Overload

OVERLOAD

The role of work-volume escalation and micro-ma nagement of academic work patterns in loss of morale and collegiality at UWS; the way forward.

Ann Lazarsfeld Jensen and Kylie Morgan Research Team Robyn Moroney, Genevieve Kelly, Elizabeth Watson Published by National Tertiary Education Union

This research report is the product of a project initiated by academics at the University of Western Sydney (UWS). The principal researchers, Anne Maureen Scarff, Robyn Moroney and Genevieve Kelly, developed the project in consultation with Elizabeth Watson, adjunct research fellow at the Social Justice and Social Change Research Centre.

The project received ethics approval from the UWS Ethics Committee and the researchers engaged Kylie Morgan and Ann Lazarsfeld Jenson to carry out the research. ‘Overload’ is the report on their findings.

The research will be presented in campuses across New South Wales prior to the development of the next stage of the project.

The researchers would like to acknowledge the contribution of UWS management and staff to the project and the excellent research work of our staff.

The researchers would also like to acknowledge the contribution of NTEU staff, Cat Coghlin and Amanda McCormack.

© National Tertiary Education Union 2009 This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from the authors or National Tertiary Education Union, PO Box 1323, South Melbourne VIC 3205 Australia, phone +61 (03) 9254 1910, fax +61 (03) 9254 1915, email national@nteu.org.au.

ISBN 978-0-9806500-0-6 This publication is available at www.nteu.org.au/overload as an e-book and PDF download.

Cover design by Paul Clifton. Cover image by Suzanne Tucker.

OVE RLOAD

Table of Contents List of Tables ................................................................................................................2 List of Figures ...............................................................................................................2 1.1 1.2

Introduction: Shifting the work load ..........................................................3 Purpose .......................................................................................................7

1.2.1 Structured survey for the collection of quantitative data ...........................8 1.2.2 Multiple sources for the collection of qualitative data...............................8 1.2.3 Unexpected obstacles and limitations to the strategy ................................9 1.2.4 Results of the modified survey.................................................................11 1.2.5 Qualitative responses to the amended survey ..........................................15 2.1

Snapshots as an overview of the issues important to academics .............15

2.1.1 The remedial university: a unique profile ................................................26 2.1.2 An intense university teaching environment ............................................32 2.1.3 A scattered university...............................................................................37 3.1

Five structural factors that contribute to overload ...................................39

3.2

Technological duress................................................................................40

3.3

Devolution and increase of administration tasks .....................................42

3.4

Multiplication of campuses ......................................................................46

3.5

Escalation of bureaucratic processes........................................................52

3.6

Casualisation ............................................................................................54

4.1

Why the loss of morale is significant to academics .................................58

4.2

Why good teachers deliver poor quality teaching ....................................60

4.2.2 Problems not restricted by academic level...............................................61 4.2.3 A program of planned overload: the need for transparency.....................62 4.2.4 Recognition for the remedial cohorts .......................................................66 References ...............................................................................................................67

–1–

O VE RLOAD

List of Tables Table 1.1 UWS Colleges WLA formulas ..................................................................5 Table 1.2 Demographics ..........................................................................................11 Table 1.3 Categories.................................................................................................12 Table 2.1 Equity Performance Indicators 2006 (DEEWR) ......................................27 Table 2.2 Equity indicators across the state and nation ...........................................28 Table 2.3 UWS Staff Student Ratio (SSR) from DEET data ...................................33 Table 2.4 SSRs calculated using internal UWS data ...............................................34 Table 3.1 Allowable distance between campuses for mileage claims calculation...48 Table 3.2 Distribution of colleges and schools: College of Arts (Bankstown, Parramatta & Penrith) ..............................................................................49 Table 3.3 Distribution of colleges and schools: College of Business (Blacktown, Campbelltown and Parramatta) ................................................................50 Table 3.4 Distribution of colleges and schools: College of Health and Science (all campuses) ..........................................................................................51

List of Figures Figure 1.1 Q1. How many days a week do you undertake academic work before 8am and/or after 8pm? .............................................................................13 Figure 1.2 Q2. Excluding holidays, approximately how many weeks a year do you work fewer than 37.5 hours? ....................................................................13 Figure 1.3 Q.3 Do you work on weekends? ..............................................................14 Figure 1.4 Q.4 Approximately how many weekends per year do you work on university related work? ...........................................................................14 Fig 3.1

Comparison of tenured with Casual and Contract Staff Level A at UWS .....................................................................................................55

–2–

OVE RLOAD

1.1 Introduction: Shifting the work load Escalating academic work volume at UWS can be mapped to seven years of continuous reform and restructure. In 1999 UWS was identified by the Australian Government as at risk financially, which led to major structural reform beginning in 2001, reducing 56 faculties to three colleges and 17 schools by 2006 (AUQA, 2007; Nightingale, 1997; UWS, 2006). While the university has been reshaped for sustainability by the reforms, there has not been an adequate investigation of the discrete ways work volume affects academic staff.

This report will show that the morale of academic staff at every level has been compromised by burgeoning work volume associated with the university’s unique structure and profile, and that current work load agreements (WLAs) have served to shift and hide real levels of work rather than providing the transparency and flexibility intended.

The intensity of teaching in a university with arguably Australia’s highest staffstudent ratio is exacerbated by far-flung campuses, severe parking problems, large cohorts with specific educational needs, and ever-changing armies of casual academics, often post-graduate students, that have replaced collegial teaching teams from which academics previously drew support, as well as the loss of administrative support. All of these issues are intrinsic to the economic pressures of a relatively young university that needed rapid growth to assure its place in the sector.

Teaching loads have been affected by early voluntary redundancies, increased casualisation and the recruitment of an elite professoriate to boost the research profile.

While cohorts swell, face-to-face teaching time has been reduced. There is a strategy of longer lectures while fewer tutorials are held. Tutorial groups are also larger, and time-hungry technologies are used to supplement the loss of face to face teaching.

Teaching takes precedence over research except for those academics who have achieved a track-record. This implies a lack of mentoring and poor development of academics, and the loss of promotional opportunities for those with heavy teaching loads.

–3–

OVE RLOAD

The allocation of academic work at UWS is directed by a broad policy intended to allow flexible interpretation and application at school level, to answer the specific needs of disciplines and the peaks and troughs of the academic year. Individual academics are required to negotiate their work load with a supervisor at school level.

The reality of a maximum 1725 hours a year has been lost in complex interpretations and new school policies that impose rigidity, micro management and hyper vigilance, because of the need for economy in educating larger cohorts. Despite the clear link between increasing work volume and restructure, interpretations and a lack of transparency in the application of policy, have hidden the volume of work by denying its validity. Dozens of traditional academic tasks are no longer considered in WLA calculations in some schools, including community engagement and scholarly work off campus or in co-operation with other universities, such as editing or peerreviewing for journals, participating in Board of Studies reviews, and post-doctoral mentoring.

Many actual work tasks are not included in individual WLAs, such as coordination of small units and those in which the coordinator does not teach, some lectures, and the actual time it takes to mark assessments when compared to what is “allowed”. Real work, time-hungry tasks, such as administration and travelling between campuses, are encapsulated in unrealistic time budgets. Costs and disadvantages have been passed to academics in many subtle ways, leading to stress and low morale, health problems, and an increasing lack of confidence in the value of teaching under the UWS academic badge, as this research report will show.

It is close to impossible to be able to compare work load policies between the various universities as each university determines these policies at either a faculty, college, or school level. Even within the University of Western Sydney there were significant limitations in what comparisons could be done.

In the schools one working hour is calculated in different ways, and allocated to highly specific tasks requiring up to three pages of Excel spreadsheets to justify the calculations. Each of UWS’ three colleges has developed different models to estimate or interpret the expenditure of 1725 hours, and at the level of the schools these become so obscure that many academics do not understand their own agreement. A

–4–

O VE RLOAD

hybrid interpretation was used in one college where loads were represented as EFTSUL (Equivalent Fulltime Student Unit Load) so that a tutorial might be described as 1.76 EFTSUL. The EFTSUL was arrived at by dividing the number of staff into the number of fulltime students. A further calculation was then conducted to determine how many EFTSUL equated to 10 per cent of a work load. It is an economic model loosely tied to income generated by student enrolments. These variations between colleges are represented on the table below.

Table 1.1 UWS Colleges WLA formulas COLLEGE

College of Arts

College of Business

College of Health & Science

New Percentage of Total Model of Actual Academic Teaching Hours Calculation Calculation Staff Research and Allowance Administration 50% teaching Divide the (flexible).

EFTSUL schools Minimum 1 Calculated EFTSUL 10% of 1725 block of 10% in 10% target by the workload teaching (unless blocks number of exempt by academic staff executive dean) Maximum 50 hours of 12 hours EFTSUL workload = 1 face to 1725 Unknown hour face to face face teaching teaching per week Different Up to 40% Hours Different calculations research 1725 allocated in each for each (flexible) per activity school school

Five factors emanating from structural change emerged in this research as evident causes of work volume escalation. These were described in personal interviews and ratified in the focus groups in this project. These factors, which will be dealt with individually in this report, were:

technological duress (see 3.2)

devolution of administration (see 3.3)

multiplication of campuses (see 3.4)

escalation of bureaucratic processes (see 3.5)

casualisation. (see 3.6)

–5–

OVE RLOAD

As a result of the structural shifts, academics at UWS are increasingly involved in work for which they have not been trained. Invariably recruited for their intellectual skills in a specific discipline, they find themselves in a chaotic teaching pressurecooker of large cohorts, inflexible deadlines and a complex de-personalised environment. There is a high demand for administrative and technological skills, and lowered opportunity to develop the scholarly practices for which most were trained.

Those who have carried exponential teaching loads have become deprived of the opportunity to hone the scholarly skills that would assure their careers.

This report will begin with an overview of the methodology, before considering the issues of structural change, the student profile and all it implies, and a dense description of the five factors that academics named as re shaping their role. The report will conclude by describing what needs to be recognised in WLAs to achieve a more equitable and tolerable working environment.

–6–

OVE RLOAD

1.2 Purpose The purpose of this research was to investigate the effects of present work load policies at UWS on tenured, fixed-term and casual academic staff. The views of academic staff at UWS regarding the purpose of work load allocation and the principles that underpin it were explored in order to develop a descriptive account of contemporary academic life within current economic constraints and policy trends. In order to achieve these objectives three main aims were developed: 1.

To investigate the impact of present work load policies at UWS on tenured, fixed-term, and casual academic staff. This investigation would include, but not be confined to: ¾ ease of application and negotiation, ¾ time taken in drawing up a work load agreement, ¾ the actual implementation of the work load policy in each college, ¾ areas of work unaccounted for, or inadequately accounted for, in present models, ¾ areas in which there is seen to be an inappropriate weighting of responsibilities, ¾ cases where there has been difficulty in gaining time for certain activities, e.g., research, marking of assignments, scholarship, community engagement, ¾ the impact of increased class sizes on work load, ¾ the place of research in work loads, its weighting, how negotiated, ¾ the issues of unequal opportunities for staff to pursue research.

2.

To assess the value of alternative models in the UWS context.

3.

To explore, in general terms, the views of academic staff (and, perhaps, others) regarding the purpose of work load allocation and the principles that should underpin it.

