grant such an academic whatever workload allowance there was in Workload determination, Peter Davson-Galle

the formula for such an article’s generation. However, if nothing eventuates, then that allowance is deemed void and subsequent workload allowances for later years are overloaded to recoup that allowance. This allows someone the chance to have ‘a go’ without granting them time for a wasted effort (which would be inequitable in that it would be the same as the time given to someone else for a successful effort). This might seem somewhat rough upon an academic wishing to become research-active but, looked at another way, it is providing someone with a supported chance to shift their profile. One variation on this is to consider the academic’s obligations concerning the allowance to be discharged if the article were to be submitted, even if rejected (so long as it was a serious submission).After all, it is easier for an established researcher to be published than a beginner. In summary, there seems to me to be limited institutional obligation to bankroll a teaching-intensive appointee’s move to research activity and even less obligation if the academic in question is a teaching and research appointment who is, in effect, failing to fulfil the contractual obligations of such an appointment. Research publication workload allocation In what follows, I am considering only publication research activity that does not come with a grant that ‘buys’ an academic’s time to do that research. I have suggested that a research-inactive academic who wishes to become research-active could be supported via an ‘advance’ workload allocation, the retention of which was conditional upon performance. But what of academics who are already research-active? Should the same conditional advance allowance for proposed research activity be given or should some other arrangement obtain? I suggest that another arrangement, a retrospective system, is best. Although, if an academic without an existing research record is to have a research workload allocation at all, there is no better possibility than an advance allowance (for proposed research), doing this sort of thing across the board for all academics begins to transgress the manageability principle. Consider what would be involved. How much time is to be allowed prospectively? Some academics would anticipate greater activity than others would and what was proposed would have to be discussed and decided upon. Even if one had a standard allowance for each type of research activity (like 200 hours for a proposed schol-

70 Workload determination, Peter Davson-Galle

’

arly journal research article), different levels of activity would be proposed and then outcomes against those activities would presumably be monitored. Also, in accordance with the principle of equity, prospective allowances for promises that did not result in, say, publications, should be recouped. (Although, as discussed above for the case of the novice researcher, one could, I suppose, not bother to ‘claw back’ workload time for futile activity if one were to be persuaded somehow, a rejected submission perhaps, that serious work had been done even if fruitlessly so). However, look at what has just been sketched. On any of these variations, things are beginning to look very messy, unmanageably so. Apart from this tension with the manageability principle, there are also issues connected with transparency. One could, of course, simply publish the chapter and verse (or, perhaps, just the chapters with some of the idiosyncratic detail omitted) but if ‘claw back’ occurred and is reported, then it begins to look like a ‘naughty’ list. Personally, I don’t mind such ‘outing’ (and it transgresses none of my listed principles) but some would be inclined to be more sensitive of individuals’ feelings. If such sensitivity led to some censoring of promulgated information, then the transparency principle is transgressed. In addition, the more that the ‘verse’ idiosyncratic detail of judgements, and the bases for them, is reported in the interest of transparency, the more the whole process is becoming even more dubiously manageable. Many universities identify some academics as researchactive on the basis of a track-record surpassing some threshold amount of research (say, at least four scholarly research articles over the past triennium). One could improve the manageability of a prospective research allowance scheme by using this classification and granting any academics so classified some standard allowance. However, there are still problems. One is an issue with equity. If classification as research-active or not is on the basis of surpassing some threshold level of activity, individuals will vary as to the extent of their activity beyond that threshold. If, despite this, each is getting the same allowance, then this is inequitable. In addition, one can have sub-threshold research activity (say, two articles over a triennium) but, on this proposal, one would not get a research allowance at all. In short, although the manageability has been improved, the ‘research-active or not’ measure is too crude to be equitable.Things would be marginally improved by having another category ‘highly research-active’ (as some universities do). But it would only be marginal improvement. vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

There is also an unresolved issue concerning the ‘claw back’ for unfulfilled promise and a lack of recognition for over-fulfilled promise if one has crude classifications like ‘not research-active’, ‘research-active’ and ‘highly research-active’ driving things. One solution would be to make things as finegrained as the track record is (some allowance for one article, more for two, more again for three and so on) but this is now looking very much like the full retrospective research workload proposal which I will advocate shortly. Given these challenges, universities would be wise to consider a retrospective system, one allocating research workload for a given year based upon past performance. A merit of this is that it does not involve any ‘claw back’ for non-performance given that the allocation is for already-known performance not the promise of new performance. However, this presents several problems, one of which is that it allows an academic to rest upon his/ her laurels and do no research whatsoever in the time allocated. But so what? The academic has already earned that time by doing the research without such an allowance. There is an apparent short term equity issue in that such an academic and a research-active academic will each get the same workload allowance for the same past performance yet one will work in the time allocated and the other will take it easy. But, again, so what? It is just an appearance of inequity. Unless an academic uses the time to generate more publications, future allocations for research will quickly be reduced compared to that of a research-active academic who uses the time productively to ‘buy’ future allocations. The situation is self-correcting. Another problem is that a research-active academic has to commit time to undertaking research in advance of having that time allocated. I don’t think that this is problematic. Workload formulae of an explicit and formal sort are a reasonably recent phenomenon in university circles.Thus, most academics who would be looking to have a current research workload allocation would have an existing track record to draw upon and those that do not (new appointments, say) could be accommodated under the conditional arrangements mentioned above for research-inactive academics wishing to make a workload profile shift. Space does not permit an exploration of the details of how this might work but the most usual idea is to have some sort of formula for the allocation of workload allowances for various publication types, avervol. 52, no. 2, 2010

’

aged over three years to calculate an allowance for a given year. This has the merit of smoothing out peaks and troughs caused by the vagaries of journal publication schedules. In proposing this, I’m aware that there is some tension between the demands of the principles of equity and manageability. In any examination of publicationtype claims, it is blatantly obvious that different examples of the same publication type would take different amounts of time to prepare. Some are robust and complex while others are obviously deliberate attempts to construct a series of ‘minimum publishable unit’ outputs from a single research activity. Clearly, a standard allowance will blur such differences in an inequitable manner. Yet to accommodate that fine-grain with great fidelity would become unmanageable and probably difficult to present publicly as an exercise in transparency. The issue is a vexing one but my inclination is to think that it becomes too messy to do anything other than have a standard allocation for a research type, even if the cost is some inequity of allocation. The hope would be that things even out over time. Note that I have not spoken of journal status as per the recent ERA (Excellence in Research for Australia) listings in Australia. I take such matters to be not a workload issue as such and more a matter for other reward mechanisms in the university.

Closing remarks As I said at the start, my treatment is partial and brief (but if anyone wishes to contact me for fuller discussion then I would welcome that). I do hope, however, that I have illustrated the sort of explicit connecting of workload decisions to guiding principles that I suggest should be more prevalent than is manifest in the sector at the moment. Sloganising is a poor substitute for principled argumentation. I am grateful for editorial suggestions on earlier versions of this essay. Peter Davson-Galle is Graduate Research Coordinator in the Faculty of Education at the University of Tasmania.

References Lazarsfeld-Jensen, A & Morgan, K 2009, ‘The vanishing idea of a scholarly life’, Australian Universities’ Review 51(2): 62-69. Davson-Galle, P 2009, Reason and Professional Ethics, Sydney, Ashgate Publishing Ltd, ISBN: 978-0-7546-5484-1. Workload determination, Peter Davson-Galle

’

Reach for the Stars Arthur O’Neill This paper is based on an analysis of newspaper advertisements lodged by Australian universities over a two-month period in 2009. Their contents – predominantly course offerings and employment vacancies – are boosted by way of techniques employed in the marketing of products. That is, catchphrases and other means of drawing attention to the brands (and so to the presumed worth) of manufacturers are used. Where universities are concerned, these self-promoting devices often affront the sensibilities of readers. Universities would be better advised to stick to plain announcements and not to debase their worth by decorating them with sales ploys.

Joseph Gora (Australian Universities’ Review, vol. 52, no. 1, 2010) recently assisted readers of this journal by remarking on the illusions of Latin mottos and the vacuity of mission statements of Australian universities. More research needs to be done, as they say, so I have dusted off the following contribution to the emerging field of higher education polemics. Interdisciplinary enquiry is my game and here I combine some thoughts on well-established theory in the academic field of marketing and advances now being made by the praxis of our governments, commercial operations and tertiary institutions. There was a time when car registration plates came in black and white, with identifying letters and numbers, and abbreviations of the names of issuing States and Territories on them. Later, words, colours and sometimes crests or other images were added. Victoria – Garden State and – Drive Safely (in green) were changed in turn to: On the Move; The Way to Go; The Place to Be (in blue). New South Wales was The Premier State (in black on yellow); South Australia was The Festival State (black on white); and so on. Despite the actions of a former administration, Queensland was never The State of Despair – at least that was not announced on vehicles – though it would have been a nice counterpoint to Western Australia’s State of Excitement. Instead, Queensland’s Sunshine State vied for the tourist dollar with Tasmania’s Holiday Isle. Seen but rarely noted, rendered invisible by repetition, these characterisations turn into a background. So

72 Reach for the Stars, Arthur O’Neill

it is with commercial operations. Who gives a moment to we’re there for you accompanying everything put out by an automobile club? Are we stirred to action by no limits sitting alongside the name of a management institute in its advertisement for a seminar by a visiting guru? Located beside or below the name of the organisation, the words seep into mind by the exercise of a sort of osmotic pressure and lie there, absorbed but unattended. Besides, they are lost in the promiscuous abandon of advertising.The announcement of a vacancy for a salesperson has The People’s Choice below the name of a car dealer. Under the drawing of a grinning chicken, logo for a chain of shops, is Bargains with a SMILE. A call to put money in a capital investment fund has Rewards through experience next to its title. Government and semi-government organisations have embraced the practice: a tourist commission sticks South Australia. A brilliant blend, on envelopes and letterhead. One APS Career … Thousands of Opportunities graces the announcement of jobs offered by federal government agencies. An invitation to apply for pasture research and travel scholarships has … take yourself to greener pastures beside the name of the sponsoring memorial trust run by a state instrumentality. That ‘…’ in advertisements is a cue to dream about the prospect.Announcing what an organisation stands for, what it affirms, how it behaves, turns easily into telling readers to do something and to imagine that good will come of it. vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

’

