Academics’ work and the concept of “profession” an australian case study

After the focus group, the second version of the framework was developed and used with fifteen academics in individual interviews during phase three of the study.. This focus, plus my ba

A CADEMICS ’ W ORK AND THE C ONCEPT

2011

Keywords

Academic, academia, occupation, profession, university, higher education, Australia

knowledge and its practical application

Through the changes and challenges that have characterised academia in recent years, there is an assumption that academics’ work is representative of a profession This research study investigates how academics construct their own perspectives regarding the academic “profession” The study is theoretically informed by

Freidson’s theory that conceptualises professions as occupations if they are in control

of their work rather than it being under the control of either the market or of their employing institutions

Two research questions guide this study The first question investigates how academics might construct their work in ideal terms and the second one investigates

the extent to which such constructions might constitute a “profession” A qualitative

case study was conducted within two Australian universities In all, twenty

academics from ten disciplines took part in the study that consisted of a focus group and fifteen individual interviews The study was conducted in three phases during which a conceptual framework of academics’ work was developed across three versions This framework acted both a prompt to discussion and as a potential

expression of academics’ work The first version of the framework was developed from the literature during the first phase of the study This early framework was used during the second phase of the study when five academics took part in a focus group

After the focus group, the second version of the framework was developed and used

with fifteen academics in individual interviews during phase three of the study The

third version of the framework was the outcome of a synthesis of the themes that were identified in the data

The discussion data from the focus group and the individual interviews were analysed through a content analysis approach that identified four major themes The first theme was that academics reported that their work would ideally be located within universities committed to using their expert knowledge to serve the world The second theme was that academics reported that they wanted sufficient thinking time and reasonable workloads to undertake the intellectual work that they regard as their core responsibility, particularly in relation to undertaking research They argued against heavy routine administrative workloads and sought a continuation of current flexible working arrangements The third theme was that teaching qualifications should not be mandated but that there should be a continuation of the present practice

of universities offering academics the opportunity to undertake formal teaching qualifications if they wish to Finally, academics reported that they wanted values that have traditionally mattered to academia to continue to be respected and

practised: autonomy, collegiality and collaborative relationships, altruism and

service, and intellectual integrity These themes are sympathetic to Freidson’s theory

of professions in all but one matter: the non-mandatory nature of formal

qualifications which he regards as absolutely essential for the performance of the complex intellectual work that characterises occupations that are professions

The study places the issue of academic professionalism on the policy agenda for universities wishing to identify academics’ work as a profession The study contributes a theory-based and data-informed conceptual framework for academics’

work that can be considered in negotiating the nature and extent of their work The framework provides a means of analysing what “academic professionalism” might mean; it adds specificity to such discussions by exploring a particular definition of profession, namely Freidson’s theory of professions as occupations that are in control

of their own work The study contributes to the development of theories around higher education concepts of academic professionalism and, in so doing, links that theoretical contribution to the wider professions field

Table of Contents

Keywords i

Abstract ii

Table of Contents v

List of Figures viii

List of Tables viii

List of Abbreviations ix

Statement of Original Authorship x

Acknowledgments xi

Preface xii

CHAPTER 1: ACADEMICS’ WORK: A PROFESSION? 1

1.1 The Importance of Universities and of Academics’ Work 3

1.2 Influential Contextual Factors Within Universities 4

1.3 The Research Issue and Rationale for the Study 12

1.4 Aims of the Study and Research Questions 18

1.5 Research Design 19

1.6 Significance and Contribution of the Study 20

1.7 Summary of Chapter 1 21

1.8 Thesis Outline 22

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW: PROFESSIONS AND ACADEMICS’ WORK 27

2.1 Academics’ Work 28

2.1.1 Continuing Professional Development (CPD): Relevance to the concept of profession 29

2.1.2 Teaching qualifications: Relevance to the concept of profession 33

2.1.3 The shifting scene of academics’ work: Relevance to the concept of profession 38

2.1.4 Summary of section 2.1 39

2.2 Concepts of “Profession” Within and Beyond Academia 40

2.2.1 Knowledge as part of professionalism 45

2.2.2 Values as part of professionalism 48

2.2.3 Other aspects of professions 63

2.2.4 Summary of section 2.2 70

2.3 Freidson’s Theory of Professions as Self-Controlling Occupations 71

2.4 Summary of Chapter 2 78

CHAPTER 3: DEVELOPMENT OF A PROVISIONAL CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR ACADEMICS’ WORK (VERSION 1) 81

3.1 Rationale for Scoping Version 1 of the Framework 86

3.2 Summary of Chapter 3 87

CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 89

4.1 The Research Design: A Qualitative Approach 89

4.2 Case Study Methodology 91

4.3 The Research Context: Sites and Participants 93

4.4 Data Collection Methods 97

4.4.1 Focus groups: Advantages and disadvantages 97

4.4.2 Individual interviews: Advantages and disadvantages 99

4.5 Data Collection Processes 102

4.5.1 Data collection processes common to the focus group and the individual interviews 102

4.5.2 Data collection processes specific to the focus group 106

4.5.3 Data collection processes specific to the individual interviews 111

4.6 Data Analysis 114

4.6.1 Data analysis: Determining the unit of analysis 115

4.6.2 Data analysis: Processes common to focus group and interview data 119

4.6.3 Data analysis: Additional steps for interview data 124

4.6.4 Data analysis: Amalgamating the two data sets 127

4.6.5 Building in reflective practice and reflexivity 128

4.7 Trustworthiness 132

4.8 Limitations of the Study 134

4.9 Summary of Chapter 4 135

CHAPTER 5: FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF A PROVISIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR ACADEMICS’ WORK (VERSION 2) 137

