This article was downloaded by: [Temple University Libraries]On: 20 November 2014, At: 14:26Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Quality in Higher EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cqhe20

When will Academics Learn aboutQuality?KIM WATTY aa School of Accounting and Law, RMIT University, GPO Box 2476V,Melbourne, AustraliaPublished online: 03 Jun 2010.

To cite this article: KIM WATTY (2003) When will Academics Learn about Quality?, Quality in HigherEducation, 9:3, 213-221, DOI: 10.1080/1353832032000151085

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1353832032000151085

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Quality in Higher Education, Vol. 9, No. 3, November 2003

When will Academics Learn aboutQuality?KIM WATTY

School of Accounting and Law, RMIT University, GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne, Australia

ABSTRACT Previous research provides evidence of grassroots academics adopting a variety ofbehaviours in response to quality-led change initiatives in higher education. Although administra-tors may seek answers to the question ‘when will academics learn about quality?’, perhaps there isa need to address a more fundamental question: ‘How do academics conceive quality in highereducation?’.

Introduction

In the final session of the 7th Quality in Higher Education Seminar 2002, entitled Trans-forming Quality, I found myself jotting down the following thoughts:

Don’t wait for academics to learn what has to be done to ensure successfulimplementation of quality assurance systems. If we (academics) have not fullyembraced the existing quality assurance agenda, perhaps it is useful to considerwhy.

And, if the answer is that academics do not agree that quality assurance systemscurrently measure what they regard as ‘quality in higher education’, then there isa need to first recognise that differences exist and then identify these differencesin conceptions.

What follows is a reflection on why the issues raised dominated my thoughts after 2 daysof discussion about the transformative potential of quality in higher education. This paperbegins with a discussion of different ways of conceptualising quality in the context ofhigher education. This is followed by an identification of key stakeholders in the highereducation process, and the changing nature of management in higher education. Earlierresearch is then reviewed to identify how academics have responded to quality initiatives,policies and systems. Finally, role-conflict theory is briefly discussed as a possible expla-nation of the disparate behaviours adopted by academics in response to quality-ledchange.

Conceptualising Quality

Discussion around what constitutes quality in higher education continues to be the focusof introductory comments in the literature, and with good reason. Academics are con-cerned to be able to identify and understand concepts that form the basis of contemporarydiscourse in their sector, and quality is just that: a concept that, since the mid-1980s, has

ISSN 1353–8322 print; 1470–1081 online/03/030213–09 2003 Taylor & Francis LtdDOI: 10.1080/1353832032000151085

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

26 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

214 K. Watty

increasingly dominated discussions around the globe about the role and future of highereducation institutions and the academics that constitute those institutions.

A review of the literature around change in higher education, particularly in relation tochange as a result of quality initiatives, reveals two schools of thought; one relating tocontext and the other relating to stakeholders.The first attaches quality to a context and asa consequence quality becomes meaningful (Baird, 1988; Fry, 1995; Nordvall & Braxton,1996). For example, references to the quality of assessment, student intake, academicprogrammes, teaching and learning, the student experience and programme designs arenot uncommon. Any attempt to define or attach meaning to the term is largely ignored andone is left to assume that it is ‘high’ quality that is being referred to as opposed to ‘good’or ‘poor’ quality.

A second way of thinking about quality relates to a stakeholder-specific meaning. Herequality is considered, having regard to a variety of stakeholders with an interest in highereducation, each having the potential to think about quality in different ways. In particular,the early works of Vroeijenstijn (1992), Middlehurst (1992) and Harvey and Green (1993)highlight the importance and value of considering quality from a variety of stakeholderperspectives.

Vroeijenstijn (1992) suggested that all parties have an interest in quality, but noteveryone has the same idea about it. It seems that Middlehurst (1992) agreed, and extendedthe argument, discussing that most ideas about quality are value related and judgemental,and that it is the kind of education that becomes a matter of dispute between variousstakeholders in the higher education sector. While reference to the ‘kind of education’ isopen to various interpretations, in its broadest sense it can be considered the experience ofstudents in their educational environment. Middlehurst asks the following question, whichover a decade later draws different responses: Where should legitimate authority fordefining quality in higher education lie? Not surprisingly, these responses are stakeholder-relative.

