Proceedings 2005 Australian Universities Quality Forum

Proceedings

of the

2005 Australian Universities Quality Forum

Engaging Communities

Sydney, Australia 6‐8 July 2005

AUQA Occasional Publications Number 5 ISSN

1446-4268

ISBN

1 877090 42 5

© 2005 by the authors All rights reserved. No part of these proceedings may be reproduced by any means without permission. Published by: Australian Universities Quality Agency Level 10, 123 Lonsdale Street Melbourne, Vic 3000 Ph +61 3 9664 1000 Fax +61 3 9639 7377 [email protected] www.auqa.edu.au

The Australian Universities Quality Agency receives financial support from the Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments of Australia.

CONTENTS Abbreviations and Acronyms........................................................................................................................ i Preface......................................................................................................................................................... iii Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................................................v AUQF Joint Steering Group........................................................................................................................ vi Sydney Reference Group............................................................................................................................ vii

KEYNOTE ADDRESSES

1

Engaging Aboriginal Communities – Doing Things Differently Dr Sue Gordon AM, Magistrate ..........................................................................................................1 Scholarship and Mission in the 21st Century University: The Role of Engagement Barbara A. Holland............................................................................................................................11 Engagement and the Integration of Research and Education: A New Meaning of Quality Judith A. Ramaley .............................................................................................................................18

PAPER SESSIONS

26

The Value of Performance Indicators in Supporting a Community Engagement Agenda at RMIT Robyn Adams, Anne Badenhorst, and Dr Gabrielle Berman ............................................................26 Engaging Communities in Participation: Participation for What? For Whom? By Whom? And How? Iain Butterworth and Josephine Palermo...........................................................................................38 Revisiting Quality for International Research Education: Towards an Engagement Model Margaret Cargill and Kate Cadman...................................................................................................45 Student Engagement as a Quality Indicator at the University of Newcastle Jim Cleary and Ivan Skaines .............................................................................................................50 Embedding Community Engagement: Northern Adelaide and The University of South Australia Mike Elliott, Peter Sandeman and Hilary Winchester.......................................................................55 Quality Management of Academic Development – The Challenge of Engaging Stakeholders Kathleen Gray and Alex Radloff .......................................................................................................62 Developing Essential Networks as a Source of Community for International Postgraduate Students Andrew M. Guilfoyle ........................................................................................................................68 Engaging Doctoral Candidates in Research Communities Dr Margaret Kiley .............................................................................................................................73

The Marriage of Needs? Internationalising Universities and Students Michelle King and Chenicheri Sid Nair ............................................................................................78 Making Community Engagement Core Business Anne Langworthy ..............................................................................................................................83 From Regional Engagement to Marriage: Can the Love Affair between Regions and their University Campuses Last? Professor Kateryna Longley ..............................................................................................................88 Ancora Imparo - We Are Still Learning Louise McCall, Amanda Jackson, and Glenice Ives..........................................................................98 Benchmarking Disability Support: the webCATS project Patricia McLean, Denise Kirkpatrick, Tony Payne and Christine Goodacre...................................102 Auditing Offshore Partnerships: Lessons from Reviewing Nursing and Psychology Courses Offered in Singapore Y. R. McNicoll, J. M. Clohessy and A. R. Luff ..............................................................................108 Quality in Internationalisation – Engaging Academic Communities Susan Mayson and Jan Schapper .....................................................................................................113 Community Partnership: UniSA Whyalla Campus and the Whyalla Counselling Service Tricia Munn .....................................................................................................................................118 Reflections on Self-Assessment Nicolene Murdoch ...........................................................................................................................122 Quality and Evaluation: A Universal System for a Quality Outcome Chenicheri Sid Nair and Chris Wayland..........................................................................................127 “Relationships, Respect and Responsibility”: Cultural Safety and Ensuring Quality Curriculum for Indigenous Health in Medical Education Gregory Phillips...............................................................................................................................131 Community Engagement: A Cautionary Tale Dr Nick Szorenyi-Reischl................................................................................................................136 Engaging Internal Communities and External Stakeholders in Program Quality Assurance Joan Richardson and Miriam Weisz ................................................................................................144 Reconceptualising Quality in the Revival of Academic Values Suzanne Ryan and Charmian Eckersley ..........................................................................................151 Developments in Quality Assurance: A Comparative Study of Australia and India Milind Sathye ..................................................................................................................................157 A Proposed Framework for Effective Quality Management of Community Engagement Geoff Scott and Julie Jackson..........................................................................................................162 Industry Engagement: Transforming Good Intentions into Good Practice Peter Shadbolt and Judie Kay ..........................................................................................................168 Engaging Communities as Scholarship Rod St Hill .......................................................................................................................................173

WORKSHOP SESSIONS

177

Student Practicum – Engaging with the Professions Quality Assurance in Extramural Student Placements Workshop John A Baguley and Grahame Feletti..............................................................................................177 Industry Engagement: Transforming Good Intentions into Good Practice Judie Kay and Peter Shadbolt..........................................................................................................179

AUQA Occasional Publication

Proceedings of the Australian Universities Quality Forum 2005

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AAIR ........................................................................... Australasian Association for Institutional Research AAU ............................................................................. (New Zealand) Academic Audit Unit ADRI ........................................................................... A cyclical model of evaluating quality assurance practices, comprising assessment of an organisation’s approach, deployment, results and improvement efforts AEI ................................................................................. Australian Education International AQF............................................................................... Australian Qualifications Framework AQTF ......................................................................... Australian Quality Training Framework AMC ............................................................................ Australian Medical Council ATEM ........................................................................ Association for Tertiary Education Management ASEAN ..................................................................... Association of Southeast Asian Nations ATN .............................................................................. Australian Technology Network auditees ..................................................................... Those Australian HE entities subject to audit by AUQA, namely universities, self-accrediting institutions and state accrediting agencies AUQA ........................................................................ Australian Universities Quality Agency AUQF ......................................................................... Australian Universities Quality Forum AVCC ......................................................................... Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee B-HERT ................................................................... Business / Higher Education Round Table CE .................................................................................... community engagement CEQ............................................................................... Course Experience Questionnaire CQAHE ................................................................... Committee for Quality Assurance in Higher Education DEST ........................................................................... (Commonwealth) Department of Education, Science and Training EQA .............................................................................. external quality agency GATS .......................................................................... General Agreement on Trade in Services GCCA ......................................................................... Graduate Careers Council of Australia GDS............................................................................... Graduate Destination Survey GSA............................................................................... Graduate Skills Assessment HDR ............................................................................. Higher Degree by Research HE ................................................................................... higher education HEI ................................................................................. higher education institution HEQC ........................................................................ (South African) Higher Education Quality Committee HERDSA ............................................................... Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australia HREOC ................................................................... Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission IAUP ............................................................................ International Association of University Presidents IDP ................................................................................ IDP Education Australia IMF ................................................................................ International Monetary Fund INQAAHE ............................................................ International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education IP....................................................................................... intellectual property IP....................................................................................... International Postgraduate ISO ................................................................................. An abbreviation used typically to refer to the International Organization for Standardization

i



IT ....................................................................................... information technology JSG ................................................................................ Joint Steering Group KPI ................................................................................. key performance indicator MCEETYA ......................................................... Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs MOU ............................................................................ Memorandum / Memoranda of Understanding NOOSR .................................................................... National Office of Overseas Skills Recognition OECD ......................................................................... Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development PREQ ........................................................................... Postgraduate Research Experience Questionnaire QA ................................................................................... quality assurance QAA ............................................................................. (United Kingdom) Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education R&D .............................................................................. research and development SAI .................................................................................. self-accrediting institution SLA ............................................................................... service level agreement SRA .............................................................................. Shared Responsibility Agreement TAFE ........................................................................... Technical and Further Education UNESCO ............................................................... United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization VET ............................................................................... vocational education and training WHO ............................................................................ World Health Organisation WTO ............................................................................. World Trade Organisation

ii



PREFACE Since its inception in 2002, the Australian Universities Quality Forum (AUQF) has provided an opportunity for persons interested in advancing the Australian higher education sector to collectively explore contemporary issues, share good practices and discuss challenges in quality assurance and quality enhancement. The fourth AUQF, organised through AUQA by the Joint Steering Group (JSG), was held in Sydney, Australia, in July 2005. The theme of the Forum was ‘Engaging Communities’. This theme was selected by the JSG in recognition of the increasing importance the sector is placing on explicitly linking its academic capability and capacity with the needs of various types of communities. AUQF2005 was attended by 254 delegates, making it the largest AUQF thus far. The delegates included Vice-Chancellors and senior university managers and academics, government officials and other key stakeholders in higher education, including students and members of professional bodies from all over Australia. The Forum was also attended by international delegates from seventeen countries. A wide variety of presentation formats was employed, including keynotes, panel plenary sessions, a formal debate, papers, workshops and posters. The quantity and quality of discussion, in both the informal and formal sessions, indicates that delegates found the Forum very useful. This indication has been supported by the returned evaluation forms, which suggest that AUQF2005 has been our most successful Forum to date. All papers contained in these Proceedings were presented at the Forum. They cover a wide range of issues such as: quality assurance; internationalisation; teaching & learning; community engagement; plagiarism and academic values; and transnational education. The papers (except for keynote addresses and workshop reports) were refereed, using a double-blind process, by the Sydney Reference Group – a committee of the JSG. In 2004, and in order to both recognise excellence and encourage improvement in quality assurance and quality enhancement in the higher education sector, the JSG instigated awards for the Best Paper, Best Presentation and Best Poster at the Forum. The 2004 winners, who are featured on the AUQF website, set such a high standard that the JSG resolved to continue with the awards program. This year the good news continued. Our 2005 winners provide fine examples of forum papers, presentations and posters that set the benchmark for future fora. The first award is for Best Poster. The ability to convey an important message about quality assurance or quality enhancement in a succinct, visually enticing form is a valuable skill. The JSG believes this was well demonstrated by this year’s winner, Ganesh Hegde. His poster, titled Lessons from Audits – Experience of NAAC, is available for viewing online at the AUQF2005 website. The second award is for Best Presentation. The JSG wishes to emphasise the importance of ensuring conference presentations engage the audience and encourage new ideas. This was ably demonstrated by our winners Dr Iain Butterworth, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Health and Behavioural Sciences, Deakin University; and Josephine Palermo, Research Fellow, Centre for Health through Action on Social Exclusion, Deakin University, in their workshop presentation titled: Engaging Communities in Participation: Participation for What? For Whom? By Whom? And How? The Workshop paper is included in these proceedings. The third award is for Best Paper. Such scholarly awards are well known and require little explanation. This year’s winners are Mike Elliott, University of South Australia Northern Adelaide Partnerships (UNAP), University of South Australia; Peter Sandeman, Office of the North, Government of South Australia; and Professor Hilary Winchester, Organisational Strategy and Change, University of South Australia, for their paper titled: Embedding Community Engagement: Northern Adelaide and The University of South Australia.

iii



Included also in these Proceedings are three papers that reflect the keynote addresses, kindly prepared by the speakers, and two workshop reports. These documents, although outside the double-blind refereeing process, provide both a fuller record of the AUQF, and valuable insights into the theme of Engaging Communities. We hope you can join us again in Perth on 5-7 July for our fifth forum, ‘AUQF2006: Quality Outcomes and Diversity’.

Martin Carroll JSG Chairperson September 2005

iv



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Joint Steering Group is appreciative of the contributions of many individuals and groups which assisted with the organisation of AUQF2005. Some, and undoubtedly not all, are mentioned here. The JSG would like to acknowledge the financial assistance of the following organisations in staging AUQF2005: •

Australian Government International Education Network (AEI) (Gold Sponsor)

•

iParadigms/Turnitin (Silver Sponsor)

•

Canon Australia Pty Ltd (Silver Sponsor)

•

National Tertiary Education Union (Silver Sponsor)

•

Campus Review (Official Media Sponsor)

•

AUQA (for underwriting the AUQF)

JSG thanks the following for their invaluable assistance: •

The Hon. Jenny Macklin, Deputy Federal Labor Leader and Shadow Minister for Education, Training, Science and Research, for opening the Forum with such insightful comments.

•

The Sydney Reference Group (SRG) and, in particular, the convenor Professor Adrian Lee of the University of New South Wales, for referring the contributions and assisting with judging the awards

•

Fiona Gunn for providing excellent administrative support in organising the Forum and compiling these Proceedings.

Finally, and most importantly, we would also like to thank all authors who contributed their papers for these Proceedings.

v



AUQF JOINT STEERING GROUP The Forum is organised by a Joint Steering Group (JSG) established in December 2001. The JSG is a collaborative, unincorporated body established to organise annual national fora on the topic of quality and targeted primarily, but not necessarily exclusively, for the Australian higher education sector. Terms of Reference 1.

The JSG shall be responsible for organising an annual Australian Universities Quality Forum (AUQF) for primarily the Australian Higher Education Sector. The scope may be broadened to include international parties and other post-compulsory education sectors.

2.

The purposes of the AUQF shall be to facilitate the discussion and advancement of quality assurance, quality enhancement and the sharing of good practices.

3.

The JSG may take responsibility for publishing proceedings of the AUQF or other publications arising from the AUQF.

4.

The JSG shall not have final responsibility for managing the financial affairs of each AUQF. The final responsibility shall rest with either AUQA or the host institution or organisation as appropriate. However, the JSG shall advise AUQA or the host institution or organisation in this regard.

5.

Any net surpluses from the activities of the JSG shall be applied to the following, in order of priority: (a) to offset any deficits from previous activities of the JSG; (b) to help fund publications arising from AUQFs, and (c) to help fund subsequent AUQFs.

6.

The JSG shall have the power to establish subcommittees as necessary to fulfil its terms of reference.

JSG2005 Members Ms Robyn Adams, ATEM Dr Claire Atkinson, Assistant Director, Quality Unit, Higher Education Group, DEST Dr Simon Barrie, Vice-President, HERDSA Mr Rob Carmichael, Audit Director, AUQA Mr Martin Carroll, Audit Director, AUQA (Chairperson) Mr Barry Grear, Australian Council of Professions Ms Dorte Kristoffersen, Audit Director, AUQA Professor Adrian Lee, Pro Vice-Chancellor (Education and Quality Improvement), University of New South Wales Ms Wendy Marchment, President, AAIR Professor Geoff Scott, Pro Vice-Chancellor (Quality), University of Western Sydney Ms Shirley Stokes, Department of Education and Training, NSW Professor Jan Thomas, Pro Vice-Chancellor, Murdoch University (representing AVCC) Dr David Tippin, Quality Coordinator, University of Auckland (representing NZVCC) Dr David Woodhouse, Executive Director, AUQA

vi



SYDNEY REFERENCE GROUP The SRG is a committee of the JSG responsible for refereeing the Forum contributions. Associate Professor Paul Ashton, University of Technology Sydney Mr Patrick Boyle, University of New South Wales Mr Martin Hanlon, University of Technology Sydney Associate Professor Diana Kelly, University of Wollongong Professor Adrian Lee (Convenor), University of New South Wales Ms Barb McLean, University of Sydney Ms Pauline O’Loughlin, UTS Shop Front Ms Jan O’Reilly, University of Sydney Mr Frank Payne OAM, Professions Australia Professor Geoff Scott, University of Western Sydney Mr Ivan Skaines, University of Newcastle

vii



KEYNOTE ADDRESSES

Engaging Aboriginal Communities – Doing Things Differently Dr Sue Gordon AM, Magistrate Thank you for inviting me to this forum today and allowing me the opportunity to speak to you about engaging Aboriginal communities – doing things differently. It does seem to me that the government does want to engage differently with Indigenous communities and people. A strategy in this different approach is ‘shared responsibility’. Engaging and working directly with Indigenous communities through Shared Responsibility Agreements (SRAs) is a fundamental part of the government’s new arrangements for Indigenous affairs. These agreements are a new way of developing communities by building a partnership between governments, communities and other stakeholders to achieve better outcomes for Indigenous communities. I believe we all need to work together to achieve better outcomes for Indigenous people and that all parties should take responsibility. Today I will briefly outline for you: •

the government’s new arrangements in Indigenous affairs

•

three examples of SRAs that have been developed that identify education as a priority in the community

•

the government’s approach to Indigenous education.

At this point I should point out that prior to the era of political correctness I was referred to as an Aboriginal, so if I move between saying Indigenous people and Aboriginal people, put it down to an age issue. New Arrangements Firstly I will briefly outline for you the government’s new arrangements for Indigenous affairs. On 15 April 2004, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, Senator Vanstone, announced major changes to the administration of Indigenous Affairs in Australia. As you would know, on 1 July 2004, the government introduced most of its proposed structural changes to the administration of Indigenous Affairs. This involved the government’s Indigenous programs being administered by mainstream agencies or departments, but under a ‘whole-of-government’ approach. This means that mainstream departments are required to accept responsibility for the Indigenous services delivered by their department and will be held accountable for outcomes. Whole of Government Indigenous Coordination Centres (ICCs) have been established and are the front line for government presence. These ICCs offer a coordinated one-stop-shop service as many departments are represented in these centres. There are 30 of these Indigenous Coordination Centres in metropolitan, rural and remote areas across the country. An Office of Indigenous Policy Coordination (OIPC) has been established within the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs to coordinate Indigenous policy development and service delivery across the Australian Government. They are also responsible for overseeing relations

1



with state and territory governments on Indigenous issues and monitoring the performance of Australian Government programs and services for Indigenous people. A Ministerial Taskforce on Indigenous Affairs (MTF) has been set up to provide leadership and strategic direction at the national level, and is advised by the Secretaries Group on Indigenous Affairs and the National Indigenous Council (NIC). I’ll come back to the role of the MTF, Secretaries Group and NIC shortly. I’m told that the changes were made because the government recognised the need for better outcomes for Indigenous people. It was recognised too that communities needed to have a say, and share responsibility for saying where the money goes and what it buys. But I’ll come back to this. Ministerial Taskforce on Indigenous Affairs The Ministerial Taskforce on Indigenous Affairs (MTF) is important as, as far as I understand, it is the first time that all Ministers with a responsibility for Indigenous Affairs sit down together regularly and talk things through and work out where the money is best spent. The Ministerial Taskforce will each year review the performance of Indigenous-specific programs and funding with a view to using the Indigenous-specific funding pool flexibly and reallocating resources to the approaches that are shown to work best in addressing Indigenous disadvantage, including at a regional and local level. The MTF is comprised of ten Ministers that have portfolios that include Indigenous services or program delivery. The MTF meets at least four times each year including two meetings with the NIC. We, that is the NIC, have had two meetings with Ministers already. Ministerial Taskforce Charter The Ministerial Taskforce has adopted a Charter which outlines the Australian Government’s 20-30 year vision for Indigenous affairs. This 20-30 vision for government is important as it aims to ensure Indigenous Australians ‘make informed choices,’ ‘realise our full potential’ and ‘take responsibility for managing our own affairs.’ This is important for us as citizens of this country. But it is also important for us as communities and individuals to have this long-term view – so that our kids, grandkids and great grandkids can have safe, healthy and successful futures. The Charter identifies three urgent priorities for immediate attention – we, the NIC saw these and agreed, but also had the opportunity with the Ministers to sharpen them and make them even more focused and targeted. The priorities read: There are many urgent priorities and milestones to be met to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians. The issues that must be addressed are interconnected and progress needs to be made across all key areas, particularly health, housing, education and employment which are essential to Indigenous well-being. Taking account of urgent priorities and the government’s long-term vision for Indigenous Australia, the Taskforce will focus on three key areas of intervention for the development of coherent, cross agency approaches over the next 12 months. The priorities are: • early childhood intervention, a key focus of which will be improved mental and physical health, and in particular primary health, and early educational outcomes;

2



• safer communities (which includes issues of authority, law and order, but necessarily also focuses on dealing with issues of governance to ensure that communities are functional and effective); and • building Indigenous wealth, employment and entrepreneurial culture, as these are integral to boosting economic development and reducing poverty and dependence on passive welfare.

Secretaries Group on Indigenous Affairs Then there are the Secretaries. These are the heads of departments administering the Australian Government’s Indigenous programs. Like their Ministers, they meet regularly and talk through a range of issues affecting Indigenous people. The group is chaired by the Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Dr Peter Shergold, and I know first hand that all the Secretaries have been out on the ground and have first hand experience. The Secretaries also provide advice and support to the Ministerial Taskforce to help them in their discussions. The Secretaries will prepare a public annual report on the outcomes of Indigenous specific programs, and will focus its work on the priorities set by the Ministerial Taskforce. Role of National Indigenous Council (NIC) The NIC has been established to advise the Australian Government on Indigenous issues and strategies. We are a 14 member advisory body who were appointed based on merit, experience and expertise in particular areas, such as health, education, employment and law. Members do not represent a particular region, community or organisation, and the NIC is not a replacement for ATSIC nor were we intended to be a representative body. We meet at least four times a year, including twice with the Ministerial Taskforce. The NIC’s agreed Terms of Reference requires it to provide expert advice to government on how to improve outcomes for Indigenous people, including improving program performance and service delivery in a whole-of-government environment. The NIC will advise on the appropriateness and effectiveness within the Indigenous community of programs across government, and promote constructive dialogue and engagement between government and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, communities and organisations. It will also advise on national priorities and alert government to current and emerging policy, program and service delivery issues. It will not be involved in specific funding proposals or specific planning or program matters related to individual communities or regions. While the NIC will be a major source of advice to government, the government will also consult other Indigenous boards and committees, community organisations and leaders. The NIC recently held its third meeting where we provided advice to Government on the issue of land and provided preliminary advice on education and some systemic issues impacting on the effective delivery of services and programs to Indigenous people. These discussions will continue. Shared Responsibility Agreements (SRAs) Taking responsibility, as I have said, is important. All parties, governments, individuals, communities need to take responsibility. It’s only by having this that you can start to get some traction and start to get results.

3



As I have already said, shared responsibility is fundamental to the government’s new arrangements for Indigenous affairs and SRAs are a means for government to engage with communities. The emphasis on shared responsibility recognises that: •

governments alone cannot bring about all the changes necessary to overcome Indigenous disadvantage

•

Indigenous people and communities must be involved in planning and building their future.

Now what are SRAs? Shared Responsibility Agreements are agreements that spell out what all partners – communities, governments and others – will contribute to bring about long-term changes which will achieve better outcomes for Indigenous communities. SRAs can be developed in remote communities, regional areas or discrete parts of urban areas if Indigenous people locally decide they want to make changes in this way. At present, 76 SRAs have been signed in communities right around Australia. SRAs consist of one or more priority issues identified locally by Indigenous people and closely linked to the community’s (and government’s) 20-30 year vision. For example, increased school attendance, healthier kids, stronger governance, Indigenous people able to get into available jobs or how Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP) can best support community needs. Several communities that have signed up to SRAs have recognised that education is vital to the future of their communities and have captured this in their agreements. The focus of many of these agreements involves increasing school attendance, improving facilities and access to education, and getting more out of schooling. There are currently over ten SRAs that have been signed and focus on education and children’s development. I will focus on a few examples, including Tara in the Northern Territory, Yalata in South Australia and the NPY Lands in Central Australia. Tara is a remote Indigenous community located 225km south of Tennant Creek and has a population of around 120. The Neutral Junction primary school also supports two smaller communities. The Tara community wants to make sure their children go to school and parents are more involved in their education. Under its SRA, the Tara community will provide a car service to take children from smaller communities to and from school, assist in a general community clean up, and arrange sporting and recreational activities for children. Parents are already engaged in activities such as washing school uniforms, providing a healthy meal program and constructing a bike track and playground. The parents of younger children will also attend training to enhance the children’s play group activities. The school will also provide a venue for community and school activities and keep records of children’s attendance. To facilitate the Tara community achieving its aim of improving school attendance rates and early childhood education, the Australian Government is providing funds for equipment and extra CDEP places. The Yalata Anangu community is a remote community 200km north-west of Ceduna that wants to build the confidence and leadership skills of its children.

4



Under the community’s education SRA, the community, governments and local police are working together to set up a new scout troop in Yalata. The Australian Government is providing funding for scout uniforms, equipment and travel, while the State Government pays for scout leaders’ salaries. Scout leaders will be CDEP participants who will undertake accredited training in mentoring and leadership. Families and individuals will volunteer to run scout meetings and activities. A ‘No School, No Scouts’ policy, similar to the ‘No School, No Pool’ policies in other communities, will be implemented, with children attending school for at least 85% of the year being able to go to the National Scouting Jamboree. The community also wants to focus on upgrading school facilities. Governments will fund new equipment, shade areas and the painting of the school. CDEP workers will assist with the refurbishment and provide school security. A community artist will also be involved to help children paint murals. The NPY Lands cover around 350,000 square kilometres, straddling the Northern Territory, Western Australia and South Australia. The Women’s Council of the Ngaanyatjarra Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara (NPY) Lands wants young women in the region to aspire to go to university. Under the SRA between the Women’s Council, the Australian Government and the University of Melbourne, 12 young Anangu and Yarnangu women were selected to go to summer school at the University in March 2005. The young women found out what it is like to live on campus and study in a large city. The University of Melbourne provided an intensive information and education program. The young women met potential role models and mentors who encouraged them to undertake further study. When they returned to their community, they shared their experiences with the women on the Women’s Council, schools, and featured on the local community radio. These SRAs are demonstrations of the ways communities can work together with governments to get the support they need to address the concerns in their community. There has been a bit of press around SRAs. My view is that if that is what works for the community and its members – then so be it. Education While communities are trying to achieve better educational outcomes, the government is also addressing the issue of education in a different manner in Indigenous communities. For example, Indigenous Education and Training programmes are built upon the foundation of the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Policy (AEP), which is Australia’s national policy on Indigenous education. The AEP was launched in 1989 and features 21 long-term, national goals for Indigenous education and training. The 21 national goals are subsets of four major goals or themes. These long-term goals/themes are: •

involvement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in educational decision-making

•

equality of access to education services

5


•

equity of educational participation

•

equitable and appropriate educational outcomes.


The NIC was advised that the Australian Government’s approach to Indigenous education for 2005 – 2008 is to: •

make mainstream programmes work better for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students

•

direct resources to programmes that have demonstrably improved outcomes

•

provide greater weighting of resources towards Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students of greatest disadvantage – those in remote areas.

I am told that this approach will be implemented through a number of initiatives such as: •

renewed emphasis on improving the equality of teaching and teacher practice

•

strengthening monitoring and reporting of educational outcomes, particularly at regional levels

•

strengthening the application of 'what works' approaches, particularly around: o

preparing young Indigenous children for schooling

o

improving attendance, and literacy and numeracy achievement, particularly in primary school

o

lifting the effectiveness of teachers and their support staff

o

helping to re-engage and retain more Indigenous students to year 12, or its vocational educational equivalent.

The NIC also welcomes the top priority given by Ministerial Council for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA) to improving outcomes for Indigenous students for the quadrennium 2005-2008. This is important as it is vital that all governments work together to ensure that their mainstream education services, supported by Indigenous specific interventions, are achieving better outcomes. The NIC also plans to meet with the Working Party established to develop and provide advice to MCEETYA later this year. The NIC spoke to Minister Nelson at the joint NIC/MTF meeting in June, where the NIC provided a substantial plank of information and advice on the issues of education, how we can maximise the outcomes our kids achieve, and how we get parents more involved. Breaking the Cycle It is important for people to recognise that to break the cycle of disadvantage it is essential that action be taken now to promote safe, healthy and learning environments for Indigenous children. Governments and communities together must tackle not only the end results, but also the underlying issues in Indigenous communities. As a National Indigenous Council (NIC) member I am pleased that the government has recognised that developing a vision is important for our future. But we need to work out what are our aspirations: where do we want our communities, children, grandchildren and older people to be in 20-30 years time? What do we want our communities to look like?

6



For our children and grandchildren to have a better future we need to work together now and focus on achieving results. We need to keep asking ourselves – what do we want the situation to be in 20-30 years time? It is vital that communities themselves take the initiative and responsibility, and capitalise on the opportunities available. As a NIC member, what we will be doing is focusing on the 20-30 year vision – we will be looking at the key issues that affect our people - our kids, our women, our men. In relation to education and getting better education results, as these results set the foundations for the future lives of our kids, our communities - I think there was one resounding message - for our kids to get the most from school we all need to take responsibility – and I think shared responsibility and SRAs are a vehicle by which we can get people – all parties, governments, schools, parents – to take responsibility. NIC members all agree that early intervention even before Aboriginal children are born is the key to ensuring Aboriginal children have a chance to develop in every way possible. By giving responsibility back to Aboriginal people the government is saying “we are willing to help you achieve anything you want for your children’s future, however, you have to tell us how you want this to happen”… SRAs are just the first of many steps. While I appreciate there are representatives here of the federal Department of Education Science and Training (DEST), I will briefly cover some of their areas relating to Indigenous peoples. Since 2001, DEST has produced an annual National Report to Parliament on Indigenous Education and Training which have shown that significant progress has been made over the fifteen years of the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Policy (AEP). For example, Years 3 and 5 reading and numeracy benchmark data indicates a slow, steady improvement in outcomes. Indigenous students are also being retained to Year 12 at a greater rate, and are increasingly going on to participate in vocational education and training and higher education. Despite these improvements, unacceptable disadvantage remains. Gaps persist between outcomes for Indigenous and non-Indigenous students across the education and training sectors. We were advised that the Australian Government’s Indigenous education and training programs are supplementary to mainstream funding, and are intended for strategic interventions that will accelerate improvement in Indigenous student learning outcomes. Indigenous Education and Training Programs There are also a number of Indigenous education and training programs that are run by DEST and specifically target Indigenous students. They include: Supplementary Recurrent Assistance provides supplementary per capita funding to education providers across the preschool, school and vocational education and training (VET) sectors on the basis of their Indigenous student numbers. English as a Second Language – Indigenous Language Speaking Students (ESL-ILSS) makes funding available to providers who are educating Indigenous students from a non-English speaking background undertaking their first year of formal instruction in English. Students who are eligible are assessed as having ‘pre-level 1’ ratings in English, have a home language that is an Indigenous language, Kriol or Torres Strait Creole and commencing formal schooling for the first time. Indigenous Education Projects – Capital and Non-capital: funding for capital and non-capital projects which clearly demonstrate that they will advance the objects of the Act and thereby the goals of the AEP. Project proposals are assessed against strategic priorities such as early childhood developments, increasing literacy, numeracy, attendance and retention rates.

7



Short-Term Special Assistance (STSA) provides assistance to providers in short-term emergency situations which cause severe temporary financial difficulty. Funding may be available to non-systemic preschool, school and Vocational Education Training providers who have a current IEA with the Australian Government. ‘Mixed-mode’ Away-from-Base Assistance (AFB) provides funding for travel, meals and accommodation while a student (or staff member) is away from their normal place of residence as part of a ‘mixed-mode’ course of study. A ‘mixed-mode’ course is a nationally accredited course that is delivered through a combination of distance education and face-to-face teaching for students who are based in their home communities and undertake occasional intensive study periods on campus. This program is designed to facilitate access and participation of Indigenous students in Higher Education and Vocational Education Training. Indigenous Tutorial Assistance Scheme (ITAS) In-Class Tuition provides literacy and/or numeracy tuition which is arranged by a funded education provider (a school or school system) targeted to achieving improved literacy and numeracy skills for Indigenous students at key points of schooling. Indigenous Tutorial Assistance Scheme (ITAS) Year 10, 11 and 12 Tuition (DEST Administered) provides supplementary tuition for Indigenous students enrolled in Year 10, 11 or 12. Tuition may be provided outside normal hours of schooling or during ‘study’ periods. The student, parent/caregiver, school or institution where the tuition is to take place can apply, and in DEST administered situations, the department locates a tutor for the student. Indigenous Tutorial Assistance Scheme (ITAS) Year 10, 11 and 12 Tuition (Provider Administered) provides supplementary tuition for Indigenous students enrolled in Year 10, 11 or 12. Tuition may be provided outside normal hours of schooling or during ‘study’ periods. In cases where the tuition is administered by a provider, a contract is made between the Australian Government (through DEST) and the relevant education provider. These contracts may be made at a systematic, district regional or individual school level. Indigenous Tutorial Assistance Scheme (ITAS) Tertiary Tuition provides supplementary tuition to eligible students studying university award level courses and Australian Qualifications Framework accredited vocational education and training courses at ITAS funded institutions. Tuition is available only for subjects in a student’s formal education program and is not usually available for basic literacy, numeracy, enabling and bridging courses. Parent School Partnerships Initiative (PSPI) focuses on the implementation of creative approaches to improving the educational outcomes of Indigenous school students. It encourages parents of Indigenous students, Indigenous communities and schools to work together in partnerships to address local barriers to education. The PSPI supplements mainstream education services and programs and may provide a mechanism for capacity building in Indigenous communities to enhance learning outcomes of Indigenous students. Homework Centres (HWCs) provide a supportive environment for Indigenous students to complete their homework and to study. Homework Centres are designed to supplement other school strategies to improve the educational outcomes of Indigenous students. They are usually set up in a school classroom, library or other school building and are supervised by personnel drawn from Indigenous communities and from schools. Education Referral to the NIC Although these programs have been set up, the government is interested in other practical initiatives that will work towards improving the education outcomes for Indigenous students.

8



The NIC was requested to provide advice in relation to two education matters referred to them by the Hon. Dr Brendan Nelson, Minister for Education Science and Training at the joint Ministerial Taskforce/NIC meeting in December 2004. The education matters referred were: 1) what initiatives would be best undertaken in the area of Indigenous education 2) how the government can best ensure that parents meet their responsibilities for sending children to school. The NIC provided preliminary advice on these matters and we will continue our discussions at our next meeting in September. Future discussions will also be undertaken by NIC members on higher education and forwarded to Minister Nelson. All NIC members agree that while the number of Indigenous people attending universities is increasing, our aim must be to ensure that all Indigenous children know what universities can offer them. Indigenous Higher Education Advisory Council As you are no doubt aware, there is an advisory body that has been set up to specifically focus on higher education for Indigenous students. The Indigenous Higher Education Advisory Council was established by the Minister for Education, Science and Training, the Hon Dr Brendan Nelson, to provide policy advice to the Minister and the Department on higher education issues. The Council is comprised of 16 members. The Council will also: •

make recommendations to the Minister for awards under the Indigenous Staff Scholarships program

•

develop strategies for increasing the number of, and enhancing career paths of, Indigenous staff employed in higher education institutions

•

convene an annual Indigenous Higher Education Conference which will include discussion of research developments and policy directions; sector/institutional achievements; successful innovations and best practice measures; and presentation of the Neville Bonner Scholarship and the Indigenous Staff Scholarships.

I have also been advised that the Indigenous Higher Education Advisory Council working conference will be held in November 2005. Professor Mary Ann Bin-Salik sits on this Council as well as the NIC, so this ensures good linkages between the two bodies. Finally, in response to the two questions posed for myself on the Forum web site, I would say: In regards to the first question: Is there an Indigenous mode of quality audit? By David Woodhouse. I was not sure what he was asking, but thought it could be that he was asking: is an Indigenous perspective sought when undertaking a quality audit? If that is the case, then it would be up to the program areas to decide and comment on this, as all programs would be different. The NIC was presented with an overview of the government’s audit arrangements by Dr Stone and the NIC provided feedback on the proposed audit and evaluation program. In regards to the second question: Taken that Aboriginal culture is more concerned with conserving quality as it is than defining quality as it should be: What principles of Aboriginal custom do Australian educational institutions need to understand? By Simon Fenton-Jones. My response is that you are the

9



education experts, however the NIC has provided some preliminary advice to government on some education issues and will be discussing the issue of higher education in September as I mentioned previously. I would be pleased to receive any views/practical initiatives (for attracting Indigenous students to university and keeping them there) that could be fed into those discussions with my NIC colleges before feedback/advice is provided to the MTF. I will leave you with a quote from an Aboriginal prisoner who, back in the 1990s, participated in a higher education program after not attending school for a very long time. He said: Education is like standing on a hill and being able to see forever! Thank you.

Address for correspondence: Secretariat, National Indigenous Council Secretariat and Policy Coordination Branch Office of Indigenous Policy Coordination Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs PO Box 17 WODEN ACT 2606 Phone: 02 6121 4786 Facsimile: 02 6275 3567

10



Scholarship and Mission in the 21st Century University: The Role of Engagement Barbara A. Holland Senior Scholar, Center for Service and Learning, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis

Fundamental shifts in modes of knowledge generation are challenging traditional conceptions of scholarly work and academic values on a global scale. Engaged scholarship, or engagement, refers to teaching and research activities that link academic institutions with external communities in mutuallybeneficial knowledge exchange relationships. Engagement is being widely adopted by universities around the world as an expression of contemporary research methods and as a reinterpretation of the role of higher education in creating “public good.” Based on recent validations of engagement by international scholars, major research funding agencies and American systems of classification and accreditation, the author argues that engaged scholarship is an increasingly important factor influencing institutional diversity, scholarly prestige and higher education policy. 1. Introduction Public policy for higher education can have a dramatic impact on academic values and scholarly priorities. For most of the last 30 years, public policy in the United States has portrayed higher education largely as a source of innovation and as individual opportunity through the conferral of degrees and credentials. These policies created an incentive for governments to invest research funding in fewer and fewer universities, and a political rationale to support reduced public subsidies for tertiary instruction in favor of revenue strategies that passed more costs directly to students. The dominance of the highlyselective research university as the primary model of academic prestige and success was greatly reinforced. Discipline-based peer review was widely adopted as the premiere criterion for funding and the leading indicator of intellectual quality, even at universities with relatively modest research capacity or mission. By the 1990s, universities were constrained by a monolithic and narrow image of academic quality, a decline in the diversity of institutional missions, stiff competition for full-paying students, and a great diminishment of public belief in the idea of higher education as a force for “public good”. There was, in other words, an institutional arms race for prestige and resources in pursuit of a narrowly defined target of excellence---the traditional research university. The idea that higher education has a responsibility through the deployment of its research and teaching capacity to contribute to the quality of community life, democratic capacity, and connecting knowledge to public needs and opportunities was largely lost. When Ernest Boyer (1990) translated the constricting and rigid academic silos of research, teaching, and service into the more nuanced and interactive domains of discovery, teaching, engagement (Carnegie, 1997), and integration, he helped scholars and policymakers begin to see that higher education institutions cannot and must not adopt monolithic models of scholarship. The implications of this more generous view of the nature of scholarship for the establishment of institutional priorities, the roles and responsibilities of faculty, the design and intentions of the curriculum, and the nature of professional practice are still being explored. The Boyer model of scholarship, developed in large part through careful observation of the changing nature of American society and its knowledge needs, converges nicely with the changing nature of the global economy and the behavior of multi-national companies. Observing the impacts of policy, technology and the global economy on academia and the corresponding impact of research on the economy, scholars around the world have launched an ongoing examination of fundamental changes in the nature of research, scholarly values, knowledge generation and dissemination, academic quality, and the role of higher education in society. Engaged scholarship, in particular, has emerged as a force for institutional diversification as each university considers how its intellectual assets should or should not be focused on the exploration of questions with public dimensions; questions that require collaborative knowledge relationships. Engaged scholarship is a specific conception of scholarly work that blends the intellectual assets and questions of the academy with the intellectual expertise and questions of the public. Engagement is a mode of teaching and learning, and a method of research; it is not a new view of the traditional notion of service. This approach to inquiry and knowledge generation is

11



similar to contemporary trends in the role and impact of research and development in the private sector, as will be discussed herein. This paper will place engaged scholarship within the context of recent literature and policy actions that suggest the traditional role of universities as society’s primary generators and transmitters of knowledge is evolving. Now, academic institutions must become participants in a highly complex learning society where discovery, learning, and engagement are integrated activities that involve many sources of knowledge, generated in diverse settings by a variety of contributors. The paper will review the growing understanding and implementation of engagement in the U.S. and other countries, as well as changes in several key classification, accreditation, and research funding systems in the United States that are enhancing engagement’s academic validity. Ultimately, the paper will argue that engaged research is destined to become an important measure of academic quality and prestige, to the degree that engagement is relevant to each university’s mission and its constituencies. It can also be argued that engaged education is an equally important and growing trend within tertiary education as educators begin to reshape the traditional curriculum in response to demands for better prepared graduates who possess adaptive 21st century skills. Those skills include the capacity to improve professional practice by utilizing research-based approaches and the ability to handle unexpected and difficult problems. This movement is related to the theme of this paper but would require further development than space allows here. For our purposes, suffice it to say that engaged teaching and learning will be driven by the same patterns of economic and community development as the engaged research agenda and, in many cases, the two will soon integrate within the student experience. Thus, engaged teaching and learning as well as engaged research are both proving to be a force for institutional change and diversity. 2. Global Shifts in Research Paradigms To date, much of the literature documenting shifts in the nature of knowledge production and research modes has come from Europe. As early as 1994, Michael Gibbons and several colleagues, began to reflect on new approaches to knowledge production and research, noting that while the traditional mode of research (called Mode I) continues, there is an emerging and increasingly important new research (Mode II) taking hold in higher education. Mode I is described as the traditional view of research: pure, disciplinary, homogeneous, expert-led, hierarchical, peer-reviewed, and almost exclusively universitybased. Mode II is described as applied, problem-centered, “transdisciplinary,” heterogeneous, hybrid, demand-driven, entrepreneurial, network-embedded, and not necessarily led by universities (Gibbons et al., 1994). Their argument is that Mode II is not replacing Mode I, but that Mode II will be increasingly important with continued growth of new, more flexible approaches to intellectual inquiry driven by the rapid diffusion of knowledge facilitated by the spread of information technology as a vehicle for knowledge exchange and a platform that supports new forms of collaboration. Mode II research calls for “transdisciplinary” modes where knowledge is produced in the context of application rather than in the more controlled context of an academic discipline and its paradigms. Transdisciplinarity is made necessary by the extensive social distribution of knowledge (Gibbons et al., 1994). Disciplinary traditions, subject-driven academic programmatic hierarchies, and organizational boundaries inhibit the exploration of some intellectual problems. In part this is because technology has made knowledge, data, expertise and information so widely available that much research now can draw upon dynamic, interactive networks across different organizations, sectors, individuals, and even nations to address problems that were until now unresearchable. Research networks form, work and dissolve or transform as dimensions of a problem are solved. Results are diffused as they emerge; production and dissemination are often merged. As the question evolves, new practitioners, scholars, or experts may enter or exit the network, contributing to both new findings and further dissemination. Gibbons and his colleagues argue that traditional criteria will continue, but that elements of efficiency, application, and utility will become increasingly valued. In some research that involves transdisciplinary modes, validation of quality and impact of findings may arise from sectors and sources outside the exclusive realm of the disciplines. The value of knowledge is tested as it is discovered in the context of how well the network participants deem it to “work.” In the new engaged models, the knowledge generated by transdisciplinary, networked interactions is not always grounded in the disciplines, nor does it always need to be validated first by those disciplines.

12



Dominique Foray (2004), writing from the perspective of her work as principal administrator at the Centre for Education, Research and Innovation of the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), also sees major reforms in research paradigms that are driven by the rapid creation of new knowledge and the expansion of access to data across societies and economies. Foray proposes three models of knowledge production: Model 1 refers to research advanced primarily by universities or large industries; Model 2 introduces user needs into knowledge production; Model 3 adds what Foray calls “integrative knowledge” that requires collaboration across organizations and creates the capacity to solve increasingly complex problems through exchange and diffusion of expertise. The scholarship of engagement resembles many of the characteristics of both Gibbon’s transdisciplinary scholarship and Foray’s Model 3 research. Engagement is necessarily collaborative and participatory, it draws on many sources of distributed knowledge across and beyond the university, and it relies on partnership relationships across diverse kinds of organizations, each of which offer key aspects of knowledge or expertise necessary to explore a research question. As such, engaged scholarship is shaped by multiple perspectives and deals with difficult, evolving questions that require long-term effort during which results may become known over time as particular pieces of the puzzle are solved. These innovative approaches to the ways that research is designed, conducted, and disseminated are global in their implications and are well underway. They are also having an impact on the growing integration of teaching and research, calling us to view scholarly work as a whole enterprise and creating new traditions that will be associated with academic excellence. 3. Growing Validation of Engaged Scholarship Accountability systems, policy environments, and reputational factors are already changing to accommodate new, collaborative models of knowledge generation and dissemination, including engaged research and teaching. As institutions pursue these new forms of scholarship, there is also a growing need for the documentation of quality across a wider range of institutional missions and distinctive interpretations of tertiary education. For example, a task force of the Association of Commonwealth Universities (ACU) wrote in 2001 that “engagement is now a core value for the university….this implies strenuous, thoughtful, argumentative interaction with the non-university world in at least four spheres: setting universities’ aims, purposes, and priorities; relating teaching and learning to the wider world; the back-and-forth dialogue between researchers and practitioners; and taking on wider responsibilities as [institutional] neighbors and citizens.” (p.I). Later, a 3-year research and consultation process led by ACU resulted in the 2003 publication of The Idea of Engagement: Universities in Society, documenting the potential for engagement to create greater institutional diversification and research cooperation. In the United States, an important illustration of changing academic cultures is the forthcoming revision to the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, a leading typology of American colleges and universities that is widely used to describe institutional differences for the purposes of comparative research. Since its inception, the Carnegie classification scheme has been based primarily on measures of an institution’s research funding, its overall funding base and its degree mix. The production of doctorates has been placed at the highest rung within this typology not because advanced education is intrinsically more valuable than other forms of education and institutional mission but because research and doctoral education are considered the most prestigious. Although institutions were probably always more diverse than the original system acknowledged, the wide adoption of modes of “engaged teaching and research” and other reforms in teaching have dramatically enhanced the diversity of our higher education sector, and made it obvious that Carnegie’s limited set of descriptors was inadequate. Carnegie’s new approach will include more subcategories within categories of institutions, and multiple indicators of different types of research activity. In particular, a new elective scheme will measure engagement. The scheme will be voluntary during the pilot phase, with the intention of identifying a few measurable indicators that all institutions could collect and report. Moving from voluntary to universal reporting on engagement will depend almost entirely on the identification of clear and uniform indicators.

13



In addition, two large regional higher education accreditation organizations have introduced new accreditation standards that relate to engaged research and teaching. For example, the North Central Association Higher Learning Commission recently added “Criterion Five - Engagement and Service,” which reads: “As called for by its mission, the organization identifies its constituencies and serves them in ways that both value.” (NCA, 2003:3.1-6.) Major federal research funding agencies—such the National Science Foundation (NSF)—have adopted additional criteria for proposals that address aspects of collaborative methods and the public impact or potential application of research. NSF criteria now require that grant applications submitted for its consideration address the broader social impacts of the proposed research on public understanding; policy and/or practice; educational strategies; or broader participation in the research, among others (Ramaley, 2005). Recently, the U.S. National Institutes of Health launched a discussion about adding public community members to peer review panels. In January 2005, the National Academies hosted an international conference on “Advancing Knowledge and the Knowledge Economy” in Washington DC, hosted by NSF, two directorates of the European Commission, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and other organizations to explore the changing nature of knowledge production, and associated impacts on universities, industry, governments, and other research entities (Advancing Knowledge, 2005). These and other breakthroughs confirm that the leading voices of the research world are beginning to explore these new perspectives on research paradigms and that our rhetoric and strategies are beginning to align with new research modalities. Some of America’s most prestigious universities now see engagement as an important and relevant dimension of their agenda. For example, Duke University has created a three-stage undergraduate research program called Research Service Learning (RSL), a series of research courses that teaches research methods by involving students in increasingly complex research collaborations with community partners. The program culminates with a full research study that meets both research standards of quality and the community partner’s research needs. The program is currently available in five different subject areas, with more planned. A number of other research universities are adopting this model. Surely, as more undergraduates have these research experiences, these programs may become pipelines for future faculty who enter the academic profession committed to engaged modes of research practice. In the Midwest, the subcommittee on Engagement of the Big 10i Universities’ Committee on Institutional Cooperation (2005) has written a report on Defining and Benchmarking Engagement that makes seven recommendations for helping institutions measure their commitment to engaged scholarship. The report suggests criteria for departments to use as they integrate engaged research and teaching into promotion and tenure reviews. 4. Institutional Diversity By far, the early adopters of engaged scholarship around the world were the younger, smaller, more locally-oriented public and private universities with comprehensive programs, including some graduate degrees. Many of their students come from and tend to remain in the immediate geographic area; their graduates form future leadership of the communities they serve. These institutions suffered in the past from the pressure to imitate the research university model, knowing they lacked the policy support or financial resources to achieve that status fully; therefore, they struggled to create a balance of attention to teaching (closer to their true mission) with a balance of research that would support their mission. For many of these institutions, consideration of the role of engagement has clarified their academic identity and scholarly agenda and dramatically enhanced their quality and performance in both teaching and research. By focusing on the alignment of academic strengths with the critical issues of their surrounding communities, these universities developed a more specific teaching and research agenda that improved their performance as measured by student learning, retention, research productivity, and improved political and financial support from community leaders and public funders. The more specific topical and purposeful focus generated by an engagement and community involvement agenda tends to give these i

The Big 10 Conference comprises the large state research universities across the upper Midwest region of the U.S.; such as University of Michigan, University of Illinois, University of Wisconsin, etc. For the Committee on Institutional Cooperation, University of Chicago, a private research university was also a participant. Many of these universities have information on their community engagement work on their websites; see especially University of Minnesota and Pennsylvania State University.

14



institutions a clear sense of mission, academic values and a vision for excellence that they previously lacked. In general, the elite research university sector in the U.S. has only recently begun to recognize that the very nature and traditions of research and scholarship are evolving quickly and that modes of networked, collaborative research such as engaged scholarship will be an essential element of academic excellence in the 21st Century university. Recent changes in the formal reward and recognition structures have generated tremendous interest on the part of the research universities, mostly just in the last year as these policy changes have been launched. Given the centrality of traditional scholarly values at these universities, engagement in their context will not likely ever be core to their performance, but nonetheless, engagement offers some important potential benefits to research universities, including: •

Developing the skills of transdisciplinary research; community-based research

•

Making world-class research more visible locally

•

Renewing a sense of “public purpose” to universities that have lost most of their public funding ii

•

Involve their students, from all over the world, in the local community

•

Enhance town and gown relationships

•

Attract private donor support

•

Attract and retain more first generation and diverse students

Beyond formal recognition and a desire for prestige, all universities are becoming interested in exploration of engagement based, in part, on the apparent potential for positive impacts on critical indicators of institutional success and internal performance. While few systematic studies have been conducted to validate these observations, multiple examples of positive institutional effects suggest patterns such as the following examples of engagement’s potential impacts: •

Clarifies institutional mission

•

Creates a clear rationale for an intentional mix of attention to teaching and research

•

Creates pride in a distinctive identity and purpose

•

Enhances student learning, diversity of enrolment, and retention

•

Can improve research funding through a more strategic focus on particular themes

•

Generates community and economic development benefits

•

Improves academic image and community relationships

•

Increases private financial support

In many ways, the exploration (and conflict) over the relevance of engagement to higher education in general, or any institution specifically, has led to some greater clarity of the important differences among across universities and helped create more specific visions for the scholarly values and strengths that faculty and students embrace in teaching and research. Given greater levels of competition among education providers, reduced public funding for higher education, changes in the nature of research and knowledge production, and increased importance on effective teaching and successful student retention, one could argue that the exploration of engagement has suggested some new indicators of academic excellence. These new, fundamental traditions will look something like this •

Balanced attention to an intentional mix of multiple modes of scholarly roles across discovery, learning, and engagement.

•

Research-based approaches to teaching and learning.

ii

This concept was stated by University of California System President Robert C. Dynes on June 10, 2005 at a system-wide symposium on community engagement. For a campus example, see University of California Los Angeles “UCLA in LA” program at http://la.ucla.edu/

15



•

Distinctive learning goals for students and intentional approaches to the learning environments that align with those goals.

•

A strategic perspective that anticipates changes in societal knowledge needs.

•

An intentional and evolving research agenda that engages many collaborating external partners as expert resources, and builds collective capacity for interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research.

•

Engagement in regional and local issues and conditions in keeping with specific institutional mission and strengths (Holland, 2004).

This extreme focus on intentionality and coherence means that as every institution explores its commitment to engagement, each institution’s level of commitment will vary according to its history, mission, context, capacity, scholarly culture, and alignment of academic strengths with public issues and questions. Clearly, engagement is creating greater diversity among institutions because external collaborations require a deep level of attention to a specific agenda of shared work based on specific knowledge resources and capacities. 5. Conclusions and Policy Implications The expanding role of technology and the importance of intellectual capital as a key asset in the economy is accelerating the development of new research modalities and making engagement a core element of academic excellence and prestige. The need to direct the intellectual assets of all tertiary institutions toward the amelioration of major public challenges and opportunities offers a way to renew the role of higher education as a force for nation building and improving quality of life. Perhaps of even greater significance is the powerful role of intellectual capital in the development and success of all sectors of the world economy. Innovation is now the key to controlling world markets. Engagement represents an adaptive response of universities to these new realities. Traditional modes of research and their important corollaries, namely concepts of institutions as self-contained and primarily involved in the discovery and transmission of knowledge, will soon co-exist with new paradigms of knowledge generation and utilization. These new approaches will require engaged strategies, both to prepare graduates who can thrive and innovate in the context of the new global knowledge economy while also contributing to the quality of life in the communities where they live, and to ensure that each region and nation has the R&D capacity necessary to compete. Recognizing these facts, many policymakers are working to create incentives to encourage and recognize engagement as an aspect of institutional missions and as a force for institutional diversification. Already, major research funders in the United States and Europe are exploring the implications of the new, more integrated and networked modes of knowledge generation and dissemination. Their discussions will surely lead to new policy initiatives meant to create incentives for universities to perform successfully in these new environments. In addition, to recognize the diverse strengths of all academic institutions, new policy schemes must be developed to recognize and fund different modes of engagement that respond to different economic opportunities and emerging public issues and involve different types of knowledge outcomes. Beyond commercialization or technology transfer, engaged teaching and research through academic-community partnerships across different types of institutions can produce valuable direct impacts on local, regional and national economic, social, cultural, educational and health concerns. To reap this benefit, policy leaders should consider negotiating unique mission-based portfolios for different universities, accompanied by more specific accountability plans that align with that specific mission and scholarly agenda. Attention to engagement can lead to greater institutional intentionality and consequently, more specific and focused agendas for research and teaching and more distinctive academic strengths. In a networked environment, these distinctive strengths can be combined in flexible and adaptive ways with the resources of community partners and national and regional industries to address complex and evolving problems and to promote innovative solutions to these pressing concerns. To succeed in serving the public good, be it at the local, national or international level, a higher education system must ensure that each institution has a clear pathway to success in keeping with their specific mission and the scope and scale of their

16



intellectual assets. In this way, wasteful competition and duplication is reduced, and institutions are encouraged to generate diverse and specific portfolios and knowledge partnerships. Collaboration across different institutional types can encourage the sharing and leveraging of intellectual resources to serve a particular locale or a specific issue across regions. Engagement, as an integrative and collaborative mode of scholarly work, is proving effective in creating the institutional clarity and focus that collectively ensures a strong higher education system working in the public interest. References Advancing Knowledge (2005). Website of the Advancing Knowledge and the Knowledge Economy Conference. Washington DC: National Academies. http://advancingknowledge.com/index.htm Association of Commonwealth Universities (2001). Engagement as a Core Value for the University. London: Association of Commonwealth Universities. http://ww.acu.ac.uk Boyer, E. (1990, re-released 1997). Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (1997). Ernest L. Boyer: Selected Speeches 19791995. Princeton, NJ. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (2005). Retrieved September 16, 2005 from http://carnegiefoundation.org/Classification/future.htm CIC (2005). Resource Guide and Recommendations for Defining and Benchmarking Engagement. Champaign, IL: Committee on Institutional Cooperation, Committee on Engagement. http://www.cic.uiuc.edu/groups/CommitteeOnEngagement Foray, D. (2004). Economics of Knowledge. Cambridge, MA and London, UK: The MIT Press. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S.; Scott, P. Trow, M. (1994). The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage Publications. Holland, B. A. (2004). Scholarship and Research in the 21st Century: the role of engagement. Address to the faculty, University of Washington Tacoma, January, 2004. McCormick, A. (2004). The 2005 Revision of the Carnegie Classification System. Presentation to the Washington Higher Education Secretariat, Washington DC, June 8, 2004. http://carnegiefoundation.org/Classification/downloads/2005Classification-WHES.pdf North Central Association Higher Learning Commission. (2003). Handbook of Accreditation. Third Edition. Chicago: NCA Higher Learning Commission. http://www.ncahigherlearningcommission.org/download/Handbook03.pdf Ramaley, J. A. (2005). Engagement and the Integration of Research and Education: A New Meaning of Quality. Keynote address to the Australian Universities Quality Forum, July 2005.