In order to achieve the collection of richly textured data a mixed methods approach was to be taken to collect both quantitative and qualitative data.

–7–

O VE RLOAD

This study was approved by the University of Western Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee on the 21st of April, 2008, approval number HREC 08/081.

1.2.1 Structured survey for the collection of quantitative data All academic staff who worked for the University of Western Sydney were to receive a two page survey in their mail pigeon hole along with a copy of the information sheet. They were requested to complete the survey and send it anonymously via internal mail back to one of the associate researchers.

The survey requested participants to show the number of hours spent each week in various work related activities by comparison to the hours indicated in their agreements. This survey included several optional questions with answers up to 500 words, including a question about the adequacy of the survey questions and an opportunity to provide unsolicited information. The survey also asked participants to name the UWS College that they work within as well as their employment status. The participants' willingness to complete the survey and return it anonymously by mail was to be taken as evidence of consent. The surveys were to be analysed using SPSS. 1.2.2 Multiple sources for the collection of qualitative data Qualitative data collection was to occur at three levels with each level informing the next. These three levels were as follows: Level 1:

Forums

Level 2:

Focus Groups

Level 3:

Purposive individual semi-structured interviews

Informed consent would be sought from all participants who chose to participate in either a focus group or a purposive individual semi-structured interview. The focus groups and interviews would be recorded on a digital tape recorder and transcribed by a person with appropriate skills who would understand the confidential nature of personal interview and observe appropriate protocols in the protection of privacy and identity.

Level 1: Forums were to be conducted for academic staff across all campuses to canvass issues to inform the research. Academic staff were to be approached by

–8–

OVE RLOAD

e-mail by the UWS branch of the NTEU inviting them to attend a forum which was to be held on their home campus. All NTEU meetings are open to interested nonmembers and the research would observe this protocol. In this forum participants would be asked to discuss issues regarding their academic work load.

Level 2: Focus Groups were to be held with academics to discuss issues raised by both the forums and the survey. They were to be of a heterogeneous nature with participants from across campuses, colleges and disciplines, utilising the themes generated in the open forums for discussion. Discussions around possible alternative models at UWS were also to be conducted during the focus groups.

Level 3: In stage three, participants with particular knowledge, expertise or whose work loads had been identified as anomalous were to be asked to participate in an individual interview to assist in filling the gaps of the research with more specific data that could not be fleshed out in the previous levels of research.

1.2.3 Unexpected obstacles and limitations to the strategy There were two sets of obstacles to the research from the start. The first related to a sense of vulnerability among academic staff who did not want to be recorded or to be seen attending meetings. The second related to the complex structure of WLAs and their variation between schools, so that academics were unable to translate their work load agreements into real time allocated to genuine tasks.

The suspicion and fear among academics was unexpected. It led to large numbers of requests for personal interviews, including off campuses interviews, and poor attendances at public forums or the focus groups. Discussions about the dangers of a voice being recognised if digital recordings fell into the wrong hands led to a reluctance to sign informed consent forms. Typical of the comments was: I certainly don’t want to express my thoughts in any frank way on an audio tape, so I don’t quite see the point of it being audio taped.

Associate Professor

–9–

O VE RLOAD

The quantitative survey instrument was designed to try and make hidden work plain, by listing diverse categories of work as suggested by the Soliman papers (Soliman, 1999; Soliman & Soliman, 1997). The survey was sent to 950 academic staff and there were a mere 20 responses. Some academics sent back blank survey forms complaining that their WLAs were so obscure that they did not know what was expected of them, and so had no basis for comparison with reality. In effect, the agreement entered into by academics at UWS to satisfy school records lacked transparency and bore no resemblance to the actual time they expended, and was certainly not used to guide their actual use of time, or for record keeping. This proved to be a revelation of a major problem with the structure of WLAs in some schools.

Some academics indicated that 1725 hours had become a minimum, and full expenditure needed to be designed in advance. Moreover, WLAs excluded so much of their real work, and there was no contingency plan.

After rounds of personal interviews and focus groups the problem was clarified and a snapshot email survey of approximately 550 academics was sent out at the end of the academic year. The email contained two parts: Part A asked four pertinent questions (taken from the original survey) about actual work performed in the role as an academic. These questions were:

How many days a week do you undertake academic work before 8am and/or after 8pm?

Excluding holidays, approximately how many weeks a year do you work fewer than 37.5 hours per week?

Do you work on weekends?

Approximately how many weekends per year do you work on university related work?

Part B of the email asked academics to describe their working experience as an academic. Participants were told that this could be one or more significant examples, or a general description of their typical working week.

– 10 –

OVE RLOAD

1.2.4 Results of the modified survey Ninety-five academics responded to the quantitative questions in the email, of whom 91 were full-time, 1 was part-time and 3 were employed as casual academics. It was not known if academics were on either a tenured or fixed-term contract. Due to the limited number of part-time or casual academic staff respondents (n = 4) these responses were not included in the statistical analyses. Therefore statistical analyses were conducted for full-time staff only (n = 91).

The respondents to the survey were from the three UWS colleges; College of Arts, College of Business, and the College of Health and Science as well as non-school based academics. Some respondents did not nominate their school or level of employment in order to protect anonymity. For the purpose of statistical analyses the categories of non-school based academics and anonymous responses were collapsed.

Therefore the respondents were divided in four categories: College of Arts; College of Business; College of Health and Science; non-school based academics/anonymous.

Respondents were also divided in categories according to the level they were employed (see Table 1.2).

Table 1.2 Demographics College College of of Arts

Business

College of

Non-School

Health &

Based/Anonymous

Total

Science Level A

1

1

2

0

4

Level B

16

7

14

1

38

Level C

7

9

12

0

28

Level D

7

4

3

0

14

Level E

2

1

1

0

4

Anonymous

0

0

0

3

3

Total

33

22

32

4

91

– 11 –

OVE RLOAD

For the purpose of statistical analyses the responses to the four questions were collapsed into the following categories: Table 1.3 Categories Survey Question

Categories 0-1 days

Q1. How many days a week do you undertake academic work before 8am and/or after 8pm?

2-3 days 4-5 days 6-7 days

Q2. Excluding holidays, approximately how many weeks a year do you work fewer than 37.5 hours?

Rarely

= 0-12 weeks

Sometimes = 13-24 weeks Often

= 25-36 weeks

Most

= 37-48 weeks

Yes

Q3. Do you work on weekends?

No Rarely

Q4. Approximately how many weekends per year do you work on university related work?

= 0-12 weeks

Sometimes = 13-24 weeks Often

= 25-36 weeks

Most

= 37-48 weeks

Of the 91 responses, 100 per cent of respondents indicated they worked on weekends, 96.7 per cent stated they rarely worked fewer than 37.5 hours a week excluding holidays, and 51.6 per cent indicated they worked before 8am and after 8pm four to five days a week (see Figure 1.1 to 1.4).

– 12 –

OVE RLOAD

Figure 1.1

Q1. How many days a week do you undertake academic work before 8am and/or after 8pm?

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0% 51.6% 20.0%

10.0%

0.0%

Figure 1.2

24.2% 13.2% 0-1 days

11.0% 2-3 days

4-5 days

6-7 days

Q2. Excluding holidays, approximately how many weeks a year do you work fewer than 37.5 hours?

100.0%

80.0%

60.0% 96.7% 40.0%

20.0%

0.0%

1.1%

2.2%

rarely (0-12 weeks) sometimes (13-24 weeks) most (37-48 weeks)

– 13 –

O VE RLOAD

Figure 1.3

Q.3 Do you work on weekends?

100.0%

80.0%

60.0%

100.0% 40.0% 20.0%

0.0%

Figure 1.4

Yes

Q.4 Approximately how many weekends per year do you work on university related work?

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

42.9%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%

15.4%

rarely (0-12 weeks)

23.1%

18.7%

sometimes (13- 24 weeks)

most often (25-36 weeks) (37-48 weeks)

– 14 –

O VE RLOAD

1.2.5 Qualitative responses to the amended survey Of the 95 respondents to the quantitative component of the email, 52 respondents also completed the qualitative component where they were asked to describe their working experience as an academic by either using a significant example or writing about a typical working week.

In order to give an overview of what academics are typically experiencing in their roles the responses to this question were coded and then compiled into nine categories which are shown below as snapshots. These categories are:

Hidden work

Administration

Resources

Commutes

Teaching

Marking

Collegiality

Conflict

Morale

2.1 Snapshots as an overview of the issues important to academics In the snapshot charts below are samples of the kinds of comments emailed by respondents to the survey. There was little difference between the issues raised in forums, focus groups, personal interviews and the modified survey. There were small personal anecdotal differences, yet there was a strong similarity between the kinds of work volume pressures and stresses reported across all academic levels. In the charts below the academic level of the speaker is shown where it was known. The comments in the right hand column are verbatim.

– 15 –

– 16 –

The interpretation of WLAs and distribution of work seemed arbitrary and inconsistent across schools.

Community services and engagement were not included as work in most schools. This included editing journals and contributing to community-based projects.

Traditional academic tasks did not qualify as work in some UWS schools. Unit co-ordination in some schools was absorbed into a 10per cent (175 hours per year) administration allowance.

Hidden work

I get no work load for the unfunded research I am doing and am not able to claim the cost of a RA which I pay out of my own pocket. (B)

Previously as a result of my Community Service I won multiple awards for the school.

(D)

There is no community engagement allowance in our WLA. (D)

There are a number of governance and teaching related activities that are not reflected in my work load at all: unit co-ordination, significant university committees, managing & monitoring casual teaching staff. (C)

In 2007 I was co-ordinating 3 units with 328 students and received 9.27per cent work load allowance for unit co-ordination. However, in 2008, I was coordinating 6 units with 752 students but received NOTHING for unit co-ordination. In both years, I was the only full time staff member available to coordinate these units and the rest of the staff were either sessional or on non-full time contracts. (D)

The main problem I encounter is in having to commit 100per cent of my time for the forthcoming year in a WLA, and then being expected to take on a number of additional and time-consuming tasks the following year. (C)

The work load policy is a fabrication of what your year might look like at a minimum.

New projects are required to be completed during the year that were not even imagined when the work load was designed early in the year. (A)

What academics are saying

O VE RLOAD

– 17 –

Email consumes more time than any other single item, with academics starting as early as 5am at home to clear email for the day

In addition, hundreds of new administrative tasks are passed directly to academics, many of which require new skills, as well as software upgrades, the mastery of new forms, new sites, and new administrative processes.

Administrative support is no longer available to most academics.

Administration

The greatest cause of stress is, I think, emails... students expect to be answered immediately. (D)

Each day I get on average 50 to 70 emails that require attention. In order to keep up with these demands on my time I have been spending 12 hours in my office. (C)

Every day begins at 7am with answering overnight emails and deleting space. (C)

At about 7.30am I shuffle email for about an hour. (D)

I would deal with 50 plus emails a day on average. (B)

I battle to cope with the administrative load such that I have sufficient time to meet my teaching commitments, and dream of the day when I will have sufficient time to conduct my own research. (B)

I am beginning to run out of energy and enthusiasm for doing all these things 'on top of' the normal teaching and never ending administration work load. (B)

Overwhelmed by massive increase in individualised administration. (C)

There is a devolution of administrative tasks to academic staff and a multiplication of the numbers of forms and procedures we have to fill in. (C)

What academics are saying

OVE RLOAD

Academics in administrative units which have been centralised, felt the burden of travel most severely.

