Submitted to the UWSH Division of Academic Affairs 1998
Division of Academic Affairs
Scenario
The major recent strategy employed by Faculties to diversify their offerings has been to remix current building blocks i.e. subjects into different combinations mainly in the form of new course majors. Little attempt has been made, at least in my view, to carry out this approach utilising the whole of the subjects offered in the Division. Despite the obvious advantages of such an approach a number of barriers hinder the implementation of such ideas. These include resource allocation issues, turf wars and lack of space for networking and interchange of ideas.
The following broad-brush ideas are offered to stimulate such exchange and provide a focus for further development.
The Senate will be asking us shortly to define the “special” characteristics of our graduates. We could use such considerations to provide a basis for defining some fundamental relationships between Faculties. For example one approach to this would be to adopt a US idea that students should be required to undertake some “general education” subjects outside their area of specialization as part of every degree offered. Such requirements would define educational objectives relating to breadth, flexibility and generic qualities etc.
If adopted across the Division such a policy would result in a substantial change in subject offerings and course design within the Division. It would ensure for the first that there was true portability of students across Faculties. It would require Faculties to offer at least one subject, particularly at 100 level, which would contribute to the graduate characteristics we desire. If the offerings are right the exchange of students between Faculties which would result, should just about balance. Such a freeing up of the system should set the scene for a much less parochial view on how we might interrelate the subject offerings within the Division into new and innovative areas of strength and at the same time identify and eliminate areas of duplication and/or overspecialization.
Having students taking Subjects anywhere in the Division will require uniformity of course rules and administrative procedures so the process can occur freely. This will probably require a review of all our awards, their structures and general and specific rules and regulations. Hopefully this freedom will also result in a decrease in the number of subjects offered in the Division or, at worst, result in an overall increase in average class size and teaching offerings.
Thus this simple but fundamental concept based on the derived attributes of our graduates has the power to catalyze major changes in the way we view ourselves and operate at Divisional level. The view across the Division will enable us to evaluate and define our time current teaching and learning profile and provide the nucleus for further development and modification as a “learning organisation”.
Challenges such as these will also provoke debate about specific and non specific educational outcomes, three year v four year degrees, quality issues and so on but sitting still is never an option.
The opportunities for attracting new cohorts of students by innovating around the edges of the Faculties have largely been grasped. The new opportunities lie in innovating utilizing the Division as the resource.
I look forward to your response to some of these ideas.
Grant Wyllie
Dean
Science & Technology
Submission to the UWSH debate about the restructuring proposals known locally as the Blueprint (1999)
Issues Arising from the Blueprint Proposals
The following is a ramble through some of the issues raised by the blueprint document though most have been with us for some time now. I call it a ramble because it passes from one issue to another apparently without structure but the issues are complex and I thought it might therefore be a good analogy for the current state of our academic structure.
Principles. One of the areas that the blueprint is notably silent on for a principles document, is the principles that should be used to establish the academic units. It makes a suggestion based essentially on courses and little else. In my view many of the problems identified in the proposal especially subject duplication, EFTSU harvesting and lots of internal competition arise from a fundamental clash of cultures which the blueprint does not address. While we have had many arguments over the years on the merits of different learning paradigms, different teaching approaches, philosophies etc. etc. I think the basic clash is between what I will call the "vocationists" and the genericists". The vocationists are characterised by an approach which is highly curriculum specific, based on a job specific target for graduates and results in a series of courses which have little interaction with each other i.e. the overall approach is that the courses are the dominating factor and the subjects are simply a means to this end. The courses are highly managed with a lot of pastoral care from staff and as a consequence have a considerable degree of "course culture" (I include the experiential based approach in this category).
The genericists have an approach which is less specific at curriculum level, less job specific and which provides a significant degree of student choice within the program. The subjects are the key components with each award containing a loosely knit amalgam of subjects, which can be demonstrated to have the necessary spread of content and intellectual development to meet the award requirements. The subjects are therefore the dominant units in this approach and the courses are amalgamations of the subjects within certain constraints. These courses are less managed by staff and rely much more on the individual student to control their own progress and direction and consequently the "cohort culture" is less developed.
Each of these approaches has their own strengths and weaknesses and these have been and will continue to be argued ad infinitum. However in the present circumstances the argument cannot be sustained without some degree of resolution since we may find the resources to maintain either approach have disappeared while we are arguing. The real issue is whether these two approaches can be maintained simultaneously and in isolation from each other which, in simple terms, is how I see our present process. I for one believe that this dichotomy can not be justified either educationally or economically and is now clearly nonsustainable even in the short term.
