comparing the university-level environment in the acu with other australian universities

8/8/2019 Comparing the University-level Environment in the Acu With Other Australian Universities

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparing-the-university-level-environment-in-the-acu-with-other-australian 1/17

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [Curtin University Library]

On: 28 November 2010

Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 907457876]

Publisher Routledge

Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-

41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Christian Higher EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713669144

COMPARING THE UNIVERSITY-LEVEL ENVIRONMENT IN THE

AUSTRALIAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY WITH OTHER AUSTRALIAN

UNIVERSITIES Jeffrey P. Dorman

Online publication date: 29 October 2010

To cite this Article Dorman, Jeffrey P.(2002) 'COMPARING THE UNIVERSITY-LEVEL ENVIRONMENT IN THEAUSTRALIAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY WITH OTHER AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITIES', Christian Higher Education, 1:1, 39 — 53

To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/15363750213771

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15363750213771

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,

actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713669144

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15363750213771

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15363750213771

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713669144



39

Address correspondence to Dr. Jeffrey Dorman, School of Education, AustralianCatholic University, P.O. Box 247, Everton Park, Queensland 4053, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]

Christian Higher Education, 1:39–53, 2002

Copyright © 2002 Taylor & Francis1536-3759/02 $12.00 + .00

COMPARING THE UNIVERSITY-LEVEL ENVIRONMENT

IN THE AUSTRALIAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY

WITH OTHER AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITIES

JEFFREY P. DORMAN

School of Education, Australian Catholic University, Everton Park,Queensland, Australia

Research that compared the university-level environment in the Australian Catholic University with other Australian universities was conducted. An

instrument that assesses seven dimensions of the university-level environment (viz., Academic Freedom, Concern for Undergraduate Learning, Concern for Research and Scholarship, Empowerment, Affiliation, Mission Consensus, and Work Pressure) was administered to a sample of 519 faculty from 62 departments in 28 Australian universities including the Australian Catholic University (ACU). Results showed that, in general, the environment in ACU was not as positive as that found in the other universities. In particular, Academic Freedom and Concern for Research and Scholarship was significantly less in ACU compared to all types of universities. These results suggest that ACU has to make substantial gains if its environment is to compare favorably with the environment in other Australian universities.

Higher education in Australia has undergone a substantial trans-formation during the past 15 years. According to the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DETYA, 1998b), dra-matic changes have occurred in size, structure, funding arrange-ments, and focus of higher education institutions. The binary system which separated 19 universities from 69 colleges of advancededucation was abolished in 1987 in favor of a Unified NationalSystem (UNS). Amalgamations and mergers resulted in there be-ing 36 publicly-funded universities in the UNS in 1994. Variousresearch studies have investigated a range of issues relating to thesemassive structural changes (Harman & Wood, 1990; Mahony, 1990,1993, 1996; Moses & Ramsden, 1992). Compounding these changes

has been the extraordinarily high enrollment growth during this



40 J. P. Dorman

time with total student numbers increasing from 394,000 in 1987to 695,000 in 1989 (DETYA, 2001b). In 2001, there were 14,751higher degree research students, and this had risen to 34,070 in1997 (Pearson, 1999).

There are two important characteristics of Australian tertiary education that are not often recognized internationally. First, therehas been a long history of government funding for Australian universities. Presently, there are 37 government-funded and two private universities in Australia. Despite its links with RomanCatholicism, the Australian Catholic University (ACU) is a pub-licly-funded university. The separation of church and state is not an issue in Australian primary, secondary, and tertiary education.

Students attending ACU pay the same fees as their counterparts at the other 36 public universities. These fees are set down by gov-ernment legislation. Second, differences need to be noted in thedegree-granting status of Australian universities compared to that in other western democracies (e.g., United States of America). All Australian universities are doctoral degree-granting institutions.In the Australian context, institutions that cannot grant doctoraldegrees are not universities. While no Australian university is pre-cluded from conferring doctoral degrees, it is true that the univer-sities established since 1987 have only a small proportion of thehigher degree research student cohort. Research is heavily con-centrated in the old, well-established universities (DETYA, 1998b,

2001a).One outcome of the reorganization of Australian tertiary edu-cation has been the formation of the Australian Catholic Univer-sity (ACU). The focus of the present article is the university-levelenvironment in ACU and whether ACU has established an envi-ronment that is similar to other Australian universities. Beforedescribing the present research, brief descriptions of ACU andthe field of university-level environment research are provided.