They were closely followed by academics whose units had been relocated after they had taken up a position because it was close to home.

UWS’ six campuses are sited across some of the busiest arterial roads in Sydney. Inter-campus commutes are time-consuming, expensive, rarely given adequate time allotments on WLAs.

Commutes

It plays havoc with organised child care, UWS being across so many campuses that are a long distance from each other. (B)

This year I travelled to other campuses twice per week. I had a WLA for 7 return trips but had to undertake 13 return trips to see students and collect exams. $300 on tolls.

(B)

What academics are saying

OVE RLOAD

– 18 –

Academics feels they are increasingly paying their own way, whether it’s increased driving time, tolls and early starts for distant campuses, conferences or the use of personal resources to make up for what is lacking in the workplace.

Resources

Inadequate resources to perform intensified work, increasing personal subsidy of academic activities such as conferences, contemporary communications hard and software and shortage of support staff. Disjuncture between what is valued in relation to student learning by academics and university management [affects] resource allocation. (D)

I have purchased a computer and multifunction colour laser printer / scanner / copier and pay for a high download broadband connection. This is used almost exclusively for University work. I paid for this privately and I use absolutely no university consumables. (C)

I was identified as one of the top 10 telephone users in the office. I am incensed with having to justify my work-related phone usage, to the tune of about approximately $50 per month. (C)

What academics are saying

O VE RLOAD

– 19 –

Marking requires sustained concentration and large chunks of time. It is usually done outside of office hours. The escalation in student numbers and decreasing deadlines due to the constraints of electronic postings and examinations, mean that marking creates a peak work load that is not adequately recognised.

Marking

I had to turn around 86 hours of marking in 10 days: 86 hours is what I actually get paid presuming I can mark 1,000 words every 20 minutes, which I can’t. I actually worked 10 days straight of 12 hour days in the non-teaching weeks. Marking is what makes casual teaching viable. Without the money from marking I could not earn enough from casual teaching to survive. (Casual academic)

It is now 5.15pm. I have been up since 4am marking assignments and I still haven’t finished. (B)

The work load agreement does not properly recognise the inefficiencies and stress placed on staff by having to mark work which requires a professional, assignmentbased evaluation from large numbers of students. This produces peak overloads for about nine weeks of the semester which are virtually impossible to deal with. These marking peaks see me working at the university from 7am to midnight and six additional hours on Saturday and Sunday. (C)

What academics are saying

OVE RLOAD

– 20 –

Policies designed to limit the number of hours spent on campus or the number of new units taught, seem to be over ridden in WLAs that assign staff to distant campuses early, late, and at weekends.

Teaching

– 21 –

Teaching is not valued and academic freedom is being eroded away. (B)

Lecture preparation is usually done at home in addition to work load. Lecture and tutorial preparation always take me far longer to prepare than the designated time. In fact I do not know anyone who can prepare a lecture from scratch in five hours.

Mostly, I am sad to say, I spend about 20 hours. (B)

Due to “lack of hours” I was subpoenaed to assist as a demonstrator in a first year unit covering topics about which I knew nothing. (B)

In 2008 I have taught 7 different units none of which I have taught before. (B)

Timetabling insists that I cannot teach through the common hour of 1-2pm. My motivation for wanting this was so that I could get home by 6.30pm and cut my day down to 11 hours when teaching on another campus (D)

I teach Saturday three times (a semester) from 9am to 6pm. (D)

I am spending more hours of my week on teaching related activities that I ever have in the 19 years I have been an academic. I am currently teaching 16 hours face to face and marking 90 assignments a semester. Student numbers have increased without an increase in permanent academic staff. (B)

What academics are saying

O VE RLOAD

Work load distribution within schools is a source of conflict. An atmosphere of suspicion and mistrust has eroded collaboration and collegiality.

Conflict

– 22 –

Allocations are not based on how long a task takes but rather on how highly the HOS

I must attend on campus 5 days a week unless I have approved leave. (A)

casuals taught at my own campus due to a [confused] system. (B)

I have expended a lot of excess time and money teaching on another campus while

values a task. (B)

In 4.5 years of working for UWS I have had only 1 WLA formally signed off. (A)

their case. Those who are aggressive are more likely to get what they want. (C)

Constant work load changes and interpretations leading to individuals having to argue

position that if we are not at our desks, we must be out enjoying ourselves. (C)

The university and, in particular, my supervisor and head of school, seem to take the

Your thoughts are generally totally opposed to upper management views. (B)

More recently staff have little time and/or inclination to debate issues. Why bother?

by senior management. (B)

There are instances when academics are treated like children rather than academics

A tendency for top-down decision-making demoralises academic staff. (C)

What academics are saying

O VE RLOAD

– 23 –

WLAs have intensified competition between fulltime staff for the high-value cohorts, and increased their load as recruiters and managers of casuals.

Work load policy erodes collegiality by the way it fails to reward collaborative writing, committee work, and devalues guest lecturing.

Instead of working in collegial teams, many academics are now the sole full-time staff member working with a group of casuals.

Casuals are excluded from school activities, have no access to professional development, and suffer their own isolation.

Academics value collegiality.

Without is teaching, research and writing can become isolating, with no quality controls.

Collegiality

This is a highly competitive climate which is inimical to collaborative work and congenial relationships. (C)

As a casual I am isolated from the intellectual life of the school. It may be presumed that I am not qualified to discuss issues. We are only paid two hours a semester for meetings, so I am a conscript or volunteer the rest of the time. (Casual)

Having little intellectual support for teaching from colleagues - due to the fact that all other people who work in the units I teach are casuals. For various reasons, all quite reasonable, casual staff have very little time to discuss student issues or the unit’s content and methods. (C)

My professional views and opinions are largely ignored within the context of Program management and academic standards. (A)

Although casual staff is not allocated a work load agreement, many are simply being taken advantage of. One of my (casual) colleagues was teaching 25 hours a week face to face. (Casual Academic)

Casual staff don’t always have the same commitment as permanent staff, so sometimes assignments have to be remarked and they pull out of teaching at short notice. (B)

What academics are saying

OVE RLOAD

1

People are quite intimidated. When it comes to fill out the piece of paper, will I have enough hours? So they are concerned if any class drops. Particularly if you’ve got a class that runs late in the day and you have got 14 people in it and they say, no , sorry, you can’t run it because it is just too few people, it is not a viable class….what else am I going to trump up to put on this work load to get to the required number of hours 1 (B)

It has been absolutely soul destroying. I mean I feel like I am shit on somebody’s shoes I have been treated like an absolute pariah. (D)

The 14 students would be absorbed into other tutorials, taught by the same academics, but the academic’s work load would be regarded as reduced.

OVE RLOAD

– 24 –

– 25 –

Many felt burned out, overwhelmed and unable to cope with escalating loads and longer hours.

Many academics were angry with management, hostile, disillusioned, and felt that they were treated with disdain and lack of appreciation for the long hours.

A few academics said they enjoyed their work, even when it was demanding.

The level of negativity among UWS academic staff surrounding WLAs was alarming.

Morale

I see emails from management and I don’t want to open them, I am afraid of what they are going to say. I will break out in a sweat when I see an email from management.

(A)

Regarding quality UWS is fast approaching the point where irreparable damage will be done to our reputation. Once we are known for poor quality work we will find it hard to change that impression. (D)

.We do these out of good will and to build CVs but they are burning us out as the ONLY way to maintain currency or to develop an acceptable research profile is to work on research for large chunks of my outside normal working hours life. (C)

There is a lot of pressure to do more with less time. The system is not working and helping anyone. Someone needs to realise that you cannot go on like this forever.

I am currently looking for academic work outside Australia as the pace is overwhelming me. (C)

I am unsure how much longer I can sustain this kind of work load. (C)

I have to say goodwill is spread very thin now. (D)

The ethics of being forced to signed off on allotted hours when all managers know we do much more work is highly questionable. (E)

The WLA never accurately reflects what we really do. (D)

What academics are saying

OVE RLOAD

OVE RLOAD

2.1.1 The remedial university: a unique profile One of the key arguments of academics at UWS was that the cohorts are not merely very large, but additionally difficult to teach due to the specific student profile, and the university’s location in low SES suburbs of Western Sydney. These claims are supported by UWS’ official student profile and its mission as a “university of the people” (AUQA, 2007, p3), that aims at inclusiveness. This chapter addresses three arguments: that UWS has a uniquely remedial profile as a result of its mission, that teaching is thus more intense, and that the geographical scatter both within and between campuses, creates particular problems of time management.

At UWS high maintenance students are recruited into a low-support environment.

The large cohorts enrolled in today’s rapidly expanding and accessible university includes many with low UAIs 2 . Regional bonus points and subject bonus points can boost prospective students’ UAIs by as much as 10 points. Entry scores to many UWS courses are among the lowest in the NSW metropolitan area (AUQA, 2007). Almost 20 per cent of students are admitted on the basis of a TAFE award, and the diversity of the region is said to be evidenced in the 2005 cohort which included students born in more than 170 countries and with international students from more than 100 countries. The complex challenges of “equivalence and consistency across the institution in the teaching and learning experience” were mentioned in the AUQA Report (2007, p17). The diversity of UWS, which is regarded as one of its strengths, is experienced as a profound challenge in teaching.

Student backgrounds are variously described as NESB 3 , ATSI 4 and CALD 5 , and there are significant numbers of mature age students. The 2006 First Year Retention Study reported 52 per cent of UWS students are the first member of their family to attend university, many enter from TAFE, and entry scores “are among the lowest in the NSW metropolitan area” (AUQA, 2007, p4). Although these statistics were used to illustrate effectiveness of mission by looking at participation and graduate

2

Universities Admission Index Non English Speaking Background 4 Aboriginal Torres Straight Islander 5 Culturally and Linguistically Diverse 3

– 26 –

O VE RLOAD

employment, the compilation of this kind of student profile data suggests challenge and need for consideration of difference, none of which is reflected in WLAs. Data from the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) demonstrate that UWS exceeds the state and national averages on many of the Equity Performance Indicators for 2006. The table below shows that UWS is 26.43 per cent higher than state average and 70.91per cent higher than national average in NESB students. When looking at the statistics for students with disabilities UWS is 16.26 per cent higher than state average and 17.41per cent higher than national average. UWS continues to score higher (12.15 per cent) than the state average for low SES (all ages) but is slightly lower than the national average (0.27per cent). However, this turns around when looking at low SES (under 25) where UWS again scores 14.23 per cent higher than state average and 2.11 per cent higher than national average. Surprisingly UWS scores lower than both the State (17.27 per cent) and national average (27.2 per cent) on participation by indigenous students.