Our challenge then is not to pick one of these methods and abandon the other but to adopt the strengths of each and put together a unified approach which will as educationally sound as we can make it within the resources available and as economically effective so as to be sustainable. However to do this is going to require a much greater spirit of cooperation and compromise than has been on display so far! The forces of funding will continue to drive the swing from "coursecentric" thinking to "subjectcentric" thinking at an ever increasing rate and no amount of proclaiming the advantages of our present system will stop it.
Vision/structure/ function integration. I have argued before, though with very little response, that the Hawkesbury academic value set, the academic plan, the academic award structure and the organisational structure are inextricably interwoven and that these should not be considered in isolation. The issues that keep arising during the blueprint discussions merely serve to reinforce this view.
Given that no one else seems to want to produce a big picture view I am prepared to at least sketch out the general outline of the concepts I have in mind. I see a University as an organisation which pursues the generation, conceptualisation and dissemination of knowledge. This seems pretty compatible with the general view of itself that UWS has adopted and with the Boyer definition described in the draft academic plan. No University can meet this definition in its entirety or across the whole spectrum of knowledge. Each makes a selection of the areas and depth it wishes to incorporate into its intellectual profile. This gives it a broad framework around which the style of the University can be built and determines the University's style.
What then is the Hawkesbury style? To me it is elusive and nonpervasive. On the one hand it has vocationally oriented, specialist course provider image based on our history, first as an agricultural college and secondly as a CAE. On the other hand more recent changes have espoused the development of a more comprehensive university involved with a much broader spectrum of knowledge than previously. We do not seem to have been able to integrate these two different pictures into an image which informs the hearts and minds of the staff and students. Until we can do this attempts to derive academic plans and structures are always going to be a challenge.
Can I suggest for a starter:
"We seek to be a comprehensive university with balanced strengths in teaching, research and community service based on areas of expertise within science and technology, humanities, social sciences and commerce. We aspire to educate graduates to be aware of the environment within which they will pursue their futures, to have demonstrable lifelong learning skills and to appreciate the values associated with the intellectual life of the University". This is of course a motherhood statement and we must move down a series of levels of detail to describe how we intend to fulfil this vision. I am not familiar enough with the overall areas of expertise now present in our University to be able to do this for all of our activities. However it is absolutely necessary that we write down what these are. The following will therefore be a lopsided -view based on my level of knowledge of the current areas of academic resource within the university but we need to start somewhere. So I will just deal with the areas I know best and which are the easiest to define; the "pure" natural and physical science disciplines as an example. We have biological sciences, microbiology and chemistry of, at least critical mass concentrations so that major areas of study can be or have been built on them. Maths and physics are needed but have not reached critical mass and have no major study development. Statistics and computing information technology are probably in the same category. Nonstarters are areas such as geology, astronomy, geography and psychology. In the applied science areas we have agriculture, food and horticultural sciences and construction and building as well developed resources. There are long lists of applied sciences we don't have and it is important to keep what we don't have in mind when we come to look at our overall profile. This can clearly be extended to the social sciences in a similar fashion. We can also look at the hybrids which lie across the categories such as environmental management and social ecology and evaluate their contributions. You get the idea?
We must build up a picture of our areas of strength and weakness are on a basis which is not coloured by courses and their particular philosophical outlooks but is built directly on the talents, intellectual capital and skills of the staff. It is these attributes that form the bedrock of the character of the university not the number or names of the courses if offers. We need to create a staff expertise inventory to begin to gain some idea of the size and profile of the talent we actually have within the organisation. Given this information we might have a much better idea of how these might be grouped to harness this talent to improve the performance of the university and the individual.
The Not So Comprehensive University. Our comprehensive university is now realistically diluted to a somewhat less comprehensive university with strengths in such and such and weaknesses in such and such. Then we can plan our future in terms of eg. fixing some or all of our weaknesses, continuing to build on our strengths and develop in depth, eliminate areas of weakness and build new areas of strength, etc etc. using a well developed vision of how we see the future.
Preparation of such an inventory is not going to be an easy task and many of the questions that have been raised in the blueprint document will need to be answered. How do we define expertise? Qualifications, experience, scholarly output etc etc. How many people of similar interests and background constitute a sufficient mass to be seen as a significant contributor to the academic profile i.e. the notion of effective critical staff mass. If indeed the academic profile of the institution is built on the intellectual capital of its staff then there should be a close correlation between the expertise of its staff and the areas it purports to specialise in and offer its major course awards in. SO getting off the track here?? This just goes to show the complexity of the problem and incidentally why we have never been able to solve it before.
