Understanding Academic Freedom: The views of social scientists

The current debate about academic freedom has been marked by a lack of clarity and consistency as to what academic freedom actually means. Sometimes it is described solely in terms of individual freedoms; at others in terms of an interplay between individual, collegial and institutional freedoms. Sometimes it is presented as a set of rights; at others, as a pairing of rights and responsibilities. This paper presents an empirical investigation of the range of understandings of academic freedom experienced amongst social scientists in Australian universities. The investigation was undertaken from a phenomenographic perspective and five different ways of understanding academic freedom were constituted, based on two primary dimensions of variation in views: the types of constraints regarded as an appropriate part of academic freedom; and the role of self and other (i.e., peers, institution, society) in creating academic freedom. The structural relationships found between different ways of viewing academic freedom in this study provides a broader framework within which to interpret the range of views found in the literature and public debate.     

Development from within academe: Eschewing imperialism,managerialism and missionary zeal?

Abstract

In the current turbulent environment as we face pressures for efficiency and commercialization, good intentions will not be sufficient. Reflection on what the future holds for us is timely. In this article two case examples of academic development, drawn from the experience of staff at The Australian National University's Centre for Educational Development and Academic Methods, are presented and analysed. A key issue for the field of academic development emerging from this critical examination of the cases is how units and those working in them are positioned in relation to academic colleagues, academic practitioners, and senior officers who are university leaders and managers. Through the case studies and discussion the article explores issues of our location; it concludes that reflection on our models and theories, and critical rethinking of our practice, are essential first steps in deciding on our own professional development.     

Enabling critical reflection on research supervisory practice

This paper describes the development of an instrument—The Reflective Supervisor Questionnaire (RSQ). The RSQ maps the domain of research supervisory practice as a facilitative process involving educational tasks and activities. It is designed to assist research supervisors explore, by means of self‐reflection and reflection on feedback from others, how they practise supervision. In developing the RSQ 58 items were generated describing 5 hypothesised constructs derived from prior research. The resulting instrument was tested on postgraduate research students in 2 institutions. The questionnaire correlated highly with an established questionnaire supervision scale and with an overall satisfaction measure. Four factors identified in an exploratory analysis closely approximated the hypothesised constructs and extended the theoretical framework being developed. These 4 factors identified 4 subsets of facilitative supervisory practice: Progressing the Candidature, Mentoring, Coaching the Research Project, and Sponsoring Student Participation in Academic/Professional Practice. Issues in the interpretation of the findings and the possible usage in academic development programs of an instrument based on them are discussed.     

Academic Freedom: Impressions of Australian Social Scientists

This article reinterprets a recentexploratory study of the academic freedom ofAustralian social scientists in an increasinglycommercialised university environment. Thestudy revealed that academics are experiencingseveral conditions that undermine academicfreedom: the intensification of work at theexpense of quality; pressure to choose `safe'research topics; the erosion of intellectualcapital and student standards; and increasingcorporate governance. We position thesefindings within the transition to `Mode 2'knowledge production, arguing that thisprovides a more appropriate basis forreconceptualising the traditional concept ofacademic freedom and renegotiating its socialpractice.