Nowhere are these injunctions more evident than Universities have taken their tags and ejaculations to in the education business, the ‘better yourself’ project heart.They lead the pack in visionary exhortations, and beyond compare. One private school in a country city, in relaying their quality – such as ‘Good Universities ‘with separate boarding sites for boys and girls …’ – Guides Australia’s University of the Year Joint Winner the open-endedness of the dots suggesting greener 2000–2001 Developing the e-University’ that still sat at pastures nevertheless – has A Breath of Fresh Air after the foot of University of Southern Queensland adverits name. Another, a private school for girls in a capitisements in 2009! tal city, puts A world of Opportunity awaits below its Who can tussle with excellence and recognition? name. A third in the same city, a co-educational gramThey are code words for qualities that age confers, at mar, has the Let Your Light Shine under the name and least on places started as universities rather than reconbeside the school’s coat of arms, with Luceat Lux figured from colleges of advanced education after Vestra below. 1988. Among the taggedAs the last example ones, Griffith University Universities have taken their tags and shows, these little stateis Rewarding excellence, ejaculations to heart. They lead the pack ments (italicised, and while The University of Tasin visionary exhortations, and in relaying referred to as ‘tags’ in mania is Internationally their quality – such as ‘Good Universities this paper) are rather like Renowned. In the absence Guides Australia’s University of the Year mottos affirming characterof tags, the University of Joint Winner 2000–2001 Developing istic activities and purposes. Wollongong puts ‘innovaThey adjoin the names of tion, diversity & excellence’ the e-University’ that still sat at the foot advertisers, their coats of in white on black at the top of University of Southern Queensland arms or logos, decorative of its advertisements; and advertisements in 2009! images, special font styles the University of Sydney and colours. has ‘Leadership…InnovaIn addition, standard words or phrases (often in the tion… Transformation …’, in white on black at the form of injunctions) appear above, below, or beside bottom of theirs. advertisements.They are akin to slogans and are assoRecent additions to the pool of universities draw ciated with contents: courses available, goods for attention to their novelty and relevance. Many of their sale, positions vacant. In this paper they have been tags and ejaculations turn a practical and vocational referred to as ‘ejaculations’ and are shown in inverted emphasis, formerly held to be the special province of commas. ‘Think’ enjoins the University of Technology, colleges of advanced education, into an advantage.The Sydney, in bold black down the side of an advertiseimplication is that the old lot are wedded to abstract ment for a Professor and Head of the School of Manand theoretical stuff. Experience.The Difference affirms agement; and at the top, it puts ‘Think. Change. Do.’ the University of South Australia (but an oldie says ‘The The University of Newcastle has ‘Aim High’ alongside difference is Deakin’). A New School of Thought, prodetails of a couple of available jobs; and in a later claims Victoria University. A new way to think asserts insertion, it has ‘Out To Achieve’ running down the Southern Cross University. The Queensland University left side of the advertisement for a Pro-Vice Chancelof Technology is a university for the real world. lor, Faculty of Health. Then there are characters shared by new and old A tag is a mark of trade. It belongs in a congeries of – to do with inspiration, life, living, vim. The Flinders signs that denote a brand name. An ejaculation indiUniversity of South Australia is ‘inspiring achievement’, cates an opportunity to act. It is a ‘come-on’. The diswhile the University of Adelaide seeks to inspire continction is fine, for both can be employed to the same fidence by announcing that it is a ‘Group of Eight effect. Sometimes, one can repeat the other: at the top Member’. The University of Western Sydney urges of an advertisement for two positions and beside a readers of its advertisements to ‘Be Inspired, Be Part photo of its tower, the University of Western Australia of a University on the Move’. Edith Cowan University ejaculates: ‘Join a leading Australian university team declaims with the evangelical vibrancy of the pastor achieving international excellence’; and at the bottom, of a happy-clapper church: ‘Engage. Enthuse. Inspire. under its name and beside its coat of arms, is the tag – ECU’.The University of Queensland starts its job adverAchieving International Excellence. tisements in more secular fashion with ‘Opportunity. vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

Reach for the Stars, Arthur O’Neill

Lifestyle. Excellence.’ The University of Adelaide has a ‘Life Impact’, while the University of the Sunshine Coast puts ‘Your uni. Your life’, at the foot of its advertisements. The University of Western Sydney is Bringing knowledge to life – unlike the ‘old’ Bond University, which is, appropriately enough for a private operation, Bringing Ambition to Life. So far, lifestyle apart, successful candidates are invited to absorb institutional virtues.They might not imagine themselves to be excellent and innovative but, by the operation of a sort of homoeopathic magic, they will become so on getting the jobs. As further inducement to apply, they are invited to get all shook up by the prospect of psychic transformation. Tags and ejaculations running this line – an application of the related magic of potentiating succussion – exhort readers to let loose their inner selves: to ‘Aim High’ (University of Newcastle); to ‘discover what YOU can do when you work with the best’ (Australian National University); to dream large (the University of Melbourne); to Be What You Want to Be (Central Queensland University); to ‘Be Inspired, Be Part of a University on the Move’ (University of Western Sydney); and to Go Boldly (Monash University) – sometimes with ‘A bold career with Monash’ as preface to vacancy notices. There are Infinite Possibilities (La Trobe University), though this recently-introduced tag is dropped from a later advertisement and, staying on the right side of plagiarism, ‘Brave, Bold Careers’ appears to the side of its announcement of various positions, including a Manager, Annual Giving, who is to ‘Liaise with Alumni and external stakeholders to achieve desired outcomes’. No better statement of the new accountability mantra of the modern university can be imagined: brave new world that hath such free spirits in it! Copying others – let’s be nice and call it following a leader – extends to visual elements of advertisements. ‘O’ in the Monash Go is an image of the globe,Australiaside up, indicating, I suppose, that the world will be on your platter, alongside the bacon you can bring home, if you venture forth in a university so far-flung that the sun never sets on it.At the University of South Australia in Adelaide, where the sun sets later than at Monash University’s Melbourne-based campuses, the same globe rests in the palm of an outstretched hand, with ‘Follow the leader in research’ beside it, in a recent advertisement. Since tags indicate the spirit of the times, that is, prevailing orthodoxies, they can change on the burial of old designs. Growing Esteem, standing for the adop-

74 Reach for the Stars, Arthur O’Neill

’

tion of ‘a new strategic direction for the University’, was a take on the University of Melbourne’s motto – Postera Crescam Laude – but left means and measures open. In time, the new direction was better known as the ill-fated privatisation venture of a former vice-chancellor. Many supposed the tag was put down because it was made into an embarrassment after a spate of graffiti: growing elitism/irrelevance/pricks/the business … Policy makers rarely are thin-skinned: the tag went when the University signed another strategic direction with dream large.

The lure and the hook Any of the following six tags would sit neatly beside the names of universities: (i) Determined to be different; (ii) something more …; (iii) WE DELIVER THE BEST RESULTS; (iv) Reputation & Results; (v) From great people to great performance; (vi) Where great ideas fly. But (i) accompanies the logo of a bank in an advertisement for an interestbearing saver account. (ii) sits under ‘ASIO’ (the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation) in a general advertisement for recruits. (iii) is beside a box and triangle image containing the name of a real estate agent in advertisements picturing female sales staff. (iv) is below the name of a legal firm in an advertisement about making compensation claims for diseases caused by exposure to asbestos. (v) is beside the name of a staff recruitment company in an advertisement of business positions. Finally, (vi) sits beside the tail fin logo and name of an airline. Tags are used by universities to the same effect as they are used by advertisers on the lookout (respectively) for investors, spooks, owners who may be induced to think that women are better than men at selling their houses, people with work-related injuries, job seekers who are prepared to put themselves in the hands of sifters of their mortal clay, and an airline seeking to put more bums on ‘premium economy’ aeroplane seats. That the academy sells itself in the same way as firms spruiking for trade is wonder enough; but that the tags employed, and some of the ejaculations, are so ill fitted to the purpose, are either silly self-aggrandisements or callow inducements, demands explanation. What is going on here? Better, what are the originators thinking about and what do they intend? They aim to bring institutional virtues into alignment with personal interests. This is accomplished by tags and ejaculations that bespeak either the advervol. 52, no. 2, 2010

tiser’s qualities and singular features, or its capacity to tap the reader’s potentialities. The first are advertisers’ hallmarks and the second are readers’ soft spots. To those in the game – agents who put advertisements together for universities and staff who commission them – it will seem downright silly to question the use of tags and ejaculations. After all, the world works this way: you best make wide announcement of your attractions and appeal to aspirations or conceits – it matters not which – if you want to get in the punters. But wait! There’s more!! That tags and ejaculations are ineffective inducements is of less account than keeping advertisers in the public eye. Like the tag on a registration plate, a brand name enters the minds of everyone who sees it. And so it is with universities, who would have us believe that they are the Good Guys. Whether or not we want a job there, who can be other than suffused with warm regard when the Curtin University of Technology advises ‘We’re looking for the world’s best’? Look no more: they are there to be poached from the national university! What goes around, comes around, as the motto of a volunteer organisation says. Australian States and Territories are doing away with tags on new car plates. Universities could also do without their zany promulgations. A demonstration of good teaching and research, not of questionable boosting, is the way to secure esteem. If a motto is to be espoused, then Above all, integrity is fitting, provided it is not bruited abroad but kept in the breast. Unfortunately, it has already been taken by a firm arranging trades in foreign exchange contracts, contracts for difference, spot forex, derivatives and other investment products. Something else must be found: Be Bold! When you take back what has been given to marketers, there are Infinite Possibilities…

vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

’

Notes Material for this article was collected from newspapers between mid-February and mid- April 2009, for universities from weekly issues of The Age, My Career and The Australian Higher Education Supplement. A summary is available on request from the author via email: arthurjhj@hotmail.com. Of universities that advertised over this period, the following are honourable exceptions to my strictures about tags and ejaculations:Australian Catholic University, one of the two Charlies (Sturt), Macquarie University, the University of New England, RMIT University, Swinburne University of Technology and the University of New South Wales. If a place used to stand out by saying something catchy then the way to stand out now is by not saying something catchy! Arthur O’Neill is a pensioner who had the best and worst of times working in universities and a college of advanced education.

Reference Gora, J 2010, ‘Run that sexy motto by me again’, Australian Universities’ Review 52(1): 77-80.

