Paper Not to be Cited or Reproduced without Prior Permission of

the Authors

Centralisation and Devolution through Corporate Managerialism

in American and Australian Universities

Jan Currie and Lesley Vidovich

School of Education

Murdoch University

Murdoch, WA 6150

email: currie@central.murdoch.edu.au

vidovich@central.murdoch.edu.au

Fax: 618 9 360 6296

Tel: 618 9 360 2377

Paper Presented to the

Australian Association for Research in Education

30 November - 4 December 1997

Brisbane, Australia

Centralisation and Devolution through Corporate Managerialism

in American and Australian Universities

Jan Currie and Lesley Vidovich

Introduction

A shift from collegial to managerial forms of university governance has

been widely observed as a 'global' trend (Yeatman, 1993; Altbach,

1994), and the strengths and weaknesses of collegial versus managerial

approaches have been debated at some length in recent literature.

However, contrasting these styles as binary opposites masks their

complexities and ignores the possibility of multiple and often hybrid

'models' of decision making. Our primary intention here is to

investigate some of the dynamics and tensions inherent in the way

different decision making styles are currently played out in

universities. We draw on interviews with academics in six universities

in Australia and the United States to identify some of the 'messy

realities' (Ball, 1994) of university governance, including unintended

effects of the predominant 'top-down' approaches, as perceived by our

respondents.

The choice of countries was not accidental. They both have adopted 'New

Right' practices and the rhetoric of globalization as an ideology which

assumes the dominance of market forces. A number of commentators in

Australia have described changes in Australian universities as

representing an Americanization of higher education and thus case

studies of universities in both countries allow us to examine this

phenomenon. Such comparisons also enable American educators to contrast

their own experiences with change processes in a more centralized

system.

In the concluding discussion, we propose that the first step in

dislodging the hegemony of corporate managerial discourse would be to

preserve and extend the remnants of genuinely consultative and

participative decision making that are still evident (albeit in

fragments) in some of the universities studied. Next, the advantages

embedded in alternative modes of decision making could be legitimated

in recognizing multiple styles, the particular combination of which

would vary across and within universities, as well as over time. Then,

more careful consideration must be given to the way in which 'top-down'

and 'bottom-up' styles articulate.

Conceptual tools

Three particular terms Ð collegiality, bureaucracy and managerialism

(including 'corporate' managerialism) Ð were used frequently by

interview respondents to describe both the existing and the changing

nature of decision making in their university. It is important to

emphasise that these are not unproblematic 'pure types' about which

there is common understanding, and thus we will begin by describing

their features in order to then critique them and later use them as

analytic tools to examine our interview data. Although bureaucratic and

managerial styles have been clearly distinguished as 'ideal types' in

the literature, respondents often used them interchangeably, especially

when referring to 'top-down' modes of decision making. Collegiality was

usually juxtaposed against these other forms.

In its 'ideal type', collegiality is characterized by shared decision

making along with trust, openness, concern and cooperation (Miller &

Findlay, 1996). It is associated with the exercise of individual

autonomy within the 'umbrella' of collective action, so that leadership

functions can be extended through many levels of the organization from

senior to junior staff (Middlehurst & Elton, 1992). Although this

'type' is usually associated with traditional style universities, in

reality dissatisfaction with control by 'god-professors' (Moses, 1995)

and claims that traditional university governance was authoritarian,

undemocratic, hierarchical and characterized by poor communication

channels (Moodie, 1995) have been common. Even if some form of

collegiality did exist in the past, it has come under pressure as the

market mentality dominates and there is a push for rapid responses to

changing external circumstances, thus rendering the time consuming

consultative processes too slow (Bessant, 1995).

Bureaucracy (the second 'ideal type' referred to by respondents)

features highly centralized decision making with control through close

supervision and an emphasis on standard operating procedures to produce

uniformity across the organization. In Australia, the former colleges

of advanced education were characterized by bureaucratic

structures/processes to a greater extent than the traditional

universities (Department of Employment Education and Training, 1993;

McCollow & Lingard, 1996). In the United States community colleges have

been known to be more bureaucratic than research universities. When

Lawton (1992) outlined a critique of bureaucracies on philosophical,

technological, social and practical grounds, he identified the

practical problems of inefficiencies and inability to attain specified

purposes as the primary concerns. Such difficulties were exacerbated by

the growing volume of information required to make appropriate

decisions. Further public service bureaucracies were seen to benefit

their own members more than the public they were supposed to serve.

In more recent times, the 'ideal type' of managerialism has been

heralded as a panacea for the inefficiencies of unwieldy and self

serving bureaucracies, and the even slower pace of democratic decision

making with its proliferation of representative committees. Hence,

efficiency (minimizing costs) and effectiveness (maximizing outcomes)

are emphasized as the key features of managerialism (Angus, 1994;

Marceau, 1995). Managerialism is commonly perceived as the

administrative form associated with the prevailing ideology of

neo-liberalism, the New Right or more commonly known as economic

rationalism in Australia (Pusey, 1991; Marginson, 1993). It

simultaneously features the contradictory directions of centralization

and decentralization (or devolution) of decision making (Angus, 1994;

Zusman, 1994). A managerial elite at the top sets the goals and then a

line management system is established (from the Vice-Chancellor or

President through to Heads of Departments) where each subordinate is

accountable to a superior for his/her performance (Watkins, 1992).

Budgetary responsibility is devolved through this route. Managerialism

has been described as a mechanism for 'tight-loose' coupling with

central control over goals or 'ends' but flexibility over the

procedures or 'means' (Lawton, 1992; Angus, 1994; Ball, 1994).

Criticism of managerialism is extensive in the current literature,

given its prominent position in public sector restructuring, including

universities. The claimed enhanced efficiency and effectiveness as the

primary advantage of managerialism has been challenged on various

grounds, especially by academics. Treuren (1996) maintains that there

is little evidence that line management has led to greater productivity

or efficiency. Instead, there have been assertions that both efficiency

and effectiveness have suffered because managerialism has impacted on

staff to increase alienation and decrease morale (Altbach, 1994;

Bessant, 1995; Moses, 1995), so that commitment to work towards

management-prescribed goals is reduced. There is also the argument that

the increasing percentages of both staff and budgets spent on

'administration' is both inefficient and ineffective as it diverts

resources away from the core productive activities of teaching and

research (Solomon & Solomon, 1993; Welch, 1995). The Solomons (1993)

describe some of the effects of adopting the corporate metaphor which

tends to shift resources of the university 'upstairs': "Administrators

come to think of themselves as the university, just as corporate

management has come to think of itself as the corporation" (p. 33).

Others argue that devolution of some of the administrative tasks to

those who are still trying to teach and research is only likely to be

done badly as academics have not been trained in management skills

(Welch, 1995). Moreover, the system of accountability required to

monitor the performance of academic staff necessitates much

documentation Ð form filling and report writing Ð so that the amount of

time lower level line managers can spend on their own area of expertise

is then restricted (Yeatman, 1993; Meadmore, Limerick, Thomas & Lucas,

1995; Hort, 1996).