Table 2.1 Equity Performance Indicators 2006 (DEEWR) UWS (%)

State (%)

National (%)

Non-English Speaking Background

6.17

4.88

3.61

Students with Disabilities

4.72

4.06

4.02

Low SES (all ages)

14.68

13.09

14.72

Low SES (under 25)

15.49

13.56

15.17

Indigenous

0.91

1.10

1.25

– 27 –

O VE RLOAD

Table 2.2 Equity indicators across the state and nation

Source: DEEWR 6 The difficulty of teaching at UWS was emphasised by some academics, although many felt it was politically incorrect to stress the needs of students with low UAIs and poor English language skills. Some academics felt management had recognised the need for student support at the point of transition into university, with bridging programs in literacy and maths such as the 40-hour Unistep and the two-day Avprep.

Others argued that the cost of these preparatory programs had been the loss of responsive support services for students across campuses. Academics who supply support services are co-located at Penrith, and it took some time for academics, particularly casuals, to discover there were no responsive support services for students with specific needs. Academic skills must be embedded in the curriculum and individual support given by tutors or supervisors at their discretion.

6

NB: DEEWR classifications for these areas are as follows Non-English speaking background A domestic student who arrived in Australia less than 10 years prior to the year in which the data were collected, and who comes from a home where a language other than English is spoken.

Student with a disability Students who have indicated that they have a disability, impairment or long term medical condition which may affect their studies.

Low socioeconomic status The ABS Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) Index of Education and Occupation is used to identify postcodes nationally as low (bottom 25% of the population), medium (middle 50%) or high (top 25%) socioeconomic status (SES).. An estimate of the number of low SES students is made by counting the number of domestic students whose reported postcode of permanent home location is a low SES postcode.

– 28 –

OVE RLOAD

Some courses designed to meet the needs of specific profile groups had very low enrolments, which were inequitable for lecturers.

If we run a subject which has eight students, you have got to prepare all the tutes, you have got to do all the marking which is not all that much, but you still have to turn up and do them [the classes] for which you get absolutely minimal [WLA allocation] 1 per cent for coordinating the whole course, which is three or four lectures A - Associate Professor Time allocations given to supervising higher research degrees academic were considered woefully inadequate, and most particularly when the student had issues of culture and language to contend with. Post graduate students from overseas were often high maintenance, and academics supervising them felt there were inadequate resources for them to access bi-lingual technologies and support systems.

The masters degree, the one that I basically teach in, it is an add on.

The students already have to have a degree, but some of them got their degree 20 years ago and they freak out when they have to use computers. They are scared when they have got to actually write cogent connected English because they have never had to do it. I am first supervisor for two of the Chinese students that [named] was talking about in the masters honours program. I have spent the better part of two full days this week working with those students plus I work with them over the weekend. Our head of school regularly sends us emails on the weekend so he expects us to be working on the weekend.

Focus Group Participant

– 29 –

O VE RLOAD

I just had a discussion with one of my PhD students who submitted her Confirmation of Candidature proposal. One of my issues that I explained to her was that I get an allocation of 175 hours a year – ten per cent of my work load – for supervising my PhD students.

And that time was virtually fully expended for her.

Focus Group Participant It is not only higher research students who need significant support to achieve satisfactory academic standards. UWS is a low-ranking university, but it also functions as a remedial university. This is not a negative assessment because UWS at its inception wanted to serve the disadvantaged West. Remediation is made necessary by aspects of the student profile, such as economic disadvantage, and lack of familial experience in higher education. Academics were frustrated that there was no real time to support students with high needs. Often the bar had to be lowered simply because teachers did not have the time to raise the class standards.

Where is the time for dealing with the students who are struggling?

I have got one student today, the students down here are doing their second assignment. I have got a student today who has emailed me the fifth draft of his first assignment. It has taken hours and hours and hours. I don’t get anything for that. I know a colleague of mine came in for a whole unpaid day last week to sit down and work with any students who wanted help on their assignments. There is no allocation [WLA] for that.

AB In depth personal interview Some academics felt their students did not understand that fulltime higher education precluded fulltime work, while others felt cohorts had become a clientele who expected their education to be a purchasable commodity.

– 30 –

OVE RLOAD

The attitude of many students is ‘I have paid my money so give me a ticket. I will come to tutorial because you have made them compulsory, but don’t expect me to engage the brain’. It is a very hard environment in which to teach.

(HC) In depth personal interview In an in depth personal interview SM said she had tried various ways to reduce her working hours to 37.5. She stopped giving routine extensions to students, and reduced feed-back, although she had decided to not dumb-down assessment tasks and as a consequence it sometimes took an hour to mark assignments and reports for which the scheduled time allowance was 20 minutes.

Things have gone pear-shaped with the lost quality of teaching.

Students who are enrolled fulltime act as if they are part time. They use email with me as a forum rather than attending lectures and consultations at the appropriate time. I am snowed under with paperwork associated with students.

(SM) In depth personal interview Some academics said they had been reprimanded for not answering student email quickly, and that students were quick to appeal against a fail and often won despite the unsatisfactory level of their work. Giving-in to student demands for extensions, passes and re submits was regarded as poor practice by some academics. An academic stopped discussing her work with colleagues because she had not been supported in a decision about a student outcome.

I am sorry, but even if I had done wrong, you back me up against the student. But I hadn’t done anything wrong. I had done the right thing but just to stop the argument she gave the student what he wanted after I said no.

(LC) In depth personal interview As well as being time-constrained, and under-resourced as a result of financial constraints, academics at UWS described it as a particularly intense teaching

– 31 –

OVE RLOAD

environment. Intensity refers to the short time-frames within the structure of the semester: restricted numbers of teaching weeks, reduced numbers of tutorials, quick turn-around expectations on marking and posting results, highly structured teaching frameworks such as ever-changing, dense and detailed unit outline pro forma, as well as the expectation that e-learning resources can be set-up and maintained within these short periods of time. E-learning resourcing includes resolving complex copyright issues, library links to texts and journal articles, the provision of power point slides and lecture texts.

2.1.2 An intense university teaching environment Rigid budgetary constraints demand that mushrooming cohorts of students are taught more intensively. The greatest single source of intensity is the staff student ratio (SSR) which is 1:24.3 the highest in an Australian university, and 19.5 per cent above the national average.

In 1993 the UWS SSR was equal with both the state and national statistics. However, this dramatically increased over the next four years so that by 1997 UWS was 18.75 per cent higher than national average and 11.76 per cent above the state average.

Despite a small drop in 2001 to 16.30 per cent above the national average and 15.47 per cent above the state average, by 2006 when full scale restructuring occurred, there was another increase in the SSR so that UWS widened the gap between other universities in NSW by 17.6 per cent (see table 3.1 below).

– 32 –

O VE RLOAD

Table 2.3 UWS Staff Student Ratio (SSR) from DEET data7 YEAR

1993

1996

2001

2006

UWS staff: student ratio

1:15

1:19

1:21.12

1:23.04

State staff: student ratio

1:15

1:17

1:18.29

1:19.58

National staff: student ratio

1:15

1:16

1:18.16

1:19.28

7

Derived from statistics found at: 1993 figures attained from http://www.dest.gov.au/archive/highered/statistics/characteristics/tables/23.xls 1996 figures attained from http://www.dest.gov.au/archive/highered/statistics/characteristics/tables/23.xls 2001 figures attained from http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/higher_education/publications_resources/statistics/selected_higher_ed ucation_statistics/students_2001.htm http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/higher_education/publications_resources/profiles/staff_2002_selected_ higher_education_statistics.htm 2006 figures attained from http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/higher_education/publications_resources/profiles/students_2006_select ed_higher_education_statistics.htm http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/higher_education/publications_resources/profiles/Staff_2007_selected_ higher_education_statistics.htm From 2001 onwards EFTSU/EFTSL is onshore staff only and does not include work in industry experience load. The national SSR estimates in 2001 and 2006 do not include Bond University.

– 33 –

O VE RLOAD

Table 2.4 SSRs calculated using internal UWS data

Although intensification of work may be a rational economic strategy it takes little account of human limitations or lost teaching quality. It means academics must deal with a large volume of work in a short time, creating unhealthy peaks during which academics report working 12 and 14 hours days, working all weekend, working through the night, in order to meet deadlines.

The teaching of more students in less time is achieved through longer and larger lectures, fewer tutorials, and increasing use of blended models of teaching, including substantial web resources, forums and podcasts. In order to constrain the time and costs associated with marking the higher volume of assessments associated with large cohorts, the size of each assessment is strictly limited. In some schools casuals are paid to mark 3,000 words per hour. This means that three assessment items, each with a word limit of 1,000 words each, permits a marking budget of one hour per student, per semester, at $34.07 cents per hour (casual rate). It is suggested by academics that the time constraints on marking have a profound impact on teaching quality, because these constraints limit the potential to give constructive feedback. The composition of feedback, which includes evaluation, suggested strategies and writing up to a page of notes, is a time-hungry task. Yet feedback of this kind is regarded as an essential contribution to student learning and academic development (Orrell, 2006).

– 34 –

O VE RLOAD

Larger cohorts create concentrated peaks in academic work loads. Student numbers exacerbate the complexity of unit co-ordination and add pressure to the deadlines for marking and the submission (online) of examination results. The increased recruitment and management of casuals, and the complexity of dealing with risks such as access and equity, and plagiarism, are other results of increasing enrolments.

Casuals are not paid to consult with students, or for administration. When assessments are due there are generally floods of emails, doctors’ notes, objections and requests from students, and in some schools no time or money is allocated for anyone to deal with these student matters.

Intensity in teaching is not restricted to lower academic levels or those with less experience. An associate professor (A) in her third decade of teaching described physical exhaustion that was painful, teaching face to face up to 18 hours a week. She regarded herself as primarily a teacher, although she had been named at one of the top 40 researchers by publication at UWS in 2007. The high ranking was due to a large number of conference papers. Her school did not include conference papers in reckoning her research component in the WLA. She was given a 6 per cent research allocation, so that she could not substantially reduce her teaching load to pursue further research. She coordinated three units with 750 students, and a week prior to the interview had marked 500 assessments.

The weeks that I am teaching it is physically, totally exhausting. All day Tuesday, all day Wednesday, all day Thursday from 9am to 6pm at night. It is very debilitating physically. In the evening all the emails, all the administration, I have got to do between. Close the office door and I just sink and I am in so much pain and exhaustion and then you open the door and on again. It is called professionalism.

Yes we are being stretched to get the same results with much less.

We have still got to get the same vUWS 8 up, the same happy little students at the end. We have to stretch ourselves with the whole e8

E-learning program, computer based teaching previously known as Blackboard

– 35 –

OVE RLOAD

learning and technology. We are getting more and more students so we have to work out how to make our assignments easier to mark and yet still test what we want to test.

A - Associate Professor in depth personal interview Both of the Level B academics who participated in long personal interviews talked about increasing tension in the teaching environment, which in one case had led to accepting a voluntary redundancy after 25 years of university teaching.

There was a move over the last number of years towards more teaching, people taking greater responsibility for more units…the effectiveness and maybe the quality of what you were teaching started to lag a bit, especially if you had five or six hours with only a few breaks. Partly because of the pressure and frustrations of being here I became quite ill a year or so ago and I was hoping my health would improve sufficiently to be able to continue here but that wasn’t the case.

G – Academic B in depth personal interview The second Academic B had been asked to coordinate four small units in a semester.