17



Engagement and the Integration of Research and Education: A New Meaning of Quality Judith A. Ramaley President, Winona State University, Winona, MN 55987, USA Introduction The purpose of this paper is to propose an interpretation of university-based research and education based on a set of core assumptions about the role and purpose of higher education in contemporary society and to explore the implications of this perspective for the formulation of national policies that address research and the support of higher education. Universities are a critically important source of ideas that can be put to good use to address societal problems. Universities are communities of scholars who can prepare their students to play productive, responsible and creative roles in their professions and in the community where they live. Universities contribute to the public good and to the quality of life by working closely with society at large and with members of the communities surrounding their campuses to address issues of importance. When these issues are articulated and framed in a collaborative process across disciplines and in cooperation with community representatives, and when the investigation of these questions is conducted in a cooperative manner involving faculty, students and, where appropriate, community members, we can say that the work is being conducted in an engaged mode. An examination of Australia’s research priorities reveals that the majority of the issues identified can best be addressed by utilizing an engaged model. The first part of this paper will examine the concept of engagement and the latter part will reflect upon the emerging policy environment in Australia through the lens of engagement. What is Engagement? Engagement refers to an educational or research initiative conducted through some form of partnership and characterized by shared goals, a shared agenda, agreed upon definitions of success that are meaningful both to the university and to the community participants, and some pooling or leveraging of university resources and public and private funds provided by other participants. The resulting collaboration or partnership is mutually beneficial and is likely to build the capacity and competence of all parties. To be successful, partnerships must build on the strengths of the participants and there must be reasonable complementarity of what each can contribute to the overall goals of the collaboration. Engagement can be distinguished from outreach, a model developed in the early days of the development of the land-grant movement in the United States and originally supported by a series of cooperative extension offices and agents. In this model, experts apply their knowledge to problems brought to them by people in the community. The patterns of these questions and concerns provide input to a research agenda, originally maintained by agricultural field stations. Outreach is primarily the transfer of knowledge from a university agent to a client. Although the infrastructure needed to sustain outreach has evolved beyond cooperative extension, and, indeed, cooperative extension itself has evolved to include programs for children and families as well as small business, it is still primarily one-way rather than a shared enterprise. Higher education institutions will usually elect to use outreach for fairly straightforward questions and problems and will initiate engagement activities to address more complex issues that lack clarity (i.e., unclear problems where either the question or the solutions are unclear) or issues that must be explored with the use of leveraged funding from multiple parties. An excellent example of the kind of problem for which an engagement strategy is ideally suited is the issue of the improvement of elementary and secondary education which, in the United States, is being approached through the vehicle of partnerships between higher education and the leadership of elementary and secondary schools. For an example of these partnerships, see Clark et al, 1998.

18



The Engaged Institution The engaged university is committed to direct interaction with external constituencies and communities through mutually beneficial exchange, exploration, and application of the knowledge, expertise, and resources of all participants. These interactions enrich and expand the learning and discovery functions of the academic institution while also enhancing community capacity. The work of the engaged institution is responsive to (and respectful of) community-identified needs, opportunities, and goals in ways that are appropriate to the campus’ mission and academic strengths. For this approach to work, the other organizations with which a university is affiliated must also have the capacity for engagement including strong leadership, some appropriate infrastructure and the time and means to participate in collaborative ventures. In fact, in many ways, the barriers to engagement that are often identified by faculty are problems for pK-12, government agencies, and the business community as well. Obstacles often mentioned by faculty who have been considering becoming involved in engaged scholarship and teaching are the time it takes to create new activities, cultivate partnerships, organize the logistics of service activities, and recruit students or other participants (Holland, 1999). Engaged institutions, no matter what the foci of their interests or the pathways by which they arrive at substantial engagement, share some common characteristics (adapted from Bringle & Hatcher, 2001; Holland, 2001; Ramaley, 2000; Ramaley, 2002): 1. Civic engagement is articulated in the institutional mission and strategies. Public perspectives and needs consistently influence campus priorities. 2. The campus involves the community in continuous, purposeful and authentic ways and listens carefully to what community members have to say. 3. The curriculum contains a variety of ways for students to learn in ways that engage them in community concerns. 4. The campus thinks carefully about the consequences of all of its decisions on its relationship with the community and its capacity to collaborate with the community. 5. The institution has a policy environment and appropriate infrastructure and investment to promote, support and reward engagement. 6. Individuals throughout the campus community play leadership roles in fostering engagement. This is especially important in order to ensure that a commitment to engagement will survive leadership transitions at presidential, provost and decanal levels. 7. The campus approach to scholarship includes support of interdisciplinary work, since societal issues do not come in ‘disciplinary form.’ 8. The campus honours and makes visible its engagement work, both internally and externally. 9. Engagement activities are held to high standards of excellence and are rigorously evaluated. To undertake genuine engagement, an institution must be willing to open itself up to the possibility that it, too, will change and learn from the experience. The element of an engaged partnership that is especially hard to achieve is the experience of genuine mutuality. The experience of engagement, however, may result in a different conception of a research university, the engaged institution that was envisioned by the Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities. The experience of engagement will become the pathway to a fresh interpretation of the role of higher education in the 21st century. This conception rests on a rethinking of the core of the academy --- namely, the nature of scholarship itself and our expectations for the undergraduate experience. The goal of engaged scholarship is not to define and serve the public good directly on behalf of society, but to create conditions for the public good to be interpreted and pursued in a collaborative mode with the community. In contemporary society, the exercise of citizenship requires constant learning and the thoughtful and ethical application of knowledge. By including our students in engaged scholarship, we introduce them to

19



these basic concepts and offer them a chance to experience them in the company of mature scholars and practitioners. During its examination of the future of the USA’s state and land-grant institutions, the Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities reframed the classic triad of research, teaching and service into a new framework of discovery, learning and engagement. The reason for doing this was that the new terms describe shared activities, usually but not always, led by faculty, that have shared consequences. The older terms tend to connote a one-way activity, generally conducted by experts. The new triad works well for describing the range of ways in which a college or university can incorporate good citizenship into its traditional work and move from an expert-centred model to an engagement model of partnership with the community. Discovery can encompass community-based scholarship and the development of new knowledge through collaborations with community participants. Learning can be done in a way that links educational goals with the challenges of life. Common forms of engaged learning are service-learning and problem-based learning, both utilizing community issues as a starting point for accomplishing educational goals. Engagement can be achieved through community-university alliances and partnerships and can support any combination of scholarly activity including discovery, integration and interpretation, and application. All three of these classic elements of campus life --- research, teaching and service --- can be conducted in an ‘engaged mode’. Whether it is discovery or learning, the activity can be community-based and can be conducted within the context of a true partnership. It can have shared goals that link the mission university with the goals of the community participants as well as an agreed-upon definition of success that will be meaningful to the institution and the community. An engaged activity can also be supported by a pooling of resources across sectors of the campus as well as within the community. When these features are present, the resulting partnership is likely to be mutually beneficial and can build the capacity and competence of all parties. These relationships also create conditions for enriching the undergraduate experience. The value of an engagement model is that it is especially designed to accomplish a strong articulation between the research community and the practitioners and community members who will put the knowledge generated by research to effective use in building a strong and diverse economy, sustainable communities and a healthy and well-educated citizenry who enjoy the benefits of a well-managed physical and social environment. If we start with the basic premise that engagement is an effective and rigorous way to conduct research and to design and implement a curriculum, then it can be approached as a legitimate form of scholarship. As such, engaged research and learning must be held to the same high standards that we would apply to any other form of scholarly endeavours. Assessing the Quality of Engaged Scholarship The idea of engagement finds its origin in the conceptions first articulated by Ernest Boyer in his monograph on Scholarship Reconsidered (1990). This broader conception arises from the belief that “at no time in our history has the need been greater for connecting the work of the academy to the social and environmental challenges beyond the campus” (Boyer, 1990, p. xii). Boyer’s intention was to explore the obligation of our nation’s colleges and universities “to break out of the tired old teaching versus research debate and define, in more creative ways, what it means to be a scholar”(Boyer, 1990, p. xii). In Boyer’s hands, scholarship has four facets: discovery, integration, application and teaching. Of these, discovery is the closest to traditional interpretations of basic research since it “contributes not only to the stock of human knowledge but also to the intellectual climate of a college or university” (Boyer, 1990, p. 17). Central to the scholarship of today is the scholarship of integration which to Boyer means “making connections across the disciplines, placing the specialties in larger context, illuminating data in a revealing way, often educating non-specialists, too” (Boyer, 1990, p. 18). In this expanded idea, the scholar is both integrator and interpreter. Most essential to the modern interpretation of the scholar is the scholarship of application, which moves toward engagement as the scholar asks, “How can knowledge be

20



responsibly applied to consequential problems? How can it be helpful to individuals as well as institutions? Can social problems themselves define an agenda for scholarly investigation?” (Boyer, 1990, p. 21). My basic premise is that we can contribute to the public good only if research and education is conducted within institutions that have embraced the habits of engagement, and if researchers care about the educational and societal implications of their work and involve students in work of genuine scholarship all facets of it. In the course of their undergraduate or graduate experiences, all students should pursue discovery, integration and interpretation, and application of knowledge to real world problems. Glassick, Huber and Maeroff (1997) built on Boyer’s classification of scholarship to define six standards by which to evaluate scholarly work. According to them, high quality scholarship is characterized by: 1. The articulation of clear goals. 2. Careful attention to prior studies and a thoughtful consideration of context. 3. Utilization of methods suitable for the scholarly objectives of the work. 4. Results that offer an effective basis for the claims made about the meaning and application of the work. 5. Effective communication of the results and the case to appropriate audiences. 6. Reflective critique of the work itself and the process by which results were obtained. Glassick et al (1997) also emphasizes that scholarship must be ethical and respectful of the effect it may have on others; in addition, if possible, all stakeholders must be drawn into the deliberations that give rise to a scholarly agenda and a course of action. Ideas do, after all, have serious consequences, especially when those ideas drive an agenda for investing in the work of others as is the case at national policy. Therefore the characterization of a portfolio of programs and awards and the impact of the support provided for investigations must be thought out carefully since the approach taken to this task can shape institutional priorities and identify in both intended and unintended ways. To use the concepts articulated by Glassick et al (1997) to build a well-warranted portfolio of programs and to guide the selection of projects for support, a national policy must have clear goals and its work must be firmly grounded in knowledge about the condition of society in general and the context in which it operates (adequate preparation). The warrant for change must be built upon a solid body of evidence gathered and interpreted in a disciplined and principled way (appropriate methods) and shown to be significantly related to the challenges at hand (significant results). The case must be presented effectively (effective presentation) and be studied reflectively (reflective critique), with a clear and compelling sense of responsibility for the effects of the ideas and proposed actions on the community that will be affected (ethical and social responsibility). Assessing the Quality of Federally-Funded Research Conducted in an Engaged Mode The Office of Management and Budget in the United States has developed an approach to assessing the quality of government-sponsored research by introducing the concepts of: •

Quality of the work being done.

•

Relevance of the work to national needs and interests.

•

Productivity and usefulness of the work.

These characteristics are evaluated by using an instrument that collects data from each US federal agency that supports research and education. As an example of how a federal agency can foster engaged research and education and how it can evaluate proposals for work that are structured in an engaged mode, let us consider how the National Science Foundation (NSF) articulates its broader societal expectations as a guide to investigators who are preparing proposals for consideration by the Agency. For the sake of

21



completeness, I have included both merit criteria, the first of which --- intellectual merit --- can be addressed, in most cases, without regard for broader social context. How the National Science Foundation (NSF) Describes its Expectationsi (1) What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity? How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields? How well qualified is the proposer (individual or team) to conduct the project? (If appropriate, the reviewer will comment on the quality of prior work). To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative and original concepts? How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity? Is there sufficient access to resources? (2) What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity? How well does the activity advance discovery and understanding while promoting teaching, training and learning? How well does the proposed activity broaden the participation of under-represented groups (e.g., gender, ethnicity, disability, geographic, etc.)? To what extent will it enhance the infrastructure for research and education, such as facilities, instrumentation, networks and partnerships? Will the results be disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and technological understanding? What may be the benefits of the proposed activity to society? (3) Integration of research and education One of the principal strategies in support of the NSF's goals is to foster integration of research and education through the programs, projects and activities it supports at academic and research institutions. These institutions provide abundant opportunities where individuals may concurrently assume responsibilities as researchers, educators and students, and where all can engage in joint efforts that infuse education with the excitement of discovery and enrich research through the diversity of learning perspectives. Australian National Research Priorities: A Model of Engaged Scholarship Let us examine Australia’s national research prioritiesii through the lens of an engagement model of research and education. Australia’s priorities are: (a) an environmentally sustainable Australia (b) promoting and maintaining good health (c) frontier technologies for building and transforming Australian Industry (d) safeguarding Australia. Each of these priorities and its accompanying strategies links basic research to very specific societal outcomes. Advancement of these primary research priorities is to be accomplished through the generation of new ideas, support for the commercial application of ideas and effective education and training. To an international visitor with experience in advancing national research and education priorities in another country (the USA), it seems appropriate to conclude that the Australian national research priorities require attention to local context, effective transfer of research findings and interpretations and institutional capacity building. Most of the goals established in the 2001-2011 funding package set forth by the Australian Department of Science Education and Training (DEST) can be best addressed by approaching

i

Source: NSF Grant Proposal Guide, January 2, 2002 Retrieved August 28, 2005, from http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/research_sector/policies_issues_reviews/key_issues/national_research_priorities/def ault.htm ii

22



the work through a model that integrates research and education and that makes effective use of community engagement strategies. At the time of this Forum, the talk was about an emerging Australian national policy direction that would separate research from education and declare separate classes of institutions whose missions would be primarily research-intensive or teaching-intensive. To an outside observer, this policy direction would seem to be at odds with the capacity that will clearly be needed to address the Australian national research goals as currently articulated, since the distance between researcher and practitioner/implementer would be greater than ever. The challenge of bringing together scholars and practitioners and transferring knowledge between them has received a great deal of attention in the United States (for examples, see Colbeck, 2000; Kezar, 2000). The Australian national research goals clearly call for an advanced skill base, effective commercialization and the application of research to pressing societal and environmental priorities. Models that integrate research and education and that promote effective partnership with community participants are much better able to support the strategies identified in the priorities and funding documents posted on the DEST web site. Consider, by contrast, the NSF research strategies. They resemble the approaches identified in Australia but they are carefully reinforced by the criteria that the NSF has established for the review of proposals (discussed above) and by the review process that the NSF employs to evaluate the proposals it receives. In addition, the NSF has put considerable effort into broadening the number, and kinds, of institutions that receive its support in order to build a more evenly distributed but regionally focused research community and to link the work of researchers more effectively to economic and community development on both a national and local scale. By contrast, Australia appears to be seeking to narrow participation in research and to concentrate its research capacity within a few institutions. NSF’s three strategies are: •

develop intellectual capital and devise ways to put that capital to good use through attention to knowledge transfer and commercialization

•

integrate research and education and broaden participation in the research enterprise (geographic region, institutional type, disciplines that contribute, diversity of investigators)

•

promote partnerships of institutions and investigators to support discovery, learning and innovation.

After several years of experience and experimentation, it is becoming clear that this integrative model effectively taps the expertise and capacities of the research community in the United States and is creating a more robust foundation for knowledge transfer and application. It links people, ideas and the development of new research tools into a comprehensive strategy supported by collaboration and engagement. Although much more needs to be done to understand how best to advance a national research and education agenda, there are a few lessons that we can already share with our colleagues in other parts of the world. 1. Research activities and results are powerful educational assets and participation in the research enterprise can promote adaptive skills and the capacity for innovation, thus contributing to the preparation of a highly skilled workforce. 2. Broad participation in research can facilitate knowledge transfer and application as well as a conception of experimental design and a framing of research questions that is more relevant to the knowledge needs of society. 3. The integration of research and education as well as the effective use of community-based and inter-institutional partnerships can ensure that research investments and efforts are more closely linked to societal priorities and needs. 4. An understanding of the discovery process and experience, along with the application of knowledge, are essential in the information age. Recent advances in cognitive science and the learning sciences can offer valuable guidance in the design and implementation of integrative

23



models of research and education that can support the preparation of a highly skilled workforce (Bransford et al, 1998). 5. A research mindset can be incorporated into both traditional and non-traditional educational settings. Everyone needs to know how new knowledge is generated and tested. This is best learned by engaging in the discovery, integration and application of knowledge as a core component of an educational experience. How might these lessons be applied to the development of an effective national higher education policy and in assessing institutional quality and effectiveness? The following observations may be of help in connecting the concepts of engagement to the development of a portfolio of universities in Australia. An integrated model of research and education requires a diverse set of higher education institutions characterized by distinctive missions and institutional relationships. The United States research capacity is built up from an educational community that includes research extensive universities (equivalent to the Australian group of eight) that have targeted strengths in basic research and that create a robust research infrastructure complemented by a group of comprehensive engaged universities whose research efforts are shaped by the national R&D priorities interpreted in regional and local contexts and integrated into the design of the curriculum and the student experience. These distinctive institutional types are held together within systems of educational institutions at the state level and by regional and national collaborative networks that address the coordination of the provision of pathways to educational access and opportunity, effective enhancement strategies for the adult workforce and the application of knowledge to community development. A higher education institution derives its distinctiveness from a number of factors that include: its historic mission and the intentions of its founders; conditions in its primary community or service area and the ambitions of community leaders; its location (urban, metropolitan, rural, combined); the forms of knowledge creation, dissemination and exchange that the institution fosters; the age and maturity of the institution itself; and the habits that its faculty and staff have developed over the years. The impact of these factors is shaped by federal and state policies and priorities and funding patterns. A national higher education policy environment can support a broader definition of scholarship (not just basic research) and reinforce this definition by applying concepts like those of the NSF that emphasize both intellectual merit and societal impact, knowledge transfer and community building. Any national higher education policy must contend with the forces associated with market conditions and can, in fact, help generate and channel those forces. In the United States, market forces and state and federal policies that are market-based are setting up conditions that encourage an unproductive institutional arms race to (a) recruit a narrow range of well-prepared students who have the ability to afford increasingly high tuitions and (b) attract traditional research funding (Newman et al, 2004; ACE The Futures Project, 2005). Both well-prepared students and research funding contribute to institutional reputation and prestige. Neither, however, offers a particularly effective way to serve broader societal goals. As Newman et al put it: In addition to competing for higher rankings, institutions seek to be ‘categorized’ in ways that connote prestige: as universities, as selective institutions, and as research institutions…Even institutions that swerve the less economically advantaged students have been caught up in this kind of competition (2004, p. 14).

Regulatory approaches that create inflexible models based on tightly defined attributes and implicit or explicit expectations based on traditional models of prestige and success will foster inappropriate efforts to imitate the ‘gold standard’ reinforced by policy. More flexibly drawn policies and forms of public accountability can, in contrast, encourage institutions to align their priorities and develop institutional strengths more closely with societal needs and priorities. The critical point here is that control of the institutional arms race should not be achieved by fencing off research funds for a small number of eligible institutions or artificially separating research from teaching.

24



Concluding Remarks The goal of this paper has been to show that a better course for national policy is to encourage the integration of research and education, while holding both functions to high standards of excellence that include accountability measures linked to broad societal goals. While the national desire to see more Australian representation among the world’s great research universities is understandable, this path will not, by itself, create the capacity to respond effectively to the R&D agenda already set forth in national policy. Efforts to contain university ambitions and to protect a limited research budget, while grooming a small number of institutions to compete in the international research community, appear to be working at odds to the strongly community-based objectives of national research policy and the Australian research priorities. A better path might be to broaden the conception of what constitutes valid and legitimate research, to provide appropriate categories of funding for these different models (basic research, engaged research) and to adopt criteria for review that include broader societal impact as well as intellectual merit. We can all benefit from engaged universities whose intellectual resources are effectively applied to local, regional and national challenges. References American Council on Education (ACE). (n.d.) Peering around the bend: The leadership challenges of privatization, accountability, and market-based state policy. In The Futures Project. The changing relationship between states and their institutions. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Boyer, E. L. (1990) Scholarship reconsidered. Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. D. (Eds.). (1998). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington DC: National Academy of Sciences. Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. (2001). Assessing and planning campus/community engagement. Paper presented at the University as Citizen: Engaging universities and communities, University of South Florida. Clarke, J. H., Sanborn, S. D., Aiken, J. A., Cornell, N. A., Goodman, J. B., & Hess, K. K. (1998). Real questions, real answers. Alexandra, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Colbeck, C. L. (2000). Reshaping the forces that perpetuate the research-practice gap: Focus on new faculty. In A. Kezar & P. Eckel (Eds.), Moving beyond the gap between research and practice in higher education, 110. (pp. 49-62). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Glassick, C. E., Huber, M. T., & Maeroff, G. I. (1997). Scholarship assessed: Evaluation of the professoriate. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Holland, B. (1999). Factors and strategies that influence faculty involvement in public service. J. Public Service and Outreach. 4(1), 37-43. Holland, B. (2001). Toward a definition and characterization of the engaged campus: six cases. Metropolitan Universities, 12(3), 20-29. Kezar, A. (2000). Higher education research at the millennium: Still trees without fruit? The Review of Higher Education, 23(4), 443-468. Newman, F.L, Courturier, L., & Scurry, J. (2004). The future of higher education. Rhetoric, reality and the risks of the market. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Ramaley, J. A. (2000). Embracing civic responsibility. AAHE Bulletin, 52(7), 9-13, 20. Ramaley, J. A. (2002). Moving mountains. Institutional culture and transformational change. In R. Diamond (Ed.), A field guide to academic leadership (pp. 59-74). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

25



PAPER SESSIONS

The Value of Performance Indicators in Supporting a Community Engagement Agenda at RMIT Robyn Adams, Anne Badenhorst, and Dr Gabrielle Berman RMIT University, Vic 3000, Australia Community engagement is gaining prominence as an important aspect of what universities do, although little work has been done on how it can be measured (ACU, 2001). This paper provides an overview of the journey of RMIT University in developing indicators to measure community engagement. The process of reflecting on the need to capture the dimensions of university engagement led to important organisational learning about the scope and nature of RMIT University’s engagement with its communities and regions. This led subsequently to the development of a theoretical framework to guide development of a discrete strategy and aligned indicators that supplemented those already existing in the broader strategic context of teaching and research. A move away from a ‘community service’ paradigm to ‘scholarship of engagement’, and development of a typology of partnerships to guide understanding and evaluation of partnerships is discussed, together with main lessons learnt. 1.

Introduction

Although community engagement is gaining prominence as an important aspect of what universities do, little work has been done on how it can be measured (ACU, 2001). It is well accepted (see, for example, Garlick, 2003, p. 2) that there is a need to ensure that the net benefits flowing from university partnerships to those involved can be identified, measured and monitored on a continuing basis. Like other universities, RMIT’s Executive recognised this imperative. To this end, a working party comprising eight members from across the University was established in 2002 to develop performance indicators to measure partnership and community engagement. Generally, indicators are developed in the context of existing strategies (or goals) in order to monitor progress. At RMIT there was no Community Engagement Strategy (plan) to direct development of a set of indicators, as ‘community partnership’ was identified in policy and understood as integrated within Teaching and Learning and Research and Innovation Strategies. The University’s Strategic Plan had clear goals and approaches and this was used to guide the working party’s activities, as it became evident that the other strategies did not adequately capture the stronger and deeper basis for community engagement that the University was seeking. Although community engagement outcomes were reported regularly, they tended to be in a narrative format and cover different achievements each time (Burnheim, 2003). 2.

“Communities”

Given that the working party’s raison d’etre was to develop appropriate indicators that reflected RMIT’s community engagement directions, it was critical as a first step to clarify stakeholder perceptions of ‘community’ and ‘community engagement’ within the specific University’s context. McNay (2000) acknowledges that there is substantial literature covering the definition of ‘communities’. While many have little in common (Bell & Newby, 1971), some uses of the term include communities based on a place, a function, or a combination of the two. Examples of communities include those of:

26

•

learning

•

region


•

development

•

interest

•

practice

•

profession

•

identity

•

culture.


In University contexts, communities include those both internal and external, such as industry, professional bodies, other education institutions, and government. Virtual communities are also becoming increasingly important. The working party also identified some ‘key region’ approaches. RMIT has a significant presence in the CBD in Melbourne based on its city campus and a responsibility in legislation that established the University to have a role in education provision in the Northern Metropolitan region of Melbourne based on the Bundoora and Brunswick campuses. RMIT also has significant activity in regional Victoria, in Hamilton and the Southern Grampians region, and a partnership with East Gippsland Institute of TAFE. In considering the myriad definitions and concepts of communities, the working group considered that RMIT’s key role as a creator of ‘communities of learning’, highlighting the importance of understanding how people learn together, should be used as a uniting theme in development of the indicators (Burnheim, 2003). Given the difficulties in consistently defining the notion of ‘community’, it was not surprising that widely differing perceptions of the concept of community engagement were discovered during consultation across the University. Some argued that this could include all of RMIT’s activities, taking a broad view of social benefit. Others viewed the scope as very narrow – strictly ‘community service’ activities conducted by some staff or mainly as a public relations exercise (Burnheim, 2002). At RMIT, the Boyer Scholarship model, which differentiates academic activities into discovery, integration, application and dissemination rather than simply research and teaching is used widely to inform the University’s activities and underpins the Strategic Plan. Boyer proposed the “scholarship of engagement” as an integrating theme – by which he meant “those activities within any of the four scholarships which connect the academic with people and places outside the campus and which ultimately direct the work of the academy toward larger, more humane ends” (Huber, 1997, p. 89). Based on the Boyer theme, and acknowledging ‘engagement’ as a value (Gibbons, 1994), a model of ‘community engagement’ was developed to provide a framework that clarified the differences between the ‘engagement’ paradigm (characterised by mutual benefit and learning, adapting and responding to new knowledge and processes found within communities) and the ‘service’ paradigm (meeting needs and solving problems for the community). Table 1: Service and Engagement Paradigms Community Service Paradigm A ‘third leg’ added to core businesses of teaching and research. University is the ‘expert’. Philanthropic community.

model

–

university

giving

to

the

Community Engagement Paradigm Integral to teaching and research activities. Community knowledge and skills are recognised and valued. Partnership model – working together to achieve common aims; benefits flow to both parties.

27


3.


Performance Indicators - Considerations

Based on the community engagement paradigm that had been developed, the working party focused on developing indicators that aligned to this paradigm and reflected the literature and good practice [see, for example, Meek (2001); McKinnon, et al (2000)]. The following characteristics for the indicators were identified: •

accessible data, easy to systematise and collect (not labour-intensive and quickly outdated)

•

quantitative and qualitative measures

•

focus on partnerships as the key to engagement

•

acknowledge the long-term nature of community engagement through the use of lagging and leading measures

•

reflect both processes and outcomes

•

community or partner impact

•

benefits to RMIT

•

reveal the volume and nature of partnership outputs

•

used as part of the process of communicating learning, both within RMIT and its communities

•

connected to internal mechanisms for recognition, such as promotional criteria.

Initially, the following main indicators were developed: •

number of exemplar partnerships

•

number and type of programs delivered in key regions, and involving work-integrated learning in community/industry

•

number of research projects undertaken in regions and with community

•

number of publications related to scholarship of engagement.

Through consultation and reflection, many challenges were identified in clarifying and measuring the desired indicators, including a lack of:

28

•

clear definitions of appropriate communities to survey

•

consolidated information on the range and types of partnerships existing across the University, and limited resources were available for collection and analysis of such data

•

clarity as to how regions were defined (e.g., by size or level) and for what purpose

•

processes to systematically collect work-integrated learning activities

•

understanding of how to scope RMIT’s scholarship of engagement – how the notion of communities of interest could be captured, and whether or not the geographical/special concept would be the focus

•

understanding as to what criteria would be used to define ‘exemplar partnerships’ and who would determine such criteria

•

processes to capture the informal work of individuals communities/organisations as part of professional practice

•

agreement as to how RMIT’s role as a creator of ‘communities of learning’ could be measured most effectively.

interacting

with

external



The last point is also linked to capacity development across organisations and communities and how the University engaged through partnerships for the shared production and use of knowledge as described by “mode two knowledge production” (Gibbons, et al 1994; Gibbons 1998). Thus, indicators would need to not only capture changes in behaviour, in culture and to begin to understand ‘impact’ within the organisations involved, but also within the communities where engagement was enacted. It was clear that these indicators could not address these important outcomes. 4.

Partnerships

Partnerships were recognised as a critical element of community engagement at RMIT. The working party recognised that to merely count the number of partnerships in existence would be of limited benefit in measuring engagement as defined above, as would indicators that considered work done about other organisations rather than with them. The typology of partnerships provided by Himmelman (2002) was then adapted and used to guide the understanding and evaluation of partnerships; directing attention to the quality of partnerships and different purposes and activities by considering the level and intensity of interaction rather than its content. The typology distinguishes the following types of partnership: •

networking partnerships, in which the purpose is information exchange, and limited time commitments and levels of trust are involved (thus recognising work of individuals in interactions with external organisations and communities as part of professional practice)

•

coordinating and cooperating partnerships, which involve altering activities and sharing resources to achieve a common purpose, with moderate to substantial time commitments and levels of trust, and minimal to moderate sharing of resources and risks

•

collaborating partnerships which aim to achieve a common purpose through sharing resources and enhancing the capability of another and involve high levels of trust and shared resources and risks (Himmelman, 2002).

This typology provided an effective evaluative tool to examine the level at which partnerships at RMIT were operating, and together with the community engagement paradigm cited above, formed the basis of a theoretical framework from which revised indicators were developed to measure partnerships by:

5.

•

the partnerships themselves (not just numbers, but fitness for purpose and quality)

•

the activity generated through the partnerships (not just the nature and volume of activities)

•

the learning and capability outcomes (through case studies). Revisiting the Performance Indicators

Over the following two years, based on further consultation, indicators continued to be refined and the work formed the basis of development of a discrete Community Engagement Strategy that articulates specific goals, indicators and targets. It also provides a theoretical framework for community engagement, outlining the community engagement paradigm and the partnership typology noted above. The emergent indicators now contained in the strategy align to the Approach, Deployment, Results and Improvement framework developed by the former Australian Quality Council, as illustrated in Table 2.

29



Table 2: The Relationship of RMIT Indicators to the ADRI Approach ADRI Approach

Goals Identify opportunities and needs.

Indicators Partnership activity addresses community need and aspiration and matches RMIT capacity and mission.

Deployment

Respond to opportunities and needs.

Number of projects (existing or new) Extent of activities that respond to community needs. per Portfolio per annum that meet community needs and strategic directions of the University.

Access to RMIT programs to marginalised learners.

Measured by Annual review of one key community, and report provided for planning process.

DEST State population reference values with respect to access, participation, retention and success rates of equity groups identified by the Commonwealth.

Results

Seek feedback

Partnership activity addresses community need.

Projects (existing or new) per Portfolio per annum that meet community needs.

Improvement

Learning and improvement

Enhance organisational capability through practice, learning and the scholarship of engagement.

Annual engagement forum, publications flowing.

Availability and use of web-based resources for community engagement and partnerships.

In order to support the measurement of the indicators, processes are being developed that include:

6.

•

a regular feedback loop from communities, through regular review processes

•

a case study methodology to capture high level outcomes from community partnerships (based on an Action Research cycle in a learning community)

•

regular reporting on partnerships associated with specific regions in which various RMIT campuses exist

•

measurement at the discipline level to ascertain what ‘meeting community needs and aspirations’ means within context

•

use of DEST-defined equity groups to compare RMIT’s performance with national or state benchmarks

•

an annual RMIT engagement forum to monitor changes in behaviour over time and to increase learnings. Lessons Learned

Obtaining data to attempt to quantify largely intangible goals is fundamentally problematic, and RMIT has largely adopted a ‘checklist’ approach to determining performance. This approach, however, was not what the working party set out to do. It directed efforts to raise the profile of community engagement at RMIT through the search for meaningful measures which would support organisational learning and better develop the understanding and implementation of the Boyer scholarship approach - integrating teaching and research activity through community engagement.

30



In the first set of indicators developed, the aim was to highlight best practice and facilitate learnings through the development of case studies using an action research framework. However, it became clear that the case study approach did not necessarily reveal the range and importance of the different partnerships, how the partner interacted or what impact the activity had. Garlick (2003) argues that case study analysis runs the risk of portraying a “rather romantic and narrow project-specific view of engagement, predicated on rhetoric by the participants, rather than rigorous analysis of achievements on a whole-of-university and whole-of-community basis” (p. 3). An attempt was also made initially to capture how engagement directly linked to research and teaching through a large number of detailed indicators. The significant development from this area of exploration was the development of a separate strategy for community engagement that contained clearly articulated goals, and then logically to work on indictors that captured the critical practices and outcomes in engagement that supported the core businesses of teaching and research. As Meek (2001) notes, “in a situation where objectives themselves are under dispute, negotiating agreement on a commonly acceptable set of performance measures will be a difficult task indeed” (p. 28). The breakthrough in framing the indicators came with the partnership typology. This began to deal with different types of partnership, suggested the possibility of a life cycle or phases in a partnership and started to get at the issue of ‘new’ partnerships or projects, the obvious measure of responsiveness, while recognising renewed activities within existing partnerships. The typology was also found to be a powerful tool to map partnership activity with a community. By mapping all the partners of a group with a given community and applying the typology to the partners, a group could view their engagement with that community and develop very sophisticated and useful understandings of their work to inform strategic planning and resource allocation, identifying synergies, strengths or gaps that may exist. The indicators developed are still very inwardly focused. Partnership reviews capture feedback from partners and match the community needs and aspirations against university capacity but they fall short of measuring ‘impact’. The indicators also attempt to include capacity building and capability development but focus on the University at an organisational level, and rely on staff development and sharing of information and learning through planned forums. Despite these limitations, goals and processes to facilitate reflective practices and participation in community engagement across various levels have been developed and can ultimately drive changes in behaviours. In any event, the imperative to collect and share this information alone elevates the value of engagement. 7.

Conclusion

It is too early to evaluate the impact of the indicators. Data supporting the revised indicators needs to be collected in order to inform more sophisticated and effective approaches to measuring the impact of community engagement at RMIT. The journey of the working party has highlighted that the outcomes we are seeking are difficult to quantify, to capture, and even more difficult to attribute directly to community engagement. However, as Garlick (2003, p. 3) argues, a balance with outcomes measurement is now as necessary as process and learning if resource allocation decision makers are to be swayed to adopt (regional) partnership as an efficiency strategy. A recent paper by Gibbons (2005) proposes a reformulation of the terms of engagement that also suggests further refinement to our indicators is necessary. He argues that network organisations of various kinds, characterised by fuller participation with communities and a shift from production of ‘merely reliable’ knowledge to ‘socially robust’ knowledge is necessary to demonstrate to society that universities intend to serve the public good. This work may provoke the need for further refinement of the indicators.

31



What is clear is that university-community interaction is becoming a domain of research inquiry in its own right. Development of robust indicators to support decision-making, organisational learning and change relating to ‘community engagement’ at RMIT will continue to evolve through an iterative process, acknowledging the complexity of the concepts and issues involved. References Association of Commonwealth Universities (ACU). (2001). Engagement as a core value for the university: a consultation document [Electronic version]. London: Association of Commonwealth Universities. Retrieved from http://www.acu.ac.uk/ Bell, C., & Newby, H. (1971). Community studies: an introduction to the sociology of the local community. London: Allen and Unwin. Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie. Burnheim, C. (2002). SPF community indicators working group discussion paper [Unpublished internal document]. Melbourne: RMIT University. Garlick, S. (2003). Benchmarking ‘good practice’ university-region engagement efficiency. InsideOut Conference on Higher Education and Community Engagement, University of Queensland, July 3-5. Garlick, S. (2000). Engaging universities and regions: Knowledge contribution to regional economic development in Australia. Canberra: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Evaluations and Investigations Program, Report No. 15. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage. Gibbons, M. (2005). Engagement with the community: the emergence of a new social contract between society and science. Griffith University Community Engagement Workshop, 4 March. Himmelman, A.T. (2002). Collaboration for a change (revised January 2002): definitions, decisionmaking models, roles, and collaboration process guide. Retrieved from http://www.futurehealth.ucsf.edu/pdf_files/4achange.pdf Huber, M. T. (1999). Evaluating outreach: Scholarship assessed’s approach. Penn State Outreach. Retrieved from http://www.outreach.psu.edu/News/Pubs/Monograph/eval.html McNay, I. (2000). Higher Education and its communities. London: Open University Press. McKinnon, K. R., Walker, S. H., & Davis, D. (2000). Benchmarking: A manual for Australian universities. Canberra: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Higher Education Division. Meek, V. L. (2001). Insights from the literature on the use of performance indicators in higher education – An international comparison. The Australian Association for Institutional Research, 1(1), 1-36.

32



Quality Assurance in Veterinary Science Extramural Student Placements John A. Baguleya and Grahame Felettib a

Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia b

37 Village Bay Close, NSW 2280, Australia.

This paper describes quality assurance features associated with the implementation of an innovative final year program for the new BVSc degree at the University of Sydney, consisting solely of one month rotations at intramural and extramural placements. Quality assurance is discussed through consideration of student, faculty and educational partner inputs, processes and outcomes. The importance of integrating all system components and adopting a cooperative and systematic approach to evaluating the program is highlighted. Moreover, this discussion emphasises the value of formal and informal mechanisms for feedback in creating a learning community among students, faculty and the veterinary profession to ensure the quality, continuous improvement and sustainability of this program. 1.

Introduction

The Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, introduced a new lecture-free final year program consisting of one month rotations at intramural and extramural placements in 2004. The required rotations consisted of four intramural placements at the University Veterinary Centres; three core extramural placements (small animal practice, rural mixed practice and rural public practice); and three elective extramural placements. Collaboration with extramural placement partners was an essential component of the development and implementation of this new program in order for the faculty to maintain its vision of being a world leader in veterinary education (University of Sydney, 2005). The process of quality assurance is reliant upon the integration of a number of components (Gilmour & Hunt, 1995) and these components may be broadly categorised from a systems perspective (Davidson & Griffin, 2000) as the inputs to this program, the processes of the program itself including these rotations, and the outputs of the program from a student, educational partner and faculty perspective. This analysis is also aligned with Biggs (1999) presage, process and product model for quality learning. Feedback at each of these stages is a vital component of any systems approach to managing quality assurance and a key requirement for establishing the learning community involving faculty, students and the profession which was critical to the success of this program. 2.

Students, Staff, Educational Partners and Resources

Thomson (1982) has previously argued the importance of individual student responsibility for learning and motivation in veterinary undergraduate education and Taylor, Barnes and Astle (1999) have reinforced the importance of independent learning with respect to extramural studies. The extramural component of this course further emphasises the crucial inputs of student support and faculty resources. In 2000, the Faculty of Veterinary Science introduced a new curriculum with a greater emphasis upon generic attributes, integration of pre-clinical and clinical disciplines, assessment focused upon deep learning strategies and exposure to clinical veterinary practice from first year. These changes were driven by the requirement to enhance student preparation for final year rotations and graduation, and the need to assure quality educational outcomes for a student population 40% greater in number and considerably more diverse in background. The year five extramural support team was established to support the student experience during final year rotations. This group consisted of representatives from administration, academia and information technology and met at least monthly to discuss aspects of the program from student, staff and extramural partner perspectives and generate quarterly reports for the faculty. Moreover, this team was responsible

33



for ensuring the achievement of faculty, student and educational partner objectives and sustainability of the program. Extramural participants in this new program were consulted during 2002-2004 with visits by Faculty teams to most rural areas of New South Wales and all metropolitan regions including the Australian Capital Territory (Feletti et al, 2005). These visits were designed to introduce the new curriculum, seek practitioner support, evaluate the suitability of practices, discuss student welfare and invite potential extramural partners to a mid-year conference in 2003 (Feletti et al., 2005). Further support was developed through a faculty initiative in 2001 when leaders from professional bodies and other veterinary schools in Australia and New Zealand collaborated in order to seek consensus with respect to the attributes required of new graduates (Collins & Taylor, 2002). The challenge of coordinating all one month rotations for 115 students in 2004 required a comprehensive database of extramural partner and student information. An online administration system was designed and developed by members of the extramural support team to satisfy the requirements of students, faculty and extramural supervisors. This system consists of three major components: the Year Five Virtual Clinical Campus (Y5VCC), a web portal for students providing a single point entry for all online resources; Extramural Administration System which is an online database comprising practice information, student administration and year five curriculum resources; and Partner Practices web site to provide access to veterinary practice, student administration and course resources. These online resources enabled students to select placement preferences, submit assignments and receive feedback, and assisted intramural and extramural supervisors with submitting results and providing student feedback. These resources were supplemented with a number of seminars and the introduction of a new unit of study (Preparation for Veterinary Practice) designed to explain the use of these systems and the learning outcomes, processes and assessment expectations for each of these rotations to students. Extramural supervisors participated in the delivery of this unit of study and students were provided with a Handbook for Extramural Rotations and all unit study outlines. 3.

Extramural Placement Processes

Extramural rotation processes included student selection of placements, placement confirmation, contact between students and practices, completion of the one month rotation, completion and submission of assignments, submission of feedback from students regarding the placement, and provision of feedback to students from extramural supervisors and faculty. Prior to commencing final year rotations, comprehensive information was available to students online including: practice name and address; operating hours; products, services and facilities; seasonality, species, special interest areas and case types; details of procedures students will be allowed to undertake; staff details, including qualifications; locality, transport and accommodation options; and student feedback. To assist students in selecting extramural placement preferences, this online database was searchable by practice type, services, locality, transport, accommodation or by multiple criteria. Students determined their own learning outcomes based upon required graduate attributes (to complement faculty-required and assessable learning outcomes) and submitted these in a letter of introduction to the extramural supervisor six weeks prior to the commencement of the rotation. Approximately two weeks prior to the placement, students contacted their supervisors to confirm any specific rotation details and requirements. In a survey of extramural supervisors in 2004, 90% and 87% of respondents regarded the letter of introduction and telephone contact respectively to be valuable (Baguley, 2004). Each extramural rotation was structured around three crucial supervisor and student meetings (University of Sydney, 2003). An initial meeting within the first week of the rotation was designed to confirm learning outcomes and expectations of the rotation from host, student and faculty perspectives. A survey of extramural supervisors found that 94% of respondents completed this initial interview during the first week and that 97% approached this meeting like an informal job interview (Baguley 2004). This meeting

34



was considered either very useful or excellent for setting up a working relationship with the student by 74% of extramural supervisors surveyed (Baguley, 2004). At the rotation mid point, a meeting was suggested to enable host and student feedback on aspects of the rotation and 81% of extramural supervisors surveyed considered this meeting either very useful or excellent for providing feedback to the student (Baguley, 2004). Finally, there was an end of rotation meeting in order to provide students with feedback which may assist their preparation for further rotations. Discussions during these meetings were supported by the student letter of introduction, supervisor report form and rotation feedback form. The process was explained to students during Preparation for Veterinary Practice and to extramural supervisors during the Partner Practitioner Conference and both sessions included a faculty-produced video and role-play activities. The supervisor report form created for all rotations was based upon an existing instrument utilised at UC Davis (Walsh, Osburn & Christopher, 2001) and modified by faculty in response to feedback from extramural partners. The rotation feedback form developed by faculty included criteria described by extramural practitioners in the UK as being essential for assuring the quality of an extramural program (Taylor & Barnes, 1998). Students were required to complete two written assignments assessed by the faculty to complement supervisor assessment via a standard supervisor report form and satisfactory completion of a negotiated communication task during the rotation. Options for written assignments were a report focused upon one area related to the placement; a log of twenty cases; or a journal entry reflecting upon the learning experience and attainment of graduate attributes. All forms and pieces of assessment (except the communication task) were uploaded to the faculty’s online administration system for the delivery of results and feedback to students. In addition to the role of the Y5VCC in assisting students with submitting assignments and receiving feedback, student academic work was supported by a variety of library services including access to databases, e-journals, books and articles. A survey of students at the completion of the 2004 rotations found that 85% of respondents considered the site to be a valuable resource for managing their extramural rotations (Costa, 2004). With respect to library resources however, only 32% of respondents used these at least once per month, 57% rarely and 11% never (Costa, 2004). This feedback has resulted in a significant decrease in the written assessment load for 2005 in order to encourage further research and deep approaches to learning during extramural placements. 4.

Student, Staff and Educational Partner Outcomes

Students appreciated the opportunities provided during extramural rotations with the majority achieving their learning outcomes for these rotations in the prescribed graduate attribute areas of animal management (96%), clinical management (92%) and professional practice (97%). The high quality of opportunities provided by extramural placements is also manifest by student feedback in criteria recommended by Taylor and Barnes (1998) and summarised in Table 1. Table 1 Extramural Rotation Feedback Feedback

Inadequate

Satisfactory

Good

Excellent

Opportunity to discuss cases

2% (11)

8% (51)

22% (135)

68% (409)

Opportunity to examine animals

5% (29)

13% (77)

26% (159)

56% (341)

Opportunity for practical experience

4% (26)

16% (98)

28% (169)

52% (313)

Opportunity to interact with clients

8% (51)

18% (112)

29% (177)

45% (266)

Teaching supervision and discussion of progress

2% (15)

15% (88)

29% (177)

54% (326)

Overall recommendation

3% (16)

10% (61)

28% (167)

59% (362)

35



Extramural supervisors provided an overall rating of student performance for the rotation as unsatisfactory, marginal, solid standard, very proficient or outstanding, and 68% of reports described students as either outstanding or very proficient. The extramural support team was rewarded with the Vice-Chancellors Award for Support of the Student Experience based upon four selection criteria: enhancing the quality of the student experience; innovative and practical; user participation; and positive feedback from stakeholders. In a survey of extramural partners in mid-2004, 66% of respondents rated the one month rotation model as either very good or excellent with respect to student education. The supervisor report form for assessing students was reported by 84% and 63% of respondents as being either very useful or excellent for pinpointing the strengths and weaknesses of students respectively. Extramural supervisors had previously revealed access to educational materials to be the most important reward for their involvement in the program, however partnering the faculty in student education and acknowledgement were also highly regarded. Velde and Lust (2004) state that learning communities are a “purposeful attempt to create a rich, challenging and nurturing academic community that might not otherwise exist” (p. 55). A particularly significant outcome has been the creation of a learning community involving the faculty, students and the veterinary profession. Opportunities for formal and informal feedback among all stakeholders presented in this paper effectively established a set of practices for generative conversation which has been argued to be a vital foundation for an enduring learning community (Kofman & Senge, 1993). The existence and maintenance of this learning community will be vital to ensure the quality, continuous improvement and sustainability of this program. 5.

Conclusion and Recommendations

Our experience strongly supports the Gilmour and Hunt (1995) view, that assurance of quality is reliant on the integration of a number of components, specifically: student preparation; careful engagement of extramural partners and training of supervisors; and development and refinement of a comprehensive student support system. The program has also reinforced the importance of a cooperative and systematic approach to evaluating the quality of the program by using a range of methods and standard instruments to gauge the broad personal, professional competencies of final year students as well as the quality of educational experience, supervision and support they received. Providing these mechanisms for, and encouraging communication and feedback between, all stakeholder pairs (students-supervisors, practices-faculty, faculty-students) and regular monitoring of the process by reviewing this feedback is crucial to establishing the learning community required to sustain this program and the process of continuous improvement. A vital lesson for the extramural support team has been to ensure that we celebrate successes, award (and encourage) significant contributions, and admit to inefficiencies, again using this to engage rather than alienate stakeholders. References Baguley, J. (2004). Extramural supervisor survey 2004. Proceedings of the Annual Partner Practitioners Conference July 2004, Faculty of Veterinary Science. Camperdown: University of Sydney. Biggs, P. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education. Collins, H., & Taylor, R. (2002). Veterinary graduate attributes and learning outcomes: a joint Australasian veterinary schools workshop, January 2002, Faculty of Veterinary Science. Camperdown: University of Sydney. Costa, F. (2004). Year Five Virtual Clinical Campus Survey 2004. Faculty of Veterinary Science. Camperdown: University of Sydney.

36



Davidson, P., & Griffin, R. (2000). Management, Australia in a global context. Brisbane: John Wiley & Sons. Feletti, G., Baguley, J., Ratcliffe, R., Taylor, R., Hopwood, P., Hodgson, D., & Rose, R. (2005). Building new learning partnerships for veterinary education. Aust Vet J (in press). Gilmour, P., & Hunt, R. A. (1995). Total quality management, integrating quality into design, operations and strategy. Melbourne: Longman. Kofman, F. & Senge, P. (1993). Communities of commitments: the heart of learning organizations. Organizational Dynamics, 22(2), 5-23. Taylor, I. R., & Barnes, J. A. (1998). Assuring quality in extramural studies: the perceptions of practitioners. Veterinary Record, 143(13), 357-359. Taylor, I. R., Barnes, J. A., & Astle, N. (1995). Promoting independent learning: The role of the workplace. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. Thomson, R. G. (1982). Competence of veterinary graduates, who is responsible? Canadian Veterinary Journal, 23(1), 31-33. University of Sydney. (2001). Guidelines for academic quality assurance systems. Academic Board resolutions: the management and evaluation of coursework teaching, approved by the Academic Board 16 May 2001. Camperdown: University of Sydney. University of Sydney. (2003). Handbook for extramural rotations 2004. Faculty of Veterinary Science. Camperdown: University of Sydney. University of Sydney. (2005). Our vision. Faculty of Veterinary Science. Camperdown: University of Sydney. Retrieved March 21, 2005, from www.vetsci.usyd.edu.au Velde, B., & Lust, C. (2004). Using a learning community to enhance course integration in a school of allied health [electronic version]. Journal of Allied Health, 33(1), 55-61. Walsh, D. A., Osburn, B. I., & Christopher, M. M. (2001). Defining the attributes expected of graduating veterinary medical students. JAVMA, 2.

37



Engaging Communities in Participation: Participation for What? For Whom? By Whom? And How? Iain Butterwortha and Josephine Palermob a

Faculty of Health and Behavioural Sciences, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Hwy, Vic 3125, Australia

b

Centre for Health through Action on Social Exclusion, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Hwy, Vic 3125, Australia * This paper is based on a workshop conducted at AUQF2005. This workshop was awarded Best Presentation.

This paper presents a theoretical frame and process that may be used to clarify purpose inherent in community engagement activities and strategies, and to evaluate progress against these criteria. Participation, empowerment and civic governance are themes of research and practice embraced by disciplines as diverse as health promotion, community psychology, community development and urban planning. Workshop participants were encouraged to reflect on their own practice in light of the theoretical models developed in these disciplines. In this way, the workshop helped promote understanding of the need – and opportunity – to develop interdisciplinary approaches to conceptualising, implementing and evaluating university-community engagement initiatives. 1.

Introduction

Australian higher education is at a crossroads. Federal Education Minister, Brendan Nelson has embarked on a program of ‘reform’ – perhaps revolution – to steer higher education to a centralised, consolidated system. The very notion of what it means to be a university is now under discussion (see Guthrie, Johnston & King, 2004). In the haste to secure position in relation to research and teaching, the notion of community engagement and civic participation is in danger of being lost. Universities are facing numerous challenges, through the impacts of funding cuts, corporatisation, and international competition, a loss of student vitality and loss of community citizenship function (Ashton, 1998). Deakin University’s Vice-Chancellor, Professor Sally Walker has noted that, …while Deakin is not opposed to the competition generated by overseas institutions operating in Australia or by private institutions that offer higher education awards, the Government must recognise that this competition will undermine the financial capacity of Australian universities to subsidise some programs and to engage in community service (2005, p. 1).

These changes could well be positive and creative if discussed, planned and implemented collaboratively with all stakeholders. However, if enacted in haste, they could lead to a heightening of the sense of insecurity, frustration and potential burnout amongst academic staff. They could also weaken the broader civic role played by universities in communities, towns and cities. 1.1

Applying Healthy Cities theory to universities

The World Health Organisation’s Healthy Cities approach provides governing principles and a course of action for universities to promote civic life, social capital and well-being. This approach is characterised by a broad-based, intersectoral political commitment to health and well-being in its broadest ecological sense. It includes a commitment to innovation and democratic community participation, resulting in policies that intrinsically promote health and quality of life (WHO, 1995). Since the Healthy Cities approach was adopted by WHO in 1986, more than 7,000 cities, municipalities, islands and other communities worldwide have embraced this approach (National Civic League, 1998). Parallels can be drawn between cities and universities in the WHO definition of a healthy city. A healthy city [or university] is one that is constantly creating and improving those physical and social environments and expanding those community resources which enable people to mutually support

38



each other in performing all the functions of life and in developing their maximum potential (Hancock & Duhl, 1988, p. 24).

Typically, a Healthy Cities approach is achieved by establishing an intersectoral working party to develop a unified vision and strategic plan for promoting health and well-being. The working party includes stakeholders from across the political, economic, cultural and intellectual life of the city. Universities already have these relationships in place, suggesting: (i) that Healthy Cities processes are easily generalisable to the tertiary education sector, and (ii) that universities are key stakeholders and partners in any broad-based approach to socially and ecologically sustainable urban and regional development (Tsouros, Dowding, Thompson & Dooris, 1998). Universities… have the intellectual capacities, the skills, the authority and the credibility for this purpose. Universities are also a valuable resource for the communities in which they are located. Investing in the health promoting university is above all an investment in the future (Tsouros, 1998, p. 11).

The landmark Ottawa Charter on Health Promotion, the platform on which Healthy Cities and the companion Health Promoting Universities program are based, defined health promotion as the process of enabling people to increase control over, and to improve their health, through: (i) creating supportive environments; (ii) strengthening community actions; (iii) developing personal skills; (iv) reorienting health services; and (v) building healthy public policy (WHO, 1986). Clearly, universities have a role to play across all of these domains, not only in terms of promoting health and well-being and civic engagement on campus, but also in driving teaching and research that better enables communities to participate in action that enhances their own health and well-being. In this regard, ‘real’ participation is key. Participation has been defined as a process in which people “take part in decision making in the institutions, programs and environments that affect them” (Heller, Price, Reinhartz, Riger & Wandersman, 1984, p. 339). By participating in the decision making of the institutions that affect them, people have been shown to help make improvements to their community, develop stronger social relationships, and increase their individual and collective sense of confidence and political power (Florin & Wandersman, 1990). Having the opportunity to participate in civic life has been identified as a core human need, and essential to the psychological health of individuals and communities (Berkowitz, 1996; Wilkinson & Marmot, 2003). Meaningful community participation in decision making on issues has been shown to be important to: (i) uphold the notion of participatory democracy, (ii) the effectiveness of the planning process and the quality of the planning outcomes, (iii) improve the quality of, and validate, political decision making (Butterworth & Fisher, 2000; Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988). Participation is central to the notion of university-community engagement (Winter, Wiseman & Muirhead, 2005). Whether in relation to encouraging stakeholder involvement in teaching and research, involving industry and employers in curriculum, or in upholding the notion of universities as good neighbours and corporate citizens, it is assumed that universities will embrace participation as a bedrock strategy for engaging communities. Despite the inherent feel-good nature of the term, however, participation can mean many different things to different people, depending on the context and the relative social power of the stakeholders and institutions involved. In a landmark urban planning paper, Arnstein (1969) identified the importance of differentiating between ‘empty rituals’ of participation, on the one hand, and citizens having real power needed to affect the outcome of the process, on the other. She conceptualised participation as a ladder or spectrum, embracing a range of activities: from manipulation and therapy, the lowest forms of ‘non-participation’, through to informing, consultation and placation (degrees of tokenism); and up the ladder to degrees of citizen power in the form of partnership, delegated power and full citizen control. Butterworth and Fisher (2001) adapted Arnstein’s ladder to show how urban developers and other decision makers might employ notions of participation, depending on their ideological position. Parallels to university-community partnerships readily can be discerned (see Figure 1).