5.1 Differences Between Versions 1 and 2 of the Framework 143

5.2 Summary of Chapter 5 148

CHAPTER 6: ACADEMICS RELATE THEIR WORK TO THE WIDER WORLD 151

6.1 Explanation of Presentation of all Findings 151

6.2 Universities: Their Purpose and Engagement With the World 152

6.3 Examining the Current Organisational Model 157

6.3.1 The current organisational model: Supporting comments 158

6.3.2 The current organisational model: Some reservations 164

6.4 Summary of Findings for the First Theme 168

CHAPTER 7: ACADEMICS SEEK CHANGES IN THEIR WORK 171

7.1 Re-balancing Responsibilities 171

7.2 More Time and Less Pressure 176

7.3 Enabling More Research 182

7.3.1 The role of research qualifications 183

7.4 Summary of Findings for the Second Theme 185

CHAPTER 8: ACADEMICS DISCUSS UNIVERSITY TEACHING 187

8.1 Arguments for Teaching Qualifications 188

8.2 Arguments Against Teaching Qualifications 193

8.2.1 Perceived efficacy of qualifications 193

8.2.2 Conceptions of teaching 196

8.2.3 Poor rewards for teaching 199

8.2.4 Summary of findings for “Arguments against teaching qualifications” 201

8.3 Summary of Findings for the Third Theme 202

CHAPTER 9: ACADEMICS CARE ABOUT VALUES 203

9.1 Autonomy 204

9.2 Integrity and Ethics 218

9.3 Collegiality and Collaboration 221

9.4 Altruism and Service 226

9.5 An Over-riding Value for Academics’ Work 232

9.6 Summary of Findings for the Fourth Theme 233

9.7 Summary of Findings for Research Question 1 233

CHAPTER 10: ACADEMICS’ WORK: PARTICIPANTS’ PREFERRED CONSTRUCTIONS AND PROFESSIONAL THEORY 235

10.1 First Theme: Academics Relate their Work to the Wider World 236

10.2 Second Theme: Academics Seek Changes in Their Work 237

10.3 Third Theme: Academics Discuss University Teaching 238

10.4 Fourth Theme: Academics Care About Values 240

10.5 Summary of Findings for Research Question 2 242

CHAPTER 11: THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK RE-CONSIDERED (VERSION 3) 245

11.1 Summary of Chapter 11 251

CHAPTER 12: CONCLUSION 253

12.1 Context of the Study 253

12.2 Achieving the Aims and Answering the Research Questions 254

12.3 Implications of the Study: Introductory Comments 256

12.3.1 Implications for academics 257

12.3.2 Implications for theorists and researchers 258

12.3.3 Implications for policy makers 261

12.4 Limitations of the Study 269

12.5 Directions for Future Research 271

12.6 A Final Word 272

REFERENCES 275

APPENDICES 295

Appendix A Literature Review: An Early Tracking Table 295

Appendix B Research Participants 306

Appendix C Focus Group Invitation Email and Information Kit 309

Appendix D Individual Interview Invitation Email and Information Kit 319

Appendix E Changes in Questions Between Focus Group and Individual Interviews 325

Appendix F The Data Analysis Processes and the Informing Literature 326

Appendix G Overview of the Data Analysis Strategy 328

Appendix H Analysis of the Interview Data: A Reflective Process 329

Appendix I Example of Interviewee’s Individual Data File 330

Appendix J Example of a Theme File 334

Appendix K Example of a Data Table (Interviewees 1-4) 335

Appendix L Opinions of the Corporate University Model 339

Appendix M Teaching Qualifications: For & Against 340

Appendix N (a) Interview Participants’ Opinions Concerning Values 342

Appendix N (b) Interview Participants’ Prioritising of Values in the Prompting Framework 343

Appendix O An Ideal Conceptualisation of Academics’ Work: All Participants’ Input Compared to Freidson 344

Appendix P Revisions Between Versions 2 and 3 of Conceptual Framework 345

List of Figures

Figure 4.1 Conceptual Framework (Version 2): Interview Handout 113

Figure 4.2 Data gathering tool for interviews 114

Figure 11.1 Conceptual Framework (Version 3) & Informing Themes 247

List of Tables Table 3.1 Conceptual Framework (Version 1) 83

Table 4.1 Conceptual Framework (Version 1): Focus Group Handout 108

Table 4.2 Changes to Discussion Questions 109

Table 4.3 Changes to Research Questions 110

Table 4.4 Layout of Transcriptions of Focus Group and Interview Data 116

Table 5.1 Relationships between Freidson’s Theory of Occupational Control and Version 2 of the Conceptual Framework 141

Table 5.2 Conceptual Framework (Version 2) 142

Table 5.3 Versions 1 and 2 of the Conceptual Framework 144

Table 5.4 Values in Versions 1 and 2 of the Conceptual Framework 145

Table 11.1 Phases of the Study, Actions and Outcomes 245

Table 1, Appendix B Research Participant Details 307

Table 1, Appendix B (cont) 308

List of Abbreviations

ACER Australian Council for Educational Research

ALTC Australian Learning and Teaching Council

ATN Australian Technology Network

AUQA Australian Universities Quality Agency

BHERT Business and Higher Education Round Table

CPD Continuing Professional Development

DEEWR Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations ERA Excellence in Research for Australia

ESL English as a Second Language

HERDSA Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia ILT Institute for Learning and Teaching

NTEU National Tertiary Education Union

QA Quality assurance

TAFE Technical and Further Education

TEQSA Tertiary Education Quality Standards Agency

Statement of Original Authorship

The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution To the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously

published or written by another person except where due reference is made

Signature: _

Date: _

Professor Jim Watters for their commitment, diligence, experience and good will

In the early stages, Patrick Palmer very kindly helped me explore ideas in extraordinarily stimulating and helpful ways, Meredith Godat was an exemplary study buddy and Sue Trevaskes provided advice, professional generosity and

encouragement at a crucial point Alan Wylie was happy to share his wealth of knowledge as were Pat Bourke and Lyndal O’Gorman Anthony Castles commented

on draft work and my colleague Rowena Brannigan was enormously helpful I cannot thank Judith O’Byrne enough for insightfully critiquing my ideas

