Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The transformation of Australian higher education from binary to unitary system

  • Published:
Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The policies of the Australian federal government are clearly intended to bring about a fundamental transformation of the country's higher education system. The Australian case, however, presents several paradoxes. Policy changes are being initiated by a federal government that has no legislative control over state chartered higher education institutions. While the federal government wishes to see a more diversified and adaptive higher education system, it seems to be implementing a reward structure for individual institutions and academics which encourages imitation of the elite universities. Although government claims that its new policy initiatives are designed to debureaucratize the system, a significant proportion of the Australian academic community claims that government is centralizing control. This article explores these and other issues facing Australian higher education, not for the purpose of resolving the seeming paradoxes, but to suggest a particular research agenda for investigating change in higher education.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ashby, E. (1966). Universities, British, Indian, African. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Australia (1987). Higher Education: A Policy Discussion Paper (Green Paper). Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

  • Australia (1988). Higher Education: A Policy Statement (White Paper). Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

  • Australia (1989). Report of the Task Force on Amalgamations in Higher Education. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

  • Australian Universities Commission (1964–1965). Report, Committee on the Future of Tertiary Education in Australia [Martin Report]. 3 vols. Canberra: Government Printer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becher, Tony and Kogan, Maurice (1980). Process and Structure in Higher Education. London: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berdahl, Robert (1988). ‘Academic freedom, autonomy and accountability in British universities’. Paper prepared for the 1988 Conference of the Society for Research into Higher Education, University of Surrey, December 19–21.

  • Bourdieu, Pierre (1988). Homo Academicus. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breneman, D. W. (1981). ‘Strategies for the 1980s’, in J. Mingle (ed.), The Challenges of Retrenchment. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, Burton R. (1980). ‘Academic culture’, Yale University, Higher Education Research Group, working paper no. 42.

  • Clark, Burton R. (1983). The Higher Education System. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Committee of Inquiry into Education and Training (1979). Report on Education, Training and Employment [Williams Report]. 3 vols. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Committee on Australian Universities (1957). Report [Murrary Report]. Canberra: Government Printer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission (1986). Review of Efficiency and Effectiveness in Higher Education. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, Susan (1989). The Martin Committee and the Binary Policy of Higher Education in Australia. Melbourne: Ashwood House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins, J. S. (1987a). ‘Government proposes new higher education system’. Media Release, Minister for Employment, Education and Training, 9 December.

  • Dawkins, J.S. (1987b). ‘Higher education for Australia’. Paper delivered at the Seminar on Higher Education, Sheraton Wentworth Hotel, Sydney, 16 December.

  • Dawkins, J. (1989). ‘Amalgamations should be finalised’. Media Release, Minster for Employment, Education and Training, 10 February.

  • Dawkins, J. (1989). Speech given in Melbourne, 9 February [untitled].

  • DiMaggio, Paul J. and Powell, Walter W. (1983). ‘The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields’, American Sociological Review 48 (April), 147–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, Mary (1966). Purity and Danger. An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, Michel (1970). The Order of Things. New York: Vintage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiger, R.L. (1988). Privatization of Higher Education: International Trends and Issues. Princeton: International Council for Educational Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goedegebuure, L.C.J. and Meek, V. Lynn (1991). ‘Restructuring higher education: a comparative analysis between Australia and the Netherlands’, Comparative Education 27(1), 7–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harma, G. (1989). ‘The Dawkins reconstruction of Australian higher education’. Paper presented at the 1989 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, 27–31 March.

