CHANGES IN HIGHER EDUCATION: PERCEPTIONS OF ACADEMICS

Carolyn Broadbent

Australian Catholic University

Changing perceptions of the role of universities and ongoing change within the higher education sector have impacted significantly on the work practices of academics and the level of satisfaction experienced while working. As universities encounter increasingly competitive and turbulent environments, academics are constantly challenged to respond to change through the adoption of new strategies and reassessment of individual goals.

This paper explores the impact of change on academics at the Australian Catholic University. Unlike mergers which had seen the creation of multi-campus institutions in the one state, the formation of the Australian Catholic University brought together Catholic institutes spanning across the three states of Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria, and the A.C.T.

Through an analysis of interview responses gathered from academics across the eight campuses of the University, this paper provides insights into the nature of academics’ perceptions of change within the Australian Catholic University, the manner in which they conceptualise change and the way in which such change influences their vision for the growth and development of the institution in the future.

In December 1987 the Australian Government released a Green Paper on Higher Education in which it foreshadowed large scale restructuring. Although some people were pessimistic about the proposed changes to structures within higher education, others saw opportunities in the policies of the Green Paper for growth and innovation. The optimists welcomed a more liberal system of credit transfer which would enhance student mobility, greater staff development and the relaxation of restrictions on entrepreneurial activities. Institutions, it was argued, should take more responsibility for charting their future (Harman and Meek, 1988).

According to the Green Paper, a merger of one form or another would be a prerequisite for some institutions to gain entry into the new unified national system of higher education. Concerns regarding the creation and management of multi-campus institutions were expressed while others alluded to the destabilising effect that constant structural change had had on Australian higher education in the past. By continually shifting the component parts of the system, governments could appear to be doing a great deal to promote change, while actually accomplishing very little (Harman and Meek, 1988).

Publication of the White Paper on Higher Education in 1988 effectively ended the binary system that had characterised Australian higher education since the Martin Report in 1964. Under the binary system, the nineteen existing universities functioned as research and teaching institutions, whilst the expanding College of Advanced Education (CAE) sector, including the Institutes of Technology and the former teachers’ colleges, comprised institutes predominantly responsible for teaching undergraduate students. Like most binary systems, this was an hierarchical arrangement, with the traditional universities having higher status and higher levels of funding than CAEs (Nicholls and Allen, 1993).

Under the binary system, involvement in research effectively formed a dividing line between the colleges of advanced education and universities. For academics in the existing universities, research and the teaching of higher degree students was a distinguishing characteristic while CAE academics were generally categorised as non-researchers. While research experience and skill has generally been taken for granted in the traditional universities, many academics in the colleges of advanced education entered higher education in the early-to-mid seventies after substantial careers in schools, educational administration or in the private sector, and have since spent the following years mainly as teachers and administrators rather than as researchers (Nicholls & Allen, 1993).

As a result of the release of the White Paper, mergers of various institutes took place, including the amalgamations of four Catholic institutes of higher education situated along the eastern coast of Australia: Signadou Dominican College of Education in Canberra, McAuley College in Brisbane, Catholic College of Education in Sydney, and the Institute of Catholic Education in Melbourne. In 1990 the Australian Catholic University (ACU) was incorporated as a limited company and commenced operation in January 1991 with a centralised administration operating from the Vice Chancellery in Sydney and, at the time of the study, comprising eight campuses located in Brisbane, Ballarat, Melbourne (2), Sydney (3) and Canberra. The University is a member of the international Federation of Catholic Universities, the Association of Commonwealth Universities, and the Unified National System of Higher Education.

The origins of the University date back to the mid-1800s when religious orders and institutes began preparing teachers, and later nurses, for work in Catholic institutions. Since that time more than 20 historical entities, which included numerous amalgamations, relocations, transfers of responsibilities and diocesan initiatives, have contributed to the formation of the Australian Catholic University (Faculty of Education Handbook, 1997).

