Exploring the role of the governing body (board) in information technology governance : a study of Australian universities

In this thesis, I advance the understanding of information technology (IT) governance research and corporate governance research by considering the question “How do boards govern IT?” The importance of IT to business has increased over the last decade, but there has been little academic research which has focused on boards and their role in the governance of IT (Van Grembergen, De Haes and Guldentops, 2004). Most of the research on information technology governance (ITG) has focused on advancing the understanding and measurement of the components of the ITG model (Buckby, Best & Stewart, 2008; Wilkin & Chenhall, 2010), a model recommended by the IT Governance Institute (2003) as ‘best practice’ for boards to use in governing IT. IT governance is considered to be the responsibility of the board and is said to form an important subset of an organisation’s corporate governance processes (Borth & Bradley, 2008). Boards need to govern IT as a result of the large capital investment in IT resources and high dependency on IT by organisations. Van Grembergen, De Haes and Guldentops (2004) and De Haes & Van Grembergen (2009) indicate that corporate governance matters are not able to be effectively discharged unless IT is being governed properly, and call for further specific research on the role of the board in ITG. Researchers also indicate that the link between corporate governance and IT governance has been neglected (Borth & Bradley, 2008; Musson & Jordan, 2005; Bhattacharjya & Chang, 2008). This thesis will address this gap in the ITG literature by providing the bridge between the ITG and corporate governance literatures. My thesis uses a critical realist epistemology and a mixed method approach to gather insights into my research question. In the first phase of my research I develop a survey instrument to assess whether boards consider the components of the ITG model in governing IT. The results of this first study indicated that directors do not conceptualise their role in governing IT using the elements of the ITG model. Thus, I moved to focus on whether prominent corporate governance theories might elucidate how boards govern IT. In the second phase of the research, I used a qualitative inductive case based study to assess whether agency, stewardship and resource dependence theories explain how boards govern IT in Australian universities. As the first in-depth study of university IT governance processes, my research contributes to the ITG research field by revealing that Australian university board governance of IT is characterized by a combination of agency theory and stewardship theory behaviours and processes. The study also identified strong links between a university’s IT structure and evidence of agency and stewardship theories. This link provides insight into the structures element of the emerging enterprise governance of IT framework (Van Grembergen, De Haes & Guldentops, 2004; De Haes & Van Grembergen, 2009; Van Grembergen & De Haes, 2009b; Ko & Fink, 2010). My research makes an important contribution to governance research by identifying a key link between corporate and ITG literatures and providing insight into board IT governance processes. The research conducted in my thesis should encourage future researchers to continue to explore the links between corporate and IT governance research.

Total theory (vertical) and total theory (horizontal)

The works depicted two ostensibly plaster figures 'cocooned' in protective overalls. The pose of both figures had a sense of instability, balancing improbably due to internal weights. This teetering, arching quality, combined with the empty sleeves of the overalls, made reference to the Rodin's Balzac and its aura of heroic subjectivity. As the Tyvek suits depicted in the works are a common part of my studio paraphernalia, these works sought to draw a line between these two opposing aspects of the subjectivity of the artist - the transcendent and the quotidian. The works were shown as part of ‘The Day the Machine Started’ for Dianne Tanzer Gallery + Projects at the 2010 Melbourne Art Fair. The works received citations in The Age and The Australian newspapers.

Empirical minimization

We investigate the behavior of the empirical minimization algorithm using various methods. We first analyze it by comparing the empirical, random, structure and the original one on the class, either in an additive sense, via the uniform law of large numbers, or in a multiplicative sense, using isomorphic coordinate projections. We then show that a direct analysis of the empirical minimization algorithm yields a significantly better bound, and that the estimates we obtain are essentially sharp. The method of proof we use is based on Talagrand’s concentration inequality for empirical processes.