The Australian Catholic University

The Australian Catholic University began in 1991 with the amal-

gamation of four Catholic institutions of higher education. As pre- viously noted, ACU is a public university, funded by the Australiangovernment. It is open to people of all religious beliefs or back-



The Australian Catholic University 41

grounds. It is committed to a Catholic ethos and seeks to fosterand promote teaching, research, and scholarship in accordance with Christian principles and traditions. ACU had 9,713 studentsin 2000 (DETYA, 2001b) which represents a 21.7% increase inenrollments since 1992. This shift in enrollments compares with a24.3% increase for all Australian universities. According to its website, Australian Catholic University (2001) has a commitment toquality in teaching, research, and service. It aspires to be a com-munity characterized by free inquiry and academic integrity. The ACU mission statement asserts:

The University’s inspiration, located within 2,000 years of Catholicintellectual tradition, summons it to attend to all that is of concern to

human beings. It brings a distinctive spiritual perspective to the commontasks of higher education. Through advancing knowledge in education,health, commerce, the humanities, the sciences and technologies, andthe creative arts, Australian Catholic University seeks to make a specificcontribution to its local, national and international communities. In itsendeavors, it is guided by a fundamental concern for justice and equity,and for the dignify of all human beings (ACU, 2001, p. 2)

University Environment Research

The present research builds upon and extends research conductedover the past 30 years in the learning environment field. Thesestudies, conducted mainly in primary and secondary schools inthe United States and Australia, have provided strong and con- vincing evidence that the quality of the learning environment isan important determinant of student learning. While some university studies have investigated environment in tutorials and work-shops (Clarke, 1998; Fraser, 1998a, 1998b; Fraser & Treagust, 1986; Yarrow, Millwater, & Fraser, 1997) and departments (Gaff, Crombag& Chang, 1976; van Rooijen, 1986), few research studies have investigated institutional or university-level environment. This field was pioneered by Pace and his colleagues (Pace, 1969; Pace & Stern,1958; Stern, 1970) who developed the College and University Envi- ronment Scales . Another program of research in the United States

resulted in the Institutional Functioning Inventory (Peterson, Cen-tra, Hartnett, & Linn, 1983). The instrument used in the present study was based on this institutional environment research.



42 J. P. Dorman

Design of Present Study

The research reported in this article was part of a wider study of learning environment in Australian universities. Specifically, thepresent research sought to identify major differences between theuniversity-level environment in the Australian Catholic University and four types of universities (see below). The overall design of the study was ex post facto with survey research methods employedto collect data.

Sample

A sample of 519 academics from 28 of the 37 government-funded Australian universities returned university-level environment ques-tionnaires. This represented an overall response rate of 87%. Aus-tralia has only two private universities and the university sampledrawn for this study reflected the diversity in the population of Australian universities. To provide an appropriate cross-section of the population, academics were drawn from 62 departments of three general types: Education, Science, and English. Participantsincluded academics from four types of universities: old universi-ties, pre-1987 comprehensive universities, universities of technol-ogy which have a developing research focus, and post-1987 newuniversities that were colleges of advanced education in the old

binary system. This four-group classification was developed by Marginson (1997) and has been employed by Ramsden (1998). As Ramsden suggests, the classification is robust and makes goodcommon sense. While the Australian Catholic University could beclassified as a post-1987 new university, it was considered to be in afifth group on its own due to the requirements of the present study (see Table 1).

Assessment of University-Level Environment

The instrument used to assess academics’ perceptions of univer-sity-level environment consisted of 42 items with six items allocated

to each of seven scales (see Table 2). Academics responded to eachitem using a five-point Likert response format (viz., Strongly Agree= 5, Agree = 4, Not Sure = 3, Disagree = 2, Strongly Disagree = 1). An important characteristic of learning environment instruments




is coverage of Moos’s (1974) three categories of human environ-ments: Personal Development (the basic directions along whichpersonal growth and self-enhancement occur), Relationship (the

extent to which people are involved in the environment and sup-port and help each other), and System Maintenance and SystemChange (the extent to which the environment is orderly, clear inexpectations, maintains control and is responsive to change). Asshown in Table 2, the instrument has three Personal Development,two Relationship, and two System Maintenance and System Changescales.

