Utility as a first principle for education research : reworking autonomy in Australian higher education

The focus of this paper is on the community impact of education research, as conceived specifically within a changing context of research assessment in Australia, first mooted by the previous Federal Coalition (conservative) Government within a new Research Quality Framework (RQF), and now to be reworked by the Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) initiated by the incoming Federal Labour (progressive) Government. Convinced that a penchant for the utility of research will not go away, irrespective of the political orientations of government, our interest is in exploring: the assumption that research, particularly in areas such as education, should have an impact in the community (as this was first defined within the RQF); the difficulties much education research (despite its “applied” characterisation) has in complying with this ideal; and what a community impact requirement means for the kinds of education research that will be privileged in the future. In particular, we are concerned about the potential narrowing of education research directed at or by community impact and what is lost in the process. One potential loss or weakening is in the positional autonomy of higher education to conduct independent education research.

Alternative pathways to traditional destinations : higher education for disadvantaged Australians

In 1985, the Higher Education Equity Program was introduced by the Australian Government to improve the participation of those persons from social groups traditionally under-represented within higher education. In 1990, the program was incorporated within A Fair Chance For All which provided more specific details of the government's desire for a system-wide approach to equity issues. One result has been the proliferation of access and equity programs conducted by universities around the country and aimed at redressing the disadvantage of potential students. The alleged success of these programs is based on greater participation in and graduation from Australian universities by individuals from targeted disadvantaged groups. The research reported here, however, would suggest that such programs are prone to co-opt the language of equity and social justice, dependent as they are on satisfying statistically-orientated program performance indicators in order to receive recurrent government funding. Further, the paper argues that success in achieving equity within Australian higher education will remain limited unless the structural arrangements that work to construct social inequalities in mainstream higher education are addressed.

Just out of reach : access to equity in Australian higher education

This paper provides an account of access and equity in Australian higher education across the period of recent Federal Labor governments and specifically of the discourses and practices surrounding A Fair Chance For All: Higher Education That's Within Everyone's Reach, Labor's latest policy on equal access to Australian higher education. The paper positions such an account within Australia's changing national and global economic condition, and the influence of New Right ideologies that proffer efficient and effective public sector management practices and market freedoms that have witnessed a privatisation and peeling back of the welfare state. The paper argues that while Federal Labor has clearly established social justice on the agenda of Australian higher education, it is a justice mediated by particular economic and managerial practices which tend to limit equity to issues of access and place broader equity concerns for higher education just out of reach.

Sailing into the wind : new disciplines in Australian higher education

Much is made of the potential of lifelong learning for individuals and organisations. In this article we tend to make much less of it, certainly with respect to its use in universities to discipline academics. Nevertheless, we argue that academics now need to re-learn the positions they occupy and the stances they take in response to the marketisation of Australian universities. In particular, we suggest that the position of (pure) critique no longer commands attention in Australian contexts of higher education, although the paper does not suggest a disregard for a critical stance purely for the sake of participation. It is in understanding the interconnections between position and stance , and how they might be strategically performed during the everyday practices of academics, that a more promising way of engaging with the venalities of the market is envisaged; a strategy that could be described as 'sailing into the wind'. In discussing these matters, the paper draws on semi-structured interviews with academics located in university faculties/departments/schools of education along Australia's eastern seaboard.

Towards a theory and practice of policy engagement : higher education research policy in the making

Academic engagement with higher education research policy in Australia, and with education policy more generally, is in crisis. This time around, it is not just that our theoretical tools are blunt and irrelevant (Ball 1990), so are our politics. It seems our attention has been so consumed by ‘what is policy’ (Ball 1994a) and with challenging its claims to authority, that we have missed or ignored imperatives to engage with its production. Even though some have attempted contributions, for the most part we have been ‘coerced into an era of cooperation’. Getting ourselves out of this mess will take more than just better theories and new politics. It will require a degree of cooperation, to advance a theory and practice of policy engagement and to re-establish a field of education that resists the tendency to fragment and/or the temptation to defend itself ‘against’ policy. In this paper I attempt an assessment of where we are theoretically and politically with regard to education policy and where we need to look to find new forms of policy engagement. By way of illustration, I draw on examples from AARE (the Australian Association for Research in Education) and the Australian RQF (Research Quality Framework) although the analysis is by no means restricted to these.

Degrees of difficulty : an ecological account of learning in Australian higher education

In this article, the difficulties some Australian university students experience in academic learning environments are explored. Particular attention is given to the experiences of students whose difficulties are often portrayed as intrinsic to them, and who are diagnosed as having learning disabilities or 'disorders'. In so doing, dominant neuro-psychological perspectives on students' learning 'problems' are challenged, broadening the discussion to include sociocultural explanations of students' difficulties. Research that foregrounds these students' own accounts of their problems is reported, identifying a number of tests of time, association and dissimulation that they experience in coming to terms with the particular institutional requirements of university life. At the very least, these explanations draw attention to the need for university teaching scholars to also be learners, and to consider their own practices in the construction of learning difficulties for their students.