The influence of climate variability on hydrological processes and surface and groundwater hydrochemistry : the tropical upper roper river catchment, Northern Territory, Australia

The Upper Roper River is one of the Australia’s unique tropical rivers which have been largely untouched by development. The Upper Roper River catchment comprises the sub-catchments of the Waterhouse River and Roper Creek, the two tributaries of the Roper River. There is a complex geological setting with different aquifer types. In this seasonal system, close interaction between surface water and groundwater contributes to both streamflow and sustaining ecosystems. The interaction is highly variable between seasons. A conceptual hydrogeological model was developed to investigate the different hydrological processes and geochemical parameters, and determine the baseline characteristics of water resources of this pristine catchment. In the catchment, long term average rainfall is around 850 mm and is summer dominant which significantly influences the total hydrological system. The difference between seasons is pronounced, with high rainfall up to 600 mm/month in the wet season, and negligible rainfall in the dry season. Canopy interception significantly reduces the amount of effective rainfall because of the native vegetation cover in the pristine catchment. Evaporation exceeds rainfall the majority of the year. Due to elevated evaporation and high temperature in the tropics, at least 600 mm of annual rainfall is required to generate potential recharge. Analysis of 120 years of rainfall data trend helped define “wet” and “dry periods”: decreasing trend corresponds to dry periods, and increasing trend to wet periods. The period from 1900 to 1970 was considered as Dry period 1, when there were years with no effective rainfall, and if there was, the intensity of rainfall was around 300 mm. The period 1970 – 1985 was identified as the Wet period 2, when positive effective rainfall occurred in almost every year, and the intensity reached up to 700 mm. The period 1985 – 1995 was the Dry period 2, with similar characteristics as Dry period 1. Finally, the last decade was the Wet period 2, with effective rainfall intensity up to 800 mm. This variability in rainfall over decades increased/decreased recharge and discharge, improving/reducing surface water and groundwater quantity and quality in different wet and dry periods. The stream discharge follows the rainfall pattern. In the wet season, the aquifer is replenished, groundwater levels and groundwater discharge are high, and surface runoff is the dominant component of streamflow. Waterhouse River contributes two thirds and Roper Creek one third to Roper River flow. As the dry season progresses, surface runoff depletes, and groundwater becomes the main component of stream flow. Flow in Waterhouse River is negligible, the Roper Creek dries up, but the Roper River maintains its flow throughout the year. This is due to the groundwater and spring discharge from the highly permeable Tindall Limestone and tufa aquifers. Rainfall seasonality and lithology of both the catchment and aquifers are shown to influence water chemistry. In the wet season, dilution of water bodies by rainwater is the main process. In the dry season, when groundwater provides baseflow to the streams, their chemical composition reflects lithology of the aquifers, in particular the karstic areas. Water chemistry distinguishes four types of aquifer materials described as alluvium, sandstone, limestone and tufa. Surface water in the headwaters of the Waterhouse River, the Roper Creek and their tributaries are freshwater, and reflect the alluvium and sandstone aquifers. At and downstream of the confluence of the Roper River, river water chemistry indicates the influence of rainfall dilution in the wet season, and the signature of the Tindall Limestone and tufa aquifers in the dry. Rainbow Spring on the Waterhouse River and Bitter Spring on the Little Roper River (known as Roper Creek at the headwaters) discharge from the Tindall Limestone. Botanic Walk Spring and Fig Tree Spring discharge into the Roper River from tufa. The source of water was defined based on water chemical composition of the springs, surface and groundwater. The mechanisms controlling surface water chemistry were examined to define the dominance of precipitation, evaporation or rock weathering on the water chemical composition. Simple water balance models for the catchment have been developed. The important aspects to be considered in water resource planning of this total system are the naturally high salinity in the region, especially the downstream sections, and how unpredictable climate variation may impact on the natural seasonal variability of water volumes and surface-subsurface interaction.