The oft-cited work of Harvey and Green (1993) focused on the impact of differentconceptions of quality from various stakeholder groups as influencing assessments ofquality, and the importance of understanding these different conceptions to assist inunderstanding their preferences in relation to the quality issue. Harvey and Green contendthat ‘this is not a different perspective on the same things but different perspectives ondifferent things with the same label’ (Harvey & Green, 1993, p. 10). In their deconstructionof the concept of quality, the authors identified five categories or ways of thinking aboutquality. Key aspects of each of the Harvey and Green categories are summarised asfollows.

• Exception: distinctive, embodied in excellence, passing a minimum set of standards.• Perfection: zero defects, getting things right the first time (focus on process as opposed to

inputs and outputs).• Fitness for purpose: relates quality to a purpose, defined by the provider.• Value for money: a focus on efficiency and effectiveness, measuring outputs against

inputs. A populist notion of quality (government).• Transformation: a qualitative change; education is about doing something to the student

as opposed to something for the consumer. Includes concepts of enhancing and empow-ering: democratisation of the process, not just outcomes.

Each of these categories, while identified separately, has the potential to overlap at themargin. In this way, stakeholder conceptions of quality may not ‘fit’ only one of the fivecategories and the Harvey and Green (1993) categories can be viewed as a matrix of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

26 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

When will Academics Learn about Quality? 215

FIG. 1. Clarifying concepts—descending the ladder of abstraction.

quality. Elsewhere it has been referred to as a heuristic framework for attempting to definequality (Lomas, 2002).

Accepting the notion that different stakeholders may hold different views about qualityin higher education, and that these views influence their assessment of quality, invites thefollowing important questions. How do various stakeholders think about quality in highereducation? What might be the impact where stakeholders think about and conceptualisequality in higher education differently?

Quality is a concept and like other concepts, including conflict, dissatisfaction, guilt andforgiveness, it is not always observable. However, deconstructing the abstract concept ofquality helps to reveal its dimensions and we may better understand how differentstakeholders think about quality.

de Vaus (1995) refers to ‘descending the ladder of abstraction’ as researchers endeavourto deconstruct concepts in a meaningful way. If we use the categories of quality providedby Harvey and Green (1993) we can illustrate how quality can be deconstructed into itsvarious dimensions (see Figure 1).

de Vaus suggests that reference to the literature is a valid way of clarifying a concept andthat we may discard certain dimensions, which do not ‘fit’ the research, and thus removesome clutter from the investigation.

When considering quality in higher education it is valid to remove the second dimensionof quality detailed in Figure 1 that refers to perfection or consistency. Most would agreethat higher education does not aim to produce standardised graduates, free of defects.What remains is a quality matrix that may form the basis of an analytical framework toconsider quality in higher education (Lomas, 2002).

Of interest is how different stakeholder groups conceive quality, because the variety ofbehaviours that academics adopt in response to quality-led change, be it internal orexternal, may be due to conflict in conceptions of quality between, and potentially within,stakeholder groups.

Identifying Stakeholders in Higher Education

In an endeavour to identify stakeholders, Parker and Jary (1995) developed a three-layermodel in their analysis of change in higher education in the United Kingdom. The threelevels (or layers) are labelled: national-structural (policy and structural changes at thenational level that affect all universities), organisational (changes internal to higher edu-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

26 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

216 K. Watty

cation—within universities), and individual (actions, motivation and goals of the individ-ual academic).

The three-layer change model was adapted by Winter et al. (2001) as a model to assistcategorisation of responses from academics to higher education reforms in Australianuniversities. Although the focus of their study is on the quality of academic working lifein a university in Australia, their analysis at the national-structural and organisationallevels assist their interpretation of responses at the individual level.