However it is obvious that tertiary education is a knowledge based activity and as such the quality of its operation is highly dependent on the commitment of the staff. This in turn is dependent on the working environment provided by the university and this is highly determined by the quality of the institutional management. Effective academic units will be those whose members have enough in common to understand and empathise with each other on work related issues. It is the task of management in this restructure to ensure that this happens as much as possible by natural selection but with an objective overall to ensure that individual staff antipathies do not lead to groupings which will clearly be dysfunctional to the academic unit and the university. What I am suggesting is that given the right environment staff will self select the core groups that could form the basis for the new structure. However once these groupings begin to emerge yardsticks including academic rigour, critical mass and common sense be applied in determining their final composition.
Duplication/duplication/duplication/duplication. Would you believe I recently discovered a Department of Duplication as an American State Government unit?
This issue that has been repeatedly identified as one of our major sources of over teaching. Subject duplication course exclusivity and so on. While the centralising of staffing may serve to minimise this problem unless a transparent and equitable method of staff allocation is arrived at in the longer term the cure could be worse than the disease. Lets look at another solution. Begin by rationalising the award structure for first degrees by for instance making all vocational/job specific courses four years in duration a la the building degree. Non job specific awards such as the BA, B.Com and the BSc would remain at three years. Secondly limit the number of subjects that can be offered by any academic unit to a number based on the academic resources in the unit ie the number of teaching and, if required, support staff and the results of an expertise audit. Thirdly require each academic unit to present at least two subjects per year which are demonstrably designed for general education, non job specific purposes and which are accessible to all students.
How would these help? The first would surely reduce the continuing clamour from the vocationists that they have insufficient time to teach the students everything they need to be immediately effective in the workplace on graduation. They and the genericists may then have time to get together and design for example a foundation first year which will offer students real choice, a variety of learning experiences on which to base their further education, a broadening of their horizons, opportunities to hone their study skills for the much more demanding years that will lie ahead and develop a knowledge base appropriate to their chosen area of study. The longer courses will lower course intakes, hence improve entry quality and should result in students of markedly improved abilities compared to our present graduates all of which is in concert with our stated educational objectives.
A much consolidated award system would cut down on administration for both academic and general staff and provide a Hawkesbury wide framework as a basis for continuing integration of educational effort. I would see therefore that at the same time as the above is introduced a number of highly specialised awards would be replaced by more general ones with, if necessary, defined majors.
The second would ensure that academic units offer only subjects for which they have the necessary expertise and in numbers which are commensurate with staff workloads compatible with high quality teaching input.
Thirdly the necessity for each unit to have some generic subjects would go some way to break down the course exclusivity barriers that tend to exist at present. Perhaps more importantly, it would provide students with the opportunity to explore their options and sample areas of interest without prejudicing their further educational pathways.
Why is course and subject rationalisation so important? One assumes that the covert resistance to rationalisation that has taken place during our planning over the past few years is based in the view of individuals that if their subject goes they go. I see it differently. Whatever restructuring we do will not do more than alleviate the budgetary problem for a short time. Clearly the real solution to the budgetary problem is to increase income from nongovernment sources. If we could manage by rationalisation to cut the teaching load by 20% then we have freed up 20% of our staff talent to go out and find ways of generating income via consulting, research grants or whatever. That would be equivalent to about 50 staff involved in full time income generation. You would think we should be able to come up with some pretty useful amounts of funding from such a resource. Obviously such a resource is not available within the present workload situation. Thus people that give up some of their teaching and go out to raise nongovernment funds will not only enhance their own job security but will also ensure the continued good health of the University.
Research Structure. Just a couple of further points about the blueprint. I am greatly encouraged to see that we have taken the step of separating the research and undergraduate teaching functions. I have been an advocate of this for some time (it seems like 20 years) and having seen it recently at close quarters in another university I am still convinced it is the correct way to go at our present stage of development. However I believe that for the system to operate effectively we still need a PVC (Research) to provide the overall leadership and drive required to make this development a success. The role of the PVC(R) will be substantially changed from that at present and a new job description will be needed. However the capacity of such a position to assist in the creation of research opportunities and hence income makes the retention of this position imperative in my view. It will also serve as a constant reminder of the balance between teaching and research required in a comprehensive university.
In conclusion. It is a truism that every crisis creates opportunity. Our present uncomfortable state will not go away and we can play Canute no longer. The opportunity for us is to respond to the stress by taking the chance to convert ourselves into the comprehensive modem and dynamic university that all of us want it to be and which we can sense can be within our grasp.
