YUFA
External
Conference Report on OCUFA Conference – Accounting or Accountability in Higher Education
Performance Measures and Accountability: What’s at stake for Faculty Members
23-24 January 2009, Toronto, ON
By Richard Wellen, Social Science, York University
2 Mar 09 – The OCUFA conference on “Accountability or Accounting in Higher Education?” held on January 23 and 24 provided participants from faculty associations and other university stakeholder groups an excellent opportunity to reflect on controversial issues related to the emergence of increasingly ambitious accountability regimes in contemporary post-secondary systems. While it is impossible and undesirable to provide a full summary of the proceedings, I will try to review and comment upon the key controversies and trends that animated most of the discussion.
In her introductory plenary lecture, Theresa Shanahan, one of the leading theorists of post-secondary education at York University, gave perhaps the most incisive and critical analysis of the rise of accountability and the tendency of accountability to shade off towards “accounting”. Shanahan linked the pressure for greater accountability to the increasing expansion and ‘massification’ of higher education. Today’s post-secondary systems are not only more differentiated and complex, but also more expensive to the public purse. Moreover, we live in a ‘knowledge society’ and so the public itself is more sophisticated and therefore more aware and more attuned to the projects and goals of higher education and research. Finally, the context of neo-liberalism, international competition and economic policy have all shed a spotlight on the performance of key institutional sources of innovation and knowledge transfer such as universities and colleges As a result, it is not surprising, and probably inevitable, that governments and other stakeholders expect more accountability.
These background points were explored by a number of participants, some of whom lamented the rise of thicker accountability systems and some of whom remained more welcoming. In particular, increased auditing as well as the development of often controversial and clumsy performance indicators were discussed and debated. On the one hand, there were those who believe that greater accountability prompts reflection, renewal and innovation within institutions. Some, such as Elka Walsh from the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario (HEQCO), also insisted that performance measurement allows universities to explain what they do to the public which provides the support upon which they depend. Others, however, argued that such measures run the risk of stifling creativity or otherwise force institutions, researchers and teachers to place too high a priority on ‘what can be counted’ rather than on ‘what counts’. Indeed, defenders of the autonomy on post-secondary institutions argued that the nature of universities – reflected in very long-standing traditions and practices – requires the recognition of values that cannot be captured by (and in fact are distorted by) market-based indicators or performance contracts with government.
The lunchtime keynote address by Bjorn Stensaker of the Norwegian Institute for Studies in Innovation and Education, introduced a very helpful comparative framework whereby jurisdictions with strong audit cultures such as Australia, New Zealand and the UK were compared with countries such as the United States, but especially Canada, where performance contracts for universities are relatively new. Stensaker called the Canadian system a ‘high trust’ framework, and argued that this has the advantage of preserving a strong role for allowing post-secondary institutions to have greater input in designing their own metrics. On the other hand, Stensaker maintained that Canada would feel the same pressures for change experienced by other countries. In particular, he made the convincing argument that open economies and increased competition among jurisdictions and institutions – especially in economic terms – inevitably prompts an increased emphasis on productivity measures, rankings, ratings and bibliometrics. Stensaker was mindful of the need to avoid the slide into mere accounting and insisted that the rules of the accountability game had to maintain respect for the intrinsic values of academic networks rather than simply the extrinsic values of markets.
A number of other fascinating and important issues emerged, including the following:
University Governance. Accountability can involve not only increased external control and guidance for universities but also encourage internal changes to university governance whereby senior administrators use the new performance sensitivity – and the increase in performance-based funding – to justify more top-down control over the work of faculty members.
Faculty Culture. Another interesting paper by Amy Metcalfe from University of British Columbia introduced very compelling survey-based research suggesting that new and younger faculty members who have grown up within the culture of performance monitoring and incentives seem to lack a feeling of control and collegial participation within their institutional context as compared to more senior faculty members. Similarly, performance monitoring often imposed unintended consequences as some activities by faculty members, like research, become more valued (or worth counting) as compared with others, such as teaching and service.
Accounting, Red Tape and Discipline. It was also recognized that increased ‘accounting’ can bring more red tape and that the loss of freedom and autonomy represent not just a loss of the ivory tower ideal, but can be very counterproductive as faculty members spend so much time and effort preparing reports for bureaucrats. While a number of participants embraced the new accountability for the reasons given briefly above, even they argued that it is important that the new accountability frameworks that are on the rise not be punitive and that they not be used to rank so much as ‘differentiate’ institutions.
All in all, this conference was an excellent forum for the airing of contending perspectives on accountability in university systems, and in Ontario in particular. Faculty unions such as YUFA have much to gain by following these debates since the rights and interests of faculty members, as well as possible threats to our autonomy within the institution, are at stake. While one can hardly hope that universities will once again be ‘left alone’ as they were – to some degree – in the days when they were elite institutions insulated from public scrutiny, it is promising that some of those in the business of managing and promoting the growth industry of accountability are aware of its pitfalls and would like to ensure that performance indicators, contracts and incentives for universities remain as voluntary, constructive and dialogue-based as possible. For those who wish to access some of the papers and presentation slides, they are available here.
Other Delegates from this Conference:
Julie Clark
Sharon Murphy
Leslie Sanders