Due to a lack of research activity he had a 90 per cent teaching load and 10 per cent allowance for administration. He was given no time allowance in his WLA for coordinating a subject he was not teaching although he was still required to prepare the unit outline and reader, recruit casual tutors and submit grades.

You know what is stupid, I can’t believe this. I am actually fighting the desire to burst into tears. I always feel inadequate. What bothers me is the fact that you can have somebody who is an incredibly strong teacher but they are still made to feel incredibly inadequate because they haven’t got these humungous long publication records.

I love teaching but I hate the politics of publication.

We are actually forgetting the educational quality. I am lost. I am kind of lost. We have got to have large numbers in our classes, we

– 36 –

O VE RLOAD

have to cut down the assessments, we have to cut down the amount they write in their assessments. To me that is…farcical, ludicrous.

D – Academic B in depth personal interview The quality of teaching at UWS was a constant source of concern to the majority of academics interviewed in this project. Many felt they did not have sufficient time to prepare lectures, provide feedback, consult with and support students, and they felt out of touch with their own disciplines due to lack of time for research, reading, collegial activities and conferences. Moreover, many felt that the time given to face to face teaching was simply inadequate, and there was a dumbing-down of content and assessment to fit within time and financial constraints. The discrepancy between, on the one hand, the low opinions of teaching quality expressed by recent graduates and, on the other hand, their high opinion of academic staff, was noted in the AUQA Report as a discrepancy worthy of investigation (AUQA, 2007). In this research project, academics maintained that the quality of their teaching was compromised by the work load principles that AUQA also indicated were a source of concern to staff.

2.1.3 A scattered university Teaching is complicated by the geography of UWS’ multiple campuses which have come into being rapidly. Not only are the campuses remote from one another, but some are so large that there is a scattering of services and resources within them. At Penrith the three separate sites require academics to drive between classes. Parramatta is a particular challenge to achieve both access and parking, because it is made up of clusters of non-specific buildings ‘retrieved’ into a disorganised whole, situated at the intersection of major roads. Many academics complained about the time lost in just getting to a campus and finding the rooms.

Restructuring and shuffling of services and the delays or ineffectiveness of communicating change, means that academics spend a lot of time locating security or technical help. In some instances services have been centralised (Student Support Services, Teaching Development, Professional Development) and the nature of the services altered from responsive to pre-emptive, while other services have been absorbed (Audio Visual) or they are so remotely located (Security at Penrith) that access is difficult. On some campuses the remoteness of resources means that a

– 37 –

O VE RLOAD

locked door, a malfunctioning data projector or a time table glitch can lead to the cancellation of classes. Scattered locations mean that time is lost driving between teaching spaces, searching for parking, and the 10 minute lag between tutorials is inadequate for setting up at the next location.

For some academics the biggest problem is where they should live to keep commuting times to a minimum. Some academics reported they had accommodated their school’s campus relocations only to have them reversed within a couple of years When I came here the university asked me which campus I would like to be on, Bankstown or Penrith. Then they told me you can’t be on Bankstown because it is already full up so we want you at Penrith. I said good’o, I will buy a house within walking distance of the university at Penrith, so I did that, gone into hock, a mortgage for coming to Sydney as a penalty. Then they created the centre [at Bankstown] and decided they wanted me to go over there, to commute there every day for their convenience. This is the same time they want everybody to use technology to communicate.

There has always been this insistence that every week you have to go over there at least once if not twice a week for some meetings. I continually ask why we can’t do these things with teleconference, video conference, whatever. I have no idea, maybe we don’t have enough of them maybe they don’t know how to use them, in this particular case; the place at the other end doesn’t have this facility.

Focus Group participant Video conferencing is rarely utilised for in-school meetings and there is even resistance to teleconferencing. Academics said that they often travelled to meetings that had rubber-stamp or information dissemination agendas, rather than meetings that required participation and academic judgement. Meetings held around peak hours doubled their driving time and often guaranteed a late night home.

– 38 –

OVE RLOAD

3.1 Five structural factors that contribute to overload UWS academics identified five structural factors that are stressors in their work roles and practice:

technological duress (see 3.2)

devolution of administration (see 3.3)

multiplication of campuses (see 3.4)

escalation of bureaucratic processes (see 3.5)

casualisation. (see 3.6)

These factors work together to create a work load that is qualitatively different from that which academics had anticipated in their work life. The new kind of academic work is also different from what is represented as the work of an academic in recruitment, promotion, and in WLAs. In effect, UWS academics are suffering the kind of “professional identity crisis with deeply ethical implications,” that was suggested by Zepin and Brennan (2003, p351) in their analysis of the implications of managerialism in higher education. In this research academics were less concerned about questions of identity than the amelioration of extreme overload.

These factors can be attributed to both the restructuring of the university and the wider social changes in the nature of work. The factors tend to work in tandem and share common presumptions about efficiency and cost effectiveness: technology makes way for devolution of administration, while bureaucracy supports that devolution. In many work places, bureaucratic processes increase as budgets shrink and technologies allow the devolution of time-consuming tasks to end users. The proliferation of technologies has created time poverty in many arenas. Academics, however, claimed to not only be time poor, but shackled by the information technologies that should have freed their time and energies for the creation and dissemination of knowledge.

The five factors that will be discussed in this chapter have, as a whole, and in the light of UWS’ profile, helped create extreme overload.

– 39 –

O VE RLOAD

3.2 Technological duress The convergence of information and communication technologies in the past decade has created multifarious expectations in the work environment. There are presumptions that these technologies are fast, efficient and easily mastered, and therefore responsibility for their utilisation can be passed on to the frontline without unduly burdening the worker. End users, however, know that software must be engaged constantly or the expertise drops out of the user’s already overloaded memory. Moreover, complex data bases that are task specific rather than generic userfriendly programs, involve a steep learning curve. This is particularly true of the elearning environments which academics find counter-intuitive to the more familiar Windows environments, particularly as the program of choice has been changed frequently. There is considerable pressure from both management and students to master these technologies, as demonstrated in this extract from the AUQA Report (2007, p27).

“The UWS retention survey data also suggests that students are generally satisfied with WebCT. However, the Audit Panel found that use of WebCT by staff across the University is rather uneven.

While some staff and some schools are making excellent use of this tool to create dynamic interactive learning environments, other staff are not using it at all. Student complaints about inadequate and slow feedback on assignments seemed primarily associated with staff who do not use WebCT. The University will need to find ways to encourage and support the slow.”

For academics, the learning load is multiplied by the diversity of their roles.

Academics must be minimally familiar with information technologies relating to libraries, archives and data bases in their own research and teaching arena; communication technologies relating to multi-media teaching and web-based learning, as well as conferencing and online information sharing; and administrative operations that range from trouble-shooting photocopiers and achieving double sided printing, to desktop and web publishing of large, complex documents, graphics and interactive material. Web based learning demands familiarity with dozens of sub

– 40 –

O VE RLOAD

categories of information and communication technology, from podcasting to remote posting of power point lectures in an accessible format for students. Moreover, in a bid to keep costs at a minimum, the hardware and software associated with many of these tasks is taken from the public domain: free downloadable add-ons facilitate the editing of sound clips. Lecturers say they were told to buy their own MP3 recording devices for podcasting.

Student complaints about slow feed back on assessments were often associated with low uptake of technologies 9 without consideration for the time consuming aspects of those technologies for staff. In one focus group, there were two high level academics who freely admitted that they had difficulties with the UWS e-learning system vUWS (sic) and its technological demands, including design, posting student results, and managing forums, podcasts and multiple mail boxes. There was a lower level academic whose WLA included supporting the use of technologies in her own school.

For those without sufficient skills, technology was a time-hungry learning curve not scheduled into WLAs. These problems were confirmed in personal interviews with academics at every level, varying according to their personal exposure, technical education and support. The greatest single problem was the frequency of change in the software program, the fact that e-learning programs were distinctive, as well as the density of information provided on the sites as support. Not all schools had a support person for developing vUWS sites. Here is an abstract from a focus group: Well if I wanted to have a proper site there was no one. I had a colleague who has now taken a VR. I now feel quite vulnerable because as soon as they change it (vUWS) I’m stuffed. I wouldn’t be able to do it.

9 AUQA Report 2007 stated “Despite the existence of sound assessment principles, assessment practices across the University need improvement. There are complaints about the extent and timeliness of feedback on assignments, the accuracy of recording grades within some units, and some outdated practices in determining pass levels. The Complaints Resolution Unit has dealt with a number of these complaints. Timely feedback is a particular problem where individual staff are not making good use of elearning support systems. The UWS Student Satisfaction Survey results for 2005 identified the provision of timely and constructive feedback as a major area for improvement. These issues are being addressed as a component of the L&T Action Plan 2006–2008 and the Academic Senate has taken up the review of assessment practices as a priority for 2007 (p27)

– 41 –

.

OVE RLOAD

I enjoy looking at new technologies. They say now all our lectures have to be on podcast. How do we do that? OK, I go to a conference and learn how to do it, but that is another two hours every week of creating a pod cast and then there’s a whole lot of copyright issues and I have got to check through all that and that will be forms and contract and that will be time consuming. Just learning vUWS I spent at least 50 hours going to courses and doing the homework for that which again was not on the work load at all Whereas for me the computerisation of things has made a big difference to my work load, so I see that as new work. Something I wouldn’t have done ten years ago.

3.3 Devolution and increase of administration tasks For many academics there are two problems with administration - lack of skills and lack of time. Administration is also increasing on two levels: there is work devolved from administrative staff to academics, and there is increasing administration tied to more highly structured, technological and deadlined academic work. Increasing casualisation has concentrated the problem of administrative devolution into the hands of the few.

When you get to the stage of 70 to 80 per cent casualisation, then you have 20 per cent of the academic staff holding up the entire administrative framework for the faculty.

Focus Group Participant The devolution of administration to academics is entwined with a false logic about the simplicity and speed of computer programs. Administrative tasks that were once performed by staff trained for the role, are imposed on many people who feel incompetent in that role. Academics complained that dozens of tasks had been bundled into an administration time budget that did not resemble reality. They estimated that they spent between 30 and 40 per cent of their time doing administrative tasks, although most schools allowed a time budget of 10 per cent

– 42 –

O VE RLOAD

annually (175 hours a year) for administration. Emails, the e-tan system used for online booking of travel, organising large mailing lists, maintenance of student records and responding to administrative requests, were the commonest sources of lost time in administration.

The time consumer is the emails and the responses to them – the admin and the keeping up with marks, doing stuff that admin could do. I mean I am an associate professor paid x-amount per hour. It would make sense if you got an admin who was paid significantly less to do that sort of thing so I could maybe do some research and maybe bring some money in for the school instead of shifting papers and putting in some numbers and all that. They think we would rort the system [if we were not assigned administration work] but I see this whole thing as non trust.

A - Associate Professor Emails. All those emails for that you [you are away] some may be trifling but others, but a lot of emails require a lot of information. I have got to send them a draft ARC linkage grant application or a CV for the appointment of an adjunct, or contribute comments to a document on supervision.

A lot of emails. Something pops up. You go in and read the email and by the time you come back to what you were doing 15 minutes has gone by. The boss claims he has no troubles with emails, he has got a PA though.

