Warning bells for academic freedom In early January, preliminary results of the Australia Institute’s study into academic freedom and commercialisation formed the centerpiece of a major public debate in the national media about university standards. The final report was released on th No. 26 March 2001 March 16 . Institute Research Fellow and co-author of the report, Pamela Kinnear, outlines the major findings of the study and discusses their implications for higher education policy. Warning bells for academic freedom For some time now anecdotes have Over recent months the Australia Pamela Kinnear been circulating around the Institute has conducted an Australian higher education sector exploratory study into the about the declining quality of relationship between increasing Hard Questions about Soft university education. These commercialisation of higher Marking—claims go to Senate anecdotes occur in an environment in education and academic freedom. Clive Hamilton which universities are increasingly The study analysed perceptions and reliant on external research funding, experiences of social science Use and Abuse of Job fee-based courses and consulting academics in a sample of Australian Statistics: The need for new services. universities. The social sciences were selected for study as it was felt employment measures “Academic Freedom is the key that the issues affecting other Richard Denniss legitimating concept of a disciplines are different, and worthy university.” of separate study. The focus was Asking the right questions on also stimulated by a concern that an employment The costs and benefits of these erosion of academic freedom for The Hon. Cheryl Kernot MP changes are the subject of social scientists may affect the considerable debate. Within such quality of public debate in Australia. debates, however, concern has been Why federal/state finances expressed about the impact of “perceptions of the state of matter commercialisation on the academic freedom were Julie Smith principle of ‘academic freedom’. overwhelmingly negative.” Overwork and deregulation As one commentator has observed, The study was exploratory in nature Clive Hamilton academic freedom is, the ‘key as little empirical research has been legitimating concept of a university’. conducted in Australia about the It is generally understood to be the issue. The intention of the study Institute Notes right of academics to teach, research was thus to gain an initial and publish contentious issues, to understanding of the issues involved Editorial Committee choose their own research colleagues and the types of challenges, Clive Hamilton and to feel supported by the problems or benefits that Pamela Kinnear institution to speak on social or accompany the new environment. policy issues in areas of their expertise without fear or favour. In many respects, the idea of academic Major Findings freedom is what distinguishes As Table 1 shows, respondents’ universities from other research and perceptions of the state of academic education or training agencies. freedom were overwhelmingly negative. Ninety-two per cent 1 THE AUSTRALIA INSTITUTE Fig.1 Overall concern with state of be highly important. reducing academics’ academic freedom. Despite this fewer independent research time; than half were highly · the pressure to engage in 60 satisfied with these attracting research funding aspects. Only 38 per from industry increasingly 50 cent were highly satisfied channeled academic effort 40 with their freedom to into safe, well defined areas publish without fear of rather than speculative % 30 censorship. Sixteen ones; per cent expressed · the emphasis on fee-based 20 low satisfaction with courses for domestic and 10 the latter. Twenty- international students seven per cent undermined teaching 0 expressed low standards; and Not at all To a minor To a major satisfaction with their · the emphasis on fee-based extent extent freedom to determine courses benefited student standards. disciplines that were reported that they were vocational rather than concerned about the state of These perceptions seemed to be speculative and redirected academic freedom, with 37 per founded on personal teaching focus to areas cent reporting major concern. experience. When asked about tangential to academics’ Seventy-three per cent reported their experiences of expertise. that there had been a commercialisation and deterioration in academic academic freedom, 17 per cent freedom over the past four years, of respondents reported that “What is a University for? and 45 per cent of these they had been prevented from What should be its defining perceived a major deterioration publishing contentious results role?” (fig. 2). Of these, 81 per cent and a further 41 per cent said considered that the deterioration that they felt discomfort with Not all experiences with was a result of doing so. Almost one in two commercialisation were commercialisation. respondents reported that they negative. Indeed, a number of were reluctant to criticise respondents reported that These findings are particularly institutions that provide large commercialisation created worrying in the face of the fact research grants or other forms greater accountability and that nearly all respondents rated of support. relevance to industry, most aspects of academic government and community freedom as highly important. Responses to open-ended questions and counteracted subservience This was especially so in relation and interviews revealed a number to dominant ideologies within to the freedom to define their of systemic effects of academia. Some also thought own research topics and to commercialisation on academic that collaboration with industry publish without fear of freedom. These were: and government improved the censorship. The freedom to · that increased workloads, quality of research by forcing teach contentious propositions arising from additional application of research to ‘real and to determine student commercial research and world’ situations. This standards was also considered to teaching activities, were indicates that it is not the commercialisation per se that is Fig. 2 Extent of change in academic freedom, past 4 years. the problem, but rather the way 50 that commercialisation has been 45 managed. 40 35 Implications 30 % 25 The changes to the sector in 20 recent years have stimulated a 15 public debate about the identity 10 and purpose of universities. 5 These findings sound some 0 major minor no change minor major deterioration deterioration improvement improvement Fcontinued on page 3 2 THE AUSTRALIA INSTITUTE from page 2 Hard questions about soft marking – warning bells for the university claims go to Senate sector and raise questions of how academic freedom can be Speaking at the National Press Several cases of alleged soft th marking for full fee-paying stu- maintained in the rapidly Club on 14 March, the President of the Australian Vice- dents have become public since changing environment of Chancellors’ Committee, Profes- the media attention in January. Australian universities. What is sor Ian Chubb, admitted that the The Institute has also collated all a university for? What should universities had been caught off- of these allegations into a dossier be its defining role? Should guard by the recent media storm as an appendix to its Senate sub- the idea of academic freedom over complaints by academics mission. One of the most dis- remain a core value of the about unfair practices involving turbing cases is that of Associate university sector? If so, how full fee-paying students. Professor Ted Steele who was should it be protected? sacked by the University of Wol- The furore was sparked by pre- longong for saying he had been liminary findings of the Australia instructed to up-grade two hon- Historically the idea of Institute’s academic freedom sur- academic freedom has been ours students. The Steele case vey which suggested that sends a clear message - “If you supported by a range of ‘pressure to increase the numbers blow the whistle, your job is on institutional structures and of fee-paying students was under- the line”. administrative arrangements. mining teaching standards’. However as universities change, The first response of some uni- The vice-chancellors should not these supporting structures also versity administrators to com- have been shocked by the allega- change. New ways of plaints of soft-marking and pref- tions. The issue of preferential erential treatment has been to ac- organizing academic work may treatment for full fee-paying stu- cuse the academics themselves or now be required. However, in dents has been festering away for deny the existence of problems. dismantling and replacing these some time in the corridors of our But the issue must now be seen structures, sufficient account universities, and is a manifesta- as part of the larger problem of must be taken of how to protect tion of the changes that commer- the warping of values and stan- core values of university cialisation of the sector has brought dards by the pressures of com- education and research. The over the last decade or so. me rcialisation and the erosion of findings of this exploratory Despite not setting out to investi- collegial decision-making. study suggest that academic gate ‘soft-marking’, the Institute If the doubts about the quality of freedom may be eroding. study uncovered considerable Australian degrees are not to go Changes do not so far appear to concern about this issue through back underground it is in the in-