Academic staff perceptions of administrative quality at universities
| Published date | 01 April 2002 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230210421123 |
| Pages | 172-188 |
| Date | 01 April 2002 |
| Author | Russell F. Waugh |
| Subject Matter | Education |
Journal of
Educational
Administration
40,2
172
Journal of Educational
Administration,
Vol. 40 No. 2, 2002, pp. 172-188.
#MCB UP Limited, 0957-8234
DOI 10.1108/09578230210421123
Received April 2001
Revised July 2001
Accepted July 2001
Academic staff perceptions of
administrative quality at
universities
Russell F. Waugh
Edith Cowan University, Churchlands, Australia
Keywords Higher education, Universities, Service quality, Management, Academic staff
Abstract Gives direction as to how administrative quality at a university can be measured on an
interval scale. The measure is based on a model of academic staff perceptions in relation to central,
faculty or school administration (as the case may be). The Australian Government set up a new
Australian University Quality Agency in 2001 andoneofitsobjectivesistomeasurequalityin
administration (management). Proposes that academic staff perceptions of administrative quality
consist of two first order aspects, operationally defined by a number of second order aspects. The 21
stem-items measuring each second order aspect are set up in Guttman patterns, conceptually ordered
by increasing ``difficulty''. Academics are asked torespondtoeachofthe21 stem-itemsintwoparts,
conceptually ordered from ``easy''to ``hard''. This model has been pilot tested successfully with a small
sample ( N= 27) and is now ready for a full test.
The Australian Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs in the
Howard Liberal government, the Honourable Dr David A. Kemp MP, has
indicated that an Australian University Quality Assurance Agency will be set
up in 2001 (Kemp, 1999). There will be a distinction between two main
functions. First, the accreditation function involving approval for new
universities to operate, use words like ``university'' and ``degree'', and approve
and accredit courses of study leading to degrees and university awards will
continue to be the responsibility of states and territories. A second function is
the quality assurance process for universities and this will be administered by
the Quality Assurance Agency. It is expected that the states and territories will
use common protocols and procedures that will be subject to periodical review
by the Quality Assurance Agency. The Minister has indicated that the
evaluation of quality will involve a ``whole of institution approach
incorporating teaching and learning, research and management, both onshore
and offshore'' (Kemp, 1999, p. 6). It is this last aspect, management, and the
measure of its quality, that is the subject of the present paper. However, before
this is explained, there is a need to explain some background to the formation
of the Australian University Quality Assurance Agency.
Since the late 1980s, Australian universities were being signalled that they
would be called to account for the quality of education provided. Performance
indicator was the then ``in'' word. Universities were asked to provide evidence
of various performance indicators and government funding would be linked to
the achievement of the indicators (Dawkins, 1988). The Honourable John
Dawkins MP was the then Australian Minister for Employment, Education and
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-8234.htm
Administration
quality
173
Training in the Hawke Labor government. At the time, this topic was debated
with some tension in universities. Tying funding to performance, especially
when there are no good measures of performance that take account of various
inputs and outputs, was considered to be bad practice and unfair. Professor
Hattie, then at the University of Western Australia, wrote about the problems
with this approach in 1990, and he reflected the views of many academics
(Hattie, 1990). Performance indicators tended to be superficial and easily
quantifiable such as absolute numbers of students ... percentage of
completions ... flows of money ... (Soutar and McNeil, 1996, p. 72).
Nevertheless, the first audit of quality at universities began in 1993, with two
further quality audits in 1994 and 1995.
It was considered by many academics that there were at least four aspects
driving the accountability movement in Australian universities. First, there
was the general accountability for quality that ``invaded'' the state governments
in Australia across both the private and public sectors in the 1980s. There
seemed to be moves ``everywhere'' to be more efficient, to ``downsize'',to provide
good service, and to be accountable. Second, there was the move by the
Australian Government to make university students pay a portion of their
university fees. This had an ``in turn'' effect by making students query the
service being provided by academics that, in some cases, was found wanting
by students. It was reported, for example, that the Australian Government had
received many complaints about poor teaching and a drop in academic
standards at universities (Harman, 1994, p. 29). Third, overseas students were
paying full fees at universities in Australia. These students were questioning
the service provided and, in some cases, it was found wanting (Steadman and
Dagwell, 1990). Fourth, Australian universities were in competition with
universities from other countries for overseas students, and with each other,
and this created another ``in turn'' effect for accountability. They had to show
that they were providing education as good as or better than other countries,
and that their education was ``value for money''. In the UK, a Charter of
Education required tertiary institutions to consider ``students as customers''
and for academics to respond to student needs and requests (Department of
Education, 1993). Many students seemed to like this general approach ± it was
a big change from the ``old'' view when some academics were much more
concerned about their research than about their students ± and it had an ``in
turn'' effect on attitudes to quality by academics in other countries like
Australia that were in competition for overseas students.
Viewing university students as customers created some tensions in
universities (see Sharrock, 2000). Many academics did not believe that students
were ``just customers'' or that universities were ``to just give students what they
wanted'', including jobs (Sharrock, 2000). This was making universities too
much aligned with businesses. It was then a view, not too far removed, for
academics to be viewed as customers of university administration. Pitman
(2000) examined the extent to which university staff perceived students and
academics as customers in Australia. It was found that administrative staff had
To continue reading
Request your trial