  • Harman, G. and Wood, F. (1990). ‘Academics and their work under Dawkins: a study of five NSW universities’, Australian Educational Researcher 17 (2), 53–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hermanns, H., Teichler, U. and Wasser, H. (eds.) (1983). The Complete University. Cambridge, Mass.: Schenkman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jevons, W. Stanley (1874). The Principles of Science: A Treatise on Logic and Scientific Method. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kogan, Maurice (1984). ‘The political view’, in Clark, Burton R. (ed.), Perspectives on Higher Education. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 56–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maassen, P.A.M. and Van Vught, F.A. (1988). ‘An intriguing Janus-head, the two faces of the new governmental strategy towards higher education in the Netherlands’, European Journal of Education 23 (1/2), 65–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meek, V. Lynn (1988). ‘Institutional mergers in Australian higher education’, in Goedegebuure, L.C.J. and Meek, V.L. (eds.), Change in Higher Education; The Non-University Sector. Culemborg: Lemma, pp. 85–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meek, V. Lynn (1990). ‘The rise and fall of the binary policy of higher education in Australia’, Journal of Education Policy, forthcoming.

  • Meek, V. Lynn and Goedegebuure, L.C.J. (1989). Higher Education: A Report. Armidale: University of New England.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meek, V. Lynn and O'Neill, Arthur (1988). ‘Institutional amalgamation and the “new binarism”’, Journal of Tertiary Educational Administration 10(2), 137–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meek, V. Lynn and O'Neill, Arthur (1990). ‘Organizational change in Australian higher education: process and outcome’, Australian Educational Researcher 17(3), 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neave, G. (1983). ‘The dynamics of integration in non-integrated systems of higher education in Western Europe’, in Hermanns, H., Teichler, U. and Wasser. H. (eds.), The Compleat University. Cambridge, Mass.: Schenkman, pp. 263–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neave, G. (1988). ‘On the cultivation of quality, efficiency and enterprise: an overview of recent trends in higher education in Western Europe, 1986–1988’, European Journal of Education 23.

  • Needham, Rodney (1975). ‘Polythetic classification: convergence and consequences’, Man (N.S.) 10(3), 349–369.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in Organizations. Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger.

    Google Scholar 

  • ‘Policy Discussion Paper on Higher Education - A Summary’ (1987). Attachment to Media Release by Minister for Employment, Education and Training, 9 December.

  • Popper, Karl R. (1957). The Poverty of Historicism. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pratt, J. and Burgess, T. (1974). Polytechnics, a Report. London: Pitman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Report of the Committee on Higher Education Funding (Wran Committee) (1988). Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

  • Riley, Patricia (1983). ‘A structurationist account of political culture’, Administrative Science Quarterly 28, 414–437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothblatt, Sheldon (1988). ‘The idea of the idea of a university and its antithesis’. Paper presented at the Seminar on the Sociology of Culture, La Trobe University, October 7–9.

  • Teichler, Ulrich (1988). Changing Patterns of the Higher Education System. London: Jessica Kingsley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trow, M. (1984). ‘The analysis of status’, in Clark, Burton R. (ed.), Perspectives on Higher Education. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 132–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trow, Martin (1988). ‘The Robbins trap: British attitudes and the limits of expansion’. Paper prepared for a seminar at the University of Sussex, July 4.

  • Van Vught, Frans A. (ed.) (1989). Governmental Strategies and Innovation in Higher Education. London: Jessica Kingsley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wildavsky, A. (1979). The Politics of the Budgetary Process, 3rd edition. Boston: Little Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, Bruce (1988). ‘The 1988 White Paper on higher education’, Australian Universities' Review 2, 2–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, Bruce (ed.) (1989). Overseas Students in Australia. Canberra: International Development Program.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, G. (1983). ‘Of the expense of the institutions for the education of youth’, in Phillipson, N. (ed.), Universities, Society and the Future. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wurzburg, G.K. (1989). ‘TAFE and the reconstruction of higher education’, in Meek, V.L. and Harrold, R. (eds.), TAFE and the Reconstruction of Higher Education. Armidale: University of New England, pp. 3–15.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Administrative, Higher and Adult Education, University of New England, Australia

    V. Lynn Meek

Authors
  1. V. Lynn Meek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Meek, V.L. The transformation of Australian higher education from binary to unitary system. High Educ 21, 461–494 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00134985

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00134985

Keywords

Search

Navigation