Governance and the Public Good

Citation

Flood, A. (2009), "Governance and the Public Good", Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 206-209. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880910951417

The book, Governance and the Public Good deals with the issue of public good and the ways in which higher education serves the community in that sphere. Each contributor presents a particular aspect of governance from ideas of privatisation, the challenges associated with governing boards, issues of autonomy and state level accountability to defining governance for the twenty‐first century.

The editor asks the following questions: “What is the role of a twenty‐first century college or university? What does the changing definition and interpretation of the public good suggest for that role? How is governance impacted by these questions, and how does it impact of them?” (p. 3).

Brian Pusser discusses in particular, the role of public spheres. He identifies that much of the challenge has come from changes in the broader political economy and identifies that recent debate has centred upon whether public benefits can justify the public investment in higher education (p. 11). He outlines the various philosophical debates associated with ideas of public good and establishes that it has always been a contested space with the possibility of an interaction between private interests and public good (p. 13).

He problematises the university as a public site of knowledge production that is situated within a growing corporatisation of the sector. He suggests that there is a need for a new conceptualisation of three important spheres of higher education: autonomy, markets and political and legal challenges. Pusser concludes that governance mechanisms in the higher education sector should be dedicated to the preservation of the public sphere so that no single entity controls the institution.

Whitney takes a different perspective and looks at the connection between state financing and state control of higher education (p. 29). She asks: “as public institutions become more privatised, who should govern?” (p. 30). Whitney observes that the changing economical, bureaucratic and political situations have contributed to privatisation in the sector. It seems that economists looked at who pays and established that whoever benefits that is; whether the community or the individual, should pay. The observation is that over time, students have paid more and more for their education. While she discusses this with reference to the USA, it is clearly also the situation in Australia and elsewhere.

She identifies that higher education is increasingly seen as a benefit to individuals and is no longer seen as benefiting society in general hence the responsibility of meeting the costs is falling in greater proportions to the individual. She concludes by suggesting that the state has “transitioned from a primary funding source to a major donor among many other major donors” (p. 45).

While it may not have been in her brief, I find it strange that the effect on academics; the ever rising class sizes, the constant withdrawing of funding, the changed student attitudes when they become the paying client is not alluded to at all. Possibly my role as an academic advisor and developer may be colouring my reading to a large extent here.

Jane Wellman goes on to consider state governance in education and identifies the primary tools of governance are: “policy development, performance review, regulation and finance” (p. 51). It seems from her research that a general consensus that “some level of inefficiency (if not dysfunctionality) is inevitable” (p. 52).

It is at this point my disquiet grows larger. It seems to me that one of the basic issues of conflict is the difference between the traditional ideals of a university and the newer desires for conformity in terms of governance as with a business model. Wellman provides an in depth view of this dilemma and traces policy development and application through a series of governance principles. She suggests the protection of the academic freedom is bound up in the way governing boards address issues of quality and cost while being kept away from the micromanagement within the institution.

But I ask: how can that happen, from personal experiences within an institution or two, most educational production comes down to how much money the governance mechanisms will allow for teaching and learning while the pressures continue to be applied upon academics to contribute to the funding through the pressures of grant applications and research in association with the private realms.

Mortimer and Sathre continue the arguments for good governance in terms of understanding the markets and approaching the issues with a high level of political savvy. They use a rather depressing example of the closure of a professional school within a public research university to highlight the need for a balancing and integrating of legitimacy in the decision‐making processes. On page 81 they identify the major forces that impact upon the governance of higher education and then proceed to give further detailed information regarding each of the factors. They end by saying that the art of governance is only partially about change; the heart of the matter is defining, implementing and sustaining an agenda. I find this depressing because yet again the drivers of this change and agenda are not educationally driven but rather by the costs and external forces impacting upon an educational institution.

David Longanecker discusses the roles of governing boards in higher education. He suggests that governance fosters growth (p. 100). In this discussion his focus is on the American situation and he draws upon specific examples to underpin the claims he makes regarding the higher education sector. In stark contrast Craig McInnis outlines issues of how the lack of academic expertise and authority can influence and interfere with the governance of a university. He alludes to the particular nature of the university and advises that governance less attached to a corporate identity would enhance processes and actions within the higher education environment.

Jay Dee follows with a chapter that suggests demands of accountability and autonomy can be better addressed when connections between state and campuses are strengthened. He likens the relationship to a “tug of war” between campus interests in institutional autonomy and state policy makers' concerns about accountability (p. 133). He suggests that an essential element of any governance is trust: a trust that is “loose coupled”. This is a relationship where there is an expectation that both parties will uphold their shared commitments (p. 150). Dee suggests that society benefits when institutions respond to state priorities and state governments ensure accountability.

Judith Ramalay adds to the discussion by tracing the changes in governance and the issues that disrupt old models of governance in her chapter. She argues that there is a struggle for a sense of shared purpose and this struggle is compounded by lack of time and problems of inexperience in being able to build effective working relationships (p. 159). Ramalay suggests that we need to rethink the conception of a university. She traces the changes in the positioning of learning and research within the public institution and brings the discussion around to issues of engagement. For her: “true engagement offers the opportunity to experience learning in the company of others in a situation where learning has consequences and where individuals are respected and given a voice” (p. 174).

She concludes that universities should be part of a society in which learning has consequences, and to do this must direct themselves to bringing together public purposes and private benefits. She states: “the public good and the private benefit cannot and must not remain competing alternatives” (p. 175).

Tierney devotes his attention to the large issue of trust and the role it plays in good governance. Using a case study mode of inquiry he investigates ideas of trust and suggests that at an institutional level trust is a learned behaviour. “He argues that trust is enwrapped in cultural contexts” (p. 184). From his research he suggests that further investigation should be undertaken in how to develop high quality conditions in an environment where trust exists; and tells us that trust enables risk taking behaviour (p. 195).

Karri Holley concludes by asking how we can reconceptualise the public good as not merely as financial dependence but more as a guiding cultural ideology (p. 205). She alerts us to the fact that the university has had to respond to a complex set of demands and that a reassessment of the processes that universities have to encompass is now due.

The collection of ten chapters by a group of authors is well constructed and informative. A lot of what was said has become so enmeshed in the academic life in the university that it would be easy to say that nothing much that is new is revealed here. Anyone working in the tertiary sector is only too well aware of the crossing of territories and the ongoing dilemmas of what is good governance and what is the bottom line in decision making when it comes to cutting courses, or schools from the university profile.

Unfortunately, the decisions that are made often appear to have very little understanding of the educational imperatives as understood by the academics. Also the decisions are often looked at only in terms of cost cutting measures. Some are ideologically driven however it is no accident that many arts subjects have fallen under the cost cutting hammers because they do not turn in a profit under fiscal management parameters. At the same time, this book may assist those in governance in being better able to articulate the reasons for decision, thereby removing erroneous beliefs in the minds of those who are informed.

Maybe I am not the right person to be talking about the ideas of governance. My first and foremost question is always “how is this going to affect student learning?” This crucial question is only approached vaguely in one of the latter chapters. Surely in a book on governance within the tertiary sector some of the issues associated with student learning could have been tied into the discussions. Otherwise it is in danger of maintaining a corporately driven agenda by default and negating the key underpinning principle on which the tertiary sector is based: that the public institution should provide opportunities for lifelong learning within the community in which it resides.