Julie Rowlands

Academic boards: less intellectual and more academic capital in higher education governance?

A historically informed analysis of the academic board or senate in Australian universities, and in the wider higher education environment, particularly the UK, indicates that the role and function of academic boards has fundamentally changed in the past 30 years. Within the context of universities being repositioned to serve global knowledge economies, a comparison between contemporary university governance structures and those from the 1960s and the 1990s provides evidence of a significant diminution of the power and status of boards relative to executive management, and a heightened focus on the functions of academic quality assurance. As Bourdieu would suggest, academic boards continue to hold more symbolic than real power, due to the rise of academic rather than intellectual capital. Consequently, academic boards have become a key site of struggle over the role and function of the multinational corporate university and academic work.

Neoliberalism is not a theory of everything: a Bourdieuian analysis of illusio in educational research

Despite the frequency with which the concept of neoliberalism is employed within academic literature, its complex and multifaceted nature makes it difficult to define and describe. Indeed, data reported in this article suggest that there is a tendency in educational research to make extensive use of the word ‘neoliberalism’ (or its variants neoliberal, neo-liberal and neo-liberalism) as a catch-all for something negative but without offering a definition or explanation. The article highlights a number of key risks associated with this approach and draws on the Bourdieuian concept of illusio to suggest the possibility that when as educational researchers we use the word ‘neoliberalism’ in this way, rather than interrupting the implementation of neoliberal policies and practices, we may, in fact, be further entrenching the neoliberal doxa. That is to say, we are both playing the neoliberal game and inadvertently demonstrating our belief that it is a game worth being played. In so doing, this article seeks to extend understandings of what illusio means within the context of educational research.

Accountability, quality assurance and performativity: the changing role of the academic board

This article undertakes a review of Australian and international literature and higher education policy in response to the changing nature of university academic boards (also known as academic senates or faculty senates). It shows that governance has become an issue for both the state and for universities and that within this context risk management and accountability mechanisms such as academic quality assurance are taking an increasingly prominent role. These developments have altered the form and function of academic governance and have fundamentally affected the academic board. For example, some literature reports that the role of Australian academic boards now largely revolves around academic quality assurance and it is argued that this is potentially problematic because of a focus on audit-driven accountability mechanisms. However, the article concludes by suggesting that as part of a broader quality assurance framework there is also an opportunity for academic boards to have a central role in the development of academic standards that focus on enhancing learning outcomes rather than on compliance.

The symbolic role of academic boards in university academic quality assurance

While much research on quality assurance in higher education has centred on issues related to the impact on teaching and learning and academic staff, there is a significant gap in the area of quality assurance and academic governance. Within Australia the roles of university academic boards (also known as academic senates or faculty senates) have been redefined in the past 20 years and now include a significant focus on quality assurance. This paper reports the results of a case study of three Australian university academic boards and shows that despite their written terms of reference, the role of these academic boards in academic quality assurance was largely symbolic and performative and that responsibility actually rested with senior management. It further argues that in taking this position the universities were responding to the demands of the risk society by using academic boards to protect their academic reputations and financial positions.

Turning Collegial Governance on Its Head: Symbolic Violence, Hegemony and the Academic Board.

This article draws on Bourdieu’s theorisation of domination and Gramsci’s notions of hegemony within the context of a larger empirical study of Australian university academic governance, and of academic boards (also known as academic senates or faculty senates) in particular. Reporting data that suggest a continued but radically altered form of collegial governance in which hegemony is exercised by management rather than by the professor, it theorises the domination of academic boards within western democratic universities. However, traditional collegial governance is also dependent upon a community of scholars, a role historically played by the academic board. In view of the suggested transition in collegial governance and the resultant convergence of academic work and management, the article concludes with questions about whether academic boards can continue to serve as communities of scholars in future.

Present but not counted: the tenuous position of academic board chairs within contemporary university governance

This article draws on multiple case study research of Australian academic governance to examine the role and place of chairpersons of university academic boards (also known as academic senates or faculty senates) within university executive leadership committees. A Bourdieusian analysis of the data suggests that while within the broader university field there had traditionally been an academic governance subfield, executive management has appropriated many of the established academic board tasks for itself. It further suggests that the traditional academic governance/management divide may no longer be adequate to represent the intersections which occur in locations such as vice-chancellor’s executive committees where academic leaders and executive leaders mix and in an environment where many university executives were formerly academic leaders themselves. The article raises questions about whether this is indicative of future directions for university governance generally and for academic boards specifically.

The Effectiveness of Academic Boards in University Governance

Despite considerable international literature acknowledging issues associated with the effectiveness of university academic boards (also known as academic senates or faculty senates), there is little current empirical research exploring why difficulties might exist and what (if anything) might be done about them. This article reports the findings of case study research conducted in Australian universities, which examined fulfilment of academic board terms of reference and perceived academic board strengths and weaknesses. Based on the data, the article then considers the characteristics of one particular “effective” academic board. It concludes by highlighting some potential implications of the research for those universities seeking to enhance the future role and function of their academic board, which include discussing the apparent importance of latent or tacit functions of university academic boards, versus those functions or responsibilities which are formally documented, and the building of intellectual and symbolic capital for their respective universities through a focus on the substantive quality of core academic programmes.

Academic Governance in the Contemporary University Perspectives from Anglophone nations

This book addresses three central questions in contemporary university governance: (1) How and why has academic governance in Anglophone nations changed in recent years and what impact have these changes had on current practices? (2) How do power relations within universities affect decisions about teaching and research and what are the implications for academic voices? (3) How can those involved in university governance and management improve academic governance processes and outcomes and why is it important that they do so? The book explores these issues in clear, concise and accessible language that will appeal to higher education researchers and governance practitioners alike. It draws on extensive empirical data from key national systems in the Anglophone world but goes beyond the simply descriptive to analyse and explain.

The implications of contractualism for the responsibilisation of higher education

ABSTRACT Within the context of heightened perceptions of risk within the higher education sector worldwide, responsibility for outcomes is increasingly required not only of universities but, also, of individual academics. In turn, contracts have become a key form of governance for institutions in mediating and modulating this risk and responsibility. While much writing around the use of contracts in higher education has focused on market-based, competitive neoliberal conceptions of contractualism, this article argues that there are, in fact, two largely antagonistic new modes of contractualism – market contractualism and relational contractualism – and a third, residual mode, paternal contractualism. These three modes of contractualism coexist within universities, in tension. The article draws on two Australian exemplars to highlight how these tensions play out and to highlight the potential for contractualism to create spaces for shared goals and projects and shared risks resulting from the ways in which responsibility and individual agency are negotiated.

Deepening understandings of Bourdieu’s academic and intellectual capital through a study of academic voice within academic governance

ABSTRACT This article presents comparative empirical data from England, the US and Australia on academic boards (also known as faculty senates or academic senates) to highlight ways in which changes within contemporary academic governance effect a diminution of academic voice within decision-making about and that affects teaching and research. Drawing on Bourdieu’s notions of academic and intellectual capital, it highlights the limited capacity of analyses of university power relations that are predicated upon managerial and collegial governance as being at opposite ends of a spectrum to account for the multiple academics who have taken up line management or executive-level roles, and the many practising academics who undertake quite substantial administrative roles alongside their teaching and research. The article concludes by arguing that a more nuanced reading of Bourdieu’s academic and intellectual capital, combined with his concept of the divided habitus, offers significant potential for a deeper understanding of the complex ways in which the asymmetries of power within universities are developed and maintained. In turn, this opens the way to transformational academic governance practices that could reassert academic voice within decision-making about academic matters.