Focus Group Participants One focus group included a full professor and an associate professor, neither of whom had received administrative support. They said it took up to a day each time they needed an e-tan for travel: many academics indicated the e-tan system absorbed three or four hours to master each time. The following is an abstract of the focus group discussion of the devolution of administration combined with the demands of online technologies.

– 43 –

O VE RLOAD

Yes it would be very easy if you did it yourself by ringing up a travel agent, it would be deliriously easy, but because you have to do it through the university system that is a day’s work.

You want to travel, you have a research project and you are going to go outside the metropolitan area, you are going to drive to Goulburn, you do an e-tan. It takes absolutely ages.

It is the electronic version of self-service shopping. You want something [for your computer or office] worth more than $100 and the university should pay for it, you have to go to a website…you have to go online and find what models are available through the university procurement, then you have to put that into a relational data base and fill out every other aspect.

The e-tan system is just hideous. You will get an administrative support person who might answer a question for you about how to do it, but won’t do it. ‘Oh, it’s not my job, you do it, you have to learn. This is something you have to learn.’ You might know a lot, but boy, you don’t know this and you have got to know this.

We used to do this [travel arrangements] manually.

Computerisation has slowed this down.

Every single time I have filled out an e-tan I have filled out what I was told was the current form, then I go to hand it in and oh no! the form has changed. From the time you start to fill it out, which means looking for the form, a minimum of two hours, and then you realise you have got to have all the attachments.

Focus Group Participants

– 44 –

O VE RLOAD

Many academics performed administrative tasks out of hours in order to sustain concentration and avoid the distraction of students in office hours. Only the highest level academics have administrative help to perform administrative tasks, or to monitor calls and visitors. One of the strongest objections to keeping office hours throughout the week was the need to find quiet time for marking, reading and preparation, without student interference: The student turns up at your door completely out of consultation time, ‘can you just help me with this while you are here’. All these little things that happen don’t get recorded anywhere on your WLA but they actually take up time each day.

Focus Group participant In one focus group the devolution of administration was seen as a demand that academics develop skills associated with a different kind of education It is not just technology, doing your own administration; it is basically licking your own stamps. I can lick a stamp, that is a skill I have. But doing a mail merge is not a skill I have. If I send a letter to 20 people I have to go and ask how to do it. Here are my addresses and my Excel thingy, here’s my letter, what do I do now, and how do I put a letterhead in the printer. If I was a secretary I would know how to do it, but I think I got excluded from that track when I was about in eighth grade at high school.

We have got academics supporting academics. I have seen this situation where the administrative staff were on RDOs: a Lecturer B, and it’s not her job but she is a responsible person, spent the whole day phoning schools to get students placed on pracs. So basically the academic is the fallback person if the admin doesn’t get a job done. It is not recognised in WLAs, but if you’re travelling, writing a grant application, or you edit a journal, all of the work is your own work unless you have a research grant and can employ a research assistant. Theoretically a research associate is not

– 45 –

OVE RLOAD

supposed to do admin work but researchers do the admin. It is a true picture. You certainly have a divesting of the administrative load onto academics. They are doing more administration that they used to.

We have a constant turnover in our admin staff and so very few people know what is going on, and what the correct form is. When I first arrived here, if you wanted something typed you had this tray where you could put it and it would be done. That tray does not exist any more because the admin staff are not here to support my needs they are here to support the school needs. As a typist I am very slow, it takes me three or four times as long as anybody else, I am constantly looking at mistakes.

Focus Group participants

3.4 Multiplication of campuses Only three of UWS’ 17 schools are contained within a single campus. This means that some members of every faculty of all other schools will drive between campuses minimally for meetings, but probably for teaching as well. In addition to time lost on some of Sydney’s busiest arterial roads, issues of personal health, hidden financial costs and impact on the environment were issued raised by academics. Many academics felt that, through restructures, the cost of multiplication of campuses had been handed to them, for example, through tolls that required use of a credit card.

Some academics had bought homes near to what they thought would be their home campus, only to have their work base moved 50km. The time allowance made for travelling to teach did not include additional journeys to retrieve late or lost assessments, which administrative staff would not handle.

The maximum travelling time allowed in our WLA is 20 hours a semester. It doesn’t matter if I am teaching at Campbelltown or Parramatta, it’s 20 hours. I mean, if you travel from Campbelltown to Parramatta in peak time it will be two to two and a half hours each way. If you have got to get to meetings at Parramatta at 9am

– 46 –

O VE RLOAD

and you’re leaving at 5pm, you’re guaranteed a couple of extra travelling hours on your day.

Academic D UWS comprises six campuses across Western Sydney: Bankstown; Blacktown; Campbelltown; Parramatta; Penrith. Within the three colleges (College of Arts, College of Business and College of Health & Science) there are seventeen schools and nine research centres. Of the seventeen schools, six schools are across three or more campuses, eight schools are across two campuses and only three schools are contained on a singular campus. Only one of the nine research centres is across 2 campuses.

The University of Western Sydney provides the following table outlining the set mileage between various campuses. It is not comprehensive.

– 47 –

OVE RLOAD

Table 3.1 Allowable distance between campuses for mileage claims calculation FROM/TO

ONE WAY

RETURN

Bankstown/Campbelltown

31

62

Bankstown/Chancellery

47

94

Bankstown/Penrith

49

98

Blacktown/Chancellery

29

58

Blacktown/Hawkesbury

25

50

Blacktown/Parramatta

19

38

Blacktown/Penrith

31

62

Blacktown/Campbelltown

50

100

Campbelltown/Chancellery

42

84

Campbelltown/Parramatta

77

154

Hawkesbury/Campbelltown

70

140

Hawkesbury/Chancellery

22

44

Hawkesbury/Parramatta

43

86

Hawkesbury/Penrith

20

40

Parramatta/Chancellery

33

66

Parramatta/Penrith

35

70

Parramatta/Westmead

8

16

Penrith/Campbelltown

40

80

Penrith/Chancellery

2

4

Penrith/Westmead

32

64

Westmead/Chancellery

30

60

Retrieved from UWS forms: MV_Allowance_Claim_Form_May08[1] The chart below shows the distribution of faculties across campuses.

– 48 –

– 49 –

Centre for Citizenship and Public Policy Centre for Cultural Research Centre for Educational Research MARCS Auditory Laboratories Social Justice and Social Change Research Centre N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A

9 9 9

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

9

School of Social Sciences

N/A

N/A

x

9

School of Psychology

N/A

N/A

N/A

Campbelltown

N/A

9

School of Humanities and Languages

N/A

N/A

Blacktown

9

9

School of Education

RESEARCH CENTRE

x

Bankstown

School of Communication Arts

SCHOOL

CAMPUS

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Hawkesbury

x

x

x

9

x

x

x

x

x

x

Parramatta

Table 3.2 Distribution of colleges and schools: College of Arts (Bankstown, Parramatta & Penrith)

x

x

x

x

x

9

9

9

9

9

Penrith

O VE RLOAD

– 50 –

Sydney Graduate School of Management RESEARCH CENTRE Centre for Industry and Innovation Studies X

X

N/A

9

9

X

9

9

Blacktown

N/A

N/A

School of Marketing

N/A

School of Law N/A

N/A

School of Economics and Finance

School of Management

N/A

Bankstown

School of Accounting

SCHOOL

CAMPUS

x

x

x

9

9

9

9

Campbelltown

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Hawkesbury

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

Parramatta

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Penrith

Table 3.3 Distribution of colleges and schools: College of Business (Blacktown, Campbelltown and Parramatta)

O VE RLOAD

– 51 –

Urban Research Centre

Centre for Complementary Medicine Centre for Plant and Food Science x

X

X

x

X

X

9

School of Nursing

X

X

9

x

School of Natural Sciences

RESEARCH CENTRE

x

School of Medicine

9

9

x x

X

Blacktown

9

Bankstown

School of Engineering

School of Biomedical and Health Sciences School of Computing and Mathematics

SCHOOL

CAMPUS

x

x

9

9

x

9

x

9

9

Campbelltown

x

9

x

9

9

x

x

x

9

Hawkesbury

9

x

x

x

x

x

x

9

9

Parramatta

Table 3.4 Distribution of colleges and schools: College of Health and Science (all campuses)

x

x

x

9

9

x

9

9

9

Penrith

O VE RLOAD

OVE RLOAD

3.5 Escalation of bureaucratic processes Bureaucratic processes are not scheduled into academic work loads because they often result from unpredictable events, some of which must be subjected to a lengthy judicious process to avoid inequity, litigation or controversy. The most timeconsuming of these processes include such things as student appeals, investigations into academic misconduct such as plagiarism, which can take a week to organise and conduct. These events are protocol bound and subject to intense scrutiny and validation, involving numbers of staff, students and their support persons. More personal and positive bureaucratic processes include applications for teaching awards and promotion. Bureaucratic processes are also concerned with inclusiveness, quality assurance, compliance, and accountability, the demands of which vary. Policy requires that all of these events have facilitation, minutes, committees, reports and archiving of documents and the work is done by academics in the absence of administrative support. There is a range of less significant matters, such as travel (etan forms) logging of DEST points, professional development, performance evaluations, and applications for leave. All bureaucratic processes involve filling in forms, generally on-line, and submitting them in a particular format and sequence so the matter can be progressed to a new level of administration. The most time consuming processes are grant applications and seeking ethics approval for research.

Many processes are developed in the interests of equity, such as online job applications, although other processes are created at the behest of administrators who are constantly trying to rationalise their own work loads by harnessing processes through new technologies. The escalation of bureaucratic processes is closely linked to both technological duress and the devolution of administration: the need to reduce the cost of central administration coupled with the availability of computer programs regarded as time-saving or user-friendly, has created a presumption that processes can be simplified if they are both devolved and computerised. For academics filling in a new online form is never simple. It often means learning new software, finding new administrative forms, gaining new knowledge and developing new skills for a task that only needs to be done once or twice a year. A form that could have been filled out by hand in five minutes may eat up an entire morning, particularly with computer

– 52 –

O VE RLOAD

glitches such as go-slow periods and frozen screens. If academics do retain the knowledge of the process for next time, it may have changed and the forms moved.

Teachers are very giving people and you go that extra step for students. But what gets up my nose is forms. The problem is that the form you filled out last year has been changed three times. Nobody knows which is the right form.

Focus Group participant For some staff bureaucratic processes are complicated by the kind of language used, including multiple acronyms. There is also a presumption that new academic staff understand the workings of the school or have some way of accessing that information.

I don’t understand the acronyms in the emails and when I ask them [administration] what they mean they do not reply. I feel like an idiot most of the time because I am not across all the processes in the school. There is a lot of assumed knowledge. There is literally no one on site at work or around to ask for help.

K: Academic A on fixed contract Bureaucratic processes are particularly onerous for research associates, as they often feel they are providing the administrative support that full time academics lack, instead of doing research that will advance their own career. Employed on short-term contracts as low-level general staff, the research associate is often a new PhD who is obliged to take on the role of administrator of the project, and any other administration the fulltime staffer may want to delegate, as there is no budget for another worker. Full time academics who win funds for a research project to employ a research associate, generally do not have time to do anything more than supervise.

Many academics do not write the ethics application or draft the final report, and the associate also manages the budget.