Both models lend support to the potential importance of four stakeholder groups inhigher education: government, quality agencies, universities and individual academics. Itis of note that students have not been specifically referred to as a separate stakeholdergroup by these authors. Similarly, employers, parents and society in general may legiti-mately have claim as an interested stakeholder in the higher education process. However,for the purpose of the reflection in this paper, the focus is on the perception of quality fromfour key stakeholder groups in higher education. This is not to diminish the importance ofother stakeholder groups. To do so would be to decide the answer to who has thelegitimacy to define quality, which is not the focus of this discussion. However, unravel-ling how these four stakeholder groups think about quality may assist in clarifying theopening thoughts of this reflective discussion. In Australia, there is evidence to suggestthat the Australian government, the Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA), anduniversities consider quality in terms of fitness for purpose (where the purpose is definedby the provider). A similar conclusion is drawn by Lomas (2002) with reference to similarstakeholder groupings in the UK system of higher education.

Returning to the Australian environment, as universities prepare for the first round ofquality audits since 1995 they are increasingly focusing on the provision of evidence tosupport their selection of goals, objectives and performance measures, linked to theirmission statement, vision or purpose. The progression and formalisation of external qualityassurance monitoring, resulting in the establishment of the AUQA goes to the heart of thereform of higher education instigated by the Commonwealth government since the late1980s. The approach reflects one of initiating change and then stepping back, confident ofaccountability via the establishment of mechanisms to ensure control of the system(Mahoney, 1991). In effect the ability to ‘steer at a distance’ (Vidovich, 1998).

This is consistent with the new public sector management (NPM) approach embraced bymanagers of higher education institutions in Australia and world-wide. Imported from theprivate sector, NPM is characterised by policy development, management and implemen-tation, efficiency, effectiveness and quality, performance evaluations and explicit targetsand outputs and outcomes (Parker & Gould, 1999). An assumption of NPM is that theprivate sector is more efficient than the public sector and that application of commercialmodels of management will improve standards without the need to increase spending(Erridge et al., 1998).

Having regard to the aspects associated with NPM, quality in this environment isdetermined and measured using mechanisms, procedures and processes to ensure that thedesired quality, however defined and measured, is delivered. In the private sector theconception of quality as fitness for purpose dominates. As the government in Australia hasreturned to external quality audits as the mechanism to assure quality, the universitiesthemselves have moved to establish or refine internal quality assurance systems, whichinclude internal audits or reviews. In the same way that NPM has become the approach ofgovernment and university managers, quality audits and reviews are conducted externallyby the AUQA, to assure the community at large of the quality of universities, andconducted internally by university quality managers, to assure chancellors, vice-chancel-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

26 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

When will Academics Learn about Quality? 217

lors, academic boards, deans, and the like, of the quality of the university for which theyare accountable. Government, the AUQA, and universities conceive quality as fitness forpurpose, where the purpose is determined by the providers of the service—the university.

However, there is little if any evidence to suggest that this conceptualisation is consist-ent, or indeed inconsistent, with conceptualisations of quality from the perspective ofacademic faculty members. This potential lack of congruency may explain why academicsrespond to and behave differently when confronted with change, initiated under the‘quality’ umbrella.

Academic Behaviour in Response to Quality-Led Change

Several authors suggest that there is evidence of academic distrust of administrations thatare viewed as having a growing desire to conceive higher education as a corporate serviceindustry, acting as a government-funded provider of services to students (Taylor et al.,1998). Research undertaken by Campbell and Slaughter (1999) empirically tested thetension between administrators and academic staff, and confirmed their hypothesis thatacademics and administrators hold different views towards potential conflicts. Furtherevidence that there may be some disparity in the aspirations of administrators andacademic staff, particularly, is provided by research findings that indicate a steady increasein dissatisfaction and alienation among Australian academics (Everett & Entrekin, 1994),and overwhelmingly negative views with regard to the worth of quality assurancemechanisms and their effectiveness and efficiency (McInnes et al., 1994). Where qualityassurance systems are designed by university administrators to ‘suit’ the audit require-ments of external quality agencies, academics, who do not conceive quality as fitness forpurpose, are likely to question the value of such a system. Their behaviour, when requiredto engage with the system, is likely to reflect this.

