Search results

The purpose of this essay is to explore the opportunities and challenges that early-career researchers (ECRs) face when they seek to contribute to academic knowledge production through research activities “other than” those directly focused on making progress with their own, to-be-published, research papers in a context associated with the “publish or perish” (PoP) mentality.

Drawing broadly on the notion of technologies of humility (Jasanoff, 2003), this reflective essay develops upon the experiences of the authors in organizing and participating in a series of nine workshops undertaken between June 2013 and April 2021, as well as the arduous process of writing this paper itself. Retrospective accounts, workshop materials, email exchanges and surveys of workshop participants provide the key data sources for the analysis presented in the paper.

The paper shows how the organization of the workshops is intertwined with the building of a small community of ECRs and exploration of how to address the perceived limitations of a “gap-spotting” approach to developing research ideas and questions. The analysis foregrounds how the workshops provide a seemingly valuable research experience that is not without contradictions. Workshop participation reveals tensions between engagement in activities “other than” working on papers for publication and institutionalized pressures to produce publication outputs, between the (weak) perceived status of ECRs in the field and the aspiration to make a scholarly contribution, and between the desire to develop a personally satisfying intellectual journey and the pressure to respond to requirements that allow access to a wider community of scholars.

Our analysis contributes to debates about the ways in which seemingly valuable outputs are produced in academia despite a pervasive “publish or perish” mentality. The analysis also shows how reflexive writing can help to better understand the opportunities and challenges of pursuing activities that might be considered “unproductive” because they are not directly related to to-be-published papers.

This chapter analyses the other aspect of an oppressor/oppressed relationship by looking at what happens to the oppressed, in this case, the academics and staff not in leadership roles. This chapter looks at why the tactics leaders employ work, and why people do not retaliate, and what systems have been put in place to prevent the people from having any consequential power. This chapter thus looks at how the power of the majority in the academy has been slowly eroded by managerial promises of empowerment, self-governance or having an opinion on the institution's direction when in reality, they have no opinion, and the only decisions they can make are inconsequential. This is why time and time again, we see universities restructure, remove non-profitable courses and increase targets to unrealistic levels to maintain power over the majority.

This chapter is focused on what we can learn from oppressive governance, in this case specifically relating to university governance in terms of vice chancellors and presidents, to the deputy vice chancellor and deputy president and down the ever-growing university hierarchy to deans and heads of schools and their deputies, from a Freirean perspective. Freire wrote at length about how leaders ‘controlled’ education and why they did so, but he also wrote at length about how governments control populations – himself being both a political prisoner and a person in exile to escape persecution. This chapter subsequently examines Freire's ideas around what techniques people employ to control populations and applies them to a higher education setting because the similarities are numerous and the tactics familiar.

With the increased demand for the application of technology in property activities, there is a growing need for property professionals adept in using digital technology. Hence, it is important to assess the competence of academia in equipping property professionals with digital technology skills. This study, therefore, assesses property academics in Australian universities to identify their level of knowledge and use of digital technology applicable to the property industry.

Online questionnaire surveys were administered to 22 out of 110 property academics contacted through the Australia Property Institute (API) database to achieve this aim. The collected data were analysed using mean score ranking and ANOVA.

The study found that apart from databases and analytics platforms such as Corelogic RP data, price finder and industry-based software such as the Microsoft Office suite and ARGUS software, the academics were not knowledgeable in most identified and sampled proptech tools. Similarly, most proptech tools were not used or taught to the students. It was also found that early career academics (below five years in academia) were the most knowledgeable group about the proptech tools.

Relying on the API database to contact property academics potentially excludes the position of property academics who may not be affiliated or have contacts with API, hence, the findings of this study should be generalised with caution.

The study bears huge implications for the property education sector and industry in Australia; a low knowledge and use of nascent tools such as artificial intelligence, machine learning, blockchain, drones, fintech, which have received intense interest, reveals some level of skill gap of students who pass through that system and may need to be upskilled by employers to meet the current day demand.

In response to the clamour for technology-inclined property professionals, this paper presents itself as the first to assess the knowledge levels and application of digital technology by property academics.

Senior Indigenous leadership positions across the Australian higher education sector has increased over the past decade. Despite this advancement, there is limited understanding in terms of how to best integrate Indigenous leadership into existing governance structures of Australian universities. In 2018 the Walan Mayiny: Indigenous Leadership in Higher Education project commenced, aimed at establishing a model of best practice for the inclusivity of Indigenous leadership in higher education governance structures. This article presents key findings from the project, namely, a model of senior Indigenous leadership within the Australian universities based on the perceptions of a group of Indigenous academics.