Reach for the Stars, Arthur O’Neill

’

Watch out! Here comes the TEQSA juggernaut Joseph Gora Disinfected academic at one of Australia’s 38 ‘leading’ universities

Is it possible to be assessed to death? This question has haunted me for some time as I have pondered the daily grind of the factory-university. It has also led me to recall a legendary figure who worked in that quintessential bastion of excellence, QUT, who, in outlining his main performance goal for the next academic year, declared his intention to ‘die on the job’. Initially I thought this referred to an unfulfilled sex act. But no, this guy was ‘serious’ (at least about lampooning the performance review process). Apparently, after guffaws of laughter and an injunction to ‘now-let’s-get-real’, the Head of School awaited a more considered response. Instead, the troublesome subject stood his ground and insisted on achieving immortality by demonstrating his selfless devotion to the corporate ethos. I’m told that despite repeated protestations by the Head of School, the goal remained in place. Happily, the Kamikaze subject went on to retire from the university to lead a happy postcorporate existence. How fortunate for this person given the regulatory storm clouds that are gathering over our magnificent higher education sector. For not only are academics facing yet another round of teaching review (this time an obsession with peer review) but, more ominously, there is the looming threat of hyper-regulation in the form of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA). I can hear the screams from here! Based on the European ‘turning process’ (your guess is as good as mine!) and presided over by the then Minister for the Alphabet, the right dour Julia Gillard, TEQSA is being touted as the best thing since takeaway

76 Watch out! Here comes the TEQSA juggernaut, Joseph Gora

pizza. Officials from the Department of the Alphabet have embarked on a nationwide tour to promote the virtues of TEQSA via a number of lavish power point presentations to nervous university managers.There is much bloated talk of the ‘education revolution’, which, – so the rhetoric goes - seeks to position Oz as ‘the best educated, best skilled and best trained workforce in the world’. By investing $57 million over 4 years in TEQSA – considerably less than the sum recommended in the Bradley Review - it is hoped that Australia will become ‘stronger, fairer and more prosperous.’ This is fighting talk for governments having to make up for the years of financial drought under the previous Howard Government. The intention of the latest reforms, according to our dot point PR specialists, is to ‘make the system more student-centred and transparent’ and to ‘make far more information about the system publicly available’. Conveniently avoiding the point that universities are already obsessed with student centredness, the government argues that ‘students’ choices will largely determine funding and they will have more and better information on which to base those choices.’ TEQSA will, through its oversight of something called ‘quality’, put ‘standards at the centre of the system’, which begs the question of where these were before the existence of the agency was announced. Highlighting ‘student choices’ is of course clearly in keeping with the consumerist ethos. Yet once the quality assurance exercise has exhausted itself, and the wretched My University website has exposed the innards of every institution, academics will find themvol. 52, no. 2, 2010

’

selves in the full glare of public scrutiny.They will feel the A* category with the Harvard Law Review and the like reluctant pole dancers, cavorting to rhythms not Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. Take it from me, no of their making. one outside Australia would think any Australian law In the frenzied search for ‘capacity building, inclujournal was in that league.’ siveness, transparency’ that is supposedly synonymous But how was the list prioritised? Who was involved? with quality, the student will now be able to strut The ARC had apparently cobbled together a list of 24 around like the consumer royal about to bestow a anonymous folk to determine which journals should knighthood on a worthy subject. Not that there’s anybe placed where. The only problem was that the ARC thing new about this – academics are already doing all refused to reveal the identities of these luminaries. in their collective powers to address students’ multiple ‘Rumour has it’, says Professor Allan, ‘that only 11 of and complex needs. Former Minister Gillard, in effect, them replied, but the ARC won’t say what those who transferred even more power to students and further replied actually said. Nor is it prepared to say how these emasculated the status of academics, all in the name people were selected, or what percentage of them of ‘quality’. were Australians.’ Professor Allan rightly describes such But what is this mysterious entity called ‘quality’? secrecy as ‘outrageous’, adding that,‘the ARC’s attempt Much of it boils down to a calibration of publications, to hide behind some pathetic abstraction such as congrant acquisitions, information systems, qualification fidentiality is beyond parody. These so-called experts and program accreditation, teaching performance and aren’t writing a reference about another person. learning outcomes. On closer inspection this grand They’re ranking law journals. If they won’t sign their assurance exercise turns names to their opinion and out to be a four lane highlet it become public, they But what is this mysterious entity way leading to a cowpat. either shouldn’t get the job called ‘quality’? Much of it boils down Why is it so? Well, let’s draw or their views should be to a calibration of publications, grant on the pointed insights of wholly discounted.’ acquisitions, information systems, no-slouch James Allan, GarBut that’s not the end of qualification and program accreditation, rick Professor of Law at the it. Consider the acquisition teaching performance and learning University of Queensland. of grants which is now a outcomes. On closer inspection this grand Writing from the standlynchpin of any academic’s point of one ensnared in promotion application. Proassurance exercise turns out to be a four a grotesque fantasy, Professor Allan notes: ‘…the lane highway leading to a cowpat. fessor Allan highlights the fact that one’s past ability bizarre foundations upon to win research funds or which the government’s quality assurance exercise grant income is being used as one of the criteria of is mounted. He begins with a conclusion; namely, quality. In the hard sciences this just might be halfway that TEQSA ‘is likely to be an opaque and uninformadefensible. In law and the humanities it is completely tive system with unintended incentives that no overbogus.’ And here’s the punch line: ‘Research grants are seas person could take too seriously.’ Drawing on his an input, not an output.’ own discipline – law – he begins by unpacking one Further, and close to my revisionist heart, Professor of the key indicators used by the TEQSA inquisitors: Allan utters what many of us have long wanted someacademic publications. He notes how the Australian one in seniority to say: ‘What matters is the quality of Research Council has developed a four-tier system what you produce, not the fact you could convince of publications in order to rank academic output – a some ARC appointed people to give you money.’ system that Professor Allan describes as ‘a bit of a joke.’ Quite so! Why? The learned scholar explains: ‘The first tentative Professor Allan could have gone on (and on) to lamlist was drawn up by the ARC. It essentially just copied bast TEQSA’s reliance on student evaluations of teaching a US list, which was overwhelmingly focused on Ameriwhich have always been highly suspect, even though can law journals. This was such a howler of a list that some deluded teaching and learning specialists, rather the job was then handed over to the Council of Australlike biblical literalists, choose to believe in them. ian Law Deans.’ Inevitably, parochialism crept into proSo, after all is said and done, what we are likely to be ceedings: ‘…Australian law journals got plunked into left with after TEQSA’s foray into university precincts, vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

Watch out! Here comes the TEQSA juggernaut, Joseph Gora

is a rapid claim to quality which in fact is anything but. As Professor Allan remarks:‘Sure, it will measure something, it’s just that it won’t be what most of us would call quality.’ But such criticism is unlikely to stop the TEQSA juggernaut. But wait! There may be hope because the quality assurance public relations crew assures us that: ‘Key to the success of the new quality assurance arrangements – and meaningful academic standards in particular – will be the active involvement of the academic community.’ And: ‘the best way to meet shared goals of a better educated and more inclusive society is to work together.’ How lovely – but I’m not persuaded. Like it or not, the vast majority of academics will be dragged kicking and screaming into the quality assurance process without the element of choice that is so generously afforded to students. After all, and here’s the rub: ‘TEQSA will have powers to regulate university and non-university providers, monitor quality, set standards, provide clear information.’ Ok, so it’s enforced involvement – what’s new, you might ask? The open threat that looms was recently confirmed by Lynn Meek, a key advocate of the assurance juggernaut, who said:‘It’s going to take a strong person, or persons, within the regulatory body to confront the management of universities (over areas of weakness).’ Make of that what you will, but I fear the worst.

78 Watch out! Here comes the TEQSA juggernaut, Joseph Gora

’

It almost goes without saying that TEQSA has very serious implications for universities in terms of the allocation of performance related funding. Those at the bottom of the heap may well find their reputations sullied to such an extent that they are consigned to the gulags of federal government funding. As noted by The Australian in 2009: ‘A university denied a share of the new performance funds might occupy a marginal electorate, for example. The ultimate sanction could be to deny an institution the right to use the university title.’ Perhaps the most important, yet little discussed, question is not how to promote student choice, but the effect of the new regulatory regime on academics. Experience of similar inquisitions elsewhere tells us that once TEQSA has had its way, morale among academics will further decline and many will flee the profession. The exodus started well before the introduction of TEQSA but its inquisitorial existence may well hasten the process. Joseph Gora: they seek him here, they seek him there! He is the Scarlet Pimpernel of Whackademia. Rumour has it that he once taught at a regional university somewhere in Australia.

vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

’

REVIEWS

Power and Influence: the view from the tower Making Waves: Medicine, Public Health, Universities and Beyond by David Penington The Miegunyah Press/Melbourne University Publishing, Carlton 2010. ISBN 978-0-522-85744-3 Review by Paul Rodan

David Penington is possibly best known to readers of this journal as a former Vice-Chancellor and Dean of Medicine of The University of Melbourne, although his ‘community service’ in areas such as drugs policy and AIDS prevention ensured that he was also familiar to a broader national audience. Some will recall his presidency of the Australian Higher Education Industrial Association (AHEIA), during a period of considerable industrial conflict. Penington was born into comfortable circumstances and aimed at a medical career from earliest times, following his father in that respect, citing the ‘combination of science and humanity’ as decisive. He was clearly not lacking in confidence, and elements of precociousness and noblesse oblige permeate his account of his student days and early career. The MelbourneOxford-London journey was clearly intoxicating. In London and then back in Melbourne (the return to the colonies being viewed with incredulity by some of Penington’s more pompous English peers), much of the narrative concerns detailed medical issues which, while important, can be hard going for the non-specialist reader. Of more interest is the development of the political Penington (best described as non-institutionally religious) as he grapples with matters of power and ethics in the Catholic setting of St Vincent’s Hospital and with the challenges of academic politics at Melbourne University. At the same time, his commitment to community health is backed up by action and energy, revealing something other than a one-dimensional conservative. In his term as Dean of Medicine, Penington pursued a teaching philosophy which, while fairly mainstream vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

now, was apparently revolutionary to at least some colleagues. Out went ‘the old ‘bucket system’ in which a student would fill up their brains with facts in one year of the course, then ‘empty it out on passing the exam’’. In came a more student learning centred approach, including exposure to patients in first year. Penington’s other faculty struggles concerned management and resources, and he seems to have come out a winner.At university level (as Dean and then VC), he seems mostly to have prevailed, due to shrewd politics and smart alliances. While Penington was not a card-carrying Liberal and was clearly able to work with and for state and federal governments of both complexions, it is difficult not to discern his frustration that his tenure as Melbourne Vice-Chancellor (1988–1995) coincided with a complete Labor dominance of federal government and of more than half the time in Victoria. This brings us of course to his clashes with reforming Education Minister John Dawkins, covered in a chapter headed ‘The Dawkins Problem’ (which sits nicely with ‘The Problem of Illicit Drugs’ chapter and elevates the Minister to the level of the drug menace). Penington’s treatment of this period is necessarily controversial and aimed at defending a position. While it may serve his political purposes to depict Dawkins as some radical class warrior running an anti-universities, pro-CAE agenda, he might have highlighted their common school backgrounds- Penington at Melbourne’s Scotch College; Dawkins at Perth’s? Perhaps, the problem was more class traitor than class warrior. And, can the assertion that Dawkins’ changes owed much to Marx, Engels and Lenin be taken seriously?

