The Challenge of Collegiality: Irish Universities after Managerialism

THE CHALLENGE OF COLLEGIALITY:

Irish Universities After Managerialism

© Linda Connolly

{text of talk given to an IFUT public seminar in UCC on 11^th March 2015, entitled ‘The Challenge of Collegiality’}

“Collegiality, a concept inherited from Oxbridge, involves academics making decisions collectively. Imperfect though it might have been … collegiality contrasts sharply with the top-down managerialism associated with the corporatised university” (Thornton, 2012) http://theconversation.com/collegiality-is-dead-in-the-new-corporatised-university-5539

“A simplistic causal relationship is often established in the critiques of neo-liberalism in higher education where it is described how the demands extrinsic to the values of the academy are imposed on those practicing in universities and how the values and identities previously held by academics are systematically taken away by new managerial regimes” (Kligyte & Barrie, 2011)

“Most dictionaries define collegiality as the sharing of power and authority equally between colleagues, with the origin of the word traced back to 1887 to describe the collective sharing of power between bishops in the Roman Catholic Church. It also means belonging to a college or university. Collegial does not mean "good behaviour," "politeness" or "niceness." But these days, collegial, when used by some in the academic community, has become a code word to identify "problem" people or "troublemakers" and, as stated in the SFU press release, justification for not hiring someone.” (Catano https://www.cautbulletin.ca/en_article.asp?ArticleID=799)

I

It is commonly presumed that prior to the wave of neo liberal economics that swept across Western economies in the late 20^th century, there has traditionally been a strong element of collegiality in the governance of universities.  As O’Connor and White have stated:

“Collegial management, the traditional model in universities, has been described as governance by a community of scholars, as opposed to a central managerial authority” (O’Connor & White, 2011) Link

Collegial environments are where individual independence of thought and mutual respect were considered to be necessary, particularly in institutions with a strong research base. This so called ‘Golden Age of Collegiality’ is typically contrasted with contemporary managerialism, which has a more hierarchical structure, with professional managers in leading positions and a whole new cohort of line managers etc in place.  A managerial approach is considered more agile and effective at quick decision making, and more attuned to market forces, whilst critics suggest that its appeal is rather that it is more likely to comply with commercial and government wishes.

Much of the literature to-date has focused on the negative outcomes of managerialism for the very idea of the University. You will certainly not find many academics to argue along the lines of ‘isn’t managerialism great’! There is a wealth of what might be called ‘managerialism bashing’. But, at the same time, there has been less intellectual advancement of a new vision of collegiality more attuned to the current conjuncture we as a collective body of scholars now find ourselves in after managerialism.  And there is still a tendency, I would suggest, to hark back to a kind of over baked presumption of collegiality in times past – with less emphasis on deconstructing some of the very obvious pitfalls that underpinned it, and which still underpin academia.

So, what I argue for here is, why don’t we start to focus a bit less on what is wrong with managerialism (which has already been extensively covered) and focus more on what we might actually be able to do to change the situation….in particular, how we might create more inclusive and democratic structures in University life, at all levels which is considered necessary by a growing body of academics in order to improve morale and enhance basic working conditions?

II

There are however, as the title of today’s seminar intimates, several challenges.  It is a common declaration that collegiality is quite simply already dead in the new corporatised university. According to Margaret Thornton, collegiality and consultation are seen as counterproductive:

“Collegiality, a concept inherited from Oxbridge, involves academics making decisions collectively. Imperfect though it might have been … collegiality contrasts sharply with the top-down managerialism associated with the corporatised university.”

“More insidiously, collegiality is believed to tolerate and even foster dissent; docility is therefore favoured on the part of academics as the new managed class.”

She suggests that academics who speak out face ostracism, disciplinary action and possibly redundancy. Fundamentally, the university’s traditional role as critic and conscience of society clashes with this new market model.

Professor Thornton further suggests that although staff and students were now referred to as “stakeholders”, the absence of a proprietary interest on their part ensured that they occupied a lower status than shareholders in a for-profit company.  She points in particular to the changing role of for instance governing bodies and says:

“Indeed, the prevailing governance protocols specify that one member should have substantial business experience, according scant regard as to whether they are familiar with universities or higher education…Some councils may now have a majority of members with business experience.”

Corporatisation, the increase in power of University leaders and the changed composition of council had led to more decisions being made by senior management behind closed doors. In the absence of consultation, university councils had become no more than rubber stamps, Professor Thornton said.

III

However, I want to ask a different set of questions: first, when was collegiality ever so vibrant to begin with?  Were certain categories of staff not always allocated a lower status and silenced in the University long before managerialism ever appeared? (in the Ivory Basement as it is sometimes called). Is there a danger that collegiality in it’s former guise is being over romanticized and being selectively applied to oppose managerialism? If this is true, what exactly is collegiality today and what is it’s true potential? Has collegiality become one of the latest buzz words - a kind of catch all phrase that is limited and therefore cannot transform academia more broadly understood?