The rhetoric of devolution promises professional autonomy, but critics

argue that the power relationships are obscured, and in particular,

there are questions about whether it is responsibility, without power,

which is devolved. A number of commentators draw on Foucault's notions

of disciplinary power and surveillance to describe the new forms of

governmentality by institutional managers (Ball, 1990; Ball, 1994;

Fitzsimons, 1995; Meadmore et al., 1995).

Performance management (inherent in the system of accountability

associated with managerialism) has been criticised for distorting and

narrowing the work of academics in favour of the most readily

documented and measured activities, and therefore ignoring issues such

as quality, potential and reflective practice, so that in the end

academic work will be "transformed into something not recognisable as

academic work" (Hort, 1996, p. 5). The role of managerialism in

distorting the university 'enterprise' towards economic priorities,

ignoring social and cultural dimensions, has been a major concern about

the reforms to university management (Marceau, 1995; Bates, 1996).

The various critiques of managerialism might be drawn together by

pointing to its over-emphasis on processes or 'means', and its

concomitant narrowing of the goals or 'ends' which are deemed to be

legitimate outcomes. Thus, while bureaucracies (as large organizations

with both 'ends' and 'means' predetermined) epitomised modernism, the

rhetoric of managerial culture (with flexibility created through local

discretion over the 'means') appears to be more consistent with a

postmodern approach to organizations. Arguably though, managerialism

may represent a more subtle control mechanism capable of bringing

surveillance closer to the 'workface' through more sophisticated

accountability procedures Ð and thus we would argue a case for

heightened modernity.

When a governance style is described as managerial, the adjective

'corporate' is often used, signifying that business/industry has been

the source of the model. With stronger links being forged between the

corporate sector and universities, the cross-fertilisation of cultures

(theoretically two-way) is likely to be enhanced. In Australia, a

number of commentators have argued that the ideologues promulgating

this 'corporate' managerial approach to public sector reform have come

from the government rather than the corporate sector (Pusey, 1991;

Marginson, 1993; Bessant, 1995; Symes, 1996). This observation is

consistent with the notion that the state has been redefined as a

mechanism for steering market forces (Bates, 1996; Lingard, 1996).

Yeatman situates the reconfiguration of the state in a global context:

This has indeed meant Ð at least in the Anglo-American liberal

democracies Ð a rolling back of the welfare state. It has not meant a

rolling back of the state as such. Instead the direction of the state's

interventions and commitments have changed. Cerny (1990) summarises

this change as one from the welfare state to the competition state.

(Yeatman, 1993, p. 3)

Regardless of which agent has forged the changes, the suitability of

directly importing corporate models for university governance has been

questioned extensively (Coaldrake, 1995; Berman, in press; Marginson,

in press). It is ironic that businesses, which supposedly provided the

model for more efficient and effective higher education institutions,

are moving to flatten management hierarchies, at a time when

universities are still initiating moves to build them (Middlehurst &

Elton, 1992), particularly by strengthening middle management in the

form of executive deans. This is very well captured in a quote from one

of our respondents describing the decision making structure at Florida

State University:

Outside, they are cutting down middle-management and doing more and

more team decision making and more collegial decision making. We are

going more toward top down hierarchical decision making in universities

. (FSU572)

The Australian Context

In Australia, while legislation for education remains a state

responsibility, the federal government, largely through its control of

income tax since World War II, has the 'power of the purse'. Thus,

during the latter half of this century the federal government's role in

determining education policy directions has escalated significantly. In

the higher education arena, a key turning point for federal government

control occurred in 1974 when the Whitlam Labor Government at the

federal level abolished university fees and took full financial

responsibility for the sector. Despite the fact that governments had

been the almost exclusive providers of higher education in Australia,

universities had enjoyed relative autonomy in determining their own

directions. This tradition was largely maintained until the 1980s when

the Hawke Labor Government at the federal level set in motion a

'revolution' (Karmel, 1990) designed to increase the federal

government's control over universities in order to harness them to

serve the national interest.

Under Minister Dawkins (1987-91), the whole education 'industry' was to

be restructured to improve its efficiency and effectiveness, consistent

with reforms across the public sector in Australia (Halligan, 1992).

Education would no longer have its own portfolio, but would be driven

by economic parameters, as reflected in the new title of the Department

of Employment, Education and Training (DEET). The large, independent

education commissions, which offered expert advice to the minister,

would be replaced by a smaller and underresourced National Board of

Employment, Education and Training, giving tighter control to the

minister.

Minister Dawkins released a Green (discussion) Paper on higher

education reforms in 1987 and then the White (policy) Paper in 1988,

with the latter showing few changes from the former (despite extensive

submissions from interested parties), suggesting that the government's

agenda was already firmly set (Dudley & Vidovich, 1995). The essence of

the White Paper was to bring together 'old' and 'new' (former colleges

of advanced education) universities to graduate more students at a

faster rate from a smaller number of institutions (reduced to 37

universities through amalgamations). Institutions would negotiate their

profiles for teaching and research with the federal government, taking

national priorities such as science, technology and business into

account. Both competition and attraction of non-government funds would

be encouraged, especially in the research area. In terms of university

management, the Minister's intention to streamline decision making

along corporate lines was clear:

The governing body will only operate more effectively where the number

of members is substantially lower ... An appropriate guide to size and

composition can be drawn from boards of large private sector

organizations.... The Government expects governing bodies to delegate

clear responsibility and authority to their Chief Executive

Officers.... It will assist institutions in undertaking reviews of

their internal management structures.... the reviews will be designed

to help institutions achieve

¥ strong managerial modes of operation. ...

¥ adequate levels of consultation with, and accountability to,

government, employers, employees, students and the community.

¥ streamlined decision making processes; and

¥ maximum flexibility in the capacity of an institution to implement new

policies, with minimal time lag between making and implementing

decisions. (Dawkins, 1988, p. 103)

In general, the White Paper reforms were noted for the speed and

success of their implementation, with almost all in place by the end of

the first triennium of operation of the new Unified National System of

higher education in 1991. However, the policies on university

management styles were slower than most others to be implemented.

Arguably, the momentum for reform of university management was

maintained by the federal government with its program of quality

reviews between 1993 and 1995 and the review of university management

conducted by a banker, David Hoare, in 1995, just before the Labor

Government was voted out of office in 1996. The subsequent Coalition

(conservative) Government instituted severe cutbacks to higher

education in its 1996 budget (total cuts for 1997-2000 of 6% to

operating grants as well as no supplementation for salary increases

which totalled another 12%) forcing institutions to further restructure

with sizeable redundancies of staff. The overall effect of the

government-driven reforms has been privatization and corporatization of

Australian higher education, so that according to many commentators it

increasingly resembles an American style market system (McCollow &

Lingard, 1996; McCulloch & Lewis, 1997).

The American Context

In contrast to the more centralized control of higher education in

Australia where change can be rapid and systematic, higher education in

the United States is decentralized, and mostly controlled by state

legislatures rather than the federal government, so the changes tend to

be more incremental and not evenly applied across the nation. As

described by McGuinness, "American higher education remains perhaps the

most diverse, decentralized, private, market-driven system in the

world" (1994, p. 158). At the same time, he noted that higher education

(with approximately 3500 institutions) is moving towards a more public

system with 80 percent of enrollments in public institutions.