The psychosocial factors influencing aggressive driving behaviour

Many drivers in highly motorised countries believe that aggressive driving is increasing. While the prevalence of the behaviour is difficult to reliably identify, the consequences of on-road aggression can be severe, with extreme cases resulting in property damage, injury and even death. This research program was undertaken to explore the nature of aggressive driving from within the framework of relevant psychological theory in order to enhance our understanding of the behaviour and to inform the development of relevant interventions. To guide the research a provisional ‘working’ definition of aggressive driving was proposed encapsulating the recurrent characteristics of the behaviour cited in the literature. The definition was: “aggressive driving is any on-road behaviour adopted by a driver that is intended to cause physical or psychological harm to another road user and is associated with feelings of frustration, anger or threat”. Two main theoretical perspectives informed the program of research. The first was Shinar’s (1998) frustration-aggression model, which identifies both the person-related and situational characteristics that contribute to aggressive driving, as well as proposing that aggressive behaviours can serve either an ‘instrumental’ or ‘hostile’ function. The second main perspective was Anderson and Bushman’s (2002) General Aggression Model. In contrast to Shinar’s model, the General Aggression Model reflects a broader perspective on human aggression that facilitates a more comprehensive examination of the emotional and cognitive aspects of aggressive behaviour. Study One (n = 48) examined aggressive driving behaviour from the perspective of young drivers as an at-risk group and involved conducting six focus groups, with eight participants in each. Qualitative analyses identified multiple situational and person-related factors that contribute to on-road aggression. Consistent with human aggression theory, examination of self-reported experiences of aggressive driving identified key psychological elements and processes that are experienced during on-road aggression. Participants cited several emotions experienced during an on-road incident: annoyance, frustration, anger, threat and excitement. Findings also suggest that off-road generated stress may transfer to the on-road environment, at times having severe consequences including crash involvement. Young drivers also appeared quick to experience negative attributions about the other driver, some having additional thoughts of taking action. Additionally, the results showed little difference between males and females in the severity of behavioural responses they were prepared to adopt, although females appeared more likely to displace their negative emotions. Following the self-reported on-road incident, evidence was also found of a post-event influence, with females being more likely to experience ongoing emotional effects after the event. This finding was evidenced by ruminating thoughts or distraction from tasks. However, the impact of such a post-event influence on later behaviours or interpersonal interactions appears to be minimal. Study Two involved the quantitative analysis of n = 926 surveys completed by a wide age range of drivers from across Queensland. The study aimed to explore the relationships between the theoretical components of aggressive driving that were identified in the literature review, and refined based on the findings of Study One. Regression analyses were used to examine participant emotional, cognitive and behavioural responses to two differing on-road scenarios whilst exploring the proposed theoretical framework. A number of socio-demographic, state and trait person-related variables such as age, pre-study emotions, trait aggression and problem-solving style were found to predict the likelihood of a negative emotional response such as frustration, anger, perceived threat, negative attributions and the likelihood of adopting either an instrumental or hostile behaviour in response to Scenarios One and Two. Complex relationships were found to exist between the variables, however, they were interpretable based on the literature review findings. Factor analysis revealed evidence supporting Shinar’s (1998) dichotomous description of on-road aggressive behaviours as being instrumental or hostile. The second stage of Study Two used logistic regression to examine the factors that predicted the potentially hostile aggressive drivers (n = 88) within the sample. These drivers were those who indicated a preparedness to engage in direct acts of interpersonal aggression on the road. Young, male drivers 17–24 years of age were more likely to be classified as potentially hostile aggressive drivers. Young drivers (17–24 years) also scored significantly higher than other drivers on all subscales of the Aggression Questionnaire (Buss & Perry, 1992) and on the ‘negative problem orientation’ and ‘impulsive careless style’ subscales of the Social Problem Solving Inventory – Revised (D’Zurilla, Nezu & Maydeu-Olivares, 2002). The potentially hostile aggressive drivers were also significantly more likely to engage in speeding and drink/drug driving behaviour. With regard to the emotional, cognitive and behavioural variables examined, the potentially hostile aggressive driver group also scored significantly higher than the ‘other driver’ group on most variables examined in the proposed theoretical framework. The variables contained in the framework of aggressive driving reliably distinguished potentially hostile aggressive drivers from other drivers (Nagalkerke R2 = .39). Study Three used a case study approach to conduct an in-depth examination of the psychosocial characteristics of n = 10 (9 males and 1 female) self-confessed hostile aggressive drivers. The self-confessed hostile aggressive drivers were aged 24–55 years of age. A large proportion of these drivers reported a Year 10 education or better and average–above average incomes. As a group, the drivers reported committing a number of speeding and unlicensed driving offences in the past three years and extensive histories of violations outside of this period. Considerable evidence was also found of exposure to a range of developmental risk factors for aggression that may have