Managerialism and Academic Professionalism in English Universities by Ailsa Kolsaker Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Political, International and Policy Studies School of Arts University of Surrey September 2007 © Ailsa Kolsaker 2007 Abstract The purpose of this thesis is to illuminate the relationship between managerialism and academic professionalism. It aims to examine how managerial discourses affect academic professionism and the role played by manager-academics. The research surveyed full-time academic staff at chartered and statutory universities. Employing a mixed methodology and stratified random sampling, a focus group and interviews at various institutions were followed by a quantitative survey in which 7,000 full-time staff were invited to participate; 708 responded. The methodology enabled a comparative analysis of variables such as institutional type, rank, gender and number of years employed as an academic across various structuring contexts including workload, managerialism and professionalism. Mirroring earlier literature, the current research indicates worsening conditions across the sector in terms of workload, bureaucracy, prescription and finding time for research. The contribution of this research is the discovery that despite greater demands, academics appear resilient, demonstrating a high level of normative professionalism and surprisingly little instrumentality. They appear generally ambivalent towards managerialism in universities, tending to blame broader societal and political changes for the worsening conditions. Manager-academics were not rated well however, and were not generally seen as supportive. The implications of these findings for public policy and institutional middle management are discussed. It is concluded that academics are perhaps more resilient than earlier studies suggest; that they can be expected to resist managerial activities that threaten their values and autonomy and that hitherto they have been relatively successful in defending their professionalism. It is suggested that efforts now should be directed towards ensuring that the cadre of professional administrators appointed by universities over the last decade or so actually deal with the administration, allowing academics to concentrate on pedagogy. It is also further suggested that manager-academics abandon bureaucracy as a mode of indirect control and develop more 'hands on' social skills to enable them to manage in a consultative, inclusive and motivating manner. For their part, academics need to be cognizant of the political discourses challenging their professionalism and how new forms of accountability might be built upon to enhance trust, motivation, reflexivity and democratic dialogue in an era driven by economic rationality. Contents Page no. Chapter 1: Introduction 1.0 Background 1 1.1 The Significance of the Research 2 1.2 Research Aims and Objectives 5 1.3 Research Design 7 1.4 Structure of the Thesis 10 Chapter 2: Neoliberalism and Higher Education 2.0 Introduction 12 2.1 The Rise ofNeoIiberalism 13 2.2 University Funding and the 'Marketisation' of Higher Education 16 2.2.1 Early 1980s 16 2.2.2 Late 1980s 19 2.2.3 The 1990s 22 2.2.4 From 2000 26 2.3 The 'Commodification' of Higher Education 27 2.3.1 Implications 29 2.4 Power Relations 30 2.5 Conclusion 32 Chapter 3: Managerialism and Higher Education 3.0 Introduction 33 3.1 New Managerialism 35 3.1.2 Criticism of managerialism 38 3.2 The 'Right to Manage' and Systems of Control 40 3.3 Coercion and Subjectivization 43 3.4 Accountability 45 3.5 Performance Monitoring as a Mechanism of Coercion 48 3.6 Conflicting Norms 50 3.7 Conclusion 54 Chapter 4: Technologies of Control and Practices of Self 4.0 Introduction 56 4.1 Technologies and Practices 56 4.2 Academic Identity and Constitution of the Self 57 4.3 Inter-dependency . 59 4.4 Reworked Relations between Government and Institutions 62 4.5 Academics' Resilience to Managerialism 64 4.6 Professionalism as a Mode of Control 68 4.7 Conclusion 70 ii Chapter 5: Academic Professionalism 5.0 Introduction - Professionalism Defined 71 5.1 The Academic Profession, the State and SocietY 72 5.2 Defining Academic Professionalism 75 5.3 Academic Professionalism and Discourse 78 5.4 Managerialism, Proletarianisation and Deprofessionalisation 80 5.5 Practising Epistomologists 86 Part II 5.6 Instrumentality and Sensemaking 89 5.7 Social Construction 91 5.7.1 Symbolic processes 92 5.8 Sensemaking 93 5.9 Mental Mapping 94 5.9.1 Cues and Schemas 95 5.10 Behavioural Outcomes 98 5.11 Sensemaking and Professional Identity 99 5.12 Research Model 101 5.12 Research Propositions 103 5.14 Conclusion 104 Chapter 6: Methodology 6.0 Introduction 106 6.1 Section I 107 6.1.1 Critique 107 6.1.2 Rationale for Employing Critique 108 6.1.3 Objectivity and Researcher Bias 113 6.1.4 Principle of Rationality and the Logic of Choice 114 6.1.5 Power Relations 115 6.2 Section