Similar to Australia, American universities have been affected by

fiscal constraints, especially the public institutions. As many writers

have noted, American public higher education in the l990s is undergoing

a period of financial cutbacks more severe than any since World War II

(Slaughter, 1993; Solomon & Solomon, 1993; Altbach, 1994; Zusman,

1994). The reduced funding by the states for higher education began in

the early 1970s during the Nixon administration when the idea of market

forces in higher education was introduced (Committee on Economic

Development, 1993). In the Reagan years of the 1980s greater

competitiveness entered the system through the formation of groups such

as the Business-Higher Education Forum and through Congressional

legislation which translated competitiveness policies into law

(Slaughter & Rhoades, 1996). These laws allowed universities to

participate in profit taking and develop business arms and links with

corporations. Slaughter (in press) points out that these laws

encouraged deregulation, privatization and commercialization of

university activities, breaking down the relatively rigid

organizational boundaries that had previously guarded universities'

autonomy. She described these moves as a shift towards 'academic

capitalism', especially in the fields of science and engineering where

universities were rewarded by the federal government for pursuing

commercial initiatives.

Zusman (1994) noted that one of the impacts of the budget cuts and the

need to privatize and commercialize the university is a greater

centralization of authority within the university. Slaughter also

concluded that retrenchments "generally undermine faculty participation

in governance and faculty authority over the direction of the

curriculum" (1993, p. 276). Concurrently, there has been a shift to

adopt business language and practices. As early as 1983 George Keller

wrote about the management revolution in American higher education and

his book soon became the bible of the current crop of university

administrators. Berman comments on this in "The Entrepreneurial

University":

By the 1980s "strategic planning" had become fashionable on many

American campuses. And so it was at my institution, the University of

Louisville. One of the new president's early efforts was the

development of a strategic plan to better position the university for

its redefined mission within the state system. This plan led to a

significant institutional reorganization. This reorganizational phase

was marked by presidential demands for greater "accountability",

especially from the faculty; an emphasis on increased faculty

productivity; new budgeting techniques and lines of reporting; and the

addition of numerous well-compensated administrators. Faculty and staff

salaries and increments from now on would reflect "performance-based"

measures, standards from which high-ranking administrators and the

president himself were exempted. (Berman, in press, pp. 7-8)

Berman's description of key changes in his university is often

reflected in the critiques of reforms in Australian universities, which

suggests that the ascent of managerialism in universities has occurred

in both countries, despite their different historical contexts. A

better idea of the extent of convergence is revealed by our data.

The Study

We report here part of a larger study which analyzes the changing

nature of academic work. During interviews with academics at six

Australian and American universities, we asked respondents about

perceived changes in decision making styles in their universities. We

wanted to explore if, and then how, managerialism was moving into these

universities and why there was such a tendency to accept the shift to

greater control by managers in both countries. At the same time we

wanted to examine whether there were different ways of expressing these

changes and whether the language used was indicative of different

responses to managerialism.

The Australian universities chosen for this study represent a range of

different contexts evident in the higher education sector (enrollments

given are approximate sizes):

¥University of Sydney (SU) - a large, 'old', traditional university

established in 1850 and which has an enrolment of 30 000.

¥Murdoch University (MU) - a small, 'alternative' university

established in 1975 and which has an enrolment of 8 000.

¥Edith Cowan University (ECU) - a 'new' university which began as a

postsecondary college in 1902 and after a series of amalgamations

became a university in 1991, and which has an enrolment of 17 000.

The institutions from the United States represent state universities in

different geographical locations (although all were located in the

southern states which tend to be more 'anti-union') as well as being of

different standing within the ranking of what has been termed the 100

'research' universities:

¥University of Arizona (AU) - in the first third of research rankings,

established in 1885, and which has an enrolment of 34 000.

¥Florida State University (FSU) - in the top part of the second tier of

research rankings, established in 1857 as a women's college, and later

became a coeducational university, and which has an enrolment of 30

000.

¥University of Louisville (LU) - in the lowest part of the second tier

of research rankings, established in 1798, and which has an enrolment

of 22 000.

There were 153 respondents at the Australian universities and 100 at

the American universities. Respondents represented a range of

discipline areas across education, social sciences and the sciences,

and a range of academic ranks from professor to assistant

professor/associate lecturer. Approximately one-third of both samples

were female academic staff. The NUD.IST software program facilitated

the analysis of responses.

Findings

When the responses about decision making from academics were

quantified, the overwhelming majority (73%) in the United States and a

majority in Australia (59%) responded that decision making had become

more top-down, bureaucratic, centralized, autocratic and managerial.

Some (19% in the USA and 17% in Australia) said that there was a

combination of decision making styles operating in their universities,

depending upon the level. They often identified more democratic

decision making practices at the departmental or faculty level and more

bureaucratic and corporate managerial procedures at the overall

institutional level. Murdoch, Sydney and Florida State respondents were

more likely to describe a combination of top-down and bottom-up

decision making (27% for Murdoch; 25% for Sydney; and 23% for Florida

State) than the other universities, which recorded less than 15 percent

in this category. A minority in both countries (6% in USA and 18% in

Australia) said that decision making was still collegial and faculty

were participating in decisions. A handful (4% in each country) said

that they did not know enough about how decisions were made to comment.

In the following sections, we will give you a flavor of their comments

which detail some of the consequences of the movement away from

collegial decision making towards changing decision making styles.

Variable and often contradictory perceptions point to the messy

realities of university decision making.

Corporate Managerialism

Corporate managerialism as noted above refers to a number of ideas,

centralizing as well as decentralizing and streamlining decision making

in universities and inclining them towards the market. A business ethos

is applied not only to the generation of knowledge but to the whole way

in which universities are run as suggested by this University of

Louisville academic:

The central administration is seeing the university as if it were a

business1, cost efficiency kinds of considerations - Fordism - which is

not just an economist's assembly line model but also this idea of a

productivity model Ð judging the quality of what goes on in the

university not in terms of what goes on in the classroom but how many

students are processed, at what rate and how efficient the system is.

The intensity of that has grown as well as the sense that the central

administration has to control the faculty. (LU425)

This respondent was not the only one to describe the university in this

manner. Here are a few others from American universities who observed a

similar phenomenon:

I see corporate managerialism as trying to run the university more like

a business, more like a company and taking more of the decision making

out of the hands of faculty and putting more of it into the hands of

corporate managers - you have a string of vice presidents in charge of

all different developments. You have the emergence of

corporate-university links and technology parks. The notion that a

business model can be superimposed on universities is a very popular

notion and is always being asserted. I see governing boards and

legislators in controlling public sector institutions as seeing it as

desirable to emphasise corporate models of accountability, especially

for fiscal resources and accountability for defining the product of our

work. (FSU542)

I would say the university is bureaucratic moving towards corporate

managerial. The new President believes in TQM. He views the running of

the institution in the way that you would run, I don't know, a

manufacturing plant. Almost nothing comes as an issue from below and

works its way up. The department heads are appointed from above. They

serve at the desire of the administration. The faculty are like

obedient slaves in a way. (AU694)

These descriptions, as noted by the first respondent, seem to suggest

that universities are not moving toward post-Fordist work relations

which are based on high trust and collective participation (Brown &

Lauder, 1996). Rather they have adopted work relations based on Fordist

(low trust and divisions between managers and workers) or neo-Fordist

(low trust and managerial prerogative) work relations. This is revealed

below in later quotes describing the lack of trust and the gap emerging

between managers and academics.