Other research has investigated the impact of quality initiatives, quality policies andquality assurance mechanisms at the local or departmental level and found that aca-demics adopt various behaviours to cope with what they perceive as accountability-ledchange, driven by the quality agenda (McInnes et al., 1994; Stensaker, 1997; Trowler,1998; Vidovich, 1998; Newton, 2001). In her study of Australia’s higher education‘quality’ policy process, Vidovich (1998) found that 69% of respondents at the grass-rootslevel displayed varying levels of resistance to accountability requirements that wereviewed as an outcome of quality policy implementation. These behaviours includedverbal objections (37%), outright refusal (33%), careless responses (21%) and delayingtactics (9%). Similarly, disparate behaviour was observed by Trowler (1998) in his studyof academics at the school/department (grassroots) level in a UK higher educationinstitution. Trowler investigated how academics behave as a result of a ‘critical aspect ofchange’, referred to as the credit framework, and identified four broad categories ofresponse from his data.

Trowler’s first category is ‘sinking’, in which academic responses indicated some level ofdiscontent with the current environment and an acceptance of the status quo. Respondentsin this category ‘… engaged in conformity ritualism and even retreatsism’ (Trowler, 1998,p. 114). The second category is ‘swimming’: responses provided evidence of academicswho were content and accepting of the status quo. In fact, academics in this category‘thrived’ on the changed conditions and viewed the new environment as one of oppor-tunity. The third categorisation is ‘using coping strategies’ and refers to responses indicat-ing a level of discontent and an approach that works around or changes policy at the locallevel. The final category, ‘policy reconstruction’, describes how academics contentedly

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

26 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

218 K. Watty

work around or change policy at the local level. Each group represents types of be-havioural responses, not types of academics (catering for the fact that some academics maymove between these categories).

A major finding of this research is that academics are not always passive recipients ofchange: a finding that was contrary to that of Parker and Jary (1995) and McMurty (1991)who observed that academics behaved in a conformist manner, mutely acceptingchanges thrust upon them. More recently, Newton (2001) reported the findings of asecond phase of his research, designed to further investigate change in the qualityassurance climate in the United Kingdom. Of particular interest are his findings aboutdifferent ways in which quality continues to be perceived by academics in the UnitedKingdom. Newton identifies two themes. First, that quality is conceived as ‘intrusion,inspection and bureaucracy’. The second theme is that quality is conceived as ‘conform-ist behaviour’.

This brief reference to the literature reveals that the authors failed to find any evidencethat a majority of academics at the local or departmental level of universities are embracingquality-change initiatives. After more than a decade of change focused on quality initia-tives, particularly those embodied in quality assurance systems, this outcome requiresfurther consideration and investigation.

The findings of these authors raise questions around the variety of behaviours adoptedby academics in response to university quality-assurance initiatives and policies. Oneexplanation may be that there is some form of conflict in the way academics think aboutquality compared with other stakeholders in higher education. Some evidence of thispotential conflict is provided by Lomas (2002) who recently found from a survey ofsenior managers in the United Kingdom (Pro Vice Chancellors, vice-principals, deansand academic registrars) that the majority perceived quality as fitness for purpose (33%)or transformation (31%). While Lomas identifies his research as small scale, his findingsprovide some evidence about the potential for stakeholders to hold different views aboutquality in higher education. For example, the fitness for purpose conception of qualitydid not dominate the responses of senior managers in the Lomas study. We mightconsider that responses from academics at the departmental level might provide adifferent picture again.

Regardless of the variety of meanings that can be attached to the concept of quality,ultimately it is academics that are held responsible for the performance of the university.As Wilson (1998, p. 156) suggests: ‘the quality of a university is of course criticallydependent on the quality of its academic staff, who perform the research and teaching andinteract with students’. This is supported by other authors who acknowledge the behav-iour of academics as the most critical issue to consider in determining the ultimateperformance of an institution (Fry, 1995; Coaldrake & Stedman, 1998; Marginson, 2000). Aspreviously discussed, empirical evidence from earlier research suggest a variety of be-haviours are adopted by academics at the grass-roots level when quality-change initiativesare implemented. Embracing such systems, however, does not appear the dominantbehaviour.