39



Figure 1 Butterworth and Fisher's (2001) Adaptation of Arnstein’s Ladder of Participation

Degrees of citizen participation

Degrees of tokenism

8

Citizen control

7

Delegated power

6

Partnership

5

Placation

4

Consultation

3

Informing

2

Therapy

• Local council-resident collaboration • Minor modifications of plans • Information meetings organised by developers • Community consultation groups involving resident participation • Developer-run community newsletters • Community liaison positions funded by developers • Biased media coverage

Non participation 1

Manipulation

• Public relations • Resident action groups established by developers

Participation in civic life can also range from officially-sanctioned image management to radical, pluralist, illegal civic unrest (Mouffe, 1992). In embarking on participatory community engagement, the question that must be asked is this: what forms of participation do universities have in mind, and for what purpose? 2.

Workshop Process

The next section describes processes employed during a workshop conducted at AUQF2005, and examples of responses by participants. We engaged some 35 participants (quality assurance managers in universities from across Australia, India, Malaysia, New Zealand and other countries) to engage in reflection, values clarification and discussion. Core to emancipatory adult learning, these processes have been used to great effect in helping people achieve personal and community empowerment by “...mak[ing] sense of and act[ing] upon the personal, social, occupational and political environment in which they live” (Brookfield, 1986, p. vii). In a supportive group learning environment, values clarification can assist participants to expose their assumptions, ideological positions, attitudes and beliefs, and to find new pathways for action based on socially critical insight (Butterworth & Fisher, 2001; Foley, 1995; Freire, 1970; Paterson, 1970). In order to explore participation, delegates considered the following themes: 1. How do university quality managers / strategic planners define participation? Participants’ definitions of participation typically identified a two-way learning exchange or relationship between the University and a range of entities, such as ‘the external geographical community’, ‘the internal community’ (i.e., management strategies embodying participatory engagement with staff across the university), ‘the professions’, ‘government’, ‘students’, ‘the Maori community’ (from a New Zealand delegate).

40



2. What purpose does it serve to include forms of participation? Delegates discussed many drivers for participation, including: •

Legislative mandates, such as those embedded in University Acts or Government Acts and Treaties;

•

Strategic objectives, such as those related to engaging within a particular geographic catchment area, or particular professional groups, for the purpose of ensuring sustainability of the University’s core processes of teaching and research;

•

Historical drivers, such as those evident through a long history of engaging with the community as being intrinsic to the ‘idea’ of the ‘ethical’ university (however there was some discussion about the more recent resistance to this as an intrinsic quality or characteristics of the ‘idea’ of University); and

•

Opportunistic drivers, such as those partnerships that occur through chance, opportunity and serendipity.

3. Where does my work ‘sit’ on Arnstein’s ladder? For this values clarification exercise, participants moved about the room to align themselves ‘physically’ on Arnstein’s ladder, on a continuum ranging from Number 1 (manipulation) and Number 8 (full citizen control). Participants explained why they had placed themselves on that part of the continuum, and were then encouraged to reflect on this additional question: •

Is this position on the continuum of participation in everybody’s best interests? If not, what initiatives could I/my university embrace to elevate the forms of participation practised to promote more substantive citizen and community empowerment?

Most participants tended to place themselves somewhere between 4 and 6 on the continuum. Therefore, their participatory engagement models tended to range between forms of consultation and expressions of partnership. However, participants noted that in many cases, the style and extent of participation strategy employed suited the context and aim of the project. It follows then that it would not necessarily be appropriate to assume that forms of consultation were somehow inferior to practices in which community members themselves took full control over the process. In many circumstances, this kind of full devolution would not support the parameters or objectives of the university project, and might even be outside the university charter. Furthermore, if community members were not adequately skilled or confident to engage in this kind of participation, then devolving full control to them could result in a potential failure of the process and a form of ‘blaming the victim’ (Rappaport, 1987). In acknowledgement of this, Arnstein’s (1969) ‘ladder’ has recently been presented as a ‘wheel’ to highlight the fact that certain types of participation suit particular contexts, and that full citizen control is not the desired outcome for all situations (Gauci, 2001; Davidson, in Ling & Griffiths, 2000). Another interesting vignette occurred in which one participant felt that her community engagement strategy with Indigenous people could be located at rung number 7 on Arnstein’s (1969) ladder. When asked how she felt that Indigenous community representatives might rate the participation, she identified that they might rate it as a 6. Whilst not a major difference, this example shows that program managers’ perspectives on the depth or strength of community participation could differ from those communities with which they are trying to engage. Therefore, some kinds of exploratory, open-ended validation process might be needed as part of ongoing dialogue with communities, in order to gauge community members’ perspectives of, and satisfaction with, the engagement process. 3.

Concluding Remarks

This workshop raised several valuable issues for university quality managers: 1. ‘Participation’ is not a blanket term: it means different things to different people based on their social position and the political context. Administrators and project managers need to be clear

41



about the kinds of participation they intend to employ, and most importantly, why. Being clear and transparent about one’s ideological position on participation, and the logistical challenges impacting on project timelines, will result in approaches that do not promote false expectations amongst community members, or public perceptions of inauthenticity and failure if participatory strategies appear more as consultation than deep community partnership. 2. Participatory practices need to be developed that match the overall objectives of the project, and also fit in with the levels of empowerment of the communities targeted for engagement. Some projects simply may not warrant full devolution to community control. 3. Engagement practices that aim to promote participation in its deeper senses need to ensure that community members have adequate skills, resources, time and support to do so. Communities need to be provided with opportunities for leadership development and skills in participatory planning and evaluation (Butterworth & Fisher, 2000; 2001). Failure to ensure this will result in tokenism. 4. Empowerment is a long-term process made up of many actions across multiple levels of the social system (Kieffer, 1984). These actions always involve a range of ‘small wins’ – and also small losses for all players, but particularly for those with the least power (Weick, 1984). A university that embarks on a process of community engagement that includes principles of democratic participation, reflective practice and commitment to community empowerment will inevitably be faced with issues of ceding power and control to the communities with whom they have sought to engage (including students and staff). Universities can prepare for this sharing of power by building a democratic partnership with communities based on a “consensual basis for common action” (Rich, Edelstein, Hallman & Wandersman, 1995, p. 671) – one that provides a clear basis and benchmark for monitoring and evaluation. In evaluating this workshop, delegates identified that they had found it useful for clarifying what participation could mean, as well as hitherto what it had meant to them. Participants found it helpful to consider the meaning, value and logistics of participation for any particular context. They also found it useful to consider perspectives shared from a diverse range of disciplines, such as community psychology, urban planning and health promotion. Participatory practices in university-community engagement clearly have much to draw on from the faculties and disciplines taught and researched within the university walls. References Arnstein, S. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35, 216-224. Ashton, J. (1998). The historical shift in public health. In A. D. Tsouros, G. Dowding, J. Thompson & M. Dooris (Eds). Health promoting universities: Concept, experience and framework for action (pp. 5-10). Copenhagen: World Health Organisation (Europe). Berkowitz, B. (1996). Personal and community sustainability. American Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 441-459. Butterworth, I. M., & Fisher, A. T. (2000). Urban environmental education: A community psychology perspective, in Environment-behaviour research on the Pacific Rim: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on People and Physical Environment Research, (pp. 367-376). Sydney, Australia: University of Sydney. Butterworth, I.M., & Fisher, A.T. (2001). Adult education and the built environment. Adult Learning, 13(2/3), 10-14. Department of Education Science and Training (DEST). (2005). Building university diversity: Future approval and accreditation processes for Australian higher education. Canberra: DEST.

42



Florin, P., & Wandersman, A. (1990). An introduction to citizen participation, voluntary organisations and community development: Insights for empowerment through research. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18, 41-53. Foley, G. (1995). Teaching adults. In G. Foley (Ed.). Understanding adult education and training (pp. 3153). Sydney: Allen & Unwin. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum Publishing Company. Gauci, E. (2002). Building community participation in local democracy – the Whitehorse experience. Paper presented at The Cutting Edge of Change: Shaping Local Government for the 21st Century. Armidale, New South Wales: conference held by the Centre for Local Government, University of New England; and Office of Regional Development, University of Western Sydney. Retrieved September 2, 2005, from http://www.une.edu.au/clg/lgconf/papers/gauci.htm. Group of Eight. (2005). VSU bill – an elephant to crush an ant (Media Release). Retrieved August 23, 2005, from http://www.go8.edu.au/news/2005/Go8%20on%20VSU%20legislation%2016.03.05.pdf. Guthrie, S., Johnston, S., & King, R. (2004). Further development of the national protocols for higher education approval processes. Canberra: DEST. Hancock, T., & Duhl, L. Promoting health in the urban context. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe, 1988 (WHO Healthy Cities papers, No. 1). Heller, K., Price, R.H., Reinhartz, S., Riger, S., & Wandersman, A. (1984). Psychology and community change: Challenges of the future. Homewood, USA: Dorsey. Kieffer, C. H. (1984). Citizen empowerment: A developmental perspective. In J. Rappaport & R. Hess (Eds.). Studies in Empowerment (pp. 9-36). New York: Haworth Press. Kemmis, S. & McTaggart, R. (1988). Introduction: The nature of action research. In S. Kemmis & R. McTaggart (Eds.), The action research planner (pp. 5-28). Geelong: Deakin University Press. Kenny, S. (1994). Developing communities for the future: Community development in Australia. South Melbourne: Thomas Nelson Australia. Klein, N. (2000). No logo, no space, no choice, no jobs: Taking aim at the brand bullies. London: Flamingo. Ling, C., & Griffiths, E. (2000). Community participative and ecologically informed derelict land regeneration in the United Kingdom: Toolkits for community led regeneration of derelict land. Manchester, UK: University of Manchester. Retrieved September 2, 2005, from http://www.art.man.ac.uk/PLANNING/cure/PDF/UKSurvey.pdf. Mouffe, C. (1992). Democratic citizenship and the political community. In C. Mouffe (Ed.). Dimensions of radical democracy: Pluralism, citizenship, community (pp. 225-239). London: Verso. National Civic League. (1998). A dialogue on healthy communities: past, present and future. (Building healthier communities: Ten years of learning) (Panel Discussion). National Civic Review, 87(4), 283-288. Paterson, R. W. K. (1970). The concept of discussion: A philosophical approach. Studies in Adult Education, 1, 28-50. Rappaport, J. (1987). Terms of empowerment/exemplars of prevention: Toward a theory for community psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 15, 121-148. Rich, R. C., Edelstein, M., Hallman, W. K., & Wandersman, A. H. (1995). Citizen participation and empowerment: The case of local environmental hazards. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 657-676. Sarkissian, Cook, A., & Walsh, K. (1997). Community participation in practice: A practical guide. Murdoch: Institute for Science & Technology Policy, Murdoch University.

43



Tsouros, A. (1998). From the healthy city to the healthy university: Project development and networking. In A. D. Tsouros, G. Dowding, J. Thompson & M. Dooris (Eds.). Health promoting universities: Concept, experience and framework for action (pp. 11-20). Copenhagen: World Health Organisation. Tsouros, A.D., Dowding, G., Thompson, J., & Dooris, M. (Eds.). (1998). Health promoting universities: Concept, experience and framework for action. Copenhagen: World Health Organization. Walker, S. (2005). Submission regarding the Issues Paper: Building university diversity – Future approval and accreditation processes for Australian higher education. Burwood: Deakin University. Weick, K. E. (1984). Small wins: Redefining the scale of social problems. American Psychologist, 39, 4049. World Health Organisation (WHO). (1995). Twenty steps for developing a healthy cities project (2nd Ed.). Copenhagen: World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe. Retrieved March 3, 2005, from http://www.who.dk/healthy-cities/Documentation/20010918_14. WHO. (1986). Ottawa charter for health promotion. Retrieved August 19, 2005, from http://www.euro.who.int/AboutWHO/Policy/20010827_2 Wilkinson, R., & Marmot, M. (Eds.). (2003). Social determinants of health: The solid facts (2nd Ed.). Copenhagen: World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe.

44



Revisiting Quality for International Research Education: Towards an Engagement Model Margaret Cargill and Kate Cadman Adelaide Graduate Centre, University of Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia In a research education context where increased commercialisation and internationalisation are closely linked, revisiting quality requires that we acknowledge and address the negative homogenising effects of the global spread of knowledges in English. Yet according to the ‘access paradox’ (Janks, 2003/4), failing to provide international students with access to the dominant forms of language and knowledges perpetuates marginalisation and restricts opportunities for contributions to the international arena. This paper uses Pennycook’s (1999) ‘pedagogy of engagement’ as a framework to examine quality-driven developments in an integrated English language/research education program for international students at one Australian university over its 10-year history. The analysis highlights a progression from the program’s initial philosophy and goals grounded in genre pedagogy, through increasing engagement with experiential learning and with the investment and interests of the students, their supervisors and the university. This implementation of pedagogic engagement offers the possibility of an authentic concept of internationalisation in which diversity is actively recognised and valued, and change is anticipated on all sides. The paper contends that an engagement model of best practice will lead to more effective embrace of educational goals and thereby high-level achievement of the pragmatic outcomes desired for research degrees. 1.

Introduction

Recent trends in ‘Western’ higher education have shown increased commercialisation and internationalisation going hand-in-hand. This has been particularly evident in research degree programs. As a result, the research cultures and expectations of Australian universities have been considerably affected by an influx of international research students, and emphasis is increasingly being placed on providing research education for these students who are frequently grounded in different academic languages and educational traditions. The assumptions underpinning this educational trend are largely based on assimilation of international and local non-English speaking background (NESB) students into international disciplinary research cultures by ‘transfer’ of knowledge from the skilled to the unskilled, most often with minimal consideration of the broader ethical or educational implications (Cadman, 2000). Those of us involved in maintaining quality within internationalised research degree programs need to clarify our roles in this process. For example, we have to take account of recent arguments around language and knowledge ecology which warn us against the homogenising effects of the global spread of knowledges in English (Skutnabb-Kandas, 2000). In so doing, however, we are faced with a clear dilemma, which has been summarised by Janks (2003/4) as the ‘access paradox’: If you provide more people with access to the dominant variety of the dominant language, you perpetuate a situation of increasing returns and you maintain its dominance. If, on the other hand you deny students access, you perpetuate their marginalisation in a society that continues to recognise this language as a mark of distinction. You also deny them access to the extensive resources available in that language, resources which have developed as a consequence of that language’s dominance… (p.5)

Research education programs that focus on teaching English as an Additional Language sit uncomfortably on the horns of this dilemma: the more that success in research degree programs is located within AngloCeltic knowledge traditions and predicated on mastery of the English language, the more other languages and their knowledges are threatened; yet, without mastery of English and its knowledge forms, the less access students have to the dominant international knowledge bases, and the less opportunity to contribute to them. Quality outcomes require a balance of attention to rigorous English language development for

45



those who need it, together with openings for students to investigate their own trans-cultural situations by mobilising their own potential for self-management and articulating their own interests and investment in their study program. One strategy can lie in rooting a language and research skills program in a ‘pedagogy of engagement’ (Pennycook, 1999) through which the research education of discipline- and paradigm-specific communities of international researchers can be structured to encourage them to assess some of the broad intercultural influences on their research project design and implementation. For students, this can mean controlling their own learning directions and applying themselves strategically to their language development; for supervisors, implications can include a more explicit valuing of the knowledges and contexts represented by their international students, and a willingness to engage with the contributions these may be able to make to the disciplinary community. In this paper, we discuss ways in which these ideas have affected practice at one Australian university: in the initial goals and philosophy of its integrated English language/research education program for international research students; in developments during the 10-year history of the program; and in future directions in the light of the imperatives of the current quality context. Our aim is to advocate a move towards an engagement model of best practice for international research education. 2.

Quality Outcomes through Integrating English Language Development within the Research Program: the Integrated Bridging Program at the University of Adelaide, 1995-2005

2.1 Initial philosophy and goals In 1993, the University of Adelaide’s Quality in Teaching and Learning Report advocated that its educational goals for all students should include “the systematic development of knowledge that is essential for skills in reasoning, judgement and communication” (p. 44). In response, two years later the University implemented a mandatory, semester-long Integrated Bridging Program (IBP) for international postgraduate research students and their supervisors, in order to give specific attention to issues of English language development and intercultural research education (see Cargill, 1996). At this time pragmatic goals were dominant in the field of English for academic purposes, and quality was seen to consist in improving the English language competence of international scholars embarking on study programs. The approach adopted in designing the IBP was known as ‘genre pedagogy’ (Cargill, Cadman, & McGowan, 2001), which emphasises the importance of disciplinary communities of writers/readers as arbiters of practice, and the use of authentic examples of the texts students are learning to write as the basis of teaching (Berkenkotter & Huckin, 1995; Freedman & Medway, 1994). This emphasis is reflected in the objectives written for the program in 1994/5: •

to focus attention early in students' candidatures on the writing and presentation skills that are part of postgraduate study, and to develop strategies for their ongoing development

•

to assist students to progress from a general language proficiency to the specific language competence required for higher degree studies in their chosen field

•

to provide an induction into the academic, linguistic and cultural conventions relating to postgraduate study at the University of Adelaide and in the students' own disciplines

•

to develop the English language proficiency of postgraduate students within the context of their own area of specialisation

•

to support the development of language skills and understandings needed to undertake research in the students' departments of the University of Adelaide (IBP Report, 1995-6).

To achieve these objectives, the IBP was structured around a core set of writing and presentation tasks which formed the basis of the early stages of the students’ candidature. Learning and teaching activities were designed to develop the students’ skills and confidence in completing the tasks, and this basic structure remains. Students work in small discipline- or paradigm-specific groups, and each student focuses on her/his own research project as the basis for the tasks. These comprise a critical review of a single research article from the literature relevant to the student’s topic, a draft literature review justifying the student’s research and a draft research proposal, presented as both a seminar and a document.

46



Language feedback on each task is provided by IBP lecturers, with content feedback given by the student’s research supervisors, allowing a productive focus on the relationship between the linguistic and content domains (for details, see Cargill, 1996). An outcome of this curriculum structure is the establishment of a tripartite collaboration between student, supervisor and IBP lecturer (McGowan, Seton, & Cargill, 1996); the collaboration often continues productively throughout candidature, and the wider ramifications of this process are discussed later in the paper. During the 10 years of the IBP’s operation to date, regular evaluations have been conducted. Each semester’s students complete a formal questionnaire (including open-ended questions) within the framework of the University’s Student Evaluation of Learning and Teaching (SELT). In the early years of the program, supervisors were surveyed formally and have subsequently been invited to comment on the program’s effectiveness and suggest improvements as issues arise. An additional questionnaire was distributed to all 1996/7 participants (students and supervisors); the results are analysed in Cadman (2000). Evaluations show that student satisfaction with the IBP has remained consistently high. For the SELT item ‘I would recommend this program to other students’, mean group scores from 1995-2004 have ranged between 5 and 7 (1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree). Supervisors have formally noted a range of beneficial outcomes to the program (Cadman, 2000), and the enthusiasm with which most supervisors participate in the program when they have a new international student provides a further index of its effectiveness in their eyes. 2.2 Quality control in curriculum re-design From a curriculum perspective, these evaluations have prompted a refocusing of priorities in several significant areas. Primarily, following the work of Swales (1990, 2004) and Swales and Feak (1994, 2000), there has been an enhanced focus within the core IBP program on the ‘discourse’ level of language in research documents – that is, how logical flow and argument are conventionally developed in discipline- and paradigm-specific varieties of English. This has meant that the teaching of English grammar and of pronunciation and intonation has been modularised and is now presented separately, alongside the core curriculum, for those who need it. Perhaps even more notably, experiential learning and interaction within the class groups has been recognised as a key feature of the program, to foster students’ development of these literacy skills within their own disciplinary contexts. Designated curriculum time has subsequently been devoted to allow this to take place; a 1996 student described the classes as “motivating, inspiring, sympathetic and supporting both psychologically and academically”. Student networks formed during the IBP are often maintained throughout candidature, and this aspect is now recognised in IBP documentation as one of the program’s important benefits to students. A further change has been related to a growing awareness among the IBP teaching team, prompted by our shared experiences as well as the evaluation results, of the importance of the class group for exposing bigger learning issues, including those related to supervision expectations and identity confrontations (Ivanic, 1998). In response to these issues, a stronger emphasis has been placed on the combined IBP student-supervisor workshop each semester, where a structured activity engages participants in oral argument on an issue of relevance to their research education. Observed behaviours and language usage are ‘unpacked’ in terms of intercultural communication issues, and strategies for enhancing communication are presented (Adams & Cargill, 2003). The importance of supervisors and students experiencing this workshop together has been highlighted by members of both groups. A final development has involved a strengthened embedding of the IBP within the institutional quality processes. Satisfactory completion of the IBP is now a compulsory component for international students of the University’s six-month Core Component of the Structured Program (http://www.adelaide.edu.au/graduatecentre/Forms/ccsp_complete.pdf). Where issues of concern to either party have arisen during the program, IBP documentation now requires the IBP lecturer and supervisor(s) to establish a milestone and monitoring process for the second six months of candidature. This agreement is reported to the Dean of Graduate Studies, enabling its inclusion in the University’s monitoring processes throughout candidature.

47


3.


A Model of Engagement for International Research Education Development

A common theme in the developments noted above, is the increasing engagement of the pedagogy with the lived experience of the students in the classroom, as well as bringing the supervisors more explicitly into class processes and assessment procedures. As Pennycook’s (1999) ‘pedagogy of engagement’ advocates, international research students’ interests and investment in their studies have been increasingly welcomed into the classroom. Notably, not only the agency of the students but also the investment and interests of the supervisors and the University are increasingly engaged. A key factor here is that the IBP began with, and is predicated upon, the identities and learning needs of the international students, and informed by their input and experiences in a reflexive process. This perspective has informed developments at every stage. As changes to the program have evolved, two questions have become important in relation to the access paradox referred to earlier: is it legitimate to expect international students to change unilaterally to accommodate how research and research communication are understood in the host culture and discipline? But also, is it feasible to expect an advanced level of linguistic mastery in the course of a research degree program? The ethical and pragmatic concerns appear to merge here. Answers can be fruitfully explored by all parties in the atmosphere of engagement we seek to develop. As need for change has been identified in the IBP, strengths have also been recognised and built upon, and key among these is the tripartite relationship between student, supervisor and research education developer that is enabled by the IBP structure. This relationship both fosters and demonstrates the value in the research education context of Freire’s (1970) concept of dialogic rather than banking processes of learning, here actually implemented as tri-alogic, particularly by supporting students as they develop their own authentic voices in the relationship. This is the enactment of Pennycook’s (1999) pedagogic ‘engagement’, and herein lies the possibility of an authentic concept of internationalisation in the context of university research education: opportunities are opened for genuine exchange, change is anticipated for all parties, and diversity is actively recognised and valued in place of a homogenous understanding of research in the host culture’s terms alone. An engagement model of best practice for international research education allows the investment and interests of all parties in the commercial and educational venture to be articulated within the processes, without compromise to the pragmatic outcomes. In terms of the access paradox, those providing and facilitating research education in English and within Englishspeaking research cultures can then be confident that students themselves are grappling with the issues, to the extent that they choose their own directions and are able to do so. Under such a model, it is our contention that the pragmatic outcomes of a research degree program can be achieved to a higher degree, because the educational goals are embraced more effectively. Specific solutions thrown up by such a model will of course be different in particular contexts, but the overall outcomes could represent a new understanding of what quality means within the prevailing imperatives of the internationalising and globalising research education context. References Adams, K., & Cargill, M. (2003). Knowing that the other knows: using experience and reflection to enhance communication in cross-cultural postgraduate supervisory relationships. Learning for an unknown future: Proceedings of the Conference of the Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia. Christchurch, New Zealand (CD-ROM). Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Cognition/ culture/ power. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cadman, K. (2000). 'Voices in the Air': Evaluations of the learning experiences of international postgraduates and their supervisors. Teaching in Higher Education, 5(4), 475-491. Cargill, M. (1996). An integrated bridging program for international postgraduate students. Higher Education Research and Development, 15(2), 177-188. Cargill, M., Cadman, K., & McGowan, U. (2001). Postgraduate writing: Using intersecting genres in a collaborative content-based program. In I. Leki (Ed.). Case studies in TESOL: Academic writing programs (pp. 85-96). Alexandria, VA: Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL).

48



Freedman, A., & Medway, P. (1994). Learning and teaching genre. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton Cook. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Trans. Myra Bergman Ramos. New York: Continuum Books. Ivanic, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Janks, H. (2003/4). The access paradox. English in Australia, 139, 33-42. McGowan, U., Seton, J., & Cargill, M. (1996). A collaborating colleague model for inducting international engineering students into the language and culture of a foreign research environment. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communications, 39(3), 117-121. Pennycook, A. (1999). Introduction: Critical approaches to TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 33(3), 329-348. Skutnabb-Kandas, T. (2000). Linguistic human rights and teachers of English. In J. L. Hall & W. G. Eggington (Eds.). The sociopolitics of English language teaching (pp. 22-44). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students: A course for non-native speakers of English. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2000). English in today's research world: A writing guide. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

49



Student Engagement as a Quality Indicator at the University of Newcastle Jim Clearya and Ivan Skainesb a b

University Services Division, University of Newcastle, NSW 2308, Australia

Planning and Business Improvement Unit, University Services Division, University of Newcastle, NSW 2308, Australia Student engagement has had a high profile in the United States through an ongoing concern with the quality of undergraduate education, a focus on educational outcomes and the widespread use of the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) as a tool for quality improvement. Recent research has highlighted student engagement, active involvement, commitment and a sense of belonging as the most critical factors in student learning and personal development. Engagement within the classroom becomes a vehicle for stimulating involvement in out-of-class experiences that benefits the development of graduate attributes and learning outcomes. In the Australian context, Craig McInnis has drawn attention to the growing signs of disengagement evident in the national trend study of the first year undergraduate experience and the demand by current students for negotiated engagement on their terms. The Learning Community Scale of the Course Experience Questionnaire introduced in 2002 is an optional measurement of the social dimensions of learning. It does not have the prominence associated with the NSSE in the United States but has the potential to be a valuable tool for improving the quality of the student experience. The University of Newcastle responses to the Learning Community Scale indicate variations among campuses and faculties that should be cause for some concern. Although schools review feedback on programs, courses and teaching, there has been no global consideration of levels of student engagement or strategies for facilitating it. Universities need to more actively manage curriculum design and learning experiences both in and out of the classroom. They could restructure the critical first year experience, promote pedagogical innovations like problem based learning and provide service learning and community service linked to academic goals.

1.

Why Does Student Engagement Matter?

In the last decade there has been heightened interest in outcomes data that represents what students have learnt in an undergraduate education. In Australia, a Learning and Teaching Performance Fund is to be allocated on the basis of performance indicators. However, as Kuh et al (1997) argue, the assessment instruments for collecting such data do not necessarily point to student behaviours and institutional practices that produce the outcomes. This has led to an interest in process indicators, measures of behaviours associated with desired outcomes that can help institutions identify whether activities and opportunities for learning are in ample supply, and focus faculty and students on those tasks and activities associated with the most desired student outcomes. Research in the 1990s (Astin, 1993; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991) has conclusively shown that the most important factor in student learning and personal development at university is student engagement, the active involvement, commitment and sense of belonging that dictates the time and effort students devote to educationally purposeful activities. Tinto (1998) has also highlighted the importance of student engagement for persistence and retention, particularly in first year. He argues that engagement or integration takes place inside and/or outside the classroom with involvement in the classroom a vehicle for involvement beyond the classroom

50



The National Survey of Student Engagement, an American survey instrument focused on the undergraduate experience (Kuh, 2003), has refined our understanding of the principles of good practice with its five benchmark scales, namely:

2.

•

level of academic challenge

•

active and collaborative learning

•

student-faculty interaction

•

enriching educational experience

•

supportive campus environment.

How Engaged Are Students?

The last decade has seen inquiries in America express concern that undergraduate education has lost its way and in Australia there are expressions of disquiet at the signs of disengagement by students. In both countries the student population is now more diverse, represents a greater proportion of the population, and is under financial pressure, prompting high levels of part-time employment. Within the Australian context, Craig McInnis (2001, 2003) has drawn attention to growing signs of disengagement evident in the national trend study of the first year undergraduate experience (McInnis and James, 1995; McInnis, James and Hartley, 2000) and the demand of current students for negotiated engagement on their terms. DEST (2004) reports that the attrition rate for first year is much higher than for second year students. Sally Kift (2004), Assistant Dean, Teaching and Learning, Faculty of Law, Queensland University of Technology, observes that research confirms classroom experience, that …students are working longer hours in paid employment, generally feel less committed to and engaged with their tertiary studies and find it increasingly difficult to motivate themselves. In the first university year, students say their transition is difficult and lonely; while reduced public funding and massification of the sector have exacerbated student disengagement through impersonal large classes and growing rates of academic casualisation. Systemic factors such as increased flexibility in course delivery and diversity in program choice further destabilise the potential for a sense of student belonging in that students no longer ‘study and play’ their way through university together as they once did.

The 1999 First Year Experience study (McInnis et al, 2000) concluded that one third of undergraduates have made poor course choices and are reluctant participants in university life; over a quarter of students worked in isolation from their peers and were not interested in extra-curricular activities; and over 50% worked eleven hours or more in paid employment. As McInnis asserts, “Undergraduate students now have many more choices about when, where, and what they will study, and how much commitment they need to make to university life.” This situation has come about because of the choice and flexibility offered by universities, a consequence of market competition, new learning technologies and flexibility in course structures and delivery. The University of Newcastle mirrors the profile outlined by McInnis with a diverse student body reflecting the expansion of the 1990s: 65% of undergraduate students working part-time; only 25% members of campus clubs and societies, but 90% active in the Forum Sports and Aquatic Centre (Composite Student Questionnaire, 2003). There is a huge demand for online access to lecture notes on Black Board and a corresponding decline in the percentage of students who attend lectures late in term. Comments by graduates in the 2003 Course Experience Questionnaire show a strong desire for the University to be responsive to the changed student environment in which many have multiple commitments; accessibility of teaching staff is also a high priority. It would seem students ruthlessly prioritise time and spend less time on campus than in the past.

51



New scales developed for the national Course Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) administered to all Australian University graduates now includes an optional Learning Community Scale (LCS) that measures the social dimension of learning. There are five questions in the scale: 1.

I felt part of a group of students and staff committed to learning.

2.

Students’ ideas and suggestions were used during the course.

3.

I learned to explore ideas confidently with other people.

4.

I felt I belonged to the university community.

5.

I was able to explore academic interests with staff and students.

The LCS does not have the prominence associated with the NSSE in the United States and is not as widely used as the other scales in the questionnaire. McInnis (2003, p. 10-11) reports that “students who rate their undergraduate experience highly on the learning community items are more likely to say their university experience provided them with communication skills, capacity for leadership and analytical and critical thinking skills.” The 2003 results show that the median agreement with the LCS questions for undergraduates is on the low side at 50% (GCCA, 2004, p. 28) compared with other scales. Only 47% felt a sense of belonging to the University community and able to explore academic interests with staff and students. Only 55% felt part of a group of students and staff committed to learning. These figures suggest the social dimension of learning is being overlooked in our universities at a time when it is receiving increasing emphasis in the workplace. The Learning Community Scale of the CEQ has been used at the University of Newcastle since 2002 although the results have not had a high profile in the academic community. One of the key findings in 2003 was the significantly lower ranking given to ‘belonged to the university community’ at the main Callaghan Campus (3.1) compared with the smaller Central Coast Campus (3.5) and the high score for ‘part of a group of students and staff committed to learning’ (4.0) at the latter compared to the former (3.6). There are obvious reasons why it is easier to cultivate a sense of belonging and engagement on a small campus, however, decision makers within the University should at least consider whether the lower figures are of concern for student learning and personal development and what might be done to address the disparity. There are also significant variations between faculties at Callaghan with both the Faculty of Education and Arts and the Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment having low figures for sense of belonging to the university. In the Faculty of Health there are high levels of agreement about questions 1 and 3, indicating an excellent local learning environment but a low sense of belonging to the University. Once again, should this be of concern? 3.

Promoting Student Engagement

If student disengagement is a critical issue for the quality of learning in our universities, there is little merit in harking back to a golden age of Oxbridge residential colleges or even the elite undergraduate education of the post-war era in Australia and New Zealand for guidance. Pascarella & Terenzini (1998) question the assumption that face-to-face student-staff interaction is critical to teaching and learning in an era of technology based learning and McInnis (2001, p. 9) asserts that: “trying to recreate the campusbased experience from a distance may be seriously distracting from the potential of new technologies.” McInnis (2001, p. 4) touches on the key issue when he argues “the undergraduate experience is changing by default when universities should be demonstrating leadership in structuring the experience, particularly with respect to the design of the curriculum and the management of learning experiences.” American universities and colleges have responded to the issue of student disengagement by restructuring the first year learning experience with learning communities, small class sizes, instruction by senior faculty, provision of supplementary and out-of-class support, tracking of class attendance with individual interventions (Cutright, 2002); provision of service learning courses and community service linked to structured reflection (Furco, 2001) and pedagogical innovations such as problem-based learning. More resources are being allocated to out-of-classroom academically oriented programs aligned with the university’s mission and values and voluntary service connected to academic work is encouraged. A key

52



strategy has been to raise student expectations with regard to the time and effort required for academic work. Academic staff are also rewarded for participation in service learning and community service; legitimising community based research. Within the Australian context, the First Year in Higher Education Conferences have had a focus on student engagement as a strategic issue for the first year student experience. The work of McInnis has informed this debate and talented younger academics (Meyers, 2004; Kift, 2004) have embarked on a process of curriculum renewal with first year as the starting point. The emphasis is on the development of engaging learning environments that foster self-managed learning and the development of graduate capabilities. Kift (2004, p. 12) advocates that …extra drop-in tutorials might be scheduled for all first year units, together with a general first year drop-in time; email aliases could be established for all first year units for general unit enquiries, together with a general first year email alias; and an academic first year advisor might be appointed as an initial liaison for all first year students.

Geoff Scott (2004) also reminds us that the quality of the student experience requires holistic integration with all the key players from the academic community and support services working together to facilitate both extra curricular and curricular learning. Therefore, if community engagement and extra curricular activity are important for student personal development there is a need for academic/student services collaboration to facilitate opportunities. We need to take account of the different needs of school leavers and mature age students in addressing issues of engagement beyond the curriculum. References Astin, A.W. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cutright, M. (2002). What are research universities doing for first-year students. About Campus, 16-20. Furco, A. (2001). Advancing service-learning at research universities. New Directions for Higher Education, 114, 67-78. Graduate Careers Council of Australia (GCCA). (2004). 2003 Course experience questionnaire A national survey of the activities of year 2002 university graduates. Melbourne: Graduate Careers Council of Australia. Kift, S. (2004). Organising first year engagement around learning: Formal and informal curriculum intervention. 8th Pacific Rim Conference 2004 First Year in Higher Education Dealing with Diversity, 1416 July, 2004. Retrieved March 12, 2005, from http://www.fyhe.qut.edu.au/Papers/Sally%20Kift_paper.doc Kuh, G. (2003). The national survey of student engagement: Conceptual framework and overview of psychometric properties. Retrieved March 12, 2005, from http://www.iub.edu/~nsse/pdf/conceptual_framework_2003.pdf Kuh, G., Pace, R., & Vesper, N. (1997). The development of process indicators to estimate student gains associated with good practices in undergraduate education. Research in Higher Education, 38(4), 435453. McInnis, C. (2001). Inaugural professorial lecture signs of disengagement? The changing undergraduate experience in Australian universities. Melbourne: Centre for the Study of Higher Education, Faculty of Education, University of Melbourne. McInnis, C. (2003). New realities of the student experience: How should universities respond? 25th Annual Conference European Association for Institutional Research, Limerick, 24-27 August 2003. McInnis, C., & James, R. (1995). First year on campus: Diversity in the initial experiences of Australian undergraduates. Canberra: Committee for the Advancement of University Teaching, Australian Government Publishing Service.

53



McInnis, C., James, R., & Hartley, R.(2000). Trends in the first year experience. Canberra: DETYA Higher Education Division. Meyers, N. M., Whelan, K., Nulty, D., & Ryan, N. (2004). Enhancing the transition of first year science students – a strategic and systematic approach. 8th Pacific Rim Conference 2004 First Year in Higher Education Dealing with Diversity 14-16 July 2004. Retrieved March 12, 2005, from http://www.fyhe.qut.edu.au/Papers/055.doc Pascarella, E.T., & Terenzini, P.T. (1991). How college affects students. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Scott, G. (2004). Change matters: Making a difference in higher education. AUQA Universities Quality Forum 2004 Proceedings. Retrieved March 12, 2005, from http://www.auqa.edu.au/auqf/2004/program/papers/Scott.pdf. University of Newcastle, Statistics and Evaluation Services. (2003) Composite student questionnaire. Retrieved May 2, 2005, from http://www.newcastle.edu.au/services/statistics/university_surveys/csq.html University of Newcastle. (2004). Performance report No. 2. Retrieved May 5, 2005, from http://www.newcastle.edu.au/services/statistics/university_statistics/Council_Performance_Report_March _2004.pdf

54



Embedding Community Engagement: Northern Adelaide and The University of South Australia Mike Elliotta, Peter Sandemanb and Hilary Winchesterc a

University of South Australia Northern Adelaide Partnerships (UNAP), University of South Australia, SA 5000, Australia b c

Office of the North, Government of South Australia, SA 5111, Australia

Organisational Strategy and Change, University of South Australia, SA 5000, Australia * This submission was awarded the Best Paper Award at AUQF2005.

The University of South Australia’s Northern Adelaide Partnerships (UNAP) program is a highly commended example of successful community engagement. The program received an AUQA commendation in 2004. In the same year, the Peer Mentoring program in which UNAP is involved won an institutional award in the Australian Awards for University Teaching, and the Pathway for Adult Learners program, called UniSA-PAL, won the Chancellor’s Award for Community Service. Projects supported by UNAP have gained significant funding from ARC Linkage and Sustainable Regions grants. This paper will describe how UNAP came into being, its role in the University and the community and its performance viewed from three perspectives. 1.

Introduction

In response to demands that universities justify the large investment of public funds to support their operations, community engagement is becoming a core activity of universities here and overseas. However, community engagement is not always arranged organisationally in a way that reflects its strategic importance or maximises benefits to the community. This is not, however, the case at the University of South Australia, where, in December 2002, with senior management leadership and a commitment of funding over three years, a special unit was established to promote more effective engagement with northern Adelaide. 2.

The Community

The program is currently focused on three municipal areas in northern metropolitan Adelaide – Salisbury, Playford and Gawler. It is one of Australia’s most highly concentrated manufacturing regions with General Motors Holden, their suppliers and significant defence companies providing employment. This area coincides with that of a State Government initiative through the Office of the North. A September 2000 Discussion Paper described this as a region “consistently across all postcodes well below the national, State and the ASD (Adelaide Statistical District) average” (Salisbury, Playford & Gawler, 2000, p. 2) according to the SEIFA Index of Disadvantage and measurements of employment, welfare dependency, and education, skill and income levels. This continues to be the case, as suggested by the data in Figure 1. Included is Map 1: Index of Relative Socio-Economic Disadvantage, Adelaide, 2001 (Hetzel et al, 2004).

55



Figure 1 Map showing Index of Relative Socio-Economic Disadvantage, Suburbs within Playford/Salisbury Region from Hetzel et al, 2004; Selected Summary Indicators (a) Playford/Salisbury Region as a Proportion of SA from DOTARS, 2003, p. 11.

Index of Relative Economic Disadvantage

below 950 950 to 999 1000 to 1049 1050 to 1099 1100 and above not mapped

56

Socio-

The 2001 Index of Relative Socio-Economic Disadvantage (IRSD) includes all variables collected in the 2001 Population Census that either reflect or measure disadvantage. These include low income, low educational attainment, high unemployment, jobs in relatively unskilled occupations and variables that reflect disadvantage, rather than measure specific aspects of disadvantage (e.g., Indigenous status and separated/divorced). Relatively low scores, indicating the most disadvantaged areas, are in Playford - West Central (762), Port Adelaide Enfield - Port (799), Playford - Elizabeth (807), Port Adelaide Enfield Inner (886), Salisbury - Inner North (891) and Salisbury Central (897).



Juxtapose this snapshot with other images. Northern Adelaide is home or adjacent to: •

one of Adelaide’s newest residential and commercial developments – Mawson Lakes

•

Technology Park, a high profile symbol of the desired future direction of the region, i.e., widening the industry base with highly skilled workers and technologies

•

the rich resources of the northern Adelaide plains and the Barossa Valley

•

a University of South Australia campus.

What we have is a picture of potential for growth and prosperity, but potential that many northern Adelaide residents, families and communities would probably not be able to access. 3.

The University: Momentum

The University of South Australia Act specifically requires the provision of programs for disadvantaged groups within the community. This responsibility has been expressed as an organisational vision “to build the capacity and resilience of the communities in which we work through innovative, collaborative and enterprising activities” (UniSA 2010). The University has a long association with the area through its antecedent institution, the SA Institute of Technology (The Levels campus). It attracts more enrolments from this area than other universities, although, in line with the profile of northern Adelaide, the numbers are very small. Tranter has observed that “attending university is not part of the culture of the schools and their student populations, not part of what Pierre Bourdieu refers to as the habitus of the students” in this area (Tranter, 2005). Location, academic programs and the University’s social justice agenda had all brought about a high level of engagement there. In 2002, an audit of University activities in the area itemised: 52 existing initiatives; 23 projects under discussion or planned; and 10 ideas for future action. Yet, the activities were not coordinated until, following the recommendation of a University Task Force (headed by the Pro ViceChancellor of the Division of Information Technology, Engineering and the Environment), the Senior Management Group agreed to set up a special unit. This unit would create partnerships with the community to promote social inclusion through education, training, research and consultancy. 4.

Critical Mass, Synergy, Symbiosis

The University’s strategising was well-timed and its social justice agenda aligned seamlessly with a newly expressed vision for northern Adelaide articulated by all three levels of government. The 2000 discussion paper of the local government councils had led to a new, combined government effort. It included establishment of the State ‘Office of The North’ in 2002 and, in 2004, the Northern Adelaide Economic Development Alliance (NAEDA), of which the University is a member, to provide strategic directions for existing regional and local economic development initiatives. This was essentially the same approach as that taken by the University in relation to northern Adelaide. In 2001, the Commonwealth ‘Sustainable Regions’ program injected $12 million for projects in the area to 2006. The goal of this program is to “involve the community in laying the foundation to realise the region’s longterm potential to be economically vibrant, socially inclusive and environmentally sustainable building on its natural advantages” (DOTARS, 2003). An early outcome of this invigorated activity was the identification of significant regional assets (The Office of The North): •

generator industries

•

availability of public land

•

a good physical transport network

•

significant medium-sized businesses for clustering for technology acquisition and global competition

57



•

local governments that proactively initiate economic activity

•

a broad range of high quality educational institutions

•

a diverse natural environment

•

community volunteers keen to work with Councils and other organizations

•

strong volunteer networks

•

businesses that lead in environmental technologies (particularly water harvesting and treatment).

While there is no disputing the statistics about levels of socio-economic disadvantage of the region, a survey of workers and regional organisations (The Office of The North) expressed strong belief in its potential and revealed a great resource in its people. This brighter future perspective was shared by what was now a constellation of government and non-government organisations, including the University. Each contributed new resources and a strong commitment to achieving the vision. The synergy of government, the University and the community, the critical mass achieved to effect sustainable change, have created a symbiosis that is becoming embedded in the community. 5.

Embedding Engagement: Establishing UNAP

At the same time as the Government was taking these initiatives, the University acted. It created UNAP to focus on northern Adelaide to better achieve the University’s community engagement vision and social justice agenda, committing the $250,000 per annum for three years, as the Task Force had recommended. It used a matrix to analyse existing University activities and arrange them under four main themes with appropriate program goals. Table 1 UNAP Themes and Program Goals Theme

Goal

Pathways to higher and further education

Increase school retention and assist people from all age groups and backgrounds participate in higher and further education.

Capacity building

Enhance professional development, governance, leadership and the evolution of learning communities.

Building regional skill levels

Bring together education and training providers so as to meet regional skills shortages and boost local education and skill levels.

Social capital

Increase the resources available to the community for building networks of mutual support and well-being.

The University created a Steering Group that is now chaired by the Pro Vice-Chancellor: Organisational Strategy and Change, whose membership includes the Pro Vice-Chancellor: Access and Learning Support and the Pro Vice-Chancellors who head the four academic divisions. Mike Elliott was appointed to give UNAP a high-profile Director. 6.

UNAP in Action

UNAP is the first point of contact for matters relating to northern Adelaide. It brings northern Adelaide needs to the attention of the whole University and helps create new partnerships, programs and research to meet community needs. It seeks adjustments to existing academic and entry programs, supports staff and publicises the partnerships. Externally, UNAP brings the whole University to the community, collaborating with all levels of government and government services, with education providers, business, industry, and the professions.

58



The Director participates in formal and informal networks around community issues, programs and projects. In the establishment stage, a large part of the work has involved: •

getting known

•

building relationships

•

identifying opportunities

•

bringing people together

•

participating in governance structures and their development

•

facilitating partnerships.

UNAP is not a deliverer of education or services, but an agent for connecting people and ideas to achieve benefits for people in northern Adelaide. These benefits may not always exclusively accrue to the University. For example, peer mentoring and access programs such as UniSA-PAL could produce enrolments that flow to other universities and TAFE. These and other UNAP projects are listed at http://www.unisa.edu.au/unap/. Establishing formal governance and partnership relationships is a way of embedding engagement in the community and in the University, ensuring that collaboration is sustained and outlives personalities and pilot project funding. UNAP has facilitated conversations across different agencies operating in the community and importantly, across the University. Of particular significance are the Memoranda of Understanding established with government and non-government agencies around Libraries, Middle Schooling and Health. UNAP has played a significant role in breaking silo thinking. 7.

Impact

Results observed by the University UNAP’s annual plan sets priorities, listing projects and indicating outcomes and measurements to track success. UNAP is subject to regular review. UNAP’s success is indicated by: •

its high profile in northern Adelaide and in the University

•

its successful facilitation of UniSA involvement in projects

•

the number of agreements entered into with community-based organisations (Memoranda of Understanding)

•

its governance relationships (UniSA representation)

•

statistics, such as school retention in the short-term and census data on a range of indicators (education levels, employment, income, health) in the longer term.

The University’s experience with UNAP suggests that similar structures and techniques (e.g., audit, matrix, steering group, dedicated resources) can be applied to focus existing activities more strategically in other areas. And, at the end, UniSA involvement in northern Adelaide will be fully embedded. The University will be permanently engaged. UNAP survey A barrier to successful university-community engagement is the need to produce results and to do so quickly. One of the significant contributions that the University has made to northern Adelaide is to be patient. It has also exhibited a degree of selflessness with an emphasis on outcomes for the community rather than for the University. UNAP was established less than three years ago. Northern Adelaide is a long-term project. However, we are evaluating it on an annual basis through planning processes and we

59



have in place a satisfaction survey to gauge our success. We need to increase the rate of return, particularly from external respondents. However, the first survey (2004) did include a question about UNAP’s impact in the region with the following effects described: •

increased awareness of UniSA activities in the region

•

introduction of activities which support and extend opportunity in the north

•

increase in clinical placements and communication with health agencies in the region

•

working to link agencies with each other and UniSA

•

more open dialogue between organisations

•

active participation in progressing concepts

•

objective input into regional processes

•

a willingness to work together.

Results observed from the Office of the North In communities in which university graduates (other than teachers) are rare and completion of year 12 is beyond the reach of many students, the presence of the University is having immediate benefits. These range from the new opportunities for the community to access campus resources and staff for teaching of maths and physics, to less apparent impacts from the University placing social work students in highly disadvantaged schools. Not only do the school students and their families gain the advantage of casework, but they get to know real live university students, so university becomes real and accessible. Perhaps the most significant role UNAP has played has been as an integral part of developing education and training pathways from an alliance of schools, TAFE and the University of South Australia to specific growth industries. This has resulted in an increase from 50 to 500 students undertaking regional career pathways to industries from last year to this. The Office of the North tries to build the University in as a partner in all attempts to meet the challenges of the North. Generally, universities are not good at relating across disciplines and internal structures to respond to the community, industry. UNAP is the means to enable these coalitions. 8.

Conclusion

In mid-2005, the University review process confirmed UNAP’s effectiveness in achieving its own program goals and objectives and in furthering the University’s mission, and decided to continue to deploy resources to support UNAP. The University and the community acknowledge that UNAP has established itself in a manner that will ensure the work will continue through the governance and partnership arrangements. Although there is more work for UNAP to do, the way in which the University has gone about establishing UNAP has ensured that, to a significant degree, embedment of UniSA activity in northern Adelaide has already been achieved. References City of Salisbury, City of Playford, & Town of Gawler. (2000). Strategic directions for human services: The northern metropolitan region of Adelaide – Discussion paper. Department of Human Services, South Australia. Department of Transport and Regional Services (DOTARS). (2003). A regional profile: Playford/Salisbury Region South Australia. Retrieved March 15, 2005, from http://www.sustainableregions.gov.au/downloads/sr_sa_pla_profile.pdf

60



Department of Transport and Regional Services (DOTARS). (n.d.). Regional priorities: Playford/Salisbury. Retrieved March 15, 2005, from http://www.sustainableregions.gov.au/sa/pla/priorities.aspx Hetzel, D., Page, A., Glover, J., & Tennant, S. (2004). Inequality in South Australia: Key determinants of well-being. Volume 1: The Evidence [Electronic version]. Adelaide: DH (SA). Sandeman, P. (n.d.). The northern partnership. Retrieved March http://www.dtup.sa.gov.au/office%5Fnorth/publications/otn_summary.pdf

15,

2005,

from

The Office of The North. (n.d.). The region’s key strengths and assets. Retrieved March 22, 2005, from http://www.dtup.sa.gov.au/office%5Fnorth/publications/strengths_assets.pdf Tranter, D. (2005). Why university? A case of socio-cultural reproduction in disadvantaged secondary schools, Hawke Research Institute for Sustainable Societies, University of South Australia. Retrieved June 22, 2005, from http://www.hawkecentre.unisa.edu.au/institute/resources/pgwp1.pdf University of South Australia. (2003). UniSA 2010. Retrieved on March 23, 2005, from http://www.unisa.edu.au/about/intro/unisa2010.asp

61



Quality Management of Academic Development – The Challenge of Engaging Stakeholders Kathleen Gray and Alex Radloff Science, Engineering and Technology Portfolio, RMIT University, Vic 3000, Australia Academic development is taking on a prominent role as universities face up to the challenges confronting higher education in Australia and more widely, and consider what they must do to survive and thrive in a rapidly changing and evolving world. In this paper we discuss the place of academic development in universities, including the alignment of the leadership and management of academic development with ownership of academic development by the organisational stakeholders, the links between the academic development culture and the quality culture, and how these matters concern the wider community of academic developers. We outline a framework for quality management of an academic development unit, and describe the approaches we have taken and issues raised in one such unit, as it works to strengthen engagement with institutional and professional communities within this framework. 1.

The Present Position

The work of academic developers and academic development units is present in most universities and has been defined in detail by Fraser (2003) and Chalmers & O’Brien (2005), for example. Much has been written about how to do academic development effectively, aimed at individual practitioners and at those managing academic development units [see, for example, Kahn & Baume (2003); and Baume & Kahn (2004), respectively]. Nevertheless, in many cases, the state of academic development work at the start of the 21st Century remains loosely understood and organised among practitioners and stakeholders; see, for instance, Bird (2004) and Schwier et al (2004). The authors of both studies raise implications for the future of academic development work. Bird (2004, p. 133) wonders how the findings “sit within the wider context of changes in higher education in Australia and how this group of staff should locate themselves in relation to these changes.” Schwier et al (2004, p. 99) identify “a number of intriguing issues and challenges about instructional designers and their communities of practice, and how instructional designers perceive their participation in sweeping changes underway in education.” Academic development faces changes on a scale in keeping with those being experienced by the organisations it serves – massification, privatisation, globalisation. It is more than ever subject to “change, ebb and flow, in concert with the various areas it abuts such as educational technology, human resource management, institutional quality concerns, and others” (Webb, 2000, p. 1). Ling (2005) affirms this observation, noting various patterns of configuring the work with media production and services, curriculum design and human resources. Further, as Land (2005, p. 218) points out, in the last twenty years, academic development has …moved from the margins of higher education institutions to the mainstream. But as it has gained influence in this transition…it has become caught up in competing discourses and highly complex institutional contexts and agendas.

To respond appropriately to these changes and challenges, academic development work – its purposes, means and outcomes - must engage better both with the community of those who do it, and also with those who are its institutional stakeholders. As Chalmers & O’Brien (2005, p. 51) argue, …if EDUs [educational development units] are to be truly effective within the teaching and learning community, then they need to be positioned across the multiple layers of interactions within their own universities, between collaborative universities, and across the higher education sector itself.

62



Webb (2000, p. 3) sets out the concerns of those who work in the academic development community, namely that due to forces such as rationalisation, flexible delivery, quality, devolution and outsourcing, we face the prospect of progressive erosion of “the 40 year discourse of university teaching and learning development … because of problems concerning appropriate academic leadership, loss of autonomy, loss of discourse overview and a concentration on product.” Webb (2004, p. 174) noted that academic development, “from the perspective of senior university managers, is a tiny and non-critical part of the operation of the enterprise.” Gordon (2001, p. 1) commenting broadly on universities’ search for consensual, effective and meaningful agreements over the purposes, means and outcomes of quality assurance” set terms that academic developers (along with other university infrastructure services) would be well advised to follow in order to remain relevant to their institutions, namely “the centrality of strategy over tactics, and within the former, … the need to align leadership with ownership, and internal cultures with quality cultures.

2.

A Quality Management Framework

In the case study reported here, three faculty-level teaching and learning and student services areas with very different traditions and operating styles became a single academic development group (ADG) in the Science, Engineering and Technology (SET) Portfolio as part of a restructure and consolidation of seven faculties into three Academic Portfolios at RMIT University between 2003 and 2005. The SET Portfolio comprises ten schools, some 19,000 students and about 1100 staff across multiple campuses. ADG takes the definition of quality used by the Australian Universities Quality Agency namely ‘fitness for purpose’, and sees the over-arching purpose of academic development as the improvement of the student learning experience. Arriving at clarity of purpose is a non-trivial activity; as Blackmore et al (2004, p. 26) put it, “one purpose is the support of learning and the development of learning in others” but there is also “a deeper intent [or] ‘moral purpose’… the ‘idea of the university’,” and their interplay influences “views of our accountability and our knowledge”. Four fundamental aspects of quality management in the work of academic development have emerged. These are set out here as a quality management framework encompassing principles, standards, performance management and external review. The framework, methods of engaging stakeholders within this framework, and reflections on issues of engagement that remain to be resolved, are discussed below. 2.1. Principles –A principled approach to academic development is explicit The ADG adopts a ‘quality development’ approach to its work similar to that described by Gosling and D’Andrea (2001, p. 11): the approach …incorporates the enhancement of learning and teaching with the quality and standards monitoring processes in the University…. The work of educational development … involves initiating and managing … academic development, learning development and quality development.

