THE ORGANIZATION OF A NEW UNIVERSITY
| Published date | 01 January 1976 |
| Date | 01 January 1976 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/eb009743 |
| Pages | 54-69 |
| Author | J. TOPLEY,F.J. WILLETT |
| Subject Matter | Education |
THE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION
VOLUME XIV, No. 1 May, 1976
THE ORGANIZATION OF A NEW UNIVERSITY
J. TOPLEY AND F. J. WILLETT
Alternative courses which present themselves when a new university is being planned are to
replicate a traditional model, or to explore new ways of promoting scholarship, drawing on
the experience of existing universities and their staffs and students, and on perceptions of
external needs and pressures for various sorts of
learning.
The latter course was followed by
Griffith University, Brisbane, which opened in 1975. The decision to organize academic ac-
tivities in non-departmental schools, each with a unifying theme or problem set orientation,
in combination with concern at the cumbersome decision making processes of more
traditional forms, led to the design of
a
relatively decentralized policy making and executive
structure: a Council, supported by a range of policy making and advisory committees each
with explicit responsibilities and authorities; a limit number of academic and other
operating divisions, each headed by an executive officer with substantial delegated
authority; and a structure for an emphasis on horizontal interaction.
INTRODUCTION
Griffith University, the third University in Queensland, began under-
graduate teaching in March 1975. Academic, physical, and organizational
planning had begun early in 1971, when the Interim Council was es-
tablished.
By early 1974, the senior faculty and general staff of the University had
all taken office and the number of faculty staff began to increase rapidly.
Physical construction of buildings was well underway; for academic and
organizational functions, however, the time was one of change of mode—
from developing general academic and structural plans, to bringing them
to operational reality by writing courses and devising administrative tac-
tics and procedures.
This paper records the authors' perception of the organization of the
University at that time.
AN ALTERNATIVE PATTERN
The Interim Council of the University was faced with the task of
founding a second university in an Australian capital city. Two of the
courses of action open to the Council were: to replicate the academic
JOHN TOPLEY is Registrar and EMERITUS PROFESSOR F. J. WILLETT is Vice
Chancellor of Griffith University, Brisbane. Mr. Topley [B.Ed.(Qld.)] is interested in the
study and development of educational administration, organizational structures and
climates. Professor Willett [D.S.C., M.A. (Camb.), M.B.A., Hon. LL. D. (Melb.)] was
formerly the Sydney Myer Professor of Commerce and Business Administration at the
University of Melbourne.
Organization
of
a
New
University
55
philosophy
and
organization
of
the established University;
and, to
search
for
an
alternative form
of
university contribution
to
its community, its stu-
dents
and to its staff. The
Council chose
the
latter course.
The decision
to
undertake this search
did not
imply a judgement that
the
traditional university mode
is
inappropriate
or
inadequate;
but it did ac-
cept that there
is
much criticism, by community, students,
and staff, of
the
effectiveness with which
the
traditional university mode meets some
of
the
demands made
on it in
modern times.
In
light
of
this criticism, there
was
certainly
no
reason
to
believe that
the
traditional mode
is the "one
best
way"
of
organizing university activities,
and
there
was
substantial
en-
couragement
to
explore alternatives.
The freedom
to
explore alternatives
was, of
course, predicated
on the
existence
in the
same city,
of a
large, relatively traditional University,
ef-
fective within
its
tradition. Such exploration
of
alternative emphases
and
forms
was
thought
to be
likely, also,
to
lead
to
cooperative relationships
rather than conflict between
the new and the
existing Universities.
Three major aspects
of
the organization
of
a university were explored:
—the organization
of
academic activities;
—the responsiveness
of
the
university, especially its academic elements,
to
changing perceptions
of and
emphases placed upon problems
in the
community outside
the
university;
and
—the structure
of
relationships within
the
university,
and
between
the
university
and
external agencies.
THE NATURE
OF
LEARNING, RESEARCH,
AND PUBLIC SERVICE
The dominant organizing principle
for the
academic work
of the
traditional university
is the
discipline. Disciplines
are
intellectual con-
structs; bodies
of
knowledge defined
and
limited
by the
values
and
methodologies
of the
workers within these disciplines.
In one
sense,
physics
is
what physicists
do.
These "discipline" constructs have been
powerful
and
effective tools
for
deepening human understanding
and for
transmitting knowledge about disciplines
to
students. There
are
less suc-
cessful aspects
of
organization
by
discipline: internal boundaries
are
sometimes arbitrary and may
not
coincide with problem areas perceived
in
the world outside
the
university; complex problems
of
intellectual
and
practical importance
may be on or
between
the
boundaries; progress
in
refining ideas
and
methodologies within disciplines
may
often
be
measured
by
increasing levels
of
abstraction
and
divorce from
the im-
mediacy
of
problems perceived
in the
world outside
the
university.
The discipline—an intellectual construct—is often enshrined
in the ad-
ministrative construct
of
a
university department. The discipline-based
un-
iversity therefore tends
to
have
an
academic
and
administrative structure
based
on a
sizeable number
of
relatively small units only weakly
in-
tegrated
by any
common view
of the
function
and
role
of the
university,
and with weak common views
of
the objectives
of
education.
Departments
are therefore competitive
for
resources and, especially,
for
students' atten-
tion,
at the
expense
of
more holistic approaches.
To continue reading
Request your trial