Australian academics are being squeezed from all sides, facing ever-intensifying bureaucratic expectations around research output, coupled with increased teaching commitments and mounting administrative duties. These demands are occurring in an environment where most academics are still employed under traditional arrangements whereby, notionally, 40 per cent of their workload is allocated to research, 40 per cent to teaching and the final 20 per cent to service or administration. Such figures are no longer - and perhaps never were - a realistic representation of average workloads. This paper discusses how Australian academics in the discipline of English have been working within and around the 40/40/20 model, as well as the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their workload. Discussion here is built on interviews with English academics, but the same concerns are applicable across the tertiary sector because employment conditions tend to be standardised at the institutional level rather than at a disciplinary level.
As part of a study investigating research productivity of sociology PhD students in Australia, an application to the federal government's Department of Education, Skills and Employment (DESE) aimed to establish a baseline count of completed sociology doctorates by university. It was anticipated that university totals might be different from PhD completions within the main sociology teaching units. The government data furnished by this inquiry have proved to be problematic in several ways. The gaps in the data may be explained by the fact that universities report sociology PhDs to DESE in more generic rather than discipline-specific Field of Education (FoE) codes or as PhDs in other disciplines. DESE has either not required or been able to enforce consistent reporting. This raises questions about the time and cost value of these annual compliance efforts. It also limits the value of these data to researchers in charting current and potential future trends.
The COVID-19 pandemic, the Australian government's response, and longer-term influences within Australia's higher education sector, provided the background and rationale for this study in an Australian public university. From a context of how Antipodean University (AU) dealt with the revenue crisis, this paper describes how a sample of staff were affected through job loss or redeployment. It describes reported experiences of 77 AU staff, who either departed AU or who transferred to other jobs within AU, and who provided narratives describing their leaving/redeployment experiences. Respondents had been academic and professional staff, and most of those leaving did so in December 2020. An inductive reflexive thematic analysis of online survey responses revealed six themes: Relevant features of the external environment, AU's organisational culture and values, Parties involved with respondents' leaving experience, Leaving/redeployment processes encountered, Respondent's personal agency, and Past/present condition in/directly attributed to changed employment status, with 25 subthemes.
We discuss developments in higher education in Australia through the lens of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic upon the provision of education and training in the discipline of psychology. Since its inception in universities after World War II, psychology educators in Australia have continually dealt with different, often conflicting, goals and with different methods and institutions in the regulation, accreditation, and process of the education of psychologists. These include the goals of training in practice, training in science, the administration of organisations and the concepts of profit and 'value' pulling teachers and students in different directions, and in the employment of graduates in multiple roles with different expectations held by the public and government. The impact of COVID-19 since 2020, rapid developments in technology, and the likely continuing changes in the sector that ensue, can be viewed as sources of magnification of the difficulties. Implications are drawn from the case study of psychology in Australia to highlight similarities and differences with psychological education in other countries and serve to illuminate possible futures for higher education in Australia and abroad.
With the Australian international borders closed to international students due to the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19), Australian universities have experienced unanticipated financial losses. At the same time, many international students who would have chosen to study in Australia instead chose to enrol in universities in the US, UK and other countries where the borders opened earlier. The long-term effects of this are unknown, but with borders finally now open again, Australia will need to re-establish itself as a destination of choice for international students. An opportunity to establish a prestigious international scholarship program may be created by the recent sale of the universities' collective investment in IDP Education Pty Ltd. The income generated by this sale could create a source of funding for an international scholarship program which would create goodwill and help to diminish the reputation of Australian international education as predominantly revenue-driven.
COVID-19 conditions required a shift to online learning - for many this was both unexpected and difficult to manage. For others the shift was essentially already in motion. The unexpected shift created new demands and pitfalls. The inevitable return to face-to-face teaching sometime in the future is also troublesome and may need a rethink.
