 |
E I P | ||
| Higher Education Governance and Management An Australian Study | |||
|
97/1 V. Lynn Meek | |||
|
University of New England | |||
| Evaluations and Investigations Program Higher Education Division Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs |
| ||
© Commonwealth of Australia 1997
ISBN 0 642 23621 6
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 Australian Government Publishing Service. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to the manager, Commonwealth Information Services, Australian Government Publishing Service, GPO Box 48, Canberra ACT 2601.
This report is funded under the Evaluations and Investigations Program of the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
The views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
| E I P | Contents [Next Chapter] [top of document] |
2. Challenges for Management and Planning in Mass Systems of Higher Education
3. Australian Higher Education Governance and Management
4. National Higher Education Governance and Management Survey
Appendix A: Classification of Australian Universities by Campus Configuration
Appendix C: Profile of Deputy Vice-Chancellor/Pro Vice-Chancellor Positions as of January 1995
| E I P | Acknowledgments [Next Chapter] [Contents] |
This report on governance and management of the Australian higher education system was funded by a grant from the Evaluations and Investigations Program (EIP), Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DEETYA). The Steering Committee for the EIP study comprised Professor Ingrid Moses (University of Canberra), Professor Martin Hayden (Southern Cross University) and Dr Kate Le Strange, DEETYA. The authors acknowledge with appreciation the support of the Steering Committee throughout the project. We would also like to express our thanks for the efforts of other members of the project team: Anne Gilmore, Elaine Treadgold, Hilary Rofeta, and Angelita Magee.
Associate Professor Meek gratefully acknowledges the support of the Netherlands Institute of Government for a 1995 Visiting Fellowship to the University of Twente, during which time he had the opportunity to compare the results of this study with those of similar projects currently being conducted in Western Europe. Also, it should be acknowledged that this project is related to a longer term comparative study of changing patterns in the governance and management of higher education supported by the Australian Research Council.
Finally, we wish to acknowledge our debt to those university staff who took the time to share their experiences and views regarding management of higher education institutions in the 1990s. Their responses to the survey questionnaire provide one of the few factual sources of information regarding this topic in Australia.
| E I P | Abbreviations [Next Chapter] [Previous Chapter] [Contents] |
| ABS | Australian Bureau of Statistics |
| ACDP | Australian Committee of Directors and Principals |
| AHEIA | Australian Higher Education Industrial Association |
| ARC | Australian Research Council |
| ASTEC | Australian Science and Technology Council |
| AUC | Australian Universities Commission |
| AVCC | Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee |
| CAE | College of Advanced Education |
| CQAHE | Committee for Quality Assurance in Higher Education |
| CRC | Cooperative Research Centre |
| CTEC | Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission |
| DEETYA | Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs* |
| EFTSU | Equivalent full-time student unit |
| FAUSA | Federation of Australian University Staff Associations |
| HEC | Higher Education Council |
| HECS | Higher Education Contribution Scheme |
| HEFA | Higher Education Funding Act |
| NBEET | National Board of Employment, Education and Training |
| NTEU | National Tertiary Education Industry Union |
| PI | Performance Indicator |
| RFM | Relative Funding Model |
| SES | Senior Executive Service |
| TAFE | Technical and Further Education |
| TER | Tertiary Entrance Rank |
| UNS | Unified National System |
| E I P | Executive Summary [Next Chapter] [Previous Chapter] [Contents] |
Debates about how best to govern and manage higher education have been ongoing in many industrialised countries for several decades. In contrast to the small number of 'elite', largely autonomous institutions which were essentially peripheral to national concerns that existed up until the mid-1940s, the mass systems of higher education that exist today are complex, multi-faceted and constantly changing. Questions of efficiency and effectiveness are prominent on higher education reform agendas everywhere along with the additional imperatives that the higher education sector be more relevant to national economic and social priorities. In Australia, the major restructuring of the higher education sector which occurred in 1988 led to not only increases in institutional sizes but also new organisational forms as institutions amalgamated to meet government size specifications for membership of the Unified National System. Indeed, the management of Australia's universities is on a scale of complexity equal to that of large corporations in the private sector and the last decade has seen a push, particularly from the government, for the introduction of more corporate style management practices. However, there has been little research which has been aimed specifically at investigating how academic managers as a group view management practices within their own institutions.
One of the aims of this report is to provide a basis for better understanding the Australian higher education management context through an examination of broad trends and issues regarding this topic and also through the reporting of results of how Australian university managers perceive themselves to be handling changes in this sector.
The survey investigated such issues as: decision making structures, characteristics of management practices, external influences on governance and management, staff supervision, research and teaching management, and higher education policy at the national level. The survey results question several commonly held views regarding university management, such as the perceived unwillingness of academic managers to engage in staff appraisal. It is also evident from the survey that the introduction of more corporate style management practices is quite strong in Australia (as elsewhere), but it appears that this is not at the expense of academic autonomy in setting the teaching and research agenda.
Some of the other principal findings of the survey include the following:
- Decision making is already considered to be highly devolved in many areas. Nonetheless, there is still strong support for shifting decision making even more to the faculty-departmental level. Not surprisingly, there are variations in opinion amongst the three management categories of respondents-Executive Officers, Deans and Heads of Departments - as to where particular decisions should be made.
- There is strong support from Heads of Departments and to some extent Deans for the view that management prerogative takes precedent over collegial authority. This view is not supported by Executive Officers.
- Although about half of the respondents disagree that tenure unduly restricts the institution in setting new directions, there are substantial differences of opinion depending on the management level of the respondent. A somewhat similar division of opinion arises over whether the Executive should have more freedom to hire and fire staff.
- Teaching is not only considered a central activity within universities but much effort appears to be directed to its support, particularly in the following areas:
- reforming both the undergraduate and postgraduate curriculum;
- ensuring that the Library provides high-calibre teaching collections;
- adopting new forms of teaching based upon computer, audio visual and other new technologies; and
- providing staff development programs regarding technological innovation in teaching. However, it does appear that institutions are experiencing some difficulties with respect to providing adequate support staff and facilities in dealing with increased student load.
Nearly all respondents consider their institution to be active in maintaining and enhancing a strong research profile. This suggests that policy expectations regarding greater concentration and selectivity in higher education research activities are yet to be fully realised.