The way that the ADG is organised around this approach is set out in a statement of functions – leadership and collaboration, advice and support, planning and reporting, and managing targeted funding schemes. The educational principles that underpin the work of the ADG are set out in a statement of principles, which itself refers explicitly to the literature of good practice in learning and teaching. Both statements are published on the RMIT SET ADG web site (http://www.rmit.edu.au/set/ad). 2.2. Standards – Staff in the academic development group are competent As Fraser (2003, p. 1) notes …there is increasing debate as to the credibility of people who work in the [academic development] profession. Accompanying the recent discussions about the value and need to accredit university teachers and teaching, questions are being asked about the need to accredit academic developers.

63



ADG staffing was not a tabula rasa, but was based on staff from three former faculty offices with a wide range of experience and expertise. Two approaches have been taken to strengthen the bona fides of these staff as competent and credible academic developers. First, types and levels of qualifications in a SET discipline, in education and in management - have been identified and consistently specified in position descriptions within the ADG. Second, continuing professional development plans, both to address the gap between current and desired qualifications and to ensure currency of knowledge and practice, are set and reviewed in a formal work planning process. 2.3. Performance Management – The academic development group monitors its performance against targets Within a quality system, academic developers are obliged to be reflective practitioners within organisationally determined parameters of performance. As Smith and Herbert (2002, p. 2) note, “ADUs will have to become increasingly involved in measuring or monitoring the impact of their work on the quality of the curriculum and students’ experience.” The ADG monitors its work against a set of activities, timelines and targets that are set down in an annual group workplan that is a subset of the SET Portfolio’s overall workplan, itself linked directly to the RMIT business plan. Monitoring is done weekly, fortnightly, monthly and annually in staff team meetings and management meetings, and formalised in written records of meetings and progress reports. Workflow and work focus is responsive to what shows up through such monitoring, for example, criteria for the operation of funding schemes for 2005 have been adjusted based on review of their 2004 outcomes. 2.4. Impact Assessment – The impact of the academic development group’s work is externally reviewed and evaluated As Santhanam and Crisp (2004, p. 2) observe, In the current climate of accountability … it is all the more pertinent to look into how academic development programs are planned, executed and evaluated, and perhaps to seek quantitative and qualitative indicators for their effectiveness.

The ADG is accountable for value adding and making a positive difference, and expects its effectiveness to be judged, in relation to visible indicators of the quality of learning and teaching. These including leading indicators such as increased staff participation in teaching and learning related activities, student progress rates and student participation in leadership and equity programs and in feedback processes, as well as lagging indicators such as success in national Teaching Awards, refereed publications and accreditation of programs, and reported impacts on the student experience. 3.

Approaches to Engaging Stakeholders

The work of the ADG has focused on strengthening engagement with the quality management of academic development among three key communities of stakeholders – workmates in the Schools and in other infrastructure units, University executive management and the academic development community. These groups and examples of approaches to engagement are set out below.

64



Table 1 Aspects of quality management

Engagement with the community of workmates

Engagement with the community of senior managers

Engagement with the academic development community

1

Talking equally with teaching staff and administrative staff about the way the ADG works to improve student learning, for example using the idea of the ‘student lifecycle’ to guide projects.

Working through formal management and governance channels, for example endorsement of the ADG statement of principles of good practice by SET Portfolio Board.

Participating in opportunities for collaborative research and development, such as the Australian Technology Network (ATN) Universities 2004 e-learning survey.

Joining in University-wide communities of practice and working groups, for example to improve ADG staff understanding and use of enterprise ICT systems.

Working with executive planning staff and HR staff to review all position descriptions and explicitly relate ADG staff roles and staff numbers to high-level workplans.

Taking part in the activities of membership associations to maintain knowledge and skills, such as attendance at Australian Tertiary Education Manager (ATEM) workshops.

Setting up and working with Schools liaison networks, such as the Student Feedback Coordinators, for liaison and for groundtruthing ADG processes and indicators.

Regular reporting to management and governance groups against the ADG workplan targets, for example input to monthly report to ViceChancellor’s Executive Meeting.

Benchmarking against academic development work in other universities, for instance comparing findings about T&L support in University audits published by the Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA).

Seeking formal feedback from Schools staff, for example collecting, analysing and publishing written feedback from seminar and workshop participants.

Participation in organisational dialogue about effectiveness, such as major change reviews of student services and teaching and learning support services models.

Making submissions and accepting invitations to present to groups of peers, such as in refereed conferences and journals.

Principles

2 Standards

3 Performance

4 Impact

4.

Issues in Engaging Stakeholders

In trying to engage stakeholders in the quality management of academic development, the ADG has encountered a number of issues. 4.1. Principles A principled approach to the work of the ADG rests on the body of research into improving student learning; but stakeholder respect for this research relies on an open-ness to research paradigms that may differ from those espoused by some SET staff. Acceptance of principles is not made easier when the discourse of academic development itself lacks a common language, with confusion about identifying the practice as service and support or management and oversight, and about describing itself as academic / educational / instructional design / development / technology. 4.2. Standards Staff raise questions about what is ‘the right stuff’ to be good at the work, and how their knowledge and skills can best be maintained and improved. The situation is made more complex by the absence of a unified association to represent and accredit them. Further, there are underlying tensions about the utility

65



of those staff who bring to the work a stronger background in education as a discipline in its own right compared to those whose preferred focus is on education as it is applied in a specific field of study. 4.3. Performance The reporting data produced by the ADG have the effect of holding up a mirror to the practice of staff in schools, and may show up gaps in the quality of teaching and learning, while at the same time the ADG has only indirect if any accountability for schools’ performance. This situation creates dissonance in expectations at executive levels about what academic development actually can achieve, that is, about whether its work is to offer opportunities for improvement and bear witness to the uptake of these, or whether its mission is an evangelical one with performance measured in ever-increasing numbers of staff converts to its program of activities. 4.4. Impact Much work has been done on levels of evaluation in the specific field of staff development using, for example, the Kirkpatrick model (Kirkpatrick, 1998). However it is even more complex to gauge the impact of the work of the ADG, given the many variables outside the influence of academic development that contribute to outcomes. When it comes to evaluating this work in terms of key institutional performance indicators; there is at present neither a simple acid test of impact nor any established formula for calculating the return on the organisation’s investment in academic development. The ADG recognises the critical importance of continuing to engage with workmates, senior management and the wider community of academic developers to improve the quality, relevance and viability of its operations, in order to keep academic development work on the change agenda for universities so that it is able, ultimately, to improve student learning. References Bird, J. (2004). Professional navel gazing: Flexible learning professionals into the future. In R. Atkinson, C. McBeath, D. Jonas-Dwyer and R. Phillips (Eds.). Beyond the comfort zone: Proceedings of the 21st ASCILITE Conference, Perth, 5-8 December (pp. 123-133). Retrieved March 20, 2005, from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/perth04/procs/bird.html Blackmore, P. et al., (2004). Academic development: What purpose and whose purpose? in Elvidge, L., et al., (Eds.). Exploring academic development in higher education: Issues of engagement (pp.17-27). Cambridge: Jill Rogers Associates. Baume, D., & Kahn, P. (Eds.) (2004). Enhancing staff & educational development. Abingdon, UK: Routledge Falmer. Chalmers, D., & O’Brien, M. (2005). Education development units and the enhancement of university teaching. In Fraser, K. (Ed.). Education development and leadership in higher education: Developing an effective institutional strategy (pp.50-71). Abingdon, UK: Routledge Falmer. Fraser, K. (2003). Academic developers: Career paths, qualifications and personal professional development. In Proceedings of HERDSA Annual Conference, Learning for an unknown future, Christchurch, 6-9 July. Retrieved March 20, 2005, from http://www2.auckland.ac.nz/cpd/HERDSA/HTML/StaffDev/fraser.HTM Gordon, G. (2001). The roles of leadership and ownership in building an effective quality culture. In Proceedings of The Sixth Quality in Higher Education Seminar, The End of Quality? Birmingham, 25–26 May. Retrieved March 20, 2005, from http://www.qualityresearchinternational.com/papers/gordon.pdf Gosling, D., & D’Andrea, V. (2001). Quality development: A new concept for higher education. [Electronic Version]. Quality in Higher Education, 7(1), 7-17. Retrieved March 20, 2005, from http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/media/GAF8JWXVTR2X24LUPJ4P/Contributions/M/A/K/L/MA KLRYUN99U4RPYC.pdf]

66



Kahn, P., & Baume, D. (Eds.). (2003). A guide to staff & educational development. Abingdon, UK: Routledge Falmer. Kirkpatrick, D. (1998). Evaluating training programs. New York: Berrett-Koehler. Land, R. (2005). Academic development: Troubled practice in a time of risk. Workshop abstract, in the program and abstracts of the HERDSA Conference 2005, Higher Education in a changing world (p. 218). Sydney: The Institute for Teaching and Learning. Ling, P. (2005). From a community of scholars to a company. In K. Fraser (Ed.). Education development and leadership in higher education: Developing an effective institutional strategy (pp.6-15). Abingdon, UK: Routledge Falmer. Santhanam, E., & Crisp, G. (2004). Considerations in the planning of academic staff development activities: Client views. In Proceedings of HERDSA Annual Conference, Transforming knowledge into wisdom, Miri, Sarawak, 4-7 July. Retrieved March 20, 2005, from http://www.herdsa.org.au/conference2004/Contributions/RPapers/P059-jt.pdf Schwier, R. A., Campbell, K., & Kenny, R. (2004). Instructional designers' observations about identity, communities of practice and change agency [Electronic Version]. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 20(1), 69-100. Retrieved March 20, 2005, from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet20/schwier.html Smith, C., & Herbert, D. (2002). Transforming the transformers: The impact of external quality audit on universities and ADUs. In Transforming Quality: 7th Annual Quality in Higher Education Seminar, Melbourne, 31 October – 1 November. Retrieved March 20, 2005, from http://www.qualityresearchinternational.com/tq/papers/smithherbert.doc.doc Webb, G. (2000). Academic development: Back to the future. Summary of invited presentation to the HERDSA Annual Conference, Toowoomba. Retrieved March 20, 2005, from http://www.herdsa.org.au/Webb%202.htm Webb, G. (2004). Development and beyond. In D. Baume & P. Kahn (Eds.). Enhancing staff & educational development (pp.170-184). Abingdon, UK: Routledge Falmer.

67



Developing Essential Networks as a Source of Community for International Postgraduate Students Andrew M. Guilfoyle Centre for Psychological Research, Edith Cowan University, WA 6027, Australia This paper links to the topic of embedding quality through development of internal communities. International postgraduate students occupy a critical space in the outcomes bound to extending international links. These students will occupy positions of status within their home communities and their experiences will reflect on the host community. Optimising their study experiences provides scope for benefits received by the host nation, the student and future development of intercultural exchange and cooperation. However, international students are likely to feel effects of transition issues quite sharply and it is important to investigate carefully the dimensions which positively and negatively affect their experiences. We conducted in-depth interviews (n = 23) with a sub-sample representation of international postgraduate students to examine how aspects of community can interact with their positive transition experiences. 1.

Introduction

In an earlier paper, Guilfoyle and Halse (2004) extended research on student transition arguing its centrality in understanding the dimensions of international postgraduate (IP) student experiences and how these interact with institutional services. This work charted a conceptual framework for understanding IP student transitions borrowing from Doise’s (1986) levels of social psychological analysis. These levels include the intra-personal (relating to within the person); the interpersonal (interpersonal relationships between the individual and others); the inter-group (relating to how the person is affected by their own or others’ group memberships) and the societal (how broader social factors shape experiences). In the current paper, we add evidence from interviews with IP students to support this framework. The analysis draws conclusions about how transition experiences of IP students interact with a sense of community. There are clear economic advantages in IP student intakes (to the host nation and institution) (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2002; Nelson, 2002). However economic claims are often non-problematically juxtaposed to rhetorical claims about the social benefits accrued from hosting IP students (for host, nation and student) (Stier, 2003). There is, no doubt, an important recursive loop where optimising social outcomes makes future economic gains more likely (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2002; Bohm, 2003; McGauran, 2003). The problem is that social benefits such as the development of ‘community’ through IP enrolments are often not clearly explicated and evidenced. IP students are a special case for studying how successful transition interacts with the development of community outcomes. First, they are a growing market within the strategic aims of Australian universities. Australia’s Department of Education Science and Training (2004) and IDP Marketing and Research (2004) highlight profound increases in postgraduate numbers. Indeed the national proportion of international students that are postgraduate has risen to 37.5% (IDP Education Australia, 2004); and is outstripping undergraduate increases with generally large, projected demand (Bohm, 2002). Second, the IP students are subject to two major processes known to affect transition – postgraduate study (Deem & Brehony, 2000; Wang, 2004) and cross-cultural adaptation (Ingleton & Cadman, 2000). Third, IP students are ‘socio-politically’ different to their undergraduate counterparts. They are often older, care for children / families, depart from well-paid positions and status, have attained high levels of academic performance and accrued well-developed expectations and learning styles. Finally, there is a paucity of transition research examining the effects of improving support for IP students’ transition specifically. Past research has been limited to questionnaires by the host university focused on academic performance per se. While these can index satisfaction or dissatisfaction with services, they do not explore the underlying mechanisms for such outcomes.

68



Below we provide an analysis of data from interviews with IP students. We map IP students’ expressed experiences in the context of transition literature (Guilfoyle & Halse, 2004) to more precisely understand how a sense of community interacts with successful transition. 2.

Methods

Design The study was a Grounded Theory design (Strauss & Corbin, 1994) aimed at generating “substantive” knowledge about IP student experiences. We employed a semi-structured interview protocol where students conveyed their own ‘everyday understandings’ of experiences as an IP student. The interview protocol evolved with an initial set of topics about general experiences adapted to more focused observations from the ongoing data analysis. Interviews were conducted on campus on an individual (student) basis and one / two team members acted as interviewer for each session. Recruitment was conducted through a process of advertising on postgraduate lists and through snowballing (e.g., Henry, 1990). Recruitment of interviewees was ongoing until saturation (Strauss & Corbin, 1994). In order to maintain privacy we have removed all names and references to country (and sometimes enrolment). Sample Twenty-three IP postgraduate students enrolled at Edith Cowan University in Perth, Australia, participated. The students were drawn from a range of nationalities - Thailand, China, Norway, USA, UK, Indonesia, Malaysia, Malawi, Ghana, Zambia, Bangladesh, India, Argentina and Seychelles; and schools including – Nursing and Public Health, Environmental Science, Business, Education, Psychology, and Performing Arts. Equal PhD (n =11) and Masters (n = 12) samples were obtained with a bias to female students (n=15) than male (n = 8). Average age of the participants was 34 years. 3.

Data Analysis

At the intra-personal level, the IP students we talked with expressed quite specific professional development aspirations motivating their international travel. Such intrinsic motivations shaped an expressed desire for opportunities to develop networks. Many IP students were acutely aware of their need to take responsibility for finding such professional inter-relationships and the realization of possibilities for societal level outcomes of ‘international knowledge’. Extract 1. Actually I would like to have many experience, you could say international experience. My father liked to travel a lot to attend international conference. So he has many friends from around the world. So I think it is really good to for me as I take my father as an example I need to study abroad not to study the subject but also to have many friends from around the world. In the beginning I have to study in many countries. Now I’m doing in Australia, so I know what Australia is there, what they believe here…And (about starting a business back home) I would like in the future perhaps in the next 10 years it will be current international, it will have international knowledge. My friends now study in German, so we really know about that. So when we finish our study back to [name of country] we develop a really good company. Extract 2. One of the things I came to Australia for was the networks, developing. Get to know people, opportunities. I could have done my postgraduate study anywhere in the world but I chose Australia because I was looking to the future, get to meet people from different cultures. And that was the main objective. Unless you actually take the initiative yourself to get to know people, there are no structures in place to help this. No student associations, no active ones anyway.

Having expressed an intention to develop networks, many held an acute awareness of the sorts of facilities and opportunities that should support such networking. This talk evidenced mature, experienced voices, cognisant of both their own professional learning needs and how these could be met. Also, they knew the potential for intra-personal seclusion when such forums were not in place.

69



Extract 3. Apart from the supervisor we have some sort of morning tea where all the graduate students come together, share your experience and that kind of thing. So from that you learn a lot from other people. It is something that the [name of school] put into place. Every month we have morning tea where we discuss our ideas in a larger group. Apart from your usual contact with your supervisor, graduate students come together to share their experience. I think that is a good thing. Extract 4. The difference this time, PhD, you don’t have lectures with others. It is not easy (making friends) unless your research somehow it has, brings us together. If that facility hadn’t been initiated you don’t even meet. There needs to be somewhere to bring you together. The graduate level, the research students you are your own being, you talk with your supervisor, you don’t have that much contact with colleagues. So my experience is if an environment is created where people can meet occasionally it is good. (Otherwise) If you are someone is social you will be isolated.

The key for interpersonal relationships however, was not socialising per se. Interpersonal relationships were characterised as professional ‘networking’ and getting ‘acquainted’ with, or exploring, new systems of thought and process. In these extracts, we can observe the sorts of supports that directly facilitate a community full of learning and social exchange. Extract 5. …last semester the [name of school] they have conducted many seminars. And I attended 2 or 3 seminars and it was really useful for knowing crucial information. Like I wanted to do more research on a particular topic and that seminar from ECU [name of school]…So that conference provided a lot of useful information for me. It was a good way of socialising you could say. Extract 6. Yes. I think that is okay. That is socialisation that I am talking about. If such opportunities are created you get to know many people and you never know who can be of help. In fact, the idea is not to go and enjoy such occasions, it’s to do a little more knowing, networking. The most important thing is to try and get your self acquainted. Extract 7. There is nothing more important than networks. It’s not what you know but who you know. And where do you get to meet people…you get to know people. And who knows what opportunities may present for the future. I will go back to [name of country] there may be some opportunities for trade or business, I’m trying to get to know as many people as I can.

Thus in Extract 18, getting ‘acquainted’ meant not simply to others – but to new systems and professional contexts. There was a qualitative difference between institutional advertising of gatherings and their accessibility. For some accessibility went deeper, engaging societal values. Ideas of ‘closeness’ and ‘familiarity’ were themes through much of the IP speech, particularly those from Asian background. Where these values were not present, the idea of social exchange was replaced by inter-group ‘barriers’, interpersonal and intra-personal disaffection. Extract 8. I think that the uni has done a lot because this department has the sundowners. But of course I feel out of place to go to such occasion because I don’t know who to talk to or what to talk about because you need to have friends to go to such occasion. Trying to get into the culture that is the most important thing. Maybe the barrier here is that because I find that Australian are very much an individualistic society and I come from an Asian background where we are more like family value. When we talk about friends we feel that we care for our friends. Extract 9. For me as a PhD student I am very lonely. Sometimes I received one e-mail asking come and have a cup of tea. So I don’t know what to do there, going there and having a cup of tea. So then I thought what would attract me. So I found the attraction could be the presentation, the attraction could be the PhD students gathering. I suppose not to gather with the bachelor students because they would feel I was quite elder than them. So it should be a gathering of the similar kind of students. I never saw any activity that attracted me. I do not know any teacher, I only know my supervisor. When you have the foreign student here you need to build the environment that the foreign student feels is homey. In my school I’m sure no one knows me beside my supervisor and I know no one. So how it happened and what could be the mechanism to break that kind of gaps.

70


4.


Conclusions

Our approach found grounded definitions of community in the speech of IP students. Of course we do not recast this vast term, only we add qualification based on the everyday experiences of these students. We argue the direct sites for quality in the IP context are found by optimising some of the immediate conditions under which the social benefits from hosting IP occur. A sense of community was such a site, topicalised as the development of essential networks - as one put it, for ‘getting acquainted’. Community meant essentially being afforded spaces to develop professionally, in perhaps what Hanno (1999) refers to as a ‘community of learning’ – in the first instance. Tanaka (2003) suggests that Australian universities should take the lead in promoting a plural society based on mutual respect and understanding of difference as a ‘culture’ of the university. We argue developing this culture, fortunately, can occur via fairly simple mechanisms. Universities that recognise the importance of developing strong collegial forums for IP students will achieve quality through optimising their IP students’ transition experiences and thereby engage this important community. References Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2002). Australian social trends 2002 - Education-participation in education: Overseas students. Retrieved January 27, 2003 from http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs%40.ns Bohm, A. (2003). Global student mobility 2025: Insights into future global mobility. Paper presented at the 17th Australian International Education Conference, 21-24 October, Sydney. Deem, R., & Brehony, K. J. (2000). Doctoral students’ access to research cultures – are some more equal than others? Studies in Higher Education, 25 (2), 149-165. Department of Education, Science and Training. (2004). International Higher Education Students: How Do They Differ From Other Higher Education Students? Research Note No. 2. Doise, W. (1986). Levels of explanation in social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Guilfoyle, A., & Halse, A. (2004). Exploring the spaces in-between institutional services provided and international postgraduate student experiences. Paper presented at the 18th Australian International Education Conference, 5-8 October, Sydney. Hanno, D. (1999). Energising your teaching: Developing a community of learning. Issues in Accounting Education, 14 (2), 323-335. Henry, G. T. (1990). Practical sampling. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. IDP Marketing & Research. (2004). Higher Education. Retrieved August 31, 2004, from http://www.idp.com/marketingandresearch/research/internationaleducationstatistics/fastfacts/article40 Ingleton, C., & Cadman, K. (2002). Silent issues for international postgraduate research students: Emotion and agency in academic success. Australian Educational Researcher, 29 (1), 93-113. McGuaran, P. (2003). Strengthened International Education. Australian Government Minister for Science, Media Centre, Media Release. Retrieved August 31, 2004, from http://www.dest.gov.au/Ministers/Media/McGauran/2003/10/mcg00221003.asp Nelson, B. (2002). Higher education at the crossroads. Canberra: Department of Education, Science and Training. Retrieved from http://www.dest.gov.au/crossroads/pubs Stier, J. (2003). Internationalisation, ethnic diversity, and the acquisition of intercultural competencies. Intercultural Education, 14(1), 77-92. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Tanaka, G. (2003). The intercultural campus: Transcending culture and power in American higher education. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

71



Volet, S. E., & Renshaw, P. D. (1995). Cross-cultural differences in university students’ goals and perceptions of study settings for achieving their own goals. Higher Education, 30, 407-433. Wang, Y. (2004). Pursuing cross-cultural graduate education: A multifaceted investigation. International Education, 33 (2), 52-72.

72



Engaging Doctoral Candidates in Research Communities Dr Margaret Kiley Centre for Educational Development and Academic Methods, The Australian National University, ACT 0200, Australia This paper argues that one of the very important communities in universities is the doctoral student research community. Belonging to a research community or being immersed in a research culture can have many benefits for students, the discipline, the university and the broader Australian society. The benefits include timely completion, development of skills, and the preparation of future academics. Yet the national Postgraduate Research Experience Questionnaire (PREQ) suggests that engaging students in that intellectual community is one of the things which most universities do not do particularly well. This paper queries why this might be so. 1.

What is Research Culture?

The Graduate Careers Council of Australia (GCCA) uses the term ‘intellectual climate’ in its surveys of postgraduate students when defining research culture. Despite considerable debate over the value of the Postgraduate Research Experience Questionnaire (PREQ) (Marsh, 1999; Marsh, 2000; Marsh et al, 2002; Ginns, 2004), the PREQ is sent to all students who have recently graduated from an Australian university with a research degree. The statements to which the GCCA ask students to respond (on a 5-point Likert scale) under this scale of the survey are: •

The department provided opportunities for social contact with other postgraduate students.

•

I was integrated into the department’s community.

•

A good seminar program for postgraduate students was provided.

•

The department provided opportunities for me to become involved in the broader research culture.

•

The research ambience in the department or faculty stimulated my work.

However, how do these statements relate to the concept of a research culture? When describing culture Lonner and Malpass (1994) suggest that: Culture…is analogous to knowing the “rules of the game”. When one becomes socialised (through rule-governed learning and child-rearing practices) and enculturated (through subtle informal learning) in specific society, he or she has learned a complex set of explicit, as well as implicit, rules concerning how he or she should behave among his of her fellows who share the same culture by virtue of being raised under the same rules (p. 89).

This definition could well be applied to the doctoral research culture of universities. For example, students learn implicitly the discipline-appropriate ways of presenting a seminar by attending a “good seminar program.” On the other hand they might learn some of the skills of presenting a seminar in explicit ways through attending workshops organised by the Academic Skills staff. The ethics and approaches to research considered appropriate for the discipline within which the student is working might be learned through being ‘involved in the broader research culture’ of the department. Implicitly learning the ‘rules of’ writing discipline-specific academic papers might come from being part of a journal club and by reading journals as part of one’s research, and the explicit learning might come from preparing a manuscript in conjunction with supervisors or other candidates in a research group. In other words, as one might be enculturated into a new work environment, a doctoral student can learn the “rules of the game” by being socialised and enculturated into a specific research society. It can be argued that, being involved in a negative cultural environment, e.g., one which operates unethically or which

73



promotes competition above collaboration at all costs, can be equally powerful in shaping beliefs and behaviours. In this paper, I am referring to positive research cultures while recognizing that it is not unusual for candidates to report experiencing a negative research culture. 2.

Why Might Research Culture Be Important?

A hint as to why the developers of the PREQ might think that being part of a research culture is important is the fifth of the statements in their survey, i.e., ‘the research ambience in the department or faculty stimulated my work.’ Believing that being part of a research culture is a means of enhancing research output is not an untested concept, particularly from an economist’s perspective. For example, Fox and Milbourne (1999) — where Milbourne is not only an economist but also the Vice-Chancellor of an Australian university — argue from their research that there are quantifiable increases in the research output of researchers operating in ‘networked environments’ rather than those working alone. A further insight into why being part of a research culture might be considered important is the observable emphasis on the concept of ‘research training’. Australian and many other Western higher education environments have developed a strong focus on research training over the past five to ten years. One could argue that this is because the ‘subtle informal learning’ of the rules as suggested by Lonner and Malpass was not being as effective as a combination of implicit and explicit teaching within the research community. Clearly the Australian Government has argued for an increase in research training at the doctoral level based on the idea that, not only will students who have received a significant level of research training be more likely to complete their candidature in a timely fashion, but they will be able to contribute to Australian society in more effective ways through the development of generic skills / graduate outcomes (West, 1998; Kemp, 1999; Kemp, 1999; Gordon, 2000). A third reason that could be argued for the importance of the engagement of doctoral students in a positive research culture relates to the discipline-specific nature of academic research (Whittle, 1992; Johnston, 1995; Latona & Browne, 2001; Sinclair, 2004). Comparisons of the experiences of students researching in the sciences and those in the humanities / social sciences indicate that there are substantial differences in those experiences and the outcomes of the two different discipline groups. Where students are actively engaged with other researchers within their discipline they are more likely to complete their doctorate in less time than those who are left to work in isolation. It is further argued that it is not only the way in which the different disciplines organise the supervision of postgraduate students, it is also the way the actual research is being undertaken and the cohorts of students within these disciplines that cause such differences. As Becher and Trowler (2001) suggest, we are not only enculturated into academic life, we are also enculturated into the discipline-specific ‘rules of the game.’ While not attempting to provide an exhaustive list of reasons for arguing that being enculturated into a particular research community is a highly desirable activity (e.g., Delamont & Atkinson, 2004; Tinkler & Jackson, 2004), a further reason for many, although certainly not all candidates, is that “Postgraduate research must be considered the training ground for researchers and academics of the future’ (Johnston, 1995, p. 281). 3.

How Is Research Culture/Intellectual Climate Measured?

The most common and well-publicised means for measuring research culture in Australia is through the PREQ which is administered by the Graduate Careers Council of Australia. This survey, developed and analysed in conjunction with the Australian Council for Educational Research, seeks to gain comparative data on the experiences of postgraduate research students in Australian universities. The survey collects responses on seven scales related to the postgraduate research experience: supervision, skill development, intellectual climate, infrastructure, theses examination, goals and expectations, and overall satisfaction. The results indicate that since its inception in 1999, the scale of ‘intellectual climate’ is the one that has been consistently scored the most poorly by respondents compared with the other scales as demonstrated by the results from 2002 and outlined in Table 1.

74



Table 1 Summary Statistics for PREQ Sub-Scales for All respondents in 2002 Scale Score

Percentage Agreement Scale

Number of items

Mean

Standard Deviation

Mean

Standard Deviation

Supervision

6

70.6

33.3

42.5

46.0

Skill Development

5

89.8

21.5

66.3

30.8

Intellectual Climate

5

54.9

35.7

22.0

45.9

Infrastructure

5

66.6

34.0

35.1

44.1

Thesis Examination

3

75.5

33.3

45.0

48.6

Goals & Expectations

3

88.0

26.7

61.1

36.4

81.0

39.2

52.2

48.7

Overall Item

Satisfaction

(Source: GCCA, 2003, p. 27)

The consistency of the results is attested to in the GCCA report which states, A comparison between the 1999, 2000 and 2002 data showed that there were very few differences between the three data sets. Interestingly the stability evident from one year to the next is consistent across all factors of the instrument, suggesting a high degree of stability within the survey (GCCA, 2002, p. 19).

4.

Discussion

The above results, while not catastrophic, and while representing a relatively small percentage of university graduates, i.e., postgraduate research students and then only 2,422 of the 5,438 research higher degree graduates who had completed either a research masters or PhD in 2002 - 44.5%; suggest that respondents do not feel that they have been engaged in a research community to the extent that they (and presumably most universities) would desire. A number of possible reasons for these somewhat concerning results are suggested. The first, and most obvious, is that the PREQ is an unreliable instrument for the purposes for which it is being used. While this might be a comforting explanation, I believe it is only a partial one. Certainly Marsh et al (2002) argue strongly that the PREQ is completely unreliable as a instrument for benchmarking universities, however they do not suggest that the instrument is not useful for other purposes related to the evaluation of the postgraduate research experience. Perhaps research students do not know what a ‘desirable intellectual climate’ is. For example, while ‘a good seminar program for postgraduate students’ might have been provided, did candidates attend the seminars? There is some evidence (Kiley, 1996) to suggest that research students are unwilling to attend departmental research seminars unless the topic is explicitly related to their own specific area of doctoral research. This finding implies that students are possibly not experiencing the broader research culture available to them, and so they might be excluding themselves from the implicit lessons that they could otherwise be learning had they been involved in such a culture.

75



Do universities, and the departments within them, have strategies for engaging their part-time and offcampus students in the research culture which may, or may not, exist for their full-time and on-campus students? Do doctoral students, departments, graduate schools and universities know what a ‘positive research culture’ looks and feels like? Can they describe this culture in terms that relate to their discipline? Can they describe this culture to doctoral candidates in ways which enables their candidates to learn implicitly and explicitly through engagement in that community? What would it take to make explicit the implicit within the doctoral intellectual climate? A more concerning question is whether it is possible to ‘construct’ a research culture, or is it something that has to grow and evolve over time? The concern with this query is that if one needs an evolutionary approach, then what does this mean for the newer universities? How long might it take to evolve a positive research culture? 5.

Conclusion

In this brief paper it has been argued that for Australian doctoral candidates, one of the most important communities with which they need to engage is the research community of their discipline and of the university. Such engagement is critical as it leads to the development of a range of skills, understandings and behaviours that are learned implicitly and explicitly, and which benefit the student, the discipline and the community. Of concern, however, is the indication that Australian doctoral students report that engagement in a positive research culture is poor in comparison with other aspects of their research experience. References Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Buckingham, UK: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press. Delamont, S., & Atkinson, P. (2004). Successful research careers: A practical guide. Buckingham, UK: The Society for Research into Higher Eduction and Open University Press. Fox, K., & Milbourne, R. (1999). What determines research output of academic economists? The Economic Record, 75(230), 256-267. Ginns, P. (2004). Quality assurance and improvement of the research higher degree Experience at the University of Sydney. Australian Universities Quality Forum, Adelaide, AUQA. Gordon, J. (2000). The challenges facing higher education research training. In M. Kiley and G. Mullins. (Eds), Quality in postgraduate research: Making ends meet (pp. 9-13). Adelaide: ACUE. Graduate Careers Council of Australia. (2003). Postgraduate research experience questionnaire: 2002. Parkville, Vic: GCCA. Guthrie, B., & Trembath, R. (1998). Researching the researchers: The pilot postgraduate research experience questionnaire. In M. Kiley and G. Mullins. (Eds), Quality in Postgraduate Research: Managing the new agenda (pp. 121-138). Adelaide: The University of Adelaide. Johnston, S. (1995). Building a sense of community in a Research Master's Course. Studies in Higher Education, 20(3), 279-292. Kemp, D. (1999). New knowledge, new opportunities: A discussion paper on higher education research and research training. Canberra: DETYA, p. 66. Kemp, H. D. A. (1999). Knowledge and innovation: A policy statement on research and research training. Canberra: Government of Australia. Kiley, M. (1996) How do I know where I am going? Assessment in postgraduate research degrees. Paper presented at the conference Quality in Postgraduate research: Is it happening. Adelaide, 18-19 April.

76



Latona, K., & Browne, M. (2001). Factors associated with completion of research higher degrees. Canberra: DETYA, Higher Education Division. Lonner, W., &. Malpass, R., Eds. (1994). Psychology and culture. Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon. Marsh, H. (1999). Evaluation and validation of the trial Postgraduate Research Experience Questionnaires: Draft report. Australian Council for Educational Research, March 1999. Marsh, H. (2000). When PREQ fails to measure up. Campus Review. Adelaide: 10. Marsh, H., Rowe, K., & Martin, A. (2002) PhD students' evaluations of research supervision. The Journal of Higher Education; 73(33), 13-348. Sinclair, M. (2004). The pedagogy of 'good' PhD supervision: A national cross-disciplinary investigation of PhD supervision. Canberra: Department of Education Science and Training. Tinkler, P., & Jackson, C. (2004). The doctoral examination process: A handbook for students, examiners and supervisors. Buckingham, England: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press. Trembath, R. (1998). The Postgraduate Research Experience Questionnaire (PREQ) Project. CEQ Symposium, Sydney. West, R. (1998). Learning for life final report: Review of higher education financing and policy. Canberra: DEETYA. Whittle, J. (1992). Research culture, supervision practices and postgraduate performance. In O. ZuberSkerritt (Ed.), Starting research: Supervision and training (pp. 86-107). Brisbane: Tertiary Education Institute.

77



The Marriage of Needs? Internationalising Universities and Students Michelle Kinga and Chenicheri Sid Nairb a

Office of the Senior Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Monash University, Vic 3800, Australia b

Centre for Higher Education Quality, Monash University, Vic 3800, Australia

Internationalisation is a key feature of Monash University’s profile. Enacting its quality cycle, Monash recently conducted a self-review of its international dimensions. As part of this review, 417 international students responded to a web survey seeking their views on how internationalisation should be enacted. The story of internationalisation told by students’ responses is a complex and nuanced one. The rhetoric of internationalisation in higher education sees it delivering significant benefit to national agendas, universities and students alike, but there is also significant disquiet in the Australian literature as to whether or not all these aims are being achieved. While research indicates that Australia's international students are largely satisfied, the results of this survey show that students want more from their international student experience. Respondents highlighted that they wish their university to engage deeply with internationalisation. They want their institution and its staff and students to welcome and respond to them. Most importantly, they want opportunities to develop relationships with domestic students. The university that can best marry national, institutional and student needs in its internationalisation efforts will see a more profound internationalisation occur, that is more likely to achieve the various goals attributed to it. This university will also have a significant advantage on its competitors. 1.

Introduction

The results of a recent survey of international students conducted as part of Monash University’s international self-review are of potential interest to internationalising universities everywhere. Monash is a large, research-intensive and diverse institution, operating campuses on three continents. It is home to more than 53,000 students from over 100 countries. Monash aspires to provide its students opportunities to: understand different cultures; study at a range of international locations; and develop an international outlook (Monash University, 1999). The Australian higher education sector has internationalised very rapidly. In 2003, international students represented 23% of the total 650,849 equivalent full-time student load in Australia’s 37 public and three private universities [Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee (AVCC), 2004]. Internationalisation holds an increasingly central place in both federal policy and university operations and is best understood within the wider context of the radical higher education policy reforms that have occurred since the 1980s (Marginson & Considine, 2000). Powerful rhetoric is attached to internationalisation. It is described as having the potential to deliver a broad range of benefits to Australia, its universities and university students alike. Internationalisation promises everything from increased export revenues to enhanced foreign affairs outcomes. The rhetoric also suggests that the quality of teaching and research will be improved by exposure to international competition. Students are promised enhanced cultural sophistication and capacities to become global citizens via interaction with other students from around the world (AVCC, 2001; Gallagher, 2000; Marginson, 2001). However, internationalisation also is both the most significant driver and most obvious result of the trend towards commercialisation in the sector. This largely commercial basis is cited as a major inhibitor to realising its promised benefits in education, foreign affairs and trade (Marginson, 2001, pp. 20-39). Substantive state and federal reviews have suggested that internationalisation has been very successful and that concerns about it are largely misplaced (Victorian Auditor General, 2002; Department of Education Training and Youth Affairs, 1996). For example, three major reports have recently been

78



published by Australian Education International (AEI) reviewing international students’ satisfaction. The core findings of a 1997 AEI survey were that international students are largely satisfied with their experiences (AEI, 1998). In this survey, 75% of students stated that their course met or exceeded their expectations, and 88% and 78% would recommend studying in Australia and their institutions respectively (AEI, 1998, pp 88-89). A further study in 1999 supported these findings with only 11%, 13% and 8% responding that they would not recommend or would recommend against their course, provider and Australia respectively (AEI, 2002, p. 21). The 1997 survey and further survey work conducted in 2000 showed that international students’ satisfaction is critical to the ongoing success of internationalisation. The 1999 survey showed that education delivery is the most crucial factor in student satisfaction (AEI, 2002, p. 7). Prospective students rely largely on word of mouth (particularly from current or former international students) to formulate their study decisions (AEI, 1998, p. 54; AEI, 2003, p. 5). Importantly, the 1999 survey indicated that education providers should pay attention to “the extent to which international students interact with Australian students and the quality of that interaction” (AEI, 2002, p. 7). Given that the current student experience directly impacts prospective students, it is important to take heed of issues in that experience highlighted in these surveys. 2.

Method

The Questionnaire on Internationalisation (QI) was composed of five open-ended questions that sought feedback on various aspects of internationalisation, including Monash’s aspiration to help students understand different cultures; aims to promote study at a range of international locations; development of graduates with an international outlook; best international activities; and international activities that require improvement. Of the 865 students who completed the online survey, 417 were international to the country in which they were studying. The inferences drawn from this study are qualitative rather than quantitative in nature. 3.

Discussion

For Monash, the 1099 comments received from the QI were overwhelmingly positive and sympathetic to the university’s international aspirations. Three primary areas of strength were identified by the respondents: quality, support, and marketing. Participants generally showed a strong understanding of the benefits of studying at a large, research-led and highly internationalised university. Further to this, they gave well-considered responses that demonstrated their commitment to a deep and personal engagement with internationalism. Students’ deep thinking about internationalisation is demonstrated in comments such as: “international does not mean ‘another country’. International includes the Australian. So I think there should be more mixture between international and local students.” The elements of their experience that students suggest are important to them centre on: feeling welcomed by staff and domestic students, institutional responsiveness to their needs, and their desire to play an active role in the internationalisation of the university. Students made interesting comments in relation to their academic experiences and information and support services, which highlighted that a student-centred and culturally sensitive approach is needed in all aspects of internationalisation. While all internationalising universities could learn from this, this paper will concentrate on the too-often downplayed aspects of students’ social experience. Many students commented that Monash supported social engagement between international and domestic students well, because Monash's campuses are very multicultural. Furthermore, students’ comments indicate that Monash provides many opportunities to socialise and to experience their host country’s culture, especially via student clubs. However, the comments also suggest that developing relationships with local students is more complicated and difficult. This underscores that multicultural campuses may be a necessary but insufficient condition for deep cross-cultural engagement to occur between students, as is highlighted in an insightful comment: I have studied [here] for more than two years ... Still I don’t have a SINGLE Australian friend. The only interaction we have with local students are those in class. Outside, we’re alone. International students cling to one another. The locals are not there at weekends, or for celebrations. We need to

79



BRIDGE this gap. Suggestions – I have none, but the university must look into this and design ways to facilitate more interaction between international and local students. The present state is unhealthy, we feel distanced.

There is significant anecdotal evidence that students are not satisfied with the level of social interaction between the domestic and international cohorts. The literature supports this view. Ward (2001) provides a useful review of literature relating to interaction between international and domestic students. Studies in Britain, France, the United States of America and Canada identify interaction between the two cohorts as problematic. Ward (2001) concludes that: …the results of the research converge to indicate that the amount of cross-nation interaction is generally low, that international students expect and desire greater contact, and that interaction with domestic peers is generally associated with psychological, social and academic benefits for the international student (pp. 2-3).

Australian literature confirms this. AEI’s 1997 survey showed that 19% of students (across all sectors of education) were dissatisfied with support provided by their institution to help them meet new people and make friends. Moreover, 6% specifically complained that they were only introduced to other international students (AEI, 1998, p. 78). Students surveyed at Monash listed their own linguistic skills and social confidence as sticking points in trying to build relationships with local students. Therefore, significant onus is on domestic students to reach out to international students and make them feel welcomed. Responses suggested that domestic students do not do enough in this regard. International students feel that there is a level of prejudice or discrimination displayed towards them. According to Ward (2001), the international literature shows that, “domestic students are largely uninterested in initiating contact with their international peers” (p. 3). Despite their lack of confidence, the respondents displayed a significant degree of willingness to engage with domestic students if opportunities for them to do so are provided by the university. A major theme in responses centred on the university supporting cultural events where the international students could play a role in internationalising the domestic students’ outlook. Respondents in the QI also offered a number of creative solutions that the university could institute to help students develop relationships, such as joint social activities attended by staff and domestic students. These social activities should be universally attractive and at least sometimes alcohol free. Students also suggested that interaction could be facilitated through information technology mechanisms such as online study groups. An important theme developed in the responses which suggested friendships between individuals could be a way through this dilemma. Various students suggested mentor and buddy schemes to facilitate these friendships developing. 4.

Conclusions

The international students who responded to the QI stated unmistakably that they expect a deeply internationalised student experience that is student-centred and therefore relevant to them. In Monash's case, the university could do a lot worse than taking the advice of a wise student who suggested the university should “create a unique Monash culture”. This could promote the greater cross-cultural understanding desired by international students by breaking down students’ culturally-specific inhibitions. Ward (2001) suggests greater intervention to facilitate student friendships; suggesting that multi-cultural campuses are necessary but insufficient for cross-cultural interaction: …equal status contact and cooperative activities directed towards a common, meaningful, and mutually beneficial goal [are necessary] ... intervention strategies should encompass a wide range of student activities and those that permeate multiple facets of student life (p. 25).

In terms of implementation, the QI results suggest that there is significant room for partnership models between students and their representative bodies and universities. The QI results show that while many students are happy with Monash University’s and the attached student bodies’ internationalisation efforts, there is room for improvement in activities and services delivered by each of the organisations involved.

80



An implementation approach that combines the student-centred-ness of student-run organisations, and the practical wherewithal of universities is quite likely to be successful. Another primary message from the QI responses is that communication to students needs to be enhanced. Interestingly, a small proportion of students, around 9.5%, highlighted that they were unaware of the international activities or agenda of the university. Communication must be two-way, as pointed by a respondent who suggested that Monash should, “collect information from international students and listen to what they say.” There is substantial evidence that the market in internationalised education is becoming increasingly competitive, volatile and stratified (Marginson, 2004; Illing, 2005). In the current environment, universities are looking for any opportunity to secure a distinct market position. The university that can marry students’ needs for relevant and student-centred cross-cultural interaction, with the institutional and national needs tied to internationalisation, will be at a significant and long-term advantage. References Australia Education International (AEI). (1998). 1997 Survey of international students Studying in Australia. Canberra: Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST). AEI. (2002). How international students view their Australian experience: A survey of international students who finished a course in 1999. Report prepared by G. Smith, A. Morey and M. Teece. Canberra: DEST. AEI. (2003). Why choose Australia? Insights from a survey of international students who commenced study in 2000. Canberra: DEST. Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee (AVCC). (2001). AVCC discussion paper on international education. Canberra: AVCC. Retrieved September 5, 2002, from http://www.avcc.edu.au/policies_activities/international_relations/international_news/AVCC_STRATEG Y_ON_INTERNATIONAL_EDUCATION1.pdf. AVCC. (2004). Key data on higher education. Canberra: AVCC. Retrieved February 14, 2005, from http://www.avcc.edu.au/documents/publications/stats/DataCardDec04.pdf. Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DETYA). (1996). Financing and effects of' internationalisation in higher education: An Australian country study. Report prepared by M. Baker, J. Creedy, & D. Johnson. Canberra: DETYA. Gallagher, M. (2002). The emergence of entrepreneurial public universities in Australia. In IMHE General Conference of the OECD. Canberra: DEST. Retrieved September 1, 2002, from http://www.dest.gov.au/highered/occpaper/00e/00e.pdf. Illing, D. (2005). Overseas numbers softening. In The Australian Higher Education Supplement. Retrieved February 16, 2005, from http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,12260815%255E12332,00.html. Marginson, S., & Considine, M. (2000). The enterprise university. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Marginson, S. (2001). Submission 81 to senate employment, workplace relations, small business and education references committee: Inquiry into the capacity of public universities to meet Australia’s higher education needs. Canberra: Senate Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education References Committee. Retrieved September 12, 2002, from http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/eet_ctte/public%20uni/sub%20list.htm. Marginson, S. (2004). National and global competition in higher education. Campus Review, December, pp. 9-10. Monash University. (1999). Leading the way – Monash 2020. Melbourne: Monash University. Retrieved February 14, 2005, from http://www.monash.edu.au/monashplan/plan99/.

81



Victorian Auditor General (2002). International students in Victorian universities. Report prepared by Cameron, J. W. Melbourne: Auditor General Victoria. Retrieved June 5, 2002, from http://www.audit.vic.gov.au/par76_is/is_report.pdf. Ward, C. (2001). The impact of international students on domestic students and host institutions: A literature review. New Zealand: Export Education Policy Project, Ministry of Education. Retrieved February 13, 2005, from http://www.minedu.govt.nz/index.cfm?layout=document&documentid=5643&indexid=6671&indexparen tid=6663.

82



Making Community Engagement Core Business Anne Langworthy Centre for Regional Development, Swinburne University of Technology, Vic 3140, Australia Universities have a long tradition of engaging with industry in order to develop both research opportunities and enriched learning experiences for students. Increasingly both universities and government understand the importance of engagement with the wider community but often engagement is peripheral to mainstream university activity. The key to wider university community engagement is focus on building graduate attributes in our students. This paper shares the journey of an outer urban campus in setting out to listen to students, business and the community in order to come to terms with what effective engagement means and begin the journey towards making this engagement core business. 1.

Introduction

With origins as a technical college established in 1908, Swinburne University of Technology has grown into a multi-campus, multi-disciplinary and inter-sectoral provider of tertiary education. In 1992, Swinburne became a university specifically charged by Act of the Victorian Parliament with providing higher education to the three municipalities of outer eastern Melbourne. The Lilydale Division was established in the same year to meet this legislative obligation, to develop the university’s presence in the outer east, and to fulfil the university’s community and regional mission. As was hoped by those in the community who had lobbied hard to have the university located in Lilydale, the majority of those first enrolled came from the region. Relationships with key regional stakeholders were established and the first adjunct professors were local industry leaders. Faculty members participated in local associations like the Chamber of Commerce and were very active in working with local secondary schools. The Growth and Development Partnership with the Shire of Yarra Ranges has encouraged a range of joint projects, the Town and Gown lecture series and joint ventures exemplified by the Reconciliation Week program, as one example. The university has strong relationships with regional organisations and has undertaken a number of major projects on behalf of these organisations. At first blush, the Division could be seen to be engaging well with the community. However, as the first decade of operation approached, enrolments grew to over 2000 and the Division expanded to offer postgraduate courses. The proportion of local students diminished to just over 40% of total enrolments although it should be noted that the actual number has fallen only marginally. With growth and the strong Divisional emphasis on multimedia and innovation in teaching, faculty members had less time to engage with schools or take on projects. Much of the significant engagement work undertaken by the Division was peripheral to the mainstream or the core business of learning and teaching. 2.

A Regional Community Engagement Initiative

The downward trend of local enrolments and an increasing national focus on university community engagement caused the Division to propose a regional engagement strategic initiative which was funded by the Vice-Chancellor in 2003. As part of that initiative, much work has been done in the Division over the past two years to understand the experience of our students and the role the university plays regionally. Underpinning research examined the demographics of the region, industry and employment trends and skill shortages identified by industry. It looked at the wider context of global drivers of change, the future

83



of work and models of university community engagement in Australia. Most importantly it focused on students, the current cohort enrolled at Lilydale, graduate outcomes and regional VCE graduates and secondary school students. Within the Division, a multi-disciplinary regional engagement team met regularly to both consider the research findings and to examine the ways that the Division currently engages with the community. It became apparent that issues of student engagement and graduate outcomes were central to this discussion. Although all members of the team engaged with the community in various ways and there was a collective sense that the Division was doing well, it became clear that there was not a shared understanding of the terminology around regional or community engagement, or what engagement at a high level would mean in practice. It also became clear that we needed further data and thus three research projects were undertaken: a study of student engagement where 136 students participated in semi-structured interviews designed to ascertain current student perspectives of their studies in relation to other priorities in their lives; a study of community perceptions of the university where 30 business owners and community members were interviewed; and a graduate outcomes project that examined graduate employment and the services offered by the university to maximise these outcomes. A divisional retreat held at the beginning of 2004 and 2005 focused on research findings, community engagement and student engagement, graduate outcomes, and engaged staff in prioritising action. 3.

Engaging to Maximise Graduate Employment

Since 1906 in the United States of America and arguably earlier in Europe, institutions of learning have been implementing cooperative education in an effort to prepare students for the world of employment (Sovilla, 1998). The implementation of work placements as a component of higher education programs has become widespread and has been an accepted part of a large number of undergraduate programs in Australia and beyond. Martin (1998) noted that work placements are a component of approximately 60% of Australian bachelor-level programs. At Lilydale, work-based learning takes two forms: one an Industry Based Learning year or half year in industry; and the other a Work Integrated Learning subject where an industry or community based subject is undertaken by cross-disciplinary teams. The benefits both of engaging with industry in order to provide work-related student experience is well known. There have been a large number of studies that have shown the positive impact of cooperative education programs on the academic and employability outcomes of student participants (Martin, 1996). At Lilydale, student interviews confirmed the positive contribution made by the work-related learning experience but not all students undertake work related learning subjects. Employability has become a clear focus or government and education alike. Whilst the Commonwealth has investigated and identified skills required for business and industry in the future (DEST 2002), many universities like Swinburne have articulated desirable graduate attributes with the same end in view. Excellence in each discipline area is a clear goal, and each subject articulates the graduate attributes that the subject intends to foster at Lilydale. However, what became clear in the investigation was the fragmentary nature of the services provided, the lack of student awareness of services offered and the need to develop a cohesive approach that builds graduate attributes and professionalism throughout the curriculum. Thus the challenge of reviewing curriculum and assessment in terms of articulated graduate attributes and engaging with business and industry to do this has become a priority for the academy at Lilydale. However, this work needs to be done in a context of understanding the life experience of our students. 4.

The Student Experience

Whilst the scenarios of the futurists emphasise the need for future workers who are adaptable, attuned to lifelong learning and innovative, university students are also more time poor, less engaged with their study and more vocationally focused. In the context of a deregulated educational industry, students are increasingly considered to be consumers within a marketplace that tailors educational services to fit the

84



needs of its client base. Students increasingly expect the University to fit with their lives rather than viceversa (McInnis, 2001, p. 3). Interviews with 136 students on the Lilydale campus over the last two years confirm wider research findings. Students are spending less time on campus, more time in paid employment, and an increasing number of activities and priorities compete with the demands of University. Students have indicated that they find it difficult to find the motivation to study, are less likely to study on weekends, find the study workload difficult to manage, miss classes and increasingly rely on friends or online facilities for course materials (McInnis, James, & Hartley, 2000, p. xii; McInnis, 2001, p. 4; McInnis & Hartley, 2002, pp. 37&44; Langworthy & Howard, 2005). Academics are increasingly concerned at what they see as resultant trends; students doing the minimum of study to get by, not achieving the standard of work of which they are capable and not able to engage in deep or reflective learning (McInnis & Hartley, 2002, p. 48). David Watson, Vice-Chancellor of Brighton University in the UK, urges academics not to focus on the deficits of today’s students seeing the modern student as a “canny consumer” who as a workforce entrant will be competing with an increasing proportion of other graduates. For Watson, students are “more effective readers of both social change and the related employment scene than either the providing institutions or external stakeholders such as government and employers” (Watson, 2003, p. 3). Contextualising university studies in terms of the development of graduate attributes and employability skills becomes an obvious means to engage students and maximise deeper learning. In addition to the development and assessment work in each discipline area, the Division has decided to develop a ‘capstone subject’ that will provide an opportunity for third year undergraduate students to synthesize their learning from all subjects and reflect on their resulting skills and abilities to use this information to focus on planning for their careers and lifelong learning. 5.

Engaging to Contribute to Regional Community Development

The importance of links with industry can be well explained in the context of preparing students for employment. However, the wider impact of universities upon regions and communities has become increasingly apparent over the last decade. This impact goes beyond development of human capital evidenced in graduates and beyond the economic impact described a number of studies which fail to fully address the contribution these universities make to regional development, in the development of civil society and in response to the pressures on communities arising from a knowledge-based global economy (IRIC, 1999; IRIC, 2000). For universities, The agenda has moved on from a desire to simply increase the general education of the population and the output of scientific research; there is now a greater concern to harness university education and research to specific economic and social objectives (OECD, 1999, p. 9).

A new responsive model for higher education is required. This model acknowledges that the learning institution is doing more than preparing students for employment; it is also preparing them to be fully functioning members of the community. The model could be seen to challenge the traditional view of excellence in universities (research funding, doctoral degree programs, entry scores, scientific discoveries, for example). The new model has an intentional balance between teaching, research and engagement activities. Importance is given to undergraduate learning and there is an emphasis on performance and accountability. Outcomes are articulated for teaching and research that are responsive to emerging issues. The engaged institution is committed to direct interaction with external constituencies and communities through the mutually beneficial exchange, exploration and application of knowledge expertise and information. These interactions enrich and expand the learning and discovery functions

85



of the academic institution while also enhancing community capacity…The interaction also builds greater public understanding of the role of the university as a knowledge asset and resource (Holland, 2001, p. 7).

Yet despite the efforts of the Lilydale campus to engage with its community, trends throughout the targeted community interviews indicate that the University is not generally perceived to have an active presence within the community. Whilst little appears to be known about university activity, there was a general perception that the presence of the University in Lilydale is positive because it has provided increased educational prospects for local students and has indirectly caused an increase in local business activity generally. Educational qualifications in the region are below that of the State on average, and Lilydale round table discussions with business noted that much regional employment did not require tertiary qualifications but still required development and training. It was felt that there were opportunities for collaboration and partnership but that cultural change needed to occur for the community to embrace education. It was felt that universities needed to be more accessible and that perceived barriers needed to be removed. One way of engendering this cultural change is to engage our students with the community and to embrace issues of citizenship and the development of civil society in the curriculum. 6.

The Scholarship of Engagement

Ernest Boyer proposed four necessary and interrelated forms of scholarship - the scholarships of discovery, integration, application and teaching. Together they have become known as the scholarship of engagement (Boyer, 1996). For many, this work underpins all work-related learning and includes a sound basis in the literature, application and reflection. It has inspired over a decade of service learning internationally where community service as a scholarly activity is promoted by the university as a means of teaching social responsibility and a means of shaping future citizens. The concept of the scholarship of engagement is an important one in the context of making community engagement core business at Lilydale. 7.

Where to from here?