Power and Influence: the view from the tower, Review by Paul Rodan

On amalgamations and mergers, inconsistency rears its head. Penington has no trouble with taking over Melbourne College of Advanced Education, but then patronisingly lectures other Victorian CAE directors that they should look elsewhere for partners due to issues with the ‘CAE culture’ (hard to believe that such a great University could not oversee a change of culture). Penington is strangely silent on his University’s failed attempt to take over nearby Pharmacy College (yes, a CAE), Melbourne being done like a dinner when the college negotiated a superior deal with the dreaded Monash. Inconsistency also emerges when Penington imposes a more managerial model on first faculty and then university, but seeks to rediscover collegial principles when Dawkins threatens. His feline reference to senior academics (mostly Arts) enjoying ‘long alcoholic lunches’ at University House was less than becoming, and a helpful editor might have recommended deletion. Other sections deal with the skills/competencybased controversy and the development of the Victorian Certificate of Education, where Penington argues his cases fairly convincingly. And, even his harshest critic would have to concede a prodigious appetite for work. His contributions on AIDS and drugs policy, advocating rational and humane approaches, have been rightly recognised as progressive and significant. For this reviewer, the most interesting revelation was Penington’s claim to have been approached to seek Liberal pre-selection for the federal seat of Menzies, where a by-election was to be held in 1991. Not only did he prefer to stay with the challenges at Melbourne University, but he offers a surprising critique of both the Liberal Party (‘strongly identified with wealth and with preserving privilege where it currently rested’) and the attitudes of John Howard on Asian immigration (‘we were all immigrants’). For good measure, he gives dry economics a serve too. Again, not a one-dimensional man. It needs to be recorded that the eventual Liberal candidate and member, Kevin Andrews, showed no such reservations about following John Howard down dark places. Penington will probably lose some of the sisterhood vote when he refers to female faculty office staff ‘who knew their way around Melbourne’s night life’ being of assistance to his office manager ‘as a young, single person discovering the outside world’. Conversely, revelations that he fathered a child with his mistress (while married to his first wife) may earn points for

’

new age man-type honesty, but we could probably have been spared the Mills & Boon ‘She pleaded for one last moment of intimacy’ at the point where Penington ‘takes his leave’ from said mistress. Editor, please! Many years ago, a certain union official was corresponding with Penington when the latter served as president of the AHEIA. When the official mis-spelt Penington’s name (with an additional ‘n’) in a letter, the great man advised indignantly that there was one ‘n’ fewer in his surname. The offender’s subsequent letter started ‘Dear Professor Penningto’). Given this sensitivity about the spelling of his own name, it is interesting that Penington assigns a superfluous ‘d’ to the surname of former Immigration Minister (and Labor leader) Arthur Calwell. Sadly, that is not the end of the editing problems with this volume. Elsewhere, Penington understates John Cain senior’s tenure as premier of Victoria; conflates the Suez Crisis of 1956 with the 1967 Six Day War; wrongly identifies November 1972 as the date of Whitlam’s election as Prime Minister, gets it correct (December) on the facing page only to get it wrong again at a later point; ditto with November 1999 (instead of September) as the date of the election which saw the defeat of the Kennett Government, and he wrongly identifies the Victorian Liberal Government (1955–1982) as a coalition. Oddly, he has apparently mis-heard the adage ‘bullshit baffles brains’ as the somewhat inconclusive ‘bullshit battles brains’. Most of these errors could have been eliminated if MUP employed something resembling an editing process, but as these flaws replicate the problems identified in a previous review in these pages (AUR, 51:2, pp. 92-93), this seems a forlorn hope. Indeed, if MUP won’t provide an editing service for its former VC, what hope the rest? This autobiography is a mixed bag and readers will find much to admire and much with which to argue. By his own admission, Penington has had a fortunate life, but it has also been a significant one and editorial problems aside, it is good to have his version on the record. Paul Rodan is Director, International Education Research Centre, CQUniversity, Melbourne.

80 Power and Influence:the view from the tower , Review by Paul Rodan

vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

’

Some universities are more equal than others Structuring Mass Higher Education: The Role of Elite Institutions. Edited by David Palfreyman & Ted Tapper Routledge, New York, ISBN 10:0-415-42604-9 Review by Deanna de Zilwa

Today is the 26th of January, Australia Day 2010. The dominant topic of conversation of blokes charring snags on barbies in Aussie backyards from Broome to Burnie this arvo is a rigorous performance appraisal of our latest sporting endeavours. Last night our little Aussie battler, Lleyton Hewitt succumbed to his Swiss nemesis, Roger Federer, in the Australian Open, so our collective ego has taken a bit of a bashing. We are proud of our national treasures: meat pies, lamingtons, pavlova, lamb chops, VB, thongs, blue singlets, Hills hoists, Victa lawn mowers, Holden utes, Donald Bradman, Cathy Freeman, Ian Thorpe, Edna Everage, and Kylie Minogue. More Australians than ever before leave their suburban backyards, traversing the globe for work or leisure and there is a steady influx of people from many nations arriving on our doorsteps. However, we still have a tendency to be somewhat myopic and parochial. Hence Palfreyman and Tapper’s book: Structuring Mass Higher Education: The Role of Elite Institutions is an important text as it serves to remind those of us who work in Australian universities and those who design the policies that govern these institutions that higher education is a global enterprise. Egalitarianism is a central tenet of Australian culture; we are a nation that cuts down tall poppies, unless they are sports rock stars (in which case we gawp in awe and stalk their every move, like love struck teenagers). As such, elitism sits uncomfortably for Australian readers, sticking to the roof of our mouths like a peanut butter sandwich. Therefore, I urge Australian readers not to be deterred by the word elite in the title of this book. It does not argue for the stratification of universities according to wealth and prestige, presenting a case justifying the exclusion of those from marginalised groups. vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

To explain the context of this book we need to return to the typology of higher education systems developed by Trow, a founding scholar of higher education studies. Trow explored the transformation of higher education systems, identifying the emergence of three phases in the development of higher education systems. First, elite universities are research universities dedicated to the pursuit and discovery of knowledge for its intrinsic merit rather than a commercial imperative. Second, mass universities perform a utilitarian function, transmitting technocratic skills so that graduates can contribute to the nation building project by enhancing the wealth and advancement of its industries. Finally, universal universities emerge, where ‘whole’ populations or age cohorts receive basic undergraduate education enabling nation states to adapt to rapid and deep forces for social change (Trow, 1970, 1973, 2006).Trow defined a higher education system as elite when it educates between zero to 15 per cent of relevant age groups (typically school leavers), mass when it educates 16 to 50 per cent of relevant cohorts (school leavers and mature age students) and universal when it educates over 50 per cent of a nation’s population (Trow, 2006 p.244). This book’s project is to explore how elite universities have responded to changes emanating from the massification of higher education systems. Key questions explored in this work include identifying whether state-mandated pressures towards the massification of higher education systems have led to convergence or diversity amongst elite universities. To what extent have elite universities engaged with pressures towards the marketisation of higher education? Have elite universities engaged in the recent competition for validation of institutional reputations for excellence through global ranking scales? These research questions are

Some universities are more equal than others, Review by Deanna de Zilwa

especially pertinent in the Australian context, as the current federal government policy framework for Australian universities, Transforming the Australian Higher Education Sector aims to provide 40 per cent of all 25 - 34 year olds with a bachelor level qualification by 2025 and increase the participation of students from low socio-economic status backgrounds to 20 per cent by 2020 (DEEWR, 2009 pp.12-13; 2010 p.3). How do Australia’s elite universities (Group of Eight) respond to policy initiatives designed with the objective of moving universities from massification towards universal status? The foreword provided by American historian Professor Sheldon Rothblatt suggests that the challenge for governments is to sustain and resource national university systems without creating a schism between haves and have-nots (pp.xix –xx). Experts from the USA, United Kingdom, Norway, Latin America, Germany, South Africa, China, the Netherlands, Australia and Japan provide comprehensive empirical analyses of different nations/regions approach to this policy challenge. These serve as worthwhile tour guides for Australian readers seeking knowledge about the history, structure, governance and resource base of these higher education systems. The challenge for readers is to identify the points of convergence and divergence within and between these systems, a task too broad and ambitious to be tackled here. Readers pressed for time might like to proceed directly to Chapter 12 written by Palfreyman and Tapper as it synthesises the empirical chapters and discusses the issue of whether there is systemic convergence or divergence between nation states’ universities, they explore the emergence of a global model of elite research universities. The chapter on the Australian higher education sector written by Simon Marginson is a must-read. His erudite and meticulous treatment of the core debates at hand is a performance of Roger Federer’s ilk. In conclusion, I would like to expand on Sheldon Rothblatt’s point noted earlier. In my view, the fundamental challenge for the architects of national higher education policy systems across the globe in this era of globalisation, marketisation and massification, is the inherent tension between the two key policy objectives of most national governments. Objective one is for individual nation states and their universities to per-

’

form well on global ranking scales, ‘to win the grand slams’ that essentially evaluate the calibre of a university’s research performance. Objective two is for universities to open their doors to anyone who wants to come, to move from massification to universal access. Yet as anyone in retailing will tell you K Mart and Costco do not operate in the same market as Tiffany’s, they do not aim to attract the same customers, nor do they have the same stock inventory and price points. Systemic diversification is a cornerstone of retail markets and I suspect that it may well now be required as a cornerstone for higher education systems around the globe. I am acutely aware that such a view rubs against the core values of egalitarianism and social inclusion dominant in many nations’ cultures including our own. Of course, there is an alternative that governments and policy architects around the world should consider, and that is to abandon either one or both of these policy objectives, as neither is sound nor feasible. Therefore, at journey’s end all I can say is that I am very glad that I am not charged with the responsibility for resolving this policy challenge. I have left the policy game behind me, playing now on a different court. I’m off now to get another snag. Palfreyman and Tapper’s work is highly recommended and timely for Australian universities, academics, executives, institutional and government policy analysts. Deanna de Zilwa is a lecturer with the Faculty of Education, Monash University, Victoria, Australia and author of the recently-published Academic Units in a Complex, Changing World: Adaptation or Resistance (Springer, Dordrecht, 2010).

References DEEWR 2009, Transforming Australia’s Higher Education System. DEEWR 2010, An Indicator Framework for Higher Education Performance Funding: Discussion Paper. Trow, M 1970, ‘Reflections on the Transition from Mass to Universal Higher Education’, Daedalus, Vol.99 (No.1), pp.1-42. Trow, M 1973, Problems in the Transition from Elite to Mass Higher Education. Berkeley: Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. Trow, M 2006, Reflections on the Transition From Elite to Mass to Universal Access: Forms and Phases of Higher Education in Modern Societies Since World World II, in Forest, J & Altbach, P (eds), International Handbook of Higher Education, Dordrecht, Springer.