Unlike past mergers which had seen the creation of multi-campus institutions in the one state, the formation of the Australian Catholic University brought together Catholic institutes spanning across three states and a territory. In the resulting restructure of the institutes the Faculties of Health Sciences, Arts and Sciences, and Education were established and staff working within the structures of the previous institutes nominated their faculty preference for work in the newly established University. Further state-based schools and departments were established to facilitate local operations. Through the formation of discipline-based networks, under the direction of a convenor, staff engage in collaborative research and teaching projects, and contribute to curriculum development.

While many early studies of educational organisations focussed on administrative behaviour, present concerns concentrate on the impact of economic models (Johnson 1994; Currie & Woock, 1995; Marginson, 1995; Luke, 1997). A number of present-day influences on education policy and structures of policy production and practice as identified by Taylor et al (1997) include the role of markets in education, devolution, corporate managerialism, increased federal intervention and the development of human capital theory. As highlighted by Moses (1992) the pressure from government for universities to be more efficient has changed managerial priorities to favour entrepreneurial, short-term, commercial, community, industry or profession-linked programs at the expense of traditional values. As environments become increasingly competitive and turbulent, academics within universities are challenged to constantly respond to change through the adoption of new strategies and reassessment of individual goals.

During the 1980s a number of studies, predominantly of a survey nature, were carried

out on Australian academics, as summarised by Neumann (1993). While some studies focussed on issues such as employment conditions and career opportunities, others investigated academics’ preferences for teaching or research. Since the late 1980s many academics have expressed disquiet about the nature of their role in the workplace and the levels of stress and tension experienced (Hort and Oxley, 1992). According to Noble (1994) one of the most intractable issues for contemporary academia is the stress generated by the range of demands made on academics, especially commercial imperatives, the lack of time and the shortages of funding available. A 1993 report on Occupational Stress at the University of Adelaide (cited in Noble 1994) highlighted the significant increase in the number of staff suffering symptomatic illness in the work environment and identified such factors as increasing role conflict and ambiguity (particularly amongst amalgamated staff), an increase in responsibilities, poor management overall and information overload as underlying stressors.

Organisational constraints or aspects of the work environment including job related information, tools and equipment, materials and supplies, budgetary support, required services and help from others, task preparation, time availability and the physical work environment are known to not only interfere with and prevent good job performance (Peters and O’Connor, 1980; Spector et al, 1988) but to impact on employee satisfaction, frustration and possibly turnover as well (Spector, 1996). O’Connor, Peters, Rudolf and Pooyan (1982) found that high levels of situational constraints can be potentially detrimental to employees themselves, as well as to their

performance. Employees reporting high levels of constraints, it is argued, are also more likely to seriously consider resigning from their jobs (Jex and Gudanowski, 1992).

Increasingly, the success of any organisational merger might be assessed in terms of the impact the event has had on employee outcomes such as turnover, job satisfaction, commitment and stress (Cartwright and Cooper, 1994). Continuing research into the nature and impact of changes in the work of academics within universities is essential if the nature and level of that success is to be understood.

This paper reports on selected findings of the first stage of a qualitative study of the impact of change on academics situated across the eight campuses of the Australian Catholic University.

To determine the perceptions of the impact of change on academics within the ACU, data were collected through the use of focussed or semi-structured interviews. The interviews were conducted in a variety of settings on the eight campuses of the University in as stress-free an environment as possible to ensure participant comfort and free flowing discussion. By conducting interviews at the interviewee’s workplace, further insights regarding the nature of the work environment were gained. All interviews were taped and the content transcribed and coded for analysis. A set of 26 interview questions was designed to facilitate thinking about change under three broad areas: significant changes to higher education; significant changes within the local context of the ACU and finally the impact of change on individuals working within the organisation. Questions selected for analysis for this paper focus specifically on: (1) the positive or negative impact of the changes resulting from the amalgamation; (2) the personal impact of those changes; (3) any resultant changes to work behaviour or style and; (4) feelings in relation to those changes.

