The debate we have yet to have: the structure of higher education in - PDF document

The debate we have yet to have: the structure of higher education in Australia Keynote Address at the 8 th Annual University Governance and Regulation Forum, Sydney, 2 September, 2013. Michael Gallagher, Executive Director, Group of Eight. 1 Regulation of what and why? The topic of this series of annual forums, governance and regulation, begs the questions: of what and why? When the ‘what’ refers to individual institutions the answers relate primarily to university mission (purpose, direction and goal focus) and self-governance at various levels from the Council or Senate as the governing body (including Finance Committee), the Executive as the strategic managing body, Academic Board as the internal quality assurance entity, and Faculties and Centres, Business units and Administrative services, including their policies and procedures for self-regulating and monitoring, and for external reporting on capacity, needs and performance, including accountability reporting for the use of public funds. This is a rich and dynamic area for inter- institutional comparison and process benchmarking. Within the Go8, we have been developing benchmarking tools (e.g. Go8 Dashboard, Go8 Facilities surveys, Go8 Verification System), we are exploring common tools with the AAU, LERU and C9 (e.g. via Academic Analytics), and will convene an international symposium in 2014 on productivity improvement in universities, considering opportunities for increasing productivity (efficiency gains without loss of quality) in learning and teaching and research, and back-office administration. Currently, Go8 universities are exploring options for collaboration via cloud computing for administrative systems. The ‘why’ answers at the institutional level are more elusive, for several reasons. First, universities are, at least in-principle, self-governing – although in recent years, regulation policy changes of the Australian Government, and the behaviour of the national higher education regulator, have constrained aspects of university self-governance – a problem we hope will be rectified following the report of Kwong Lee Dow and Valerie Braithwaite into TEQSA’s performance and their call for the size and scope of the regulator to be reduced. Second, the establishment Acts for universities in Australia give the governing Council or Senate broad powers to do all lawful things necessary to advance the purposes of the university. Typically those purposes are expressed at a high level (e.g. “The object of the University is the promotion, within the limits of the University ’s resources, of scholarship, research, free inquiry, the interaction of research and teaching, and academic excellence” ( University of Sydney Act 1989) 2 . Third, the establishment Acts are ‘enabling’; they are, 1 The views expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect the views of Go8 Vice-Chancellors. 2 (2) The University has the following principal functions for the promotion of its object: (a) the provision of facilities for education and research of university standard, (b) the encouragement of the dissemination, advancement, development and application of knowledge informed by free inquiry, (c) the provision of courses of study or instruction across a range of fields, and the carrying out of research, to meet the needs of the community, (d) the participation in public discourse,

in the quaint language of lawyers, ‘always speaking’, such that “a university ca n do what a university can do” – what it is legally able to do under its Act is defined by, albeit not confined to, what other entities with the title ‘university’ have done or are doing, for instance, in commercial activities, whether or not commercial activities are listed in the Act expressly as functions of the university (Phillips Fox, 2001). Fourth, the combination of the foregoing three factors means than a university’s functions are not necessarily fixed, although some may be constant – especially relating to the core function of higher education and the production of qualified graduates. Importantly, the governing body has the authority to sanction new functions in response to, or anticipation of, changes in the external operating environment. By s o doing, a university can also modify its ‘mission’ and ‘vision’ – its sense of what it is, why it exists, who it serves, where it is going, and how it knows how well it does what it stands for. There is no Act that defines or fixes a university’s mission. This conception of university mission as an open rather than closed aspiration is important, not least for the capacity of universities to adapt and evolve. It will be relevant also when we come later to considering the notion of balance in the supply str ucture of a nation’s higher education system and the role of any ‘mission - based funding compacts’ between government and universities. [Slide 2: Higher education policy models] When the ‘what’ and ‘why’ questions about governance and regulation are answer ed in respect of higher education systems they relate to: national purposes and goals; system scale, structure and balance; steering mechanisms and incentives; and the accountability cluster of provider licensing, quality assurance, consumer protection, performance monitoring and reporting, and compliance with the plethora of mandates in areas of privacy, non-discrimination, security, health and safety, ethical conduct of research, defence trade controls and so on and on. There is also a significant set of second-order questions. For instance, in respect of system regulation: what is to be regulated, for what reasons, and what are the principles for guiding how best to conduct regulation? Again the TEQSA debacle illustrates the need not only to legislate for risk-based regulation but to ensure that the regulators know what the legislation permits and what it does not authorise. In respect of system governance, to what extent is governance or steering necessary for a nation’s higher education system? Here we should recall that ‘steering’ as a (e) the conferring of degrees, including those of Bachelor, Master and Doctor, and the awarding of diplomas, certificates and other awards, (f) the provision of teaching and learning that engage with advanced knowledge and inquiry, (g) the development of governance, procedural rules, admission policies, financial arrangements and quality assurance processes that are underpinned by the values and goals referred to in the functions set out in this subsection, and that are sufficient to ensure the integrity of the University ’s academic programs. (3) The University has other functions as follows: (a) the University may exercise commercial functions comprising the commercial exploitation or development, for the University ’s benefit, of any facility, resource or property of the University or in which the University has a right or interest (including, for example, study, research, knowledge and intellectual property and the practical application of study, research, knowledge and intellectual property), whether alone or with others, (b) the University may develop and provide cultural, sporting, professional, technical and vocational services to the community, (c) the University has such general and ancillary functions as may be necessary or convenient for enabling or assisting the University to promote the object and interests of the University, or as may complement or be incidental to the promotion of the object and interests of the University, (d) the University has such other functions as are conferred or imposed on it by or under this or any other Act. (4) The functions of the University may be exercised within or outside the State, including outside Australia. Page 2 of 26