– 53 –

OVE RLOAD

3.6 Casualisation There are unhealthy tensions between the tiers of faculty at UWS where casual and contract academics have been allocated increased teaching loads in the wake of voluntary redundancies. Casualisation has a profound impact on tenured staff. They must recruit and manage teachers who in turn have no access to training or support, and whose role is constrained by a minimalist contract system. Last minute recruitment was often based on prior relationships, which casuals felt opened them up to excessive demands and bullying because of their financial vulnerability. There is insecurity on both sides with neither feeling able to create parameters for the relationship or the work. It is not unusual for a full time academic to work exclusively with casuals, and for casuals to have no relationships within the university beyond their immediate supervisor and the person who handles their pay. This isolating and anti-collegial system is not exclusive to UWS. The phenomena of a two-tiered faculty in which a smaller and smaller minority has the privileges of tenure was shown in the RED report, produced out of an Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC) funded project across 16 Australian universities (Percy, Scoufis, Parry, Goody, Hicks, Macdonald, Martinez, SzorenyiReischi, Ryan, Willis, & Sheridan, 2008). In his introduction to the RED report, University of Wollongong Vice-Chancellor, Professor Rob Castle, likened tenured staff to middle class Victorians who depended on servants who “slept in the attic, eat in the kitchen, and you grumbled constantly that what they did was actually not what you wanted, although …..they were absolutely essential to your…lifestyle.” (Percy et al., 2008). The report said high levels of sessional staff implied a heightened risk and compromised standards for universities which failed to provide professional development or monitor performance. Universities could not provide accurate data on the real number of casuals employed, and DEEWR statistics gave only full time equivalence (FTE) which also hid the supervisory load of permanent staff. Two universities did report that about 80 per cent of all undergraduate teaching was done by sessional teachers: “in stark contrast to the DEST 10 estimate of 15 per cent FTE,” (Percy et al., 2008, p7). In 1998 the lack of plain numerical accounting for casual staff thwarted an attempt to survey gender pay equity (Probert, Ewer, & Whiting, 1998), 10

DEEWR formerly DEST

– 54 –

OVE RLOAD

although one university which did supply plain numbers revealed 61 per cent of its individual academic employees were casual or sessional. Estimates of the UWS distribution of Level A staff can be seen in Fig 3.1 below. In the absence of accurate casual numbers the chart was constructed from full time equivalent (FTE) statistics.

Fig 3.1 Comparison of tenured with Casual and Contract Staff Level A at UWS Full-time tenured staff level A Full-time fixed term staff level A Part-time tenured staff level A Part-time fixed term staff level A Casual staff level A

20.18%

6.73%

67.37%

2.74% 2.99%

In this project the casuals interviewed at UWS regarded academic work as their primary source of income and a career choice. They enjoyed their teaching, and felt strongly committed to students, investing many unpaid hours in preparation, consultation and providing feedback on marking. By contrast, fulltime staff felt that casuals were uncommitted, took short cuts particularly with marking, and did not contribute beyond scheduled hours. Casuals felt excluded from the life of the schools, unsupported and poorly resourced, underpaid for the actual work performed, marginalised and insecure in their jobs. They also felt there were unnecessary bureaucratic obstacles to the performance of their work, due to delays in recruitment, lack of email and library access, and the lack of continuity of services even when they had been teaching at UWS for up to five years. They also felt that administrative staff regarded them as second-class academics, and were not supportive. Casuals felt they lacked collegial connection due to a lack of induction or debriefing, the lack of professional development, and the lack of information. Casuals reported that they

– 55 –

O VE RLOAD

could not earn a regular living through teaching, although a face to face teaching load of 16 hours a week, in addition to high volume marking, research projects and parttime administrative roles, made up an income that could be spread over the year.

Casuals said they felt exploited by excessive vigilance to restrict the cost of contracts.

They felt they were regarded as only good-enough rather than a respected or valued part of the university faculty, excluded from the core business of the schools: ….there is this fiction… that for every hour face to face you will either do one or two hours preparation …. If you have done two hours preparation that is $20 an hour. A little bit above McDonalds but not much. So no it is certainly not fair and equitable. Casuals are delivering these units for under half the cost of using a full timer for doing this work. An absolutely huge saving has been made.

Casual 5 years teaching post-graduate level

Moreover, fulltime academic staff, who must recruit and support teams of casuals, reported little recognition in their work load for this increasingly time-consuming task, which is often based on relationship rather than more objective aspects of merit.

Some fulltime staff felt their work was intensified or compromised by the low commitment and poor standards of casuals, particularly in marking and other assessments. Fulltime academics felt the increasing recruitment of non-teaching professorial staff could not relieve the current teaching pressures, particularly when those taking early voluntary redundancies were not replaced. Full time lecturers felt isolated from both the professorial and sessional staff, and lacked peer support.

In 2005 Keogh and Garrick pointed to an impoverished environment where academics were no longer attached to their institutions because of policies that eroded collegial co operation. Casualisation was seen as a key issue in need of depth research (Keogh & Garrick, 2005). At UWS a sense of alienation and isolation was reported by casuals who said they knew as few as eight staff on campus, which included administrators who processed their contracts and one direct supervisor. Extreme financial stress and anxiety were reported by those who depended on academic work as their primary

– 56 –

OVE RLOAD

income, many long term, and one for 12 years. Another, who had lectured, coordinated and done research work on campus for four years, said she had given up hope of achieving permanency as the entry level bar kept rising. Approaching colleagues for casual work at the beginning of semester was described as begging, and the prostitution period.

Casuals felt they subsidised the university through unpaid preparation, student consultation, and marking time, although their growing feelings of mistrust were eroding their willingness to sacrifice time beyond their pay rates. Some schools emphasised the turn-around time of 20 minutes per 1000 words of marking, by withholding contracts until minimal class sizes became evident. Casuals felt their ability to contribute to quality teaching was compromised by time pressures that prevented in-depth feedback, which research shows is a significant factor in the development of academic skills (Orrell, 2006).

Extreme stress relating to job insecurity, including delays in wage payments, impacted on performance because so much time was consumed by pursuing and maintaining an adequate income. Sessional staff also reported lost time and productivity through administrative processes, and sometimes spent two or three unpaid days each semester negotiating contracts, meeting with staff, and gaining access to essential resources. Contract work provided a modicum of security, but it was equally demoralising for workers to feel only good-enough for now. Contracts which expired in early December created a wage hiatus at Christmas through to March, where there was little possibility of finding other work. Workers felt robbed of benefits as well as dignity. There was a tendency to feel disposable, and as a result to be privately embittered, alienated and subtly un-cooperative.

Although it was clear that increasing casualisation was the main strategy for delivering teaching within budgetary constraints, the efficacy of the strategy was questioned by fulltime academics. They suggested teaching quality was being eroded not because casuals lacked ability, but because genuine teaching teams with a shared agenda could not be sustained. Casuals did not have time to discuss students, review an individual’s work, consult and support students, critique or contribute to the

– 57 –

OVE RLOAD

curriculum or modify unworkable aspects of the program. Tenured colleagues were sometimes on another campus with little personal knowledge or access to students, increasingly isolated in their work because their teaching team was made up of people who appeared for a few hours each week. Scholarly work including curriculum development can become esoteric unless it is moderated by colleagues with other perspectives, and an eye to industry and practice.

4.1 Why the loss of morale is significant to academics Academics at UWS felt demoralised by micro management of their work patterns.

The pride and pleasure taken in academic work, and the willingness to work hard, were being eroded by WLA policies that were seen as an attack on academic integrity.

The level of vigilance was particularly galling because a 1725 hour agreement had promised the flexibility needed to meet the intensive and unpredictable nature of the work. Instead, rigid timeframes were calculated to guarantee that they were indeed fully occupied, although the evidence is that most academics work well in excess of 37.5 hours a week doing tasks that are not recognised on WLAs. This research showed that academics continue to perform what they regard as academic work despite the limitations of their formal agreements. Excessive control has eroded a sense of professionalism but, more importantly, the way in which WLAs were calculated has created competition, secrecy and lack of collegial support in many schools. Only in the School of Nursing was any level of transparency and cooperation reported, while in the School of Social Sciences and the College of Business the evidence of poor morale including fear, reports of stress, the desires for voluntary redundancy offers, and a sense of hopelessness, were quite severe.

Many of the issues raised by academics at UWS are not new. It has been suggested that academic resistance to managerial practices is merely a way of preserving a privileged lifestyle. In a study of UK workload models Hull (2006) argued that lost collegiality was a poor response to managerialism in education because it appeared to be an attempt to protect elite aspects of university life. Hull asked how academics had failed to analyse, research, define and protect their own working conditions. However, the evidence from our own research report suggests that the loss of collegial trust,

– 58 –

OVE RLOAD

support and moderation, is erosive to knowledge production both within UWS and nationally.

Collegiality serves a significant function in universities in mediating the work of individuals. It is not merely a feel-good attribute of a work environment. It exists to enhance academic judgement and confirm standards both within and between universities. Internally, academics at levels A and B may depend on colleagues to critique their work, share ideas, and help develop curricula, assist with research grant applications and journal articles, while at higher levels collegiality oils the wheels of significant national processes, as shown in this excerpt.

So for instance Monash University has asked me to undertake the evaluation of one of their programs. This would be a normal thing to do. That would contribute to the research culture in this country but no, I can’t do this. I am a member of a PhD thesis award committee where every university in the country submits their best thesis and they get judged. Being nominated for it [the committee] that is an honour. This is not regarded [as part of my workload], [it] doesn’t contribute any income to this university. Interestingly it contributes to the standing and status of research. Every university uses external referees for internal promotion to professor. Why should we do this work? Why should anyone come to this university to do this work if universities are moving into a way that only [certain] things count.

Focus Group Participant High level academics reported that they felt there was no status or prestige in their positions, and morale was low because their hard work had ended with an erosion of their role. There were no opportunities for mentoring of staff, reduced opportunities to mentor their own HRD students recruited overseas, poor recognition of the role they played in national intellectual projects, too little time allowed to serve on editorial boards, high teaching demands regardless of research status, and poor participation opportunities in governance. Low level academics reported their loss of morale was tied to teaching overloads, lack of mentoring and collegial support, and the lack of

– 59 –

O VE RLOAD

time to improve themselves through research or study. At all levels, academics reported that their work was seen only in relation to its cash value, rather than the nuanced processes of knowledge production and transmission.

4.2 Why good teachers deliver poor quality teaching The relationship between UWS academics and their students can be likened to a marriage blighted by interfering in-laws: the core relationship between teaching and learning has been disrupted by peripheral issues. Teaching schedules are effectively driven by economic factors, so that it becomes a mechanical rather than a reflective task. Teachers love their work, but feel they cannot perform to their own high standards due to time pressures, as well as an increasing volume of new kinds of administrative and technological work, travel, casualisation and stringent accountability for time. Academics emphasise that they feel teaching quality has deteriorated at UWS, that they are often ashamed of poor preparation and the pressure to assess too many students too quickly, that classes have become too large and needs too complex for quality teaching in short time frames. However, although many are bitterly disappointed with the teaching they deliver, teaching remains their passion.

