Standardisation of Academic Work

In UK universities, there is growing evidence of dependence on bureaucratic systems of managerial control in the form of bureaucratic and procedural instruments (e.g. rules and procedures), which increasingly seek to control academic work. Such standardisation, which seeks to replace academics’ judgments and to constrain and direct their action, is what Parker and Jary (1995) refer to as the ‘academic assembly line’ or ‘academic production line’. This

‘assembly’ or ‘production line’ is the classic ‘long-linked technology’ identified by Thompson (1976), indicating how organisations should behave. It can be seen in the codified rules and regulations and the fixed sequence of repetitive steps required by academics to complete administrative and academic work in their universities. This corporate orientation ostensibly leads to efficiency in terms of productivity and cost and reduces the waste of university resources. Such behaviour is clear in the following comment:

178

‘…at the moment, we are in a massive consistency kick so we want everybody to be doing everything across the university in exactly the same way...’

(P18: Senior Lecturer/Plate Glass)

Another participant who had moved from a university of a plate glass type to a red brick university within the last two years described their previous employers:

‘[The] Business School was very managerialist; [it] even had a league table for individual staff about how REF-able” they were, and their teaching...they

suddenly wanted a common, one size fits all, workload allocation model across the whole of [the] university...Classic managerialist approach. Very blunt instrument.’

(P10: Senior Lecturer/Red Brick)

The previous two comments describe how plate glass universities function in terms of managing their resources. The participants alluded to the lack of trust on the part of the management as regards academics’ techniques and skills for completing daily duties, where the management instead seeks to implement its own strategy: one size fits all.

A different form of interference in academic life where managerialism is implemented consists of the growing trend towards controlling and standardising of teaching and teaching evaluation.

This might be considered as a set of power relations over academic work. It influences the way in which academics teach in the classroom (Blackmore, 2009). For example, it ‘strip[s] the teacher of freedom in favour of generic structures that provide a lowest common denominator’

(Lupton, 2013, p. 162). In fact, Blackmore (2009, p. 868) argues that the standardisation of teaching evaluation in the classroom is pushing academics toward focusing upon the narrow range of outcomes that can be measured, at the expense of other important elements; in other words, there is a focus on ‘style rather than substance, to minimise discomfort by reducing contentious readings and watering down substance to produce ‘thin’ pedagogies’. A tendency to lower performance expectations in the classroom, in order to obtain more favourable student evaluations (Heckert, Latier, Ringwald and Silvey, 2006; Gump, 2007; Pritchard and Potter, 2011) is increasingly evident because of the growing emphasis on such evaluations and their role in determining retention, promotion and tenure (Titus, 2008; Lippmann, Bulanda and Wagenaar, 2009). In two of the participants’ words:

179

‘...there are a lot more bureaucratic procedures which affect the way you behave in the classroom, the way you’re teaching...you’re more constrained in terms of module descriptors...’ (P15: Professor/Red Brick)

‘…now we have managers who have certain ideas about what is good for students, they want to standardise the curriculum...’ (P25: Professor/Plate Glass)

Not only did many of the participating academics talk about managers interfering in and controlling classroom teaching practice, they also appeared to view such managerialist practices as changing the nature of the psychological contract deal. They spoke of the disturbing effect of shrinking their academic role in the classroom and perceived such managerialist practices as resulting in unmet expectations and as negatively impacting their academic lives. The workplace in UK universities is growing more focused on controlling and restraining academics. Again, this seems to be increasingly linked to a lack of trust in academics, with the implication that their practice needs to be inspected. This is consistent with Morley (2003) and Rowland’s (2008) arguments, where the authors explain that the standardisation of teaching and teaching evaluation is placing greater stress upon academics and destroying collegiality in universities. It is a practice that is increasingly devaluing and undermining academics’ own authority and role in developing their teaching practice and creating means of investigation in their own teaching (Titus, 2008). The following comment conveys support for the above observations:

‘...what the college is saying more and more is “we want you to accept more of the students that you’ve previously turned away”; in effect, they are saying

“lower the entrance standards...”…the quality of our teaching experience, the quality of our working life is being degraded...’ (P6: Professor/Red Brick)

The above comment is a good example of how an academic will strongly associate their overall academic success with what has been achieved in the classroom, especially in terms of their students. It appears that for quite a number of academics, the nature of the psychological contract deal revolves to a great extent around their freedom in the classroom. Their satisfaction and enjoyment in their profession are derived from their freedom within what they regard as their own world (the classroom), rather than meeting measured outcomes set by managers.

180

Many participants in the study regarded the growing trend towards the standardisation of academic work as a big issue and such perceptions were obvious in three out of the four university types, namely red brick, plate glass and post-1992. Such bureaucratic and procedural instruments are increasingly undermining academics’ own authority and constraining their role in the development of their teaching practice. In the words of one of the participants, who was developing a feeling of apathy toward the status of academia, as a result of such instruments impinging on the deal:

‘One of the ways that they're implemented is by an increasing managerialism in the university to bring those external factors in and ensure that we’re all delivering what we need to deliver to survive in that new institutional environment. But that creates a toxic environment within the university and changes the nature of the work. It’s certainly not the job I intended to go for. If I’d have wanted to be a crappy, middle-level manager I’d

have gone and worked for twice the money in a commercial organisation.’

(P22: Reader/Plate Glass)

Therefore, such conditions are perceived as creating discrepancies between perceived promises and what is delivered, consequently affecting the exchange relationship between academics and management. This is in line with Schapper and Mayson’s (2004, p. 196) observation of such a process and the way it is ‘used to convey the sense of de- skilling and deprofessionalisation of academics in today’s factories of learning.’

By contrast, new managerialism does not appear to have had same degree of impact on academics at ancient universities in terms of standardisation. In fact, these participants claimed to experience a high degree of academic freedom. They reported a number of positive aspects in relation to their job, such as the capacity to negotiate:

‘…my sense of a sort of security, independent power base and freedom is substantially greater than it is almost anywhere else…The embeddedness of academic freedom, which I believe when I hear stories from people that I know, is being more eroded in other institutions where people are being told that they need to work on a particular project...Absolutely no question at all of anybody interfering with academic freedom whatsoever, and it is very, very clearly stated as an absolute primary principal of the university.’ (P1: Associate Professor/Ancient)

181

‘…it’s up to me to determine what [the] objectives of the course, what the curriculum [will be], what reading materials will be used, how the material is taught. I have tremendous discretion.’(P2: Professor/Ancient)

Perhaps one of the reasons behind such perceptions of academic freedom in ancient universities, reported in this sub-theme and earlier points made, is the degree of power that academics appear to be able to exercise at their universities. Decisions with regard to their academic responsibilities cannot be imposed upon them and they have a say in decision-making. In two of the respondents’ words:

‘...Deans can sometimes be foolish if they don’t listen to the Faculty... Of the four Deans of the Business School, two of them have been gotten rid of, so you’ve got to tread carefully as a Dean about what you do and how you bring academics along with you.’

(P1: Associate Professor/Ancient)

‘...I’ve also reacted and had to act on behalf of the institution to remove those leaders, and have been part of that and not been afraid to do it, and I thought it was the right thing to do.’ (P3: Professor/Ancient)