Participants were determined on the basis of an incidental or opportunistic approach to sampling and, as might be expected in an organisation undergoing considerable change, a wide range of academic staff occupying positions at various levels and across faculties within the University presented for interview. While accepting the limitations of an opportunistic approach, including that of replication, every effort was made to maintain a balance of factors such as gender, age, and geographical location in the sample.

Table 1 sets out the number of academics interviewed for this paper and the positions occupied within the three faculties. Level D equates to Associate Professor, Level C to Senior Lecturer and level B to Lecturer level. As academics within the Faculty of Health Sciences are presently under-represented at Level D within the University, none has been interviewed for this study.

Table 2 data are categorised according to the participant’s strength of response towards either a positive (P) or negative (N) view. Where a participant expressed both positive and negative views of similar strength and were ambivalent about the changes, the response was assigned to an Undecided (U) category.

Across all questions academics at all levels saw positive and negative aspects of the changes that had taken place both in the formation of the Australian Catholic University and the degree of personal upheaval within the workplace. Clearly those academics occupying higher positions regarded the changes as more beneficial and positive than did those academics occupying positions at Level B: 37% at D and 56% at Level C compared with 35% at B. This was an expected result given the greater opportunities for academics at higher levels to actively participate in decision-making processes and play a role in the direction of the developing institution through the formation of, and implementation of, policy and new procedures. There was a strong commitment to the acceptance of change regarding the concept and formation of an Australian Catholic University at Level D, less so at Level C and B.

62% of Level D academics accepted the need for changes as expressed in the statements ‘they allowed us to survive’ and were ‘beneficial to the concept of the University’. These academics regarded the changes as positively facilitating the involvement of the Church in tertiary education. This was seen as a logical step considering the importance placed on involvement in primary and secondary education by the founders of the predecessor colleges. Changes were also regarded as more beneficial for those who came into the University with high qualifications and who would have ‘stood their ground in any institution’. Similarly, benefits were also seen in the change in organisational culture to one where research is valued and intellectual isolation overcome through communication with colleagues in the same field within ACU and at other universities.

While acknowledging the benefits of structural and cultural changes, negative comments tended to highlight the significant impact of the changes on staff members over which the Level D academics had responsibility. The possibility that such dramatic changes had not been sufficiently recognised and adequately catered for in terms of human relations was of concern to them as well as the stress generated by the transitional process from a relatively small field of operation to a substantially broader arena with higher expectations and performance levels. While tolerance was sought for those preferring to remain primarily as teachers, it was believed that such a preference would be corrected over time as more ‘research-oriented’ academics gain employment at the University.

On a personal level, some 37% of Level D academics responded positively and welcomed such aspects as the more favourable research climate, especially for those who had always worked as ‘unrecognised’ researchers ‘swimming against the tide’ in the predecessor colleges. However, gains in this area were countered by increases in the amount of administration and the need to work much harder due to the diversity of tasks, lack of direction and unpredictable nature of the job. Sustained research effort was viewed as difficult by some given the workload necessitated by the major transition from a college of education environment to that of a university. Continual revamping and development of new national courses for use across campuses was seen positively as providing opportunities for ownership by faculty members but time consuming and restrictive in terms of meeting state-based requirements.

In regard to changes to work behaviour or style of operation, nearly all Level D academics consider they work harder and have increased the amount of time spent on the job, either by extending the length of the day or working on weekends. Other coping strategies adopted ranged from: building in safe-guards to work patterns to relieve pressure and allow some flexibility; decreasing the amount of time allocated to specific jobs even though the ‘quality is clearly not there’; and in one extreme ‘leaving the organisation’.

While some 37% of academics expressed positive feelings towards the changes and felt challenged by the new environment, more expressed negative feelings and cited increased stress and tension, irritation and a perception of becoming smaller rather than larger as the campus identity or personality becomes lost in the ongoing development of the new institution.