Grant Wyllie
Submitted to UWSH Division of Academic Affairs Management Team (1999)_
THE FUTURE OF UWSH
The papers from the PVC’s provide a number of strategies which we should consider, to cope with the changes occurring in our environment. However with respect, I think it would be true to say that the majority of these have been discussed and, in some cases, vigorously advocated within Hawkesbury over the last decade. However, very few have been adopted and even less implemented, and we have to ask whether even the extra stress of the Vanstone era will have any influence on us making more progress in these areas.
It might be more instructive to ask why we have been so slow to embrace what appears at first sight, to be a lot of good ideas.
A number of things seem to me to be at the root of this problem. Firstly, although the question “what style of University do we want to be?” has been asked at many strategic planning sessions, to my mind it has never been satisfactorily answered. Perhaps the current climate defines the possibilities more sharply than was apparent previously. The choices seem to me now to be that we become either (1) a teaching oriented institution with a small and specialised postgraduate and research program, or (2) a specialised but full spectrum institution with a strong postgraduate and research profile.
Model 1 would build its reputation on the quality of its teaching, especially at undergraduate level and on the job suitability of its graduates. Model 2 would build its reputation on its excellence in postgraduate activity and research performance.
Yes, yes you clamour, we can do both. I think it is abundantly clear we cannot. Sitting in the middle of the road and having a dollar each way is not an option in today’s environment. It represents a grip on the status quo and a reluctance to change, which is a recipe for obsolescence.
I am not going to argue for any model but simply say a choice of one or the other must be made and should be the subject of debate. Once the choice is made, then we must design our strategy to implement it with vigour, clarity and commitment. Continued sitting on the fence is causing, and will continue to cause, paralysis.
Secondly, in addition to innate academic conservatism, a large contributor to resistance to change is a lack of clarity as to what outcomes may result from these changes. Thus, for example, a suggestion to decrease duplication by consolidating subjects could result in budgetary changes which result in some of those, either directly or indirectly involved in their teaching, becoming redundant. Hardly a climate to encourage this sort of exercise, no matter how compelling the overall logic of the process may be. Our present budget process, based on the business values of cost per eftsu rather than the education values of an academic institution, actively encourage this type of resistance to change.
In addition, we have no coherent framework for the award programs we offer. It is a jumble of programs/subjects that have “growed up like Topsy”, which have little internal consistency and, on the whole, are narrowly focussed and tightly controlled. They are a hodge podge of paradigms, generic, vocational, lifelong learning, disciplinary, multi-disciplinary, transdiciplinary areas with little rationale for their presence/absence or proportions. Making changes in one of these can and does produce unanticipated consequences in others. Uncertainty breeds conservatism.
Thus, my thesis is that small picture micro changes will not occur unless the big picture environment and frameworks are established. The big picture must be focussed, specific and above all realistic. It must be sufficiently structured that the consequences of changes can, for the most part, be predicted both for the institution and those who work in it.
The questions raised above are not new. What is new is an environment which demands that they must be answered and quickly at that. They must be answered in detail, not with motherhood statements, generalities and obscurities, but with a sharp edged definition of where we want to be and how we are going to get there. Sound familiar ? Yes, but this time we have to do it!
Grant Wyllie
Submitted to UWSH Management Committee (1998)
The Creation of a Human Resources Policy which addresses the Continuing
Development and Growth of Staff directly involved in the Core Activities of a
University : Teaching and Research.
Before defining the details of such a policy there are some statements which should be made regarding the overall criteria of the policy. If they appear self evident they are reiterated in the knowledge that they are not necessarily implemented as a matter of course.
(a) All the policies which impinge on the growth and development of staff should be self consistent and integrated, i.e. employment, promotion, staff development processes should incorporate similar objectives with regard to teaching and research values and should be consistent with the University Strategic Plan.
(b) Issues of equity and fairness should be consistently addressed.
(c) The activities that the University values should be clearly spelt out together with an indication of their relative importance. There needs to be considerable congruency between these values and that of the individual's work unit.
(d) Those responsible for the management of teaching and research must be familiar with and committed to, the overall principles and practise of the Human Resource Policy.