82 Some universities are more equal than others, Review by Deanna de Zilwa

vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

’

To complete or not to complete. That is the question! How to Recruit and Retain Higher Education Students: A Handbook of Good Practice, by Anthony Cook & Brian S Rushton (eds) Taylor and Francis, New York 2009. ISBN 978-0-415-99089-9 Review by Margaret Heagney

How to Recruit and Retain Higher Education Students: A Handbook of Good Practice is designed to assist university staff to deal with the complexity of reasons surrounding students’ non-completion of their courses. It draws together various interpretations of theory on which to base institutional policy along with strategies to reduce the risk of student withdrawal. Its publication is timely as changes in government policy both overseas and in Australia have generated increased interest in student recruitment and retention. Here the Commonwealth Government has accepted and funded many of the recommendations of the Review of Higher Education conducted by Professor Denise Bradley and in so doing has put student recruitment and retention firmly on all universities’ agendas. Although its stated aim is to bridge the divide between theory and practice in the field of student recruitment and retention, the book’s primary content is a series of case studies and program reports which function as exemplars of good practice in the field. This is not to say that theoretical discussions are confined to the introductory and concluding chapters by the editors, Anthony Cook and Brian Rushton respectively. Theories concerning the complexity of disadvantage and how that informs practice come together in several of the chapters. Theory and practice are well blended by Derek Shuter in Transition from What? A review of the influences on the choices and expectations of entrants vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

to higher education. He discusses the complexity of influences affecting students’ course choices and the comparative value of different sources of information supplied to prospective students. Among the issues which are considered in-depth in the book are: • Choices and expectations of prospective students. • Access programs which recruit and prepare students from under-represented and disadvantaged groups. • The value of offering summer schools and ‘open’ or visit days to prospective students. • The impact and value of peer mentoring including evaluation techniques and outcomes in terms of recruitment and retention. The topics covered in other case studies include students’ attitudes to debt, students in paid employment and the influence of parents whose children are first in their family to attend university. In a discussion that will resonate with Australian readers in the current post-Bradley context, Anthony Cook explores the mismatch between expectations that students bring with them from school and those of universities. He argues that schools need to prepare students better for higher education and on their part universities should be more flexible and provide more support for incoming students. Newer recruitment and retention strategies, such as connecting with students prior to their entry to higher education, are explored in three of the chapters. For example, Northumbria University in England’s North

To complete or not to complete. That is the question!, Review by Margaret Heagney

East has developed an off and on line support program for applicants called the Northumbria Friends Program. It uses a range of strategies to link students into the University to give them a sense of community and belonging even before they enrol. The University found that students who had been through the program made more informed course choices which inter alia led to better retention rates. In a telling example of a post enrolment strategy, the Fresh Start Project which supports students who have withdrawn from their course of study at the University of Central Lancashire is outlined by Debbie Loveday. The program design draws on research by Yorke and Longden (2008) which suggests ‘drop out’ or student withdrawal does not have a single cause but is multicausal involving both personal and academic elements. Consequently the program is a mix of the practical (child care on campus and accommodation services), with the personal – academic staff make direct contact with students who have withdrawn. Staff advise and support these students with information and strategies to assist them to return to the same course at some time in the future. Other students are helped to assess their options to transfer to courses better suited to their interests and aspirations. Individual students’ stories of success demonstrate the value of the program and provide a justification for the costs incurred by the university in running it. In the main this book is United Kingdom (UK) centric - all the case studies and descriptions of programs come from universities in the UK. However, one chapter employs a more overtly global focus to compare access and admissions practices in the UK (England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland) with those of the United States (USA), China and Japan. Open enrolment practices in the UK mean that students are admitted to a course based on pre-requisite subjects chosen during their secondary schooling. In the USA students gain entry to university on the basis of examinations taken at the end of their final year in high school in addition to a range of other tests and assessments. Students in China and Japan undertake examinations whose sole purpose is to gain admission to university.

’

A further two chapters raise the thorny topic of the accuracy of information about university life provided to students prior to entry.This is particularly important for students who are first in their family to attend university. It is also an important issue for those universities whose recruitment activities are driven by their marketing departments. The ‘happy’ language of the market place can leave students short of basic information on course and ancillary costs, the amount of time they need to spend in lectures and tutorials and practicum arrangements. This theme is taken up in the final chapter in which Brian Rushton analyses some of the major issues surrounding recruitment and retention and the relationship between them. He makes an important distinction between ‘recruitment for retention’ and recruitment aimed at increasing student numbers. The latter is more market driven, and issues of retention are considered post enrolment, while recruitment for retention seeks to maximise the possibilities that the students who apply and enrol can be retained. Universities that recruit for retention employ preentry strategies such as establishing a high quality flow of information between themselves and potential students. On the other hand traditional universities who compete with each other for the ‘best’ students tend to concentrate on post enrolment supports to retain students. How to Recruit and Retain Higher Education Students: A Handbook of Good Practice does have some success in bringing together theory and practice in a series of case studies. However it is even more successful in providing examples of good practice that could translate well into the Australian context. For this reason it is a very useful addition to the literature on the recruitment and retention of students. Margaret Heagney is Coordinator, Student Equity Unit at Monash University, Victoria, Australia.

84 To complete or not to complete. That is the question!, Review by Margaret Heagney

vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

’

What do you want to be when you grow up? The Consumer Experience of Higher Education: The Rise of Capsule Education by Deirdre McArdleClinton Continuum Studies in Education, London, 2008. ISBN 978-18470-6209-3 Review by Maree Conway

When I read the introduction of this book, I got quite excited. It promised a great discussion: If education is about envisaging and preparing for the future, we know little enough about the world these children will emerge into. How should the education system respond to such an uncertain context? Dealing with the challenges of the present is difficult enough. Anticipating and planning for future ones is even more daunting. It is self-evident that if we do not know what the future holds, the education project should be one of preparing children to respond to the unknown. This is a profound challenge to the education system, accustomed as it is to operating from a position of superior knowledge and certitude (page ix). Since I work in the futures field, where exploring the uncertainty that characterises our work, and moving people beyond the comfort of certainty is a requirement, I was looking forward to reading what the author had to say. The more I read, however, the more I thought I was reading a PhD thesis turned into a book, and that proved to be true. While there’s nothing inherently wrong with turning a PhD into a book, it needs to read like a book and not a revised thesis. The signal for me was that the writing was very dense and academic in tone, and most of the book reads like a literature review – lots and lots and lots of citations.There’s much analysis too, but it didn’t flow for me, and I had the sense that there had been some cutting and pasting going on which has resulted in a quite disjointed read. I found myself skipping some parts while delving into others. I was alternatively excited and confused as I read, because I was never sure of the point being made. Was the author supporting the need to move to a differvol. 52, no. 2, 2010

ent paradigm about how to conceive of education in a post-modern world, or was she – like so many others – bemoaning the loss of the good old days when the academic was king or queen? I think the book is about a fundamental values clash between the expectations current students have when they arrive at university, compared to the traditional values held by academics. The former are defined by post-modernism which is demanding an educational product that can deliver a job at the end of three years. The latter are based in a modernist approach to education which requires that the academic take ‘centre stage’ and define how learning will be structured and delivered and measured in terms of its quality. The basic premise is that education is being reduced to a consumer experience by being created in capsules, which can be provided on demand to students. This ‘capsulation’ of education has been driven by government which are institutions and our thinking’ (page 5). This results in students being viewed as inputs, having limited input into their education, and awarded a qualification that has dubious educational value. At this point, only at page 5, I am not sure what to think. There’s no acknowledgement that the capsule education approach has not happened in isolation from broader, global social trends. Consumer trends are viewed as the driver of capsule education, but what is driving consumer trends? And, why should or could the delivery of education be somehow exempt from the impact of consumer trends? I continue to read, but am increasingly frustrated. I spent a bit of time in Chapter 5 – Postmodern Consumer Culture – The Effect on Education. There is discussion of symbolism, terminology, a confused understanding of the relationship between quality and

What do you want to be when you grow up?, Review by Maree Conway

satisfaction with the student experience, a berating of students for not accepting their responsibility to attend classes, and for their inability to see that they are conforming ‘to the marketable values which have been set out for them by changing government policies’. Anyone who attempts to support consumerism in education, however, is criticised for not understanding the real issue that education is a public good and not a consumption good. The sense of dislocation now felt by educational practitioners because of the market/ consumer approach to education is taken to be a negative, rather than a signal that a change in approach to how learning is delivered may be needed to respond to trends moving from the wider society into the education realm. I continue to work my way through the book to the PhD survey results and a chapter on reflections, where I find the quote: Education, according to the writers reviewed in this book, is a process which requires that students become co-creators in their own education.This polarisation of student and lecturer occasioned by the ‘student-as-customer’ metaphor places the student on the outside as receiver of a service provided by academic staff (page199). I think of the current broad consumer trend towards personalisation of services and co-design of experiences, where the demand from consumers is for active involvement in product and service design and delivery. This consumer trend essentially gives academics permission to find ways to involve their students in the cocreation of their education and seemingly, address many of the issues raised in the book, but it is never discussed. This might be because there is little interest in changing the way that learning is delivered, or because of little familiarity with using the online tools that now allow co-creation to occur in more commercial arenas. A little further on, we learn that ‘The adherence of administrators to the market model not only undermines student motivation but also makes the job of lecturing unattractive’ (page 201) – ah, it’s all the administrator’s fault! Not that administrators might be attempting to respond to the external environment as best they can despite an academic staff ‘fighting the good fight’. The ‘them and us’ metaphor that had been just below the surface for much of the book surfaced in this chapter, but consistent with most discussions of university work, the drivers for how administrators behaved in respond to external trends were not explored in any detail at all.

