Jillian C. M. Carroll
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
INTELLECTUAL COLLEGIALITY AND LEADERSHIP IN THE NEOLIBERAL REFLEXIVE UNIVERSITY Jillian C. M. Carroll Bachelor of Arts – Monash University, Melbourne - Australia Bachelor of Education – Monash University, Melbourne - Australia Graduate Diploma in TESOL & Literacy, Victoria University, Melbourne - Australia Master of Education, Victoria University, Melbourne - Australia College of Education, Victoria University, Melbourne – Australia Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy August 2016 Abstract Since the introduction of neoliberal governance to higher education in Australia, following the 1988 Dawkins Reforms, the traditional concept of collegiality has been reconfigured. The implementation of new public management (NPM) governance and control techniques have resulted in power now being consolidated in the executive of higher education institutions. In their role as producers for the knowledge economy, universities are now subject to both global and domestic market forces and the directives of external governmentality. This means Vice-Chancellors, academic managers and research and teaching academics are continuously acting reflexively to accommodate and satisfy external requirements. For example, the implementation of neoliberal core policies such as ‘student choice’ in 2012, or demand led provision of university student places, has resulted in long term planning becoming more difficult for both Vice-Chancellors and academic managers. They are now consumed with the need to continuously adjust their plans to respond to the latest market crisis or governmental policy initiative issued to optimize market efficiency or assure quality standards. Given that governance in higher education has shifted from a social liberal framework to a neoliberal framework in Australia since 1988, this thesis employs a Foucauldian analytical framework to analyse how eleven academics, seven of whom are academic managers, located in two departments in a humanities faculty in a well-established university, perceive the managerial discourse. It secondly, seeks to explore the strategies they adopt to respond to this discourse while protecting their disciplinary and values based sub-culture. This process involves holding open ended interviews with these participants in order to identify and analyse their lived experience of the nature of the managerial discourse and its impact on their academic values and practice. The study finds the academic participants interviewed perceive they have limited and declining capacity to influence the managerial discourse. This is due not only to the consolidation of power in the executive but the imposition of an audit culture over the previous collegial culture. Centralized integrated management systems, designed and controlled by the executive in order to assure corporate performance and quality requirements are satisfied, are deployed throughout the organisation. However, despite ii the academic participants interviewed in this study perceiving that they have little or no power to influence the corporate managerial discourse, these academics emerge as much more than managed academics. Their far more complex identity is a result of their capacity to work as a community of scholars at the departmental level to shape a culture of intellectual sharing and leadership in their respective departments. This strategy continuously reminds them that they are first and foremost intellectuals. iii Declaration “I, Jillian Carol Mary Carroll, declare that the PhD thesis entitled Intellectual collegiality and leadership in the neoliberal reflexive university is no more than 110,000 words in length including quotes and exclusive of tables, figures, appendices, bibliography, and footnotes but excluding references. This thesis contains no material that has been submitted previously, in whole or in part, for the award of any other academic degree or diploma. Except where otherwise indicated, this thesis is my own work’. Signature Date June, 2016 iv v Acknowledgment Many factors contribute to a student wanting to spend over four years exploring the impact of neoliberalism on higher education in Australia. One factor is the belief that higher education has an obligation to produce citizens who are able to contribute to the common good as well as the economic well-being of society. For this reason, I am eternally in debt to my mother Mary J. Bloore who raised her children in rural Heyfield, in Gippsland, Victoria to think critically, be compassionate as well as passionate and contribute meaningfully to the broader society. However PhD students also require mentors who strongly believe that they have something to say and who encourage them to say it. For this reason, I am most grateful to Doctor Eva Dakich who urged me to pursue my interests in neoliberal governmentality by applying for a PhD scholarship at the completion of my Master of Education. I am also very thankful to Doctor Timothy Thornton, who alerted me to recent research on neoliberal governmentality and economics in Australia. I would also like to acknowledge the cooperation of the university, the school and the participants, at the research site, who consented to be interviewed for this study following the implementation of a lengthy invitation/liaison/agreement process. These participants all inspired me with their personal commitment to a broader set of values which included a commitment to intellectual leadership and collegiality. For this reason, these academic participants represent role models for others in a higher education environment dominated by the managerial discourse. Finally, I would like to thank Associate Professor Tony Kruger who very patiently guided my journey at Victoria University at all times and, in particular, for his invaluable input on the role of reflexivity in modernity. I am also grateful to Professor Catherine Manathunga for her spirited input on Foucault and for encouraging me to further explore the themes emerging from the analysed data which included intellectual leadership and collegiality. It is these themes which, I believe, have added an extra dimension to the scope of this study. vi Contents A b st r act .................................................................................................... ii Declar at ion ............................................................................................... iv A cknowledgment ....................................................................................... vi Contents ................................................................................................. vii List of Figures .......................................................................................... xvii List of Tables .......................................................................................... xvii Chapter 1: Introduction ..............................................................................1 1.1 A brief history of neoliberalism ....................................................1 1.2 Planning difficulties for Vice-Chancellors .......................................3 1.3 Purpose, scope, focus and significance of this research ....................6 1.3.1 Pr imar y aim and r at ionale for t his r esear ch ....................................6 1.3.2 Lines of enquiry and significance of this research ............................7 1.4 Position of the researcher and theoretical interest in Foucault ...........8 1.5 The evolution of university governance in liberal societies ..............12 1.5.1 Universities are subject to the tactics of liberal governmentality ......12 1.5.2 The classical liberal university ....................................................12 1.5.3 The neoliberal university ...........................................................15 1.6 The evolution of the A ustralian university ...................................16 1.6.1 V ocat ional and elite focus .........................................................16 1.6.2 Federal-state tension ................................................................18 1.6.3 The shift to a neoliberal social imaginary .....................................18 1.7 The qualitative methodology employed .......................................21 1.7.1 A critical hermeneutical phenomenological approach employed .....21 1.7.2 The relevance of a Foucauldian interpretative framework ...............22 1.7.3 Sample and selection of participants ...........................................23 1.8 O verview of the organisation of the thesis ...................................24 1.9 Purpose of Chapter 2 ...............................................................26 Chapter 2 : The N eoliberal web of governmentality ........................................27 2.1 Introduction to this chapter ......................................................27 2.2 The concept of liberal governmentality .......................................27 2.2.1 A system for managing the population rationally and efficiently ......27 2.2.2 The regime of truth .................................................................30 vii 2.2.3 Foucault’s analytics of governmentality is problematic ...................31 2.3 Core features of neoliberalism ...................................................33 2.3.1 Ext ension of mar ket values t o all ar eas of societ y ..........................33 2.3.2 Human wellbeing is equated with entrepreneurial freedom .............34 2.4 N eoliberalism represents a social imaginar y ..................................36