Judith Millington showed unceasing and generous interest in my study, offered wise advice and transcribed the data I thank Denis Castles for everything I am ever grateful to my dear friend, Margie Kelly, sadly no longer with us, for giving me invaluable advice about all sorts of things, the most trivial of which was how to write

a thesis Finally and most importantly, I lovingly acknowledge the people who gave

me an education and were with me when I got it: my gorgeous mother Jack, my lovely sisters Anna and Elaine, my generous Auntie Millie and my beaut brother Baz

Preface

The road that led towards the choice of topic for this thesis has been a long one On reflection, it might have been expected that I would be drawn to some aspect

of academics’ work, having been an academic myself

I began my career in education as a high school teacher of English, French and History From there, I moved into teaching English as a Second Language (ESL) to high school students and, later, to adults My experience in ESL as a teacher,

curriculum designer and materials developer led me into studying and later lecturing and tutoring in applied linguistics as well as developing postgraduate curriculum in that field A further development in my career was to work as a professional

developer of university lecturers in Asian languages on a nationally funded project that integrated new technology with their teaching and curriculum design Thinking back to that time, those lecturers were being asked to do innovative work and to think about their teaching (and the related research around that project) in quite different ways This was the mid-90s

From 1998-2003, I worked in another university as an educational

designer/curriculum developer with lecturers from numerous disciplines (including social work, occupational therapy, education, zoology), combining their discipline knowledge with my pedagogical knowledge in order to develop curriculum that took optimal educational advantage of new technology Again, as with the lecturers in Asian languages, these academics were required to work in new ways

Through my work and study at three universities, I have observed the work of academics at very close quarters and participated actively in that work as a colleague

This experience showed me how much, over recent years, the work of academics has changed

With my experiences within universities and my observation of the significant changes that have occurred, the field of academics’ work became of great interest to

me During a preliminary literature review, I noticed the emergence of an explicit discussion of the idea of “profession” in reference to academics’ work This focus, plus my background as an academic, resulted in this study investigating academics’ work from the perspective of profession

Chapter 1: Academics’ Work: A Profession?

Universities are institutions that perform work that is important to the country Academics are important to the achievement of that work in the contribution that they make through their thinking work and through the production and dissemination

of knowledge This thesis examines academics’ work that, for some time, has been performed in an environment of dynamic change This examination will interrogate academics’ work from the perspective of professions, using a qualitative case study within two Australian universities

This chapter discusses the importance of universities and of academics’ work, examines the context in which academics’ work is performed, presents the research issue and rationale for the study, identifies the aims and research questions, previews the research design, and explains the significance and contribution of the study The chapter concludes by briefly overviewing the structure of the thesis

Australian universities are experiencing significant systemic change, and have been since the 1980s (Bradley, Noonan, Nugent, & Scales, 2008) A major

restructuring of the Australian higher education sector occurred with the Dawkins reforms implemented in 1989 (Barcan, 1994; Duke, 2004) The reforms led to the establishment of a unified national system that replaced the binary education system that had operated since approximately 1965 (Barcan, 1994; Duke, 2004) As a result

of the Dawkins reforms, the number of universities increased in number and size (Duke, 2004) from nineteen pre-Dawkins to thirty-nine in 2010 (Gallagher, 2010)

There are five clusterings of Australian universities: (a) the Group of Eight; (b) Innovative Research Universities; there are seven of these; (c) the Australian

Technology Network of Universities (ATN), with one in each mainland state, thus five in total; (d) New Generation Universities (that resulted from the amalgamations

of the late 1980s) and (e) the Regional Universities, located regionally

(Goedegebuure, Coates, van der Lee, & Meek, 2009) The first grouping, the Group

of Eight is also known as the Great Eight and the group consists of the more

established, more prestigious and research-focussed universities; five of these

universities are also known as “sandstones” (Australian Education Network, 2011) The Innovative Research Universities were established in the 1960s and 1970s (Australian Education Network, 2011) The ATN universities focus on linking their

education with the wider needs of industry” (Australian Education Network, 2011)

Whatever their particular focus and specific missions, all universities in

Australia have faced on-going change in recent decades Change continues and, since

this study began, two major reviews of the Australian higher education sector have been completed The Bradley Review of Higher Education (2008) investigated the future of the sector, potential reforms and the capacity of the sector to meet

community and economic needs Also, in the same year, Cutler (2008) investigated Australia’s system of innovation, including university research Whatever the

eventual future outcomes of such reviews, they are important in shaping the work of universities This thesis is timely in contributing to developing debates about the

future of universities and the work of their key players, namely academics

thesis in particular ways, according to definitions in the literature Thus, at times, the terms “occupation” or “work” will be applied to academics’ activities These terms are intended not to demean what academics do; rather, the intent is to speak neutrally until the research data indicate whether the term “profession” should be used or not

To support this approach, this study draws on the theoretical work of the American sociologist Eliot Freidson (2001) who partly defines a profession as just a special

form of occupation and professions as one way of organising work

1.1 The Importance of Universities and of Academics’ Work

As Giroux (2005) commented, when discussing the work of Derrida,

universities are key institutions in a democratic society They are culturally important

to the nation as well as economically important in domestic and global arenas

(Bradley et al., 2008) The purpose of universities is that of “developing and

disseminating advanced-level knowledge and skills through teaching and

scholarship” and “generating new knowledge and developing new applications of

knowledge” (Bradley et al., 2008, p 5) Universities exist to acquire knowledge for

its own sake and to disseminate it for the benefit of the community (Miller, 2000)