Australian academics identified a 'managerial' ethos more than a

'business' ethos pervading their universities perhaps because of the

strong emphasis on public sector management reforms in Australia

(although the intermingling of these is seen in the term, 'corporate

managerialism', used by some respondents as noted above at the

University of Arizona and Florida State University).

It is more managerial. It is less democratic as a result. Any sense of

a coherent university has been lost by the production of fiefdoms,

where the different faculties are run by robber-barons who call

themselves Pro-Vice-Chancellors and who get motor cars and so on. They

are called senior management. It came with the previous Vice-Chancellor

and the appointment of the Boston Consulting Group and the throwing of

at least a million dollars at them to produce a bunch of flow charts

... It had almost no beneficial impact but it gave the green light to

restructure or managerialize. (SU741)

There is a feeling that we are over managed and under led, that the

management some how or other, simply regards themselves as the most

important component of the university, and the academics and students

as just the workers or the products. And creates, I feel a managerial

style that alienates members of the staff quite easily. The notion of

collegiality, decision making by consent and consultation, all of these

things have been fairly seriously eroded. I think increasingly, under

the current Vice-Chancellor, there has been lack of consultation,

communication, input from the staff as a whole. (SU708)

The alienation that results from the imposition of corporate managerial

processes is also seen in the following quotes:

Because of the disenfranchisement that occurred, there is a lack of

trust between administration and faculty, a lack of shared

understanding of what we're trying to do, what we'd like this

institution to become. After a while, you just say, "to hell with

that". I don't identify with the college, I don't identify with the

administration and I'm going to back away from the whole process.

(LU427)

It's close to corporate managerial, and it's moving down to the level

of the Deans who used to be much more collegial. The idea that one can

manage a university in terms of accountability and productivity is a

carry-over from the corporate world of the 1980s. I donÕt think it can

work and it only alienates the faculty from the administration.

(FSU512)

The only strong feeling that I can identify is rage, absolute,

unadulterated rage. The sense of community has entirely disappeared and

that's not entirely accidental. The only thing that produces today a

sense of community is a common sense of outrage against the central

administration . (LU413)

Along with this sense of rage, for some, there is also a sense of

powerlessness and of turning away from the university. This was

expressed especially at the University of Louisville where academics

felt that they could not change the plans that were being imposed by

the Board of Trustees and being accepted by the President:

We feel so powerless. They're going to implement their plan whether we

like it or not. The entire faculty voted against this plan. But they're

putting it through anyway. So it does feel kind of yucky! (LU424)

During the time of the interviews at both Florida State and Louisville,

there was outrage over the process of choosing the Provost that was a

change from the past. At Louisville, the President named himself chair

of the Provost Search Committee and declared that he was not going to

be bound by the Search Committee's decision. As one professor declared:

"In short, he could go to someone never considered by the committee, if

he so desired, and name that person Provost...that's about as

authoritarian as you can get" (LU413).

At Florida State, the President in 1994 rejected the two finalists that

the Provost Search Committee gave him and appointed another internal

candidate instead. The Provost selected had been rejected by his peers

which rankled some faculty members. In fact, one faculty member moved a

motion at Faculty Senate that the Provost decline to accept the post

and support a national search. The Faculty Senate voted reluctantly to

accept the appointment, noting their disappointment and "giving the

President one more opportunity to back us in a shared governance"

(Fineout, 1994). The excuse the President gave for making the

appointment and not having a second national search was the need to

move quickly on the decision and position the university for the next

legislative session.

In the United States, the boards of regents/trustees are the

intermediaries between the state legislatures and the universities.

Members are appointed by the state legislatures and most often come

from business and law backgrounds, and come only occasionally from a

background in higher education (Solomon & Solomon, 1993). Therefore the

chancellor and the boards are very much identified with doing the

business of the legislature. This, along with the cooption of the

administration in this process, was expressed by a Florida State

professor quite aptly:

The administration seems to be going along with the attack on the

tenure system; the chancellor has gone along with it; the people who

should be our front line of defence are going along with it. The

administration virtually runs the show. Faculty do not seem to have

much of a say in things that really matter. The administration is

dancing between the faculty below and those above them, the regents and

the chancellor; when their interests conflict, they do the bidding of

the regents. The alternative would be that they could be the spearhead

of our resistance; it's been more a matter of being in cahoots with the

regents. (FSU598)

A faculty member at the University of Arizona echoed similar

sentiments:

We are being told by the administration that pressure from these two

issues (core curriculum reform and the length of time it takes students

to graduate) is coming from the state legislature and I feel our highly

paid administrators have really bungled the job of explaining to the

public why the university needs more resources. (AU670)

Besides the sense of powerlessness and betrayal by university

administrators experienced by some respondents, others talked in

general about the replacement of collegiality with line management in

their universities:

It certainly isn't collegial any more, there's a line management

structure that the VC has put in place that has killed collegiality and

that caused a lot of upset. We've moved from being a University to

being the Faculty of Science. We almost don't see management outside

the Faculty of Science any longer. We've become a small university

within the University. (SU738)

Thus it appeared that managerial structures were killing off any

collegiality that might have been there. A University of Louisville

academic said "We have much lower expectations about our role in

faculty governance than we did five, ten or fifteen years ago. So in

that sense the administrators have been successful" (LU407). In

Australia, there is a similar feeling emerging that through a

particular form of managerial devolution, administrators (more often

referred to as managers) are becoming equally 'successful' in altering

the shape of universities.

Devolution

Devolution is a common feature of corporate managerialism, as outlined

in the discussion of 'conceptual tools'. It is being instituted in

universities across Australia in strikingly similar forms, and we

report here on how our Australian respondents saw devolution occurring.

What we found surprising is that, even though it is clear that in

American universities many responsibilities have been devolved to

faculties and departments, not one of our American respondents used the

words 'devolved' or 'devolution' to describe this process. In

reflecting on that fact, an American colleague noted that it was

probably because it had all happened incrementally and not in one fell

swoop, as it had in many Australian universities. And it may also be

reflective of the different national characteristics where the American

universities start from a more decentralized base within state systems

and the Australian universities are affected by centralized federal

agendas so that the rhetoric of managerialism spreads more quickly.