contributed to the driver’s on-road expression of aggression. These drivers scored significantly higher on the Aggression Questionnaire subscales and Social Problem Solving Inventory Revised subscales, ‘negative problem orientation’ and ‘impulsive/careless style’, than the general sample of drivers included in Study Two. The hostile aggressive driver also scored significantly higher on the Barrett Impulsivity Scale – 11 (Patton, Stanford & Barratt, 1995) measure of impulsivity than a male ‘inmate’, or female ‘general psychiatric’ comparison group. Using the Carlson Psychological Survey (Carlson, 1982), the self-confessed hostile aggressive drivers scored equal or higher scores than the comparison group of incarcerated individuals on the subscale measures of chemical abuse, thought disturbance, anti-social tendencies and self-depreciation. Using the Carlson Psychological Survey personality profiles, seven participants were profiled ‘markedly anti-social’, two were profiled ‘negative-explosive’ and one was profiled as ‘self-centred’. Qualitative analysis of the ten case study self-reports of on-road hostile aggression revealed a similar range of on-road situational factors to those identified in the literature review and Study One. Six of the case studies reported off-road generated stress that they believed contributed to the episodes of aggressive driving they recalled. Intense ‘anger’ or ‘rage’ were most frequently used to describe the emotions experienced in response to the perceived provocation. Less frequently ‘excitement’ and ‘fear’ were cited as relevant emotions. Notably, five of the case studies experienced difficulty articulating their emotions, suggesting emotional difficulties. Consistent with Study Two, these drivers reported negative attributions and most had thoughts of aggressive actions they would like to take. Similarly, these drivers adopted both instrumental and hostile aggressive behaviours during the self-reported incident. Nine participants showed little or no remorse for their behaviour and these drivers also appeared to exhibit low levels of personal insight. Interestingly, few incidents were brought to the attention of the authorities. Further, examination of the person-related characteristics of these drivers indicated that they may be more likely to have come from difficult or dysfunctional backgrounds and to have a history of anti-social behaviours on and off the road. The research program has several key theoretical implications. While many of the findings supported Shinar’s (1998) frustration-aggression model, two key areas of difference emerged. Firstly, aggressive driving behaviour does not always appear to be frustration driven, but can also be driven by feelings of excitation (consistent with the tenets of the General Aggression Model). Secondly, while the findings supported a distinction being made between instrumental and hostile aggressive behaviours, the characteristics of these two types of behaviours require more examination. For example, Shinar (1998) proposes that a driver will adopt an instrumental aggressive behaviour when their progress is impeded if it allows them to achieve their immediate goals (e.g. reaching their destination as quickly as possible); whereas they will engage in hostile aggressive behaviour if their path to their goal is blocked. However, the current results question this assertion, since many of the hostile aggressive drivers studied appeared prepared to engage in hostile acts irrespective of whether their goal was blocked or not. In fact, their behaviour appeared to be characterised by a preparedness to abandon their immediate goals (even if for a short period of time) in order to express their aggression. The use of the General Aggression Model enabled an examination of the three components of the ‘present internal state’ comprising emotions, cognitions and arousal and how these influence the likelihood of a person responding aggressively to an on-road situation. This provided a detailed insight into both the cognitive and emotional aspects of aggressive driving that have important implications for the design of relevant countermeasures. For example, the findings highlighted the potential value of utilising Cognitive Behavioural Therapy with aggressive drivers, particularly the more hostile offenders. Similarly, educational efforts need to be mindful of the way that person-related factors appear to influence one’s perception of another driver’s behaviour as aggressive or benign. Those drivers with a predisposition for aggression were more likely to perceive aggression or ‘wrong doing’ in an ambiguous on-road situation and respond with instrumental and/or hostile behaviour, highlighting the importance of perceptual processes in aggressive driving behaviour.

Assessment for learning - Why the theory needs the practice

Assessment for Learning is a pedagogical practice with anticipated gains of increased student motivation, mastery and autonomy as learners develop their capacity to monitor and plan their own learning progress. Assessment for Learning (AfL) differs from Assessment of learning in its timing, occurring within the regular flow of learning rather than end point, in its purpose of improving student learning rather than summative grading and in the ownership of the learning where the student voice is heard in judging quality. Since Black and Wiliam (1998) highlighted the achievement gains that AfL practices seem to bring to all learners in classrooms, it has become part of current educational policy discourse in Australia, yet teacher adoption of the practices is not a straightforward implementation of techniques within an existing classroom repertoire. As can be seen from the following meta-analysis, recent research highlights a more complex interrelationship between teacher and student beliefs about learning and assessment, and the social and cultural interactions in and contexts of the classroom. More research is needed from a sociocultural perspective that allows meaning to emerge from practice. Before another policy push, we need to understand better the many factors within the assessment relationship. We need to hear from teachers and students through long-term AfL case studies both to inform AfL theory and to shed light on the complexities of pedagogical change for enhancing learner autonomy.