As well, within the knowledge economy, universities prepare professionals for the

workforce (Cutler, 2008) For these responsibilities to be realised, the work of

academics is vital They are important players because they are at the coalface of enabling universities’ core work and are crucial to the country’s economy and culture (Bradley et al., 2008) The work of academics “forms the backbone of the

contribution of their institutions” (Goedegebuure et al., 2009, p 59) The former President of the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) makes a similar

argument in stating that academics “are critical to the overall ability of an institution

to achieve excellence in teaching and research…there can be no sustainable

university future without the intelligence, passion and commitment of university staff” (Allport, 2007, p 27) as academics’ work is part of the contribution that universities make (Altbach, 2009; Goedegebuure et al., 2009)

1.2 Influential Contextual Factors Within Universities

Worldwide, higher education experienced “profound changes” in the 1990s (Becher & Trowler, 2001, p xiii) Australia has not been immune to these changes and has experienced significant macro level transformation within its higher

education system Indeed, within the Australian higher education system, “change has been profound and sometimes quite dramatic” (Coates, Goedegebuure, van der Lee, & Meek, 2008, p 8) These changes have trickled down to directly impact academics’ work in significant ways Indeed, the academic profession is affected deeply to the extent that the profession can be considered to be in crisis (Duke, 2004; Marginson, 2000)

A brief overview of the current state of play within Australian universities begins with a sketching of the over-riding influences that have shaped universities in recent decades The following six contextual influences are outlined: (a)

globalisation and economic rationalism; (b) the adoption of business models and the emergence of entrepreneurialism; (c) the massification of the study body; (d) the emergence of managerialism; (e) an increase in bureaucracy and administration; and (f) new forms of accountability

The first contextual influences, globalisation and economic rationalism, are now discussed Globalisation, a major influence on Australian universities (Bryant, Scoufis, & Cheers, 1999; Marginson, 2000; Tierney, 2001) may be understood as

“the development of global flows of information and resources along networks

transcending nation-states’ influence and disturbing nationally-organised systems and practices” (Becher & Trowler, 2001, p 2) With globalisation, the Australian government adopted practices of economic rationalism Economic rationalism is sometimes referred to as “neo-liberalism”; however, the term “economic

rationalism” is used more frequently in Australia (Davies, Gottsche & Bansel, 2006) Economic rationalism is defined as the view that the market is the basis for all decisions – social, political and economic - and assumes the greater efficiency of markets to deliver good outcomes (Pusey, 2003) Other components of economic rationalism are increased accountability and a focus on performance goals (Davies et al., 2006) Economic rationalism involves “a paraphernalia of surveillance, auditing and control”; this “paraphernalia” accompanied government changes to new ways of funding universities (Davies et al., 2006, p 312) Successive governments have become less committed to funding higher education (Bellamy, Morley, & Watty, 2003; Currie, 2005a; Marginson, 2000), resulting in reduced funding and the

introduction of private funding to universities (Marginson, 2000) Between 1996 and

2005, government funding to universities fell from 57% to 39% of total revenue

(NTEU, 2007) One of the outcomes of decreased government funding has been a

serious decrease in universities’ resources (Fraser & Cheers, 2000; Sachs, 2003) Thus, there have been enormous fiscal strains and a need for universities to self fund and to become nationally and internationally competitive Greater competition is a feature of economic rationalism/neo-liberalism, which is aligned to globalisation partly through the wide geographical reach of multinational corporations across countries (Davies et al., 2006) These changes are germane to the economically rationalist-focussed environments in which academics perform their work

Reservations about the commercial focus of economic rationalism come from circles other than purely academic ones For instance, the Business and Higher Education Round Table (BHERT), consisting of business leaders and some senior university leaders, argued against government funding for projects and initiatives that

are purely commercial (BHERT, 2008) The philosophy of economic rationalism is

accompanied by a market model which is now discussed

A second contextual influence on academia has been the adoption of business and market models and the emergence of entrepreneurial practices within

universities, many of which might be claimed to now resemble businesses

Universities have moved to operating according to a market orientation (Bryant et al., 1999; Kimber, 2003), and there are close similarities between how universities are thought of and how successful businesses operate (Duke, 2004) Indeed, “the new idea of a particular university increasingly approximates the bottom line of a

successful business” (Duke, 2004, p 309) Being less well funded by government has forced universities to become businesses and to be run in accordance with market economic liberalism (Duke, 2004) The adoption of market models, it has been claimed, has resulted in both reduced job satisfaction for academics and in reduced educational quality (Winter & Sarros, 2002)

Along with the adoption of market models, it is argued that universities have been forced to be entrepreneurial in sourcing funding in strained economic

circumstances (Winter & Sarros, 2002) A prime example of higher education

entrepreneurialism has been the successful pursuit of the highly lucrative

international student market International student fees generate enormous revenue for education in Australia generally As an export industry, international education ranks high in the Australian economy In the year 2007-2008 alone, the gain from

international education to the Australian economy overall was $13.7 billion (Access Economics, 2009) with the largest proportion of overseas students studying in the higher education sector A quarter of higher education students in Australia come from other countries (Bradley et al., 2008)

The growth of the international student market is closely related to the issue of massification that exists on two levels: that of international students, and that of domestic students This is the third contextual influence to be discussed The move towards the massification of the international student body arguably began with the Colombo Plan of the 1950s that, as part of a wider diplomatic and aid initiative, sponsored thousands of students from South and South-East Asia to study in

Australia (Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade, 2005)