The two divisional retreats have provided the opportunity to focus whole staff attention on the issues of engagement and the development of an action plan post the 2005 retreat has set the agenda for ongoing deliberation. It is clear that community engagement is necessary to enhance the student experience and continuous improvement of the curriculum and we must make every effort to draw closer to our community to make student projects, work experience and service possible. It is clear that the Division must have an holistic view of student graduate attribute development and, in order to do this, we must continue to review and evaluate our performance and continue to seek information from our students and our community. References Association of Commonwealth Universities (ACU). (2001). Engagement as a core value for the university: A consultation document. London: ACU. Boyer, E. L. (1996). The scholarship of engagement. Journal of Public Service and Outreach, 1, pp. 1120. Department of Education Science and Technology (DEST). (2002). Employability skills for the future. Canberra: DEST. Holland, B. (2001). Measuring the role of civic engagement in campus missions: Key concepts and challenges. Presented at the ASHE Symposium, Broadening the Carnegie Classifications Attention to Mission: Incorporating Public Service.

86



OECD. (1999). The response of higher education institutions to regional needs. London: OECD Publishing. Martin, E. (1998). Conceptions of work place university education. Higher Education Research and Development Journal, 17 (2), pp. 191-205 McInnis, C. (2001). Signs of disengagement? The changing undergraduate experience in Australian universities. Melbourne: The Centre the Study of Higher Education, University of Melbourne. McInnis, C., & Hartley, R. (2002). Study and work: The impact of full-time study and paid work on the undergraduate experience in Australian universities. Canberra: Evaluations and Investigations Programme, DEST. DEST No. 6824.HERC02A. McInnis, C., James, R., & Hartley, R. (2000). Trends in the first year experience in Australian universities: Melbourne: Centre for the Study of Higher Education, University of Melbourne. Sovilla, E. S. (1998). Co-op’s 90-year odyssey. ASEE Prism, 7 (5), pp. 18-24. The Institute for Research into International Competitiveness (IRIC). (2000). The economic impact of Edith Cowan University on the Western Australian economy. Perth: IRIC. The Institute for Research into International Competitiveness (IRIC). (1999). Contributing to the community through education and research; Quantifying the economic impact of Curtin University of Technology on the WA economy. Perth: IRIC. Watson, D. (2003). Universities and civic engagement: a critique and a prospectus. Key-note address for the 2nd biennial Inside-out conference on the civic role of universities.

87



From Regional Engagement to Marriage: Can the Love Affair between Regions and their University Campuses Last? Professor Kateryna Longley Pro Vice-Chancellor (Regional Development), Murdoch University, WA 6150, Australia As Pro Vice-Chancellor in charge of regional development at Murdoch University, Western Australia, my goal is to facilitate engagement with the communities of Rockingham-Kwinana and Mandurah’s Peel region in the State’s southwest. The intention of this engagement is largely altruistic; it is to have a positive impact on the life of the community. Murdoch has two specific desired outcomes for regional engagement. They are: •

raising higher education rates to the state mean

•

increasing research income relevant to the region.

The quality of engagement will first and foremost be measured in these terms. These are the quantitative measures, but as the title of my paper suggests, engagement is about matters of the heart as well as of the bottom line. And so in my role, along with many others in roles like mine, I am grappling with the challenge of setting up strategies to improve both the heart and head side of engagement in a way that enables the University to track and measure its success; its quality. The difficulty, in the context of this Forum, is that success in this sphere as we have framed it is not our success, but their success – or rather mutual success. Quality is not our quality, but their quality. And making it harder still, quality is not quality of goods or services (we are used to measuring those) – it is quality of life. So, the questions I want to explore in this session, using a regional framework, are: •

What is high quality engagement?

•

How can we facilitate high quality engagement?

•

How can we measure success? In other words, how can we be sure it is a quality relationship and that we are not just going through the motions?

I use this metaphor of a love relationship throughout my paper only half in jest because in fact engagement is part of a university’s role that is much more on the emotional side - the heart side - than any other and is, indeed, more difficult to map than any other. I have been closely involved in the founding of two regional campuses over the past ten years – one in Rockingham in 1996 and the other in Mandurah, which opened its doors only six months ago. Although my experience is primarily with regional campuses, I believe that much of what I say is applicable to all kinds of university engagement. The main difference with regional engagement is proximity. The romance is with the boy next door. In my view, the underlying principle of engagement is simple: a university will only be able to have a powerful impact through its engagement if the campus works with all layers of the community towards the same strategic goals. Similarly the community needs to work with, and support, its campus in every way at every opportunity. This may sound obvious but experience across Australia shows that this approach has not been universally adopted. Potentially there are great benefits for both partners if they play it right but there are also pitfalls that could, and do, lead to universities withdrawing their favours and dumping the regions. For example, University of Melbourne last year announced that it wanted to abandon all its regional campuses because they are a financial drain and not sustainable.

88



The huge expansion of university campuses into regional and outer metropolitan areas in recent years makes engagement a central issue for the future of Australia. Using Murdoch’s experience of community engagement, I intend to illustrate how the dispersion and regionalisation of university education presents a huge and unprecedented opportunity. Australia has yet to take full advantage of it and in many cases is struggling to even keep this new dispersed model going. I believe now is the time to focus on how regionalisation of higher education can become a success story for all concerned through effective engagement. I will outline some of the approaches that Murdoch University is taking to try to ensure that its regional engagement activities are high quality, realistic, sustainable and meet local needs. This is not to say that we have necessarily got it right. There are very real obstacles to engagement. What I am presenting is a set of experiences that are part of a learning journey towards doing regional engagement well, in AUQA terms, where engagement is probably the hardest aspect of university activity to track and evaluate. First, let us look at some statistics: Figure 1 The Rise of the Regional Campus: Universities and Campuses in Australia 1950: 8 universities, 8 campuses 1965: 12 universities, 15 campuses 1984: 19 universities, 23 campuses 1994: 38 universities, about 135 campuses (46 or 34% regional) 2004: 39 universities, about 165 campuses (73 or 44% regional) Note: The sudden growth in university numbers took place around 1989 when 19 universities and about 52 colleges of advanced education and institutes of technology amalgamated under the Dawkins reforms, creating the so-called Unified National System.

Figure 2 Australia’s Investment in Universities for Teaching and Research Australian Government funding for universities DEST: $6.7 billion (actual in 2004) Total: $7 billion Australian Government funding for regional campuses More than $1 billion p.a. This includes 100,000 full-time equivalent student places for Australian students in regional areas.

What these statistics show is that both the growth and regionalisation of higher education in Australia has been phenomenal: from eight campuses to around 165 in half a century, and from 23 to 165 in the last 20 years. With this growth has come a much higher awareness of the need to be relevant and engaged.

89



Figure 3 Growth in University Participation Student numbers 1984: 172,000 students 2004: 720,000 students People holding a university degree 1984: 7% population with degree 1993: 10% population with degree 2003: 18% population with degree Sources: CTEC, Selected University Statistics 1984; DEST Triennial Report 2004–06; ABS 6227.0 and 4224.0

In 1984 there were 172,000 university students and by 2004 this had grown to 720,000 domestic students. In 1984, 7% of the population held a university degree and in 2004 the proportion had grown to 18%. With decentralisation of universities, significant resources have shifted from the capital cities towards the regions and outer metropolitan areas – amounting to a revolution in higher education of accessibility and participation. This trend also demanded more client focus, more engagement. Engagement is a particularly hot issue at this moment in history for a range of reasons. Decentralisation is one of them and I want to highlight another three: Drivers of Engagement •

diminishing government funding

•

the idea of ‘third stream’

•

unprecedented skills shortage.

The first reason is that diminishing government funding means that universities need increasingly to look outside for financial support and this involves engagement. The second reason is that the idea of ‘third stream’ funding to reward quality engagement is a rising possibility. It has happened in England and it could happen here. If money is to be distributed, engagement will become mainstream. The third reason is that there is an unprecedented skills shortage throughout Australia, and especially in the West. This means that universities are, more directly than ever before, connecting with the employment market and also with the training sector to deliver good employment outcomes and this involves engagement. So these are some of the reasons why engagement is important. But to return to my key questions: •


•

How can we measure success?

My way of offering some tentative answers to this question will be through my own experience at Murdoch, but first I want to set the scene by sketching a mini history of Murdoch’s leap into regional engagement. In 1995, Murdoch University was a 21-year-old, dynamic single campus. We did a lot of soul-searching before deciding to create a second campus, to be located half an hour away from the parent campus.

90



“Why should we take the risk?” we asked ourselves. What were we getting ourselves into? It was great being young and single. Why plan an offspring when we had barely reached adulthood? Without having all the answers we took the plunge anyway. From the beginning our decision was based on principles of equity and a sense that Murdoch could make a difference in the southwest. University participation rates were very low and even now only 24% of students in the Rockingham, Peel and Kwinana regions pursue a tertiary education, compared to WA’s average of 56%. We wanted to change this. Murdoch University Rockingham Campus

In 1996, we started with 26 students. After a slow start, the Rockingham campus grew at a steady rate and by 2004 had 1070 students. This was an expensive and risky investment for the University. There’s no getting away from the fact that every course and every service costs much more to run on a branch campus and local demand is often low. The whole university sector is confronted with the same dilemma: how can we fulfil our social obligation to provide education and research to the regions when the small scale of the outlying campuses means it can’t pay the bills?i This is a peculiarly Australian problem because our land is vast and our population is concentrated in a handful of large cities.ii In spite of the problems, Murdoch decided to do it all again and created another regional campus in Mandurah, co-located with our partners Challenger TAFE and Mandurah Senior College, to serve the fast growing Peel region. That campus opened its doors only a few months ago. And as is often the case with the second offspring, we are more relaxed about it all. We know what we are getting into this time and we are ready for it - the cost, the sacrifices, the headaches – and we also have a clearer focus and more strategies for drawing upon local support, for engaging. We also know that success and quality, while related, are not the same. Success can be a ‘flash in the pan’ (or should I say a one night stand) but quality, like a good long-term relationship, is lasting. Quality is measured not only by our satisfaction but by our impact on our other half (How was it for you?!!).

i

See Steve Garlick quoted in Varieties of Excellence, para 275, p. 52: “…the process of regionalising university structures over the past decade has created a system of vulnerable university campuses located in vulnerable regions, making unfunded partnership-based initiatives …difficult to sustain.”

ii In England, for example, regionalisation takes a completely different form because of the high number of very large regional cities and in the United States Community Colleges come to the rescue in the regions.

91



Murdoch University Mandurah Campus

Quality in Terms of Impact At the 2004 inaugural conference of the Australian Universities Community Engagement Alliance (AUCEA), the New South Wales State Government Minister for Regional Development, David Campbell, gave a talk in which he said that the direct and indirect impact of Wollongong University on the regions in which its campus operates amounts to $1.3million per day.iii This staggering statistic suggests just how much a university can do when it is well integrated with the strategic goals of its surrounding communities and industries. Beyond the dollars there are spin-offs of immeasurable value. As illustrated when the New South Wales Minister went on to say: Nurturing …and retaining talent provides the skills and the leadership regional communities need and demand…. I’m delighted to see a study by Charles Sturt University has found 70 percent of graduates from regional areas – stayed in the regions. And as an added bonus, 20 percent of graduates originally from metropolitan areas also chose to work in the country.

This is what I believe quality regional engagement is all about. What do we have to do to achieve it? Quality in Terms of Shared Vision In 2002, the W.K. Kellogg Foundation identified key characteristics of effective engagement between higher education institutions and their communities.

iii

David Campbell, NSW Minister for Regional Development, address to the inaugural AUCEA conference: “University Regional and Rural Engagement”, Charles Sturt University, Bathurst campus, July 2004: “NSW Government research has found non-metropolitan universities inject more than $800 million a year into their regional economies. And that’s only direct benefits. It’s estimated the flow-on effect to regional communities is worth $1.1 billion. In NSW, regional universities are responsible for 28,000 jobs….Wollongong University has a number of campuses. As a result, the flow on effect of the university also benefits the Nowra, Batemans Bay, Bega and Moss Vale communities. Wollongong University injects $1.3 million a day into its regional economy.”

92



Key Characteristics of Quality Engagement 1. See their present and future well-being as inextricably linked; 2. Engage in reciprocal learning; 3. Respect the history, culture, knowledge and wisdom of the other; 4. Create structures that promote open communication and equity with one another; 5. Value and promote diversity; and 6. Regularly conduct a joint assessment of their partnership and report results. iv But how does this translate into action? And how do we measure the impact - social as well as economic? And how do we measure shared vision and all that grows out of that? Trying to find answers to these questions is my current work in progress through the Murdoch Operational Plan for Regional Engagement. It has 20 very varied strategic initiatives, some of them definitely matters of the heart rather than the head and therefore hard to measure in terms of impact. But as in any relationship, I believe there needs to be a balance. To date not enough has been done to measure the impact of universities on their communities and what there is has been mainly on economic impact. Previously, universities have focused on their record as an employer and purchaser of local goods but the impact goes much further. According to a study published in 2002 by the Business and Higher Education Round Table (BHERT), the economic contribution of the university sector can be measured in three ways. Economic Contribution of the University Sector 1. The income and employment generated in the nation through its teaching and research activities (including generation of export income); 2. The enhancement of the nation’s human capital through its education of university graduates; and 3. The creation of wealth through the spillover effects to government and business of its research and development activities.v Based on this method, the impact of universities in South Australia during 1999 was estimated at $1,738 million or $1.7 billion.vi This translates to around $4.8 million per day. In a University of Newcastle study it was reported that the “multiplier effect on income generated to the regional economy for each dollar of the University’s income is six to eight dollars.”vii Using this as a guide, by 2009 the new Mandurah campus will be delivering to the Peel community somewhere between $26 and $35 million per annum.

iv

W.K. Kellogg Foundation. (2002). Engagement in Youth and Education Programming, Michigan, http://www.wkkf.org, quoted in Commonwealth of Australia, Varieties of excellence: Diversity, specialisation and regional engagement, 2002, p. 51.

v

Cabalu, H., Kenyon, P. & Koshy, P. (2000). Of dollars and cents: Valuing the economic contribution of universities to the Australian economy, BHERT, Melbourne, p.5, quoted in Commonwealth of Australia, Varieties of Excellence: Diversity, Specialisation and regional Engagement, 2002, p.50.

vi

Phillips Curran Pty Ltd. (2001). Strategic review of the South Australian Higher Education sector for South Australian Business Vision2010, South Australian Business Vision2010, http://www.sabv2010.com.au/sabv/site/progress/docs/Final ReportDavidPhillips230401.pdf, quoted in Varieties of Excellence, p. 50. vii

Varieties of Excellence, p. 50

93



It is important to highlight the special contribution of research in engagement. In particular, two federal government funding schemes that have already contributed greatly and can do much more in the future are the Cooperative Research Centres (CRC) scheme and the Australian Research Council (ARC) Linkage scheme. Cooperative Research Centres The research focus of the CRC program is aligned to Australian industry and environment. In 2004, there were 71 CRCs. Since the commencement of the CRC program in 1990, some $9.7 billion in funding and resources has been committed to CRCs. By definition, CRCs are engaged.viii It is important to make this connection between CRCs and engagement because engagement has too often been thought of as the ‘softer’ or more woolly aspect of a university’s role. However, CRCs are working models of high quality engagement. They are built on partnerships with industries in the community and their express purpose is to deliver measurable benefits to the Australian community. Linkage Grants ARC Linkage grants are another major source of funding to support engagement. In the first round of 2004 ARC Linkage Projects, some $55.5 million was allocated by the ARC of which $21.8 million was for projects with rural and regional focus. A further $80.3 million in cash and kind was pledged to these projects by industry partners. Again it is important to recognise linkage projects as a demonstration of high quality community engagement. And community/industry investment of dollars, time, facilities, etc., means the quality of that engagement can be measured. However, there is also a problem in using research success as a measure of engagement. That is because it could be seen as a kind of KPI double-dipping, and this will be especially so if the sector is rewarded for engagement in the future through third-stream funding. My own view is that this problem can be overcome by very clear identification of the kind of research that connects with issues directly relevant to communities with which the university engages. Thus far I have begun to suggest some tentative answers to my initial questions: •

What is high quality engagement?

•


•

How can we measure success?

Now I would like to turn to Murdoch’s experience in Mandurah as a working example in order to try to shed further light on these questions by showing some of the practical steps involved in engagement and the real challenges of measuring success. The first step was for Murdoch to take the decision to go from casual involvement with its southwest communities to deep and long-term commitment – regional engagement to marriage.

viii

94

CRC 2004 Directory: ARC Selected Statistics



How? • words – telling the world •

money - putting your money where your mouth is

•

building the relationship - day by day

•

planning the future together – long-term

•

being possessive - and loyal

•

measuring success - and learning from failure.

1. Words – telling the world In its strategic plan Murdoch developed a new highly focused goal for regional engagement and adopted it for the whole University: To engage with communities in the Peel and Rockingham/Kwinana region to build productive partnerships in order to expand community participation in lifelong learning, support the sustainable development of the region through relevant social and scientific research, and enrich the cultural life of the community.

2. Money - putting your money where your mouth is A major step was to invest in creating the Office of Pro Vice-Chancellor Regional Development, and to committing matching funds for Capital Development Pool applications. 3. Building the relationship - day by day Murdoch set up Advisory Committees with community leaders to provide ongoing advice and a forum for consultation. At the same time, we mapped out a program of relationship building with local education providers, local government, state government, the Peel Area Consultative Committee, the Peel Development Commission, local industry and business. This involved getting onto local committees and Boards. 4. Planning the future together – long-term Murdoch began to align its strategic planning with that of the local region by directly engaging in the process of setting common goals with the region’s key governing groups. A number of MOUs were part of this process. 5. Being possessive – and loyal Murdoch began to claim the south-west corridor by focusing on it – not quite forsaking all others but certainly being highly attentive. 6. Measuring success - and learning from failure Murdoch began to set up key performance indicators for regional engagement. This is still work in progress and it involves engaging with every part of the organisation. Is this approach working? I believe so. There are some very good outcomes. But there is no doubt that capturing all the activity and proving that it is working is not easy. The tendency is to simply compile lists and success stories and in fact that is what I will do now.

95



I will list four examples of engagement outcomes that I believe are high quality in terms of the descriptions given earlier in the paper. Outcomes: •

new Peel campus

•

externally funded professorial positions

•

innovative governance structure

•

Murdoch Westscheme Enterprise Partnership – innovation fund.

The new Peel campus itself is a major outcome. Two and a half years ago, there was no funding, no students, no land available, no approval for a campus to go ahead and no building. Now all those things have happened and sooner than expected, because a $1 million dollar interest free loan from the City of Mandurah brought the timetable forward by more than a year. There is no doubt that the campus was won by the community with Murdoch as much as the other way around. Local government and industry for the two regional campuses have funded three new professorial positions – two for Mandurah and one for Rockingham. All have been filled. This means that the new Peel campus had funding for two professors before the campus even opened its doors. These positions are the result of true partnerships for the region with the region. •

The City of Rockingham has funded the City of Rockingham Chair in Education at the Rockingham campus for 3 years to provide locally relevant leadership and research, aimed at improving the participation and retention rates of local students.

•

The City of Mandurah has funded the City of Mandurah Chair in Entrepreneurship and Business Innovation at the Peel campus for 3 years to provide locally relevant leadership and research into business development.

•

The Peel Health Campus - private/ public hospital – has funded a Chair in Nursing for the Peel campus to provide locally relevant leadership and research into health issues in the region.

The Peel campus is developing an innovative governance structure in close collaboration with the colocated Challenger TAFE and Mandurah Senior College. The Peel Development Commission has partnered with Murdoch’s Peel campus to create a branch office of the Murdoch Westscheme Enterprise Partnership, an $11 million venture capital resource to stimulate and support early stage innovation in the region. These are clearly good mutual outcomes, but what is harder to measure is the vast amount of routine low key engagement that goes on, often unnoticed, day by day and is at the heart of effective engagement. It’s unglamorous but essential – a bit like housework or bringing up kids – and without it the relationship would collapse. It’s the voluntary work by both sides – on committees and at functions, it’s the friendships and the advice, it’s speeches and it’s mentoring and networking, it’s passing on information at the right time, it’s ‘talking each other up’ to others, it’s sharing facilities and staff. It’s the special entry privileges for local kids. It’s the countless little things that make up real engagement. How do we recognise these? How do we measure their impact? If there is any chance that we will be rewarded by the Federal Government through something like Britain’s third stream funding, these are serious and urgent questions. Also, local and state governments and industry need to continue to recognise that universities, especially in regions, are not simply a federal government responsibility. They are a huge resource that will either flourish or fail based upon local commitment and support, and the strength of that ongoing relationship.

96



To return to the question in my title, “Can the Love Affair between Regions and their University Campuses Last?” My answer is: YES. It can last and it can grow - under certain conditions - only if they share a vision for the future and there is serious commitment, as well as passion, on both sides. And now, under the AUQA regime, there is another condition that has to be met, another thing they have to do – something that feels like a chore but may bring them great rewards, such as the third-stream funding that I believe is urgently needed. Universities and their communities have to get into the habit of writing the story of their relationship, showing off successes, confessing to failures and stuff-ups, promising to try to be better next year, accumulating records, keeping photo albums and scrapbooks, rather like maintaining diaries and receipts for your tax return. And in the process they may indeed gain a better understanding of the relationship, its depth, its value, and what needs to be done to make it stronger – year after year – for the benefit of Australia.

Can the Love Affair between Regions and their University Campuses Last? YES!

97



Ancora Imparo - We Are Still Learning Louise McCall, Amanda Jackson, and Glenice Ives Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Vic 3168, Australia This paper provides an overview of the academic self-review process undertaken for the postgraduate coursework degree portfolio at the Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences at Monash University. It describes the process, terms of reference, stakeholder data collection and external review panel process. Issues impacting on the sustainability of the current quality processes are identified. 1.

Introduction

Monash University aspires to achieve quality as “fitness for purpose”, and has adopted the following review cycle (Monash University, 2001). Plan

Improve

Act

Evaluate The Centre for Higher Education Quality (CHEQ) determined the university quality framework and directions, however Faculties were responsible for implementation of processes and resourcing this initiative. The Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences is the largest Faculty in the University by operating budget and the fourth largest by student enrolment (Monash University, 2004). The multidisciplinary Faculty is divided into eight schools, and comprises 18 teaching departments and two research institutes. The Faculty currently offers over 70 postgraduate coursework degrees via a variety of methods, including offshore partnerships, off-campus distributed learning, WebCT, on-campus and multi-model. These courses encompass the diverse disciplines of the Faculty, for example: nursing, general practice, public health and epidemiology, psychology and psychiatry, social work, rural health, health informatics and health professional education. The Faculty’s vision is for the postgraduate coursework degrees area to establish a diverse suite of courses and units which are both financially viable and demonstrate the highest local and international quality. The Associate Dean (Postgraduate Coursework Degrees) is responsible for the postgraduate coursework degrees area, and is the chairperson of the Postgraduate Coursework Degrees Committee (PGCDC), which reports directly to Faculty Board. The PGCDC takes responsibility for all matters relating to postgraduate coursework students enrolled through the Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences. The Committee is responsible for the quality of courses and units which includes reviewing course and unit proposals and amendments, and the self-review of courses and units. In addition, the Committee is also responsible for policy development and implementation and formulating the views of the Faculty on postgraduate coursework matters.

98



Membership of the Postgraduate Coursework Degrees Committee is made up of representatives from the areas which currently offer postgraduate courses. Heads of School are annually invited to nominate members. Committee members are responsible for liaison with staff in their areas, highlighting to the Committee local issues, disseminating Committee information to the staff in their teaching area, reviewing course and unit proposals, and developing policy and procedures for the area. 2.

Method

Academic Self-review The academic self-review of Postgraduate Coursework provided the Faculty with an opportunity to consider its directions, progress, achievements and strengths as well as areas for development and improvement. The academic self-review also provided guidance for course and unit self-reviews. The following diagram outlines the postgraduate coursework degrees portfolio review process:

Academic Self Review Course Self Review

Unit Self Review

The terms of references for the self-review of the area were based on the Guidelines for Academic Review (Monash University, 2001) as follows: 1. Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the operational structure and management of the Postgraduate Coursework Degree area in the Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences at Monash University. 2. Review the quality assurance and improvement procedures for the Postgraduate Coursework Degrees Committee in the Faculty. 3. Provide background information on courses, units and student profiles that comprise the Postgraduate Coursework Degree area of the Faculty to inform the self-review of the courses and units to be conducted in 2005. 4. Evaluate the financial management and viability of courses and units within the Postgraduate Coursework Degree area of the Faculty. 5. Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of research training and supervision within the Postgraduate Coursework Degree. 6. Provide strategic direction to the Course Management Committee’s within the Postgraduate Coursework Degree area to inform the self-review of the courses and units. To assist with the academic self-review the following data sources were utilised: 1. The student database, Callista, was used for live student load data. 2. As part of the academic self-review the Faculty held two interactive workshops in 2002. All staff working in the area, both academic and administrative, were invited to participate.

99



•

The first workshop “Advancing the Quality Agenda” was held in August 2002, and was used to inform staff of the pending self-review of the area, as well as provide staff with the guiding principles for “Quality at Monash”. Staff also had the opportunity to break into small focus groups and provide feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of the area from a departmental/school perspective.

•

The second workshop, the “Major Quality Forum”, was held in December 2002 and was used to follow-up on issues raised in the August workshop and to explore staff perceptions and expectations of Faculty support for Schools and Departments in the following areas: structure and function; marketing and student support; and research and research training.

3. Surveys were developed and distributed including a letter and detailed information about course and unit load asking academic areas to classify courses and units into financially viable and non financially viable categories [sent to Head of School (HOS), Head of Department (HOD) and Course coordinators] and a questionnaire on the strengths and weakness of the operational structure and management of the PGCD area (distributed to the Dean, Faculty Manager, HOS, HOD and PGCDC members). Data from all sources was collated and reported under the relevant TOR (Terms of Reference). A draft report of the academic self-review report was then circulated to all course coordinators, PGCDC members, HOS and HOD for comment. Comments were then invited from all Faculty on the final draft report, via the Faculty Web site. The final version of the report was ratified by the PGCDC and Faculty Board. The External Panel Review Members of the Faculty Quality Management Group reviewed the Associate Dean’s recommendations for membership of the external panel. The selected panel comprised both interstate and international health education experts, in addition to senior Monash University academic education and administrators. Student representatives were invited to participate but were not available. The External Panel Review visit was conducted over three days in January, 2005. The delegation conducted interviews with the Dean, course coordinators, HOS and HOD, alumni members, current students, administrative and academic staff involved in the area and the PGCDC. 3.

Results

The Academic Self Review report identified the relative strengths and weaknesses of the postgraduate coursework degree portfolio. Recommendations were identified and have been actioned. The External Panel Review report is yet to be delivered to the Faculty. 4.

Discussion

The framework and directions of Monash University’s quality approach fostered the concept of the ‘learning organization’ (Meade, 1995). Whilst quality is in the minds of many Faculty staff’s thinking, it has not, until now, been a coordinated centralised Faculty initiative, requiring accountability for ‘closing the loop’. As a result many staff were challenged by the centralised nature of the quality process, the associated reporting and subsequent accountability. In addition, as University quality processes evolved continuous change resulted within the Faculty which caused frustration for some staff, as evidenced by comments such as “this is an onerous process which is time consuming”. Student engagement in the academic self-review process was lacking. This may, in part, be attributed to the fact that the typical postgraduate coursework student enrolled in the Faculty in 2004 is female, aged

100



35, employed and studying by distance mode. The second contributing factor may have been the timing of the external review. Despite the difficulty in obtaining student engagement in the processes, the self-review resulted in meaningful data being gathered from many stakeholders. It was apparent during the self-review process that there is a lack of international and national benchmarks in the postgraduate coursework degree area. Current statistics focus on undergraduate programs and research activity. This makes the determination of quality in this area more difficult to ascertain. There are limited guidelines about what is a quality course and unit, e.g., is stakeholder satisfaction really quality? What about outcome measures? Despite having completed the self-review process and continuing to attract postgraduate students, the question remains – are we really offering the best international quality programs? Resourcing, with a particular focus on staff workload, has been a major problem faced during the selfreview process. The conduct of the self-review and manning external panel reviews is reliant on volunteers. Whilst the assurance of quality for the administration, governance and teaching of education is the responsibility of all University staff, the bureaucracy involved in the reporting and reviewing these documents relies greatly on ‘good will’. With the volume of reviews underway and the necessity for external peer review, the sustainability of the process is foremost in the minds of those responsible for the management of these systems, who are cognisant of staff ‘burn out’. 5.

Conclusion

The development and sustainability of rigorous, meaningful quality processes is a challenge. Embedding the concepts of quality as part of teaching and learning and its governance is reliant on the involvement of all stakeholders for its sustainability, and working in a learning organisation means we are still learning ancora imparo. References Meade, P. (1995). Utilising the university as a learning organisation to facilitate quality improvement. Quality in Higher Education. 1 (2), pp. 111-121. Monash University. (2001). Guidelines for academic review. Melbourne: Monash University. Monash University. (2001). Quality at Monash. Melbourne: Monash University. Monash University. (2004). Faculty of Medicine Nursing and Health Sciences, Operational Plan 20042006. Melbourne: Monash University.

101



Benchmarking Disability Support: the webCATS project Patricia McLeana, Denise Kirkpatrickb, Tony Paynec and Christine Goodacred a

Equity, Language and Learning Programs, University of Melbourne, Vic 3010, Australia b

Teaching and Learning Unit, Monash University, Vic 3800, Australia c

d

Student Services, University of Tasmania, Tas 7250, Australia

Flexible Education Unit, University of Tasmania, Tas 7250, Australia

This paper reports on a project funded initially by the Australian Universities Teaching Committee (AUTC) and subsequently by the Carrick Institute, which aimed to improve the quality of teaching and support for students with disabilities. Creating Accessible Teaching and Support (CATS) has developed a series of benchmarks with accompanying good practice indicators, which will facilitate benchmarking of disability support nationally and internationally. The key outcome from the project is a web resource (webCATS), which will assist academics to embed inclusive curriculum design and facilitate benchmarking of inclusive practices through a self-audit tool. The project initially focused on benchmarks for vision impairment, but at its launch in April 2005, the resource will encompass all disabilities. By providing suggested strategies for achieving the benchmarks, webCATS will assist universities to achieve compliance with the DDA Disability Standards for Education currently before federal parliament. The self-audit function facilitates reporting by providing comprehensive reports on current provision and action plans to drive improvements. 1.

Disability Support in Australian Universities, A Legislative Imperative

Support for students with disability in Australian universities is a legislative and policy imperative driven by the federal Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA) and by equity policies in place since Fair Chance for All (1990). In 2003, there were 23,855 students with disabilities in Australian universities (DEST, 2004). The DDA recognised the responsibility of all individuals and organisations covered by the Act to be pro-active in identifying and removing discriminatory barriers and practices. Under the DDA, disability is broadly defined as including the presence of physical, intellectual, psychiatric, sensory, neurological and learning disabilities. The DDA legislation also covers previous existence of those disabilities or the imputation that the disabilities may exist in a person. At the time of writing, the Disability Standards for Education are currently before federal parliament. The proposed standards are subordinate legislation to the DDA and aim to clarify universities’ legal obligations in relation to education. If an education provider complies with the standards, they are deemed to have complied with the Act. The Disability Standards encompass: •

rights of students in relation to education and training

•

responsibilities of education providers

•

measures which, if implemented, will be evidence of compliance and provide a defence against litigation.

The national and institutional policy imperatives for Australia’s equity agenda encompass issues associated with encouraging and supporting access, retention and success. Achievement of equity goals is monitored by the Department of Education Science and Training (DEST) through a set of equity performance indicators first developed by Lin Martin in 1994 (Martin, 1994). University equity programs relating to disability encompass a wide range of conditions including sensory impairment, physical impairment, dyslexia, chronic conditions such as Crohn’s disease, and mental health issues.

102



Examples of the adjustments typically provided to ensure equitable access for students with disabilities at Australian universities include:

1.1

•

provision of Australian sign language (AUSLAN) interpreters for deaf and hearing impaired students

•

provision of note-takers to ensure access to lecture content

•

alternative examination arrangements such as oral examinations, additional time, examinations held in an alternate venue, and use of a scribe

•

access to specialised software and hardware

•

provision of material in an alternative format such as Braille, audio or electronic

•

loan of equipment, for example, computers or tape recorders. The changing environment of disability in Australian universities

A number of issues have contributed to a change in disability support in Australian universities over the last decade, with implications for the way disability initiatives are developed and monitored. The nature of disability disclosed by students is changing; with an increase in the numbers of students with ‘hidden disability’ disclosing their condition and requiring support (examples include learning disabilities, mental health conditions and chronic fatigue syndrome). Students with mental health issues are now a significant and rising percentage of those registering with university Disability Liaison Units (McLean & Andrews, 1999; Mclean, Heagney & Gardner, 2003). Advances in information technology have the potential to improve the learning experience of students with a disability through the availability of information on the Web and increasing sophistication of software such as JAWS (which reads text to blind users), Zoomtext (which magnifies text on screen), Dragon Naturally Speaking (which translates spoken word into text), and Text Help (which is particularly useful for those with dyslexia). Systemic responses to equitable access to the Internet are varied. Although most Australian universities are addressing the issue of world-wide standards for web accessibility (WC3) for their web resources through compliance programs, a recent study (Alexander, 2003) found that 98% of university web sites failed to comply with basic accessibility standards, as required by Australian anti-discrimination legislation. These results suggest that Australian university web sites are likely to present significant barriers to access for people with disabilities. All universities are in the process of introducing learning management systems, all of which have problems regards accessibility. Trends in publishing towards electronic access also have implications for students with print disabilities unless publishers provide text in accessible formats (for example, the decision by legal publisher Lexis Nexis Butterworths to provide students with a print disability studying at a university who subscribe to their online or loose-leaf services with cost-free online access). The Copyright Agency Limited has established an online database that aims to catalogue all materials converted into an accessible format within Australia. All universities have recorded increased demand for disability services, but of equal significance is the increased complexity resulting from an increase in the number of students undertaking postgraduate research or combined degree options. In addition, changes in the levels of support available in the secondary sector have created higher expectations in post-secondary education. To some extent, the financial impact of these changes has been addressed by the Higher Education Act 2004 which increased funding for disability support by $1.1 million per year from 2005 through the Additional Support for Students with Disabilities fund (Nelson, 2003). This fund provides reimbursement to universities for costs incurred in supporting individual students with disability. However, equitable access to higher education requires more than individual support and adjustments; it requires a systemic move towards inclusive approaches to the provision of education and support services.

103


1.2


Improving information access for students with vision impairment

In response to identified concerns about significant costs involved in providing material in an accessible format for students with vision impairment (and the difficulties in making material available within a reasonable timeframe), a forum was convened by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) in 2002. The forum was attended by representatives of all universities, the AVCC and peak disability groups. It addressed factors such as copyright restrictions, encryption, and image-based distribution of material (which may prevent equal and independent access); the financial implications for universities in providing material in accessible formats; and strategies for ensuring efficient, effective and timely access to tertiary study materials for students who require them in alternative formats. Following on from the HREOC Forum, the AVCC set up a Steering Group to consider the needs of students with vision impairment. A key outcome of this Steering Group was the development of Guidelines on Information Access for Students with Print Impairment. The AVCC guidelines on information access are presented as advice on good practice, with the aim of assisting institutions to fulfil their responsibilities to students with print disabilities through strategies and arrangements which are appropriate to their local circumstances. Another key response was the provision of funding through the Australian and Universities Teaching Committee (AUTC) to address the issue of teaching and support for students with vision impairment. 2.

Creating Accessible Teaching and Support: The Key Issues

In 2003, the AUTC funded a consortium of universities to identify strategies for improving outcomes of students with vision impairments. With the introduction of the Disability Standards for Education anticipated for mid-2005, the project team identified the need to broaden the focus of the resource to include all disability groupings. The project team also saw the need for an audit tool which would enable universities to review their teaching and support arrangements within a quality assurance context, developing action plans for further improvements to teaching strategies and services. This second phase of the project was funded by the Carrick Institute. The project team undertook a review of the literature and consultations with key stakeholders (academics, administrators and students) to identify the major issues relating to the teaching and support of students with disabilities in Australian universities. Issues identified included:

104

•

Accessible course materials - Students and disability practitioners frequently reported difficulties in timely access to course materials in accessible formats. For academics, a key issue was the ability to produce tactile versions of visual concepts or making spontaneously written notes or diagrams on the board accessible.

•

Accessibility of the web and other technologies - Along with the importance of IT literacy, accessibility of the web and other technologies was seen as critical for the successful transition to university for students with disabilities.

•

Institutional policy - Students were sceptical of the value of high-level policies in terms of improving outcomes and academics also felt that policy was ineffectual (“the rhetoric is evident, but not so the practice”).

•

Transition and student life - For some students the transition process was liberating, while for others disappointing. Some students experienced a significant contrast between the supports offered at secondary school and those available through university. Many students expressed disappointment in Equity and Disability staff often seeing them as “gatekeepers limiting access to academics.”

•

Disability Liaison Services - Academics rely on the expertise of the disability services and do not see that they have the time or resources to gather and research information on supporting students with disabilities themselves.

•

Funding and resources - Students and academics both expressed concerns that the funding and resources dedicated to providing supports for students with disabilities were inadequate and were



not necessarily being distributed to the departments and areas responsible for teaching and supporting students with disabilities.

3.

•

Communication - Students and academics noted the importance of developing strong lines of communication between students and academic staff.

•

Work placements - Academics, disability practitioners and students described the difficulties in securing successful work placements for students (these are a key aspect of many courses). Facilitating Compliance with Disability Policy through webCATS

The webCATS resource is framed around an acknowledgement of the importance of all stages of the student life cycle, from prospective student to graduation, postgraduate study and employment. It also acknowledges that the issue of disability support is relevant to a range of institutional stakeholders. Firstly to academics (who may have students with disabilities in their classes), secondly to senior administrators concerned to ensure compliance with policy and legislative imperatives and thirdly to disability support staff involved in providing support for students and catalysing improvements in systemic response. WebCATS provides entry portals for each of these groups (see figure 1 - webCATS home page). Of particular value to academics is the development of a bank of resources relating to the development of inclusive learning and teaching approaches, including material relevant to specific disciplines. By providing access to good practice examples and strategy options, webCATS aims to facilitate embedding inclusive teaching practice in priority areas. The webCATS framework covers three key areas: (1) policy and administration; (2) learning and teaching; and (3) campus life and services; and is structured around a series of good practice indicators with accompanying benchmarks (see Figure 2). Each good practice statement provides FAQs, web resources and fact sheets. The benchmark statements are accompanied by additional resources and information which aim to facilitate their operationalisation and respond to the many practical dilemmas encountered in doing so - the ‘line in the sand’ that was identified as a key factor for most staff. Benchmarking is facilitated through an audit tool function which enables users to audit services against a comprehensive range of benchmarks. Universities will be able to complete the audit over a number of sessions with completed sessions marked to facilitate re-entry. Users will be able to access strategies for improving support as it relates to each benchmark and print out evidence reports and action plans on either the complete report, or for individual sections (and thereby enable the responsibility for aspects of the report to be shared across several departments within an institution).

105



Figure 1 webCATS Home Page

Figure 2 Good Practice Statements and Indicators of Good Practice

4.

Future Directions

The approach taken in the development of the webCATS resource has implications for national and international benchmarking. Within Australia, it presents a model tool to allow universities to assess

106



compliance with the Disability Standards by providing consistent descriptors of the practice required to achieve an inclusive learning environment for all students. The benchmarks have been framed in a manner consistent with disability legislation in other western countries. In the UK, Special Educational Needs (SEN) legislation has placed a particular focus on the need for measurable indicators of support to facilitate target setting and evaluation (Bines, 2000; Ridell, Adler, Mordaunt & Farmakopoulou, 2001). By providing indicators of good practice, the tool can facilitate international benchmarking of policy and practices in encouraging access and support for students with disabilities. We anticipate webCATS will address specific dimensions for specific audiences; academics will have access to a regularly maintained resource for implementing inclusive curricula, and administrators and disability practitioners will have access to resources specific to disability policy and practices, as well as a bank of good practice indicators and benchmarks that address the spectrum of student life. The webCATS resource will be available from April 2005, although the audit tool functionality which is part of the second stage of the project will not be available until later in 2005. The webCATS address is http://www.adcet.edu.au/cats/ and a booklet focusing on teaching strategies related to supporting students with vision impairment will be sent to all universities in April. References Alexander, D. (2003) How accessible are Australian university web sites? Retrieved March, 2005, from http://services.admin.utas.edu.au/adcet/Articles/Accessible_University_Web_Sites.htm AVCC. (2004). Guidelines on information access for students with print disabilities. Retrieved March 18, 2005, from http://www.avcc.edu.au/documents/publications/GuidelinesOnInfoAccessForStudentsWithDisabilities.pd f Bines, H. (2000). Inclusive standards? Current developments in policy for SEN in England and Wales. Oxford Review of Education, 26(1). Commonwealth of Australia. (1990). A fair chance for all: Higher education that’s within everyone’s reach. Canberra: AGPS. HREOC. (2002). National forum on accessible tertiary materials. Retrieved March, 2005, from http://www.hreoc.gov.au/disability_rights/education/forum02/papers.htm Martin, L. (1994). Equity and general performance indicator in higher education., Canberra: AGPS. McLean, P., Heagney, M., & Gardner, K. (2003). Going global – implications for students with a disability, higher education and research. Higher Education Research and Development, 22(2). McLean, P., & Andrews, J. (1999). The learning support needs of students with psychiatric disabilities studying in Australian post-secondary institutions. Leabrook SA: NCVER. Nelson, B. (2003). Backing Australia’s future. Canberra: AGPS Noble, A., & Mullins, G. (n.d.). Teaching students with a disability. Retrieved April 5, 2004 from http://www.unisa.edu.au/hrm/Equity&Diversity/NRDLOI/publications/teaching_students.htm#vision%20 impairment Riddell, S., Adler, M., Mordaunt, E., & Farmakoupoulou, N. (2001). Special educational needs and competing policy frameworks in England and Scotland. Journal of Education Policy, 15(6), 621-635. SHEFC. (2000). Teachability: Creating an accessible curriculum for students with disabilities. Glasgow: Scottish Higher Education Funding Council. Womble, M. D., & Walker, G. R. (2001). Teaching biology to the visually impaired: Accommodating students' special needs. Journal of College Science Teaching, 30(6), 394-396.

107



Auditing Offshore Partnerships: Lessons from Reviewing Nursing and Psychology Courses Offered in Singapore Y. R. McNicoll, J. M. Clohessy and A. R. Luff Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Vic 3800, Australia Drawing on recent participation in reviews of offshore partnership arrangements to deliver faculty programs, this paper discusses the tensions revealed between academic and commercial goals, accessibility and excellence in program delivery, and between attracting offshore students and onshore students. The impact of these conflicting agendas upon university reputation is explored, raising the need for explicit strategy to guide the management of existing partnerships and the development of new relationships. Opportunities are highlighted for improving scrutiny of trans-national relationships by aligning internal quality processes and adopting national and international protocols for cross-border education. 1.

Introduction

In the past two years, the Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences (FMNHS) has participated in two reviews of offshore programs conducted by the Monash University Trans-national Quality Assurance and Improvement Committee (TQAIC). Since 2003, the responsibilities of TQAIC have encompassed the quality, content, standards and delivery of programs which are delivered both offshore and in Australia. External reference is provided by a concurrent self-review by the partner. The first partnership identified for review was that with the partner TMC Centre for Advanced Education (TMC), based in Singapore. Although TMC is the University’s offshore partner of choice, the Faculty’s relationship with TMC is relatively new. The only programs offered with TMC by the faculty are in the discipline of psychology (TQAIC, 2004). The review of the Monash partnership with Asia Pacific Management Institute (APMI) covered a single course partnership to deliver the Bachelor of Nursing (Post Registration) in Singapore (FMNHS, 2005). 2.

Method

At Monash, partnership reviews employ a different process to the five-yearly cycle of faculty-based course reviews. They address a limited range of issues significant to delivery with an offshore partner, such as the effectiveness and quality of the contract, student performance, student satisfaction and financial viability. The review of TMC was timely as it enabled the faculty to take stock of a partnership it inherited from the Faculty of Science in 2002. The partnership with APMI was examined separately to the arrangements that exist to deliver the same course in Hong Kong (to be reviewed in mid 2005), in Malaysia and in Papua New Guinea. The identification of the unit of review as the partnership rather than the course(s) delivered indicates the focus of the TQAIC process. 3.

Results

In scrutinising these programs it has emerged clearly that there are common issues both across partnership relationships and relating to the process of review. Common concerns include the adequacy of student orientation and staff induction, suitability of local academic staff, and support for both students and staff. The effectiveness of evaluation, poor coordination

108



of the marketing and the effect of these issues upon the reputation of Monash University in Singapore, where both programs are delivered, are also significant. 4.

Discussion

Many of the problems highlighted can also affect face-to-face courses. There are, however, specific factors which can impede successful cooperative delivery with commercial partners which are perhaps more grave and require more creative responses. Some of these factors raise serious questions about why we offer offshore courses or partner with commercial providers, and whether these arrangements contribute to a university’s reputation for high quality teaching and learning, excellent programs, and exemplary practice in student-centred delivery. Common Issues in Offshore Delivery Many of the findings of these two reviews relate to communication problems. Differences of language and priorities undermine understanding and the potential for fast resolution of misapprehensions. Such misapprehensions may arise even when the partner and the university are pursuing the same goals. Modern communication methods make it much easier to overcome these issues, but distance still, inevitably, reduces the scrutiny that can be maintained over offshore programs. The TQAIC process has been helpful in bringing to light areas where contractual arrangements are poorly enforced due to limited oversight. Loss of corporate knowledge often compounds issues which result from contractual arrangements that have not been reviewed for some time. High turnover of administrative staff has been a problem at the APMI site delivering B. Nursing (Post Registration). This is due to local factors. The role is viewed by Singapore employees as a graduate position, and consequently the incumbent normally only stays one year before moving on. The resulting lack of continuity has lead to various aspects of the contract being disputed or neglected. For example, textbook provision requires annual attention from visiting lecturers at APMI. Marketing issues, by contrast, are an essentially business-oriented administrative problem, and academic staff from Monash are unlikely to prioritise ensuring that marketing is conducted in the agreed manner during their brief visits to Singapore. Conflicting Interests and Mismatch of Expectations The essentially different interests of a university faculty and of a commercial partner manifest themselves in various ways. Universities exist to provide educational opportunities (among other things), whereas commercial enterprise exists to make a profit. This can lead to conflict over the appointment of appropriate staff, provision of educational resources and student support, and the approach to marketing. Even where goals are in common, expectations may conflict. Part of the TQAIC process requires partners to review themselves. This offers a perspective external to the University, although not to the partnership. For this requirement TMC employs the ISO9000 system, which the organisation routinely uses. The use of an externally developed and administered standards framework with a strong compliance model underscores the different values and environmental concerns that characterise commercial partners, as opposed to universities. Some of these problems can be overcome by division of responsibility by area of expertise, but this is often not possible due to the physical remoteness of senior academic staff from the daily delivery of the program. In Singapore, our offshore students travel to a central location run by the commercial partner for periodic tutorials. The courses are delivered in a supported distance mode by locally-appointed tutors. These tutors

109



supplement the teaching provided by Monash University lecturers, who travel to Singapore to deliver blocks of lectures. Offshore student surveys suggest that the service centre model may raise students’ expectations of a campus-like experience which is not being provided. This may contribute to dissatisfaction in some students. Comments include: Q: What are the best aspects of student life at Monash? A: Please explain what you mean by student life. I am a paying customer (TQAIC, 2004).

Partnership Relations and University Reputation Choice of commercial partner has an impact on the prestige of the University and the Faculty which requires careful management. The faculty’s involvement in the review of TMC (Psychology partnership) has emphasised the need for closer monitoring of trans-national programs. Criticisms over this program highlight the need to choose our partners wisely. There may be a perception in Singapore that Australian trans-national programs are second-class by comparison with programs taught in Australia. Evidence of public negativity is only anecdotal, but originates from agents, polytechnics and junior colleges. Although the TMC review found that the programs are the same and students are performing comparably with the cohort enrolled in Australia, we must be aware that the public may not think so. This raises the question: are these negative perceptions related to the nature of our partner as an educational agent, rather than a university or polytechnic? A trans-national relationship cannot be seen in isolation. Although not initiated by our faculty, the TMC relationship affects the reputation not only of our courses but of Monash University throughout Singapore. If we are viewed as working with a lesser organisation, the faculty will suffer. Review Processes The place of partnership review within the Monash quality assurance process is unclear. Offshore selfreviews are validated by TQAIC, a committee of Academic Board, reporting to the DVC Academic. Onshore offerings undergo a self-review and validation under a process administered by their managing faculty and monitored by the Centre for Higher Education Quality (CHEQ). CHEQ reports to the Office of the Senior DVC, who takes responsibility for Quality. Although explicitly designed to cover complementary sets of issues (TQAIC, 2005), links between the two processes are not strong enough for them to complement each other. Strategic Implications The Faculty and the University more specifically, need to determine what they hope to achieve through offering offshore programs in partnership arrangements. Daniel et al (2005, p. 123) argue that crossborder education should prioritise access, availability and affordability. The guidelines recently promulgated jointly by UNESCO and the OECD emphasise access, relevance to the national context, and quality (2005). In exploring the quality of our partnership offerings, there is a need to examine more closely whether the actual existence of trans-national programs works to our advantage. If, for example, the public perceives that our programs in Singapore are not of a high standard, this will impact on recruitment of Singaporean students to Australia. We are currently recruiting PhD students into our biomedical science program. Do our relationships with TMC and/or APMI undermine this? Whatever the agenda may be, it is vital that it be honestly examined, and that the outcomes and any negotiated compromises are clearly acknowledged (Kristoffersen, 2005). If pursuing offshore partnerships remains appropriate to University (and Faculty) strategy, clarification is needed about what

110



these relationships are expected to contribute. The latest University plan places significant emphasis on the campus experience (Monash University, 2005), an issue which has real potential to promote dissatisfaction among offshore students attending a commercially-run service centre. In our view, the more important contribution that an offshore partner program can make is to enhance social justice by providing opportunity to students in developing countries to access a qualification not otherwise available to them. This agenda would be compatible with university priorities (Monash University, 2005), as well as the guidelines of both the AVCC and UNESCO. Our commitment to equity and access and the demand from students in the health professions to provide ongoing education in their home environment both support the continuation of these programs. There is a tension in the provision of offshore programs between offering access to opportunity, and pursuing excellence in learning and teaching. This is unacknowledged in the AVCC guidelines, but is clearly a tension the sector must live with. Monash University policy states that students in offshore courses must have access to the same or equivalent resources, just as “all courses and units offered at multiple locations will have equivalent assessment” (Monash University, 2003). The Singapore reviews challenge whether we are meeting these requirements in some partnerships, and whether our quality systems allow us to determine this adequately. Some may wish to debate whether lower standards of delivery offshore are justified by the opportunity they provide to students who cannot access onshore programs, but as a signatory to the AVCC guidelines, Monash is committed as follows: (8) The provision of educational services to international students [at any location] should be undertaken in ways that are consistent with the maintenance of academic standards in Australian institutions, and the safeguarding of the interests of international students (AVCC, 2005, p. 4).

Assuring Equivalent Quality of Offshore and Onshore Auditing Processes The Monash quality assurance process could be improved by the coordination and alignment of schedules, processes and training for the offshore partnership review cycle with the cycle for review of onshore courses. This is not to suggest reducing two processes to one, but simply ensuring each systematically acknowledges and informs the other. The separate processes for course and partnership reviews are not well understood outside the University’s central administration. In the School of Nursing a substantially similar group of staff has tackled a partnership review of the B. Nursing (Post Registration) in the same year as the course review of the articulated Graduate Diplomas and Masters of Nursing suite, using different terms of reference, different processes and reporting to different parts of the university. The provision of integrated information explaining the different purposes of course and partnership review would increase understanding and enable self-review teams to complete the task faster and to a higher standard. This would create efficiencies and reduce the potential for self-review teams to become side-tracked or bogged down in issues that may be more important in one process than the other. Oversight of courses would be facilitated by aligning the two processes. Alignment of schedules would encourage the mutual consideration of the offshore partnership and onshore delivery of the same course in the context of the other. Offshore partnership review is intended to complement the more extensive Terms of Reference set out for the Course Review of domestic programs (Monash University, 2001-2004). Aligning the two would provide a more holistic picture of courses that are delivered both in Australia and offshore. There is the danger that, without taking this broader view, important issues could remain undetected (FMNHS, 2005). This has implications for both course and faculty strategy. The role of Faculty staff in the partnership review process, including those who have responsibility for quality and for international relations, is not clear. As a result, Deans are uncertain who to nominate to represent the Faculty on self-review teams. Although some staff are involved in both course review of

111



onshore programs and in offshore partnership review, continuity is not systematically ensured. This can reduce the breadth of input and advice and the level and type of assistance that is available to the selfreview team, which has the potential to undermine the quality of the report. 5. Conclusions Distance and communication issues lead to a range of quality problems across offshore programs delivered through partners. If we accept that we should be committed to delivering transnational programs, the arguments for this strategy must be clearly articulated. To assure appropriate quality in cross-border partnerships they must be seen in the broader context of the Australian education export market and the needs of receiving nations. The University’s global reputation relies upon providing only excellent programs through unimpeachable partners. In order to achieve these standards, the process for auditing offshore partnerships must be as rigorous as the onshore course review arrangements. Existing processes could be improved by greater alignment with each other, and the integration of training and information. Reference to external accrediting bodies and quality networks in receiving nations (UNESCO/OECD, 2005) would encourage a much better fit between offshore programs and the people they serve. References Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee (AVCC). (2005). Provision of education to international students – Code of practice and guidelines for Australian universities. Daniel, J., Kanwar, A., & Uvalic-Trumbic, S. (2005). Who’s afraid of cross-border higher education? - A developing world perspective. Keynote address to the International Network of Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE), Wellington, New Zealand, pp. 123-131. FMNHS. (2005). Self-review: Asia Pacific Management Institute (APMI) Partnership. Melbourne: Monash University. Kristoffersen, D. (2005). Presentation on Guidelines of Good Practice. Unpublished presentation at the International Network of Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE), Wellington, New Zealand. Monash University. (2001-2004). Course review guidelines. Melbourne: Centre for Higher Education Quality, Clayton Campus, Monash University. Retrieved March 18, 2005, from http://www.adm.monash.edu.au/cheq/documents/Guidelines%20for%20Course%20Review.pdf . Monash University. (2003). Assessment of coursework policy. Retrieved March 18, 2005, from www.adm.monash.edu.au/unisec/academicpolicies/policy/assessment.html Monash University. (2005). Monash directions www.monash.edu/about/monash-directions/

2025.

Retrieved

March

18,

2005,

from

TQAIC. (2005). Review of co-operative delivery (partnership) programs guidelines - Hong Kong, 2005. Melbourne: Monash University. TQAIC. (2004). Review of the TMC cooperative delivery programs, 2003: Review panel report. Melbourne: Monash University. UNESCO/OECD. (2005). Draft guidelines for quality provision in cross-border higher education. Paris: OECD Publishing.

112



Quality in Internationalisation – Engaging Academic Communities Susan Maysona and Jan Schapperb a

Department of Management, Monash University, Vic 3199, Australia

b

Department of Management, Monash University, Vic 3806, Australia

Quality and internationalisation play key roles in higher education as drivers of change (Owlia & Aspinwall, 1997; McBurnie, 1999; OECD, 1999). A quality approach to internationalisation within universities requires staff commitment to what is essentially an organisational change process (Cruickshank, 2003). In this paper we use Monash University as a case study to explore the links between internationalisation, quality and change. Offering an analysis from our discipline of Management we draw on concepts from the organisational change and human resource management literature to shed light on the complex process of change. It is suggested from the literature (see for example Purcell, 2004; Legge, 2005) that processes which include consultation, education and employee participation are necessary to ensure employee engagement and commitment to achieve quality outcomes. The university is aware of this and has implemented a broad range of initiatives to support the change process. However, our analysis of data collected from the Monash University International Self Review Survey indicates that staff are largely not engaged with the imperative for individual change presupposed by a quality approach to internationalisation. This paper argues that the university needs to consider further strategies aimed at employee commitment and engagement to enhance the outcomes of current change processes. 1.