Some 37% of Level C academics responded positively to the process of amalgamation and formation of ACU citing the development of a corporate image, the emphasis on research, the value of research in strengthening the teaching profile, and the opportunities for staff to develop academic pursuits, extend capabilities and to communicate with colleagues. Students were also regarded as members of the wider university community gaining status through course diversification and cross campus associations. A further 62% were undecided and positive comments were tempered by negative perceptions regarding the possibility that as the University increases in size, the level of care for students might diminish. Other concerns expressed were the high levels of stress experienced by staff under pressure to upgrade qualifications and engage in research and, in the field of Nursing, the difficulty of maintaining clinical school credibility with students given the multitude of other functions academics are now expected to carry out. Previously, staff had engaged in shift work in hospitals to maintain skills.

The movement towards over-centralisation of functions was seen as a concern by most Level C academics, especially in regard to aspects such as the efficiency of day to day operations. Some reservations were expressed concerning the move to ‘be like other universities’ and the danger of only adopting strategies that appear financially viable, rather than accepting the special serving mission of the University to pursue a direction which other universities might find less attractive but which is in keeping with Catholic and community social interests.

At a personal level 75% of academics generally found the changes beneficial. Some found the transition straightforward, while others felt liberated by the opportunity to pursue areas of ‘real interest’ and move into areas not possible under the previous structures. Opportunity to take part in shaping the faculty and assist in laying down foundations was seen as positive while, on the negative side, staff believed they were demanding more of themselves, working harder than ever before and feeling more tired in the process.

Changes to work behaviour or style were perceived as positive by 75% of the interviewees and most had attempted to modify work practices to cope with the increased work load. These took the form of attempts to ‘work smarter’, ‘run faster’, compartmentalise work tasks, modify teaching style to encourage student independence in learning, and work more from home.

Feelings towards the changes to work behaviour or style were generally positive (37%) or ambivalent (50%). While mention was made of the overall pressure and frustration experienced when work plans do not develop as expected, comments such as being ‘comfortable most of the time’, ‘feel good about the contribution I have made’, ‘happy enough in myself’ and ‘can’t hold onto the past’ were indicative of the level of acceptance of the changes and degree of personal comfort experienced while working.

Of those interviewed, academics at this level presented the most negative outlook and generally perceived the changes as having fewer benefits than did those occupying higher levels within the organisation. As distinct from many Level C academics who prefaced their comments with a very affirming ‘Yes’ in response to whether the changes had been beneficial, Level B academics were more hesitant, generally choosing the words ‘I think so’ before identifying any benefits. General structures in which to work were perceived as beneficial for those at the top and the concept of a national Catholic University was regarded as good for Australia. Upgrading of educational standards to a more rigorous level was also seen to be beneficial. Of interest was the perception that change would, in the ‘long run’, be beneficial, and the resignation that there was ‘no choice’ in the matter. Change was seen as transitory, something to be experienced, tolerated, to be ‘got over and done with’, before hopefully moving ‘out of the clouds’ into a period of greater stability.

While some 30% of Level B academics regarded the changes as exciting and providing opportunities for personal development and progression within the organisation, another 60% voiced concerns for the personal stress placed on staff, the difficulties of operating from a distance (ie, across campuses), excessive paper work, feelings of inadequacy regarding teaching preparation time, problems of credibility and the lack of consultation in the implementation of management and organisational structures. Adjustments to work behaviour included specific changes to teaching practices, thinking ahead, and becoming more skilled in the use of technology. Other strategies adopted to cope with the increased workload included taking more work home and actually working at home more to avoid phone calls and disruptions. Overall, feelings about the changes by Level B academics were fairly evenly spread with 30% positive, 40% negative and 30% undecided.

 This research found that academics across all levels of the University perceive they have been significantly affected, either in a positive or negative way, by the changes that have taken place as a result of the amalgamation of various state and territory based Catholic institutes of higher education. The deep emotional impact of the changes in the workplace during this period of rapid change is also noted. Level B academics appear most affected by the changes.

Virtually all academics interviewed had modified their work behaviour significantly to be able to cope with the changes to their former role. Those academics strongly oriented towards research more readily welcomed the changes, while those with a strong preference for teaching felt under pressure to develop a research profile.