What to take into account in the formulation of a comprehensive H.R. Policy? As stated previously the values of the institution form the base on which the policy must be built. These values have been generally stated in many places, the UWS mission, corporate plan, the UWSH strategic plan and so on. However to be effectively integrated into the fabric of the institution they must be articulated carefully and precisely, e.g. we know good teaching is valued but what constitutes good teaching? Is it the ability to spellbind our students in lectures, to administer a subject with bureaucratic efficiency, to get good pass rates, to write about our teaching methods in learned journals, to demonstrate particular outcomes in students behaviour etc. etc.?
A similar list could be written for research and for good measure we could throw in
those performance indicators espoused by DEET or similar bodies.
Any experienced academic realises that there is a considerable component of management/administration/governance inherent in any teaching and/or research activity. Many of our most senior academics, i.e. VC's DVC's PVC's now spend the majority of their time in this area. Are these qualities valued by the University sufficiently for a new academic to aspire to follow this career path by placing a major emphasis on this aspect of his or her activities from early in their career? Should they have to follow the current path which appears to be to establish a research career then transfer to administration? Is this an effective way of training our managers of the future?
The values of the University and the various career paths available for the individual to pursue these values need to be clearly and comprehensively spelt out. On the other hand they must not be proscriptive or stifling of individual innovation or enterprise. What is it that a University values? It could be argued that the greatest asset of any University is its reputation. For the sake of argument, but very simplistically, a university needs two reputations; one among the general community that influences individuals to undertake study with a particular university and persuades employers that its products are valuable contributors to their business. The other among its peers and the governmental organisations which provide most of the financial support.
The first of these is built on a good publicity program, a record of quality experiences in teaching and administration for graduates and a recognition that graduates are good performers in the workplace and community. The second is heavily based on research performance and of quality administration against performance indicators.
A good reputation could then be based on providing quality teaching and administration experiences for our students who will become our best ambassadors. This quality must permeate all our dealings with the student; the classroom experience is only one of the many that a student will encounter. The best and most satisfying teaching experience is annulled in an instant by a poor quality enrolment process and vice versa. It is therefore insufficient to focus on improving teaching quality at the classroom level without also focusing on the administrative quality associated with this at both academic and general level.
This is of course not a new insight. However, nowhere do I see any recognition that this is an important concept. We have no structures or programs aimed at ensuring that all aspects of a student's encounter with the University is characterised by quality and professionalism of the highest order.
This somewhat long winded detour strives to make the point that the quality of the management of the student's experience is one of the key factors in the establishment of one of the great reputation makers, word of mouth. This management is at least of equal importance to the actual classroom experience.
To close the long loop of this argument, competent academic managers play a key role in reputation making and as such should be valued by the University. The University therefore has a responsibility to cultivate and reward those individuals who make contributions in this area, i.e. this should represent a defined career path. Outstanding practitioners could aspire to Dean, DVC, PVC and VC positions and should ensure the generation of a well-managed face to the government and like bodies.
The other plank of reputation rests on the quality of the intellectual output of staff of the University. This appears mainly in the form of publication of some sort and influences the reputation of the institution among its peers at both national and international level. People of acknowledged excellence in this field must also be valued and provided with the opportunity to perform to their utmost and be rewarded.
It is my opinion, based on personal experience, that the roles of academic administrator and researcher cannot be performed simultaneously at the highest level except by the occasional exceptional individual under special circumstances. Nor does moving back and forth between these roles produce a satisfactory outcome.
It is our task as a University to acknowledge and define these roles and to nurture those who display potential and/or excellence in them.
The clarification of the activities the University values is a difficult task and this is I probably the reason why most of our value statements are cloaked in generalisations and motherhood statements. Nevertheless "role clarity" is, for the individual, one of the most important contributors to task performance. Thus, despite its difficulty we should begin what will inevitably be the long process of articulating our values in a coherent form. Perhaps the above could form the basis for such a value set? Such statements will also form the backdrop for a supportive and developmental staff evaluation process.
The merging of individual and institutional aspirations is clearly a two way process. In accepting the offer of employment from the University the individual implicitly or perhaps explicitly accepts the value system and career paths within the organisation. The staff development system should then assist the individual in the selection of appropriate activities which support the development of that individual's career path. The judgement of the quality of these activities and hence the extent of their contribution to the Universities goals remains the prerogative of the institution. However there is a clear responsibility (a) on the part of the University to provide continuing feedback on its perceptions of the performance outcomes and (b) on the individual to demonstrate they have met their mutually agreed goals. In short a good staff developmental evaluation system would benefit both the individual and the University.
The promotion system represents the reward end of the equation. Promotions must be seen as just, deserved and equitable and will be recognised as such when those people rewarded by the process are acknowledged by their peers as having performed in the areas which are clearly valued by the University and which are consistent with their own value judgement sets. A sense of injustice must be one of the most demotivating and demoralising emotions encountered in human management.