II 119 6.2.1 Research Question, Aims and Objectives 119 6.2.2 Research Design 120 6.2.3 Structure 123 6.2.4 Research Population and Sampling Methodology 124 6.2.5 Sampling Frame 128 6.2.6 Data Collection 131 6.2.6.1 Stage I - the FocusGroup 130 6.2.6.2 Stage II- the Interviews 134 6.2.6.3 Stage III - the Survey 139 11l 6.3 Assessing Normality 142 6.4 Profile of Respondents 144 6.5 Assumptions and Limitations 146 6.6 Conclusion 148 Chapter 7 7.0 Introduction 151 7.1 Workload lSI 7.1.1. Workload and Performance 155 7.1.2 Workload and Finding Time for Research 163 7.1.3 Workload and Autonomy 166 7.2 Managerialism 176 7.2.1 Accountability and Control 177 7.2.2. Management Supportiveness 188 7.3 Coping Strategies 198 7.4 Professionalism 206 7.5 Higher Education Policy 216 7.6 Attractiveness of Academia 218 7.7 Conclusion 219 Chapter 8 8.0 Introduction 222 8.1 Research Propositions 224 8.2 Attractiveness of Academia 243 8.3 Conclusion 243 Chapter 9 9.0 Introduction 249 9.1 Implications and further development of theory about 249 managerial discourses and academic professionalism 9.2 Contributions of the research to existing knowledge 259 9.3 Limitations 261 9.4 Final Comments 263 List of References 265 Appendicies IV List of Tables Chapter 3 3.1 Contrast between traditional and managerial modes of governance 37 3.2 Characteristics of internal and external accountability 46 3.3 Traditional and managerial departments 51 3.4 Frontier between managers and academics 52 Chapter 5 5.1 Constituents of Professionalism 79 Chapter 6 6.1 List of English Universities 2005 126 6.2 Reliability and validity testing 140 6.3 Characteristics of academics in focus group 144 6.4 Characteristics of interviewees 144 6.5 Characteristics of Respondents in Quantitative Survey 145 6.6 Sampling Method 149 Chapter 7 7.1 Correlations between workload and performance 155 7.2 Regression analysis: workload and performance 158 7.3 Correlations between administration and progression 162 7.4 Descriptive statistics: weight of workloads 163 7.5 Correlations between workload and research time 163 7.6 Regression analysis: workload and research time 164 7.7 Correlations between heavier workloads and time for research 165 7.8 Regression analysis: heavier workloads and time for research 166 7.9 Descriptives: autonomy in research 171 7.10 Correlation: increasing constraints and research time 172 7.11 Correlation: autonomy in research and research time 172 7.12 Regression analysis: perceived constraints and overall constraints 182 7.13 Descriptives: management supportiveness 193 7.14 Correlations: managerial actions and evaluations of supportiveness 194 7.15 Regression analysis: management actions and feeling supported 194 7.16 Correlations: elements of professionalism 211 7.17 Descriptives: managerialism and professionalism 211 7.18 Correlations between elements ofmanagerialism 212 7.19 Factor analysis: managerialism and professionalism 215 v List of Figures Chapter 1: 1.1 Model of research design 9 Chapter 5 5.1 The professions and society 73 5.2 Sensemaking schemas 96 5.3 Research model 103 Chapter 6 6.1 First stage of methodology 131 6.2 Second stage of methodology 134 6.3 Third stage of methodology 139 6.4 Drop-out analysis 141 Acknowledgements I would like to thank my supervisors, Professor Mark Olssen and Professor Robin Middlehurst for their time in reviewing my work. Grateful thanks are due too to all those who participated in this research, without whom none of it would have been possible. I would like to acknowledge the School of Management for sponsoring me through this PhD, and my dear colleagues who have given moral support. I give special thanks and much love to my husband, John, and my children Helena and Kristian for putting up with me (!) Finally, I give grateful thanks to God for giving me the strength to pursue this project to the end. VI Chapter 1: Introduction 1.0 Background This thesis is concerned with the relationship between managerialism and academic professionalism in English universities. It explores the response of academics to managerial axioms in universities that promote accountability, quality, efficiency and value for money. Additionally, it seeks to provide useful pointers for manager-academics on how to improve departmental management by adopting appropriate techniques to support and motivate academic staff. It should be stated at the outset that the use of the term 'managerialism' is not intended pejoratively (as may be suggested by some of the extant literature). On the contrary, the researcher approaches the subject with an open mind. There will be no attempt force the data to 'prove' or 'disprove' any hypotheses - rather to explore, tentatively, the way in which incumbent role-holders define their everyday reality as academics working in modern universities. To some extent the thesis presents an ideal model of professionalism and it may be that universities never supported this.