It appeared in some Australian universities that the rationale for

devolution was to allow for rapid adaptation to the changing external

climate. This is described well by a Sydney academic:

The oligarchic model was unable to adapt quickly enough to the

requirements that were really corporate requirements. You could no

longer run the place keeping it all in your head, what you promised

here, what you would do there. So the VC ultimately realised that the

place would have to be devolved into more manageable units and so in

that sense the oligarchic model was wiped out. (SU726)

One Murdoch academic who linked devolution with the rise in

managerialism seemed to identify the links between the manager as

monitor and the use of a devolved structure by the managers at the

center, highlighting the contradictory nature of managerialism:

It's an interesting combination of things, cause if you have devolution

of budgeting and decision making and you have a climate in which it

seemed that a notion of the manager is appropriate for the University

then you can see the two coming together. And if you have other things

pounding in there like emphasis on quality Ð well how do you judge

quality? Well you have to have indicators. Who's going to do the

monitoring? Well the manager's going to do the monitoring. (MU025)

In describing devolution in the three Australian universities, it

became evident that the majority of respondents saw the process of

devolution as holding out false promises and creating more negative

than positive impacts. Nevertheless, there were a few who saw, within

the context of their previously, very autocratic university, a chance

for devolution to increase democratic processes within departments.

When asked about what had changed in decision making in their

universities, about a third of the Australian respondents spoke about

devolution in one way or another.

Positive view of devolution

The only respondents who mentioned a positive view of devolution came

from Edith Cowan University which had recently converted from a college

of advanced education and was previously an amalgamation of teachers'

colleges. This clearly had an effect on this university which was

described by many respondents as bureaucratic or autocratic in the past

and moving towards corporate managerialism. For them, devolution

allowed academics to become more involved in decision making. They also

moved from a Vice-Chancellor who was a former teachers' college

director to one who came from a traditional university and who believed

in establishing a sense of trust in the university and building up

collegial decision making.

There is a genuine endeavour I believe by people at the Deans' level

and down to encourage collaborative devolved decision making and with

the structure that was being put in place over the last few years there

has been an increased degree of autonomy for departments to make

decisions. It has meant that staff members feel I think that they are

more involved in making certain types of decisions than they have been

in the past but it's not all decisions. (ECU134)

We have had more responsibilities devolved to us and we had to make

more decisions ourselves. But we wanted that and it's good for staff

morale. (ECU160 )

It appears that at Edith Cowan a form of relatively more 'democratic

devolution' may have emerged. An alternative reading might be that this

was just the first flush of having more participation in decision

making which may have masked the underlying more managerial forms of

devolution present in their system. (Some of our follow-up interviews

in 1997 suggest this to be the case.) The form that most universities

are experiencing could be termed, 'managerial devolution' which has the

effect of decreasing collegial decision making and leaving only the

trivial kinds of decisions for academics to make at the lower levels.

Negative Effects of Devolution

By far, the majority of those who commented about devolution saw the

negative consequences. Deans were more stressed about their

responsibilities and academics felt it led to bad relationships,

fragmentation, passing down more administrative work and reinforcing

top-down decision making through clearer line management and the

development of smaller management groups. Most of the academics

interviewed were fairly insightful about the consequences of devolution

and could see that, as described by one Murdoch academic, "devolution

has happened not at a time of growth in the budget. They wouldn't dream

of devolving when there was money there, but now that there are hard

decisions to be made they are being passed down" (MU075).

They could also detect where the real power lies within an institution

and that is where the budget decisions are made:

There is a devolution of decision making occurring from the Dean

downward to the faculties if you like but still if you take the

guideline who controls the purse, can control the decisions then still

decisions are made beyond the department level in my school. (ECU175)

The other major change has been increased administrative

responsibilities for deans, heads of departments and academics. This

has happened with the same amount of money going to schools and

faculties as one Murdoch academic queried: "So what's happening with

the devolution of budgets, the administration doesn't seem to be

getting any smaller" (MU082). And a Sydney academic bluntly identified

the effect of devolution on those below:

Everything has been devolved at this university. What the Centre has

done is they've, pardon the expression, they've devolved all the shit

work down to these five super faculty type things and they won't do

anything at the central level, so there's nobody out there that has a

grand vision about how Sydney University should run. (SU729)

Perhaps the more serious repercussions are in the divisiveness, the

fragmentation and the bad relationships caused by decisions made closer

to the departments, as expressed by one respondent: "The School is

going to be making the really tough decisions. Like Economics had to do

(retrench staff) and that really poisons relations" (MU075).

There was a lot of dissatisfaction, especially at Sydney University,

where the Vice-Chancellor hired the Boston Consultancy Group to develop

a new structure for the university. A major restructuring occurred in

1992 which devolved authority down to different levels but few

academics felt it achieved its goals of improving administration in the

university. One Sydney academic complained that "the human dimensions

of this university which were very strong have largely disappeared"

(SU715). Others from Sydney pointed to further negative effects of

devolution:

The effect of the Boston changes, if you like to call them that, has

been to fragment. The notion that devolution has delivered vastly

enhanced efficiency and effectiveness I think is not supported by any

figures I've seen. (SU708)

It really was not a very good restructuring. It was an ill-conceived

one because it was a far more complicated system that was introduced.

Where the university set out to have a flatter administration, which

was supposed to be more responsive, what we got, in fact was a more

hilly one, if you like, another layer was added in between senior

management and faculties so the potential for things to go wrong was

increased. Our administration, it turns out, after the great upheaval,

is I believe, costing more than it did before. Now we've got fewer

administrators but we've got many more who are on attractive salary

packages at a higher level. (SU707)

When we searched the transcripts for other words which might give us an

indication of whether the American academics used different words to

describe the same process, we found that some academics talked about

decentralization, similar to the way Australian academics spoke of

devolution. It appeared that the moves to decentralize were occurring

incrementally and that some American administrators had already

devolved power to colleges/faculties and they were in the early stages

of devolving power to even lower levels and appointing not only deans

but chairs of departments so that the line management was well

entrenched to the lower levels.

The Dean is talking about decentalizing power to the level of the

chairs and then giving the chairs more discretion. One of the things

that they want to do is to appoint chairs rather than elect them.

(LU423)

It was clear from one of the respondents that this proposal to appoint

department chairs had come from the Board of Trustees as part of a

range of changes they wanted to impose upon the university. This

development was identified by one respondent as "dramatically changing

where authority is and how much more centralized administration is

occurring" (LU420).

There was only one Florida State academic who talked about

decentralization within the rhetoric of corporate managerialism in much

the same way as Australian academics saw devolution as a false promise.

This university is supposed to be democratic and is supposed to have

faculty governance and is supposed to be participative and

decentralized. I think that ethos is still in there but we may be in an

early version of corporate managerialism. All the other stuff is

basically a cover up. (FSU094)

Our American respondents described the process of managerialism more in

terms of the 'central administration' and 'administrators' gaining more

power and Australians referred to the process of 'managers' gaining

power and a growing sense of 'corporate managerialism' invading their

universities. An observer of the Canadian higher education scene,

Janice Newson (1992), suggests that when using the term

'administration' it refers to a more passive approach to implementing

policy and when using the term 'managementÕ, it refers to a more active

role in formulating policies. One of our co-researchers from an

American university said that most American academics saw their

universities in 'functionalist' terms and were not used to engaging in

the more critical analysis that many Australians employ to describe

their universities (Klees, personal communication, June 17,1997). It

may also be a result of the stronger role of the union movement in

Australia and its development of a critique of managerialism in its

publications and the more uniform sweep of managerial reform in

Australia as mentioned above.

