Abstract
Over the last two to three decades, many universities around the world have seen an increase in both organizational autonomy and performance-based accountability. While these developments have attracted considerable attention, relatively little remains known about how, within this transformed governance context, academics themselves practice their autonomy as researchers. Focusing on the case of one highly research-intensive university situated in Australia, this paper explores how academics from various disciplines understand and experience their practical autonomy in their own research in both its strategic and operational dimensions. Drawing on analyses of semi-structured interviews with 18 experienced academics, we find that academics’ practical autonomy is only loosely coupled to the autonomy they formally have. We further find that the practical realization of autonomy is closely associated with having adequate levels of resources such as funding (strategic autonomy) and time (operational autonomy), with the former being more important for scientists, while the latter was more important for those in the humanities and social sciences. Increasing levels of bureaucratization (humanities and social sciences) and the increasingly narrow thematic focus and strategic orientation of the major funding schemes (sciences and social sciences) were perceived as constraining these academics’ practical autonomy.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aagaard, K. (2015) ‘How incentives trickle down: Local use of a national bibliometric indicator system’, Science and Public Policy 42(5): 725–737.
Aberbach, J.D. and Christensen, T. (2018) ‘Academic autonomy and freedom under pressure: Severely limited, or alive and kicking?’, Public Organization Review 18(4): 487–506.
Åkerlind. G.S. (2007) ‘Academic Freedom in the Social Sciences: The freedom to Serve Society’, in C. Kayrooz, G. S. Åkerlind and M. Tight (eds). Autonomy in Social Science Research: The View from United Kingdom and Australian Universities, Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 31–46.
Altbach, P.G. (2001) ‘Academic Freedom: International realities and challenges’, Higher Education 41(1–2): 205–219.
Bailyn, L. (1985) ‘Autonomy in the industrial R&D lab’, Human Resource Management 24(2): 129–146.
Berchem, T. (1985) ‘University autonomy: Illusion or reality?’, Oxford Review of Education 11(3): 245–254.
Berdahl, R. (1990) ‘Academic freedom, autonomy and accountability in British universities’, Studies in Higher Education 15(2): 169–180.
Bleiklie, I. and Byrkjeflot, H. (2002) ‘Changing knowledge regimes: Universities in a new research environment’, Higher Education 44(3/4): 519–532.
Bleiklie, I. and Kogan, M. (2007) ‘Organization and governance of universities’, Higher Education Policy 20(4): 477–493.
Brew, A. (2007) ‘Academic Autonomy and Research Decision-Making: The Researcher’s View’, in C. Kayrooz, G.S. Åkerlind and M. Tight (eds). Autonomy in Social Science Research: The View from United Kingdom and Australian Universities, Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 47–64.
Capano, G. (2011) ‘Government continues to do its job. A comparative study of governance shifts in the higher education sector’, Public Administration 89(4): 1622–1642.
Carvalho, T. and Diogo, S. (2018) ‘Exploring the relationship between institutional and professional autonomy: A comparative study between Portugal and Finland’, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 40(1): 18–33.
Christensen, T. (2011) ‘University governance reforms: Potential problems of more autonomy?’, Higher Education 62(4): 503–517.
Cozzens, S.E. (1990) ‘Autonomy and Power in Science’, in S.E. Cozzens and T.F. Gieryn (eds). Theories of Science in Society, Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, pp. 164–184.
Enders, J., de Boer, H. and Weyer, E. (2013) ‘Regulatory autonomy and performance: The reform of higher education re-visited’, Higher Education 65(1): 5–23.
Enders, J., Kehm, B.M. and Schimank, U. (2015) ‘Turning Universities into Actors on Quasi-Markets: How New Public Management Reforms Affect Academic Research’, in D. Jansen and I. Pruisken (eds). The Changing Governance of Higher Education and Research: Multilevel Perspectives, Cham, Switzerland: Springer, pp. 89–103.
Geuna, A. and Martin, B.R. (2003) ‘University research evaluation and funding: An international comparison’, Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning and Policy 41(4): 277–304.
Gläser, J. and Laudel, G. (2007) ‘Evaluation without Evaluators: The Impact of Funding Formulae on Australian University Research’, in R. Whitley and J. Gläser (eds). The Changing Governance of the Sciences: The Advent of Research Evaluation Systems, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 127–151.
Gornitzka, Å., Kyvik, S. and Larsen, I.M. (1998) ‘The bureaucratisation of universities’, Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning and Policy 36(1): 21–47.
Gumport, P. (2000) ‘Academic restructuring: Organizational change and institutional imperatives’, Higher Education 39(1): 67–91.
Hammarfelt, B., Nelhans, G., Eklund, P. and Åström, F. (2016) ‘The heterogeneous landscape of bibliometric indicators: Evaluating models for allocating resources at Swedish universities’, Research Evaluation 25(3): 292–305.
Henkel, M. (2005) ‘Academic identity and autonomy in a changing policy environment’, Higher Education 49(1): 155–176.
Hicks, D. (2012) ‘Performance-based university research funding systems’, Research Policy 41(2): 251–261.