At a personal level, feelings towards the changes were positive for some academics, but a greater proportion recorded negative effects. Of special concern is that, as a result of the changes, personal working relationships may be suffering and the home life for some academics negatively affected.

This study highlights the nature of academics’ perceptions of change within their immediate workplace. Ideally, academics wish for a settled workplace in which they can operate in an effective and efficient manner in carrying out the academic work that they know best, free from the day-to-day constraints on work behaviour and effective execution of duties. Such a workplace environment may have existed in the past but does not accord with present day economic imperatives. Due to the unpredictable nature of the work environment created, academics might well be said to be operating in a state of constant shock. For many, each new change brings with it a sense of loss and new shocks; adaptation can be mentally, physically and emotionally exhausting. This is reflected in the finding that only an overall 33% of academics (9 out of 26) in this study expressed positive feelings towards the changes.

Cartwright, S. and Cooper, C. (1994) The human effects of mergers and acquisitions. In Cooper, C. and Rousseau, D. Trends in organisational behaviour. Wiley, Chichester.

Currie, J. and Woock, R. (1995) Deck chairs on the Titanic: Award restructuring for academics in the age of economic rationalism. In Smyth, J. Academic Work. Open University Press, Buckingham, MK.

Faculty of Education (1997) Faculty of Education handbook. Australian Catholic University, Sydney, p6.

Harman, G. (1988) Studying mergers in higher education. In Harman, G. and Meek, L. (Eds) Institutional amalgamations in higher education: Process and outcome in five countries. Department of Administrative and Higher Education Studies, University of New England, Chapter 1, pp1-7.

Harman, G. & Meek, V. (Eds) (1988) Australian higher education reconstructed?: Analysis of the proposals and assumptions of the Dawkins Green Paper. Dept. of Administrative and Higher Education Studies, University of NE, pp1-11.

Hort, L. & Oxley, H. (1992) Academic perceptions of their roles pre and post the new higher education policy. The Australian Universities’ Review, Vol 35(2), pp13-16.

Jex, S.M. and Gudanowski, D.M. (1992) Efficacy beliefs and work stress: An exploratory study. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 13, pp509-517.

Johnson, W. (1994) Theory and practice in tertiary administration - does research teach us anything? Journal of Tertiary Education Administration, 16(2), pp161-178.

Luke, A. (1997) New narratives of human capital: Recent redirections in Australian

educational policy. The Australian Educational Researcher, 24(2) August, pp1-21.

Marginson, S. (1995) Markets in higher education. In Smyth, J. Academic work. Open University, Buckingham, MK.

Moses, I. (1992) Academic work reconsidered. The Australian Universities Review, 35(2), pp5-8.

Neumann, R. (1993) Academic work: Perceptions of senior academic administrators, Australian Educational Researcher, 20(1), pp33-47.

Nicholls, J. & Allen, M. (1993) Demystifying research. In Beattie, K. (Ed.) So where’s your research profile? Union of Australian College of Academics, pp7-9.

Noble, A. (1994) Enhancing the quality of academic life - the issue for the 90’s? HERDSA News, 16(3), pp6-9.

O’Connor, E.J., Peters, L.H., Rudolf, C.J., and Pooyan, A. (1982) Situational constraints and employee affective reactions: A partial field replication. Group and Organisation Studies, 7, pp418-428.

Peters, L.H. and O’Connor, E.J. (1980) Situational constraints and work outcomes: The influences of a frequently overlooked construct. Academy of Management Review, 5, pp391-397.

Spector, P.E. (1996) Industrial and organisational psychology: Research and practice. Toronto, John Wiley and Sons.

Spector, P.E., Dwyer, D.J., and Jex, S.M. (1988) Relation of job stressors to affective, health, and performance outcomes: A comparison of multiple data sources. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, pp11-19.

Taylor, S., Risvi, F., Lingard, B. and Henry, M. (1997) Educational policy and the politics of change. Routledge, London.