Along with the massification of the international student body, a second form

of massification relates to domestic students Massification is not a new phenomenon

in Australian universities Domestic massification arguably began with the Whitlam government of the 1970s enhancing the opportunities of domestic students to enter universities by removing fees and introducing the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme to attract students Massification has been explained as the movement from

an elite system of enrolment to a mass one (Scott, 1995) It has certainly been a feature of the Australian higher education scene, as evidenced by the dramatic growth in one decade alone; between 1989 and 1999, enrolments in Australian universities increased by 231,000 (Dobson, 2001).Since the 1950s, the Australian population grew less than three-fold while the number of Australian domestic

students increased more than 23-fold, the largest increase being between 1950 and

1977 (Marginson, 1997, p.27)

For domestic cohorts, the massification has applied to both undergraduate and postgraduate students (Bellamy et al., 2003; Fraser & Cheers, 2000; McWilliam & Palmer, 1998) Massification is likely continue into the future, given the target set by the Bradley Review (2008) that the current level of 29% of 25-34 year olds holding

Bachelor level qualifications should be raised to 40% by 2020 It might be

anticipated that there would be important consequences of such growth for

academics’ work In the past, the results of massification have been larger classes (Cropley, 2003; Currie, 2005a; Davis, 2006) which have not been accompanied by increased resources (Ryan, 2009) This has resulted in worsened staff-student ratios (Massaro, 2004; Ryan, 2009), reduced quality of education (Ryan, 2009) and bigger workloads for academics (Marginson, 2000; Schmid, 1998)

In addition to increasing in volume, academics’ work has changed in another way in that their roles have expanded Academics now fulfil more roles than before, being teachers, researchers, administrators, entrepreneurs, curriculum designers and

so on Along with an expanding work life, academics’ performance of their work now occurs in a very different work environment from that of the past This leads us

on to another contextual influence

A fourth contextual influence within academia has been the emergence of

managerialism Universities now operate under managerialist models of management (Churchman, 2006) This represents a major change to how universities operate internally Managerialism is defined as “the application of private sector principles and practices to public service organizations” (By, Diefenbach, & Klarner, 2008, p 22) and as “the insistence that all decisions meet financial and administrative rather than academic criteria” (Saunders, 2005, p 40)

The outcomes of current managerial practices that direct higher education have attracted considerable criticism from within academic ranks It has been claimed that managerialism’s three central objectives of achieving “economy, efficiency and effectiveness” have had negative effects on academic communities (Becher &

Trowler, 2001, p 13) Deleterious outcomes include negative effects on collegiality (Moodie, 2002) Managerialist approaches are also said to be disempowering to staff and damaging to morale (Rees, 1995; Walker, 2001) Duke (2004) claims that

managerialism may prove to be a greater danger to Australian universities than government attacks on them It may result in greater influence by management and reduced autonomy for academics, as some have claimed (Winter, Taylor, & Sarros, 2000)

Notwithstanding these concerns about managerialism, not all voices are

critical For instance, one United Kingdom study shows that “new managerialism” is being embraced by some manager-academics (Deem & Brehony, 2005), and that some academics have thrived on the corporate working conditions (Churchman,

2006) From another UK perspective, it has been argued that the negative effects of managerialism on academic professionalism may have been overstated (Kolsaker,

2008) Nevertheless, the view remains that embracing managerialism in universities

is “cronyism, rent-seeking and organizational psychopathic behaviour … (and that) the main purpose of managerialism is to increase the authority, privileges and

influence of power and career-oriented managers” (By et al., 2008, p 23) Whatever the impact of managerialism has been within universities, its introduction has

represented new ways of institutional operation that are different from the practices

of previous organisational regimes

A fifth contextual influence within universities has been an increased level of

bureaucracy and administration There are reports of excessive amounts of

paperwork and different inefficiencies from those of the past, and greater

bureaucracy (Davies et al., 2006; Rowbotham, 2011) The amount of bureaucracy in universities has increased according to Currie (2005b) reporting a mid-1990s study The administrative processes related to bureaucratisation have caused concern, with complaints about the “nightmare” of applying for research grants online being an example of excessive administrative procedures (Healy, 2010, p 23)

The sixth contextual element to be discussed is accountability Along with managerialist practices and increased bureaucracy and administration, different forms of accountability now operate within academia Universities have become more accountable to authorities beyond the universities (Bellamy et al., 2003;

Vidovich, 2002) Quality assurance (QA) regimes, driven by government demands for funding-related data, occur at some distance from academics’ practice and are often administered by academic development units within universities An example

is the Course Experience Questionnaire administered by academic development units

to a university’s graduates Another example can be seen in the existence of the Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA), an organisation whose website describes itself as independent from both government and higher education that aims

to promote academic quality in the higher education sector

Not only have the forms of accountability changed in moving away from internal processes to external, administrative-heavy ones, they have also increased (Bellamy et al., 2003) with a greater focus on accountability, standards and

performance (Coaldrake & Stedman, 1999) One view is that the regulation of higher education in Australia is out of control (Corden, 2005) On the other hand, positive

features of neo-liberal/economically rationalist universities are seen by some to include greater accountability and equity (Davies et al., 2006) Such accountability continues to grow in influence For instance, indications are that mandatory teaching qualifications appear to be imminent, according to one reasonable interpretation of a report by the Department of Education, Employment & Workplace Relations

(DEEWR, 2009) The emergence of this requirement has been a change since this study began Another change, again to ensure universities’ accountability, is the establishment of the Tertiary Education Quality Standards Agency (TEQSA) The

intention is for TEQSA to be fully operational from 2012

Along with greater external accountability around teaching, academics’

research work is currently being measured in ways different from past methods The Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) is a federal government initiative

established for this purpose The new process considers eight discipline clusters when evaluating research The implementation of ERA began in 2010

