Abstract
This chapter analyses the significant changes that have been taking place over recent decades both in the national governance and the institutional management of universities in Australia. It outlines the major political dimensions of these changes as well as the ideas and conceptions associated with them. It begins first by discussing the rise of the conception of the modern university as an industry , characterised by corporate forms, market ideas and ideals, and utilitarian conceptions of purposes. This chapter then discusses the major changes in the national governance of universities, beginning with the Dawkins higher education policy reforms of the late 1980s. Since these reforms, national governance of universities in Australia has been characterised by highly competitive research funding arrangements, comprehensive reporting and accountability requirements for the core activities of teaching and research, and a continuing reduction in public funding. Within universities these changes have led to more managerial forms of governance and organisation, the use of performance indicators that align with those used at the national level, and decreased professional autonomy of academics.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
There was also a technical and further education sector, TAFE, which was left in place by the initial reforms, but has subsequently also been both opened up to greater market forces, and also in some cases able to operate across the higher education boundary.
- 2.
Responsibility for competition-based research funding for the latter fields is with the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), which was formed in 1937 and gained the status of an independent statutory agency in 1992 (Larkins 2011, 168).
- 3.
Some of this increase in substantive steering control may however have been symbolic rather than actual. This is because both individual researchers and their institutions can be quite imaginative in circumventing overt steering attempts by government, for example, through various ‘window-dressing’ exercises (see Krücken 2014, 1444).
References
Allen Consulting Group. (2010). Employer demand for researchers in Australia (final report). Canberra, ACT: Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research.
Australian Research Council. (2012). ERA indicator principles. Retrieved from http://archive.arc.gov.au/archive_files/ERA/2012/Key%20Documents/ERA_2012_Indicator_Principles.docx
Bammer, G. (2012). Strengthening interdisciplinary research: What it is, what it does, how it does it and how it is funded. Melbourne: Australian Council of Learned Academies. Retrieved from http://www.acola.org.au/PDF/Strengthening%20Interdisciplinary%20Research.pdf
Beerkens, M. (2013). Facts and fads in academic research management: The effect of management practices on research productivity in Australia. Research Policy, 42(9), 1679–1693.
Bleiklie, I., & Michelsen, S. (2012). Comparing HE policies in Europe. Higher Education, 65(1), 113–133.
Bradley, D. (2008). Review of Australian higher education: Final report. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia.
Butler, L. (2003). Modifying publication practices in response to funding formulas. Research Evaluation, 21(1), 39–46.
Christensen, T. (2011). University governance reforms: Potential problems of more autonomy? Higher Education, 62(4), 503–517.
Croucher, G., Marginson, S., Norton, A., & Wells, J. (2013). The Dawkins revolution: 25 years on. Carlton, VIC: Melbourne University Press.
Croucher, G., & Woelert, P. (2016). Institutional isomorphism and the creation of the unified national system of higher education in Australia: An empirical analysis. Higher Education, 71(4), 439–453.
Cutherbert, C., & Molla, T. (2014). PhD crisis discourse: A critical approach to the framing of the problem and some Australian ‘solutions’. Higher Education, 69(1), 33–53.
Dawkins, J. (1988). Higher education: A policy statement. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia.
De Boer, H., Enders, J., & Schimank, U. (2007). On the way towards new public management? The governance of university systems in England, the Netherlands, Austria, and Germany. In D. Jansen (Ed.), New forms of governance in research organizations (pp. 137–152). Berlin: Springer.
Department of Education. (2014). Finance 2013: financial reports of higher education providers. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved from http://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/finance_2013_1.pdf
DIISR (Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research). (2011a). Defining quality for research training in Australia: A consultation paper. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia.
DIISR (Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research). (2011b). Research skills for an innovative future: A research workforce strategy to cover the decade to 2020 and beyond. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia.
Enders, J., De Boer, H., & Weyer, E. (2013). Regulatory autonomy and performance: The reform of higher education re-visited. Higher Education, 65(1), 5–23.
Ferlie, E., Ashburner, L., Fitzgerald, L., & Pettigrew, A. (1996). The new public management in action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Forsyth, H. (2014). A history of the modern Australian university. Sydney: NewSouth Publishing.
Geuna, A., & Martin, B. R. (2003). University research evaluation and funding: An international comparison. Minerva, 41(4), 277–304.
Gläser, J., Lange, S., Laudel, G., & Schimank, U. (2010). The limits of universality: How field-specific epistemic conditions affect authority relations and their consequences. In R. Whitley, J. Gläser, & L. Engwall (Eds.), Changing authority relationships in the sciences and their consequences for intellectual innovation (pp. 219–324). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gläser, J., & Laudel, G. (2007). Evaluation without evaluators: The impact of funding formulae on Australian university research. In R. Whitley & J. Gläser (Eds.), The changing governance of the sciences: The advent of research evaluation systems (Vol. 384, pp. 127–151). Dordrecht: Springer.
Gumport, P. (2000). Academic restructuring: Organizational change and institutional imperatives. Higher Education, 39(1), 67–91.
