Rod Nillsen's web site
Go to the home page
email:
nillsen@uow.edu.au 		Extract from seminar given at Badin, Slovakia, 6th September 2011
 
  "Changes of culture and purpose in Australian universities: 1988 to the present", by Rod Nillsen.
The full text of this paper may be put on this site later on. In the meantime, anyone wishing to see the full text may email the author at: nillsen@uow.edu.au

Abstract
In July 1988, the then Minister of Education, Employment and Training for the Commonwealth of Australia, the Hon. John Dawkins MP, released a document called "Higher Education: a policy statement". The document, which became known as "The White Paper", set out the Labor Government's policy for higher education, and it challenged, and overturned, many of the attitudes in government policies of the past. It set new policies, procedures and objectives for higher education in Australia. Have these changes been beneficial or deleterious? In this paper, it is the intention to describe these polices and their effects, in broad terms, with an emphasis on the changed culture and perceived purposes of universities in Australia. It will be argued that there have been some beneficial effects. But the notion of universities as corporate institutions, the emphasis on profit as an intellectual incentive, the perception of students as customers, and the idea that universities should respond in an immediate sense to government directives under a guise of "accountability", have weakened and narrowed the educational, intellectual and human ideals traditionally associated with universities. However, these changes should not simply be seen as special to universities. Rather, they should be seen as an area of public policy which is revealing of changes in some of the underlying assumptions in western societies.

Excerpts from the main text


......... As a concept, quality is no longer taken seriously unless it can be quantified. But the notion that quality is only quality to the extent that it can be quantified is both a conflation of language and a contradiction in terms. Once quality is defined in terms of process or quantity, the actual quality of anything is no longer recognised. By then, real quality has been defined out of existence, either by some sort of measuring process, or by having processes or procedures that supposedly "assure" quality. "Quality" is now a degraded word whose true meaning is struggling to survive, and it is not the only example. In effect, an important concept, that one would have thought to be essential in a university context, is being lost. In the prevailing managerial mindset, anything that cannot be measured does not exist, and is not to be taken seriously. Knowledge, conscientiousness, perseverance, inspiration and talent have no place in the machine concept of quality, for they lie beyond procedures and any easy measurement and so, the (implicit) logic goes, they have no place in discussions of quality. In this way, the misuse of language leads to a marked lack of reality, a narrowing of perspectives, and the discussion of important matters becomes distorted, confused and, sometimes, ridiculous. Confusions abound in any area of pubic policy where words and phrases become slogans, either through carelessness, or lack of thought, or to serve some disguised ulterior purpose. Language then sags and collapses under the weight of the contradictions and emptiness it has to bear. A mindless, restricted, or warped language cuts off possibilities, inhibits the open identification of problems, and makes their possible solution more difficult. It limits ideas. It hides issues and avoids open discussion, and it produces insincerity and hypocrisy, with a corresponding effect on morale. It raises ethical issues that, despite fine phrases about ethical awareness, are virtually never acknowledged, let alone faced........

As universities acquiesce in these changes and current perceptions, they are relinquishing a view of education as being the capacity to make connections, to see things in relation to each other, to make judgments based on a wisdom deriving from analysis, knowledge, experience, and an awareness of the past. After all, universities are training people for employment, rather than educating them, and the corporate mind wants loyalty to the organisation ahead of analysis, intellectual rigour, and a capacity for complex judgment. But, by allowing information and training to dominate over education, we become more like machines and less like human beings. There has been a marked tendency to regard change as inevitably beneficial. But any judgment as to the beneficial or deleterious effects of change depends upon a broader context and a larger picture than the changes themselves. In Australia, that broader context and larger picture have been grossly neglected.

Rod Nillsen, October 2011