In its response to COVID-19 in 2020, the Australian Government excluded international students from the temporary financial assistance it offered most permanent residents. This article examines the status of international student welfare as a policy question before and during the pandemic, and discusses post-pandemic policy implications. It draws on pre- and during-COVID-19 survey data from international students in Sydney and Melbourne. We argue that the pandemic highlighted and exacerbated an existing policy absence, rather than constituting a fresh abandonment of international students. Since the Dawkins changes in the early 1990s, international students have been officially treated in policy as consumers, not as 'social citizens'. This made many of them vulnerable to socio-economic shocks, given widespread dependence on precarious employment and insecure private income sources. The central policy implication is that, to avoid disproportionate welfare diminutions in future crises, the government needs to align the treatment of international and domestic students.
During 2020 and beyond, coronavirus disease has profoundly disrupted global economic, health and higher education systems. As universities shuttered campuses and businesses locked down, Australia's export education sector stalled. Many international students who were able to return home, did so, while those who could not, would experience varying levels of support and exclusion. Government policies and practices during 2020 are analysed alongside research literature and media reports to provide an overview of how the COVID-19 pandemic affected the Australian higher education sector and international students. Specifically, the analysis addresses the emerging and emergent impact of this pandemic on the public higher education sector and its international education activities and proposes corresponding recommendations for systemic and institutional recovery. These recommendations call for increased government fiscal and welfare support, strengthened regulatory safeguards, extended post-study work rights, progress regarding foreign qualifications recognition, and institution-level strategies. A long and varied list of sources chronicles events.
There is an important but unwieldy research policy infrastructure designed to engage with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander research and researchers. This framework links the key performance indicators and policies of funders and institutions to researchers and communities. In this article, we explain the relevant policies and targets, with a view to showing how sector regulation interconnects in practice and identifying ways to strengthen institutional commitments to meaningful engagement with, and implementation of, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander research policy. We suggest next steps that are needed to help researchers comply with funder and institution -mandated obligations and to empower Indigenous Peoples to make informed decisions about the benefits of research collaboration with universities.
Apart from the regulatory compliance required by the law, the literature suggests that genuine occupational health and safety (OHS) management that cares for workers can bring tangible benefits that extend to several business objectives. Also, studies demonstrate promising gains from adapting an integrated management concept to enable different management systems to share and exchange information and practices and mutually realise the overall organisational mission and vision. The desktop review of 34 OHS and 177 business and management courses in Australia revealed none-to-little reference to integrated management in these degrees and considerable under-representation of OHS in business and management courses. Although further research is warranted to investigate reasons for the findings of this study and extend it to other countries, its results can raise awareness of the opportunities to enrich curricula and arm future generations of OHS professionals and business managers with the knowledge and skills of an inclusive and balanced consideration of various organisational objectives.
This article surveys available evidence of disruptions of the COVID-19 pandemic to Australian university-based research and to the research training pipeline, considering both the long-term implications of this disruption, as well as the disproportionate impacts on higher degree research candidates, early-career researchers and women academics with carer responsibilities. Drawing on existing global and local research studies, media reports, internal institutional documents, policy and advisory documents, data from the Department of Education, Skills and Employment, the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Australian Research Council, the article argues that specific targeted management interventions and federal policy changes will be needed for the equitable and sustainable restoration of research capacity in the challenging funding environment beyond 2022.
The Australian Government's Endeavour international scholarship program had strategic interests in international education at its core, but uneven and strategically incompatible outcomes emerged over the 16 years of its existence. An unexpected outcome was the dominance of the small Himalayan nation of Bhutan as a substantial beneficiary of the program. This research draws on official Endeavour recipient data for the years 2007 to 2019; on qualitative interviews with scholarship program stakeholders in Australia, and on two unpublished reviews of the program obtained under Freedom of Information (FOI). Combined, they reveal the workings of an ambitious scholarship program into which significant public monies were invested, but which was hampered by its adherence to a poorly-defined concept of 'merit', inadequate consultation with stakeholders and a failure to connect with international education priorities in a way which might have resulted in more valuable outcomes for Australian international education providers.