Current forms of accountability are not always seen in a positive light

Accountability measures may bring with them a degree of frustration For instance,

in contrast to an administration-heavy environment, a recent Australian Nobel Prize winner, Elizabeth Blackburn, stated her appreciation of being able “to follow her nose (with research) without having to write up ‘damn little’ reports and catalogue milestones on a regular basis” (Trounson, 2010a, p 23) This freedom from

administrative demands was provided in a US university; she was “not aware that I would have been able to do that (in Australia)” (Trounson, 2010a, p 23) Such

“milestones” and “damn little reports” are part and parcel of accountability measures now used in universities Contrast Blackburn’s comments with the report that

research grant applications have to indicate beforehand what the expected outcomes

and benefits will be (Dodgson, 2010) A level of tension is suggested here between universities’ and government requirements and academics’ preferred ways of

on universities and have profoundly changed the landscape of academics’ work

1.3 The Research Issue and Rationale for the Study

The macro level changes to higher education described above have filtered down to impact on the work of academics As Marginson (2000) points out,

“Australian universities are being transformed by profound long-term changes Inevitably, these changes are reshaping academic work and the academic profession” (p 23) Indeed, “the nature and extent of change in the (higher education) sector has been on a scale that has the potential to significantly alter the nature of work for Australian academics” (Bellamy et al., 2003, p 14) Thus, it is not only timely but important to investigate the nature of academics’ work

Within a very challenging environment, more is expected of academics

operating under worsened conditions (Bellamy et al., 2003; Coates, Dobson,

Edwards, Friedman, Goedegebuure & Meek, 2009) Academics are expected to be knowledgeable about new learning theories, to undertake curriculum design, to be

skilled in the use of information technology in ways that are appropriate to different student contexts and to be entrepreneurial (Benson & Samarwickrema, 2009;

Coaldrake & Stedman, 1999) In addition, academics are expected to undertake

various kinds of consultancies (McWilliam, Hatcher, & Meadmore, 1999) While undertaking consultancies (or service) is not new, what has changed is the

commercial focus of such work, with costs being charged that would not have been charged in the past Along with new expectations of academic work, workloads have increased (Coaldrake & Stedman, 1999; Coates et al., 2009; Marginson, 2000) with the massification of student cohorts (Marginson, 2000; Schmid, 1998) The extra work is performed in an environment of decreased tenure (Bond, 1997; Davies et al., 2006; Gottschalk & McEachern, 2010; Kimber, 2003; Watters & Weeks, 1998), increased job insecurity and greater casualisation (Gottschalk & McEachern, 2010; Kimber, 2003; Marginson, 2000; Rowbotham, 2011; Watters & Weeks, 1998), and deteriorating work conditions (Bellamy et al., 2003) Indeed, the work conditions of casual academics in Australia have been described in one media report as “slave labour” (Baraney, 2006, p 32) Despite some arguments that casual work

arrangements increase work/life balance choices and enhance flexibility, the

advantages would seem to favour employers rather than employees, to damage permanent academic career prospects and to be a matter of necessity rather than choice in the absence of permanent positions being available (Gottschalk &

McEachern, 2010).As well, compared with their international peers and other

professions, Australian academics suffer an absence of job satisfaction (Coates et al., 2009) Additionally, there has been an erosion of academic control over program development with the design of new programs by external bodies (Marginson, 2000)

The circumstances described here present opportunities to investigate

academics’ work, and the related issue of its relationship to the concept of

profession Despite the changes and challenges to academics’ work described above, the idea persists that it is a profession A plethora of journal articles uses the term

“profession” in ways that suggest a common understanding Even government reports (e.g the Bradley Report, 2008) use the term as if it carries a commonly

understood meaning The labelling by some universities of their administrative staff

as “professional staff” does not add clarity In relation to academic staff, the term

“profession” appears to be an unanalysed notion in much of the higher education literature (Williams, 2008) Assumed understandings may be problematic if

“profession” is used in ways that suggest a shared understanding that may not exist

If universities describe any of their staff (academic, administrative, technical etc.) as

“professional”, it would be helpful to know if they are claiming a model of

traditional or “pure” professionalism (Noordegraaf, 2007), or if they are aligning with concepts of managerialist professionalism (Evetts, 2006a, 2006b).Thus, there is

a need for a clear understanding of what “profession” might mean for academics’ work

Professions are typically described as occupations requiring expert knowledge (Freidson, 1994, 2001; Houle, 1980; Hoyle, 1982; Larson, 1977; Locke, 2004; Lovat

& Mackenzie, 2003; Probert, 1989; Sachs, 1999) Along with knowledge, theories of professions name other necessary components of professions as autonomy

(Broadbent, Dietrich, & Roberts, 1997; Downie, 1990; Freeman 1994; Freidson,

1994, 2001; Grossman, 2003; Houle, 1980; Hoyle, 1982; Locke, 2004; Lovat & Mackenzie, 2003; Middlehurst & Kennie, 1997; Peel, 2005; Sachs, 1999) and

altruism (Becher, 1999; Freidson, 1994, 2001, 2003; Locke, 2004; Sachs, 1999) The

work of academics is certainly centred around expert knowledge However,

autonomy has to be examined in light of the foundational changes to how academics’ work is organised (for instance, with greater external accountability required) Also inviting examination is the question of whether altruism survives within

economically rationalist institutions

The intent of the research investigation is to examine academics’ work from the perspective of the professions The selection of this perspective is appropriate for three reasons First, the attributes of knowledge, autonomy and altruism associated with professions have also traditionally applied to academia Second, the discourse of

“profession” inside academia seems often to be an assumed one; this is worth

challenging so that explicit understandings of the concept may emerge Third, the discourse of “profession” within academia appears to be an emerging one where the

arguments are not yet settled Thus, it is timely to contribute to this current debate