Estimates of the internal consistency of the seven scales werecalculated using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha. As shown in Table3, these coefficients ranged from 0.65 for the Concern for Researchand Scholarship scale to 0.87 for the Affiliation scale. Item-scalecorrelations confirmed that all items has been assigned to the ap-

propriate scale. Another desirable scale characteristic is discriminant validity

(i.e., minimal scale overlap). Table 3 reports discriminant validity data using the mean correlation of a scale with the remaining six

TABLE 1. Description of Sample

Faculty/Department/School

Education Science/Health Arts/English/University Type Science a Communication b Total

Old universities 40 (6) 31(5) 44 (6) 115 (17)Pre-1987 39 (6) 31 (8) 33 (5) 103 (19)

Comprehensiveuniversities

Former Institutes of 31 (4) 28 (3) 27 (3) 86 (10)Technology

Other New 27 (3) 43 (6) 25 (4) 95 (13)Universities(post-1987)

Australian Catholic 44 (1) 35 (1) 41 (1) 120 (3)University Total 181 (20) 168 (23) 170 (19) 519 (62)

Note. The number of departments is given in parentheses.a If there was no Faculty of Science in a particular university, the Faculty of Health Science was surveyed.b In some universities, English was within a larger Arts faculty. English and Communicationdepartments were considered equivalent.



T A B L E

2 . D e s c r i p t i v e I n f o r m a t i o n f o r S e v e n

U n i v e r s i t y - L e v e l E n v i r o n m e n t S c a l e s

M o o s ’ s

S c a l e

S c a l e D e s c r i p t i o n

T y p i c a l I t e m

S c h e m a a

A c a d e m

i c

T h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h s t a f f

a n d s t u d e n t s

S t a f f a n d s t u d e n t s

m a y d i s c u s s a n y t o p i c .

P

F r e e d o m

h a v e a c a d e m i c f r e e d o m .

( + )

C o n c e r n f o r

T h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h u n i v

e r s i t y

S t a f f m e m b e r s a r e

s e n s i t i v e t o t h e

P

U n d e r g r a d u a t e

p r o c e s s e s a n d t e a c h i n g a p p r o a c h e s

i n t e r e s t s , n e e d s a n

d a s p i r a t i o n s o f

L e a r

n i n g

e m p h a s i s e a c o n c e r n f o r

u n d e r g r a d u a t e

u n d e r g r a d u a t e s . (

+ )

l e a r n i n g .

C o n c e r n f o r

T h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h t h e u n i v e r s i t y

S e n i o r a c a d e m i c s

d o n o t e m p h a s i s e

P

R e s e a r c h &

e m p h a s i s e s r e s e a r c h a n d

s c h o l a r s h i p .

r e s e a r c h a s a n i m p

o r t a n t i n s t i t u t i o n a l

S c h o

l a r s h i p

p u r p o s e . ( – )

E m p o w

e r m e n t

T h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h a c a d

e m i c s a r e

M y s u p e r i o r s d e a l

w i t h m e i n a n

R

e m p o w e r e d a n d e n c o u r a g e d t o b e

a u t h o r i t a r i a n m a n

n e r . ( – )

i n v o l v e d i n d e c i s i o n m a k

i n g .

A f f i l i a t i o n

T h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h a c a d

e m i c s c a n o b t a i n

I c a n r e l y o n m y c o l l e a g u e s f o r

R

a s s i s t a n c e , a d v i c e a n d e n c o u r a g e m e n t a n d

a s s i s t a n c e i f I n e e d

i t . ( + )

a r e m a d e t o f e e l a c c e p t e d b y c o l l e a g u e s .

M i s s i o n

T h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h c o n s e n s u s e x i s t s

L e c t u r e r s a g r e e o n t h e u n i v e r s i t y ’ s

S

C o n s e n s u s

w i t h i n t h e s t a f f w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e

o v e r a l l g o a l s . ( + )

o v e r a r c h i n g g o a l s o f t h e

u n i v e r s i t y .