Our staff management system should also be capable of delivering support other than in the form of promotion. We should have a budget line which enables success to be celebrated in a variety of ways without the bureaucrats calling in the auditor. Study leave, teaching load management strategies, support for conferences, travel to interact with fellow workers, communications support, awards, are all areas which could be taken into consideration as part of a reward system.
It is also our task to balance the numbers of these people so that overall the University presents to the outside world a blend of reputation enhancing activity. Where does teaching fit in all this you may ask? Competence in "classroom teaching" must clearly be valued. However outstanding "classroom teaching" is in itself not sufficient to define a career path. However, combined with one or the other of academic management or research, or perhaps a mix of all three, a career progression can be plotted. Again of course at the individual level the concept of balance must be applied. This balance should be arrived at by consultation between the individual and the University, have agreed objectives and outcomes and be clearly understood by both participants.
The promotion process itself also need to be carefully considered. Geoff's paper has raised a number of issues about the present procedures. I agree that those who are not successful should not be permitted to apply again until a specified period of at least two years has elapsed. This would result in both applicants and their advisers undertaking a very serious assessment of the applicant's chance of success before applying. It would also provide a more realistic time frame to remedy the weaknesses identified in an unsuccessful candidate's portfolio.
Submission to UWSH Management Committee (1995)
Hawkesbury as a Learning Organisation
and Its Relation to Future Academic Structures.
A learning organisation is characterised by its ability to learn faster than the surrounding environment. This capacity to read and forecast the changes in its surrounds then enables a learning organisation to make reasoned decisions about future directions and to make changes which will give it a competitive edge. However, the process of learning and change needs to also be built on a flexible structure which is able to accommodate these changes without massive internal re-organisation. We have begun in our discussions to identify some trends which indicate that some of the things we are presently doing will not be able to be sustained at their present level, in the long term and probably the medium term. The question is how do we respond to these perceived trends. The difficulty in accommodating the under enrolment in for example the Faculty of Agriculture and Horticulture reflects the fact that our structures are unable to accommodate the necessary adjustment processes even though we can perceive what the trends are. It is therefore important that as we begin to develop our academic plan that the academic structures that we put in place incorporate certain principles which enable them to withstand changes. They must be sufficiently flexible so that the environmental fluctuations can be accommodated without dislocation of the organisation of the institution.
What are the features of an academic structure which make is compatible with the characteristics of a learning organisation? Clearly it has to be responsive, flexible and capable of absorbing change without major re-organisation.
If we bring these general principles to bear on the entire range of course offerings at Hawkesbury some possible scenarios begin to develop.
Firstly we have to begin by identifying the core activities which must be sustained to provide a base for what we are on about. These may be disciplines, groups of disciplines, vocational groups, multi disciplinary groups and so on. The definition of a core activity is not an easy task for our particular case. Traditionalists will use disciplines as core indicators. This is a feasible but rather narrow view. I prefer to define a core activity as one whose removal would have significant consequences on the academic integrity and credibility of a range of awards, majors or the research profile. Their loss would have a profound effect on the ability of the institution to credibly offer particular areas of education or research in which it is already established or wishes to establish
Some examples beginning with disciplines; biology, chemistry, maths and statistics, microbiology, physics, management, communications for example conform to the above definition within our structure.
On a more multi disciplinary vocational plane food science, environmental studies of various kinds, planning, law etc. may conform. On the other hand despite its strong historical connotations and contribution to the reputation of the campus, in academic structural terms, agriculture is not a core activity. Its demise would leave almost no mark on the surrounding academic landscape.
We have other examples of the same phenomena. I hasten to add that I make this point not to suggest that we should contemplate the closing of such courses, but to emphasise their isolation, vulnerability and inability to extract synergy from their surrounding environment.
If indeed in our collective judgement they should be core activities then they should be restructured so that they both make and receive contributions which result in an enhancement of the overall profile of the University.
Secondly we should use this core base, expressed in the form of subjects to design a number of pathways which result in general awards each of which encompasses a number of specific majors. Viewed as a whole this box of subjects can be remixed and reordered to provide a different range of majors in response to, for example changing demand patterns, without any real upheaval of the academic structure.
Further steps should be taken to ensure that any particular pathway has a degree of commonality with a number of other pathways. In particular no pathway should be isolated such that a major impact on the path (e.g. decline in student enrolment) cannot be absorbed at least to some extent, throughout the larger structure without having to make complex financial adjustments.