They care about their students’ welfare and resent the lack of time to genuinely help students. In this extract from the AUQA Report (2007) the paradox of good teachers delivering poor teaching was evident: From students and alumni across the University, the Panel heard that most UWS academic staff are hard-working, knowledgeable and approachable. Most care deeply about their students’ learning and wellbeing, and understand and appreciate the dynamic cultural mix that is part of GWS and therefore, part of the UWS community.

Student surveys generally have been positive about the quality of the academic staff. It is surprising then that the CEQ data is not stronger in terms of graduate’s opinions on the quality of teaching received, and UWS could investigate the discrepancy (p. 26).

The discrepancy between good teachers delivering a poor product is a reflection of work loads, where academics feel overloaded while those administering the allocation

– 60 –

O VE RLOAD

schedules report that individuals do not have a full load. Academics interviewed for this project said that poor quality teaching is a simple result of too many students with too many complex needs, too little time eroded by the demands of distance, technology and administration.

4.2.2 Problems not restricted by academic level This research found endemic overload at UWS that was not restricted to particular academics levels. It was not restricted to those with high teaching loads, and academics salaried at the higher levels were not excluded from the pressures.

Overload of different kinds was reported uniformly by academics from Levels A to E, and by those with a research focus as well as those with teaching loads of 90 per cent.

Level A academics were generally working beyond their job description in unit coordination, and did not have adequate time to pursue higher degrees or research that would allow them to apply for promotion. Those with a high academic level and a research focus felt they were unable to perform the work for which they were trained, and which pertained to their role, mentoring staff and HRD students and participating in governance and community engagement.

I’ve got eight [HRD) students at the moment. You can have up to three effective fulltime and part-time and that’s what counts on the WLA. So that six hours of teaching I am claiming. When you consider that someone like me has a research focus, it just doesn’t cut. I feel that as a member of the professoriate I can’t act as a professor if I follow WLA. My work load would be calculated exactly the same way if I was a level A member of staff with the same outputs. In a professoriate I think I should be putting back, in a mentoring role, helping academics around me. There is no allocation or recognition of that. It is taking away from the collegial nature of the way the university is running. I can’t do the things that I think a professor should be doing. The recent change has come with the governance of the college: previous to that [2 years ago] it was expected that there was more involvement of professoriate in the running of the college, and that is disappearing. I should not be encouraged to be an isolated scholar. I should be encouraged to be

– 61 –

OVE RLOAD

mentoring junior staff and there should be provision in the WLA for that. Otherwise the easiest way for me to have an easy life here would be to come in two days to the teaching, and stay home three days a week for my research and not worry about the other staff.

Associate Professor At the lower levels, academics feel trapped by teaching overloads that prevent them from doing the kind of work that ensures their progress. Many would be happy with a teaching concentration if it was genuinely recognised. The paradox of what work is needed, and what is rewarded, was apparent in this excerpt: You are in a Catch 22 if you want to get a promotion as a lecturer A. I was working on getting my promotion based on teaching excellence but they have changed the goal posts. You have to have a Carrick award or a VC award. A Lecturer A would be really hard [pressed] to get promoted on teaching. So really the only thing you can get promoted on is research.

Lecturer A

4.2.3 No way ahead without transparency A work load based on a transparent and flexible 1725 hours maximum was preferred by academics at UWS, but only if it was indeed a transparent and realistic maximum of 1725 hours, and not a theoretical number modified by the obscure calculations of time chunks, percentages and EFTSUL. The way forward for UWS academics would be for the 1725 hours to be made transparent in every dimension. Account would need to be taken of the five pressure points described at length in this document 11 which showed that current time allowances for administration, travelling, the supervision of casuals, blended teaching strategies and unit coordination through the use of technologies, were grossly inadequate. Any calculation of 1725 hours would need to recognise the entirely new composition of academic work which includes work 11

technological duress (see 3.2), devolution of administration (see 3.3), multiplication of campuses (see 3.4), escalation of bureaucratic processes (see 3.5), casualisation. (see 3.6)

– 62 –

OVE RLOAD

abandoned by administrative staff, and work created by bureaucratisation and technologies.

The 1725 hour agreement would also need to be transparent in relation to academic level: it is unfair to employ Level A’s who do the administrative work of a Level B, yet are so overloaded with teaching that there is no room to improve their academic standing through research. Transparency would also mean recognising the differences between academic disciplines and the greater economic constraints on some as a result of funding and enrolment policies.

Transparency is a complex issue, and transparency is needed at a number of levels in WLAs. Firstly, the value of time should be completely transparent: WLAs currently represent the work that needs to be done by whatever limited number of staff is included in the school. They do not represent the hours actually expended, or actually available. Time blocks, whether percentages or EFSUL, do not inform academics about the precise number of hours that are allocated to each task. As a result academics simply work until they finish what needs to be done, yet the presence of WLAs is a continual threat that more work will be allocated to them to fulfil the obligations of an unrealistic agreement. Broad and realistic limits needs to be placed on face to face teaching on the 60 minutes = 1 hour principle: an hour of teaching time cannot be evaluated as less than one hour for the economic contingencies of schools. A teaching hour includes margins of preparation, set up, travel, spontaneous student consultation, and other factors that have been ignored in non-transparent WLAs. In this regard the College of Business conceptualisation that 1 hour of face to lecturing equalled 50 hours of workload, was the most transparent, although it was a formula not easily applied to all academics.

Secondly, the time value of a task needs to be transparent: the time allocation should be more aligned to the reality of how long it takes to reasonably do a task without compromising standards. Unrealistic allocations of time are coercive and inequitable.

Tasks such as marking must be completed within the timeframes and marks posted, and so the amount of time taken is actually non negotiable because academics are not prepared to fail to deliver and compromise their own reputation and career.

– 63 –

OVE RLOAD

Thirdly, the responsible use of job descriptions is an important tool in both the allocation of work loads, and the development of staff for the future. Transparency should apply to the work assigned for a particular role and academic level. Level A academics who are overloaded with teaching that has low value in some schools, such as coordination of multiple very small units, are already performing beyond their job descriptions. Yet acting above their level actually reduces their chance of promotion, taking time from opportunities for research or study. Teaching alone does not help gain promotion. Overloading low-level academics is counter productive.

Fourthly, transparency should apply to the economic constraints that are driving WLAs, so that academics are not ‘scapegoated’ as laggards when they are not able to physically fulfil the demands created by budget shortfalls. Academics in some schools such as education and social sciences, are the victims of low enrolments or lower unit costs. Academics need to know to what extent the work load in their school and college is the result of falling enrolments or escalating unit costs.

In the research it was evident that transparency did exist in some schools at UWS. However, it depended on having a stable staff that was available to work collegially and a discipline in which teaching could be shared equitably rather than depending on specialists. The possibility for such collegiality surprised some staff as shown in this focus group excerpt: (A) I think everyone’s work load should be published. I would like to see the Head of School’s work load.

(B) Our teaching load is published and we can see who is doing what.

(C) We can’t.

(B) We allocate ourselves to our classes. So we can see the staff spreadsheet there and we click onto that and we put our name down. So you can look across all years and all staff and you can see who is teaching what.

(A) You can sort of do that off the timetable but you still couldn’t find out what people were taking which tutorials for instance.

(B) We can, we can see that.

– 64 –

OVE RLOAD

(A) You can see that?

(B) It is quite transparent.

(A) Do you find that helps with that fair and equitable feeling between staff?

(B) We tend to work in teams. We work out the best description of the tutes and lectures and that between the group that we know we are going to be teaching so that we have a fair distribution and we can work out who’s got a couple of days that are going to be late and who else has got a couple of days early. We just distribute it around us and we can look across all units, all years, and all four campuses.

At this stage, the practice of fully allocating the 1725 hours in complex reconfigurations of time ensures that 1725 hours is a minimum working year. Any scheme which fully allocates the entire working year will, in the natural course of events, cause an overload, due to the lack of margin and flexibility. This is a significant misrepresentation of time when a key chunk such as administration is already grossly inadequate. Academics would like their 1725 hours a year to be both transparent and flexible, representing a maximum rather than a minimum work load, with margin for a variety of contingencies, including sickness. Transparency would include representing real hours of work rather than time blocks reduced to percentages of EFTSUL. It would include allowing realistic blocks of time for the increasing work of administration. A ten per cent administrative load (3.75 hours a week) ignores the reality of bureaucracies that eat up time with the technologies of devolved administration. It would also ensure that 1725 hours represented real hours rather than cleverly manipulated time chunks that correspond only to budgetary needs.

The exercise of fully allocating the 1725 hours undermines the original intent of a 1725 hour WLA which was to achieve flexibility given the seasonally intense nature of academic work (Soliman, 1999; Soliman & Soliman, 1997). There are many other ways of ensuring that the occasional recalcitrant academic is not a burden on the university. The possibilities for policing academic work were already in place through Academic Performance Planning and Review (APPR), although there were widespread reports that these reviews were simply not happening. Promotion remains

– 65 –

OVE RLOAD

a genuine incentive for many academics, although the process has become so time consuming, and the number of promotions awarded so restricted, that in time it will have little validity.

4.2.4 Recognition for the remedial cohorts In addition to being transparent, the construction of WLA policy at UWS needs to recognise the current challenges of this particular university, its unique student profile and geographic location. It has large cohorts of students with specific needs, and if the university is to raise its profile among its competitors, its capacity to teach these cohorts must be addressed. The inclusion of more students in a teaching setting produces more work, and the lack of face to face teaching in smaller groups intensifies the difficulty of educating the larger cohorts. It seems apparent to most academics that the simple addition of more students and more administrative work with fewer permanent staff, spells overload.

4.3 Conclusion If UWS can rise to the challenge of developing a transparent, equitable and inclusive WLA policy, it may be possible that the gap between good teachers and bad teaching will not only be closed, but become evident in the quality of graduates, the reputation of its degrees, and the calibre of staff it is able to attract in the future.

– 66 –

O VE RLOAD

References

AUQA (2007) AUQA Report 51: Report of an Audit of the University of Western Sydney.

Hull, R (2006) Workload allocation models and "collegiality" in academic departments. Journal of Organisational Change Management, 19(1), 38-53.

Keogh, J & Garrick, B (2005) On the need to investigate the situation of casual academic work in new times. HERDSA New s(December).

Nightingale, V (1997) Submission from the Academic Board, UWS Nepean, to the West Review of Higher Education Financing and Policy. Sydney: DEST. Orrell, J (2006) Feedback on learning and achievement: rhetoric and reality. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(4), 441-456.

Percy, A, Scoufis, M, Parry, S, Goody, A, Hicks, M, Macdonald, I, et al. (2008) The RED Report. In ALTC Publication.

Probert, B, Ewer, P, & Whiting, K (1998) Gender Pay Equity in Australian Higher Education. South Melbourne: NTEU. Soliman, I (1999) The academic workload problematic. Paper presented at the HERDSA Annual International Conference, Melbourne July 12-15.

Soliman, I, & Soliman, H (1997) Academic workload and quality. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 22(2), 135-157.

UWS (2006) UWS AUQA Performance Portfolio. Sydney.

Zipin, L, & Brennan, M (2003) The suppression of ethical dispositions through managerial governmentality: A habitus crisis in Australian higher education.

Leadership in Education, 6(4), 351-370.

– 67 –