Introduction

Although internationalisation is not new to Australian universities (Welch & Denman, 1997), quality and internationalisation have been recent drivers of change in higher education (Owlia & Aspinwall, 1997; McBurnie, 1999; OECD, 1999). Encouraged and supported by state and federal governments, universities have committed considerable resources expanding international student enrolments both through the export of higher education services and the importing of international students (Harman, 2005). On the other hand, the adoption of quality management, although readily embraced by manufacturing industry, was not taken up until recent times by higher educationi (Cruickshank, 2003). International competition in the higher education industry and pressures for international accreditation has however contributed to the emergence of quality as an issue of importance to universities (Woodhouse, 1999). In this paper, Monash University provides a case-study of an Australian institution committed to internationalisation (McBurnie, 1999) within a quality framework. As such, an analysis of Monash’s internationalisation efforts offers an interesting insight into the tensions generated by the institutionalwide implementation of strategy developed at the executive level. Reflecting the strategic function of the organisational executive at Monash University, the initial commitment to the adoption of quality was made by the senior leadership (McBurnie, 1999). By integrating the quality programme into the university’s strategic plan, the intention has been to encourage commitment to quality throughout the University (see Quality at Monash Values and Principles, OECD, 1999). To analyse the Monash experience of internationalisation, we have used theoretical concepts derived from our discipline of Management (see also Schapper & Mayson, 2004). Constructing the adoption of internationalisation and quality as issues of organisational change and human resources management, we argue that employee engagement with, and commitment to the organisation’s strategic vision, is the key to successful change management and continuous quality improvement. i

Research conducted in the preparation of this paper revealed that of 38 universities in Australia, only 20 indicated on their internet sites they had a quality programme in place.

113



Using the responses from participants in the Monash University’s International Self Review Survey held in 2004, this paper identifies what appears to be a disappointingly low commitment of Monash employees to the university’s internationalisation programme. Although the picture may be more complex than portrayed in this review, we nonetheless argue that in order for Monash University to ensure quality outcomes for its internationalisation process, attention must be directed to ensuring greater staff commitment to what is essentially a significant change management programme. 2.

Managing Change and Engendering Commitment

It is accepted wisdom amongst those who research, write about and consult on organisational change that all change programmes by their very nature, demand from employees a break from past practices and thinking (see Judson, 1991; Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999; Waddell, Cummings & Worley, 2000). Irrespective of the model of change that may be recommended is the awareness that success is best achieved when staff commitment to the proposed changes are maximised. This requires the need to ready employees for change by engaging them in the process, thereby minimising resistance (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999). This point is reiterated within the human resource management literature that suggests the development of employment commitment is fundamental to making employees more satisfied, productive and adaptable (Guest, 1987; DeCieri & Kramar, 2003; Legge, 2005). In this context, organisational commitment is defined as “the degree to which an employee identifies with the organisation and is willing to put forth effort on its behalf” (DeCieri & Kramar, 2003, p. 598). Further, employee commitment presupposes not just identification with the organisation’s cultural values, but behaviours that are consistent with achieving organisational objectives (DeCieri & Kramar, 2003; Legge, 2005). Engendering employee commitment in the face of change is problematic. Legge (2005, pp. 232-40) argues, for example, that irrespective of the rhetoric of change, the process itself can be experienced by staff as another set of rules and procedures in an already busy and dynamic workplace. In such circumstances, commitment to change is often replaced by “resigned behavioural compliance” (Ogbonna & Wilkinson, 1990, p. 14, cited in Legge, 2005, p. 234). Such responses may engender resentment and resistance rather than commitment to, and engagement with, espoused cultural values and new organisational practices (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999). In summary, it is clear then from the tenor of the literature, that successful change management requires that university managers attempt to engage staff in the change process to engender their commitment to internationalisation. However, recent analysis of the University’s imposition of changes to teaching arrangements arising from strategies of internationalisation suggests the commitment to these strategies is yet to occur (Schapper & Mayson, 2004). 3.

Internationalisation at Monash University

While Monash’s strategic commitment to internationalisation is not in question here, the development of a Monash definition of internationalisation is instructive. Although a definition of internationalisation was included in the Monash document Leading the Way (1999), a newly drafted definition of internationalisation is yet to be ratified by the University’s Council. Despite the commitment of Monash University to internationalisation for a substantial period of the last two decades (see Ashenden & Milligan, 1994, cited in McBurnie, 1999; Back & Davis, 1995), there does appear to be continued confusion around an agreed definition of internationalisation. This is apparent, when one of the respondents to the International Self Review Survey when asked about internationalisation stated, “Define what it is;” with another respondent writing, “[give] us a definition of what is meant so that we can make a sensible comment!” Similar comments included “I remain unclear about what internationalisation actually means,” and “Define it, what are the parameters? What are the expectations? Responsibilities?” What these representative responses suggest is that, in this instance, commitment by staff to the University’s strategy may be impeded by the lack of understanding of what constitutes

114



internationalisation. This is an interesting finding given that staff participate in activities that are clearly ‘international’. Such activities include research across international boundaries, and teaching initiatives to accommodate a diverse student group. When the responses to the University’s Self Review Survey are analysed, however, it becomes apparent that it is not just confusion about the definition of internationalisation that hampers commitment. It is clear there are many other issues that need to be considered by the University to engage the staff and ensure their commitment to the internationalisation programme. 4.

The Self Review, Questionnaire and Sample

The Monash University International Self Review Survey was conducted in July and August 2004. The Review, sponsored by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor with responsibility for international matters, was administered, analysed and reported by the University’s Centre for Higher Education Quality (CHEQ). Invitations to participate in the online anonymous survey were distributed widely to all staff and through a variety of media, including approximately 5,600 emails addressed to each individual staff member. In response to these invitations to participate, just 177 staff completed and returned surveys. The low response rate must, however, be understood in the context of the Review that also involved some 24 meetings held by the review panel with key stakeholders. This included visits to all Monash campuses and open fora with students and staff. 5.

Staff Engagement with, and Commitment to, Internationalisation

For the purposes of this paper, staff responses to just one of the seven questions are analysed. As one of the most important and pervasive issues in the university, we selected the first question that asked, How can we improve the internationalisation of teaching, learning and assessment at Monash? Although it is acknowledged that academics have a nostalgia for what is thought to have been lost (see Ylijoki, 2000; Commentaries, AUR, 2001), internationalisation has created significant changes to the teaching and learning environment. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine any academic staff member in Australia who has not had to reconceptualise their learning environment as one that increasingly contains an international student body with an at times bewildering range of differing needs, experiences and abilities. While the responses to the question have been broadly summarised to cover issues across the areas of language support for students (18%); internationalisation of the curriculum (10%); expanding opportunities and funding for staff exchange across campuses (6.0%); assisting the social adjustment of international students (4.7%); and defining the meaning of internationalisation (4.7%) (see the Summary of the Self Review), our analysis is more fine-grained. Our intention is to examine the ways in which staff frame these issues in terms of their personal engagement with, and commitment to, the internationalisation process and the values that support the process. For example, conscious that commitment is both affective and behavioural, we have looked for expressions of the internalisation of the values that support internationalisation and evidence of taking personal responsibility for internationalisation in their everyday activities as an indication of engagement and commitment. Perhaps the most striking feature of the 150 responses provided to this question was the interpretation by all but a handful, of the word “we”. For most respondents, “we” did not resonate as a statement of shared responsibility and action. On the contrary, in responding to the question of how we can improve, staff offered suggestions of what the University could do to improve the internationalisation of teaching, learning and assessment. Return to the summary of the issues detailed in the previous paragraph. Perhaps apart from those who cited internationalisation of the curriculum, all other categories of issues are clearly predicated on the notion that it is ‘the University’ that is responsible for any desired improvements. Thus the respondents’ comments include, “provide facilities that are equal to, if not the best, that the University has”, “provide more flexibility and freedom to staff”, “provide more staff resources”, “provide better service and administration”, “provide more support for international students”, “provide staff training”. Explicit in these requests is that it is the University’s responsibility to make these provisions. Similarly, particular suggestions such as “improve staff development”, “bring in staff from overseas”, “continue current policy development”, “hire more staff”, “improve academic standards of overseas students” and

115



“make the paperwork easier” offer additional flavour of the way in which the question was framed by the respondents. For some other respondents, the “we” was particularised to mean the School or Faculty or campus in which they were located. In this instance, comments included, “this should be driven from School level”, “strengthen the studies areas in Arts”, “faculties need to be encouraged to create knowledge specific to their circumstances”, “Australian staff should be sent to South Africa so that they can obtain an understanding of what are the internationalisation issues” and finally, “we need to ensure overseas personnel are sent to Australia for cultural assimilation into the ‘Monash way’ thus ensuring our standards, and way of doing things are transferred effectively abroad”. Although the responsibility is less generically ‘the University’, such comments nonetheless indicate the delegation of responsibility from the individual staff member to an external authority. Nowhere in these selected comments is any hint of staff commitment to change their behaviours to improve the experience of internationalisation. Although the picture to this point is quite gloomy in terms of staff engagement with internationalisation, there are nevertheless a few instances of staff who did indicate willingness and desire to take responsibility for the quality of internationalisation. Examples of this perspective include such comments as “The IT Faculty does teach internationally. Teaching material is internationalised in that no insensitive material is contained within”, “each lecturer needs to be made responsible for all activities relating to his/her teaching”, and the final comment that argued, “[we] need to address issues of diversity and inclusiveness in our curriculum – at this stage, it is too Western-centric in its orientation”. 6.

Conclusion

From this brief analysis of the responses of the Monash University International Self Review Survey, it appears that those who responded are generally aware of the importance of quality and internationalisation to the University’s key strategies. Indeed the results from the Review indicated Monash University is a very active participant in internationalisation. Nevertheless, there is also evidence that amongst staff is a disturbing unwillingness to commit to the formally articulated values and practices disseminated by the University as necessary to achieve quality internationalisation outcomes. In concluding, we would thus argue that the University needs to reconceptualise their approach to internationalisation as an issue best addressed by strategies found within change management and human resources management. Initiatives are needed to engender commitment best achieved by employee participation, innovation and empowerment (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999; Legge, 2005). It is only then, we argue, that there is any possibility that staff will make a commitment to, and take responsibility for, the provision of a sustained quality programme of internationalisation. Reference Armenakis, A., & Bedeian, A. (1999). Organizational change: A review of theory and research in the 1990s. Journal of Management. 25, 293-315. Commentaries: “The Golden Age”. Australian Universities Review, 44 (1&2), 2-4. De Cieri, H., Kramer, R., Noe, R., Hollenbeck, J., Gerhart, B., & Wright, P. (2003). Human resource management in Australia: Strategy, people, performance. Sydney: McGraw Hill Australia. Guest, D. (1987). Human resource management and industrial relations. Journal of Management Studies, 24, 503-21. Harman, G. (2005). Internationalization of Australian higher education: A critical review of literature and research. In P. Ninnes & M. Hellstén (Eds.). Internationalizing higher education: Critical explorations of pedagogy and policy (pp. 119-140). Hong Kong: Springer. Judson, A. (1991). Changing behaviour in organizations: Minimizing resistance to change. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.

116



Legge, K. (2005). Human resource management: Rhetorics and realities anniversary edition. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. McBurnie, G. (1999). Integrating the IQRP in the strategic plan Monash University, Australia. In H. de Wit & J. Knight (Eds.). Quality and Internationalisation in Higher Education. Paris: OECD. pp. 139-160. Monash University. (1999). Leading the Way – Monash 2020. Retrieved March 10, 2005, from http://www.monash.edu.au/monashplan/plan99/ Monash University. (2001). Quality at Monash: Values and principles. Retrieved March 10, 2005, from http://www.adm.monash.edu/cheq/documents/Quality%20at%20Monash%20%20Values%20and%20Principles Owlia, M., & Aspinwall, E. (1997). TQM in higher education- A review. International Journal of Quality and Reliability. 14, 527-538. Schapper, J., & Mayson, S. (2004). Internationalisation of curricula: An alternative to the Taylorisation of academic work. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 26, 189-206. Storey, D. (1992). Developments in the management of human resources. Oxford: Blackwell. Waddell, D., Cummings, T., & Worley, C. (2000). Organisation development and change. Pacific Rim Edition. South Melbourne: Nelson Thomson Learning. Welch, A., & Denman, B. (1997). Internationalisation of higher education: Retrospect and prospect. Forum of Education. 52, 14-29. Woodhouse, D. (1999). Quality and quality assurance. In H. de Wit & J. Knight (Eds.). Quality and Internationalisation in Higher Education. Paris, France: OECD. pp. 29-44. Ylijoki, O-H. (2000). Academic nostalgia – A narrative approach to academic work. Unpublished paper delivered at the 16th EGOS Colloquium, Helsinki, 2-4 July.

117



Community Partnership: UniSA Whyalla Campus and the Whyalla Counselling Service Tricia Munn Social Work and Social Policy, University of South Australia Whyalla Campus, SA 5608, Australia The Whyalla Counselling Service has been in existence for over 30 years, providing counselling, group work and other support to the community of Whyalla. During this time, governance of the organisation had been by an elected Board of Management, members of which had been drawn from the community. In recent years it had become increasingly difficult to attract Board members due in part to the amount of work being on the Board generated, the perceived lack of necessary skills to be part of such a Board as well as the Board members’ concerns around their personal liability and accountability. Given this situation, the patron of the service, Ms Lyn Breuer (Local State Labor Member of Parliament), suggested the service would be better served if the management transferred to the University of South Australia under the direction of Tricia Munn, Head of Discipline Social Work and Social Policy. This paper discusses the relationship between the Whyalla Counselling Service and the University whereby the service manager manages the day to day issues whilst the University provides financial, HR, OHS&W and supervisory management. The positives and negatives of such a move and its links with the University of South Australia’s mandate towards regional and community engagement will also discussed. Both federal and state funding bodies have expressed interest in this new initiative and are viewing it as a possible solution for a number of rural community services whose Boards of Management are unable to meet the managerial demands required of them. 1.

Introduction

The University of South Australia (UniSA) Whyalla Campus was approached by the Whyalla Counselling Service (WCS) Board of Management to take over the management of the service. This paper discusses the positives and negatives of such a move. The Whyalla Counselling Service has been in existence for over 30 years, providing counselling and other support to the community of Whyalla. During this period, governance of the organisation had been by an elected Board of Management, members of which have been drawn from the community. In recent years it had become more and more difficult to attract Board members due in part to the amount of work being on such a board generated, as well as the growing concerns around accountability. Given this situation, the Patron of the service, Ms Lyn Breuer (Local State Labor Member of Parliament), suggested the service would be better served if its management transferred to the University. Ms Breuer said she believed the days of voluntary Boards of Management were numbered due to a number of factors such as the most suitable members were often the busiest and unable to make the time commitment. In her opinion, the campus had staff who had both the qualifications and the practice wisdom to manage the service well. 2.

Issues and Challenges

Before accepting responsibility for the Whyalla Counselling Service, a number of issues needed to be discussed. Would the WCS UniSA take over the management of the Whyalla Counselling Service by subsuming it under the university umbrella? Would the agency remain onsite and would staff remain employees of the WCS or would they become UniSA employees? The issue was raised of the University being seen to be in competition with other human service organisations and how this would impact upon its relationship with these services. It was also recognised that from a University perspective, there needed to be a relationship with the agency which ‘fitted’ with the University’s core business, that of research and education. The structure of the organisation also gave rise to concerns as some of the staff employed as counsellors had no formal qualification. In addition to this staff members were appointed to a particular funded program which meant that some workers were extremely busy whilst others were

118



waiting for suitable clients to engage with the service. Administrative support was also poorly managed and the service had the ludicrous situation of having four staff job-sharing a .5 admin position. This meant the structure of the organisation needed to be changed. Adding to the problem was the fact that the organisation was, at the time, unconstitutional. 3.

Responding to the Challenges

The issue as to whether the WCS would stay as an incorporated body was solved by default when the federal funding body explained that for the service to retain its current funding it needed to remain an incorporated body. Hence it was decided it would be more appropriate for the service to subcontract management to UniSA. As a result of the ensuing discussions, the Whyalla Campus now has a contractual arrangement with the Whyalla Counselling Service to manage the service. This became effective as of 12 July, 2004. UniSA appointed a Project Director (currently the author of this article) and a Public Officer of the organisation. The University performs all of the financial, human resource and service delivery management. The management of the University has agreed to not charge the normal 22% but instead it will be 12.5%. This will recompense the campus for the Project Director and the financial manager’s time. There is an onsite manager, supervised by the Project Director, who manages the day to day workings of the organisation. The constitution of the service was changed to reflect the new management structure. Rather than Board members being individuals, five agencies agreed to be part-representatives. The agencies are: Children, Youth and Family Services; the Whyalla Hospital and Health Services; the Whyalla City Council; the South Australian Housing Trust; and Nunyarra Wellbeing Centre, a local Indigenous service. The University of South Australia has an ex-officio, non-voting role. The role of the Board is now just that of governance. They meet quarterly to receive and review the reports developed by the Project Director, Finance and Human Resource Manager and the Service Manager. They have no input into the day to day operations except as an advisory role. The service remained in the same location as these premises were newly furbished and met the needs of both staff and clients. It is located in an area which makes for easy access for clients, being near bus routes in a housing trust estate. To fit with the new constitution and in order for the Whyalla Counselling Service to effectively and efficiently provide services to the community of Whyalla, it was decided that a total restructure of the organisation was required. Workers would no longer be program specific but would be employed to work across all the programs. Given this, new position descriptions and job and person specifications were written, and staff informed that current positions would no longer be required. As a result, new qualified staff and one administrative officer were appointed. The Project Director also ensured appropriate policies and procedures were in place and that the approval requirements of the funding bodies were adhered to. In order to minimise the potential rift between the University and other human service organisations in the region due to fears of the campus competing for funds, the Project Director contacted all of the agencies assuring them of the willingness of the campus to partner with organisations in their endeavours to ensure people who live and work in rural and remote areas are provided with the services they require. In addition to this, an offer to provide mentoring, supervision, training, research and support to human service organisations was also made. As a result there are currently a number of potential partnerships under discussion. 4.

Reciprocal Benefits to UniSA and the WCS

Not only does this new structure improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the agency it also reflects that which is seen to be best practice in rural areas. In order to ensure overall good practice, agencies need to have in place the quality standard requirements of federally funded services. This ensures consistency in the way services are offered and staff who work across programs are also fully aware of the minimum standards of service (which are the approval standards) and the particulars of the individual service agreements. A number of rural agencies offer multiple services, the WCS included. Wherever possible,

119



whilst staff may be employed to work in specific program they are to be encouraged to work across a number of areas (Munn, 2002). This ensures that some staff are not busy chasing their tails whilst others are sitting around waiting for the next client to phone in. This also ensures staff have a generalist experience, whilst also having the opportunity to specialise in certain fields. In a research study in 2000, Lonne and Cheers recognised if rural workers were provided with more useful administrative supervision and better training opportunities as well as regular reviews of the worker’s well-being, increased retention of rural workers could occur. “Premature departure could be reduced through enhanced employer supports” (Lonne & Cheers 2000, p. 170). To this end all staff at the WCS have regular structured supervision and a current professional development plan in place. Overall, enhanced retention was most likely to be achieved by those in generalist positions, with good employer supports and those who were able to embed themselves and their practice within the fabric of their community, resulting in a good balance between community involvement, visibility and privacy (Lonne & Cheers, 2002; Munn, 2002; Munn, 2003). Managing the Whyalla Counselling Service fits with the University of South Australia’s thrust towards regional and community engagement. By showing a willingness to assist organisations throughout the region, the reputation of the campus in terms of community involvement is enhanced. The recent renaming of the position of Dean of Whyalla Campus to incorporate Director of Regional Engagement is an acknowledgement by the University of South Australia of its commitment to strengthen its education, research and community links with regional South Australia. In a media release in September 2004, Acting Dean of the Whyalla campus, Associate Professor Vicary, stated “UniSA is the largest of the universities in South Australia, and is committed to the values of social justice and to the economic well being of the state of South Australia” (Vicary, 2004). Vicary said he was continuing to extend the engagement of the University with TAFE, industry groups, professional associations and other community groups in South Australia and nationally… as well as collaborating with colleagues across the University to achieve the goals of the (new) position. Speaking at the launch of the UniSA campus in Mount Gambier, the Vice-Chancellor of UniSA, Professor Bradley, said the development of UniSA’s regional presence and the future success of higher education in the region would rely on the quality and strength of the key relationships in the region. At the same event, Director of Regional Engagement Professor Pullin said UniSA would be looking to extend its activities in the region to encompass research activities and greater community engagement with schools, community groups, business and industry organisations. “We look forward to engaging with the community to help it become increasingly sustainable and capable of fulfilling the goals and aspirations of its people,” he said. 5.

Partnerships between Universities and Industry

Whilst innovative, the University’s contractual arrangement with the WCS is not unique. The School of Social Work at the Australian Catholic University has a partnership with Centrelink’s National Social Work’s Services Team (Camilleri & Humphries, 2005). The benefits of such partnerships include research possibilities and career opportunities for students (Harman, 2001). UniSA has developed a student unit at the WCS and places both 3rd and 4th year social work students there to fulfil their field education placement requirements. It is hoped that business and nursing students might also utilise the student unit in the near future. Both federal and state funding bodies have expressed interest in this new initiative and are viewing it as a possible solution for a number of rural community services whose Boards of Management are unable to meet the managerial demands required of them. Given this, the Project Director and Service Manager are recording how the policies, procedures and protocols were established and how successful their implementation has been. It is envisaged this study will be completed at the end of the first 12 months of operation with documentation forwarded to the funding bodies as well as articles developed for publication.

120


6.


Conclusion

In conclusion, whilst still in its infancy, the contractual arrangement the University has with the WCS appears to be working well. From the perspective of the agency, service usage has increased in the last six months as have the number of referrals from other human service organisations. From this one can assume the service is regaining its credibility which was lost due to poor management practices prior to the involvement of the University. The agency now has a strategic direction and policies and procedures in place which support the staff and guide service delivery. From the University’s point of view, as well as proving opportunities for research, consultancies and field education, managing the WCS has in a sense operationalised its thrust towards regional engagement and community participation. The reputation of the campus has also been enhanced through its willingness to support organisations in the region. Providing academics with opportunities to be involved in clinical practice as well as clinical research is an added benefit. It is also intended that this partnership might serve as a useful model for other universities considering establishing partnerships with industry. References Lonne, B. & Cheers, B. (2000). Keeping human service professionals in the bush, in Constructing Alliances across Rural Communities Conference Proceedings. P. Munn & J. Farrin (Eds.), 163-171. Munn, P. & Jeffreys, H. (2000). Rural social work, Study guide. Whyalla: University of South Australia. Munn, P. (2002). Service coordination in rural South Australia, unpublished PhD thesis. Munn, T. (2002). Best practice in rural areas, unpublished paper. Munn, T., & Munn, P. (2002). Rural practice- A guide for newly qualified social workers moving into rural communities, unpublished paper.

121



Reflections on Self-Assessment Nicolene Murdoch Quality Assurance and Accreditation, Monash University, South Africa Quality assurance in higher education is becoming increasingly important for all institutions, not only in South Africa, but all over the world. It is not only an institution’s responsibility to maintain and improve internal quality and exhibit public accountability, but it is evident that it is also on the agenda of various national bodies. One of the distinct features that will elevate one institution above the rest is by marketing and delivering excellent programmes and courses. To enhance the quality of programmes, self-assessment can prove to be an extremely valuable tool. Unfortunately, however, the self-assessment and peer review process is not without controversy and debate. Academics respond to this process in different ways, and many feel that it infringes on their academic freedom. The paper discloses some findings, based upon a qualitative study conducted at a South African university, which explored the experiences of academic staff who participated in the selfassessment process. The study found that most lecturers realise the value of, and need for, such an exercise, but there are a number of internal and external influences that can hinder the process. The academics also considered it to be a time-consuming exercise, and expressed the need for clearly defined and communicated goals, a well-developed selfassessment instrument and commitment from academic leaders. 1.

Introduction

Quality assurance in higher education is becoming increasingly important for all institutions, not only in South Africa, but all over the world. It is not only an institution’s responsibility to maintain and improve internal quality and exhibit public accountability, but it is evident that it is also on the agenda of various national bodies. One of the distinct features that will elevate one institution above the rest is by marketing and delivering excellent programmes and courses. To enhance the quality of programmes, self-assessment can prove to be an extremely valuable tool. This involves critically scrutinising programmes and outputs, assessing the satisfaction of its stakeholders and taking corrective actions. The self-assessment and peer review process is however not without controversy and debate. The internal community engaged in this process experience it in different ways, and often feels it infringes on academic freedom. Due to these negative perceptions, it is necessary to present and introduce selfassessment in a positive light. Academic staff should realise that the exercise will not only result in personal self-improvement, but also elevate the standards of the institution. The challenge is to change mindsets and misconceptions about quality related activities in higher education; even more importantly, to view the inevitable change as an opportunity and not a threat. 2.

Methodology

The aim of the inquiry was to determine and understand how academics experience the self-assessment and peer-review process. In determining experiences of the participants, the researcher, as well as the participants, played an active role in constructing the reality regarding a specific exercise or intervention (Guba & Lincoln, 1989, p. 84). Thus, it can be postulated, that a constructivist paradigm informed this research inquiry. There will necessarily be differences in experiences amongst the participants. Consequently, qualitative methods of inquiry were utilised, as these are preferred methods within such a constructivist paradigm. Academic staff members involved in self-assessment and peer review processes were selected purposefully, to ensure a variety within the sample (Maykut & Morehouse, 1994, p. 45). Since this was a qualitative study, it followed logically that qualitative methods of data collection were employed. The

122



main method of data collection involved in-depth interviews with participants and, to a lesser degree, participant observation. The observations were done during the preliminary discussions, preparations and information sessions, and during the peer review itself. The study also included an extensive document analysis of both the self-assessment and peer review reports, but due to length constraints, those findings were not included in this paper. 3.

Data Analysis and Presentation

De Vos (1998, p. 336) states that analysis is “a reasoning strategy with the objective of taking a complex whole and resolving it into its parts.” It is the process of organising the data into more manageable categories. Merriam (1998, pp. 178-179) explains the level of analysis as “data (that) are compressed and linked together in a narrative that conveys the meaning the research has derived from studying the phenomenon.” The interviews were all recorded and transcribed verbatim by myself for the purpose of analysis. In total, 16 interviews were conducted. These transcripts were analysed by means of the constant comparative method of data analysis (as discussed by Maykut & Morehouse, 1994, pp. 126-144). This method consists of a “continuous developing process” (De Vos, 1998, p. 339) of comparing incidents and searching for recurring themes and patterns (Merriam, 1998, p.159). 4.

Discussion of Findings

The following indicate the final categories that stemmed from the analysis: 4.1

Visible support from management

There were uncertainties regarding the support and commitment of management and therefore the longterm success of self-assessment exercises in general. This does not only include moral support, but also practical, visible, monetary and infrastructural support. Lewis and Smith (1994, p. 285) are of the opinion that any quality initiative can only succeed if there is visible commitment from management. Management intentions are questioned in that they “should not support the activity to look good in government circles” and that it should not be seen as a control mechanism. They should show that they are serious about quality and commit themselves, not only in terms of verbal agreement, but also in terms of practical provision of essential resources. 4.2

Institutional culture

The respondents indicated that visible involvement of management is essential in creating an institutional culture for continuous improvement. This general creation of awareness will result in the necessary sensitivity that ultimately improves quality. Some disciplines are more open to a culture of improvement, especially where they have been exposed to accreditation of professional bodies on a regular basis. The respondents realise that the creation of a continuously improvement culture is a long-term process. Kells (1995:24) supports this view by explaining that “building the culture will take time and, of course, much progress can be achieved through a good experience with a self-evaluation process.” 4.3

Influence of contextual factors

The respondents were of the opinion that contextual factors and influences must be understood and analysed to ensure meaningful participation. They mentioned “we must be aware of national developments” and “internally, changes and happenings should be communicated”. They feel there should not only be an internal consciousness of the organisational environment, but also an awareness of the larger context regarding governmental and international trends (Lewis & Smith, 1994, p. 2). A distinction can be made between internal and external factors influencing self-evaluation: •

Internal Factors

Each and every institution should take responsibility for quality in its own environment and context. Knowledge of the organisational context includes the internal relationship between departments and

123



faculties, making comparisons and encouraging openness. Issues like internal restructuring and reformations affect the success and feasibility of self-assessment. In terms of the internal context, the participants experience the dedication and commitment of coacademics as problematic. If staff members could not see the personal benefit of the exercise, they did not do anything before some concrete contribution was expected of them. Respondents felt that “people’s hearts weren’t always in it” and “they didn’t go the full nine yards.” Another problem was a degree of dishonesty regarding the personal information provided, which impacted on the accuracy of the report. Some individuals felt they had to protect themselves and therefore did not disclose certain information. Kells (1995, p. 30) is of the opinion that “self-evaluation has often been seen to improve communication patterns, trust, listening, and group functioning in facing and solving problems.” Insufficient provision and lack of reliable data was a foreseen problem within the internal context of the institution and was confirmed by the research results. Kells (1995, p. 4) postulates that this is an international problem by claiming that, in general, the infrastructure needed to support planning, decisionmaking, self-evaluation and regulatory activities, is weak. •

External Factors

Kells (1995, p. 6) is of the opinion that institutions venturing into self-assessment are not only internally affected, but also by circumstances and aspects beyond its own organisational borders. The relevance of self-assessment against external changes and restructuring are always in question, but inaction will also not be beneficial to the institution. Some departments are used to being accredited by, and adhering to, requirements of external bodies and professional councils within the broader external context, they mentioned that “we are used to this, we’ve been doing it for years” and “for us, this is nothing new.” 4.4.

Clarity of outcomes, goals and importance of self-assessment

It was evident that the participants realise the importance, need and value of self-assessment. Pekar (1995, p. 38) supports this view by saying that “everyone can benefit from such an exercise because no one can ignore themselves.” The respondents indicated that in most cases they were aware of the problem areas, and that the self-assessment provided a medium to communicate the realistic or real state of affairs. Academics generally agreed that we should have started walking this road a long time ago, and that it is no longer a question of if we should, but when and how we should embark on self-assessment and peer review. All the staff that was involved in the process of self-assessment responded that although it is an extensive exercise, they were always glad that they had engaged in it. The respondents felt that the goals and expectations of the exercise were not clear and communicated thoroughly. Kells (1995, p. 30) explains that it is difficult to align “staff members’ perceptions of the purposes, structure and activity of self-evaluation.” It definitely emphasised the importance of stressing the improvement goal of self-evaluation, and not just as part of or preparation for governmental or external initiatives. Some colleagues still see quality assurance, and specifically self-assessment, as a bureaucratic action, and an inhibiter of academic freedom. They realise that for lots of people “academia is a refuge” and safe haven. Again, some of the respondents felt that academic freedom is often misused as an excuse. The respondents often felt that as academics, they have certain personality characteristics and foster a philosophy to achieve high standards. They also claimed that all academics should have the knowledge, skills and attitudes to adapt to changing environment. The outcome of self-assessment consists of a report as product. The consequences and results of this report are of crucial importance for the success of the exercise. According to a participant, it should not be an “action the department has to go through just to put a document on the table, to get the job done, to continue with their normal processed”. The main concern regarding the report was whether the advantages and value of producing such a report would filter through to everyone.

124


4.5


Peer review

The importance of the appointing objective panel members for the peer review became evident during the interviews. Some of the internal staff were irritated with panel members only sharing their own experiences. It was also felt that they needed more time for the actual on-site peer review. In some instances, very limited time was available for the panel members to scrutinise additional documentation. A briefing or orientation session for the panel members was also recommended. 4.6

Provision of an assessment design

An instrument was provided to guide and structure the self-assessment process. The instrument provided flexibility, serving only as a guideline and allowing it to be adapted to departmental needs. The respondents all felt that the instrument that was provided in the form of a “manual” was suitable. They found it to be useful, because it “forces you to think more widely.” 4.7

Role of the quality office/unit

The importance of the role and responsibilities of the quality unit or office were discussed during the interviews. It is expected that they should facilitate and coordinate the process and provide guidelines and support. It was recommended that this should be done by means of regular contact and communication with the departments involved in the self-assessment exercise. The academics were extremely grateful that the quality office took care of the logistical arrangements. A lack of capacity within this unit did however implicate that they could not provide sufficient administrative support. 5.

Recommendations

In light of the findings of the study, it is suggested that the following recommendations could be implemented to ensure a more effective process and to create a more positive experience for selfassessment. Furthermore, it would also be meaningful for quality assurance managers within higher education engaging in self-assessment to improve the existing process.

6.

•

The goals, purpose and outcomes of self-evaluation should be determined and communicated to all involved parties.

•

Mechanisms should be put in place to address issues and recommendations stemming from the self-evaluation report, as well as follow-up procedures and activities.

•

Internal and external contextual factors should be taken into account when planning and conducting self-evaluation.

•

Review panels should be carefully composed and prepared for their task.

•

A culture of continuous improvement should be created.

•

Guidelines should be provided, but with the option for adoption and development.

•

The establishment or formalising the role and responsibilities of a unit for quality assurance, to steer the self-evaluation process. Conclusion

It is evident from the study that self-evaluation should be presented in a positive light to make academic staff realise that is does not only add value to their personal work performance, but also has a ripple effect within the broader institution. It results in improved standards within the department, and ultimately the institution. Thus, the improvement will be evident, firstly, on an individual level. The individual will be able to present higher quality programmes, in terms of content and coordination with other programmes. This increased confidence of academic staff members will influence the functioning on departmental level. Departments will be efficient and optimally utilising resources, both human and otherwise. Lastly,

125



this will have a ripple effect on the high standards offered by an institution. The institution would be known as being committed to continuous improvement. References De Vos, A.S. (1998). Research at grass roots: A primer for caring professions. Pretoria: Van Schaik. Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, London: Sage Publications. Kells, H.R. (1995). Self-study processes: A guide to self-evaluation in higher education. Washington, D.C.: ORYX Press. Lewis, R.G., & Smith, D.H. (1994). Total quality in higher education. Florida: St. Lucie Press. Maykut, P., & Morehouse, R. (1994). Beginning qualitative research. A philosophic and practical guide. London, Washington, DC: The Falmer Press. Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Pekar, J.P. (1995). Total quality management: Guiding principles for application. Philadelphia: American society for testing and materials.

126



Quality and Evaluation: A Universal System for a Quality Outcome Chenicheri Sid Nair a and Chris Wayland b a

Centre for Higher Education Quality, Monash University, Vic 3800, Australia b

nLIVEn Pty Ltd, Vic 3124, Australia

This paper examines how a large research-intensive University and highly internationalised institution that is home to more than 55,000 students from over 100 countries has gone about changing business practices and thinking by implementing a new Survey Management System for the evaluation of units which over time will be applied to all other surveys at the University that are conducted by the Centre for Higher Education Quality (CHEQ). The system that has been employed at the central level was developed in the early 1990s and was a limited application, which dealt with only teaching and unit evaluation of a generic nature but was too limited to apply for University wide surveys. The project to implement a University wide system was conceived primarily to provide greater access to meaningful global data in a central location, which allows for more detailed analysis, in turn informing the University community about what may be improved in the services it offers its customers – the Students. The importance of evaluation and quality is symbiotic where there is an effective and efficient way to gather data to affect sustainable change. 1.

Background

Monash University is a research-intensive and highly internationalised institution that is home to more than 55,000 students from over 100 countries. The University has six Australian campuses, two international campuses in Malaysia and South Africa, and numerous international partners. This paper examines how the University has gone about changing business practices and thinking by implementing a new Survey Management System for the Evaluation of Units which over time will be applied to all other surveys at the University that are conducted by the Centre for Higher Education Quality (CHEQ). The system that has been employed at the central level was developed in the early 1990s and was limited in application to only teaching and unit evaluation of a generic nature but was too limited to apply for University wide surveys. The project to implement a University wide system was conceived primarily to provide greater access to meaningful global data in a central location, which allows for more detailed analysis, in turn informing the University community about what may be improved in the services it offers its customers – the Students. This is in line with research which has over the years recognised that the higher education industry is a service industry and has to revaluate the approach in the industry by placing greater emphasis on meeting the expectations and needs of customers, students (Cheng & Tam, 1997; Griffin, Coates, Mcinnis & James, 2003; Lee, Jolly, Kench, & Gelonesi, 2000; Nair & Blackwell, 2005). Further, the importance of Unit Evaluation is integral to the quality cycle and has been highlighted at Monash University in many forums, the self-review and various committees and groups. The self-review document “Still Learning: The Report on our Self Review” highlighted the need for a systematic way of evaluating units and the implementation of the university wide unit evaluation policy. The Senior Planning Meeting earlier this year, along with the Vice-Chancellor’s Group and the Committee of Deans have all confirmed the importance of completing the comprehensive application of unit evaluation policy across the University this year. The forthcoming AUQA audit, as well as the Learning and Teaching Performance Fund ($250 million over 3 years, 2006-2008) which rewards institutions which best demonstrate excellence in teaching and learning, not only underlines the importance of this task, but the

127



critical need for the supporting IT infrastructure necessary to provide the proper levels of information to all faculties for the monitoring and improvement of courses at Monash University. 2.

Approach

The methodology employed in the execution of this central project has been based around the Monash Planning and Review Cycle (Leading the Way. Monash 2020, p. 18 and Leading the Way The Monash Plan 1999-2003, p. 47) which explicitly recognises the cyclical nature of planning, implementation, performance assessment, review, revision and updating. A generic version of these processes is described by the notion of the Monash quality cycle, which encompasses the aspects Plan–Act–Evaluate–Improve. Plan: In the planning cycle, a need for such a system was recognised by the University and the vital need of data to make informed changes. To this effect, a University wide steering group was established which investigated the feasibility of such a process and appropriate product choice and system design. Act: The quality cycle defines this aspect to include “all the intentional activities that are undertaken to meet objectives, implement plans and produce outcomes.” In this aspect, numerous steps were taken and these are summarised in Table 1. Table 1: Actions Taken Under the Act Component of the Cycle Actions

Description

Product Reviews

Reviewed all potential software applications

Current Business Process

Documentation of current business process followed with the legacy system

Business Process Redesign

Designed the ideal business process

Consultation with all Stakeholders

Met with each stakeholder and explained how the system would work from both the business and IT perspectives and got feedback on each which was incorporated into the final process

Product Selection

Chose the product which best met the business requirements

Reporting Design

Gathered report requirements from all stakeholders

Technical Analysis

Analysis of technical solution most appropriate for implementation within Monash Infrastructure

Technical Design

Design of the system inclusive of detailed Functional Requirements

Technical Implementation

Development of front and back end components to support the application and process

Change Management – Business Communication and Education Process

Communication of timelines and requirements to stakeholders and the successful implementation of the system

Training

Staff trained in use of the application

Rollout

The designing, delivering and processing of surveys

Evaluation and Improvement: of the systems and processes will be an integral part of the post implementation phase over the coming 12 months in order to gauge how well the system is serving the needs and meeting the expectations of the university community (see section on the future later in this paper). 3.

Benefits

The implementation of the new unit evaluation system at Monash University has a number of benefits both short and longer term. First, the replacement of the existing legacy survey scanning system with a

128



modern up-to-date state of the art scanning system and software allows for a new level of efficiency, productivity and reliability of service. It will mark a new era in the University, which will allow both paper based and online surveys for all units to be processed and captured in a common database for the first time. Second, the introduction of such a system will result in the capability and ability to process large volumes of survey responses within a short turnaround time. In this case the volume is expected to be nearly four times greater than what has been previously handled at a central level. Third, the system will store the data collected in any survey both paper and online in a single location allowing improved access to results and more efficient use of staff time in their analysis which will facilitate improved accessibility to all stakeholders through multiple modes of data gathering not currently employed in a coordinated way. Other tangible benefits that are associated with this implementation are the reduced costs of survey development and processing due to the centralisation of survey services, leading to improved data quality and coordination of the unit evaluation process. A clear benefit of having the new processes housed in a central location, the Centre for Higher Education Quality (CHEQ) with centralised analysis service will be the additional credibility, validation and reliability of the data gathered and results reported as the authoritative source for a global University such as Monash. A further advantage is the ability to benchmark internally which was previously less accessible in the past. For example, there is the ability of units to be benchmarked against other units, the department in which they are offered, the faculty in which they are offered, the other faculties and the university as a whole. Finally, one element that is crucial to all surveys is the ability to turn around surveys results in a short period of time. This feature will be significantly enhanced by this new system. It is estimated that the turnaround time just for unit evaluations will be reduced by almost 200%. 4.

Outcomes

The key outcomes of this project will be an exciting step forward for Monash University because the new system and redesigned business processes will change and streamline the existing processes to effectively deliver a more efficient and credible evaluation system. The development of thorough documentation and re-engineering of the business processes administered by a central body will incorporate further efficiencies and certainty, which has not existed in the past in gathering information about the quality of units offered at Monash University. Implementing a new and improved technology solution which replaces legacy software and hardware which is not sustainable, will not only reduce the risk of equipment failure impacting upon the process of administering and processing the unit evaluation data but will also significantly enhance the reporting capabilities of the university by storing all data collected via both paper based and online surveys in a single database, enabling sustained improvements to be affected over time. The system will process an estimated 500,000 plus survey responses per annum once fully rolled out to include other surveys run by the university. From a policy perspective a major outcome will be that all units will now be evaluated at least once each year they are offered not once every 3-5 years as has been the case until this point in time; this will obviously strengthen the quality outcomes of the process. The real benefit to the University as a whole is that for the first time there will be a single system to design, manage, administer, process and provide individual unit and aggregated reporting no matter what

129



mode the survey is administered in and also allowing results to be easily published and distributed to enable improvement and meet legislative requirements for new sources of funding such as the learning and teaching performance fund. In the longer term, the new evaluation system will provide the capability to carry out all surveys in the University allowing a uniformity and new level of efficiency in the evaluation operations. 5.

The Future

This new system will be rolled out for all surveys conducted throughout the University from a central place – Centre for Higher Education Quality. This will ensure a new level of professionalism, quality and reporting capability not previously available to the University. Evaluation of the effectiveness of the implementation and the benefits of the project will be an integral part of the next 12 months as the system stabilises and starts to be rolled out for all surveys conducted by the Centre for Higher Education Quality. Finally, a program of improvement activities will be undertaken following an evaluation of the first year of operation of the system to ensure the best possible outcomes are achieved for the University. Clearly the direction to an effective quality system as embodied by the Monash Quality cycle is the effectiveness of the evaluation system that is employed at the institution. In this case, we have progressed in that we have engaged the system to move forward and divorced old processes, which did not give effective insights. Clearly the marriage of evaluations and quality is here to stay but most importantly at Monash it will be a universal system for producing quality outcomes reliably. References Cheng, Y. C., & Tam, M. M. (1997). Multi-models of quality in education. Quality Assurance in Education, 5, 22-31. Griffin, G., Coates, H., McInnis, C., & James, J. (2003). The development of an extended course experience questionnaire. Quality in Higher Education, 9(3), 259-266. Leading the Way. Monash 2020, p 18 and Leading the Way. The Monash Plan 1999-2003, p 47. Lee, G., Jolly, N., Kench, P., & Gelonesi, B. (2000). Factors related to student satisfaction with university. Paper presented at The Fourth Pacific Rim - First year in Higher Education Conference: Creating futures for a new millennium. Brisbane: Australia. Nair C.S., & Blackwell, M. (2005). Service level agreements and evaluations: A process to communicate evaluation outcomes. In Nair C.S. (Ed.) Communicating evaluation outcomes: Issues and approaches. 180-190.

130



“Relationships, Respect and Responsibility”: Cultural Safety and Ensuring Quality Curriculum for Indigenous Health in Medical Education Gregory Phillips Waanyi Aboriginal, CDAMS Indigenous Health Curriculum Project, The University of Melbourne, Vic 3010, Australia The Committee of Deans of Australian Medical Schools (CDAMS) have partnered with Indigenous community organisations and a range of medical, health and education stakeholders to initiate and develop a nationally agreed curriculum framework for the inclusion of Indigenous health in core medical education. The CDAMS Indigenous Health Curriculum Framework has received national endorsement by the accrediting body, the Australian Medical Council (AMC), and the Project is now concerned with quality implementation of the curriculum framework. This paper outlines the background to the Project, audit results, content of the curriculum framework, and suggests that the notion of cultural safety is critical to quality implementation of the curriculum framework. Cultural safety in this context is what Aunty Joan Hendricks, a respected Elder, refers to as “relationships, respect and responsibility”; that is relationships with Indigenous communities and groups, reflexivity and respect in considering issues of culture in medical curricula, and responsibility for institutional and structural reform. 1.

Background

In 2002, CDAMS partnered with the Federal health department to establish the CDAMS Indigenous Health Curriculum Project. The Project is hosted by the Onemda VicHealth Koori Health Unit at The University of Melbourne. The original Project objectives included: audit of existing Indigenous health content in medical schools; developing a national curriculum framework (Phillips, 2004a); developing a network of medical educators to sustain implementation; and seeking inclusion of the curriculum framework in the AMC’s Guidelines for Accreditation. The National Audit and Consultations Report (Phillips, 2004b) was completed in 2003, and a broad consultations process was undertaken in order to draft and finalise the curriculum framework. The CDAMS Indigenous Health Curriculum Framework has been endorsed by all Australian Deans of medicine and accepted for inclusion by the AMC in its Guidelines for Accreditation. Further, a national network of medical educators concerned with Indigenous health in medical curricula is in its formative stages. It is hoped the LIME Network (LIME stands for Leaders in Indigenous Medical Education) will be fully operational by the latter half of 2005. 2.

Audit Results

The National Audit Report found the following in relation to Indigenous health content: •

There was wide variation in the amount and nature of content – one school had just one hour in the whole course, yet two schools had it integrated into every area of the curriculum.

•

The definition of Indigenous health was erratic – some staff seemed to believe Indigenous health was not a part of ‘real medicine’, that ‘all the real Aborigines were in the Northern Territory’.

•

Indigenous health was taught mostly as discrete, elective content, or taught only in rural health rotations, even though the largest concentrations of Indigenous people live in western Sydney (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2001).

•

There was a range of cross-cultural awareness models; mostly informed by an ‘othering’ and potentially stigmatised approach.

131



•

Experiential learning was highly rated, and staff regularly reported that cultural immersion style programs and camps were often highly effective learning initiatives if planned well.

•

Coordination of Indigenous health curriculum content within schools was generally poor, and this often meant students were receiving six years of the same cultural awareness.

•

Student attitudes were either the greatest asset to medical schools or their greatest challenge – some schools reported students pro-actively lobbying for curriculum reform, while other schools reported students displayed negative attitudes. The ability for staff to successfully handle students’ and their own emotional reactions to Indigenous health has elsewhere been identified as a key learning strategy (Rasmussen, 2001).

In relation to the context within which Indigenous health was taught within medical schools: •

Principles and attitudes varied greatly among staff – some thought Indigenous health should only be only taught to those who wanted to work ‘in the bush’. Others recognised Indigenous health as integral to learning about issues of culture, access and public health more generally.

•

Partnerships and decision-making within the medical school were usually ineffective, meaning there was often no central structural role designated for the coordination, management and quality assurance of Indigenous health within the curriculum.

•

Resourcing and capacity within medical schools for Indigenous health was mostly ad hoc, relying on project funds only and/or staff with limited experience in the area. Staff with burning desires to include Indigenous health often felt isolated and unsupported by structures or management.

Having reported the key results of the national audit, the most refreshing and perhaps critical finding was that medical schools to their credit generally admitted they were not doing as well as they could, and resolved to do better given the high priority they placed on Indigenous health. 3.

Curriculum Framework

The CDAMS Indigenous Health Curriculum Framework is intended to be a set of guidelines for success for medical schools in developing and including Indigenous health in their curricula. The framework assumes Indigenous health should not be taught discretely, but rather, by integrating it into all areas of the curriculum. The framework also recommends that Indigenous health content should be assessed, thereby increasing in both students’ and teachers’ minds the importance of it to the curriculum. The curriculum framework sets out the following: •

guiding principles and rationale for including Indigenous health in core medical curricula

•

suggested subject areas and key student attributes

•

ten key pedagogical principles which enunciate the basic approaches most likely to produce successful content and contexts for quality learning

•

delivery and assessment guidelines

•

suggested processes for curriculum development over time

•

suggested resources and capacity most likely to produce success.

The AMC’s endorsement of the curriculum framework means all Australian medical schools will now be asked to report on their implementation of the curriculum framework as part of their regular accreditation requirements.

132


4.


Challenge

When the Project was commenced, senior curriculum planners noted the need to ensure the curriculum framework did not become a report that sat on a shelf and gathered dust. How would the Project ensure Indigenous health did not get lost in these competing pressures and rely merely on individual goodwill without the institutional support to ensure its quality implementation? During the audit, many medical school staff reported that there would be only three things that made medical schools jump: accreditation, people and funding. Accreditation and the LIME Network will help implementation, but is this enough? Phase II is concerned with supporting medical schools in the quality implementation, monitoring and sustainability of the curriculum framework. 5.

Cultural Safety and Ensuring Quality Implementation

One of the Project’s suggestions to medical schools is that to ensure quality implementation of the curriculum framework, they should consider moving from models of cultural awareness to models of cultural safety. Cultural safety as a term first gained currency when Irihapeti Ramsden and other Maori in New Zealand first started lobbying for nursing curriculum reform (Ramsden, 1990). Similarly, groundbreaking work was carried out in Australia with the following definition identified: Cultural safety… is the need to be recognised within the health care system and to be assured that the system reflects something of you – of your culture, your language, your customs, attitudes, beliefs and preferred ways of doing things. (Eckermann et al, 1992, p. 215)

Melanie Tervalon (2003) in the United States has used terminology of cultural security and cultural competence to describe issues of culture in health professional education. Wilson and Wilson (1998) in Canada have used the term cultural congruence to describe similar phenomena. While there are slightly varying terminology and meanings for issues of culture in health professional education, this paper and Project defines and uses the notions of culture in the following ways. Cultural awareness is teaching ‘them about us’ – that is, in this context, cultural awareness is about Indigenous Australians teaching non-Indigenous Australians about Indigenous Australians and our cultures and experiences. While this is not such a bad thing, it runs the risk of ‘othering’ Indigenous peoples (Morrison, 1992; Moreton-Robinson, 2000) and potentially stigmatizing Indigenous health within the curriculum. Further, given that Indigenous Australians are not homogeneous (Blake, 1991; Tindale, 1940), and that there are a variety of historical and social differences among Indigenous Australians, it makes no sense to try and teach all there is to know about any one cultural grouping. Cultural safety, however, assumes three important things that can help overcome this apparent problem. 6.

Relationships

Firstly, cultural safety and quality implementation of Indigenous health curriculum in medicine will require lasting, respectful and genuine partnerships with local Indigenous communities and groups. While it may seem that the needs, realities and operations of medical schools and Aboriginal medical services, for example, are far too different, there are very good examples of effective and mutually respectful relationships producing excellent outcomes for both parties. Relationships of this nature will require putting energy and thought into: •

taking the necessary time to develop trust

•

acknowledging history, country and the traditional owners

•

empowering and valuing the medical school’s Indigenous health staff to guide it in this process

•

being flexible in terms of time frames and outcomes.

133



Potential outcomes of such a process may be:

7.

•

genuine respect for each other’s cultural views of medicine, health care and well-being

•

an Indigenous Strategic Reference Group to contribute to quality curriculum design and Indigenous student recruitment and support

•

Indigenous community members given adjunct lectureships for their contributions to teaching;

•

adequately-resourced and effective Indigenous health student placements

•

potential research collaborations (if protocols and ethics are developed and observed). Respect

Secondly, cultural safety assumes that Indigenous Australians need to teach ‘them about themselves’ (non-Indigenous peoples about themselves) through the prism of Indigenous experiences, rather than teach ‘them about us’. That is, White people have culture too. There is this misguided belief that many non-Indigenous student doctors have that they are ‘normal’ or standard’ and that they do not have cultural values, beliefs or assumptions that influence the way they see the world or understand medicine and health care, for example (Rasmussen, 2001). This Project suggests that teaching skills of reflexivity and self-analysis in health care settings will enable the health care professional to firstly understand their own cultural values and mores as a way to understanding differences in others (Phillips, 2003). This is recommended as a much more sustainable, rational and objective way to understand one’s own subjectivity, and therefore to operate more respectfully in differing cultural contexts. In short, we need to teach student doctors to admit what they don’t know, and teach them who and how to ask for the appropriate assistance when required. 8.

Responsibility

The third component cultural safety assumes is that an institutional responsibility is required as well. In this case, rather than simply teaching students curriculum which includes Indigenous health, the whole institution and staff may need to teach itself about Indigenous health, and in the process change the way it does its core business in relation to Indigenous and other issues. This need not be an unnecessarily onerous or resource-intensive task, but can be as ‘simple’ as making sure Indigenous local Elders and/or Traditional owners are asked to welcome each new cohort of first year medical students to campus and their course. This initiative can ensure students receive the positive message from day one of their career as doctors that Indigenous health is part of core business of the medical school and the profession. Rather than merely teaching Indigenous health content, the medical school will need to consider the context - the way Indigenous people are recruited into medicine, the way lectures and cases are taught, some policy to ensure racism and student’s and staff’s emotional reactions are handled effectively, structural and resourcing support, adequate staffing and professional development for all staff teaching Indigenous health, and recognition of the extra cultural skills and obligations Indigenous staff will carry with them as academic or general members of staff. Another very simple yet critical prompt medical schools may initiate is to ensure Indigenous health is included in their overall student attribute statements, so that when they plan their curriculum and resources for the whole medical course, there is sufficient focus on Indigenous health as a part of the medical school’s core business. 9.

Conclusion

Rather than treating Indigenous health as a charity event because Indigenous health outcomes are so poor, this Project suggests that relationships, respect and responsibility can be used to ensure quality implementation of Indigenous health in medical education. That is, when Indigenous health is taught from a strength-based approach rather than a deficit model (Milroy, 2004), solutions can be identified, and staff and medical students can be encouraged to contribute to the successes of Indigenous health rather than feel despair about seemingly overwhelming challenges.

134



In essence, Indigenous health is everybody’s business (Peachey, 2002). The lessons that can be learned from engagement in genuine relationships with Indigenous communities, from respect for self and each others’ cultures, and from shared responsibilities for improving the training of health professionals regarding Indigenous health, may well help the health system improve the way it does business and delivers health care to all Australians. Acknowledgements A special thank you must be made to all of the staff within medical schools and participants in workshops and meetings associated with the Project for their assistance and contributions to the Project’s achievements and this paper. References Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2001). Australian Census. Canberra: Australian Government. Blake, B.J. (1991). Australian Aboriginal languages: A general introduction. St Lucia: University of Queensland Press. Eckermann, A, Dowd, T., Martin, M., Dixon, L., Gray, R., & Chong, E. (1992). Binan Goonj: Bridging cultures in Aboriginal health. Armidale: Department of Aboriginal and Multicultural Studies, University of New England. Hendricks, Aunty Joan. (2005). Personal communication: Indigenous Health Education Workshop, Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Queensland, 6 April. Milroy, H. (2004). Personal communication. Moreton-Robinson, A. (2000). Talkin' up to the white woman: Aboriginal women and feminism. St Lucia: University Of Queensland Press. Morrison, T. (1992). Playing in the dark: whiteness and the literary imagination. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Peachey, L. (2002). Personal communication. Phillips, G. (2004)a. CDAMS Indigenous Health Curriculum Framework. Melbourne: VicHealth Koori Health Research and Community Development Unit, The University of Melbourne. Phillips, G. (2004)b. National Audit and Consultations Report. Melbourne: VicHealth Koori Health Research and Community Development Unit, The University of Melbourne. Phillips, G. (2003). Addictions and healing in Aboriginal country. Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press. Ramsden, I. (1990). Whakarururhau: Cultural safety in nursing education in Aotearoa. A Report for the Maori Health and Nursing Committee. Wellington: New Zealand Ministry of Education. Rasmussen, L. (2001). Towards reconciliation in Aboriginal health: Initiatives for teaching medical students about Aboriginal issues. Parkville: VicHealth Koori Health Research and Community Development Unit, The University of Melbourne. Tervalon, M. (2003). Personal communication: Cultural Competence Workshop, The University of New South Wales. Tindale, N. (1940). Map showing the distribution of the Aboriginal tribes of Australia. Adelaide: Government Photolithographer. Wilson, S., & Wilson, P. (1998). Relational accountability to all our relations. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 22(2), 155.