Where conceptions of quality are the same or similar, a shared vision results of whatconstitutes quality in education. In this environment, the transformative potential ofquality in higher education is enhanced. However, where there are different conceptionsbetween stakeholders and within stakeholder groups, there is potential for conflict. Role-conflict theory may assist in explaining the variety of behaviours displayed by academicsin response to quality-led changes, particularly those embodied in quality assurancesystems.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

26 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

When will Academics Learn about Quality? 219

FIG. 2. A model of role conflict.

Role-Conflict Theory

Role theory encompasses both role-conflict and role-ambiguity theories, and has been usedto describe and explain stresses associated with operating as part of an organisation (Kahnet al., 1964). Van Sell et al. (1981, p. 44) suggest that individuals are often ‘required to playa role which conflicts with their individual value systems or to play two or more roleswhich conflict with each other’. In this instance, role conflict may be defined as a situationwhere there is a lack of congruence of expectations (shared vision) associated with a role.Role ambiguity refers to the situation where there is a lack of clarity in relation to theexpectations of the role. While this is clearly an over-simplification of the complex issuesassociated with the behaviour of individuals in an organisation, role theory may providean interesting perspective on possible reasons for the variety of ways that grassrootsacademics respond to quality assurance systems, policies and initiatives (Figure 2).

Kahn et al. (1964) aptly describe the complex relationships in the model.

… members of a role set exert role pressures to change the behaviour of a focalperson. When such pressures are generated and ‘sent’ they do not enter anotherwise empty field; the focal person is already in role, already behaving,already maintaining some kind of equilibrium among the disparate forces andmotives which he [sic] experiences … the stronger the pressures from role senderstoward changes in behavior of the focal person, the greater the conflict created forhim. (Kahn et al., 1964, p. 21; emphasis added)

The suggestion in this discussion is that where conceptions of quality differ between therole’s senders (government, quality agencies, universities) and the role receiver/focalperson (academics), there is potential for conflict, particularly where the value-ladennotion of quality in higher education is at the heart of the conflict. Clearly, a number offactors or variables (organisational, personal and interpersonal) will determine the natureand extent of this potential conflict.

If we consider that the government, quality agencies and universities have adopted theconception of quality as fitness for purpose, then role theory may help to explain the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

26 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

220 K. Watty

behaviour of academics at the local level. This is in contrast to the view that academics areinflexible, resistant to change and ignoring the quality agenda in higher education. It maybe that academics conceive quality differently to these other stakeholders, valuing differentaspects to those measured and monitored under the current quality regime. If this is thecase, there exists an urgent need for academics to articulate how they conceive quality inhigher education. Ideally, this articulation should be presented as a unified voice, enhanc-ing credibility of the conception with those already determining how quality is assured inour higher education institutions.

Closing Thoughts

As an academic at the local level interested in issues around quality in higher education,I have observed my changing environment, discussed the changes with colleagues, andattended too many quality conferences where academics from schools and departmentsactively involved in the process of teaching and learning are in the minority. I perceive adegree of conflict in the current managerial expectations of academics in a quality-focusedenvironment and that which academics view as their responsibilities. Some of this may bedue to a lack of consensus between academics and other stakeholder groups with regardto what is meant by ‘quality’ in the context of the current higher education environment.Where there is a lack of consensus on such a fundamental issue, then it is not surprisingthat academics have responded to quality-led change in a variety of ways. Furthermore,there is no evidence to suggest that this is likely to change in the future. However, of evengreater importance is recognising that where conflict of this nature exists there is potentialfor a lack of consensus between stakeholders about where higher education is heading; thegoals, vision and purpose of our universities. In this environment, the transformativepotential of quality in higher education is at best diminished.

References

BAIRD, J.R., 1998, ‘Quality: what should make higher education “higher”?’, Higher Education Research andDevelopment, 7(2), pp. 141–152.

CAMPBELL, T.I. & SLAUGHTER, S., 1999, ‘Faculty and administrators’ attitudes toward potential conflicts ofinterest, committment, and equity in university–industry relationships’, Journal of Higher Education,70(13), pp. 309–352.

COALDRAKE, P. & STEDMAN, L., 1998, Academic Work in the Twenty-First Century. Changing roles and policies(Canberra, Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs-Higher Education Division).