W o r k P

r e s s u r e

T h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h w o r k p r e s s u r e

T h e r e i s c o n s t a n t p r e s s u r e o n a c a d e m i c s

S

d o m i n a t e s t h e e n v i r o n m e n t .

t o k e e p w o r k i n g . (

+ )

a P : P e r s o n a l D e v e l o p m e n t ; R : R e l a t i o n s h i p ; S : S y s t e m M a i n t e n a n c e a n d S y s t e m C h a n g e

44




scales as a convenient index. These data indicate that the scales dooverlap but not to an extent that would violate the instrument’spsychometric properties. Additionally, the conceptual distinctive-ness of each of the scales warrants their retention in the instru-ment.

A final scale characteristic is that each scale should be sensi-tive to differences between the environment in each department.To explore this issue, one-way ANOVAs for each environment scale,

with the department as the main effect, were performed on thedata. As shown in Table 3, these tests showed that each scale differ-entiated between departments. An estimate of the proportion of variance in scale scores attributable to department membership isprovided by the eta2 statistic, which is the ratio of ‘between’ to‘total’ sums of squares (Cohen & Cohen, 1975). Table 3 showsthat these eta2 values ranged from 15% for the Work Pressure scaleto 48% for the Concern for Research and Scholarship scale. Fur-ther details on the development and validation of the instrument are available elsewhere (see Dorman, 1999).

Data Analysis

As indicated above, ACU was taken as a group in its own right.Inferential tests of statistical significance (MANOVA, ANOVA andthe Tukey honestly significantly different post-hoc procedure) us-

TABLE 3. Internal Consistency Reliability (Coefficient Alpha), Discriminant

Validity (Mean Correlation) and ANOVA Results for Department Membershipfor Seven University Environment Scales

Coefficient Mean ANOVA Results

Scale Alpha Correlation F (61, 457) Eta2

Academic Freedom .74 .33 2.95 ** .29Concern for Undergraduate .72 .23 1.72* .19

LearningConcern for Research & .65 .24 6.80** .48

ScholarshipEmpowerment .82 .38 2.31** .24 Affiliation .87 .38 1.50* .17Mission Consensus .78 .30 1.75* .18 Work Pressure .78 .05 1.38 * .15

* p <0.05 ** p <0.001



T A B L E

4 . U n i v e r s i t y - L e v e l E n v i r o n m e n t S c a l e M e a n s , S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s a n d T u k e y H

S D T e s t R e s u l t s f o r F i v e U n i v e r s i t y T y p

e s

U n i v e r s i t y T y p e

P r e - 1 9 8 7

F o r m e r

O t h e r N e w

A C U

O l d

C o m p r e h e n s i v e

I n s t i t u t e s o f

U n i v e r s i t i e s



T e c h n o l o g y

( p o s t - 1 9 8 7

)

S c a l e

M

S D

M

S D

M

S D

M

S D

M

S D

A c a d e m i c F

r e e d o m

1 8 . 1 3

4 . 0 8

2 1 . 9 1 a

3 . 0 1

2 1 . 8 4 a

3 . 0 7

2 1 . 0 0 a

3 . 9 4

2 0 . 8 3 a

3 . 0 5

C o n c e r n f o

r

2 1 . 2 7

3 . 5 8

1 9 . 6 4 a

3 . 2 1

2 0 . 2 2

4 . 2 3

1 9 . 7 7

4 . 3 6

2 0 . 5 2

4 . 7 3

U n d e r g r a d u a t e

L e a r n i n g

C o n c e r n f o

r R e s e a r c h &

1 7 . 0 0

3 . 9 6

2 3 . 8 5 a

2 . 7 0

2 2 . 3 5 a

3 . 2 3

2 1 . 2 8 a

3 . 2 8

2 0 . 4 1 a

3 . 1 8

S c h o l a r s h

i p

E m p o w e r m

e n t

1 8 . 9 8

5 . 1 7

2 2 . 9 2 a

4 . 0 4

2 2 . 1 9 a

4 . 7 5

2 1 . 1 6 a

4 . 9 4

2 0 . 2 8

4 . 8 8

A f f i l i a t i o n

2 2 . 5 8

4 . 6 1

2 3 . 8 1

3 . 6 2

2 4 . 1 1 a

3 . 6 9

2 3 . 1 0

4 . 5 1

2 2 . 1 4

4 . 6 6

M i s s i o n C o n s e n s u s

1 6 . 3 2

4 . 0 2

1 7 . 6 8 a

3 . 7 9

1 7 . 0 1

3 . 7 1

1 7 . 3 8

3 . 7 1

1 6 . 7 8

4 . 3 7

W o r k P r e s s u r e

2 3 . 6 4

4 . 1 6

2 5 . 3 7 a

3 . 5 6

2 5 . 2 4 a

3 . 1 9

2 5 . 2 4 a

3 . 5 2

2 4 . 8 5

3 . 5 0

N o t e . S u b s c r i p t e d m e a n s d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y f r o m t h e r e s