Key contextual influences within the Australian higher education sector have been described in Section 1.2 As shown in studies of academic work, academics have responded to the challenges caused by these influences by what seems to have beena “steady adaptation (of academic workers) to successive reforms and

restructures” within universities (Davies et al., 2006, p 306) Such “steady

adaptation” by academics appears to have been “ambivalent”, and “a collective position of resistance” to the introduction of economic rationalism (neo-liberalism) has been hard to establish (Davies et al., 2006, p 305)

At the time of each newly introduced change, if academics had at their disposal

an explicit theory-derived description of their work, would things be better? That question is impossible to answer It is certain, however, that such a description or

framework would not have solved all difficulties However, a framework may

provide a theory-based means of anchoring debate and negotiation over both the nature and quantity of work that academics should and should not perform Thus, an explicit understanding of what constitutes academics’ work would provide a

common reference point when new workplace demands appear The situation in academia is asserted to be one where conditions have deteriorated and multiple voices and agendas are operating (McCollow & Lingard, 1996) In these

circumstances where change appears to be a constant in an environment of

competing agendas, an explicit framework could add clarity to policy discussions and decisions

The framework developed in this study drew from theories of the professions

A key theoretical informant of the framework was Freidson’s occupational theory of professions, where occupations count as professions if they control themselves rather than being under the control of either markets or organisations, firms, bureaucracies

or institutions (Freidson, 2001) This study uses theory, in conjunction with research participants’ input, to construct a framework that reflects academics’ preferred constructions of their work

No one “single academic profession” can be said to exist (Marginson, 2000, p 23) given the diversity of academics and the lack of homogeneity within academia (Churchman, 2006) and it is not necessary to suggest consensus when

conceptualising the academic profession (Evans, 2010) While rigorous attention to the literature, along with the research data, informed the construction of an

academic-specific, theory- and data-driven framework (built from successive

versions of the framework), this thesis does not claim that this framework is

necessarily the one for representing academics’ work Rather, the framework is

offered as a means of thinking about academics’ work Thus, the idea of a

framework is proposed, whether it is the one developed in this study or quite a

different framework

The framework to be proposed will be couched in “ideal” terms, drawing from Freidson (2001) despite the fact that the “ideal” does not happen within reality for

any profession or occupation (Freidson, 2001) Such a framework is intended to

provide a clear, comprehensive and theory-based description of how academics’ work might be conceptualised It would be useful to know how academics ideally construct their work so that they could be supported in sustaining their passion, commitment and effective performance as their performance directly serves the purposes of universities Greater effectiveness is likely to be achieved when workers experience job satisfaction It is vital to both rejuvenate and retain academics

(Australian Council for Educational Research, 2009) That rejuvenation and retention might be assisted by the use of a conceptual framework used to promote academics’ ideal constructions of their work One embryonic conceptual model of academic professionalism (Evans, 2010) suggests that academics are searching for new ways

of framing their work Evans’ proposed conceptual model consists of behavioural, attitudinal and intellectual components of academic professionalism organised as procedural, motivational and analytical dimensions (2010) Her work and her

observations that the field of academic professionalism is under-researched indicate

the timeliness of this study

1.4 Aims of the Study and Research Questions

The aims of the study are to investigate how academics prefer their work to be constructed and, in so doing, to co-construct a theory-based framework of

academics’ work from the perspective of professions

The research questions for this study are:

1 What are academics’ preferred constructions of their work?

2 How might academics’ preferred constructions of their work relate to the concept of profession?

The study does not deal with the broader state or industrial issues involved in how occupations become professions or with how the state and professions may conduct their relationships While it explores the characteristics of professions in

relation to academia, the study does not include a consideration of how those

characteristics develop or operate It confines itself to the what of the conceptual

framing of an academic profession In adopting this focus, the study concerns itself

with asking what the academic profession might be This coheres with a recent return

in the professions literature to a focus on being clear about what is meant by the object of study, to determining what it is that one is studying (Sciulli, 2005) It is seen as problematic that the study of academic professionalism is marked by “lack of conceptual clarity and definitional precision…since effective analysis of so many issues is dependent upon clarification of what is meant or understood by

‘professionalism’” (Evans, 2010, p 9) Thus, if one is investigating academics’ preferred constructions of their work, then some definitional and conceptual clarity must be attempted Such clarity will contribute to the field of academic

professionalism It is claimed that academic professionalism is relatively

under-researched (Evans, 2010) Thus, researching professionalism in academia is perhaps

not only timely but even over-due

1.5 Research Design

The research design is a qualitative case study involving two groups of

academics across two universities The case itself consisted of academics’

conceptions of their work The social constructivist methodology used in the study posits that practitioners are the key holders of insights into their own work and are in

a position to contribute to its theorisation

The study was conducted in three phases In Phase 1, a provisional based framework of academics’ work (Version 1) was developed from the literature This framework functioned both as a conceptualisation of academics’ work and as a methodological device to support data collection In Phase 2 of the study, this initial version of the framework was presented to a focus group consisting of five

theory-academics to generate discussion about relevant components of theory-academics’ work Following the focus group, Version 2 of the framework was developed, drawing on Freidson’s theory of professions and informed by the focus group data This version

of the framework was used as a discussion stimulus in Phase 3 of the study when fifteen academics were asked to conceptualise their work In all, twenty academics from two universities participated in the study Their views constituted the data that empirically informed Version 3

One benefit of constructing a conceptual framework is that “frameworks for understanding professionalism present starting points for empirical research” (Noordegraaf, 2007, p 768) The progressive construction of a framework in this

study contributed toproviding empirical evidence of academics’ views about how their work might be ideally constructed

1.6 Significance and Contribution of the Study

The investigation contributes to theory building, to research methodology and

to policy and thus has implications for academics, researchers and theorists, and policy makers and influencers consisting of university and government leaders and unions