’

The next chapter tells me that ‘the students need to be defended It seems clear that they are disabled by the education they are offered…and are then blamed for being unable’ (page 206). The solution, I learn a little later on, is to show students the error of their ways (that they believe capsule education is good), by developing an awareness of independent learning¸ providing information literacy education, using grammar and syntax as key assessment criteria, and ‘developing practical courses in how to think and promote engagement within written and spoken discourse at a higher level’ (page 225). I think of the discussion in the pages preceding and fail to see how any of these solutions will actually help students or academics respond to their changing external environments. They seem reminiscent of ‘the good old days’ rather than as a way of preparing for the future. A more fruitful approach might have been to define the nature of the consumer trends in question, explore why they have come about, and their impact of the educational process.Then, rather than seemingly resisting these trends in universities, the author could have more usefully explored how academics can respond to this shift in student expectations, and more importantly, how they can shape the trend to ensure that the core academic values they hold so dear can be taken into the future. demanding accountability and transparency, and a focus on outputs linked to national economic needs. Unfortunately for students, they have been duped into believing that education is all about getting a job, and are ignorant of the value in traditional approaches to learning being espoused by academics. Because capsule education is shaped and prescribed by ‘someone else’, the link between education and qualification has ruptured, resulting in students who want a qualification with little effort, and administrators who only want ‘qualified outputs’ (page 5) to secure maximum government funding. Academics are left with their understanding of educational quality no longer relevant, and they are expected to produce’ an alien, petrified product – education as a consumer experience’ (page 5). Students, it is inferred, are captured in a postmodern view of the world, while academics are still rooted in modernism. Postmodernism, with its refusal to fix meaning, where image is more important than reality, has overturned modernism which ‘has traditionally provided the underpinnings of our institutions and our thinking’ (page 5). This results in students being

86 What do you want to be when you grow up?, Review by Maree Conway

vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

viewed as inputs, having limited input into their education, and awarded a qualification that has dubious educational value. How might academics design their courses so that students learn how to learn as well as get a job? Rather than spending energy resisting a trend that is now mainstream in education, it would seem sensible to work out how to influence the further development of that trend. The emergence of the new and unknown is an opportunity to re-shape the relationship between academic and student.This requires a different view of roles and power-sharing between academics and students, a real shift in how organisations are structured to facilitate the required relationship building, and to influence the academic-student relationship so that its shape is valid in an educational sense. At the end of it all, I was left with the sense that the author wants to try and avoid the future. I also wondered whether the results of a limited global survey were enough to allow generalisations about the state of higher education, the work of academics, and the

’

role of students. Much energy has been spent detailing a system that no longer works, but the suggested solutions are little more than bandaids to patch that system, rather than creating a new paradigm. If the book had devoted as many pages to the latter exercise, we may have had at least the beginnings of a blueprint for the future of academic work. That academic staff in 2010 are having difficulty reconciling their traditional views of teaching and learning with these expectations of students is a challenge to change. Over the course of the 20th century, universities become increasingly connected to the societies in which they operate, and as a result, can no longer resist the impact of trends emerging in those societies. Yet, it seems from this book, that resistance to change is the preferred approach rather than finding ways to actively shape the new paradigm that is emerging. Maree Conway is CEO of Thinking Futures, Hotham Hill, Victoria, Australia.

At last count… Teaching by Numbers – Deconstructing the Discourse of Standards and Accountability in Education by Peter M Taubman Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, New York and London, 2009. ISBN 978-0-415-96274-2 Review by Georgina Tsolidis

We have arrived at a moment when students and teachers are subjected to a curriculum driven by disconnected multiple-choice questions or essay prompts that must be answered in a set amount of time and that have little if any relationship to problems, interest, or speculations that we might associate with thinking, erudition, creativity, or a curriculum animated by and responding to the flux of a classroom (p. 17). I found myself nodding with approval as I read this book. It speaks of the American experience and yet so much is, unfortunately, familiar in Australia. A timely vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

read, coinciding as it did with the recent locking of horns between the Commonwealth Minister of Education and the teacher unions over the NAPLAN testing and school league tables. For many of us who taught in schools before joining the academy at a time when unions were waging a campaign in support of teacher professionalism, this is both a feel-good read that provides an opportunity to hear things dear to our hearts written with precision and conviction. It is also a bitter reminder of how so many things fought for at great cost, are now nearly lost.This isn’t just about the place At last count…, Review by Georgina Tsolidis

of testing in education but fundamentally about the place of teachers and educators ‘….who are doomed to the role of middle managers, bureaucratic clerks, white-coated lab technicians, and nannies’ (p. 68) should the assumption that public schooling can be run like a business remain unsuccessfully challenged. As the title implies, Taubman is concerned with the place of numbers in education and uses this to mount a detailed and comprehensive overview of the place of regimes of accountability enacted through testing and auditing in both schooling and higher education. This is a particularly poignant account because it is interlaced with a personal reflection on his experience as Assistant Dean at the School of Education at Brooklyn College, at a point when the State of New York revised regulations governing teacher certification through the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. In his own estimation, this book is characterised by his attempt to make sense of his experiences, to trigger catharsis at his own role in a process, which he argues implicates even those who resist, and to begin to think through a way out of the morass. The book is divided into several clear sections; a setting of the scene; five chapters that outline the gist of the argument and a conclusion that moves us forward.The style is unusual but satisfying. It combines an almost forensic attention to detail as it combs through policy literature to make the link between testing, accountability and neoliberalism obvious, and regular outbursts which challenge the notion that good academic writing has to be sedate and seemingly neutral in order to remain convincing. In the Introduction, Taubman describes the task he has set for himself, some background as to his motivation and details who he is and how this has influenced the perspectives he brings to bear on the topic. Chapter Two provides an overview of the current situation, which is summarised through the ‘twin banners’ of ‘accountability’ and ‘standards’. Taubman describes these as a transformation that has occurred in response to policy agendas set at the local, state and federal levels.This transformation is described in Chapters Three, Four and Five through a detailed engagement with testing regimes, the language of education

88 At last count…, Review by Georgina Tsolidis

’

policy and the discourses of business practices that spring from neoliberal economic policies, and result in the audit culture. Chapter Seven is one of my favourites. Here Taubman turns his attention to the profession and asks why teachers and educators more generally have allowed themselves to be seduced by these new regimes. The chapter is entitled ‘The Seduction of the Profession’ with Taubman arguing that the opportunity for timely intervention has passed. He asks; ‘How did we become complicit in the erosion of our own power, and why did we embrace the advice of salesmen, financiers, corporate lawyers, accountants and millionaires?’ The answer he gives is four fold: The fear of chaos in the classroom and dwindling resources; shame triggered by being treated as less than other academic colleagues and professionals; fantasies of either grandeur or worthlessness promulgated by the media; and mourning at the loss of ideals related to social justice. In Chapter Eight Taubman describes the place of the ‘learning sciences’ as a type of cultural capital within the profession that have allowed forms of behaviourism to take hold. Chapter Seven and the Conclusion are the most evocative. In these chapters, Taubman moves away from making his case based on mining the evidence and instead suggests, interprets and intimates a way of understanding and a politics of moving forward. He argues that the bulk of the book was necessary so that a space could be made for us to contemplate discussing change. He draws on the work of Lacan, Zizek and Badiou to make a tentative case for inactivity. Resistance is participation and instead Taubman argues for a withdrawal of ‘…our emotional investments in both extant educational reforms and critiques of them, so that possibly, and only possibly, our alternative is not over-determined by the transformation it rejects.’ (200). This is not an altogether surprising endpoint given that both ‘discourse’ and ‘deconstruction’ appear in the book’s title. Georgina Tsolidis is Professor of Education at the University of Ballarat, Victoria, Australia.

vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

’

And thereby hangs a tale Narrative Research on Learning:comparative and international perspectives. Sheila Trahar (ed.), with a foreword by Ruth Hayhoe Symposium Books, Oxford, 2009. ISBN 1-873927-60-6 Review by Patricia Kerslake

Once upon a time, a group of academics, teachers and independent consultants got together at Bristol University in the United Kingdom, to talk about the power of stories in teaching. Though the group was made up of people from many different countries and cultures, it was clear they shared a belief in the universality of narrative as a facilitator of learning.To demonstrate this conviction, 17 members of the group put their views into a collection of reflections, theoretical arguments, pedagogical investigations and academic opinions, edited together by Sheila Trahar, herself a committed practitioner researcher from the University of Bristol. With a foreword by Ruth Hayhoe, a Professor of education based at the Ontario Institute for Education, the resulting compilation of essays and case studies offers a series of practical insights designed to illuminate the potentiality of narrative as a tool in the field of international pedagogy. Reflecting on the metanarrative of the oral tradition, critic Roland Barthes wrote in his 1966 essay Criticism and Truth, ‘narrative is present in every age, in every place, in every society . . . it is simply there, like life itself’. In her introduction to the book, Trahar aptly demonstrates this philosophy as she writes in a reflexive manner of the genesis of this collective text which not only ‘reinforces the value of practitioner research’but which also focuses on ‘the experiences of research participants [and] the meaning given to the experience by those participants’ (pp.14-15). In effect, the assembled contents of this book tell the reader in a variety of ways how the methodology of storytelling may be effective as an educational technique, especially when incorporated into education reliant upon intercultural contexts. The book’s ‘storytellers’, examine narrative research through a multiplicity of perspectives, ranging from pedagogical methodologies and narrative as a force for globalisation, through to vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

discussions of ethical and contextual issues surrounding narrative as a didactic form. The UK’s Martin Cortazzi and Lixian Jin examine narrative’s methodological strengths in a discussion of socio-cultural issues, especially those of identity construction. How are stories interpreted across cultures? From a purely qualitative perspective, they ask the question ‘who is the story for?’ (p.30). Considering many narratives to be ‘institutionally ritualised’ (p.38), Cortazzi and Jin look closely at the underlying structuralism of various narrative forms in the wider community. Christine Fox from the University of Wollongong looks at the uses of narrative in our globalising world, and sees a greater sharing of stories taking place as our need to understand people outside our own culture becomes increasingly important. Fox lays down a challenge to educators, suggesting that we look beyond culture and offers a series of paradigms: cognitive, semiotic, experiential, ethical and hermeneutic, through which lenses we may more clearly see the context of narratives as both speaker and listener. In chapters four, five and six, Sue Watson, Kim Etherington and Nell Bridges respectively discuss narrative case studies, the function of reflexivity in narrative and the experience of being a doctoral candidate in narrative research. Watson, from New Zealand’s Massey University, explores autobiographical narratives and reveals the immense ability to educate that lies beneath such stories. Suggesting that ‘context, culture and cohort’ (p.67) of students has a direct impact upon their ‘understanding of the social construction of human lives’, Watson concludes that a universallyshared human curiosity provides an intuitive segue between autobiographical narrative and the essence of learning. Etherington and Bridges, both from the University of Bristol, take a slightly more personal look at the power of narrative. Etherington dissects different And thereby hangs a tale, Review by Patricia Kerslake

ways of collecting and representing data via reflexive and personal influences in story-telling. Significant use of the personal pronoun in her chapter implies a great deal of subjective experience is standing behind her words. Bridges documents a personal doctoral journey as she recounts her own story in third-person, narrative form: ‘she stood bewildered, not knowing which way to turn’ (p.95). Many who read this book will surely empathise. In chapter seven, Angeline M Barrett, also of Bristol University, takes us into the world of teachers telling their own stories about teaching, as she presents an account of African teacher narratives in comparative research. After stating that ‘story in a universal way of knowing’ (p.109), Barrett discusses education research in low-income countries, specifically Tanzania, where teachers act as ‘natural story tellers’ (p.118). Offered as a series of Chinese boxes, we are informed and enlightened by true stories of teachers sharing their experiences in story-telling, a valuable educative form in circumstances where acute funding shortages mandate a certain elasticity in pedagogical orthodoxy. Barrett’s conceptual nesting of the telling of stories is followed with further case studies from Kuwait, Kenya and England as George MP Bailey of the Graduate School of Education, Bristol, asks us to consider a global perspective of narrative, suggesting that globalisation itself might benefit by embracing the concept. In walking us through three individual case studies, Bailey focuses on narrative structuring and analysis in the academic curriculum. The challenge, states Bailey is to ‘ensure that future curriculum narratives are rich in examples of students and teachers interacting with other societies and cultures’ (p.142). Chapter nine follows the narrative construction of primary-class teachers in England and Denmark, exploring how narrative in education can be differently implemented across cultures. Elizabeth McNess, also of Bristol University, discusses data collected from a study of the impact of narrative educational policy in these two countries. Not only is it clear that cultural difference has a significant effect on policy implementation, but also that educational cultures have some interesting and distinctive mores in their own right. This is followed in chapter 10 by Beth Cross’ look at how embedded narratives are used to advantage in the teaching of older primary-age children. As a Research Fellow at the University of Edinburgh, Cross compares differences in teacher/classroom interaction between Scotland and Jamaica, especially by exploring the ‘nar-

