Skip to main content
Log in

Formally Alive yet Practically Complex: An Exploration of Academics’ Perceptions of Their Autonomy as Researchers

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Higher Education Policy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Access this article

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

  • Aagaard, K. (2015) ‘How incentives trickle down: Local use of a national bibliometric indicator system’, Science and Public Policy 42(5): 725–737.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Altbach, P.G. (2001) ‘Academic Freedom: International realities and challenges’, Higher Education 41(1–2): 205–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailyn, L. (1985) ‘Autonomy in the industrial R&D lab’, Human Resource Management 24(2): 129–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berchem, T. (1985) ‘University autonomy: Illusion or reality?’, Oxford Review of Education 11(3): 245–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berdahl, R. (1990) ‘Academic freedom, autonomy and accountability in British universities’, Studies in Higher Education 15(2): 169–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bleiklie, I. and Byrkjeflot, H. (2002) ‘Changing knowledge regimes: Universities in a new research environment’, Higher Education 44(3/4): 519–532.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bleiklie, I. and Kogan, M. (2007) ‘Organization and governance of universities’, Higher Education Policy 20(4): 477–493.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, T. (2011) ‘University governance reforms: Potential problems of more autonomy?’, Higher Education 62(4): 503–517.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gumport, P. (2000) ‘Academic restructuring: Organizational change and institutional imperatives’, Higher Education 39(1): 67–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henkel, M. (2005) ‘Academic identity and autonomy in a changing policy environment’, Higher Education 49(1): 155–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, D. (2012) ‘Performance-based university research funding systems’, Research Policy 41(2): 251–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kagan, J. (2009) The Three Cultures: Natural Sciences, Social Sciences and the Humanities in the 21st Century, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karran, T. (2007) ‘Academic freedom in Europe: A preliminary comparative analysis’, Higher Education Policy 20(3): 289–313.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laudel, G. (2006) ‘The art of getting funded: How scientists adapt to their funding conditions’, Science and Public Policy 33(7): 489–504.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, J.M. (2013) Academic Governance: Disciplines and Policy, New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Musselin, C. (2012) ‘Redefinition of the relationships between academics and their university’, Higher Education 65(1): 25–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi, M. (1962) ‘The republic of science: Its political and economic theory’, Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning and Policy 1(1): 54–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramirez, F.O. and Christensen, T. (2012) ‘The formalization of the university: Rules, roots, and routes’, Higher Education 65(6): 695–708.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tapper, E.R. and Salter, B.G. (1995) ‘The changing idea of university autonomy’, Studies in Higher Education 20(1): 59–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitley, R. (2012) ‘Transforming universities: National conditions of their varied organisational actorhood’, Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning and Policy 50(4): 493–510.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitley, R. and Gläser, J. (eds) (2007) The Changing Governance of the Sciences: The Advent of Research Evaluation Systems, Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woelert, P. and McKenzie, L. (2018) ‘Follow the money? How Australian universities replicate national performance-based funding mechanisms’, Research Evaluation 27(3): 184–195.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by funding provided by the Melbourne School of Government, University of Melbourne.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Woelert.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-020-00190-1

Keywords

Navigation