135



Community Engagement: A Cautionary Talei Dr Nick Szorenyi-Reischl James Cook University, Qld 4811, Australia 1.

Introduction

Projects in community involvement are often ground breaking, dynamic and many have led to valuable outcomes. However, I want to sound a cautionary note. In what appears to be a widespread revival in involvement with the community, community engagement is emerging as a term under which different ideological orientations lurk: from celebration of partnership, to altruism, to marketing and the marketisation of universities, to institutional survival, etc. The intersection of the rise in the rhetoric of community engagement with theoretical perspectives drawn from Foucault, raises further questions about the genealogy of ‘community engagement’ and its role as a mechanism of self regulation in the governmentality of institutions. Following Giddens and Beck, questions also arise in relation to community engagement as a potential renewal in universities in the face of risk and shame. It would be further interesting to follow the path of community engagement within the context of new prudentialism in education (Peters, 2005; O’Malley, 1992), but these perspectives can only be suggested here. So this paper remains an opening exploration of what I understand to be the new community engagement, in which community engagement is to be drawn into the governance of the Universityii. Without a clear sense of what underlies a renewed emphasis on community engagement, it will be hard to assess benefits and the risks. It is worth bringing the differences to the surface. I hope to do some of this by starting with an example. I first became involved in the new community engagement (CE) in 2004 when the University of the South Pacific (USP) was funded under the Community Engagement category of NZAid to consult with its Member Countries on its further development. USP is uniquely owned by 12 countries in the South Pacific. It had reached a moment in its history when the extension Centres which had been set up in each country were experiencing significant growth, especially in the pre-degree qualification. The USP had established two campuses outside of Suva, one in Samoa and one more recently in Vanuatu. As the Government of the Solomon Islands (SI) was trying to re-build after the ‘tension’ of 2002-3, it approached USP to request that a campus be set up in Honiara to match the campus development in rival Vanuatu. SI has the second highest enrolments in USP, after Fiji. Enrolment had continued to grow even during the unrest and it was thought that significant savings could be made through a local campus rather than having to find scarce funds for sending students overseas. The Acting Vice-Chancellor had also been in discussion with the governments in Marshall Islands and Kiribati, as they too became interested in establishing more substantial campuses, not wanting to be left out of possible development, but also with an eye to reducing scholarship costs. This interest then drew in neighbouring Tuvalu. Common sense would dictate that consultation with these Member Countries, their governments, private and public sector organisations, NGO’s, donors, students and others, was necessary in any further development of USP in meeting its mission: to be a regional University of excellence, committed to the development of Member Countries and communities through the provision of relevant and cost-effective education, training, research and consulting of the highest possible standard. That this process of consultation came to be labelled Community Engagement was basically a function of the funding source. However, community engagement had already become a key term in University planning. It had come to mean much more than common sense, circumspect consultation and involvement. As far as I can tell, a significant early reformulation was presented by the Association of Commonwealth Universities (ACU) position paper in 2001. Community engagement was to be a core value in the survival of universities and their contribution to regional wealth and democracy. No less. Civic engagement by organisations in the i

This discussion benefits from input from Robin McTaggart, but the mistakes are mine. CE in research and teaching can be separated from, and even antithetical to, the neo-liberal agenda. Such CE is not the focus of this paper. ii

136



US was not unfamiliar. But this was heralding a newer movement. Its sources are more than the common sense usefulness of involvement, or altruism. Its vision is closely connected to an analysis of the global economic future in which ‘knowledge’ is understood to be the dominant commodity and where survival is related to the power of the consumer. In some versions, support is to be drawn from including community organisations into institutional governance. Other contemporary sources seem to draw from regional planning papers (e.g., Hashagen, 2002), where community engagement is proselytised as a new direction in planning. Engagement is understood to require equal dialogue and sharing of responsibility, not just liaison, involvement or consultation. There is also reference to community engagement in Health publications (e.g., Minnesota Dept. of Health, 2004) and crime prevention (e.g., UK Government, 2004). In these instances, community engagement seems connected to techniques to deal with intractable social problems, in which public institutions try to shuffle some responsibilities to their surrounding organisations and perhaps try to reinforce their threatened reputations. In other cases (e.g., Community Chestiii), CE is a marketing ploy. Are universities faced with a need to ‘engage’ systematically with their ‘communitiesiv’ not just driven by common sense consultation requirements, but to maintain their very survival and relevance? Do those same ‘communities’ equally need universities? In the circumstance where government funding is being withdrawn from public institutions, where regional economies are prey to globalisation of markets, and where knowledge becomes a commercial commodity (Drucker, 1993), the connection becomes clearer. Throw in market competition between universities and smaller less well off universities might even see the connection as critical. If we accept the primacy of the market and the knowledge economy, that is the neo-liberal agenda (Luke, 2002; Peters, 2005), universities have to re-justify their existence and compete for survival in the marketplace. So community engagement is not just the old common sense consultation with stakeholders and useful organisations, and helping where one can. It represents a whole way of survival. It becomes a core value. Not that it is a value so much as a practice for a purpose: material gain. But it is a practice which cannot be too open about its self interest in order to be effective. Hence it gets dressed up in altruistic terms, or in discourses which emphasise economic inevitability. At the same time, this ideology of engagement draws strength from its semantic connection to the common sense of consultation and the willingness of university staff to work with and help their community. However, the neo-liberal agenda is not the only framework for community engagement. Older common sense consultation, the ongoing recognition of the value of connecting to practice beyond the university in teaching and research, and genuine altruism, remain as legitimate perspectives. Community engagement may equally draw from new movements to oppose the primacy of the market and forge new alliances in the face of global risk (Giddens, 1994; Beck, 1992). But the frameworks are easy to mix up and one can colonise the others. This concern is at the heart of this paper. I will return to these themes, but first a cautionary tale of what happened with the USP initiative, and its relevance to the current CE movement. Then I want to ask what QA is doing mixed up in the new community engagement. 2.

The Cautionary Tale from the South Pacific

The consultations in the Member Countries of USP were open ended but included questions about what community representatives considered to be the current role of USP, where its contribution could be extended, what difficulties they could envisage in further development, and what education/training needs they saw as priorities. Reports were prepared for each country for the USP Council. These covered

iii

A local advertising campaign on television in which consumers are asked to support businesses which contribute to a ‘community chest’. iv I have resisted trying to deconstruct the term ‘community’ for the purposes of this paper. That it is a term in need of analysis and deconstruction will be obvious enough.

137



economic profiles, training needs, higher education demand, academic delivery models, infrastructure issues, costs/benefits and a SWOT analysis. It became evident early on in the process that the engagement had already become part of the public agenda of governments. In SI articles had already appeared in the local press announcing the visit and in effect treating the outcome as a fait accompli. Promising the establishment of schools has been a practice by electioneering politicians in SI and the development of a campus in Honiara had become part of the government’s strategy for showing it was being successful in re-building the SI economy. There was significant political investment in the outcome and pressure was immediately applied on what would be reported. Feelings ran strongly that Vanuatu had ‘received’ a campus, while SI had higher enrolments. Much needed money was being spent on scholarships which could be reduced if a campus was established and students did not have to be supported offshore. Not least the establishment of a campus would be big news in a situation which was not producing much good news. Expectations were running well beyond the capacity of USP to provide. The situation was not so extreme in the other countries, but basically in each engagement each government had the establishment of a campus high on their agenda and the outcome of the consultation was tied closely to its political program as well as being prominent in the public arena. In the Marshall Islands (MI), it was causing tension between senior members of the cabinet who held opposing views about the value of the USP presence. In Kiribati, rumours of a promised campus in MI had caused a strong reaction about the prior rights of Kiribati. But campus feasibility in the form expected in each country, with the possible exception of Tuvalu, was clearly negative. The expectations of the governments, families and national organisations were in excess of the capability of the University and were in fact getting in the way of useful contributions that the University could make. What had started as a simple and sensible exercise in community involvement had very quickly become a highly politicised event. Media management skills were required. The engagement was immediately in the public arena and the ability of the University to respond in ways which satisfied stakeholders, while retaining its strategic objectives and funding limitations, was being tested. There was a clear danger of the University either promising what it could not deliver or ending up in a public relations disaster. Once the process had started it was extremely difficult to control. In the case of SI it ended with a meeting between the Acting Prime Minister of the SI and the senior management of USP in which extensive promises were made about what USP would do for SI, but with the decision delayed for 12 months. This may or may not have been a good outcome. For Marshall Islands and Kiribati and Tuvalu the process has been put on hold, as the University changes Vice-Chancellors. The legacy of the engagement is ticking. The engagement had opened a whole range of issues. Firstly, it became clear that in three of the countries, government and community expected that the University would set up a significant physical facility, well beyond it existing Centres. Governments were prepared to provide sites and perhaps some limited funding, but USP would be expected to source funds for this development. Basic development was costed at around $A5m in each site. Secondly, it was expected that the University would provide the staffing and resources which would enable a wide range of courses to be offered on-site, preferably in face to face mode. Very limited funding prospects, small enrolment numbers, travel and accommodation costs, etc., make these expectations fundamentally unrealistic. But less ambitious development is possible. Expanded use of existing Centres, better use of an ICT network being up-graded through Japanese aid, and better teaching/learning processes could achieve a great deal more. Thirdly, each country expected the provision of a specialised research/teaching department, along the lines of the establishment of Agriculture in Samoa and Law in Vanuatu. This model has proved very expensive and has been previously rejected by the University’s Grants Committee. Member governments saw potential in the access to knowledge which USP could provide, as a way of supporting struggling regional economies. But the costs of taking this idea seriously and the ability of USP to provide commercially useful knowledge development, are both problematic. However, the possibilities of limited and locally focused research could be usefully explored.

138



Much more remains to be said, but in effect engagement with stakeholders produced some significant dilemmas for the University. It could not satisfy the expectations which had been raised. It risked being seen as unresponsive, once those expectations had inevitably reached the public arena, and it was faced with very time consuming follow up processes in an institution already highly stretched in coping with its day to day management. Smaller and achievable developments were overwhelmed. In a couple of instances the threat of going with other tertiary institutions rather than USP was raised. At one level, the tale is not different to many cases of consultation: it is the normal risk and run of institutional life. But seen through the lens of community engagement, there is more to be considered. The dilemmas for USP are heightened from its ownership by its Member Countries. Community engagement, in the version which includes outside organisations in its power structures, is built in already. Risks of offending its members run very high. Withdrawal of funding by any Member Country would impact on the University’s ability to survive. USP is an institution in which community engagement is indeed a core value. At the same time, because of its geographical isolation and its membership among the world’s least developed countries, there is as yet no other university which would or could compete with it across the region, given the low levels of private income and the costs of travel in the region. USP also might just survive in Fiji alone from where the overwhelming number of students come. So the full impact of its core value of community engagement has not had to be faced. But the risk remains high, especially given the ability of these least developed member countries to continue to prioritise education in the face of growing environmental problems. Exercises in community engagement like the one told in this tale demonstrate the risk which can strike at the heart of an institution where community engagement becomes part of the foundation of its existence. If Australian Universities are to move to community engagement as a core value, they will need to review the risks emergent from raised expectations. 3.

From Community Involvement, to Community Engagement, to Quality Audit

The ACU position paper referred to earlier, focuses on regional engagement. Quite a lot of the literature of engagement equally highlights regional interdependence; universities can help struggling regions to develop and regions can support their struggling universities. Australian universities have not yet fully embraced the survival strategy of regional engagement. In part, the concept of ‘region’ tends to suggest a rural area, as in Central Queensland or North Queensland. Would engagement then apply primarily to universities outside capital cities, or only to those in capital cities that have rural extensions? Capital city universities can claim all the global organisations as their community, but rurally located universities have the struggling rural regions as their community. Saving the region and being saved by the region is a very hopeful and rather risk-filled strategy, in which precisely the problem of over extended expectations may apply, notwithstanding any individual highly successful initiatives. Universities in Australia have prioritised international recruitment rather than regional engagement as the source of their survival. Is this about to change? Can funds be generated from community engagement in the kinds of volumes needed to fill the gap of government fund reduction? Can universities survive on top ups from alumni donations and industry partnerships? Can they generate new knowledge which is commercially marketable and support not only themselves but struggling regions, like the computer industry did in Mumbai? It hardly looks like a recipe for university survival, unless the collapse of some universities is seen as an acceptable outcome driven by the market. For a regional University, reliance on regional businesses for significant top up funding does not seem very likely. The mining companies, for example, may have offices in Townsville, but their operations are global, not regional. The Head Office can be anywhere but not in a region. The organisations with the kinds of resources to contribute significantly are all likely to be global. They are more likely to make relationships with the most prestigious universities rather than the local one. But then, universities must compete in the marketplace? There may be no alternative? That is far from settled. The major risk emerges not from working with the community, although that carries some risk. The risk intensifies as community engagement is placed at the core of the university’s survival.

139



Next, in so far as engagement comes to be accepted as a core value, it becomes open to audit. The technology of such audit is already underway: Charles and Benneworth (2001), using the McKinnon work as a guide, have developed a benchmarking approach for the evaluation of the regional connection of the higher education institution. This approach to a benchmarking manual is based around achieving cross-functional institutional and community consensus for the assessment of performance of the university in its dealings with the region in terms of leading, learning and lagging indicators (Garlick, 2003).

League tables of community engagement are on the way. The Quality Assurance community is thus drawn into being the surveillance officers of engagement, alienated further from the staff who may well see it as another round of work overload. But even more significantly, community engagement interpreted as a core value, now based around achieving cross-functional institutional and community consensus for the assessment of performance of the university in its dealings with the region, opens the University to massive risk. Like USP, the University becomes open to public judgement in a field where the expectations of the ‘community’ are open ended; where expectations, given levels of funding, are unlikely to be met; where mistakes and disputes strike now at the core of the University’s existence; and where the responsibility for top up funding for some universities can be placed on regional communities which cannot carry the burden. Can we hold on to community involvement without being drawn into the process of the marketisation of universities? 4.

Is There a Choice about Engaging with the Community?

The rhetoric of community engagement can be confusing. Under one interpretation, it has all the hallmarks of sensible policy. Take the following statement from the ACU position paper: Engagement implies strenuous, thoughtful, argumentative interaction with the non-university world in at least four spheres: setting universities' aims, purposes, and priorities; relating teaching and learning to the wider world; the back-and-forth dialogue between researchers and practitioners; and taking on wider responsibilities as neighbours and citizens [ACU, 2001, p. (i)].

Without too much emphasis on the first sphere, it seems a very sensible and timely reminder of the wider role of universities. It can be comfortably accommodated by universities in terms of what is already occurring in community involvement and consultation, although not always well documented. The QA office can set about helping Faculties and the institution documents their activities better. Some new initiatives can be carefully started. Universities will meet their audits on community engagement with some confidence and resignation. Templates and categorisations will be drawn from other institutions (e.g., The Carnegie Foundation, 2005). Audit games will be played (Blythman, 2001). So why any fuss? In fact the weight of the expansion of the idea will be very hard to resist. Like Watson’s tale of the sparrows which simultaneously around the world learnt to peck open the tops of milk bottles, institutions have latched on to community engagement. It is like the spread of a meme. A quick search of sources pulled out:

140

•

Queensland Government advice on how to manage community engagement (http://www.onlinelearning.qld.gov.au/materials/ce/ce/onfo/learning/guide/t2s3.htm);

•

Hewlett Packard, like other corporates, rasing their profile (http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/globalcitizenship/gcreport/socialinvest/localcommunity.html);

•

the University of North Dakota setting up a CE Centre in 2004 (http://www.communityengagement.und.edu).



At the Australian Catholic University, the Vice-Chancellor has designated community engagement as a priority institutional theme for ACU in 2005. Their web site makes interesting reading. They have identified an intergenerational approach. They recognise that while community engagement partnerships are increasingly important in solving the complex social issues of our times, bringing together of different communities of practice is often fraught with difficulties leading to less than harmonious relationships and sometimes disappointing outcomes. They suggest that the answer lies in a five action strategies model to influence civic decisions, taken from the Search Institute in Minnesota. However, there is another side. In an ideologically strong version of community engagement, I have suggested, the University finds itself being comprehensively and publicly assessed in an arena full of risk and open ended connections which could never satisfy all stakeholders. Further, by taking community engagement as a core function of the University, the door is open to the neo-liberal agenda of universities moving from public institutions to institutions reliant on private funding and open to all the risks of competition in the market place. For some, this seems like a necessity, and markets will determine which universities succeed and which fail. Under threat of closure, universities and their members will selfgovern themselves compliantly, embedded in the discourse of the desirable necessity of community engagement. [Foucault’s work on governmentality resonates so strongly here (Rose & Miller, 1992)]v. Or we will muddle along somewhere in between. The neo-liberal agenda is contestable. The ideologically strong version of community engagement might be resisted. But in the end, my point here is to highlight the risks of acting on it without careful reflection. 5.

Living with Risk

One line of social analysis suggests that risk is not an unexpected condition. Beck (1992) sees us as living in a risk society, brought on by the applications of modern technology. Giddens (1990) sees the shifting of risk on to individuals resulting in experiences of shame. But both see possibilities in renewed communal and oppositional responses. League tables shift responsibilities for success and failure away from their embedded-ness in more general social conditions and place them on the shoulders of individual institutions and individual staff. The role of government to deal with the problems of social organisation is displaced. The shame of failure falls on the individual institution. The institution was insufficiently committed to community engagement, for example. But universities, even struggling ones, might find other pathways to their survival. Community engagement can include regional solidarity which acts as a pressure group on government to sustain local provision of higher education. We have seen some such developments with regional hospitals. But it remains a tricky path. Universities do not sit in the common consciousness like hospitals. Even survival for rural hospitals has been patchy. Our useful community may be less regional than across the community of universities worldwide. I am not sure. In Australia, the government has been able to exploit competition between universities, which have tended to accept their character as market institutions. I want to make clear that I have not been arguing against community involvement. Breaking down the silos and the ivory towers is admirable and needed. Re-thinking and renewing universities as social institutions has been an ongoing and crucial endeavour. But further drawing in the neo-liberal agenda into the heart of the University in the guise of community involvement should be resisted. However, in the end, quality assurance offices, it seems, must face how to proceed in playing their role in community engagement in any case. One kind of analysis (Peters, 2005) suggests that we shall play our part in the new prudentialism in education. Risk assessment and risk management will now be maintained as rational and prudent v

In fact, in the neo-liberal agenda, pushing public institutions into the market may need more than Government directives. ‘Community’ interpreted as consumers and corporates might well be presumed to support the consumer based vision of universities. What better way to reinforce the agenda than to get universities to have to respond to these community groups?

141



responses to survival in the market place. But in this way Prudentialism reinforces the ideology of the supremacy of the market. QA can be drawn into risk management for community engagement. We can provide: •

risk assessment, procedures, media management,

•

regulation: guidelines manuals

•

documentation

•

feedback mechanisms

•

surveillance: reporting to senior management

•

audit preparation.

We can discuss what aspects of community engagement are to be audited: •

How many projects?

•

Processes?

•

Outcomes?

•

Documentation?

•

Risk management?

We can develop means of benchmarking. There is a significant audit policy question remaining about whether the audit is to cover the quality of procedures, or the quality of outcomes (McTaggart, 2003). On the ground we can support what people are doing well; we can try to help identify what is not going so well; we can put ourselves between managerialism and the toilers in the field; we can try to alleviate inter-Faculty rivalry about who is doing the best CE. We will be careful about documentation, some of us may help to play audit games, some could even do a little risk management. Are we co-opted? Not necessarily, but let’s take care. Quality Assurance can perform these roles in relation to community involvement as an important, and maybe under reported, aspect of University activity, or quality assurance can contribute to community engagement as a core value, in which the University gives up power to an unspecified community and sinks further into being defined and governed by the market rather than remaining a public institution. Or maybe I am getting excited about little and CE is just another marketing device, popular for a while, but passing. References Association of Commonwealth Universities. (2001). Engagement as a core value for universities: a consultation document. Retrieved from http://www.acu.ac.uk/cgibin/frameset.pl?ml=policyandresearch&sl=policyandresearch&select=policy Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: towards a new modernity. NY: Sage Blythman, M. (2001). Academic staff and the process of subject review: some experiential qualitative accounts from ‘backstage’ and ‘under the stage.’ The End of Quality? The Sixth QHE Seminar Birmingham, 25–26 May. Retrieved from http://www.qualityresearchinternational.com/papers/blythman.pdf#article Butcher, J., Howard, P., McMeniman, M., & Thom, G. (2002). Engaging community-service or learning?: Benchmarking community service in teacher education. Draft report. Canberra: DEST. Drucker, P. (1993). Post-capitalist society, Harper Business

142



Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds), The Foucault effect: studies in governmentality. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 87-104. Garlick, S. (2003). Benchmarking 'good practice' university-region engagement efficiency. InsideOut Conference on Higher Education and Community Engagement. University of Queensland, July 3 to July 5. Retrieved from http://www.uq.edu.au/insideout/pdfs/stevegarlick.pdf Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press. Giddens, A. (1994). Beyond Left and Right: the future of radical politics. Cambridge: Polity Press. Hashagen, S. (2002). Models of community engagement. Scottish Community Development Centre. Retrieved from http://www.communityplanning.org.uk/documents/Modelsofcommunityengagement.pdf Hewlett Packard. Retrieved from http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/globalcitizenship/gcreport/socialinvest/localcommunity.html Kellogg Commission. (1999). Returning to our roots: The engaged institution. National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, Third Report in the Returning to our Roots series. Luke, A. (2002). Curriculum, ethics, metanarrative: teaching and learning beyond the nation. Curriculum Perspectives. Retrieved from http://www.education.tas.gov.au/english/luke.htm#article Marginson, S. (1995). Universities and the new perpetual motion. Campus Review, November 30December 6, 8-9. McTaggart, R. (2003). Community Relations: Quality Assurance? Talk at AUQA. Private correspondence. Minnesota Dept of Health. (2004). Retrieved from http://www.health.state.mn.us/strategies/intro.pdf O’Malley, P. (1996). Risk and responsibility. In A. Barry, T. Osborne & N. Rose (Eds), Foucault and political reason. Liberalism, neo-liberalism and rationalities of government. London: UCL Press, 189207. Peters, M. (2005). The new prudentialism in education: actuarial rationality and the entrepreneurial self. Educational Theory, 55(2), 123-138. Queensland Government. Retrieved from http://www.onlinelearning.qld.gov.au/materials/ce/ce/onfo/learning/guide/t2s3.htm Richardson, C. (2004).The importance of engagement in higher education institutions. Address to the Bank of New York Tuesday, October 26. Retrieved from http://www.wkkf.org/Knowledgebase/Pubs/RenderRes.aspx?CID=0&ID=3795 Rose, N. & Miller, P. (1992). Political power beyond the state: Problematics of government. British Journal of Sociology, 43(2), 173-205. Smith, R. (2005). Dancing on the feet of chance: the uncertain university. Educational Theory, 55(2), 139-150. Tomusk, V. (2004). When every comrade becomes an overseer: struggle over surveillance and autonomy in post state-socialist higher education. Retrieved from www.eyl.ee/konverents/ettekanne_Voldemar_Tomusk.doc UK Government. (2004). Retrieved from http://www.crimereduation.gov.uk/gpce)).htm UNDP. (2000). Human Development Report. Retrieved from www.undp.org/hdr2003/ University of North Dakota. (2004). Retrieved from http://www.communityengagement.und.edu

143



Engaging Internal Communities and External Stakeholders in Program Quality Assurance Joan Richardsona and Miriam Weiszb a

School of Business Information Technology, RMIT University, Vic 3001, Australia b

Quality Consultancy Unit, RMIT University, Vic 3001, Australia

Universities are under increasing pressure to have robust quality assurance processes in place that support continuous program improvement. Universities are also experiencing the pressure of reduced government funding and the increased competition to fill full-fee paying places, onshore and offshore; the pressure to produce positive graduate outcomes and high graduate employment; and the need to compete favourably with other universities on CEQ outcomes. These pressures can be translated as the need for universities to be viable, relevant and to produce programs of high quality. This paper reports on the trialling of a revised program quality assurance process that successfully responds to government, stakeholder and resource pressures. The system aligns program performance indicators with university decision processes and engages stakeholders, particularly academic staff, by providing them with an interactive and easy to implement process. 1.

Introduction

Universities are under increasing pressure to have robust quality assurance processes in place that support continuous program improvement (Marginson & Considine, 2000). This pressure is being exerted in different ways from each of the various stakeholder groups. The government requires universities to provide high quality programs that are cost efficient and meet industry employment requirements (Nelson, 2003). This is one factor contributing to the need to evaluate university programs, both undergraduate and postgraduate, with respect to the graduate marketplace. Employers are also expecting universities to prepare graduates to be work ready and some Professional Associations are requiring programs to meet more stringent quality measures in order for them to receive re-accreditation status. Furthermore, the consumer attitude associated with the cohort of students belonging to the ‘x’ and ‘y’ generations results in the demand for high services levels from higher education providers (Coaldrake, 1999). In-coming university students’ choices are being informed by the outcomes of the Course Experience Questionnaires (CEQ) and the Graduate Destination Surveys (GDS) undertaken by the Graduate Career Council of Australia. Government funding models are also requiring universities to provide opportunities for students to feedback on their subject level experiences while they are at university and to have access to this feedback and the university’s response (DEST, 2004). With the introduction of AUQA audits in 2002 there was also an increase in the public awareness of what quality assurance processes universities have in place and how effective the associated quality measures are. 2.

One University’s Response to Quality Assurance

In essence, universities are experiencing the pressure of reduced government funding and the increased competition to fill full-fee paying places, onshore and offshore; the pressure to produce positive graduate outcomes and high graduate employment; and the need to compete favourably with other universities on CEQ outcomes. These pressures can be translated as the need for universities to be viable, relevant and to produce programs of high quality.

144



This paper explores one university’s response to these increasing stakeholder pressures by introducing a quality assurance process that measures program quality, relevance and viability. The program performance indicators are also aligned with the criteria used in other university processes such as the profiles process that that through negotiations with DEST, determines what HE programs are offered and how many student places will be allocated in any given year. The biggest challenge for any program quality assurance (PQA) system is to engage its stakeholders, both internal and external. This is facilitated when the stakeholders recognise the importance of having PQA, when the system is easy to implement and when it builds on work that is already being undertaken. RMIT University has had a robust system of PQA in place since 2002. The processes included a periodic stock-take of program management and outcomes, obtaining industry input and student feedback, validating assessment, undertaking annual program reports and engaging in program improvement. There was a centrally determined schedule for program renewal which involved a major review of the program and improvement within a capabilities based framework. The schedule was established to ensure that all RMIT programs would be renewed by 2006. Programs were reviewed within a field of study cluster and external audits were required once every five years. This system has since been modified in the light of increasing workloads for academic and support staff and decreasing resource availability. The revised PQA system that was trialled at RMIT in 2004 retained the need for program annual reporting, aligned any external program re-accreditation requirements with internal quality processes, involved the establishment of program review teams that included representatives from each of the major stakeholder groups and program improvement plans would inform School, Portfolio and University planning and be embedded in individual staff members’ work plans thereby closing the program improvement cycle. The revised system also reduced the number of criteria by which program performance was assessed from seven to three, these being program quality, relevance and viability. These aligned with the criteria used in the university’s profile process. No scheduling of program renewal was required as the need for program improvement would be identified through the university’s profile process and no formal fiveyearly stock-take was required as program annual reporting included data around program performance and feedback from various sources. One of the biggest changes involved the replacement of five-yearly external audits with an annual review undertaken by the Program Review Team. This team, chaired by the Head of School, includes program team members, employers, representatives from relevant Professional Associations, external discipline experts, an educational designer, students and graduates. This review panel could provide the external validation of program processes and could inform the improvement plan developed by the program team in response to the program review. This revised PQA process was trialled with two programs offered by the School of Business Information Technology. These programs were also required to undergo external review by the Australian Computer Society (ACS) in order to obtain profession re-accreditation. This provided the opportunity to test whether the university’s quality assurance requirements were robust, whether they could be aligned with the requirements for program re-accreditation and whether they would effectively engage all major stakeholders. 3.

Business Information Technology Programs: A Case Study

In the case of IT programs a downturn in marketability of graduates creates a further pressure on the products within the School. The nature of the IT market itself reflects continuous change elicited by networks, the internet, outsourcing, complex applications software and the globalisation of organisations. Jobs for graduates are available across all spheres of business and industry and the roles less well defined for IT specialists.

145



Information requires collection using dual or singular processes, conducted in a cyclical manner and using re-accreditation and audit processes. The collection of information by programs that incorporate the views of all stakeholders impacts on the Quality of the planning processes and the ability of programs to align with industry and student needs. 4.

Program Review

The Masters of Business Information Technology was required to perform tasks associated with the creation of documentation for the ACS re-accreditation and an internal audit in 2004. The overall intent for the business processes developed and piloted was to merge the requirements into a single body of work, to reduce the overall quantum without losing the quality of information. The value of the merged process is highlighted by the results. Suggestions for action made by the Program Review Team after consultation with key stakeholders demonstrated an alignment with University recommendations based on the AQUA audit. Successful completion of activities included in the process is substantiated by the alignment of teaching and learning (T&L) actions with the School Plan and the RMIT response to the AUQA recommendations. This means that the University strategic objectives have been translated into achievable tasks managed as part of a continuous improvement cycle within the School. This style of managing change throughout the process provides the opportunity for ownership of recommendations for new and improved administrative processes and academic content by operational staff. The process was designed to ensure that multiple perspectives represented by the major stakeholder groups were provided opportunities to share their insights and priorities. This is an extension to a brainstorm methodology as participants take responsibility for further action based on collaborative decision making. “By having the freedom and capacity to think about issues differently, and work differently, opportunities will emerge in different ways and at different times (Bainbridge, 2001, p. 49). The synthesis of the volume of detailed information and alignment with University objectives enabled prioritization of tasks. The implications for resources and budgets represent minimal increases in costs targeted to the work centres. 5.

ACS Documentation and Process

Detailed documentation describing the program according to the ACS body of knowledge aligned the program content with key stakeholder needs. Additions were made to encompass an assessment of the relevance, viability and quality of the programs and courses as established by the students and industry. 6.

Industry Consultation

Two forums were conducted to obtain industry input in relation to the program. The first a focus group collected information to: •

explore what industry/professions require from contemporary and future graduates

•

to discuss what forces are impacting upon changing your profession/industry

•

to identify gaps that may exist between professional/industry needs of graduates and how RMIT equips them

•

to identify areas/streams that require increased emphasis to reflect our position in the IT marketplace and meet market change.

The second forum was the Program Committee which used market research and the input, reaccreditation documentation and information derived from the focus groups to:

146

•

undertake a content and assessment gap analysis

•

align identified gaps with program capabilities and focus group feedback



•

identify changes to current T&L practices needed as a result of identified gaps or course level change in emphasis

•

develop an action plan for 2005 which highlights resource needs (infrastructure and work planning).

7.

Capability Based Curriculum

In accordance with the University’s strategic objectives to convert all the programs and courses to an outcome or capability driven curriculum, the mapping of the content and assessment of all core and elective courses against the ACS body of knowledge was utilised to create program objectives expressed as capability statements. The final capability statements reflect the need to provide these graduates with the ability to apply knowledge gained in a diverse set of occupations and environments. As well as the provision of learning experiences designed to enable professional and personal development via reflective practice and ‘real’ experiences, a breadth and depth in business and IT/IS knowledge is required to enable graduates to adapt technologies to business requirements. The emphasis on a shift towards a capability framework by the university and the implementation of this within the school’s programs requires a serious consideration being paid to creating “global citizens”. The value of a teaching and learning strategy that enables both lifelong learning and the instilling of social responsibility in students is not easily quantifiable, but is of importance to RMIT and to the School. 8.

Mechanisms for Maintaining Quality Control (Methods and Measures of Effectiveness)

The school has adopted and implemented the RMIT University Program Quality Management System. A range of processes have been adopted to support continuous evaluation of programs and matching to the needs of the market and participants. All processes include key stakeholders in order to evaluate market fit. These groups are students, staff and business representation. Student staff consultative meetings, course evaluations, strict exam moderation and plagiarism policies and procedures, Program Advisory Committee meetings and program team meetings are held on a regular basis to monitor program quality. The focus groups, the program review team and the program team worked on the application of the capability framework for curriculum design. All forums provided information that enabled continuous improvement and alignment with strategic objectives. 9.

Program Evaluation

The School of Business Information Technology (BIT) ensures that program teams meet and include key stakeholder groups in quality processes. At a subject level documentation is maintained via course evaluations that incorporate student and course team feedback and action plans are designed and implemented to directly improve teaching. The main constraints, which limit the range or scope of teaching methods and materials employed in the School’s programs, are: •

IT infrastructure and a continuous rate of change caused by the development of new technologies and consequent adoption, customisation and implementation in the business context

•

staff time needed to address the creation and change or resources to integrate the usage of technology augmented delivery

•

limited access to real world systems due to security concerns. This is partially countered by the inclusion of work-integrated learning.

•

The School’s Program Advisory Committee and Program Review Team supported the development of focus groups to collect meaningful data to be used to design curriculum that reflects ongoing industry relevance for graduates. Members also provided support for the initiative by participation. This new process supports the ability of the profession to affect course content, structure and teaching methodology.

147


•

10.


All information collected using external program evaluation tools is summarised by the University and provided to Program Leaders and Coordinators. A particular focus on the CEQ Good Teaching Scale ensures that action plans are developed as part of the annual reporting cycle. Improvements to courses and assessment tools are discussed at a program level and approved by the appropriate Portfolio and University Academic Development Committees and reflected in the subject guides. RMIT key performance indicators are aligned at an operational level. School Planning

The completion of the 2005 School Plan was an illuminating end to the re-accreditation and program review processes completed in 2004. The pragmatic, prioritised actions agreed to by the industry, student and program team representation aligned with issues raised by the AUQA Audit of the University and the University response to the audit, on two levels. First, the alignment of the accreditation and program review processes simplified the processes and number of tasks required. Secondly, the tasks completed extended the depth of understanding of the components of the program in isolation and within subdiscipline streams and by program. The process managed to encourage and support strong connections between stakeholder needs and actions designed to engage in continuous improvement. Information gathered in this way was then aligned with University objectives and program operational performance from both the industry and the student perspectives. The program review process which brings all parties or functional alignments back together to plan and prioritise action at the operational level became a positive experience rather than a compliance activity. Stakeholder’s suggested change and program teams identified microcosms of ‘best-practice’ that could be extended to fulfil suggestions. Industry participants in particular appreciated the opportunity to impact on the instructional design, delivery mode, program design, maintenance and delivery. 11.

Feedback and Reflections on the Trialling of the Revised PQA System.

The dynamics between all the stakeholders participating in the Program Review Committee ensured that the review worked very well. There were some industry representatives who had a very valuable contribution to make but who would not have the time available to meet more than the one session, within the time schedule imposed. The yearly proposed schedule of activities requires industry representation at Program Advisory Committees, focus groups and program reviews. Participants contributed initially information from their own perspective and then demonstrated enthusiastic engagement when providing input at an operational level. The ACS representatives also added to the richness of the perspectives offered. The alumni were in an excellent position to reflect on how the program which they had completed had prepared them for their work. The students also added an important perspective on current practices. The clear directions and processes for the program review ensured a positive framework for operation. Externals suggestions for improvement were aligned with industry and academic best practice and received a great deal of acceptance from program team members. While the review committee had been presented with a CD containing all the program review material, many had not spent the necessary time going through the information. While this meant that they did not have the fine detail about the program, it did allow their focus to be highlighted and the discussions moved very quickly to their positive ideas about what improvements and strategies could be undertaken at a program level. The feedback received from the review committee was discussed with program teams, integrated with earlier team work undertaken and developed into two action plans – one for the undergraduate program and one for the postgraduate program. These plans will inform the School Plan and the individual work plans for staff.

148



The advantages of the review process included the following: •

recommendations coming from the review committee are seen by staff to have authority

•

the process was easier than expected and many people are willing to help if asked

•

the process generated an enormous amount of energy in staff. Staff recognised the need for program review and re-accreditation and were sympathetic to the work being undertaken. They recognised the move away from completing documentation to an emphasis on engagement with the program improvement

•

involving the ACS in the review helped build credibility for the process as staff recognised the importance of program re-accreditation

•

if the process had been rigid then the staff would have been unlikely to engage. The flexibility of the process and its ability to meet individual program review needs was a key success factor. A key lesson is therefore not to be prescriptive about how to undertake the review

•

the review process encouraged staff to be involved and therefore to take ownership of recommended changes. The process encouraged staff to become engaged in the work rather than merely being compliant or completing any required documentation

•

the process was facilitated by having discipline-based groups and with the lessons learnt in small groups being shared in larger groups. This was also facilitated by transferring a few people from group to group

•

all contexts were represented by education, discipline and industry participants

•

learning concepts were developed by the individual program teams but were similar for both the undergraduate and postgraduate programs

•

the review process was a catalyst for real change

•

staff inclusion in the review committee was very positive and provided another opportunity to hear the industry, alumni and student voices.

There were, however, some areas of improvement that were also identified. These included:

12.

•

There are potential work load issues that need to be managed carefully.

•

It would have been very useful for the review committee to have a succinct and clear summary of the Quality, Relevance and Viability, indicators. It is important for the Head of school to provide a context within which to interpret the data for without this, the data can be easily misunderstood.

•

Presenting the material in a CD format was difficult for some people. A short, paper-based, executive summary would have been very useful.

•

It would have been very useful to have had an executive summary template prepared by Quality Consultancy Unit. Conclusion

The revised PQA process introduced at RMIT adopted the strategic intent of the university by providing staff with opportunities to engage in planning activities at a program level that fed into the School and Portfolio plans. This provides a pragmatic ‘do-able’ edge to planned activities. To support this decisionmaking by consensus, students and external industry representatives were involved at all stages of the process. Some of the difficulty in designing the aligned processes for industry accreditation and program review were to ensure clarity of purpose that engaged each of the stakeholders in discussions that gathered their expertise and perspectives without undue emphasis on the current practical problems. Although gaps were identified this was closely followed by identification of best-practice and plans to extend theses activities to close the gaps which provided the process with a positive construction. The effectiveness of the process was dependent on “…the nature of the change, on how sensitive the

149



implementers are to the voices in the organisation, and on the recognition that change is a continuous, not a discrete process” (Mento, Jones, & Dirndorfer, 2002, p. 47). In this instance the process enabled the seeds to be sown for committed staff and stakeholder partnerships tied to explicitly described and planned activities. In Jick’s (1991a) tactical level model to guide the implementation of major organisational change he notes “…that implementing change is an ongoing process of discovery, with thoughtful questions continually being asked throughout the change journey” (Mento, Jones, & Dirndorfer, 2002, p. 46). Not only were staff committed to the approach by-way of involvement and subsequent ownership but Program Advisory Committee membership and students were involved to realise their potential for industry alignment and effective T&L. The design of activities engaging industry and student representation emphasised a need to listen to parties’ experiences and opinions described within their familiar context of operation. References Bainbridge, V. (2000). Transforming bureaucracies: Institutionalising participation and people centred processes in natural resource management. London: International Institute for Environment and Development. Coaldrake, P. (1999). The changing climate of Australian higher education: An international perspective. Higher Education Management, 11(1), 117-134. Department of Education Science and Training (DEST). (2004). Learning & teaching performance fund: Issues paper. Canberra: Australian Government Printing. Marginson, S., & Considine, M. (2000). The enterprise university: Power, governance and reinvention in Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mento, A., Jones, R., & Dirndorfer, W. (2002). A change management process: Grounded in both theory and practice. Journal of Change Management, 3(1), 45-59. Nelson, B. (2003). Our universities: Backing Australia’s future. Retrieved March 23, 2005, from http://www.backingaustraliasfuture.gov.au/policy_paper/policy_paper.pdf

150



Reconceptualising Quality in the Revival of Academic Values Suzanne Ryana and Charmian Eckersleyb a

Newcastle Graduate School of Business, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia. b

Network for Innovation in Teaching & Learning, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, 2308, Australia. The community expectation of ‘quality’ in a university lies in its ‘use’ value for society, not its ‘exchange’ value for the market. Productivity measures and customer questionnaires fail to capture the ‘quality’ inherent in instilling values of scholarship and citizenship. In the rush to implement quality assurance measures, the essence of the ‘Idea of a University’ has been overlooked. This paper tells the story of a university, beset by plagiarism ‘scandals’, that came to realise that issues of misconduct and conduct are issues of institutional values, not conducive to managerialist solutions but requiring the full engagement of the university community in a discussion of the purpose of the institution. The paper summarises the processes and resources used for embedding quality and culture change at the University of Newcastle. The authors of this paper were the implementation convenors of the Academic Integrity Project at the University of Newcastle. ‘everything which makes life worth living is strangely without utility’ Paul Valery, Poet, 1871 -1945.

1.

Introduction

Quality assurance in the higher education sector has many critics, among the most damning are those who argue that such mechanisms are subverting the university in its role of promoting values of citizenship and scholarship, changing its societal worth from one of ‘use value’ to that of ‘exchange value’ or ‘utility’. Such debates go to the heart of what constitutes a university: scholarship and preparation for citizenship, or another economic commodity. This paper is unambiguously on the side of university as inculcation of scholarship and preparation for citizenship. The purpose of the paper is to explain how one university, the University of Newcastle, was forced to re-examine its basic values and engage with the University community to revive the fundamental goals of scholarship and citizenship. The paper begins with a general discussion of quality assurance within the higher education sector and its effect on the role of a university. The University of Newcastle and its experience in dealing with academic misconduct provides a case study of engagement with internal communities to revive and embed quality through academic values. The paper outlines various people, processes and resources used to address fundamental questions of quality in a university. None of these people, processes and resources would warrant measurement within the current conceptions of ‘quality’ of higher education but all of them go to strengthening the relevance of a university as an important social institution. The paper concludes with a call for new ways to conceptualise, promote and measure the quality of a university. 2.

Two Views of the Quality Movement

Defenders of quality assurance for universities argue that it will lead to performance excellence and this in turn will help universities “deal with the complexities of competition and collaboration in a changing environment” (Stevens, 2000, p. 21). In other words, universities need to become modern institutions responsive to their stakeholders and customers (Gallagher, 2001). Critics of the quality movement in higher education argue instead that it is undermining the very essence of a university as a social institution whose function it is to promote the values of citizenship and scholarship. Current quality assurance measures, by employing corporate frameworks such as productivity measurements and customer surveys, erode the self identity of academics and the values inherent in scholarship and citizenship in a way that makes them difficult to revive (Willmott, 1995). From the critical perspective, there are no ‘stakeholders’ or ‘customers’, simply an obligation to society (Singh, 2002) to create and

151



transfer knowledge based on values of academic integrity, values such as honesty, respect, fairness, and responsibility (CAI, 1999). Quality procedures have assisted in shifting the worth of a university education from ‘use value’ to ‘exchange value’ (Willmott, 1995). By emphasising comparison and marketplace at the expense of community and scholarship, the quality movement has shifted the focus of universities from producing social value to producing economic commodities. The results of this shift, according to the critics, have been to alienate academics and strengthen the role of managerialism (Moses, 1995). Promised improvement in the quality of teaching and research has been undermined by the very managerialism demanded by the quality system. Alienation and managerialism stifle collegiality and shared discourse on teaching, research and scholarship which in turn limits engagement in, and improvements of, ‘real’ quality in higher education institutions. The remainder of this paper is the story of a university whose attempts to grapple with a plagiarism scandal led to the realisation that plagiarism was merely a symptom of a greater malaise within the core values and purpose of the university. Upon this realisation, the University was able to deal with issues of revitalising core values among staff and students as a basis for improving the quality of its scholarship and citizenship. The approach taken was antithetical to that of the usual quality processes. Managerial prerogative was minimised and disciplinary discourse was facilitated. 3.

The ‘Scandal’

In 2003, the University of Newcastle made national and international headlines over its handling of plagiarism among students studying in an offshore MBA program. The sorry story ended with an inquiry by the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) in late 2004 and the University’s reputation in tatters from constant media attention. Between the first shocking headline and the ICAC inquiry, the University was forced on a journey of self-examination and discovery. Its initial ad hoc reaction was to view the issue as a student problem and to issue all students with information on correct citation methods. This was followed by a series of inquiries into the incident, each inquiry creating greater media suspicion. Finally the University Council stepped in and commissioned the St James Ethics Centre to “examine the University’s plagiarism policies, procedures and management controls and to advise on their adequacy” (Longstaff, Ross, & Henderson, 2003, p. 1). Despite the University’s focus on ‘managing’ plagiarism, the Centre’s report focused on academic ethics, placing plagiarism within a broad value framework that transferred the ownership of academic misconduct away from students and onto academics and management. These themes were embraced by the University in its response to the St James Ethics Centre Report and an ‘Action Plan’ was adopted by the University Council for implementation in 2004. 4.

The ‘Action Plan’

The Plan centred on rejuvenating academic skills and values through the development of simple, consistent and just policies underpinned by values appropriate to a higher education institution and actionable by all members of the University. Specific actions included: development of policy and procedures; resourcing staff and student education in academic integrity and literacy skills; improving assessment and learning; communicating with external communities; and involving Schools in disciplinary discourse about their own conventions and values. From the beginning, the method of implementing the Plan differed from the ‘top-down’ approach commonly used by the University, a University whose senior management was held in little respect (Langford, 2003) and which an Australian Universities Quality Agency Report described as having a “culture that disproportionately favours men” (AUQA, 2003, p. 38). The majority of the authors of the ‘Action Plan’ and members of the subsequent Steering Committee for its implementation were not senior management but came from a range of units throughout the University. The two convenors chosen to practically implement the Action Plan were indeed from the ‘lower’ ranks of the University community. The choice of convenors was made on the basis of their belief in academic integrity, longevity in the University and their skills in mustering the necessary commitment and resources for the project. In the first months of implementation, the convenors spent their time in the 26 Schools discussing the issues and the recommended actions. The overall response from the schools was positive. On one hand this was surprising given the cynicism toward senior management but on the other hand, it was easy for academics to embrace the idea of revitalising values.

152



The message delivered was about empowering academics in areas of academic conduct and values and allowing them to make decisions confident that the University would support their decisions. Academics appreciated the firm stance adopted by the University as well as the responsibilities returned to them. Given the University culture and its hammering over the ‘plagiarism scandal’, the rhetoric of ethics had a cathartic effect on university members. The following sections outline the main features of the Action Plan and their implementation. 4.

Membership of the Centre for Academic Integrity

Joining the Centre for Academic Integrity (CAI), based at Duke University in the US, was the first action taken by the University. The action was more than just symbolic. In the absence of any formally stated values, membership of the Centre allowed the University to adopt the Centre’s values of honesty, trust, respect, fairness and responsibility. These values were made explicit in policy and translated in actions. Membership also provided access to pragmatic resources for learning and teaching academic integrity. Most importantly, the CAI provided an opportunity for benchmarking lecturers’ and students’ attitudes to misconduct against other universities thus enabling the University to monitor its attempts to revive academic integrity through shifting the focus from cheating and utilitarianism to learning. 5.

Policy and Procedures

Ambiguous definitions, inconsistent and frequently unknown policies and procedures were next to receive attention. The focus on ‘plagiarism’ was quickly broadened to encompass all academic misconduct under the umbrella of academic integrity. Policies and procedures were developed clearly defining expectations, rights and obligations. Clear roles, responsibilities and procedures were assigned for judging and delivering penalties for misconduct (University of Newcastle, 2004). The key policy provided for a single person in each school, a Student Academic Conduct Officer (SACO), to use a single set of criteria and penalties to make judgments and issue penalties for academic misconduct. This was to ensure fairness, consistency, transparency and defensibility across the University in its handling of academic misconduct. This system, the SACO system, placed the onus on schools to make decisions about what misconduct was within the conventions of particular disciplines as well as improve assessment practice, especially assessments that encourage misconduct. Although much of this policy was borrowed from Oxford Brookes University (Carroll & Appleton, 2001), the Student Academic Conduct Officers at the University of Newcastle have a broader and more positive role than their equivalents at Oxford Brookes University. 6.

Student Academic Conduct Officer System

The SACO system replaced a system where academic misconduct, if discovered or revealed, was automatically passed to the University Disciplinary Committees where it was rarely heard of again. There was no impact on teaching or learning nor any discussion by schools of deterring or detecting misconduct. The responsibility for misconduct was firmly in the control of Senior Management, schools were not encouraged to engage in such issues. The SACO system places the school at the centre of deterring, detecting and dealing with academic misconduct. Student Academic Conduct Officers (SACOs) are appointed by the Heads of each of the 26 Schools. The first SACOs were drawn from the ranks of the most respected and experienced academics in each school. The trust of peers was essential for SACOs to be effective as their colleagues are required to hand all suspected cases of misconduct to the SACO. The SACO, in turn, judges the cases and allocates a penalty or remedial action. Additionally, the SACO acts as a mentor for colleagues who are unsure of misconduct and as an advocate for academic integrity and good practice within the school. A SACO is provided with resources to facilitate school discussion on disciplinary values and their enactment in teaching, learning and research. First hand knowledge of academic misconduct in their schools enables SACOs to detect poor assessment practice and deal with it in a collegial manner. As a University wide group, the 26 SACOs are the key reference for ongoing development of policy, procedures and resources for strengthening academic integrity. They meet at least twice per year and between times engage in knowledge sharing and support through an email list and Blackboard site. The

153



plan is for SACOs to report to the University Senate via the Quality Committee of Senate using a SACO elected by the SACOs themselves. By reporting directly to the Quality Committee, SACOs are not restricted to the fields of either teaching or research, nor are the limited by bureaucratic procedures in providing information to University Senate. Six months after their appointments, SACOs were asked about their role. Ninety-five percent said they felt comfortable in their role; 100% felt confident that the direction taken by the University will improve the University’s standing in the higher education community; 92% received adequate support for the role; 75% were confident colleagues feel more encouraged to report instances of plagiarism; 100% felt students are aware of the new policy; and 83% would like to undertake more training for colleagues. The SACO system alone could not deal with the substantial cultural change required, hence other resources important to the success of the Action Plan were: the use of Turnitin Plagiarism Detection Software; the development of a literacy skills web site; and staff training in academic integrity. 7.

Electronic Text Matching Software – Turnitin

Although for some it may appear strange that an electronic plagiarism detection software system such as Turnitin would be part of an academic integrity program, it has proven to be an important tool in teaching literacy skills to both students and some academics. From the outset the focus of its use was on learning and prevention of plagiarism rather than detection. Students are given the opportunity to view their Turnitin reports and correct their assignments if required, prior to submission. In this way, lecturers must focus some effort into teaching literacy skills and explaining the values behind, and value of, correct citation, and students must learn the required skills. After the compulsory introduction of Turnitin, there were a few teething problems, primarily from academics who felt uncomfortable with the technology. There was a tendency for some lecturers to overplay Turnitin’s ability to assist in grading assessments and many misconceptions were held about what it could and could not do. Six months after its introduction, a survey of lecturers and support staff registered as ‘instructors’ in Turnitin (174 returns) found 63% considered the software improved student learning; 84% thought it deterred plagiarism although 62% of respondents believed students experienced difficulty in using the software. Overall, 87% supported the use of Turnitin. Of particular value is the fact that Turnitin has encouraged pragmatic discussion within disciplines on developing explicit instructions about assessment requirements and informing and modifying teaching practice. To enable both staff and students to understand literacy skills, including the interpretation of Turnitin reports, the University developed a web based training program in academic skills, InfoSkills. 8.

InfoSkills – Self-paced Training Program in Academic Skills

InfoSkills is a set of web-based interactive modules that encompass practical exercises and content on information literacy principles (Bundy, 2004) and writing skills. A specific module on ‘academic integrity’ and ethics is included among the modules. This shared resource provides an opportunity to develop a common understanding of expectations between and among disciplines. The academic community is encouraged to critique and contribute to its further development so that it meets learning and teaching needs. The site has proven especially important for online and offshore students and teachers. Since its introduction along side Turnitin, use of the site has escalated reaching 4,962 visits in March 2005. In voluntary evaluations by 152 visitors to InfoSkills, 99% found the modules easy to use; 100% found it easy to understand the information and concepts provided; 99% described it as valuable in their study and research at university; 92% reported they will re-visit the InfoSkills modules when they need a refresher in the future; and 95% said they would recommend the InfoSkills module(s) to others. In 2005, a project is being undertaken to embed InfoSkills into the teaching and assessment of first programs in all faculties. This is an important component of academic integrity as it ensures literacy skills and academic integrity are firmly entrenched in the early learning experiences of all students. A professional curriculum designer is working with individual course coordinators to achieve change in course design and assessment so the courses will act as models of good teaching practices.

154


9.


Academic Integrity Training

A training program for SACOs in academic integrity formed the basis for a series of training modules in academic integrity. These include: a module within the Graduate Certificate in Higher Education, now compulsory for all new academics and open to all academics; a module within the Training Program for sessional academics and the development of an online, self-paced training module for offshore academics as well a resource for SACOs in promoting discussions within schools. 10.

Conclusion

The assumption underpinning this paper has been that the development of citizenship and scholarship are still the key roles for a university and that the enactment of academic values associated with citizenship and scholarship go far more to the heart of improving quality of higher education than questionnaires and measures of productivity and customer satisfaction. What happened at the University of Newcastle is an example of how meaningful quality may begin to be actively embedded within the university community. The ultimate test of quality is the strength of community respect for its social institutions. “Public cynicism is at its greatest whenever members of the community perceive that an institution has betrayed its core values” (Longstaff et al, 2003, p. 1). If media reports are any gauge of public opinion, there is far greater community intolerance of plagiarism and academic misconduct in universities than poor teaching or research. ‘Quality’ in higher education must be reconceptualised away from utilitarian models used in manufacturing and marketing to ideas that stimulate academic discourse and value formation among both academics and students. The Newcastle story is a step toward understanding how this may happen. References Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA). (2003). Report of the audit on the University of Newcastle. Retrieved March 28, 2005, from http://www.newcastle.edu.au/reviews/university/restructure.html Barrie, S. (2004). Academics’ understandings of generic graduate attributes: A framework for assuring the generic attributes of graduates. Paper presented at the Third Australian Universities Quality Forum (AUQF), 7-9 July 2004, Adelaide, South Australia. Bundy, A. (Ed). (2004). Australian and New Zealand information literacy framework. Adelaide: Australian and New Zealand Institute for Information Literacy. Carroll, J., & Appleton, J. (2001). Plagiarism: A good practice guide. Oxford: Oxford Brookes University. Centre for Academic Integrity (CAI). (1999). The fundamental values of academic integrity: Honesty, trust, respect, fairness and responsibility. Retrieved November 21, 2004, from www.academicintegrity.org/fundamental.asp Gallagher, M. (2001). Encouraging university responsiveness: Student-focused incentives in Australian higher education. Paper presented at the OECD-IMHE Conference: Management Responses to Changing Student Expectations, 24 September, Brisbane. Langford, P. (2003). Your voice staff climate survey, commissioned by the University of Newcastle, Voice Project Ltd and Macquarie Research Ltd. Retrieved March 28, 2005, from http://www.newcastle.edu.au/services/hrm/surveys/ Longstaff, S., Ross, S. L., & Henderson, K. (2003). Independent enquiry: Plagiarism policies, procedures & management controls for the University of Newcastle. Sydney: St James Ethics Centre. Moses, I. (1995). Tensions and tendencies in the management of quality and autonomy in Australian Higher Education. Australian Universities Review, 1, 11-15. Singh, G. (2002). Educational consumers or educational partners: A critical theory analysis. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 13, 681-700.