One of our American co-researchers (Berman in personal communication)

identified the faculty as part of the problem in his university

(Louisville), which was not unionized, and noted that "in the aggregate

they are without a basic understanding of the requisites of democratic

decision-making which should transpire in a university". Another

respondent (Basile in personal communication) noted that even though

his university (Florida State) was unionized, the union had little say

in administrative policies (unions dealt mainly with salary issues and

individual grievances). Berman and Basile both felt that academics were

being disenfranchised and there was no notion of the ÔcollectiveÕ force

of the faculty successfully standing up to administration (despite

faculty meetings opposing certain university policies). There may be a

difference in the strength of unions between northern and southern

universities which would require further investigation. From these case

studies, it appeared that there was limited involvement by faculty in

making crucial financial decisions within their universities and little

success by faculty in opposing decisions that either the State

legislature, boards of regents/trustees or the university presidents

wanted to impose on faculty.

Despite the differences in rhetoric and the differential strength of

opposition by faculty (including the differences between unionized and

non-unionized faculty), there was a growing sense of managerialism

emerging on both sides of the Pacific. Accompanying this, academics

perceived that a cultural gap was developing between administrators and

academics which was not helped by the differences in their salaries, as

expressed in this quote:

The university administration is approaching corporate managerialism.

If you look at the salaries of administrators, they're paid enormous

salaries comparatively speaking; they're in the top 10% and the faculty

is in the bottom 25% nationally. There is a lot more of the

administrative fiat being passed down to faculty. (FSU510)

Others talked about not only the gap in salaries but the gap in

attitude and there was definitely a sense in which in the past when the

gulf was not so wide, relations between administrators and academics

were better and the workplace was a happier one, as the following quote

indicates:

Another thing is that the whole university has changed from being a

very collegial one to a much more managerial type of institution. And

whereas once academics and administrators worked very happily together,

now a gulf has been created between administrators and academics and I

think this has created a lot of problems. (SU715)

Other Top Down Forms (Bureaucratic and Autocratic)

Many of the respondents described top down forms which they did not

label as managerial. In particular, bureaucratic and autocratic were

frequent descriptors of decision making styles. Further, a number of

respondents conflated bureaucratic and managerial practices. Here is a

sample from several universities of the general description of 'top

down' decision making: "I think our President is a pretty top-down

administrator" (LU405); "Top down to me, the Faculty Senate is a joke.

Decisions get made at the steering committee level and those people are

quasi-administrators and they work very closely with the Provost and

the top guns. We have pseudo faculty governance" (FSU553).

Others identified autocratic styles as the dominant mode in their

universities: "At the point of central administration, it's as

autocratic as is possible for the central administration to make it"

(LU413); "A lot of lip service is paid to shared decision making but

when it comes right down to the tough decisions, I see that it is

mostly autocratic or decisions made by a few insiders" (AU610); "It's

autocratic. There are various autocracies within the university"

(FSU549).

These next quotes talked about the university as 'bureaucratic', with

the following University of Louisville quote representing a common

theme:

Oh, it's almost clearly bureaucratic. I don't see any evidence of

anything other than bureaucratic and I think that's true both in the

school and the university as a whole. I think that it's increasingly

bureaucratic in the department as well. (LU403)

And these sentiments were echoed at the University of Arizona and at

Florida State University. Here's a taste of their comments: "It's not

collegial Ð it struck me that it's more driven bureaucratically or in a

corporate way, filtering from the legislature" (AU691); "This place is

very bureaucratic; most decisions are made by administrators" (FSU545);

"It's very bureaucratic. The Board of Regents treats us like another

state agency and we start responding that way" (FSU547); "It's a state

bureaucracy" (FSU573); "I get the sense that we're pretty bureaucratic

in a lot of ways. There is this collegial overlay with the Faculty

Senate" (FSU563).

There were voices from Australia which resonated with the same concerns

Ð that the system is becoming more hierarchical and more bureaucratic.

A Sydney academic said "It's becoming more bureaucratic. Corporate

managerial dignifies it too much!" (SU726).

It is bureaucratic but it is also a finely tuned hierarchical string,

so if you want to get something done, I would not proceed as I may have

ten years ago by getting my colleagues to agree with me. The first

thing I would do is to grab the Dean and ask him if hewanted to go for

a beer. Once I have the Dean on my side I wouldn't care because I know

then that he would do it. So the Dean has more authority. (MU037)

The first thing I would say is that Edith Cowan University is a

microcosm of the State Ministry of Education, it was run along highly

centralized, bureaucratized lines. There has been a strong ethic of no

administrator worth his salt would ever trust a staff member further

down the line. So effectively decision making was very bad. (ECU176)

Fragments of Collegiality Remain

There is no doubt that the push towards managerialism and often

increasing bureaucracy is changing the way universities are run.

However, in most cases, academics reported positive feelings about the

way their departments or sections operated. Here there was more of a

feeling of collegial (or democratic) decision making in both American

and Australian universities. There were even some academics who

perceived that there was some collegiality operating in their whole

university. A Florida State academic described it this way:

I would say collegial is pretty close to it. The Faculty Senate here is

really quite powerful; at least there is a pretty strong appearance

that it has a lot of power. I would say that it is probably as

collegial as you would find at any major university. (FSU543)

However, it was much more common for respondents to identify collegial

decision making at the lower levels within their universities,

particularly at the departmental level.

Our department is pretty collegial; almost everything is open to all

faculty and all major decisions are voted on by all the faculty. (AU639)

In the department, it is still collegial, very democratic. (LU413)

The closer you get to your own workplace, the more impact you can have

and the more difference you think you can make. Decisions taken at the

school level are most democratic. But the School Board still only

advises the head of school and it is not mandatory for the head to take

that advice. The major impediment is that there's no way of enforcing

the decisions made by School Board. The School Board is democratic,

it's everyone, part-time, Level As, even if you are a woman! (laughter)

Everyone can have input, you don't feel constrained by rank or gender

or anything else. It's still up to the head of School to implement

decisions; at the same time I can't recall an incident where the head

has demurred and said that I don't choose to accept that advice.

(SU071)

Concluding discussion

Despite the differences in terminology used, our interviews with

American and Australian academics between 1994 and 1996 suggest that

there is an ascendance of corporate managerialism (albeit at different

rates) occurring across the six institutions studied. This is

consistent with the hegemonic position of the managerial discourse

reported in the literature (Angus, 1994; Grundy, 1992; Watkins, 1992).

However, hegemony is never complete and our data exposes differences

between and within universities in the extent to which the managerial

ethos has been adopted. Further, our data exposes numerous sites of

struggle operating against the imposition of a homogeneous managerial

culture. In fact, a growing cultural gap between management and

academics was perceived by numerous respondents, who also suggested

that tensions coalesce around the position of Deans because they are

increasingly appointed by management rather than elected by colleagues.

However, our interviews reveal that attitudes by 'grassroots' academics

to the changing nature of decision making vary considerably and

therefore we must not ascribe to them a consensus negative response. As

Newson (1992) points out, the recent emphasis on corporate needs and

procedures in universities has occurred with the active support of many

academics, especially those whose area of expertise is closer to the

market, strategically placing them in a position of advantage.