Apart from the challenge of arriving at a new vision of collegiality that can address some of the hierarchal problems and inequalities that predate managerialism, other challenges arise. Academic life cannot be neatly categorized as a collegiate or essentialised as such. As a body, it is more diverse than it was 50 years ago. In addition, there are multiple practices at work in modern universities. There is for instance a diversity of approaches, micro positions and modes of resistance co-existing within the neo liberal context we all find ourselves in – ranging at one end of the scale from those who position themselves in outright resistance to managerialism and all things managerialist - to those at the other end of the scale who adopt a light touch approach to the structures of the University, who see the University as a simple means to an end and who never bought into the sense of self importance engendered by the old fashioned don culture of Oxbridge, system of class and male privilege on which it was based; and who instead concentrate on the promotion of the self as opposed to the 'collective' academic societal endeavour, and simply treat academia as a mere job.

In addition – in light of a previous discussion I recently attended on gender equality in UCC on Irish HEI’s – we might ask: how does such a catch all term apply to female academics in particular given what we know now about our position in Irish academia (or more accurately, given what we always knew about it but never felt ‘collegial enough’ to state or do anything about)?

It is of course entirely valid and necessary to critique and name managerialism as the over arching process that has determined and radically changed our working conditions as University lecturers and workers for the worst since the 1980s. But I think we also need to be careful about rose tinted spectacles when referring to collegiality in times past.

So a key point I want to make is - what are we comparing managerialism with? Should we not be focusing on developing new visions and models of collegiality rather than harking back to times past, where women for example were effectively absent from the halls of academia?

IV

In terms of gender as an example and central issue in Irish academia: a key problem is that that set of practices collected under the term collegiality often do not fit women very well.  The 'rules of the game' in academia have been defined in a highly masculinised environment and context. They often do not fit other individuals (minorities, first generation academics) particularly well either. Female academics have been the net losers during the so-called golden age of collegiality and in the neo liberal managerialist wave in HEI’s. Fundamentally new structures and vision are therefore required. It is possible to list off a range of massively successful and brilliant Irish female academics who were never promoted beyond College Lecturer in their entire careers during the so called collegiality phase – such as Micheline Sheehy Skeffington, Margaret McCurtain the Historian, and several female colleagues in UCC many of whom retired on very small pensions compared to their SL and Professorial colleagues and who after 30 to 40 years live very modest lifestyles indeed. The neo liberal, managerialist phase of the Universities is unfortunately proving no different.

So with this caveat about romanticizing the pre neo liberal phase of the Universities (or over egging the pudding), we might ask today more critically, what is there to be gained by developing new modes and forms of collegiality at the current conjuncture? Who is defining collegiality in the broader field of debates about the Universities? Who is participating in the debate about collegiality and what groups are not present or visible in this debate?

Mary Gallagher http://defendtheuniversity.ie/?page_id=232 on the Defend the University blog aptly suggests that:

“Collegiality is probably best defined as an ethos based on mutual recognition and support amongst colleagues. It cuts across institutional hierarchies and so isn’t associated with heavily bureaucratized institutions or with hierarchical organizations like armies. And because it can’t be measured or managed, imposed or manufactured, bought or sold, it is not usually a feature of highly engineered, highly competitive corporations either. Certainly, along with the relation of trust between teacher and student, constructive, collegial solidarity is the glue that holds the academic workplace together.”

At the same time she acknowledges that, collegiality is a more precarious ethos in academe than in many other professional or work contexts. This is, she argues, because “…academics some of life’s most competitive individualists. They are the high achievers of their peer-groups at school and in college; they are well used to imposing the highest academic standards on themselves and they spend much of their working life reviewing, refereeing and grading the academic work of their students and peers. And like all intellectual workers they are – as the French thinker Paul Valéry famously lamented –  themselves doomed to be eternal candidates.  They are only as secure as their most recent book, article, promotion, grant award, lecture, review or distinction allows them to feel.  They are, as a result, in constant competition with themselves and with each other.”

There is a fundamental contradiction therefore between redefining and reimagining collegiality as a laudable aspiration and the reality of how well collegiality (past and present) sits with the current working conditions and future prospects of Irish academics, including women. This contradiction is especially stark when considered in relation to the massive level gender inequality apparent in Irish HEI's and the kind of fundamental overhaul in the University system which is required to address this.

I want to finish by drawing on Finke’s work (Link) to suggest there are three questions a new vision of collegiality needs to address at the current conjuncture:

1) Is there a theoretical framework within which we might unpack the term “collegiality” to get a better handle on what we mean by it?

2) How might such a theoretical understanding of collegiality reveal the processes that continue to erect a “glass ceiling” for women in academia?

3) And: are there ways in which collegiality might be reimagined, reconstituted as practices which might promote more egalitarian forms of cooperation and collaboration?