Through qualitative semi-structured interviews with Indigenous academic staff, the perceived value, characteristics and challenges of senior Indigenous leadership were examined. The varying opinions held by Indigenous academics in relation to the qualifications and experience required to fulfil a senior Indigenous leadership position were also highlighted. In doing so, a model of senior Indigenous leadership within the Australian higher education system is presented. The model of best practice presented in this article is underpinned by Indigenous Institutional Theory (Coates et al., 2022), a theoretical framework developed from the Walan Mayiny study.

The research findings highlight the diverse opinions of Indigenous academics in relation to the qualifications and experience required to fulfil a senior Indigenous leadership position. The six essential components are built upon the core characteristics, values and behaviours that senior Indigenous leaders need to have according to Indigenous academics, in order to advance Indigenous success within the academy.

Given Australian universities are being called upon to ensure that senior Indigenous leaders are in the best position possible to forge institutional change, senior Indigenous leaders within the academy may find the contextual Indigenous leadership model beneficial. The model allows one to uphold cultural integrity and fulfil the responsibilities and obligations of their higher education institution, while being able to serve their Indigenous colleagues and communities, leading to the advancement of Indigenous higher education outcomes. Importantly, the model can be adapted to suit all First Nations Peoples globally, who also find themselves working within the shackles of Western institutions.

This chapter focuses on exploring challenges encountered by the neglected group of employees who live alone and do not have children, particularly in relation to work-life balance (WLB). We first question the conventional WLB discourse – predominately surrounded by addressing work-family conflicts. We next discuss how this formulates debates about the equality and fairness of HR policies affecting various groups of employees, with solo-living individuals being excluded. In addition to previously documented work-life issues, we articulate difficulties related to the pursuit of independence, freedom, balancing, and healthy work-life experiences for and specific to solo-living women academics. We conclude that our insights on “vulnerability” may lead to feminist approach being incorporated into work-life policy development in order to better engage underrepresented groups of employees, accommodate the needs of “others” and promote collective flourishing.

The competition in the academe has always been tough, but today, the academe seems to be more like an industry than an academic community as academics are evaluated through quantified and economic means.

This article leans on Heidegger’s thoughts on the essence of technology and his ontological view on being to show the dangers that lie in this quantification of researchers and research.

Despite the benefits that information systems (ISs) offer to people and research, it seems that technology has made it possible to objectify researchers and research. This has a negative impact on the academe and should thus be looked into especially by the IS field, which should note the problems that exist in its core. This phenomenon of quantified academics is clearly visible at academic quantification sites, where academics are evaluated using metrics that count their output. It seems that the essence of technology has disturbed the way research is valued by emphasising its quantifiable aspects. The study claims that it is important to look for other ways to evaluate researchers rather than trying to maximise research production, which has led to the flooding of articles that few have the time or interest to read.

This paper offers new insights into the current phenomenon of quantification of academics and underlines the need for critical changes if in order to achieve the academic culture that is desirable for future academics.

The final chapter examines Freire's numerous views on why people do not free themselves from the ruling majority, or at least, why they cannot free themselves. This chapter subsequently examines the problem with people taking stands and fighting for their rights, even when they are morally and ethically in the correct position. Freire knew no victory came without consequences and risks, and for many, the threat of these consequences is what prevents them from taking a stand. However, this chapter also examines how universities built their power over several decades, while at the same time making sure the opportunities to face consequences for these actions were also being diminished by placing the wider academy in difficult positions, they would be unlikely to ever get out of, without the academy knowing they were being maneuvered into an untenable position.

This chapter traces the journey of the Faculty of Education through the pandemic, charting some of the challenges and opportunities in leading teaching and learning, research, international and engagement activities while maintaining its staff's health and emotional well-being. The chapter concludes with six significant educational challenges amplified during COVID-19 that must be addressed. These insights provide a road map for how higher education and academia can emerge from the pandemic fit for purpose and ready to contribute to our nation's and the world's future.

The purpose of this inductive, exploratory study is to provide foundational insights into the role of management control in dealing with dysfunctional behaviour within accounting schools in changing environment of Australian universities.

Evidence is drawn from semi-structured interviews with 28 current or previous heads of school, research deans, deans of teaching and learning, school managers and human resource managers from 16 Australian universities and interpreted from the theoretical perspective of rational choice theory.

The findings suggest the incidence of a range of dysfunctional behaviours occurring in accounting schools. Even when such behaviours are limited in frequency, their consequences are nevertheless found to have far-ranging and potentially destructive change impacts for both individuals and the university. Formal management control systems designed to address such behaviours are perceived to be largely ineffective in identifying, managing, eliminating or even mitigating the consequences of such dysfunctionality. Instead, it is informal control processes that are preferred in dealing with dysfunctionality.

This study enhances our understanding of the role of management control in dealing with dysfunctional behaviour within university accounting schools, and points not only to the difference between the design and use of management controls but also to the implications of this disconnect between the underlying intent of control design and their actual use in the context of environments that are subject to significant change.