The Hudson Report and research on academics and academic processes in Australian Higher Education

Abstract

The appearance of the Hudson Report on efficiency and effectiveness in higher education (Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, 1986) is a good reason for this address to be concerned with Australian research on academic staff in higher education, especially where that research has implications for recommendations about academic staff contained in the Report.My plan is, first, to give a summary of the report's comments and recommendations concerning academic staff development, second, to discuss the use made of research evidence in those sections of the report concerning academic functions, third, to discuss Australian research on academic staff and their professional activities, and finally, to suggest some areas for further research and its support.On the topic of academic staffing, the Hudson Report emphasizes two main problems emerging from changes in higher education over the last decade: "uniformity and inflezibility" (p.9). These, it says, have resulted in:• unduly restricted opportunities for promotion;• reduced scope for recruiting new staff and thus infusing "'n e u" blood" into academic departments;• problems for institutions in adjusting resources for changes in demand or achieving savings following rationalisation;• limited capacity for institutions to compete for the best staff and maintain the motivation and interest of ezisting staff. (p.9)The Report then proceeds to review, and make recommendations concerning, the following elements of staffing arrangements: salary structures, outside earnings, tenure, limited term appointments, other tenure conditions, staff assessment, staff development, early retirement, and superannuation. In the light of this review, the Committee expressed a conviction that "a review of the terms and conditions of employment of academic staff is essential

Tertiary education and public policy: Australia's response to a changing environment

“…For example, Dunkin (1987) has questionned the flimsy and unsatisfactory research evidence on which various discussions such as those on the use of technology in higher education and staff assessement in the Review of Efficiency and Effectiveness (1986) were based. He also drew attention to the absence of Australian research on teaching in higher education and argued that such research was crucial in any proper assessment of efficiency and effectiveness.…”