How would this work in practice? If we use the Bachelors degrees as an example, we presently have the following -
B.App.Sc., B.Com., B.A., B.Build., B.Env.Hlth, B.Env.Planning, B.Hort.Sc., B.Hospitality,
B.Hospitality Management, B.Nursing, B.Sc., B.Health Sc.
These could be consolidated to -
B.App.Sc., B.Com., B.A., B.Build., B.Sc., B.Health Sc.
The issue of pathway commonality or generic bases is more complex. The difficulty we have in accommodating the under enrolment is Agriculture in 1995 however can be used to illustrate how a different structure could permit better management of such situations. As a generalisation my perspective is that the current B.App.Sc. Agriculture pathways import or export very little to other pathways. If for example 10-20% of their pathway was provided by say the management paths then the decrease in resource required by a low agriculture enrolment could be utilised by the management base for other purposes without external intervention. This relationship would of course not be perfect but could at least cushion the immediate impact.
Our basic model then would consist of a “Bachelors box” containing 6 awards, a set of subjects based on core activities and a series of interlinked pathways leading to majors.
Response of this “box” to changes in the external environment would involve creation of new pathways from essentially the same components or deletion of present pathways. Some addition or deletion around the edges of the box may be necessary but these should be minor and able to be accommodated within a reasonable time frame.
Similarly there should be a postgraduate “box”, (this concept is part of the basis for my advocacy for a graduate school) built on a core base derived from but not identical with the undergraduate core base.
Although the model is comparatively simple the implementation is not. Clearly it requires a great deal of discussion and planning.
A set of ground rules for academic structures at the global level needs to be developed so that the units involved can be assured that they are being treated with logic and equity.
Given that the current system of EFTSU dictated budget allocations to OAU’s, guidelines for promulgating change in OAU interchange need to be applied globally and implemented with an appropriate carrot and stick policy.
Using figures supplied by the Registrar on Commonwealth Funded Load (see attached) the following observations can be made. These figures report the EFTSU enrolled in each Faculty and the EFTSU actually taught by each Faculty.
Using these I have calculated the Faculty T/E ratios i.e. EFTSU taught : EFTSU enrolled expressed as a percent.
They come out as follows -
Faculty Agriculture & Horticulture 89.2%
Faculty of Science & Technology 104.6%
Faculty of Management 98.6%
Faculty of Health & Humanities 100.3%
Though it requires a lot more detailed analysis of consequences one could propose a guideline which requires that each Faculty should seek to achieve a T/E ratio of 100% and that at least 10% of its taught load should come from outside the Faculty. In the current case of Agriculture and Horticulture this would require the attraction of some 60 odd EFTSU into the Faculty’s programs from outside. On the other hand the Faculties of Management and Science and Technology already exchange about 11% of their enrolled EFTSU. Health, Humanities and Social Ecology obtain outside participation for only 5.4% of their enrolled EFTSU.
If such a rule was applied with care, circumspection and determination combined with a suitable carrot and stick (which I leave to the Bursar to devise) we will have defined the basic principles of our academic structure. Ally this to guidelines covering issues such as staff : student ratios, staff : subject ratios, agreed workload allocation processes and a well thought out staff career development and evaluation scheme and we have established the rules and tools to implement many of the strategies and goals of the strategic plan.
While academic structures are being considered financial structures must also be taken into account. Our present system of financial allocation actively discourages resource sharing and co-operation, a key feature of the proposed academic structure model. We must therefore devise a new financial allocation method to alleviate this problem. I have no particular expertise in this area but a transparent system giving a baseline allocation plus performance related supplements could be a useful start.
Changes of this sort are bound to be resisted on a whole range of grounds. However I believe the changes required must be implemented on a campus wide basis and on an agreed well defined timetable, otherwise equity etc. will become an issue. The above structures should go a considerable way to preventing the development and maintenance of duplication in our system and if carefully managed should free-up a considerable staff resource to pursue scholarship, research and consulting agendas as described in the Strategic Plan.
I am sure there are many other approaches to academic planning and structuring. The above is offered both in the hope that it may stimulate some debate on this issue, and a particular response to the questions raised in the CEO’s N.American Report.
And to the next steps: The identification of core activities. The definition of a core activity is not an easy task for our particular case. Traditionalists will use disciplines as core indicators. This is a feasible but rather narrow view. I prefer to define a core activity as one whose removal would have significant consequences on the academic integrity and credibility of a range of awards, majors or the research profile.