While hegemony is not complete, the corporate managerial style was

certainly prevalent in the universities studied, with many academics

seeing it as a threat to collegiality and professional autonomy. Yet

Meadmore et al (1995) maintain that the repressive effect of management

should not be overemphasised. They draw on Foucault's thesis that power

can also be productive, and as it is both exercised and resisted at all

levels, all participants are able to mediate the power and produce

alternative discourses. Thus there will be multiple sites for the

emergence of counter-hegemonic discourses. Grundy (1992) has argued the

need to produce such counter-hegemonic discourses which take account of

the unpredictabilities and uncertainties involved in desirable

educational practice. She maintains that as the ideology of

managerialism is about installing processes to enhance the

predictability of outcomes, to challenge managerialism involves

accepting the risk that unintended outcomes may result, as "the

elimination of risk is only possible if human action is transformed

into technical production" (Grundy, 1992, p. 167). Hargreaves (1994),

too, believes in the value of risk for fostering learning, adaptability

and improvement in postmodern educational institutions, and therefore

the need to embrace risk rather than avoid it. Trust is risky but,

according to Hargreaves, building desirable collaboration and

collegiality requires both interpersonal trust and, more importantly,

trust in expertise and processes which help postmodern organizations

adapt to a continually changing environment. Sadly, declining trust

between management and academics was often reported by our respondents.

Our data provides evidence of the retention of significant collegial

fragments in these six universities, especially at the lower levels and

sometimes within Faculty Senates/Academic Boards where alternatives to

the hegemony of managerial discourse may be more readily constructed. A

number of respondents made the point that academic issues are more

likely to be decided by collegial processes and administrative and

budgetary issues by managerial or bureaucratic processes. This finding

is consistent with that of de Boer and Goedegebuure (1995) in their

study of universities in seven European countries, and it begins to

suggest that different decision making styles may not be totally

incompatible. Angus (1994) argues that not only can participative and

managerial forms be compatible, but together they may well result in

both better decisions and a greater commitment to them.

There is sufficient historical evidence of the existence of

organizations with hybrid decision making styles which allow for a

relatively high degree of self government where there is a majority of

professionals (Handy, 1984; Schuller, 1985). In particular, Moses

(1989) cited Mintzberg's work on 'professional bureaucracies' as a

useful way to examine the possibilities for university management

styles. Middlehurst and Elton (1992) also describe a scenario in which

different decision making types can operate at the same time in

different sectors of a university:

...a bureaucratic model in areas of administration; a market model for

certain internal and external services; a collegial model of a

consensus seeking community of scholars, which might be applicable to a

course team; and a political model, which may dominate the actions of a

vice-chancellor who tries to reconcile conflicting interests.

(Middlehurst & Elton, 1992, p. 254)

Similarly, Hargreaves (1994) emphasised the need for 'menus', which

offer choices amongst multiple models, to prevail over 'mandates' or

single models. Thus, decision making styles would be in a state of

flux, and leadership could be exercised by different participants on

different occasions. Inevitably there would be tensions between the

different styles but if we return to political models of decision

making, such as discussed in the seminal work of Victor Baldridge

(1971), we may be tempted to consider the productive effects of

conflicts, such that the negotiations, bargaining and compromises

result in a stronger commitment to better decisions. A political

framework for decision making will cater for change (a key element of

'healthy' organizations) more readily than collegial, bureaucratic or

managerial 'pure types'. A political framework, within which struggles

for domination are played out amongst groups which are all seen to have

a legitimate stake in the decision making, is more likely to produce

the unpredictability of outcomes and adaptability that were identified

earlier as highly desirable for educational organizations (Grundy,

1992; Hargreaves, 1994). In particular, the contestations

characteristic of political decision making may open up discussions

about organizational goals, broadening the agenda from the narrow,

economically defined 'ends' for which the managerial model has been

criticized. Ginsburg (1996) argues for a democratic political model for

educators as they engage with their communities. He emphasized a

'power-with' rather than a 'power-over' approach so that decisions are

achieved through open dialogue and negotiation among equally situated

participants. He draws on Giddens' notion of 'democratic dialogic

spaces' which can invoke active trust based on 'open and uncoerced

discussion'.

While political models also have their weaknesses, such as conflict and

instability, Birnbaum argues that they are relevant in academic

institutions, because educational goals and outcomes are difficult to

define and measure:

The idea that political processes in academic institutions are somehow

"dirty" reflects the misunderstanding that if people would only act in

the best interests of the institution, they would agree on what to do.

It assumes that the institution's best interests are either known or

knowable, rather than different people, especially committed to what

they believe to be the institution's welfare, can, in good faith, have

completely different ideas of what that means and how it should be

accomplished. ... A major advantage of political systems, therefore, is

that they permit decisions to be made even in the absence of clear

goals. (Birnbaum, 1991, p. 136, 138)

We conclude by supporting a multifaceted paradigm of university

governance, predicated on dislodging the current hegemony of managerial

discourse. This involves legitimising different forms of decision

making, and giving careful consideration to the ways in which they

articulate (an area for further research). Thus, instead of viewing

decision making in terms of mutually exclusive 'ideal types', we might

achieve greater analytic scope by conceiving a series of overlapping

spheres (illustrated by Venn diagrams) representing collegial,

bureaucratic and managerial styles. The spheres need not be restricted

to these three 'types', and flexibility would be obtained by changing

the size of the spheres (to represent relative dominance) and the

degree of overlap of the spheres (to represent the emergence of hybrid

forms of decision making). Size and overlap would vary between and

within institutions, depending on the particular locus and time. Then

it would be important to lay over the top of this diagram a political

framework which would enable discussion of the political strategies

that various stakeholders use to make their particular style of

operating more dominant.

A multiplicity of models is consistent with the future of academic work

predicted by McCollow and Lingard (1996) who argue that fragmentation

within institutions and across the system will see multiple and

overlapping models of the academic as sui generis, as state

professional, as market professional, as corporate professional and as

worker. Citing Scott, they suggest that there would be 'radical

discontinuities' among these types, and therefore universities would

defy systematic or enduring categorization. In terms of university

governance styles, we also envisage discontinuities and further,

maintain that universities and their 'stakeholders' may best be served

by mixed modes of decision making where the dominant model will vary

according to locus in the university, and will change with the issue

and the time.

Acknowledgments

This research study has been funded by grants from the Australian

Research Council and Murdoch University. We thank them and the 253

respondents who were interviewed and gave us insights into their lives

as academics. In addition, we thank the three universities in the

United States (Louisville, Arizona and Florida State) who provided Jan

Currie with assistance during study leave and colleagues in each of

these universities: Edward Berman, Sheila Slaughter and Steve Klees.

The research team in Australia included Anthony Welch (University of

Sydney) and Harriett Pears (Murdoch University).

References

Altbach, P. G. (1994). Problems and possibilities: the American

academic profession. In P. G. Altbach, R. Berdahl, & P. Gumport (Eds.),

Higher education in American society, (pp. 1-15). Buffalo, NY:

Prometheus Publishers.

Angus, L. (1994). Educational organisation: technical/managerial and

participative/professional perspectives. Discourse, 14(2), 30-44.