In terms of theory building, the study provides a conceptual framework for academics’ work as a profession, thus promoting the concept of a tailored framework co-constructed from the literature and from academics’ input The study suggests the potential usefulness of such a framework (whether the one that resulted from this study or a different one) as an explicit statement of academics’ work

It is quite possible that different academics will come to the conclusion that the framework does not represent their views, or that they will take up only certain

aspects of the framework However, the framework provides a stimulus for

discussion around academics’ work In the event that the framework fails to fully represent academics’ views, academics will be free to construct their own

conceptualisation This is a key contribution of the thesis

A further theoretical contribution of the study is to describe the work of

academics through the lens of professions and to challenge the un-theorised often taken-for-granted view that academics’ work necessarily constitutes a profession In this regard, a detailed understanding of what it means for academics’ work to count

as a profession is explicitly surfaced

Methodologically, a contribution to the research process lies in the

development of a framework that worked on two levels: as a means of eliciting data from participants, and as a representation of their views distilled from an analysis of

the data

In terms of policy and practice, the revised framework is a means of informing discussion and negotiation by university management and unions around academics’ work in a context of constant change and challenge The presence of a concrete and specific framework could give voice to academics in contexts where their voices often compete with those of managers, government and external commercial

pressures (Currie, 2005a; Gore & Morrison, 1999; Martin & Ramsden, 1996;

Milliken, 2004; Rochford, 2001; Sheehan, Welch, & Lacy, 1996; Tierney, 2001)

The focus of this study is on academics’ work located within the Australian higher education sector The major issues discussed in this chapter are issues that are having an impact on universities globally - in the UK (Nixon, 1996), Ireland

(Hazelkorn, 2008), the US (Engvall, 2003; Katz, 2006), New Zealand (Yourn, 2002) and Finland (Rasanen, Korpiaho, Herbert, Mantyla, & Paivio, 2005; Ylijoki, 2002) Thus, the wider significance and contribution of this study is anticipated

1.7 Summary of Chapter 1

This first chapter began by establishing the research context, namely the challenging environment of the Australian higher education sector where a series of macro level challenges has affected academics’ work Key influential contextual factors were discussed: globalisation and economic rationalism; the emergence of market models and entrepreneurialism; the massification of the student body; the emergence of managerialism; the growth of bureaucracy and administration; and the

introduction of different kinds of accountability to universities The discussion of these influences contextualised the research environment in which the study is located The chapter thenpresented the research issue and explained the rationale for the proposed study, outlined the aims of the study, and stated the research questions The research design was outlined and the significance and contribution of the study explained

1.8 Thesis Outline

This thesis consists of 12 chapters This first chapter has described the research

focus, the higher education context in which the research is located, and the potential

of the study to contribute to a key issue in higher education, namely the question of whether academics’ work may be considered a profession and, if so, according to which conceptualisation This chapter explained why this question is important at

this time

Chapter 2 examines the literature on academics’ work as it relates to theories of

professions Both the wider literature on professions and the literature specific to

higher education are examined In examining the literature on professions, the work

of the sociologist Eliot Freidson is relevant His theory of professions argues that, for occupations to be considered professions, they must require complex knowledge, demonstrate control of their work, apply discretionary judgment and be committed to

a transcendent value To claim a professional status, members must be independent

in that they are not under the control of either the market place or

organisation/institution/bureaucracy Chapter 2 establishes the foundation for the development of the first version of a conceptual framework of academics’ work

Chapter 3 draws on the literature examined in Chapter 2 to present a

preliminary framework to capture academics’ work (Version 1) This framework was used as a discussion stimulus for research participants from one university when they

were asked about their perspectives on academic work The chapter explains the

contents of the framework and explains why some professional components have not

been included

Chapter 4 is the methodology chapter It explains the epistemology and the case study methodology used in the study It reports on the research context (two Australian universities) and the selection of participants (academics) This chapter reports on the data collection methods of focus group and interviews This chapter shows how the data were analysed, using a content analysis approach Reflective and reflexive practices are reported, along with other measures taken to maximise the trustworthiness of the study Finally, this chapter acknowledges the limitations of the

study

Chapter 5 reports the development of the second version of a proposed

conceptual framework for academics’ work Version 2 builds on Version 1 which was introduced in Chapter 3 Version 2 of the framework was informed by analysing the data from the focus group and also by theoretical considerations influenced by the work of Freidson (2001) The reasons for changes made to Version 2 are

presented in this chapter

Chapter 6 is the first of four chapters that report the findings for the first

research question: What are academics’ preferred constructions of their work? The findings are discussed in four main themes Chapter 6 analyses the first main theme: Academics relate their work to the wider world This chapter includes participants’

views on the purpose of universities and the current university corporate

organisational model

Chapter 7 presents the second main theme identified in the data, namely that academics seek some changes to their work, including a re-balancing of their major responsibilities

Chapter 8 presents the third main theme found in the data: Academics discuss university teaching Discussion includes participants’ views concerning formal teaching qualifications, their conceptualisations of teaching and how teaching is rewarded

Chapter 9 reports the fourth major finding, namely that academics care about values Values identified as important were autonomy, integrity and ethics,

collegiality and collaboration, and altruism and service

Chapters 6 to 9, as well as reporting the major individual themes, also analyse,

to some extent, the relationship between those themes and academics’ work

constructed as a profession However, it is in Chapter 10 that this issue is more comprehensively discussed as this chapter explores the “fit” or otherwise between professions and participants’ ideal constructions of their work Thus, Chapter 10 provides responses to the second research question: How might academics’ preferred constructions of their work relate to the concept of profession?

In Chapter 11, a revised conceptual framework is presented that builds on Versions 1 and 2 that were presented in Chapters 3 and 5 respectively Chapter 11 presents the revised version of the conceptual framework, based on participants’ reported preferences for their work