Some examples beginning with disciplines; biology, chemistry, maths and statistics, microbiology, physics, management communications conform to the above definition within our structure.
On a more multi disciplinary vocational plane food science, environmental studies of various kinds, planning, law etc. may conform. On the other hand despite its strong historical connotations and contribution to the reputation of the campus, in academic structural terms, agriculture is not a core activity. Its demise would leave almost no mark on the surrounding academic landscape.
We have other examples of the same phenomena. I hasten to add that I make this point not to suggest that we should contemplate the closing of such courses, but to emphasise their isolation, vulnerability and inability to extract synergy from their surrounding environment.
If indeed in our collective judgement they should be core activities then they should be restructured so that they both make and receive contributions which result in an enhancement of the overall profile of the University.
Associate Professor Grant Wyllie
Acting Dean
Faculty of Science and Technology
Paper to the Vice Chancellor (1999)
The University of Western Sydney: the Tri-Portal University
The University is subject to any number of conflicting pressures which need to be recognised and incorporated into future planning. This paper addresses only one set of those pressures but hopefully provides a mud map for the reconciliation of other examples.
The pressures. On the one hand the University’s mission of responding to the particular needs of tertiary education in the Western region of Sydney requires that it utilise its scattered campuses to provide the local “small town’ friendly atmosphere that will encourage students from the community to enrol and the community to develop a sense of ownership. On the other hand the exigencies of economics are forcing the re-evaluation of the duplication and inefficiencies which are inherent in this approach and, which it must be said, are also a product of our developmental history.
The concept of the tri-portal university is a broad brush attempt to sketch a scenario in which this clash may be used to develop a model of the university which improves both the quality of the education we provide and the financial efficiency of the institution. It is neither new nor radical and some of the issues that it covers have or are in the process of being addressed. However at least in the circles I move it does not appear to have been articulated in a succinct or persuasive way.
The model requires that the three members be regarded as the entry portals into the UWS system (for the sake of simplicity I have not included the multiple member campuses but their availability will only reinforce the argument). Once through the doors the students may choose to complete all their studies in one member or to avail themselves of the greatly increased diversity available across the whole of UWS. Thus the student has “small town” local ambience combined with “big University” resources, diversity and opportunity. This seems to me to be exactly the sort of image we should be using to attract not only local students but also others who are increasingly concerned by the perceived dehumanisation of the education process.
What are the key factors in achieving such an environment? Some are already in place (eg the adoption of a common subject weighting as suggested by Senate), others need to be developed (eg course rules and regulations etc.). Major administrative stumbling blocks such as student record systems and financial tracking ability still remain but should not be used as excuses to resist the changes.
Crucial to the implementation of such as scheme is in my view the creation of an academic plan which incorporates the tri-portal principles and which is not simply an amalgam of the individual plans of the three members.
How do the tri-portal principles work? Let me give an example using science and technology which is the area I know best and because their teaching and research is highly resource and facility dependent and not easy to transport or build.
If basic science and technology education is not available at each of the three portals then the requirement of local accessibility is not met. However clearly there are insufficient students to justify fully developed science and technology teaching and education profiles a la a unitary university at each of the three locations. It follows then that we should develop a science and technology profile at a UWS level, based on our combined current strengths. This would also define for the three members which areas they should maintain, nurture or perhaps withdraw from. This view would require that all three members would for instance maintain the provision of the basic science disciplines such as maths, physics, biology and chemistry etc at each portal. It also means that say Maths 1, done at any of the portals, counts the same towards the award of the appropriate degree even though the three versions may differ in content and delivery.
However at the higher levels only certain disciplines or sub disciplines may be offered at a particular location. For example agriculture, horticulture and food are already well established at Hawkesbury and should not be replicated elsewhere. Similarly while basic biology may be offered everywhere the specialisations of say molecular biology may be offered at one site, botany at another and microbiology somewhere else.
Resolution of an integrated profile such as this will no doubt be difficult and hotly debated by the academic community. However the advantages for the student in terms of accessibility, exposure to centres of expertise and ability to exercise choice are very considerable. The advantages to the University for the development of depth of expertise and the prevention of duplication of human and physical resources will also be considerable.
In addition the ability to introduce new course initiatives based on a much greater range of subjects than those available at any one location provides planning flexibility and minimises internal competition for students.
This approach could be applied to all of the major fields of study within the University and would provide a shared view of our academic profile on which the various academic units could continue to build and develop.
The resulting big University strength; small University feel would I feel be very attractive to both students and staff and provide an image that would be very acceptable to the community of our region.
Grant