Henkel, M. (2005). Academic identity and autonomy in a changing policy environment. Higher Education, 49(1–2), 155–176.
Hicks, D. (2012). Performance-based university research funding systems. Research Policy, 41(2), 251–261.
Hood, C., & Peters, G. (2004). The middle aging of new public management: Into the age of paradox? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14(3), 267–282.
Huisman, J., & Currie, J. (2004). Accountability in higher education: Bridge over troubled water? Higher Education, 48(4), 529–551.
Kemp, D. (1999). Knowledge and innovation: A policy statement on research and research training. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia.
Krücken, G. (2014). Higher education reforms and unintended consequences: A research agenda. Studies in Higher Education, 39(8), 1439–1450.
Lake, M. (2011). Submission to the TEQSA discussion paper, June 2011, ‘Developing a framework for teaching and learning standards in Australian higher education and the role of TEQSA’. Australian Historical Association. Retrieved from http://www.theaha.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/TEQSA_Discussion_Paper-submission.pdf
Larkins, F. P. (2011). Australian higher education research policies and performance: 1987–2010. Carlton, VIC: Melbourne University Press.
Larkins, F. P., & Croucher, G. (2013). Research. In G. Croucher, S. Marginson, A. Norton, & J. Wells (Eds.), The Dawkins revolution: 25 years On (pp. 248–264). Carlton: Melbourne University Press.
Lewis, J. (2013). Academic governance: Disciplines and policy. New York: Routledge.
Lorenz, C. (2012). If you’re so smart, why are you under surveillance? Universities, neoliberalism, and new public management. Critical Inquiry, 38(3), 599–629.
Marginson, S. (1997). Steering from a distance: Power relations in Australian higher education. Higher Education, 34(1), 63–80.
Marginson, S., & Considine, M. (2000). The enterprise university: Power, governance and reinvention in Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Meek, V. L. (1991). The transformation of Australian higher education from binary to unitary system. Higher Education, 21(4), 461–494.
Neumann, R. (2009). Policy driving change in doctoral education: An Australian case study. In D. Boud & A. Lee (Eds.), Changing practices of doctoral education (pp. 211–224). London: Routledge.
Norton, A., & Cherastidtham, I. (2014). Mapping Australian higher education, 2014–15. Melbourne: Grattan Institute. Retrieved from http://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/816-mapping-higher-education-20142.pdf
Norton, A., Sonnemann, J., & Cherastidtham, I. (2013). Taking university teaching seriously. Melbourne: Grattan Institute. Retrieved from http://grattan.edu.au/report/taking-university-teaching-seriously/
O’Connor, K., & Yates, L. (2014). Disciplinary representation on institutional websites: Changing knowledge, changing power? Journal of Educational Administration and History, 46(1), 1–16.
Pollitt, C. (2013). The logics of performance management. Evaluation, 19(4), 346–363.
Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2004). Public management reform: A comparative analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Power, M. (1997). The audit society: Rituals of verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Romzek, B. (2000). Dynamics of public sector accountability in an era of reform. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 66(1), 21–44.
Shore, C. (2008). Audit culture and illiberal governance: Universities and the politics of accountability. Anthropological Theory, 8(3), 278–298.
Vidovich, L. (2012). ‘Transforming Australia’s higher education system’: New accountability policies for a global era? In H. G. Schuetze, W. Bruneau, & G. Grosjean (Eds.), University governance and reform: Policy, fads, and experience in international perspective (pp. 241–255). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Vidovich, L., & Currie, J. (2011). Governance and trust in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 36(1), 43–56.
Weingart, P. (2013). The loss of trust and how to regain it: Performance measures and entrepreneurial universities. In L. Engwall & P. Scott (Eds.), Trust in universities (pp. 83–95). London: Portland Press.
Weingart, P., & Maasen, S. (2007). Elite through rankings: The emergence of the enterprising university. In R. Whitley & J. Gläser (Eds.), The changing governance of the sciences: The advent of research evaluation systems (pp. 75–99). Dordrecht: Springer.
Whitley, R. (2008). Universities as strategic actors: Limitations and variations. In L. Engwall & D. Weaire (Eds.), The university in the market (pp. 23–37). London: Portland Press.
Whitley, R. (2011). Changing governance and authority relations in the public sciences. Minerva, 49(4), 359–385.
Woelert, P. (2015). The ‘logic of escalation’ in performance measurement: An analysis of the dynamics of a research evaluation system. Policy and Society, 34(1), 75–85.
Woelert, P., & Millar, V. (2013). The ‘paradox of interdisciplinarity’ in Australian research governance. Higher Education, 66(6), 755–767.
Woelert, P., & Yates, L. (2015). Too little and too much trust: Performance measurement in Australian higher education. Critical Studies in Education, 56(2), 175–189.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer Science+Business Media Singapore
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Yates, L., Woelert, P., Millar, V., O’Connor, K. (2017). New Public Management and the Changing Governance of Universities. In: Knowledge at the Crossroads?. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2081-0_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2081-0_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-2079-7
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-2081-0
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)