Kaldewey, D. (2018) ‘The grand challenges discourse: Transforming identity work in science and science policy’, Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning and Policy 56(2): 161–182.
Kagan, J. (2009) The Three Cultures: Natural Sciences, Social Sciences and the Humanities in the 21st Century, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Karran, T. (2007) ‘Academic freedom in Europe: A preliminary comparative analysis’, Higher Education Policy 20(3): 289–313.
Karran, T., Beiter, K. and Appiagyei-Atua, K. (2017) ‘Measuring Academic Freedom in Europe: A Criterion Referenced Approach’, Policy Reviews in Higher Education 1(2): 209–239.
Krücken, G. and Meier, F. (2006) ‘Turning the University into an Organizational Actor’, in G.S. Drori, J.W. Meyer and H. Hwang (eds). Globalization and Organization: World Society and Organizational Change, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 241–257.
Laudel, G. (2006) ‘The art of getting funded: How scientists adapt to their funding conditions’, Science and Public Policy 33(7): 489–504.
Laudel, G. and Bielick, J. (2018) ‘The emergence of individual research programs in the early career phase of academics’, Science, Technology and Human Values 43(6): 972–1010.
Leisyte, L., Enders, J. and de Boer, H. (2008) ‘The freedom to set research agendas — Illusion and reality of the research units in the Dutch universities’, Higher Education Policy 21(3): 377–391.
Leisyte, L., Enders, J. and de Boer, H. (2010). ‘Mediating Problem Choice: Academic Researchers’ Responses to Changes in Their Institutional Environment’, in R. Whitley, J. Gläser and L. Engwall (eds). Reconfiguring Knowledge Production: Changing Authority Relationships in the Sciences and Their Consequences for Intellectual Innovation, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 266–290.
Lewis, J.M. (2013) Academic Governance: Disciplines and Policy, New York: Routledge.
Lewis, J.M. and Ross, S. (2011) ‘Research funding systems in Australia, New Zealand and the UK: Policy settings and perceived effects’, Policy and Politics 39(3): 379–398.
Lewis, J.M., Letina, S. and Woelert, P. (2016) Understanding the Structures and Effects of Research Collaboration. Parkville: University of Melbourne. Melbourne School of Government Working Paper.
Maassen, P., Gornitzka, A. and Fumasoli, T. (2017) ‘University reform and institutional autonomy: A framework for analysing the living autonomy’, Higher Education Quarterly 71(3): 239–250.
Musselin, C. (2012) ‘Redefinition of the relationships between academics and their university’, Higher Education 65(1): 25–37.
Nokkala, T. and Bladh, A. (2014) ‘Institutional autonomy and academic freedom in the nordic context: Similarities and differences’, Higher Education Policy 27(1), 1–21.
Polanyi, M. (1962) ‘The republic of science: Its political and economic theory’, Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning and Policy 1(1): 54–73.
Ramirez, F.O. and Christensen, T. (2012) ‘The formalization of the university: Rules, roots, and routes’, Higher Education 65(6): 695–708.
Schimank, U. (2005) ‘“New Public Management” and the academic profession: Reflections on the German situation’, Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning and Policy 43(4): 361–376.
Smith, S., Ward, V. and House, A. (2011) ‘“Impact” in the proposals for the UK’s Research Excellence Framework: Shifting the boundaries of academic autonomy’, Research Policy 40(10): 1369–1379.
Tapper, E.R. and Salter, B.G. (1995) ‘The changing idea of university autonomy’, Studies in Higher Education 20(1): 59–71.
Verhoest, K., Peters, B.G., Bouckaert, G. and Verschuere, B (2004) ‘The study of organisational autonomy: A conceptual review’, Public Administration and Development 24(2): 101–118.
Vidovich, L. and Currie, J. (1998) ‘Changing Accountability and Autonomy at the “Coalface” of Academic Work in Australia’, in J. Currie and J. Newson (eds). Universities and Globalization: Critical Perspectives, Thousand Oaks, California: Sage, pp. 193–211.
Whitley, R. (2012) ‘Transforming universities: National conditions of their varied organisational actorhood’, Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning and Policy 50(4): 493–510.
Whitley, R. and Gläser, J. (eds) (2007) The Changing Governance of the Sciences: The Advent of Research Evaluation Systems, Dordrecht: Springer.
Whitley, R., Gläser, J. and Engwall, L. (eds) (2010) Reconfiguring Knowledge Production: Changing Authority Relationships in the Sciences and Their Consequences for Intellectual Innovation, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wieczorek, O., Beyer, S. and Münch, R. (2017) ‘Fief and benefice feudalism. Two types of academic autonomy in US chemistry’, Higher Education 73(6): 887–907.
Woelert, P. and McKenzie, L. (2018) ‘Follow the money? How Australian universities replicate national performance-based funding mechanisms’, Research Evaluation 27(3): 184–195.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by funding provided by the Melbourne School of Government, University of Melbourne.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Woelert, P., Lewis, J.M. & Le, A.T. Formally Alive yet Practically Complex: An Exploration of Academics’ Perceptions of Their Autonomy as Researchers. High Educ Policy 34, 1049–1068 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-020-00190-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-020-00190-1