90 And thereby hangs a tale, Review by Patricia Kerslake

’

rative terrains’ (p.178) of embodied and articulated communication in today’s interactive classrooms. Using fractal analysis (p.179), Cross illustrates how iterations of stories form building-blocks of learning. Richard Kiely (University of Bristol), shares a case study of a French student attempting to become an English-language academic writer. In chapter 11, ‘Laure’ is an undergraduate whose own story is offered up as a prime example of how personalising narratives makes them more comprehensible and socially participatorial. Kiely writes this study in ethnographic form, detailing specific interactions experienced by Laure during her own studies.This work is followed by three chapters which discuss narrative inquiry in the international and global arena: Sheila Trahar’s own contribution talks about the practitioner-researcher’s role in higher education; Sue Webb, of Massey University, New Zealand, shares her perspective of how ethical issues can be explored by framing them within stories for other cultures, and Tim Baird (Bristol University) and Dione Mifsud (University of Malta), take us along the ‘cross-cultural conversations’ (p.241) of ethical orientation and mutual understanding within classrooms in the UK and Malta. Given our rapidly shrinking world, and the growth of international education, it seems timely to consider adopting the very best of pedagogical practices, whatever the source. The final offering in this text comes from Jane Speedy (also Bristol University) whose chapter on ‘The Gulbarrian College Gargoyles and the Narrative Gaze: landscapes of the future, imaginative learning and researcher identity’ is a delightful summation of the entire text and with it, the narrative of the original conference in Bristol. Written as a story of a story, the sun ‘gradually sank behind the spires and buttresses of St Mary-by-the-Water, the room’s main attraction, the finest collection of gargoyles and grotesques in Europe, seemed to appear out of the shadows, glowering and leering down on the commotion below’ (p.254). Told in the third-person, this piece exhibits all the strengths of narrative as an educational tool. As a genuine demonstration of theory in practice, this text supplies everyone with a happy conclusion. Patricia Kerslake is a Senior Lecturer in Arts and Communications and Adjunct Research Fellow at CQUniversity’s Melbourne Campus.

vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

’

The moving finger writes Improving Learning in College: Rethinking literacies across the curriculum, by Roz Ivanic, ˇ Richard Edwards, David Barton, Marilyn Martin-Jones, Zoe Fowler, Buddug Hughes, Greg Mannion, Kate Miller, Candice Satchwell & June Smith Routledge, London & New York, 2009. ISBN 10 0-415-46912-0 Review by Patricia Kerslake

JP Hartley famously wrote: ‘The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there,’ (The Go-Between, 1953), and thus it appears. The way we learned things at school are not the ways of today’s learning. Speaking for a generation whose school years generally managed to avoid sharp bursts of technology, it seems that today’s students (of every cohort) no longer read and write, but scan and text; books are replaced by websites, and pens by keypads. In such an environment of technological prestissimo, the very idea of ‘old-fashioned’ literacy – the three ‘Rs’ of even earlier years - hangs creaking like an old shop sign. But is this actually the case? Are our children in real danger of forgetting how to read and write and communicate in the larger world? Politicians and journalists seeking exposure might argue such is the case, but after reading this book, I would suggest perhaps not. Tenth in a series of sixteen ‘Improving Learning’ texts by Routledge, Improving Learning in College is a component of the UK’s largest ever co-ordinated education research initiative and one which discusses the reality of contemporary student literacy at college level (sixth-form colleges, community colleges, polytechnics). By examining the topic in three main sections, this text walks the reader through a refreshingly straightforward review of the state of today’s literacy both in terms of general and – in the case of Welsh colleges (cholegau) – bilingual literacy. After a solid discussion of the key issues in the sector, nicely introduced through the trope of educational crisis narratives (stories about drastically falling standards, the end of civilisation, etc), chapter one begins with a look at the ‘moral panic’ of current public discourse about literacy levels (p. 13). Is the internet the harbinger of doom that some educators and parents seem to fear? vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

Are educational standards, especially those of reading and writing, actually falling or are we rather living under the fear of such an event? Leaving traditional forms of literacy aside, the newer genus appears to be a main cause of diversification and spread rather than shrinkage and decline. If literacy can be demonstrated in the three modalities of cognitive, practical and communicative (p. 18), then modern literacy is not so much in step with the rest of societal development as it is breaking into a fast gallop. In chapter two, we share in the discussion of what literacy has become. By recording students’ everyday literacy practices, it is immediately clear that contemporary reading and writing is not reduced but fragmented; not diminished, but rather, evolving. Today’s college students offer the following events as proof of ongoing and everchallenging literacy: email; personal websites; reading soft/hardware instructions; texting; instant messaging; diaries; blogs; online banking; internet shopping; maintaining relevant personal documentation; online gaming, online learning, in fact ‘everything going on in the world,’ (p. 40). Some might say that an external practical application is why we need to become generally literate at school in the first place. This text does not disagree, but argues that formal learning is being paced and possibly superseded by its informal sibling. Though pedagogical purists might wince at the notion, is this necessarily a bad thing? Chapter three explores how different perspectives of literacy convention are contextualised by the mode of perception, for example, the social view of literacy which argues for a practice-based approach in how we apply literacy to our lives. But there are other aspects to understanding literacy models and discussion moves into the realm of contemporary purpose, as well as an The moving finger writes, Review by Patricia Kerslake

inspection of today’s audience and domains of participation. The next chapter takes us into an examination of literacies across the college curriculum and how said curriculum is ‘textually mediated,’ (p. 69) meaning that everything we learn at college is in some way affected by the manner of its presentation. By looking at lecturing practices from the teacher’s perspective, this book challenges the assumption that literacy is of necessity a specialist subject in itself (which it need not be), or that it cannot be taught in such courses as accounting (though it should be). By taking the stance that student literacy is both ubiquitous and diverse, this book demands a rethink of all things academic: teaching methodologies; assessment and, critical for further development, its connection to post-education realities. Through an evaluation of a case study ‘The Case of Eve’ (pp. 95-98), chapter five looks more closely at the issues of literacy in childcare education and reveals a greater difference between levels of teacher education within a college, than there is across countries (p. 103). This is understandable given that the lower (younger) levels of childcare are predominantly practical. The influence of new communication technologies is also discussed, especially in its ability to combine functions in the practice of both mono- and bilingual education, arriving at the conclusion that ‘childcare education is a textually-mediated hybrid space’ (p. 112). Chapter six begins to look at the changes in literacy practice and how these changes are being addressed in aspects of college life. It asks us to consider our academic and pedagogic intentions – what is it we actually want to achieve with these students? Do we want them to produce the perfect essay or do we want them to be able to meet the needs of 21st century communication? Maybe both? If so, how are we planning on achieving this not insubstantial goal? From incipient hybridity, we move completely into the world of bilingual literacies, or ‘Bilingual Literacies for Learning in Further Education’, (‘Dwyieithrwydd Llythrennedd a Dysgu mewn Addysg Bellach’, p. 135)

92 The moving finger writes, Review by Patricia Kerslake

’

in Welsh colleges. While the study has documented many similarities to their English cousins, there are some variances in both sociocultural and historical contexts. This chapter discusses how bilingual literacies (English/Welsh) impact students in their learning and assessment, as well as in their imagined futures. It asks us to consider what becomes important when one is required to practice literacy in two languages across two cultures? This section alone is fascinating in terms of postcolonial theories of hybridity and polyvancy.This is immediately followed by a section on the interface between formal and informal literacies – the everyday versus curriculum practices first mooted in chapter one. An example used to illustrate this transformation is that of the music industry.Where once we had a music teacher, we may now see an ethnomusicologist; what used to be a curriculum vitae has metamorphosed into a ‘bio’ (biography) (p. 168). Through a critical review of literacies we move into the realm of future directions – how can we affect an interface between the ‘now’ and the ‘next’? The final chapter of this book asks the reader to reflect upon the possibilities this study has for learning in college and beyond, as the implications for contemporary literacy are far greater than the scope of this research. By identifying new relationships between everyday practices and the formal curriculum (p. 178), we are reframing literacy in higher education away from ‘deficient’ into ‘abundance’ (p. 180). The ultimate question asked by this text is deceptively simple:‘is the purpose of the program to extend education or to fit occupational contexts?’ (p. 185).Teachers and students of UK colleges need not be overly anxious about the state of literacy practices. It’s just getting up close and personal. Patricia Kerslake is a Senior Lecturer in Arts and Communications and an Adjunct Research Fellow at CQUniversity’s Melbourne Campus.

vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

’

It’s a long way to the top… Higher Education and International Capacity Building – twenty-five years of higher education links, edited by David Stephens Symposium Books, 2009. ISBN 978-1-873927-22-9 Review by Timo Aarrevaara

Education has had a strong voice since the alleviation of poverty was set as a major goal for aid agencies to achieve. Enhancing capacity building for higher education institutions has not been popular, since in many societies poorer children have not had the opportunity to attend primary and/or secondary school. In this context, investing in links between the developed and developing world creates human capital for those who already are more privileged. Right or wrong, higher education development and investments in developing countries have not been at the core of policies. The British Council Higher Education Links Program was launched in the early 1980s to narrow this gap and to build capacity in British universities’ partner institutions overseas. This program has been one of the keys to promoting collaboration between universities in the United Kingdom and overseas by meeting the cost of individual UK academics working with one or more colleagues in partner institutions in 50 or so countries. The eleven papers by authors receiving funds from the program report on specific practices and their outcomes, which are typically seminars, workshops, courses and postgraduate education for staff from partner institutions. Above this, the program has been seen as a provider of seed funding to lead to more substantial research funding being obtained from other sources. In reality, partnerships in the university context are seldom on a sustainable basis once the initial funding has ended. For instance, in his chapter, Kenneth King points out that continued funding is a forlorn hope in many African universities, which find themselves in desperate straits. vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