Baldridge, V. (1971). Power and conflict in the university. New York:

John Wiley & Sons.

Ball, S. J. (1990). Management as moral technology. In S. J. Ball

(Ed.), Foucault and education, . London: Routledge.

Ball, S. J. (1994). Education reform: a critical and post-structural

approach. Buckingham and Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Bates, R. (1996). The educational costs of managerialism. Paper

presented at the Joint Conference of the Educational Research

Association, Singapore and the Australian Association for Research in

Education, Singapore.

Berman, E. H. (in press). The entrepreneurial university: Macro and

micro perspectives from the United States. In J. Currie & J. Newson

(Eds.), Globalization and universities: Critical perspectives. Thousand

Oaks: Sage.

Bessant, B. (1995). Corporate management and its penetration of the

university administration and government. Australian Universities'

Review, 38(1), 59-62.

Birnbaum, R. (1991). How colleges work: The cybernetics of Academic

oganization and leadership. San Francisco and Oxford: Jossey-Bass

Publishers.

Brown, P., & Lauder, H. (1996). Education, globalization and economic

development. Journal of Education Policy, 11(1), 1-26.

Coaldrake, P. (1995). Implications for higher education of the public

sector reform agenda. Australian Universities' Review, 38(1), 38-40.

Dawkins, J. (1988). Higher education: a policy statement. Canberra:

Australian Government Publishing Service.

de Boer, H., & Goedegebuure, L. (1995). Decision-making in higher

education: a comparative perspective. Australian Universities' Review,

38(1), 41-47.

Department of Employment Education and Training. (1993). National

report on Australia's higher education sector. Canberra: Australian

Government Publishing Service.

Dudley, J., & Vidovich, L. (1995). The politics of education:

Commonwealth schools policy 1973-1995. Melbourne: Australian Council

for Educational Research.

Fitzsimons, P. (1995). The management of tertiary educational

institutions in New Zealand. Journal of Education Policy, 10(2),

173-187.

Ginsburg, M. B. (1996). Professionalism or politics as a model for

educators' engagement with/in communities. Journal of Education Policy

(Yearbook), 5-12.

Grundy, S. (1992). Beyond guaranteed outcomes: creating a discourse for

educational praxis. Australian Journal of Education, 36(2), 157-169.

Halligan, J. (1992). Political management in the 1990s. Melbourne and

Oxford: Oxford Univesity Press.

Handy, C. (1984). Education for management outside business. In S.

Goodlad (Ed.), Education for the professions, . Guildford: Society for

Research into Higher Education and NFER-Nelson.

Hargreaves, A. (1994). Restructuring restructuring: postmodernity and

the prospects for educational change. Journal of Education Policy,

9(1), 47-65.

Hort, L. (1996). Managing academics' work: Future performance in higher

education. Australian Universities' Review, 39(2), 3-5.

Karmel, P. (1990). Reflections on a revolution: Australian higher

education in 1989. In I. Moses (Ed.), Higher education in the late

twentieth century, (pp. 24-47). St Lucia: University of Queensland.

Lawton, S. (1992). Why restructure?: an international survey of the

roots of reform. Journal of Education Policy, 7(2), 139-154.

Lingard, B. (1996). Review essay: Educational policy making in a

postmodern state. On Stephen J. Ball's education reform: a critical and

post-structural approach. Australian Educational Researcher, 23(1),

65-91.

Marceau, J. (1995). Management of higher education policy. In S. Rees &

G. Rodley (Eds.), The human costs of managerialism, . Leichhardt: Pluto

Press.

Marginson, S. (1993). Education and public policy in Australia.

Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.

Marginson, S. (in press). Remaking the national higher education system

for an era of globalization: The case of Australia. In J. Currie & J.

Newson (Eds.), Globalization and universities: Critical perspectives.

Thousand Oaks: Sage.

McCollow, J., & Lingard, B. (1996). Changing discourses and practices

of academic work. Australian Universities' Review, 39(2), 11-19.

McCulloch, G., & Lewis, K. (1997). Can we all survive in the market?

NTEU Advocate, 4(2, May), 2.

McGuinness, A. C. J. (1994). The States and Higher Education. In P. G.

Altbach, R. O. Berdahl, & P. J. Gumport (Eds.), Higher education in

American society, (pp. 155-180). Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books.

Meadmore, D., Limerick, B., Thomas, P., & Lucas, H. (1995). Devolving

practices: managing the managers. Journal of Education Policy, 10(4),

399-411.

Middlehurst, R., & Elton, L. (1992). Leadership and management in

higher education. Studies in higher education, 17(3), 251-264.

Miller, E., & Findlay, M. (1996). Australian thesarus of educational

descriptors. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Moodie, G. (1995). The professionalisation of Australian academic

administration. Australian Universities' Review, 38(1), 21-23.

Moses, I. (1989). Is performance 'management' appropriate in a learning

institution? Journal of Tertiary Educational Administration, 11(2),

127-141.

Moses, I. (1995). Tensions and tendencies in the management of quality

and autonomy in Australain higher education. Australian Universities'

Review, 38(1), 11-15.

Newson, J. (1992). The decline of faculty influence: confronting the

effects of the corporate agenda. In W. Carroll, L. Christiansen-Rufman,

R. Currie, & D. Harrrison (Eds.), Fragile truths: 25 years of sociology

and anthropology in Canada, (pp. 227-246). Ottawa: Carleton University

Press.

Pusey, M. (1991). Economic rationalism in Canberra. Melbourne:

Cambridge University Press.

Schuller, T. (1985). Democracy at work. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Slaughter, S. (1993). Introduction to Special Issue on Retrenchment.

The Journal of Higher Education, 64(3 May/June), 247-249.

Slaughter, S. (in press). National higher education policies in a

global economy. In J. Currie & J. Newson (Eds.), Globalization and

universities: Critical perspectives. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (1996). The emergence of a competitiveness

research and development policy coalition and the commercialization of

academic scinece and technology. Science, Technology and Human Values,

21(3), 303-339.

Solomon, R., & Solomon, J. (1993). Up the university: Re-creating

higher education in America. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesly

Publishing Company.

Symes, C. (1996). Selling futures: a new image for Australian

universities? Studies in Higher Education, 21(2), 133-147.

Treuren, G. (1996). The changing state-university relationship: State

involvement in academic industrial relations since the Murray Report.

Australian Universities' Review, 39(1), 51-58.

Watkins, P. (1992). The transformation of educational administration:

the hegemony of consent and the hegemony of coercion. Australian

Journal of Education, 36(3), 237-259.

Welch, R. (1995, June 16). Rise of the managerial cadre. The Times

Higher, pp. 12.

Yeatman, A. (1993). Corporate managerialism and the shift from the

welfare to the competitive state. Discourse, 13(2), 3-9.

Zusman, A. (1994). Current and emerging issues facing higher education

in the United States. In P. G. Altbach, R. Berdahl, & P. Gumport

(Eds.), Higher education in American society, (pp. 335-364). Buffalo,

NY: Prometheus Publishers.

1 Our emphasis in bold in this quote, and in all the quotes that

follow.