Fair contest or elite sponsorship? Entry settlements in Australian higher education

Significant change to Australian higher education occurred between March, 1987 and March, 1996, under the direction of a Federal Labor Government. At one level, the period witnessed an increase in the provision of higher education and variation in the criteria used to grant student entry. Such change represented a crisis in higher education's traditional or 'qualified-entry' settlement which led to its resettling around a more 'diversified-entry' arrangement. The organising logic of this diversified-entry was characterised by the discourses of 'contest' (fairness in competition) rather than 'sponsorship' (selection by association), although the latter appears to have been just better 'hidden'.

What counts as higher education? Pursuing intellectually compelling ideas

A few months ago I was sitting in a graduation ceremony considering the nature of universities; what it means to do academic work and how this constitutes some higher form of education. Unlike some of my more astute colleagues who had remembered to bring their current reading (copies of Giroux or Gelemter nestled within their graduation programs) to while away the time between applauds for graduates and speeches, I was confined to my own thoughts on matters of importance for universities and their constituents. The ceremony provided critical moments for reflection--for me, centred around the politics of meaningmincluding: the presentation to a colleague of the Vice-Chancellor's award for teaching excellence; the conferring of an honorary doctorate on the guest speaker, Fiji's Prime Minister Major-General Rabuka, for his involvement in restructuring Fiji's system of governance; and the celebration of his visit by the Vice-Chancellor, himself a would-be reformer of systems as a member of the West Review of Australian higher education.

Student equity in higher education : what to do when the queue is not long or diverse enough

In this paper I outline three broad propositions about or challenges to access and participation in Australian higher education, resulting from the Australian Government’s 20/40 targets for the sector and their attendant requirements for universities, such as the performance indicators for teaching and learning. While some of my analysis could be seen as speculative, in the sense that it represents our best guesses about the future, in aking these arguments I draw on publically available statistics on Australian schooling, vocational education and training (VET) and the higher education sector, as well as on recent research on outreach programs by universities in schools.

Let them eat cake : mobilising appetites for higher education

The Australian Government has set two targets for the nation's universities: (i) increase the proportion of people from low socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds attending university, to 20 percent of all undergraduate students by 2020; and (ii) increase the proportion of 25 to 34 year-old Australians holding a bachelor's degree, to 40 percent by 2025. Both targets will require an increased effort by governments and universities to enable and encourage more people to access higher education, particularly more from low SES backgrounds. It will also require them to think differently about the problem. Three new concepts are now redefining the equity dimensions of higher education. Despite aspirations to expand the system, students' appetites for university are no longer a given. While universities are seeking to enrol different students in greater numbers, the challenge now is how to give greater voice to this difference. And the limited mobility of students from low SES backgrounds, including those in outer metropolitan and regional areas, is now the most significant indicator of their limited access to higher education and to social mobility. The paper outlines these new conceptions of student equity and how they are informing the research of the National Centre.

Rethinking higher education : implications of the Australian Government’s expansion and equity agenda

In this paper I outline three broad challenges to higher education, implied in the Australian Government’s 20/40 targets and their attendant requirements for universities. In identifying these challenges I draw on publically available statistics on Australian schooling, vocational education and training (VET) and the higher education sector, as well as on recent research on outreach programs by universities in schools.

More towards the centre : searching for field position for student equity in Australian higher education

The field of Australian higher education has changed, is changing and is about to change, as it is repositioned in relation to other ‘fields of power’. It is a sector now well defined by its institutional groupings – the Go8, the IRUs, the ATN and the rest – and by their relative claims to selectivity and exclusivity, with every suggestion of their differentiation growing. Even within these groupings there are distinctions and variations. Moreover, Australian universities now compete within an international higher education marketplace, ranked by THES and Shanghai Jiao Tiong league tables. ‘Catchment areas’ and knowledge production have become global. And the potential of a ‘joined‐up’ tertiary education system, of VET and universities, will rework relations within Australian higher education, as will lifting the volume caps on university student numbers. In sum, Australian universities (and agents within them) are positioned differently in the field, although not in the stable relations imagined by Pierre Bourdieu in the France of the 1960s. And being so variously and variably placed, institutions and agents have different stances available to them, including the positions they can take on student equity. In this paper I begin from the premise that our current shared stance on this has been out‐positioned. Nation‐bound proportional representation loses its equity meaning when the Australian elite send their children to Harvard, Yale, Oxford and Cambridge. The same could also be said, and has been, about equity representations by region, institution, discipline and degree. What then, also, for a new national research centre with a focus on student equity and higher education, for its research agenda and positioning in the field? What stance can it take on student equity that will resonate on a national and even international scale? And, given a global field of higher education, what definitions of equity and propositions for policy and practice can it offer? What will work in the pursuit of equity?