Thanks Hannah for your demolition of managerialism in universities. I entirely agree that there is
Thank you, Hannah, for your demolition of managerialism in university governance. I agree with you that there is no benefit in returning to 'hierarchical collegiality' as its replacement. As you say, we knowledge makers and seekers need to work and learn in universities that are 'democratic in structure and purpose.' But how do we get there? Well, I think I'm one of a very small group of academics and students in Australia who have had some experience of that process of democratising an academic department. I'm talking about what happened in the Department of Government in the University of Sydney in the 1970s. You can read about it in Michael Hogan's book, Cradle of Australian Political Studies: Sydney's Department of Government. (Sydney: Connor Court, 2015). See chapter 5, 'Real Politics in the 1970s'. In a nutshell, what we progressive staff did was to set up a Department Committee, separate from the 2 professors, with representation of general staff, part-time staff, and students (elected by course meetings). We drew up a constitution. We demanded to right to select the head of department. We set up the full range of subcommittees to recommend on matters relating to curriculum, assessment, etc. From the beginning the Department Committee acted with full legitimacy. We had pushed the professors aside, but they were sensible enough to acquiesce, and to become participating members of the Dept C'tee. Gradually, the student representatives stopped attending, but amongst the knowledge workers in the department there was real democratisation. We ran the place without hierarchy or managerialism. But what made this possible? As Michael Hogan makes clear, democratisation followed a period of intense political action, including two strikes, in support of student-staff campaigns defending radical curriculum initiatives in two other departments, for a women's course in Philosophy and for political economy courses in Economics. In other words, and too simply, we were acting in a time of general radical student action, and of new radical directions in knowledge formation. It was a very particular situation, but the point is that local democratisation requires a wider setting of political action and thought in order for it to happen.
Thanks Terry, this experience and your interpretation are so important - and remind me that collective action needs to extend well beyond the workplace and the university for any of it to be effective. Hogan's book was published after mine and I moved to another project so I haven't read it - I'll see what I can do to get hold of it. Solidarity.
Yes I think that has everything to do with the wider moral crisis of the professions - also on the rise are alternative schools, legal aid, environmental engineering etc.
Relatedly, I'm writing a paper for the Australia Institute which I plan to use as the basis for a submission to the Senate inquiry. Part of that is going over the history back to C19. A couple of observations
* There was a brief window from the early 1970s to early 1990s when the system remained collegial, but the strongly hierarchical form (one professor with near-absolute power over each department, professors taking turns as deans etc) was significantly democratised. There was even some student representation. That was replaced by managerialism
* Although state governments haven't provided significant funding for decades, universities still operate under State acts of parliament, with Senates appointed by state ministers. That makes university management effectively unaccountable to anyone
I'll be advocating a unified national system of post-school education, encompassing both TAFE and universities, and broadly along the lines of the California. That would include a universal right of access, subject to an entry qualification based on capacity to complete the course, not on rationing entry. In essence, this would make university like an extension of school, rather than an optional add-on for an elite few.
Thanks Hannah for your demolition of managerialism in universities. I entirely agree that there is
Thank you, Hannah, for your demolition of managerialism in university governance. I agree with you that there is no benefit in returning to 'hierarchical collegiality' as its replacement. As you say, we knowledge makers and seekers need to work and learn in universities that are 'democratic in structure and purpose.' But how do we get there? Well, I think I'm one of a very small group of academics and students in Australia who have had some experience of that process of democratising an academic department. I'm talking about what happened in the Department of Government in the University of Sydney in the 1970s. You can read about it in Michael Hogan's book, Cradle of Australian Political Studies: Sydney's Department of Government. (Sydney: Connor Court, 2015). See chapter 5, 'Real Politics in the 1970s'. In a nutshell, what we progressive staff did was to set up a Department Committee, separate from the 2 professors, with representation of general staff, part-time staff, and students (elected by course meetings). We drew up a constitution. We demanded to right to select the head of department. We set up the full range of subcommittees to recommend on matters relating to curriculum, assessment, etc. From the beginning the Department Committee acted with full legitimacy. We had pushed the professors aside, but they were sensible enough to acquiesce, and to become participating members of the Dept C'tee. Gradually, the student representatives stopped attending, but amongst the knowledge workers in the department there was real democratisation. We ran the place without hierarchy or managerialism. But what made this possible? As Michael Hogan makes clear, democratisation followed a period of intense political action, including two strikes, in support of student-staff campaigns defending radical curriculum initiatives in two other departments, for a women's course in Philosophy and for political economy courses in Economics. In other words, and too simply, we were acting in a time of general radical student action, and of new radical directions in knowledge formation. It was a very particular situation, but the point is that local democratisation requires a wider setting of political action and thought in order for it to happen.
Thanks Terry, this experience and your interpretation are so important - and remind me that collective action needs to extend well beyond the workplace and the university for any of it to be effective. Hogan's book was published after mine and I moved to another project so I haven't read it - I'll see what I can do to get hold of it. Solidarity.
I see you've already mentioned the brief period of democratisation.
Yes I think that has everything to do with the wider moral crisis of the professions - also on the rise are alternative schools, legal aid, environmental engineering etc.
Agree entirely on managerialism. I wrote my own definition in the early days of blogging, and drawing on the same experience as yours.
https://johnquiggin.com/2003/07/02/word-for-wednesday-managerialism-definition/
Relatedly, I'm writing a paper for the Australia Institute which I plan to use as the basis for a submission to the Senate inquiry. Part of that is going over the history back to C19. A couple of observations
* There was a brief window from the early 1970s to early 1990s when the system remained collegial, but the strongly hierarchical form (one professor with near-absolute power over each department, professors taking turns as deans etc) was significantly democratised. There was even some student representation. That was replaced by managerialism
* Although state governments haven't provided significant funding for decades, universities still operate under State acts of parliament, with Senates appointed by state ministers. That makes university management effectively unaccountable to anyone
I'll be advocating a unified national system of post-school education, encompassing both TAFE and universities, and broadly along the lines of the California. That would include a universal right of access, subject to an entry qualification based on capacity to complete the course, not on rationing entry. In essence, this would make university like an extension of school, rather than an optional add-on for an elite few.