155



Stevens, G. E. (2000). The art of running a business school in the new millennium: A dean’s perspective. S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, 48(3), 21-28. University of Newcastle. (2004). Policy on student academic integrity. Retrieved March 26, 2005, from www.newcastlee.du.au/policy/academic/general/academic_integrity_policy_new.html Willmott, H. (1995). Managing the academics: Commodification and control in the development of university education in the UK. Human Relations, 48(9), 993-10

156



Developments in Quality Assurance: A Comparative Study of Australia and India Milind Sathye School of Business & Government, University of Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia This paper presents a comparative position of the developments in quality assurance framework in higher education in India and Australia with a view to better understand the extent of commonality or diversity in the processes used. It investigates whether there is one ‘universal model’ of external quality assurance against the background that commonality of quality assurance framework has been found and literature suggests an international convergence. The study is based on publicly available information -gathered from the web sites - of quality assurance agencies in these two countries. The study compares the context of quality assurance, governance structure of assurance agencies, processes followed, progress and engagement of communities in these two countries. The study finds differences in the imperative for quality assurance and governance structure of assurance agencies. The process followed is similar with one major difference - India gives rating to auditee institutions while Australia does not. The progress of quality assurance is good but its impact is yet to be known and both the countries have made sustained efforts for engaging communities. The study recommends that there are areas where closer cooperation between the quality agencies of the two countries could be of mutual advantage. 1.

Introduction

The objective of this paper is to present a comparative position of the developments in quality assurance framework (QAF) in higher education sectors in India and Australia with a view to better understand the extent of commonality or diversity therein. As international convergence has been suggested in the QAFs (Harman, 1998; Woodhouse, 1996), the present study examines whether the QAFs in these two countries are converging and whether there is one ‘universal model’ of quality assurance. Various dimensions of QAFs have been compared based on the information available on the web. We found differences in the imperatives for quality assurance and governance mechanisms but similarity in the processes. The progress of quality assurance and efforts in engaging communities were found to be good but the impact thereof is yet to be studied comprehensively (India did attempt an impact study of student perception of quality assurance). This study is important because while India is recognised as the information technology superpower, Australia has globalised its ‘educational business’. If their quality assurance processes converge, then there could be possible synergies in online education. Further, India gives rating to auditee institutions while Australia does not. Rating - a summary measure - could be better understood by communities at large and warrants further attention. Lastly, India is an important source country of international students. They would be interested in knowing the differences in QAF in these two countries. James et al (1999) state that “university scores serve as a proxy for quality in prospective students’ eyes.” The paper is organised as follows: the next section presents literature review and the framework; section 3 presents methodology; and the last section presents results and concludes. 2.

Literature on Quality Assurance in Higher Education Sector

Harman and Meek (2000) define quality, quality assurance and accreditation as follows. Quality refers to “a judgement about the level of goal achievement and the value and worth of that achievement.” Quality assurance is “systematic management and assessment procedures adopted by a higher education institution or system to monitor performance and to ensure achievement of quality outputs or improved quality.” Accreditation is “a process of assessment and review, which enables a higher education course or institution to be recognised or certified as meeting appropriate standards.” We adopt these definitions for the purpose of this study.

157



The literature on QAFs in higher education is growing. Neave (1991) studied QAFs in France, Belgium and the Netherlands and found wide differences in these countries. Kells (1995) proposed a spectrum, which was from “improvement” through “public assurance” to “government goals, targeting resources, rationalisation” that drives external quality assurance. Woodhouse (1996) found that there was international convergence of QAFs. Wahlen (1998) surveyed higher education institutions in four Scandinavian countries and found that the driving force behind quality assurance in Sweden and Finland was ‘improvement’ while in Denmark and Norway it was external to the higher education institutions. Frazer (1997) surveyed 38 European countries and confirmed that “improvement” was the main spectrum. Probably, the first study that compared QAFs in developed and developing countries was that of Harman (1998) who studied, among others, Western Europe, USA, Australasia, and China. Van Damme (2000) found that there are international commonalities and variations in quality assurance approaches. Brennan and Shah (2000a, b) compared quality assessment in fourteen developed countries including Australia. They found convergence in regulation but some differences in methods of quality assessment. Interestingly, there is no study to our knowledge on QAF in India though it follows a unique practice of rating auditees. Further, a study of the commonality or diversity between a developed and developing country of the Asia Pacific region barring that of Harman (1998) is lacking. The present study bridges this important gap in literature. It is less comprehensive than the Harman study but includes India, which the Harman study excluded. Inclusion of India assumes importance for reasons already indicated above. 3.

Methodology for Comparison

We compare the extent of commonality or diversity in quality assurance in India and Australia using the Harman framework. Harman (1998) compares QAFs of various countries against seven key features. These are: purpose, national agency, body responsible for quality assurance within the institution, whether participation is voluntary or compulsory, methodology, focus (whether teaching, research, both, institution etc) and reporting and follow up. The Purpose or Context of Quality Assurance Australian quality assurance was driven among others by the needs of Australia’s education export industry. The West report (1998) stated Australia’s universities need “to become major partners in a world-class education industry…” Quality assurance in India was designed to address the issues of deterioration in quality observed by the government. The differences in context drive the divergence in approach followed in these two countries. India ‘rated’ the institutions to segregate good from bad as its context was internal as against that of Australia which had both internal and external context. National Agency The Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA), established in 2000, does the quality audit of Universities in Australia. It is an independent, not-for-profit national agency on quality assurance. It operates independently of governments and the higher education sector under the direction of a Board of Directors. In India, the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) is the quality assurance agency. It is an autonomous body established in 1994 by the University Grants Commission (UGC) of the central government to assess and accredit higher education institutions. The ownership of AUQA is broad based and is a partnership between the Commonwealth and State Governments. NAAC is established by UGC, which is an arm of the Central government. To accredit institutions, NAAC performs quality audit and gives them rating. AUQA does not rate auditee institutions. The governance structure of AUQA comprises of a Board with directors mainly appointed by the Commonwealth Government, State and Territory Governments; and some elected by Universities. Governance mechanism at the NAAC consists of a General Council (GC) on which educational administrators; policy makers and senior academics are represented. The Chairperson of the UGC is the President of the GC of the NAAC. The funding agency of NAAC (the UGC) appears to dominate its governance while AUQA is relatively independent.

158



NAAC has clearly defined its vision and mission at its web site. It has five objectives: periodic assessment and accreditation of institutions; stimulate the academic environment for promotion of quality of teaching-learning and research; encourage self-evaluation, accountability, autonomy and innovations in higher education; undertake quality-related research studies, consultancy and training programme; and collaborate with other stakeholders. The vision and mission of AUQA is not distinctly accessible at AUQA web site but were found in its Audit Manual Version 2. It is responsible among others for conducting quality audits, publishing audit reports, and reporting on the relative standards and international standing of the Australian higher education system and its quality assurance processes. AUQA benchmarks itself against international quality standards while NAAC does not. AUQA receives core operational funding from the Commonwealth, State and Territory governments and also charges the auditee institution a maximum fee of A$ 60,000. The auditee institution bears this cost. NAAC’s fee is based on size of the auditee institution and not on days of on-site visit. The maximum fee is Rs 300,000 (Approx A$ 10,000). The fee is reimbursable from the UGC. The NAAC continues to be funded by the UGC though such dependence is not desirable for an autonomous agency. Body Responsible for Quality Assurance within the Institution The planning department generally attends to quality audit. However, definite indication is not available at the web sites of these agencies as to which department or committee or body is responsible for matters relating to quality audit. In both, the countries auditee institutions consider quality audit to be extremely important matter and the top management is involved in the process. The Process of Accreditation The quality audit process adopted by AUQA and NAAC are similar. It involves self-assessment by the concerned institution, validation of that assessment by agency and final reporting. However, differences do exist in the final stage as well as in details of other two stages. NAAC assesses institutions against seven criteria and uses a nine point scale to grade institutions assessed. Institutions that score less than 55% on the scale are not accredited. Those who score more than 55% are accredited and given a rating. The seven criteria (with their relative weight in ellipses) are: Curricular Aspects (15%), TeachingLearning and Evaluation (25%), Research, Consultancy and Extension (15%), Infrastructure and Learning Resources (15%), Student Support and Progression (10%), Organisation and Management (10%) and Healthy Practices (10%). The nine point scale used to rate institutions is as under: total score of 55-60 (C), 60-65 (C+), 65-70 (C++), 70-75 (B), 75-80 (B+), 80-85 (B++), 85-90 (A), 90-95 (A+), and 95-100 (A++). This quantitative assessment is supported by qualitative assessment, which indicates the strengths and weaknesses of institutions. The AUQA report typically addresses seven parameters (e.g., governance, image, teaching and learning, research, partnerships, partnerships overseas and infrastructure). Focus A typical NAAC report has 25 pages divided into three sections viz.; general description of the institution, assessment against each of the above seven criteria and overall analysis and suggestions for improvement. A typical AUQA report also addresses its seven parameters generally but is more detailed and a typical report is of 60 pages. Differences in context of quality assurance and cultural differences, within and outside of higher education, could probably explain the differences in focus. Reporting and Follow-up There are differences in reporting in the two countries, which relate to summative and formative evaluations. The audit manual of AUQA does mention about follow-up measures after the audit. There is no indication of such measures being taken by the NAAC. It seems the latter stops after the auditee institution is accredited and rated. It also follows a five-year cycle like that of AUQA.

159



Progress of Accreditation NAAC has made good progress in accrediting institutions. Since its inception in the year 1994 till end of 2004, it has accredited more than 2000 institutions (111 Universities and 1910 Colleges), that is, approximately 200 institutions a year. AUQA, which began operation in 2000, has so far audited 24 institutions. A comprehensive impact assessment, however, has not been done. Engaging Communities NAAC has made sustained efforts for engaging communities through its student charter, newsletter, grievances procedure, training and workshops, signing of MOU with South Africa, and study of student perceptions of impact of accreditation process. NAAC’s outreach effort through publications is commendable. AUQA too has made considerable effort in engaging communities through seminar, workshops, review of quality audit process, MOU with Hong Kong and such other means. Both countries put audit reports on the web for institutions audited. 4.

Results and Conclusion

The above study brings out the commonality and diversity in quality assurance processes followed in India and Australia. The context of introduction of quality assurance was different in these countries. Both have national agencies with differences in governance mechanism. Participation was found voluntary in both the countries. Both the agencies follow a three-stage methodology but the Indian agency gives rating to auditee institutions while the Australian agency does not. Differences were found in the focus of both the agencies. As regards reporting and follow up, while the Australian agency did this, the Indian agency did not. Both have done commendable work in engaging communities though a comprehensive impact assessment of quality assurance efforts is needed. In sum, there are areas in which the quality assurance in these two countries converges but there are also important differences and a ‘universal model’ does not completely apply. Also in the context of betterinformed communities it needs to be considered whether a summary measure like rating used in India could be useful. AUQA could also consider an agreement with NAAC on lines similar to the one made with Hong Kong. Both the agencies, however, need to conduct an impact assessment in a comprehensive manner to know what value addition has been achieved due to quality assurance efforts. References Brennan, J. and Shah, T. (2000a). Managing quality in higher education: An international perspective on institutional assessment and change. Buckingham: OECD, SRHE and Open University Press. Brennan, J. and Shah, T. (2000b). Quality assessment and institutional change: Experiences from 14 countries. Higher Education, 40 (3), 331-349. Fraser, M. (1997). Report on the modalities of external evaluation of higher education in Europe: 19951997. Higher Education in Europe, 22(3), 349-401. Harman, G. (1998). The management of quality assurance: A review of international practice. Higher Education Quarterly, 52(4), 345-364. Harman, G., & Meek, V. (2000). Repositioning quality assurance and accreditation in Australian higher education. Department of Education, Science and Technology. Retrieved March 22, 2005, from http://www.dest.gov.au/highered/pubgen/pubsalph.htm#Repositioning. James, R., Baldwin, G., & McInnis, C. (1999). Which university? The factors influencing the choices of prospective undergraduates. Melbourne: Centre for the Study of Higher Education, The University of Melbourne. Kells, H. R. (1995). Building a national evaluation system for higher education: Lessons from diverse settings. Higher Education in Europe, 20(1-2), 18-26.

160



Neave, M. (1991). Methods of quality assurance in Europe: CNAA discussion paper 6. London: Council for National Academic Awards. Van Damme, D. (2000). European approaches to quality assurance: Models, characteristics and challenges. South African Journal of Higher Education, 14(2), 10-19. Wahlen, S. (1998). Is there a Scandinavian model of evaluation of higher education? Higher Education Management, 10(3), 27-41. West, R. (1998). Higher education review final report Learning for life. Retrieved March 22, 2005, from http://www.dest.gov.au/archive/highered/hereview/execsum1.htm#forward Woodhouse, D. (1996). Quality assurance: International trends, pre-occupation and features. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 21(4), 347-356.

161



A Proposed Framework for Effective Quality Management of Community Engagement Geoff Scotta and Julie Jacksonb a

University of Western Sydney, Penrith, NSW 1797, Australia b

La Trobe University, Melbourne, Vic 3086, Australia

While many universities have included community engagement objectives within their strategic planning, in most cases the realisation of these objectives has been a reasonably ad hoc affair. Recent external developments in the university sector include demands for greater accountability in the area of community engagement of universities, through both community pressure and changes in government policy and its associated tighter funding climate. These pressures are leading universities to reconsider their community engagement activities and to take a more strategic approach. This paper sets out a comprehensive, evidence-based framework for the assurance of quality and continuous improvement in the area of community engagement activities, utilising the PDCA cycle. 1. Overview The framework proposed below was developed in draft form at AUQF in 2004. At this forum, quality management for community engagement was identified as an area requiring improvement, sector-wide. The framework addresses the importance of managing the area strategically and with an eye to quality. It is necessary in order to ensure that key strategic intentions for the area are implemented effectively and consistently across a University. 2. Defining Community Engagement (CE) Following the Foundation Paper prepared by the Australian Consortium (ACHECESR, 2004), a university may engage with its communities at a number of levels, and the level of engagement may vary according to the community addressed. The possible levels are: 1. An irreducible and unavoidable element of existing university activities – assumes all research and teaching ultimately involves engagement with the community, either directly or indirectly and with social, economic and/or cultural impacts. 2. A separate and mainly voluntary activity by academics and students – the ‘service’ view. 3. Community engagement and service as a central overriding goal of higher education – deliberately embedded within all teaching, learning and research functions (the engaged university). 4. Community engagement as a systematically pursued partnership for mutual benefit – with shared values and aspirations between the university and the community. Level 1 represents a more traditional view of community engagement with engagement occurring primarily as an outcome of the university pursuing its normal core activities. The possibilities for interaction range from there to the community based university at Level 4. At Level 4 there is a genuine two-way interaction between university and community where the university not only contributes to its communities, but the communities’ aspirations are reflected in, and change, the university. It is important for each university to clarify whether engagement is one-way (service orientation) operating primarily outside mainstream activity or if it is to be integrated and two-way. If the latter focus is adopted then community engagement should become embedded in the core activities of the university in a reciprocal way. For example, research is generated from, and delivered through, partnerships with targeted community and professional groups; it is problem-based, action oriented and validated in terms of the successful implementation of its findings in practice. In the same way, the University’s learning

162



programs are developed in partnership, with capabilities to be developed validated by research, on successful professional practice in the area concerned. Further, research and learning programs are intentionally linked whenever possible. Hence community engagement ceases to be the Cinderella of a university’s core activities and becomes a distinctive core driver. At the University of Western Sydney (UWS) this two-way view of community engagement is being taken up through the University wide professional and post-graduate outreach project. In this development, a senior academic with extensive experience in partnership research and flexible learning development becomes the leader accountable for making engagement activities more focused, linked, proactive and strategic. In addition to recognition of the different levels of engagement, the University needs to provide a clear, operational definition of the concept which is understood by all staff as an essential starting point. For example, the definition used at one university and the definition provided by the American Association of State Colleges and Universities follow: Any service provided by staff (or students) using the expertise for which they are employed (enrolled) at the University to benefit one of the communities served by the institution. This can be paid or unpaid and is typically delivered through a partnership and ongoing reciprocal relationship between the University and the specific community or professional group concerned. It is intended to produce demonstrable benefit in the overall development and wellbeing of the communities served

and The publicly engaged institution is fully committed to direct, two-way interaction with communities and other external constituencies through the development, exchange and application of knowledge, information and expertise for mutual benefit (AASCU, 2002, p. 9).

3. Identification of the University’s Communities Communities can be geographical, cultural, linguistic, religious, generational, national, international, social, economic or professional. Alumni are also included by many universities. It is important for a University to identify and justify which one or mix of these communities and which specific subgroups within each selected community it is engaging with and why. For example, La Trobe University has identified the following communities of interest which include both internal and external communities. The type of engagement (from 1 to 4) varies between these communities: •

communities where campuses are located including regional communities in Victoria

•

communities where programs are taught including international communities

•

staff and students at these two locations

•

ethnic and cultural communities

•

Indigenous communities

•

prospective students and their families – domestic and international

•

industry/business – research partners and potential employers

•

alumni

•

scholarly communities – domestic and international

•

professional communities – domestic and international.

163



4. Managing CE Strategically and in an Integrated Way An essential component of a quality framework is to have a CE strategy which is closely aligned to the strategic directions of the university as delineated in Strategic Plans, both at University and College/Faculty/School level. Few universities currently have a strategic plan for the area. Those who do often do not have mechanisms which integrate CE in any systematic and explicit way with learning, teaching, research or research training or have in place a clear strategy for ensuring effective and consistent implementation of their plan’s objectives. Evidence that the key directions for community engagement are integrated with those for learning and teaching and research is important in order to develop a mutually reinforcing approach across all of the University’s core activities. Demonstrable links to the University’s Internationalisation, Indigenous, Equity, Teaching & Learning and Research Plans are necessary. Finally, consistency of approach, accountability and application of key strategic directions is important. The UWS professional and postgraduate outreach project is one example of this. 5. Involvement This can be any one or a mix of academic staff, general staff or students. Equally, if a two-way engagement strategy is adopted, members of targeted communities become involved in the University. 6. Leadership and Accountability There needs to be clear accountability for the implementation of key strategic directions and quality management of the area by a senior member of staff. This requires the establishment of annual performance targets for this member of the executive and regular reviews of performance against data from an explicit measurement and improvement system (below). It is equally important to establish the individuals who are to be locally accountable for initiating, coordinating, monitoring and improving the area. 7. Incentives Building in adequate recognition and rewards is important to assure consistent action in the area. Many staff will not become involved in the area unless they see that it is being appropriately led by a senior staff member; that it is built into the core university funding and reward systems, and that there are incentives which may include: •

promotion opportunities which recognise community engagement activities

•

financial rewards to individuals or areas demonstrating outstanding performance

•

community engagement initiatives grants.

8. Tracking and Improving CE – Some Possible Performance Measures A dearth of easily quantifiable performance measures has been identified for the area. Quantitative measures that are used by some universities include benchmarked trends in:

164

•

the results of community satisfaction surveys (these can be run with staff and target communities)

•

number of column inches of positive vs negative media coverage per annum

•

Continuing Professional Education (CPE) income/profit

•

publication rates for the area in benchmarked journals

•

citation rates for University submissions to key committees and reports focusing on community development; recommendations taken up in these reports

•

SPIRT grants won x spread across Colleges and Divisions



•

number of tenants on university research parks

•

amount of CE activity x type

•

community usage rates of University facilities x type of community group and activity

•

participation rates by the community in University-mounted cultural and other activities

•

number/proportion of graduates retained in local communities

•

number of staff receiving an ‘outstanding’ assessment for the area in promotion rounds

•

outcomes of AUQA audits on the area

•

number of students and staff choosing to do sabbaticals in target communities

•

number of students involved in industry/community placements or the equivalent

•

number of alumni involved in/contributing to the University’s activities

•

number of staff holding official positions in key target community groups/organisations.

It is important to think carefully about the most telling indicators of quality and to use them as part of a systematic, consistently monitored tracking system. One way to look at quality indicators for the area is to see them as falling into five clusters, from least to most important: 1. The quality of the university’s conception of ‘community engagement’ – including degree of understanding and commitment, found in strategic plans and other formal statements. 2. The extent to which resources necessary to make the intended version of community engagement work have been put in place. This can be seen by studying structure, accountabilities, staffing and financial profile of the institution. 3. The amount and nature of engagement activity and staff and other stakeholder participation. 4. The extent to which those operating the community engagement system see it as operating effectively, gauged through user satisfaction surveys and the like. 5. Demonstrable evidence that the overall engagement system and the specific activities that make it up are having a positive impact on those intended to benefit. 9. Tracking Performance Once the key performance measures for the area have been decided and given priority, what is then necessary it to determine how best to gather in a comprehensive set of data on them and to refer to these data into the university’s performance management and incentive systems (see sections 6 & 7, above). 10. Continuous Improvement At the same time as gathering internal tracking data, it is necessary to obtain user satisfaction data on the area and to use the results, in conjunction with the community engagement data base, to identify key areas for quality improvement and to ensure that these are addressed promptly and effectively. Here being part of a national or international HE community engagement network using similar tracking systems can be used to identify improvement solutions for underperforming areas. 11. Some examples of CE There are a wide range of options in this regard. CE can be local, national or international and include any one or mix of the following:

165



Engagement with Professional Communities •

membership of professional boards, accreditation bodies, or directorships in relevant public and private instrumentalities

•

acting as an expert witness, provision of expert advice on community issues to government, public organisations and the private sector

•

involvement of members of industry or professional bodies on course advisory committees.

Research and Development •

undertaking applied interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary research and consultancies around the needs of and in partnership with specific communities

•

engagement by students in service learning, undertaken for credit, with specific communities

•

linking the full range of relevant resources of the University to assist community projects (local, national or international). In some Universities service learning is integrated with this – as is the case with the UTS Shopfront, or the LTU Community Legal Service

•

assisting voluntary community groups with one’s skills.

Knowledge Dissemination and Community Debate •

engaging in public debate, informed comment in the media (public intellectuals)

•

running public lectures and seminars

•

operating TV and radio stations or web sites for the benefit of and often in partnership with targeted communities.

Educational Programs and Support •

providing enrichment activities for local schools using the University’s intellectual, student and other resources

•

undertaking short courses and Continuing Professional Education with targeted communities, the outcomes of which further program development and recruitment opportunities

•

using practice-oriented learning in which community locations and groups are used as both site or source for learning. This would include the use by the University of practicum placements, workbased learning, use of successful graduates as a source of information to make assessment and curriculum more relevant, problem based learning and use of real-world case studies and student or staff mentoring by members of targeted communities.

Involving the Community in the University •

appointing key leaders in targeted communities to adjunct positions in the University

•

the involvement of specific communities in the formation of the University’s key strategic directions and policies

•

creative activities and productions for specific communities.

Some Key Issues for Discussion 1. To what extent is the above framework useful? What resonates most and what resonates least? 2. What should we add, drop, change or highlight? 3. What strategies should be adopted to support the take-up and consistent implementation of such a framework?

166



4. To what extent should a two-way and integrated conception of community engagement be part of every university’s strategy and quality management system in the current operating environment of universities? References American Association of State Colleges & Universities. (2002): Stepping forward as stewards of place: a guide for leading public engagement at State Colleges & Universities. Washington, DC: AASCU. Retrieved from www.aascu.org Sunderland, N., Muirhead, B., Parsons, R & Holtom, D. (2004). Foundation paper: Australian consortium on higher education, community engagement and social responsibility. Prepared by the Australian Consortium Project Centre at the University of Queensland’s “Boilerhouse” Community Service and Research Centre.

167



Industry Engagement: Transforming Good Intentions into Good Practice Peter Shadbolt and Judie Kay Office of Industry Liaison, Swinburne University of Technology, Vic 3122, Australia All Australian universities are engaged with industry to varying degrees. Industry peak bodies, universities and governments agree on the need for strengthening industry-university collaboration as a core strategy for transforming Australia’s industrial-based economy into a knowledge-based economy and for realising the benefits of closer interaction. Analysis and understanding of industry-university collaboration is hampered by the lack of data on the quality and quantity of collaboration activities. This paper explores the rationale for strengthening industry-university collaboration, highlights University-wide initiatives currently being implemented by Swinburne University of Technology and identifies some inherent challenges in building mutually beneficial industry-university relationships. 1.

Introduction

All universities engage with industry in various ways and to varying degrees. Industry peak bodies, universities and governments agree on the need to strengthen university-industry collaboration as a core strategy for transforming Australia’s industry-based economy into a knowledge-based economy and for reaping the benefits of this closer liaison. Industry engagement consists of a diverse range of interactions between universities and industry that are readily classified into four broad dimensions (Kay & Shadbolt, 2003): •

Teaching and learning collaboration: Including industry participation on course advisory committees, scholarships, guest speakers, graduate recruitment, hosting cooperative education placements and applied student projects;

•

Research and development collaboration: Including contract research, ARC Linkage Grants and Cooperative Research Centres;

•

Business development: Including consulting, training, contract research, tenders, sponsorship, donations, commercialisation of intellectual property, facilities and equipment hire;

•

Community, industry and regional development: Including joint participation in professional and industry associations, professional development, community and regional development initiatives, staff exchange, conferences, conventions, business incubators and technology parks.

The Department of Education Science and Technology (DEST), Higher Education Research Data Collection provides extensive information and analysis of university research activity, however, comparative analysis of other forms of industry-university collaboration is hampered by the lack of data on the quality and quantity of collaboration activities that exist in the sector. This paper aims to: 1. Explore the rationale for strengthening Industry-university collaboration; 2. Highlight and assess university-wide initiatives currently being implemented by the Office of Industry Liaison at Swinburne University of Technology; 3. Identify some inherent challenges in building mutually beneficial industry-university relationships. 2.

A Rationale for Strengthening Industry-University Collaboration

The context for industry-university engagement is changing. Gibbons observes that universities are moving from research characterised by relationships with “… primarily one way …” communication from universities to the outside world, to a new context of “socially robust” research where industry

168



engagement is a “core value” characterised by an open institution with two-way communication. Gibbons goes on to stress that universities will need to invest resources in structures if they are to encourage, facilitate and manage these more complex models of engagement with society (Gibbons, 2005). From a Federal government perspective, Australia’s economic and social prosperity will increasingly depend on developing and exploiting our “Ideas, knowledge and skills … to … enable us to make the most of our rich natural resources, develop new industries and to find solutions to contemporary and emerging problems in areas such as environment, health and national security” (Howard, 2004). Universities play a critical role in preparing graduates for the workplace and in research and development activity. These roles are crucial to the promotion of innovation, productivity and competitiveness, and industry functioning within a global economy. “Industry is desirous of a stronger engagement with Universities and sees significant potential for these relationships. However, these are only in an embryonic phase. Industry and the higher education sector should begin a rich dialogue to reach an understanding on the options and possibilities of mutual benefit” (Australian Industry Group, 2002). This dialogue and exploitation of mutually beneficial opportunities will enable firms to innovate, develop better products and services and build local and international competitiveness at the same time as gaining opportunities to recruit and develop suitably skilled staff in a climate of increasing skill shortages. Universities also support enhanced collaboration as a mechanism for: •

ensuring the relevance of curriculum to the needs of industry and thus provide better graduate employment outcomes

•

expanding applied research opportunities

•

supplementing revenue to overcome declining levels of Australian federal funding to higher education

•

supporting regional and community development.

The drivers of change for universities are increasingly more global than local. The Free Trade Agreement with the USA and the increasing globalisation of the higher education market sets the conditions for rising competition from overseas universities. In the UK, the government is providing substantial resource incentives to universities to stimulate engagement, and Lambert is collecting the data from universities as a basis for understanding the nature and scope of industry engagement and for setting the collaboration agenda. 3.

Swinburne University Experience

Swinburne University of Technology is well known for its strong links with industry and the practical and applied nature its academic programs. Over 80% of DEST recognised research revenue is industry related, approximately 10% of total revenue (25% of Self-Generated Revenue) is industry linked. In recent years, Swinburne has implemented a range of strategic initiatives strengthen industry engagement activities. 3.1 Industry Enabling Plan: Creating the change agenda Swinburne’s first Industry Enabling Plan (Swinburne, 2003) provides a sound foundation for building an effective planning and management framework for strengthening industry engagement. Following university-wide consultation, the plan was approved by the Swinburne Council in February 2004. This plan identifies goals, strategies and targets for the period 2004 – 2006. During the planning process, it became apparent that there was a definite lack of information and models to assist in understanding the complex nature and diverse interactions between the University and industry. Thus there was a strong focus in the plan on developing the necessary planning and management framework to strengthen interaction with industry partners and to enable the sustainable development of our industry relationships.

169



Core strategies include: •

developing metrics that enable improved understanding and performance evaluation

•

strengthening the industry engagement presence in each higher education faculty

•

enhancing recognition & incentives for staff involved in industry engagement activities, particularly to improve career development prospects

•

maintaining Industry Synergy grants as a catalyst to expand innovative practice.

3.2 Industry-based Learning: More than work experience Swinburne’s Industry-Based Learning (IBL) Program started 40 years ago and exemplifies genuine collaboration between industry and the University. This program successfully integrates the academic and professional practice needs of students with the business and development needs of our industry partners. The IBL Program places undergraduate students in paid employment for one or two semesters. The core IBL team consists of Division-based managers and support staff that administer the placements and the Executive Director of Industry Liaison who facilitates university-wide development and coordination of the program. In its audit of Swinburne conducted in 2002, the Australian University Quality Agency (AUQA) commended the IBL Program and has now listed the program on its Good Practice Database. A snapshot of Swinburne’s IBL Program shows that: •

the estimated student income from IBL placements was approximately $AUD14 million in 2003

•

IBL is a recognised component of 67courses

•

there are 15 IBL Managers/Coordinators and other staff are directly employed

•

45 Academic Supervisors are involved.

In addition, IBL relationships with employers provide demonstrated pathways for other forms of industry engagement including research, curriculum development and consultancy projects and build enduring mutually beneficial partnerships. 3.3 Industry Synergy Grants: Incentive for innovative university-industry collaboration projects The Swinburne Industry Synergy Grants scheme was initiated in early 2003. The grants provide seeding funds to encourage university staff to partner with industry to expand opportunities for research development, commercial activities, enhanced teaching and learning or other innovative outcomes. Grant funds are supplemented with industry cash and in-kind contributions. All funded projects in 2003 and 2004 reported strengthening of relationship with their industry partners with flow-on opportunities for other collaborative projects. Business development, new ARC Linkage opportunities and involvement of students in real world industry projects have resulted. The three initiatives highlighted above add value to building Swinburne’s industry engagement profile, however, the Industry Enabling Plan has provided the strongest driver of change. Early successes include:

170

•

modification of the academic promotions policy to recognise industry related activities for promotion

•

modification to the University’s financial Chart of Accounts to enable collection and reporting of industry related income and expenditure

•

adoption of an initial set of metrics for reporting on industry engagement activity


• 4.


appointment of industry liaison directors in each of the Higher Education Division’s faculties. Inherent Challenges in Building Mutually Beneficial Industry-University Relationships

“Companies and universities are not natural partners: their cultures and missions are different” (Lambert, 2003). To secure an effective industry-university union, significant challenges must be overcome. The barriers that Australian industry identifies are: •

a lack of consistent and clear intellectual property policies across universities

•

time delays resulting from university approval processes often requiring multiple layers of decision making

•

varying levels of commercial acumen in universities leading to difficulties that may jeopardise a project and potentially impacting on the financial returns for both the university and the industry partner (Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, 2002).

Universities face additional challenges in expanding their level of industry engagement, including:

5.

•

lack of understanding of the nature, scope and importance of industry

•

lack of accessible, systematic data collection for effective management reporting and decision making

•

fragmented structures for industry engagement planning, management and service delivery

•

fragile collaborative relationships often based on personal/professional contacts rather than organisational level relationships

•

lack of resources to invest in the necessary infrastructure for long-term relationship building. Conclusions

The nature and scope of industry engagement is clearly diverse, complex and strategically important to fulfilling university mandates, particularly for Swinburne. All universities can provide examples of best practice, however there is currently a lack of available data to effectively measure, understand, evaluate and subsequently, to benchmark industry engagement practice. It is clear that the Australian Government and industry peak bodies are advocating increasing the intensity of collaboration with universities to stimulate economic development and assist individual firms to become more internationally competitive in a global market place. Universities are seeking to strengthen relationships with industry to supplement revenue streams, ensure the relevance of curriculum to the needs of industry and thus generate better graduate employment outcomes. Despite these explicit drivers for better collaboration, barriers, both real and imagined, are slowing down progress. Universities are engaging in a wide range of collaborative activities with industry, however, unless these collaborative education activities are underpinned and supported by a range of industry engagement initiatives at the university-wide, faculty and individual level then it is unlikely that these industry links will develop into robust, long-term diverse partnerships. Competitive pressures between universities and between industry competitors are limiting the effective demonstration and dissemination of best practice arrangements. Vibrant communities of professional practice are needed as a mechanism for sharing good practice across university and industry networks. Competitive pressure will also rise with the expected expansion of offshore universities operating onshore. Strong partnerships with industry may become an essential prerequisite for attracting students, delivering quality education, achieving high quality graduate outcomes and securing research funding and other resources. Government funding incentives will also help universities to recognise industry engagement as a core value rather than an optional extra.

171



Swinburne has taken small but significant steps to establish a management and development framework for strengthening collaboration with industry. We welcome discussion and collaboration with other universities in transforming from good intentions to good practice in industry. References Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. (2002). Submission to higher education at the crossroads: Discussion paper. Presented in association with the Australian Industry Group, Business Council of Australia. Retrieved March 24, 2003, from http://www.acci.asn.au/text_files/submissions/HER_Crossroads_June2002.pdf Australian Industry Group. (2002). Australia@ higher education: Unlocking the potential for Australia’s higher education sector. Retrieved March 24, 2003, from www.aigroup.asn.au/aigroup/pdf/representation/submissions/representation_submission_nat_australia_at _higher_education_pu_040803.pdf Gibbons, M. (2005). Engagement with the community: the emergence of a new social contract between society and science. Brisbane: Griffith University. Retrieved March 21, 2005, from www.griffith.edu.au/er/news/2005_1/michael_gibbons.htm Howard, J. (2004). Prime Minister’s Message - Backing Australia's ability: The Australian Government’s innovation report 2003-04. Retrieved March 21, 2005, from http://backingaus.innovation.gov.au/pm_message.htm Kay, J., & Shadbolt, P. (2003). Industry enabling plan 2004 – 2006: Discussion paper. Melbourne: Swinburne University of Technology (unpublished internal paper). Lambert, R. (2003). Lambert review of business – University collaboration. Retrieved March 24, 2004, from http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/EA556/lambert_review_final_450.pdf Swinburne University of Technology. (2003). Industry enabling plan 2004 – 2006. Swinburne University of Technology (unpublished internal paper).

172



Engaging Communities as Scholarship Rod St Hill Faculty of Business, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Qld 4350, Australia The contemporary university in Australia publicly states a commitment to engaging communities, yet engagement is not often seen as a core activity of academics. This paper suggests that engagement should be regarded as a form of scholarship that should be added to the four types of scholarship identified by Ernest Boyer. The paper also suggests some measurements of outcomes for quality audit purposes. 1.

Introduction

The contemporary university in Australia is typically committed to teaching, research and service, although there are many “teaching only” higher education institutions and there might soon be ‘teaching only universities’ (Department of Education, Science and Training, 2005). Recently, universities have begun embracing regional or community engagement and a number of conferences have focused on engagement this year—The 2005 NSW Regional Engagement Forum, the annual conference of the Australian Universities Community Engagement Alliance, and this Forum. No doubt activities such as these conferences have been prompted by the very assertive statements concerning the obligation that higher education institutions, especially regional institutions and campuses, have for community engagement based on “mutual recognition of community service obligations” and which “contributes strategically to the economic and social viability of both the institution and the community” (Nelson, 2002, p. 23). In this paper it is suggested that engagement should be regarded as a form of scholarship that can be added to the four types of scholarship identified by Boyer (1997) to yield a yet “broader and more capacious meaning” of scholarship than Boyer enunciated. In section 2 of this paper Boyer’s characterisation of scholarship as comprising four elements is described. In section 3 it is suggested that engagement should be regarded as a fifth type of scholarship. Some suggested measurements of engagement outcomes for quality audit purposes are outlined in section 4, and concluding comments are made in section 5. 2.

Boyer’s Scholarship Reconsidered

Ernest Boyer’s seminal work on scholarship in the American university (Boyer, 1997) was first published in 1990 and is well-known among university educators. Boyer’s central thesis was that although universities had, by the latter part of the twentieth century, embraced the rhetoric of the teachingresearch-service university, in practice all that really mattered in decisions regarding promotion and tenure was research output. He argued persuasively that such decisions should take into account four types of scholarship, namely: discovery, integration, application and teaching. Each is outlined briefly below: •

Discovery - this is what most academics understand to be basic research expressed as a “commitment to knowledge for its own sake, to freedom of inquiry and to following, in a disciplined fashion, an investigation wherever it may lead” (Boyer, 1997, p. 17).

•

Integration - this is about giving meaning to the isolated facts of discovery expressed as “serious, disciplined work that seeks to interpret, draw together, and bring new insight to bear on original research” (Boyer, 1997, p. 19). Integration involves the making of connections among disciplines and giving context to discovery. Together discovery and integration constitute what most academics would consider to be research.

•

Application - Boyer also calls this “service”. It is based on the idea that higher education institutions must serve the interests of the larger community. In Australian and New Zealand the term ‘extension’ has often been used, particularly in the context of agricultural research.

173



Knowledge gained from research must be applied to problems in industry and society. Boyer sees this as a “two-way street” in which not only are the results of research applied to problems, but problems themselves, when identified, influence research. •

Teaching - this is the activity in which the research and application work of the academic becomes consequential because it is understood by others. “…(T)eaching begins with what the teacher knows. Those who teach must, above all, be well informed, and steeped in the knowledge of their fields. Teaching can be well regarded only as professors are widely read and intellectually engaged” (Boyer, 1997, p. 23). Clearly, in Boyer’s opinion, teaching is far more than a “routine function, tacked on, something almost anyone can do” (Boyer, 1997, p. 23).

Boyer argued that these four forms of scholarship should not be interpreted as a hierarchy in which discovery is regarded as more important than any other activity and from which other forms of scholarship grow. He argued that they should all be seen as forms of scholarship; separate, but overlapping functions of the academic. 3.

A Fifth Form of Scholarship

Boyer’s characterisation of application comes close to the contemporary idea of engagement because he alludes to the problems of industry and society defining an agenda for “scholarly investigation”. He used the land grant colleges in the United States, established in the latter half of the nineteenth century, as an example of how higher education was meant to support the emerging agricultural and industrial sectors of the economy. However, it might be argued that engagement goes further than application and requires the setting up of institutional frameworks in which the community can directly influence all of the scholarships defined by Boyer. A prerequisite for such influence is “a strong and meaningful relationship between a university and its community” (Lovegrove, 2004, p. 1, emphasis in the original). Lovegrove (2004) suggested that the principles of engagement in youth and education programming defined by the W K Kellogg Foundation (2002, p. 3) were useful in defining the key elements of this relationship. The university and community: •

see their present and future well-being as inextricably linked

•

collaboratively plan and design mutually beneficial programs and outcomes

•

engage in reciprocal learning

•

respect the history, culture, knowledge and wisdom of each other

•

create structures that promote open communication and equity with one another

•

have high expectations for their performance and involvement with each other

•

regularly conduct a joint assessment of their partnership and report results.

It almost goes without saying that such a relationship is an intensely scholarly one, requiring appropriate institutional arrangements that harness the skills, knowledge and experience of both academics in the university and people in the community to facilitate: •

researching community attitudes and needs, and problems in industry and society

•

translating, with the active involvement of the community, the results of the research activities above into the scholarships of discovery, integration, application and teaching

•

assessing how well the scholarly output of the university meets the needs of the community and develops solutions to the problems of industry and society.

The appropriate institutional arrangements might differ among communities, but they would need to be oriented towards open communication, encouraging a willingness to reveal problems and issues where they occur and the production of good documentation of the community research undertaken. The latter might provide a rich resource for research in its own right.

174


4.


Measurement of Outcomes for Quality Audit Purposes

If engagement is to be regarded seriously as a scholarly activity, appropriate measurement of outcomes for quality purposes is desirable. Such measurement would involve both method and indicators. Methods could include surveys, focus groups, and mapping. A number of indicators might be suggested and are discussed in the following paragraphs. Longitudinal data about community attitudes: These could be obtained by surveys and used to judge what the community thinks about its relationship with the university and how this changes over time as the university actively involves to its community in defining its own directions and activities. Key stakeholders, such as employers, non-profit organisations, schools, local government and graduates could be included in survey samples. An addition or alternative to surveys would be focus groups held with key stakeholders. These would not provide quantitative data, but focus group records would provide rich qualitative information about community attitudes. Mapping community needs and problems in industry and society to the scholarships of discovery, integration, application and teaching: Assuming that research has been undertaken that identifies needs and problems, the activities of academics could be mapped. In general one might expect that a university that is strongly engaged with its community would be able to demonstrate that a large proportion of its discovery, integration, application and teaching is informed by the community and industry (with the weakest linkage being between discovery and the community, given the nature of basic research described in section 2). The degree to which community needs are reflected in the activities of the university would be an indicator of the depth of engagement. The number of teaching programs that involve industry, the university and other education providers (including schools and vocational education providers) in the university’s region: This would demonstrate that the needs and problems of industry and society are the drivers of teaching in the university. It should be understood in this context that the focus ought not to be exclusively on technological solutions to problems, but that there should also be focus on history and culture and other elements associated with mutual understanding and respect for diversity. In this context involvement could include stakeholder membership of curriculum advisory or evaluation panels and contribution to curriculum design, content and delivery. Another form of involvement might be service learning, in which students engage with the community in projects that use their acquired knowledge and skills for the benefit of the community and practice reflection on their experience. The proportion of school leavers in the university’s region who choose to study at that university rather than a university in another region: It is common in the evaluation of community engagement to record the number of members of the community that participate in engagement ‘events’ [see, for example, The State of Queensland, Department of Communities (2004, p. 2)]. If a university is successfully engaging its community, then school leavers will see the university in their region as offering relevance and will be more likely to enrol. Of course, it ought not to be expected that all school leavers will gravitate to the university in their region because school leavers choose universities on other bases. However, in relation to rural and isolated school leavers, survey evidence reported by James et al (1999) indicated “that for rural and isolated secondary students, the more important choice factor is availability of the best course in their area of interest, not the relative proximity of a university or campus… If a student has a clear idea of what he or she wants, and feels that he or she will not necessarily gain that outcome at the nearby “regional” institution, then they are very likely to go elsewhere, and just as probably will apply for admission to a capital city university or campus” (p. iii). The choice of university was revealed by the survey to be “discriminating and sophisticated” (p. iii). The proportion of graduates of the university who find employment in the university’s region (and possibly the proportion of students who come to the university from other regions, but who find employment in the university’s region): If a university is engaging its community successfully, its scholarly activities will be oriented to its region and its graduates will readily find employment there. This is not to say that a community would actively discourage graduates from moving away from the region

175



for a time in order to gain experience. Therefore, this indicator might be best lagged to capture the incidence of graduates returning to the region after having gained some work experience. Although none of the indicators above could be taken, on its own, to define the degree to which a university has succeeded in engagement, together they could provide an overall impression as to how effective have been the institutional arrangements made to actively involve the community in the scholarly activities of its academics. Furthermore, in making decisions about tenure and promotion, universities should take into account the community engagement activities of individual staff, perhaps by mapping their scholarly activities to community needs and the problems of industry and society and by considering the role of service learning in their teaching strategy. 5.

Conclusion

In this paper it has been argued that engagement should be considered as a fifth type of scholarship, expanding the four associated with the work of Boyer. The basis for the argument was that the activities associated with engagement are intensely scholarly in nature, requiring the development of appropriate institutional arrangements to actively involve the community in directing the directions of the university and scholarly activities of its academic staff. The paper also suggested a number of indicators that might be used in a quality audit of institutions claiming to have successfully engaged their community. If, universities and other higher education institutions have an obligation for community engagement, as was asserted in Higher Education at the Crossroads, then indicators of the degree to which they have succeeded are a must. Universities might usefully consider engagement as a scholarly activity on a par with the other four forms of scholarship articulated by Boyer. References Boyer, E. L. (1997). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Department of Education, Science and Training. (2005). Building university diversity: Future approval and accreditation processes for Australian higher education issues paper. Canberra: Australian Government. Retrieved March 28, 2005, from http://www.dest.gov.au. James, R., Wyn, J., Baldwin, G., Hepworth, G., McInnis, C., & Stephanou, A. (1999). Rural and isolated school students and their higher education choices. Commissioned Report No. 62. Canberra: National Board of Employment, Education and Training Higher Education Council. Retrieved March 28, 2005, from http://www.dest.gov.au. Lovegrove, B. (2004). Professorial lecture. Toowoomba: University of Southern Queensland. Retrieved on March 28, 2005, from http://www.usq.edu.au. Nelson, B. (2002). Higher education at the crossroads. Canberra: Department of Education, Science and Training. Retrieved March 28, 2005, from http://www.dest.gov.au. The State of Queensland (Department of Communities). (2004). Engaging Queenslanders: Managing community engagement. Retrieved May 26, 2005, from http://www.onlinelearning.qld.gov.au/materials/ce/ce/info/learning/guide/t6s5.htm. W. K. Kellogg Foundation. (2002). Engagement in youth and education programming. Battle Creek, MI: W. K. Kellogg Foundation. Retrieved on March 28, 2005, from http://www.wkkf.org

176



WORKSHOP SESSIONS

Student Practicum – Engaging with the Professions Quality Assurance in Extramural Student Placements Workshop Workshop Report

John A Baguleya and Grahame Felettib a

Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia b

37 Village Bay Close, Marks Point, NSW 2280, Australia.

This workshop explored quality assurance issues in implementing an extramural work placement program. Issues for quality assurance were presented using generic descriptive scenarios designed to provide opportunities for small group discussion. A plenary de-briefing session enabled information from these discussions to be integrated with information on the approach taken by the Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney in their recently introduced extramural placement program. 1. Extramural Supervisor Training Creating a structured program of extramural student work based placements with additional responsibilities for extramural supervisors creates a need for more formal engagement and training of extramural supervisors in order to ensure quality. The purpose of supervisor training is to standardize the supervision and assessment of students completing a variety of extramural placements. Preparation for this program initially consisted of visits to practitioners to provide program information and gather feedback. Specific training sessions involved: explanation of the purpose and structure of the program; clearly defining the role of the extramural supervisor; providing workshops for role plays, video material for examples and opportunities for discussing issues; and providing written materials such as handbooks, forms and checklists to assist implementation. 2. Variability of the Learning Experience The learning experience during an extramural practicum is variable for each student due to factors not readily controlled by universities such as seasonality, placement variety and differing work based tasks or cases. Creating structures and processes and reinforcing these elements through supervisor and student training can potentially limit the variability caused by physical factors. An additional strategy is to transfer control to the supervisors and students who may be in a better position to manage variability. The latter was largely achieved through the creation of an online database enabling provision of information to students regarding potential placements. Extramural supervisors provide information on the activities available and elect times and student numbers each year. The database is interactive and can be updated by hosts and students. With respect to process, students are given greater responsibility for their learning and all placements are dependent upon the student and the extramural supervisor negotiating agreed and realistic learning outcomes to complement Faculty determined learning outcomes. 3. Engaging Students The learning experience during an extramural practicum may vary due to individual student factors resulting in differing levels of engagement such as poor motivation, shyness, poor communication skills or preference for different learning styles.

177



In order to gain the most from extramural placements, students are encouraged to take responsibility for their own learning. Adequate preparation, training and support for students is vital and included the development of a new unit of study (Preparation for Veterinary Practice), provision of written and online resources, and a relatively consistent structure and assessment process for each practicum. In addition, units of study in previous years of the curriculum were modified to assist in this process. Extramural supervisor training and support through written material, online resources, Faculty contact and educational workshops complemented student preparation, training and support. 4. Engaging Extramural Supervisors The learning experience during an extramural practicum may vary due to differing levels of extramural supervisor engagement and compliance within and between student placements. A genuine, rewarding partnership with the profession facilitates participation and compliance. Preparing and training extramural supervisors for student placements included visits by Faculty, a dedicated conference with clinical and educational sessions, and provision of written materials and an online database. Communication and feedback promoted a true learning partnership by empowering the profession; this involved negotiating the supervisor’s level of input, responding to feedback and recognition and reward for engagement. 5. Creating Balanced Assessment Assessment tasks during an extramural practicum need to engage students and complement the learning context of the practicum and yet also account for variable learning experiences. Assessment tasks need to complement the learning environment, enable students to demonstrate achievement of Faculty based learning outcomes, and be reasonably generic to facilitate standardization and ease of implementation for students, supervisors and Faculty. Three generic instruments were used for each rotation (Supervisor Report Form, written task and a communication exercise) and student and supervisor choice and interpretation facilitated self directed learning and targeting of specific attributes. The main lesson for the Faculty was the need to balance the academic rigor of assignment load with ‘hands on’ experience. 6. Summary Engagement of all parties is critical to the successful implementation of an extramural work placement program. This involves establishing a clear purpose; preparing all parties by defining roles, responsibilities, structures and training; creating mechanisms for collecting and sharing feedback; recognition of contribution and performance; and creating a learning community for sustainability and continuous improvement through negotiation and constant feedback that engages the profession and students. A systems approach aligned with Bigg’s 3 P model for quality learning can be utilised as a framework for quality assurance. This involves defining the purpose of the program; analysing the inputs of people, information, finance and physical resources; analysing the processes that create the learning experience and lead to achievement of learning outcomes; evaluating the outcomes for each of the stakeholders by linking these to the purpose of the program; and developing structures and processes that promote feedback and the assessment of quality of each of these components.

178



Industry Engagement: Transforming Good Intentions into Good Practice Workshop Report

Judie Kay and Peter Shadbolt Office of Industry Liaison, Swinburne University of Technology The Swinburne Case Study was presented as a basis for identifying key issues for small group discussion: •

Understanding Industry Engagement

Diverse range of activities – 4 Dimensions presented as a basis for describing and understanding industry engagement: 1. Teaching and learning collaboration 2. Business development 3. R & D collaboration 4. Community, industry and regional development. •

•

•

University-wide Planning: The following strategies were identified in the 1st Swinburne Industry Enabling Plan (2003 – 2005): o

Review organisational arrangements

o

Metrics & benchmarking

o

Business Development

o

Expand Industry-linked research

o

Recognition & incentives for Staff

o

Industry Synergy grants

o

Professional development.

Early successes in strengthening Swinburne’s industry engagement agenda were highlighted: o

Director of Industry Liaison positions established in each Faculty following a major restructure

o

Recent recognition of Industry and Community Engagement as a new Strategic Theme of the University

o

University Chart of Accounts amended to enable collection of financial data on industrylinked income and expenditure

o

Initial set of industry engagement metrics for the university agreed by senior management

o

Industry engagement recognised as a criteria for academic promotion in interim policy

o

Specific professional development activities supporting industry engagement initiated.

Key Issues in the planning and implementation process were identified: 1. Understanding Industry Engagement 2. What Does Industry Want from Universities? 3. University Structures and Systems 4. Cultural Differences Between Industry and Universities

179



5. Engaging Staff in Industry Engagement 6. Collaboration between Universities for IE Initiatives. Small Group Discussion – Report Summaries Workshop participants self-selected into four topic groups and several questions were provided for groups answer. Main points from report-back session follow: 1. Understanding Industry Engagement •

Do the 4 Dimensions provide a sound framework for describing IE? o

•

•

How should we measure IE? o

Important to include both financial and non-financial measures

o

Measures need to be aligned with strategic plan: It was noted that over directionalisation through the plan could be counterproductive as make Universities too rigid and unable to flow with the trends that cannot be predicted

o

Intangibles and Branding need to be considered

How should we evaluate IE? o

•

Advisory Committee as a source of measurement and evaluation

What Quality Assurance processes are needed? o

•

Dimensions seem OK

Match professionalism of university with industry relevant indicators through professional bodies

What are the risks? o

Work overload issues will affect staff interest in industry engagement

o

Need to balance the personal relationships established by individual academics/researchers with the need university to client relationship building (Analogy to “Hairdresser Syndrome”: If the good hairdresser leaves to work in another salon, the clients will also follow.)

o

It is common that 10% of academics bring in 90% of the revenue. How can these high performing staff be rewarded and retained

2. What Does Industry Want from Universities? •

180

What services are needed by industry? o

Industry in a good position to articulate HR needs through industry/professional bodies eg. Law & medicine

o

Identifying SME needs is challenging

o

Work ready graduates – whose responsibility is it?

o

Universities need to educate business and industry on the applicability of generic skills including a variety of contexts

o

Importance of Transferability of skills

o

Opportunity to get organisations involved with course development


•


o

Need to be mindful of industry expectations : Can easily raise Industry expectations and then not be able to deliver

o

Importance of knowledge transfer

What mechanisms promote industry engagement? (examples/models?) o

University of Western Sydney – Business & Industry Advisory Board

o

Stimulus through Collaboration and Structural Reform (CASR) fund for universities to develop partnerships

o

Importance for universities to have one accessible point of contact for industry enquiries eg. UTS and Swinburne

o

Importance of institution to institution relationships

o

Importance of preventing the loss of corporate memory

3. Cultural Differences Between Industry and Universities •

•

What are the cultural differences? o

Issue of IP is becoming increasingly important especially in relation to publications arising from industry based PhD projects. Important to resolve IP and publication issues before project commences

o

Rewards system for IP generation vary greatly between industry and universities

o

Timing is a significant issue in university-industry projects. University schedules are often out of sync with those of industry

o

Industry – university relationships long established in USA and not so long or strong in Australia

o

Taking time for industry in Australia to understand how University / Industry collaboration works

o

Lack of venture capital in Australia for commercialisation of research

o

Exploiting opportunities companies need to take risks, be flexible and nimble. This is difficult for universities. A lot of inertia in universities

How can barriers be overcome? o

Current trend towards Government encouragement of competition between universities is undermining traditional collegiality between academics and open sharing of information.

4. Engaging Staff in Industry Engagement •

What are the problems? o

Recognition and incentives including promotion

o

Include recognition for attracting research funding

o

“One more thing” syndrome (for academics to be involved in)

o

Staff get involved with industry release type professional development activity & end up leaving the university therefore Seepage of intellectual capital

o

Academic staff working on own business development using University name etc

o

Staff resistance to change

o

Good partnerships lead to research projects

181


•

•

What are the current practical recognition & incentives? o

“One more thing” syndrome (for academics to be involved in)

o

Lack of clarity in who is getting paid for what - Need to open discussions with staff

What else would assist? o

182


Need to clarify:

What is allowed?

What is facilitated?

How does it all work?

o

Links to curriculum development through “Work Integrated Learning”

o

Dual sector situation is an important driver

o

Defining, capturing and recording industry engagement activity as a basis for developing teamwork and performance indicators.

o

Working with other universities in consortia arrangements. Good practice consortia models need to be developed

o

Appropriate ethical behaviour with colleagues.