p e c t i v e A C U s c a l e m e a n i n t h e s a m e r o w a t p < . 0 5 i n t h e T u k e y H S D c o m p a r i s o n .

47



48 J. P. Dorman

While Table 4 provides an indication of the strength and di-rection of these group differences, reporting effect sizes usingCohen’s d can be useful. These have been assembled in Table 5.Effect sizes for significant differences identified by the Tukey HSDpost-hoc procedure ranged from 0.34 (small) for the comparisonof Mission Consensus in ACU and Old Universities to 1.62 (very large) for the comparison of Concern for Research and Scholar-ship in ACU and Old Universities. Several other effect sizes wouldbe considered large to very large for this type of research. It isnoteworthy that only 1 of the 17 statistically significant post-hoccomparisons was associated with an ACU scale score higher thanthe respective university group scale score (see Tables 4 & 5). Con-

cern for Undergraduate Learning was significantly higher in ACUcompared to Old Universities. Overall, this evidence indicates that ACU’s university-level environment was not as positive as that inother types of universities.

TABLE 5. Effect Sizes (Cohen’s d ) for Four Different Comparisons of University Environment

Comparisona

ACU with ACU with ACU with ACU Pre-1987 Former Other New

with Old Comprehensive Institutes of UniversitiesScale Universities Technology Universities (post-1987)

Academic Freedom 0.98 (–)a

0.75 (–)a

0.70 (–)a

0.70 (–)a

Concern for 0.41 (+)a

0.27 (+) 0.38 (+) 0.19 (+)UndergraduateLearning

Concern for Research 1.62 (–)a

1.24 (–)a

1.02 (–)a

0.81 (–)a

& ScholarshipEmpowerment 0.79 (–)

a0.64 (–)

a0.44 (–)

a0.26 (–)

Affiliation 0.29 (–) 0.36 (–)a

0.12 (–) 0.10 (+)Mission Consensus 0.34 (–)

a0.17 (–) 0.27 (–) 0.12 (+)

Work Pressure 0.46 (–)a

0.42 (–)a

0.42 (–)a

0.33 (–)

Note. Effect size directions. An ACU score higher than the respective university group is

indicated by +. An ACU score lower than the respective university group is indicated by –.Subscripted effect sizes indicate that the Tukey HSD procedure for this comparison wasstatistically significant at p < .05.




Discussion

The results of this study are important to the Australian CatholicUniversity for at least three reasons. First, each of the above resultscan be interpreted individually. Both Academic Freedom and Con-cern for Research and Scholarship are significantly lower in ACUcompared to all other Australian university types. While these find-ings could be reasonably expected when ACU is compared withOld Universities, it is concerning that ACU scored significantly lower than Other New Universities (post-1987) on both of thesescales. ACU would be classified as belonging to this group by DETYA (1998b).

The magnitude and direction of effect sizes for Concern forResearch and Scholarship reflect recent characteristics and per-formance indicators reported by the Australian government (DETYA, 1998b, 2001a). According to DETYA, significant varia-tion exists between Australian universities especially in terms of research productivity. Research quantum —a composite index that objectifies university input (e.g., funding from national competi-tive grants) and output (e.g., research publications, research de-gree completions)—is used by the government to provide researchfunding for universities. The disparity in research quantum amongthe four type of universities is extreme. For example, in 1996, whereas nine Old Universities shared 66.9% of total research quan-

tum, ten pre-1987 Comprehensive Universities shared 20.1%, sixUniversities of Technology shared 7.4% and the twelve New Uni- versities (post-1987) shared 5.6%. ACU’s grant proportion wasnegligible and rounded to 0.0% in DETYA (1998b). The trend inresearch income since 1996 has been remarkably similar. In 1999,nine Old Universities shared 68.1% of total research income, tenpre-1987 Comprehensive Universities shared 18.3%, six Universi-ties of Technology shared 7.7% and the twelve New Universities(post-1987) shared 5.9% (DETYA, 2001a). Even after taking intoaccount university size, these differences remain stark.