The analysis of the book is based on six global trends in higher education: • The massive increase in the demand for higher education. • The decline in public expenditure on higher education. • An increase in cost recovery. • The increasing popularity of student loans. • The mantra of privatisation. • The purpose of internationalisation as a means of finding offshore financing. There is no doubt that universities benefit from global trends, because their mode of operation supports transfer of knowledge and mobilisation of people. The British Council Higher Education Links Program supports higher education institutions in developed and developing nations alike in their policy context, and makes it possible for the enhancement of globalisation strategies. It provides the tools for capacity building curricular and institutional development as well as staff development, by sending young staff to premier institutions overseas. International co-operation has become a necessity for those looking for appointment to an academic position. Some partners are more prestigious than others, and strong global actors have a strong influence on relevant research themes overseas by providing financial and other resources. The partnership scheme has been costing the UK about £10 million per year (approx. A$17.5 million), and the Department for International Development (DfID) has met about 30 per cent of these costs. UK and partner higher education institutions and the British Council cover the remaining costs of the partnership scheme. For this funding, the main actor makes recommendations about the content of capacIt’s a long way to the top…, Review by Timo Aarrevaara

ity building to the DfID, and national government objectives as well as general ethical links are based on their policies. Chapter authors Sally M. Thomas and Wen-Jung Peng point out that sometimes partners lack adequate pay, training and staff development. A risk of a compliant culture in this situation is obvious. Excessive compliance in capacity building activities can also lead to ambitious attempts to do too many things instead of focusing on manageable and achievable key goals. Presumably, unsustainable attempts in partnerships are not successful in universities’ internal resource allocations. David Stephens raises a question about academics who have to work with oppressive and undemocratic regimes. Partnerships are not neutral, nor can technical activities operating outside ideological and legal frameworks. Author Gaby Weiner suggests that the expansion of higher education and the parallel global entrenchment of the Western or Humboldtian university model have included the adaptation of structures and practices that are oppressive to women. Overseas co-operation can raise awareness, create a knowledge

’

base and develop practical networks. Most of the results are indirect, such as higher education course development, research and information bases. The British Council Higher Education Links Program has been successful in providing an opportunity for developed / developing nation co-operation between a large number of individuals and higher education institutions. The 11 papers in this volume describe in convincing style the circumstances for practical co-operation and its achievement. From this perspective, the book is recommended reading for those engaged in individual or institutional partnerships. An evaluation on the outcomes of the British Council Higher Education Links Program is still to come. Timo Aarrevaara is Research Director at the Higher Education Governance and Management (HEGOM) unit, University of Helsinki, Finland, and a member of the AUR Editorial Board.

The gulf between us Globalisation and Higher Education in the Arab Gulf States, by Gari Donn and Yahya Al Manthri Symposium Books, 2010, ISBN 978-1-873927-31-1 Review by Stephen Wilkins

In 2008, Christopher Davidson and Peter Mackenzie Smith (Eds.) reminded us in their book Higher Education in the Gulf States: Shaping Economies, Politics and Culture that nowhere in the world is university education expanding as rapidly as in the Arab Gulf States. This is a region that has received increased interest among educational researchers and higher education practitioners with a concern for internationalisation and so it is not surprising to see another book that focuses on higher education in the Arab Gulf States. This region contains the largest number of international branch campuses globally, at last count, at least fifty across the six countries that make up the Arab

94 The gulf between us, Review by Stephen Wilkins

Gulf States (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates). Although Australia’s University of Wollongong has had a campus in Dubai, one of the emirates that make up the United Arab Emirates (UAE), since 1993 most of the other campuses have been established during the last decade, and particularly during the last five years. Whilst these offshore campuses have added much needed higher education capacity in their host countries and have gone some way to satisfying the immediate demands of local labour markets, Donn and Al Manthri argue that these countries have bought into the role of subservience and that they will be vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

less likely to acquire their own indigenous knowledgebased educational developments (p. 14). Donn and Al Manthri’s introduction sets out the main arguments of the book, which is essentially an attack on the forces of globalisation that have led to policy borrowing from Western higher education systems and institutions: ‘…educational reforms are being driven by what is now apparent is a failing economic agenda.We are critical of these global education reforms because they tend to generate inequalities’ (p. 7);‘higher education in the Arab Gulf States may come to be seen as a baroque arsenal, a valuable economic and political cargo for the sellers/exporters but of little educational value to purchasers/importers.’ (p. 15). The first chapter provides an overview of the factors that have encouraged the process of globalisation and it examines the influences of globalisation upon higher education in the Arab Gulf States. The authors observe that the Arab Gulf States have, in the main, adopted English-language curricula, and have accepted international definitions of quality, standards, benchmarks and appraisal, but nevertheless they have little control, other than as purchaser and consumer, over the language or the artefacts of that language. They propose that this is not ‘policy borrowing’, but rather ‘cultural replacement’ (p. 24). The impacts of globalisation on nationals and on higher education are also discussed in Chapter 1. As in other regions of the world, it is recognised that in the Arab Gulf States education has come to resemble a private rather than a public good and the forces associated with globalisation have encouraged the homogenisation of policy, strategy and reform. Chapter 2 presents an overview of each of the six Arab Gulf States. For readers unfamiliar with this region, this provides useful background information on the political, social, economic and educational characteristics of each country. Chapter 3 explains how higher education in the Arab Gulf States might be affected by demographic factors such as the relatively youthful populations of each country; labour market characteristics, such as the over-dependency on expatriate labour; the shift of private sectors taking over from public sectors as the dominant creators of employment; increased unemployment amongst nationals and the increased participation of females in employment; labour market reforms; and the role of education and training for employment. In most of the Arab Gulf States there still exists a considerable mismatch between the skills, experience and qualifications of young nationals and their employment vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

’

aspirations and expectations; this has significant implications for higher education, including the needs to satisfy the demands of labour markets and to maintain quality standards. Chapter 3 concludes with a case study of Finland, provided as an example of a country which successfully transformed itself into a knowledge economy in a relatively short time. The message seems clear: the Arab Gulf States should invest more in research and development and then they too might enjoy the economic success currently enjoyed by Finland. However, I wonder if things really can be that simple. After all, the authors recognise that Finland has a long history of compulsory schooling, high rates of participation in tertiary education, a long established infrastructure that values research and enables knowledge transfer, and a self-reliant population that has an independent spirit and a ‘can-do’ mindset. In fact, the authors do recognise that the case study of Finland provides no ready answers for the Arab Gulf States (p. 89), although they also highlight the lessons that they believe should be observed by the Gulf States. The business of education and the discourse surrounding competing rationales for higher education are discussed in Chapter 4. The authors question whether the curricula of the tertiary sector are appropriate for the requirements of the populations of the Arab Gulf States. They observe that whilst countries such as Singapore and Malaysia have also opened their doors to foreign universities with the intention of increasing capacity and enhancing competition in their private higher education markets, they have tried to do this on their own terms. The authors argue that whilst these products may be of the highest quality in home countries, they do not necessarily ‘travel well’ or serve the interests of higher education in the Arab Gulf States (p. 96). The education reform policies in the different countries are examined, with some insightful discussion and analysis. Finally, a case study of Oman provides a rich overview of the development of private and public higher education provision in the country. A 12-month survey of key players in the field of higher education in Oman, undertaken by the authors, found widespread support for private higher education. However, Donn and Al Manthri again express their concern that Oman, like the other Arab Gulf States, could fall into the trap of becoming only a consumer of knowledge rather than a producer of it (p. 124-5). In the fifth chapter, the authors explore the origins The gulf between us, Review by Stephen Wilkins

and trends in higher education policy in the Arab Gulf States with reference to G8/BMENA (Broader Middle East and North Africa) meetings and initiatives and conclude that educational policy has been shaped largely by the requirements of labour markets and the desire to achieve political stability. The authors accuse educational policy makers in the Arab Gulf States of ‘soft governance’, whereby they have been too easily convinced of the benefits of adopting Western models of education. In their final chapter, Donn and Al Manthri refer to a statement made by Philip Altbach, who said that the world is divided into centres and peripheries, with the centres growing stronger and more dominant and the peripheries becoming increasingly marginalised. The authors suggest that the Arab Gulf States are on the periphery and in order to move to the centre, they must generate knowledge, not merely consume outputs from the centre. Throughout the book, the authors present convincing evidence and arguments to support their views, yet their arguments are very one-sided with little consideration of alternative perspectives. It should be remembered that only a small minority of the world’s universities can truly be considered as research-intensive, and these universities are concentrated in a handful of countries. Also, one must not forget that what some of the Arab Gulf States have so far achieved in less than thirty years took many Western countries three hundred years, or more, to achieve. These are young countries facing a steep learning curve and it is far too early to write them off. The Arab Gulf States are aware of their situations and the potential problems, and as the authors mention, most have already introduced initiatives to strengthen

96 The gulf between us, Review by Stephen Wilkins

’

their scientific research. This book will be an interesting and informative read for anyone with an interest in the effects of globalisation and internationalisation on higher education or on higher education in the Arab Gulf States more generally. For those with a particular interest in Oman, there is plenty of rich data and analysis. It should be noted that Al Manthri is Chair of the State Council of Oman and was previously Minister for Higher Education, Minister for Education and Vice-Chancellor of Sultan Qaboos University in Oman, which has allowed him to draw upon his rich experience and unique insights. Donn lectures at the University of Edinburgh and has a particular interest in international education. If readers want detailed case material on the other Gulf States, they may be disappointed. However, if they want to read in detail the evidence and analysis that supports the authors’ hypotheses, they will most likely be very satisfied. Stephen Wilkins was formerly Director of Professional Management Programs at Dubai University College. He is currently a PhD candidate at the University of Bath, UK, where he is researching the marketing and competitive strategies of international branch campuses in the United Arab Emirates.

Reference Davidson, C & Mackenzie Smith, P (eds) 2009, Higher Education in the Gulf States: Shaping Economies, Politics and Culture. London, Saqi Books. ISBN-13: 9780863566974

vol. 52, no. 2, 2010

www.aur.org.au Since 1958, the Australian Universities’ Review has been encouraging debate and discussion about issues in higher education and its contribution to Australian public life.

Want to receive your own copy of Australian Universities’ Review (AUR)? AUR is published by the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) twice a year. NTEU members are entitled to receive a free subscription on an opt-in basis – so you need to let us know. If you are an NTEU member and would like to receive your own copy of AUR, please send us an email at aur@nteu.org.au. Subscription rates for non-members are available at www.aur.org.au. If you would like to become a member of NTEU, please contact the local Branch office at your institution, or join online at www.nteu.org.au.