DE VAUS, D.A., 1995, Surveys in Social Research, 4th edn (Sydney, Allen & Unwin).ERRIDGE, A., FEE, R., et al., 1998, ‘Public sector quality: political project or legitimate goal?’, International

Journal of Public Sector Management, 11(5), pp. 341–353.EVERETT, J.E. & ENTREKIN, L.V., 1994, ‘Changing attitudes of Australian academics’, Higher Education

Quarterly, 2(7), pp. 203–277.FRY, H., 1995, ‘Quality judgements and quality improvement’, Higher Education Quarterly, 49(1), pp. 59–77.HARVEY, L. & GREEN, D., 1993, ‘Defining quality’, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 18(1),

pp. 9–34.KAHN, R.L., WOLFE, D.M., QUINN, R.P. & SNOEK, J.D., 1964, Organizational Stress (New York, John Wiley &

Sons).LOMAS, L., 2002, ‘Does the development of mass education necessarily mean the end of quality?’, Quality

in Higher Education, 8(1), pp. 71–79.MAHONEY, D., 1991, ‘Autonomy and the Post-Dawkins Universities’, Education Research and Perspectives,

18(1), pp. 14–22.MARGINSON, S., 2000, ‘Rethinking academic work in the global era’, Journal of Higher Education, 22(1),

pp. 23–35.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

26 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

When will Academics Learn about Quality? 221

MCINNES, C., POWLES, M. & ANWYL, J., 1994, ‘Australian academic’s perspectives on quality and accountabil-ity’, Research Working Paper, 94(2) (Melbourne, Centre of Study of Higher Education).

MCMURTY, J., 1991, ‘Education and the Market Model’, Journal of Philosophy of Education, 25(2), pp. 209–218.MIDDLEHURST, R., 1992, ‘Quality: an organising principle for higher education?’, Higher Education Quarterly,

46(1), pp.–38.NEWTON, J., 2001, ‘Views from below: academics coping with quality’, paper presented at the End of Quality?

6th Quality in Higher Education Seminar, Birmingham, UK, May, in association with EAIR and SRHE.NORDVALL, R.C. & BRAXTON, J.M., 1996, ‘An alternative definition of quality of undergraduate college

education’, Journal of Higher Education, 67(5), pp. 483–497.PARKER, L. & GOULD, G., 1999, ‘Changing public sector accountability: critiquing new directions’, Accounting

Forum, 23(2), pp. 109–135.PARKER, M.J. & JARY, D., 1995, ‘The McUniversity: organization, management and academic subjectivity’,

Organization: Ethical Values?, 2(2), pp. 310–338.STENSAKER, B., 1997, ‘From accountability to opportunity: the role of quality assessments in Norway’, Quality

in Higher Education, 3(3), pp. 277–284.TAYLOR, T., GOUGH, J., et al., 1998, ‘A bleak outlook: academic staff perceptions of changes in core activities

in Australian higher education, 1991–1996’, Studies in Higher Education, 12(3), pp. 255–268.TROWLER, P.R., 1998, Academics Responding to Change: New higher education frameworks and academic cultures

(Buckingham, The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press).VAN SELL, M., BRIEF, A.P. & SCHUTER, R.S., 1981, ‘Role conflict and role ambiguity: integration of the

literature and directions for future research’, Human Relations, 34(1), pp. 43–71.VIDOVICH, L., 1998, ‘Quality’ as Accountability in Australian Higher Education of the 1990s: A policy trajectory

(Perth, Murdoch University).VROEIJENSTIJN, T., 1992, ‘External quality assessment, servant of two masters? The Netherlands university

perspective’, in CRAFT, A. (Ed.) Quality Assurance in Higher Education: Proceedings of an internationalconference Hong Kong, 1991 (London, The Falmer Press)

WILSON, H.W., 1998, ‘Examining the fabric of academic life: an analysis of three decades of research on theperception of Australian academics about their roles’, Higher Education, 36(4), pp. 421–435.

WINTER, R.P.S., et al., 2001, Corporate Reforms to Australian Universities: Views from the academic heartland(Melbourne, Monash University, Faculty of Business and Economics).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

26 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

26 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014