Second, the results reinforce the notion that amalgamatingand renaming colleges of advanced education as universities do

not, on its own, lead to environmental changes. Indeed, educa-tional institutions are remarkably resilient to change with innova-tions and their associated rhetoric incorporated into existing



50 J. P. Dorman

patterns of behavior and beliefs (Popkewitz, 1983). It is extremely difficult to mobilize bias that challenges the cultural norms andingrained college practices when the potential losers are the exist-ing leaders. The results suggest that ACU has not focused suffi-ciently on the development of strategic initiatives to enhanceresearch productivity. While managerial units (e.g., Research Ser- vices) and appointments (e.g., Pro-Vice-Chancellor–Research) haveprovided the imagery of research as important to the university,the substance is that teaching and administration largely define ACU academic work. The formal Enterprise Bargaining Agreement of ACU provides intricate detail on teaching loads and time allow-ances for administrative responsibilities but time for research and

scholarship is unacknowledged. The underlying assumption is workequates to teaching—a strong cultural belief in predecessor col-leges of advanced education. Breaking this culture will requireeffective and courageous leadership. It requires a quantum shift in the thinking of those academic leaders who have the misguidednotion that universities have an administrative and managerialculture as opposed to an academic culture. Moses and Ramsden(1992) believed that a convergence in the UNS appeared to beforming on what constitutes academic work (i.e., principally teach-ing, research, and scholarship). The dilemma facing ACU andother new universities is that they possess a significant proportionof academics who do not wish to extend themselves through re-

search and scholarship. For ACU, generational change within thefaculty might be needed before substantial cultural shifts occur.

In line with trends in most western democracies, the Austra-lian government has failed to fund universities adequately, espe-cially during the massive enrollment increases of the 1990s. ACUhas little scope to effect substantial faculty change. If existing fac-ulty refuse to change their behavioral norms, then faculty changesneed to occur. But the financial constraints on ACU preclude it from recruiting staff who will shift the culture. Additionally theconcept of forced redundancies is not consistent with the Catho-lic ethos that ACU embraces.

Third, the potential exists for academics in ACU to view their

university as a stepping stone to a “real” university career. If a re-search and scholarship culture cannot be generated in the new




universities, academics who are committed to a career rather thansimply a place in higher education will use ACU to acquire tertiary teaching experience, doctoral qualifications, and links with otherresearchers. Such academics would then leave ACU as opportuni-ties to put into practice their expertise become available in othertypes of universities that have scope for expansion due to theirestablished research productivity. Given that Australia has an ag-ing university faculty with 35% of Australian academics aged over50 in 1999 (DETYA, 1999), retirements during the next decade will provide significant scope for those academics who want a ca-reer to move to other tertiary institutions. Under these circum-stances, ACU could become simply a training ground for real

academics and a repository for others who simply want a place in Australian tertiary education. Such a scenario would mean that ACU has failed in its objective of becoming a bona fide Australianuniversity.

Conclusion

This article has reported a comparison of university-level environ-ment in the Australian Catholic University and other types of Aus-tralian universities. Using a seven-scale instrument, it was foundthat, in general, ACU has a less favorable environment comparedto other universities. It has been argued that these environmental

differences reflect the cultural and historical characteristics of ACUcompared to other universities. It should be noted that the resultsof this study are generalizable only to the population of Australianuniversities from which the sample was drawn. Two directions of further research are evident. First, analogous studies in other coun-tries should be conducted. Such research would to seek to vali-date the instrument in these settings and establish their patternsof discrimination among universities. Second, longitudinal dataneed to be collected so that trends in the environment of ACUand other types of universities can be identified. Significant staff-ing changes will occur in ACU during the next decade, and it ishoped that ACU will experience cultural change and concomi-

tant improvements in its university-level environment.



52 J. P. Dorman

References

Australian Catholic University. (2001). Mission statement. Retrieved June 30, 2001,from http://www.acu.edu.au/discover-acu.html

Clarke, J. A. (1998). Students’ perceptions of different tertiary learning envi-ronments. Higher Education Research and Development, 17, 107–l11.

Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (Rev. ed.). New York: Academic.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1975). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DETYA). (1998a). Higher education report for the 1999 to 2001 triennium. Retrieved June 21, 2000, fromhttp://www.detya.gov.au/highered/otherpub/funding1998–2001.pdf

Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DETYA). (1998b). The characteristics and performance of higher education institutions. Retrieved June 21,

2000, from http://www.detya.gov.au/highered/otherpub/characteristics.pdf Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DETYA). (1499). Selected

higher education statistics: Staffing 1999. Retrieved July 24, 2001, from http:// www.detya.gov.au/highered/funding/staff99shes.pdf

Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DETYA). (2001a). Char- acteristics and performance indictors of higher education institutions—Research income. Retrieved July 24, 2001, from http://www.detya.gov.au/highered/sta-tistics/characteristics/31_research%20income.htm

Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DETYA). (2001b). Char- acteristics and performance indictors of higher education institutions—Students en- rolled. Retrieved July 24, 2001, from http://www.detya.gov.au/highered/sta-tistics/characteristics/01_students.htm

Dorman, J. P. (1999). The development and validation of an instrument to as-sess institutional-level environment in universities. Learning Environments Re-

search, 1, 333–352.Fraser, B. J. (1998a). Science learning environments: Assessments, effects and

determinants. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.). International Handbook of Science Education (pp. 527–564). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Fraser, B. J. (1998b). Classroom environment instruments: Development, valid-ity, and applications. Learning Environments Research, 1, 7–33.

Fraser, B. J., & Treagust, D. F. (1986). Validity and use of an instrument forassessing classroom psychosocial environment in higher education. Higher Education, 15, 37–57.

Gaff, J. G., Crombag, H. F. M., & Chang, T. M. (1976). Environments for learn-ing in a Dutch university. Higher Education, 5, 285–299.

Harman, G., & Wood, F. (1990). Academics and their work under Dawkins: A study of five NSW universities. Australian Educational Researcher, 17, 53–64.

Mahony, D. (1990). The demise of the university in a nation of universities:

Effects of current changes in higher education in Australia. Higher Education,19, 445–472.

Mahony, D. (1993). The construction and challenges of Australia’s post-binary system of higher education. Oxford Review of Education, 19, 465–483.




Mahony, D. (1996). Academics in an era of structural change: Australia and

Britain. Higher Education Review, 28, 33–59.Marginson, S. (1997). Competition and contestability in Australian higher edu-

cation. Australian Universities Review, 40 (1), 5–14.Moos, R. H. (1974). Systems for the assessment and classification of human en-

vironments: An overview. In R. H. Moos & P. M. Insel (Eds.), Issues in social ecology: Human milieus (pp. 5–28). Palo Alto, CA: National Press Books.

Moses, I., & Ramsden, P. (1992). Academic values and academic practice in thenew universities. Higher Education Research and Development, 11, 101–117.

Pace, C. R. (1969). College and university environment scales (3rd ed.). Princeton:Educational Testing Service.

Pace, C. R., & Stern, G. G. (1958). An approach to the measurement of thepsychological characteristics of college environments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 49, 269–277.

Pearson, M. (1999). The changing environment for doctoral education in Aus-

tralia: Implications for quality management, improvement and innovation.Higher Education Research and Development, 18, 269–288.

Peterson, R. E., Centra, J. A., Hartnett, R. T., & Linn, R. L. (1983). Institutional functioning inventory: Preliminary technical manual. Princeton: Educational Test-ing Service.

Popkewitz, T. S. (1983). Change and stability in schooling: The dual quality of educational reform. Geelong: Deakin University.

Ramsden, P. (1998, January 28). For good measure. The Australian, pp. 38–39.Stern, G. G. (1970). People in context: Measuring person-environment congruence in

education and industry. New York: Wiley. van Rooijen, L. (1986). Advanced students’ adaptation to college. Higher Educa-

tion, 15, 197–209. Yarrow, A., Millwater, J., & Fraser, B. (1997). Improving university and primary

school classroom environments through preservice teachers’ action research.

Practical Experiences in Professional Education, 1, 68–93.

comparing the university-level environment in the acu with other australian universities

Documents