Academic senates would have as much power as university executives under an ¡°ethical framework¡± proposed by a fledgling professional association of Australian academics.

University leaders would be judged using different key performance indicators to those that prevail now, with purely commercial metrics ¨C such as targets to increase fee-paying international enrolments ¨C only acceptable if they did not undermine the core ¡°academic mission¡±. Academics would debate issues relevant to their areas of expertise ¡°with intellectual integrity¡± and ¡°without fear of sanction¡±, and their research would be shielded from ¡°outside interference¡± by ¡°powerful¡± government, commercial or managerial interests.

Academics would also be free to make ¡°pragmatic¡± decisions to align their research with ¡°the realities of internal priorities and external funding bodies¡±. This is the juggling act outlined in a ¡°¡±?which has been circulated for feedback from the country¡¯s tutors, lecturers and professors.

The document says academics¡¯ overriding obligation is to their profession. It says that academic boards and senates must ¡°provide balance to the executive power¡±, acknowledging that this is perhaps most difficult for people with feet in both camps.

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

¡°Academic leaders often also hold formal roles in university management hierarchy which may present conflicting demands,¡± it says. ¡°Their challenge is to balance the external demands on ¨C and viability of ¨C the university, without compromising the underlying values of the profession.¡±

The framework was approved in July by the council of the??(AAUP) following an eight-month drafting process. John Kenny, convenor of the working party that produced it, said it had been conceived as a voluntary rather than ¡°binding¡± document.

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

¡°Ultimately, we¡¯d like to see it adopted by the academic profession as almost like a Hippocratic oath,¡± said Dr Kenny, associate professor of science education at the University of Tasmania.

¡°It¡¯s strange that we educate all the other professions but we don¡¯t have a professional statement of our own. This has left academia exposed because it¡¯s essentially a collection of individuals and there¡¯s no clear professional identity.¡±

The framework identifies ¡°the expectation to be scholarly¡± as ¡°the key factor that distinguishes academia from other professions¡±. Dr Kenny said that this expectation was rarely defined at the individual academic level. ¡°We¡¯ve tried to do drill down into that,¡± he said. ¡°[It is more] than just research and winning grants. There¡¯s a lot of scholarly work that goes on around that.¡±

The AAUP, which was formed in 2019, ultimately plans to consult on the framework with the ¡°broader higher education community¡± including government, representative bodies, industry and university management. Dr Kenny said that the document had been drafted flowing extensive reviews of research into academic leadership and the role of universities.

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

A journal article on the research findings is currently under review. ¡°Everything in the framework is backed up by research in the paper,¡± he said.

Dr Kenny said the research had shown that universities became more effective when academic leaders had a voice in administrative decisions. But while regulatory standards recognised a ¡°dual leadership model¡±, academic leadership had been ¡°essentially downgraded to quality assurance¡± with no say on finances, senior appointments or policy settings.

Changing this would introduce ¡°tensions¡±, he acknowledged. ¡°We¡¯re saying, set up governance processes [that] expect tensions to happen and deal with those tensions to find the best outcomes.¡±

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com